It is known that after the summer holidays separations and divorces increase. In most cases, we know that they were already couples in crisis and that the increase in the hours of coexistence during the holidays has only highlighted what was a problem before, but that during the rest of the year it could be hidden in the possibility of spending far fewer hours together. It could even be thought that the conflict was not that intense since there were no clashes or discussions in the absence of the opportunity to meet.
The best relationship is not the one that doesn’t argue, but the one that argues well
The contrast of opinions, the difference of views is consubstantial with the idea of a free agreement between two people autonomous, which is what a healthy couple relationship should be. We must not think exactly the same always and on all issues, but neither can we betray ourselves, giving ground on issues that are essential.
The most destructive component in a relationship is disappointment. And it is an element that has to do with oneself and not so much with the other. The disenchantment with respect to what one is really looking for, the desires and fears that the couple often does not know about because they have not been able to communicate. And disappointment leads to a resentment since we attribute to the partner not having met our expectations. Our. Own.
If we start from the basis that there was a happy stage in the relationship that lasted for a while beyond the initial infatuation and that there is no issue in the way of thinking or seeing life that is incompatible and that would mean a source of discussions without the possibility of reaching agreements because they are inalienable and irreconcilable positions, it is possible to use strategies that facilitate reach agreements that improve a couple’s relationship that solitary confinement has deteriorated.
Couples in crisis often imagine couples therapy as a forum in which a professional acts as referee in discussions giving the reason to one of the components of the couple in such a way that a truth is established that the other has to accept. Thus they impose the task of convincing the therapist to “buy” the version of one of the two, often forgetting that the task is learn to resolve conflicts, learn to discuss so that the foundations are laid to resolve new conflicts in the future, especially if these are going to be caused by problems expressing feelings. It is the couple who needs to be convinced, not the therapist.
Step one to redirect a relationship
I propose a strategy that has been very effective in teaching couples to redirect their relationships. It is agreed to allocate six sessions, spaced no less than a week apart, but no more than ten days, in which the two components of the couple will dedicate two hours to talk about the relationship. No interference. Focused on bringing up the issues that concern or hurt them, but on the condition that if the issue is not settled in such a way that it does not become a reason for discussion again because an agreement has been reached will be raised again in the next session, but not before.
It is not worth bringing up the subject the next day or in a heated moment, but it will be discussed again in the next predetermined meeting. The time between sessions allows rethink positioning and reflect on the point of view of the other, which is known because it has been possible to explain it in detail.
There are few rules, beyond having a constructive point of view (it is done to find consensus from dissent), respect for forms (listen and reflect and be able to explain one’s own point of view, not impose) and not presuppose what the other thinks, but listen to their proposal (you can be more or less sure of what you think yourself, but you don’t know what opines the other until it is explained, and with all the necessary nuances).
must try avoid dramatic and maximalist expressions. Words like “always”, “never” are not valid because it must be considered that situations are dynamic and evolve, and what is very painful today loses intensity as time passes.
We arbitrarily set the number of sessions at six, although nothing prevents us from doing more if the format is perceived as an effective method of ordering debate and settling conflicts. But the obligation to do at least those six, marks a horizon that is both close to starting an active process of change and does not seem excessive if what is intended is save an important relationship. Those who have tried it usually explain that the first sessions are the most difficult but that in the following ones they already feel more comfortable and are able to tackle deeper topics.
Step two to channel the relationship
Once this organized communication space has been achieved, the next step is what we call something for something. This phrase in Latin literally means “one thing for another”. Therefore, it is about exchanging things that one does for the other for something that the other will do for you. And they are actions, not good intentions, which is what allows to obtain practical and visible results of the exchange. Sharing personal leisure time, better distributing the hours of housework or childcare would be examples of the quid pro quo. Many times, when negotiating, the needs, small quirks and desires of the couple begin to be taken into account, knowing also that we put our own on the table. To the extent that it is valued that in the exchange the two win and that what is achieved improves the relationship, one is on the right path to overcome crises normal that causes the natural wear and tear of coexistence. And if not, at least there is evidence that it has been tried in good faith.
If the relationship ends in a breakup, but there is respect for the other, surely It will be better than forced coexistence without respect.
About the Author
We talk about Dr. Xavier Fàbregas, founder and medical director of Mas Ferriol
Instagram: @centromasferriol
Web: www.masferriol.com
read also
read also
read also
