In 1973, a miniseries was released on Swedish television – later adapted into a film – written and directed by director Ingmar Bergman, who sought to unravel and reveal, in the most crude and realistic way possible, the story of a marriage in crisis. was called Secrets of a marriage and its protagonists, Marianne and Johan –played by Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson respectively–, finish, after uncovering the tensions and difficulties that they had always managed to hide or evade, ending the relationship. And it is that from the beginning, and in the first scenes, what the director shows us is a couple dedicated to their destiny, as if adhering to a duty to be, sitting in an armchair and believing in the happiness and solidity of the bond. Thus, at least, the narrator relates it, who says; “Johan and Marianne have been happily married for 10 years. Since they didn’t fight, they thought they were happy.”
Almost 50 years later and that notion is still valid. And it is that in highly successful societies, as explained by the Templanza Foundation psychologist, Mariana Fagalde, any manifestation of discomfort, tension and displeasure is automatically associated with a difficulty, problem or failure, as if those emotions or sensations should be completely excluded from the affective bonds and coexistence situations. And it has to do, as the doctor in psychology and researcher, Carolina Aspillaga, explains, with the established imaginary of romantic love, which persists –although mostly questioned– to this day largely due to the myths that sustain it; “The idea of merging and merging with the other because they are your better half, as if there were no differences and as if the couples fit together and were the complement of each other. In reality, couples are made up of individual subjects who may have different desires and motivations. And therefore, as in any bond, it is to be expected that there will be a conflict”, reflects Aspillaga.
Why, then, have we learned to believe that not fighting is synonymous with being happy and satisfied? Why do we associate the discussion with something violent or aggressive if there are multiple previous stages that do not necessarily lead to the elevated discussion? Why do we think that disagreements account for discomfort in the couple and why, on the contrary, do we associate non-argument with supposed happiness?
As Fagalde explains, both in interpersonal relationships and in relationships with oneself, there are disagreements and tensions, and it is this same dynamic that coexists with the tendency towards harmony. “We are taught that in healthy relationships, or those that fit the model of romantic love and are largely validated, there are no tensions or discomforts. But it’s not like that; all relationships and even desire are made up of elements of misunderstanding”, he explains. “Life, love and desire are given with tension. And, quite the contrary, when there is a relational dynamic in which there is no disagreement, we could think that what there is is a relationship in which one of the parties involved imposes a style and the other submits. A dominant and a dominated, or a relationship of dependence and submission.
And it is that, as the specialist explains, the healthy relationship has levels of tension that are even the engine of growth in the meeting, because they push to resolve conflicts and learn to generate a creative, spontaneous, upright and healthy coexistence in which everyone those involved can express their desires, forms and needs. The point, as Aspillaga adds, is not to avoid conflict, but to figure out how to resolve it; “And there it is important to understand that not every disagreement has a solution, and that is also fine. Researchers John and Julie Gottman –from The Gottman Institute– stated in an investigation that 70% of conflicts in couples, including couples who say they are happy, have no resolution. But it is not necessary that they be resolved for the couple to feel satisfied, the point is to learn to choose which battles occur and how. By not having conflicts, we could rather think that there is an indifference between the members of the relationship, or an abandonment or resignation.
On the other hand, Fagalde suggests that there is a second element at play in this false premise that the absence of fights means well-being, and it has to do with the fact that we have learned to associate the expression of anger, rage and discontent with something negative “But they are just as genuine sentiments as the others. That is why it is important that in human relationships and in the spontaneity and integrity of being, that emotional spectrum can also be expressed. At a social level, we believe that the expression of these emotions are outside of love and eros, however, affective relationships have to learn to live with, integrate and do something with that energy, because emotions are there to be expressed and integrated”.