Gifts

Many people believe force helps. If they cannot force the issue physically, as too often they do with their children, they do it morally or mentally. Here we must recognize the aggressive character of force as contrasted with the nonviolent passive resistance. Active forcing always means violating respect for someone else. Resistance, on the other hand, is seldom an imposition; it merely preserves respect for oneself. The old Romans expressed a fine understanding for rules of cooperation when they demanded that their two Consuls could only act when both agreed. The veto of one was always stronger than the demand of the other. What one wanted did not count when the other disliked it. That should be a rule for family life as well. In our case, it is the wife who wants to go out, while the husband prefers to stay home; it is she who wants to do something and he doesn’t like it. His veto should be stronger than her demand. It means more hardship for him to do what he does not like than for her to refrain from what she likes very much, unless, of course, she is able to win him over.

Unfortunately, the ancient rule of the veto is rarely applied, as most people find it difficult to distinguish between imposing upon and merely not yielding. If they do not get what they want, they feel abused and coerced. (This attitude is typical of pampered children; its prevalence among adults is an indication of how few are actually grown up.) In the event of conflicting interests it seems advisable to let everyone do what he likes: not to impose, but not to permit imposition either. Only too often do we fail to recognize the distinction between the two and the practical applications of this principle. Behind this difficulty lies the lack of respect so often found between the closest relatives. They just do not respect each other, despite all their unquestionable love and devotion.

Sources of Mutual Disrespect

There are many reasons why people so often find it difficult to treat other members of the family with proper respect. Whatever the reason is, it can be traced to personal fears and inferiority feelings. We all are inclined to be more critical of the shortcomings of relatives because we identify ourselves with them. Their shortcomings reflect on our own value and status. We feel ashamed of their faults, as if they were our own. If we were surer of ourselves, of our own value and position, we could accept our own shortcomings and those of our close associates more readily, because we would not consider them as expressions of our value and significance. A self-confident person is able to regard faults, limitations, and shortcomings in their proper perspective, without unduly making them tests of social value. Respect for members of one’s family is, therefore, closely linked with self-respect. He who fears disgrace and humiliation in the world at large becomes over-sensitive of his relatives’ imperfections. Moreover, if one feels helpless in regard to such shortcomings, one resents them and expresses resentment, either passively and sullenly or in an openly violent and aggressive way. Both lead to disrespect of the dignity and worth of the others.

Another reason for the lack of respect within many families is the existing state of competition in which we live, in the outside world as well as within our intimate family circle. We have already described why husbands and wives of today generally regard each other as competitors. Children, too, are definitely in competition with each other. They fight for their parents’ love and attention. Each regards the other as a threat to his own position, developing a deep sense of competitive strife, and overcoming each other in turn-often, by this means, introducing an element of unrest and friction in family life. The same competition exists between parents and children. The two generations carryon a family fight, too, for prestige. In a world which grants so little security and certainty of personal appreciation, parents naturally try to impress with their own superiority those who seem to offer the least resistance. Many parents do not recognize the acts of hostility and combat which are so often disguised as exuberant love and overwhelming affection. Humiliation and worship color the relationships of parents and children more frequently than do respect and human dignity. It would be worthwhile to treat our relatives and children-and parents-as we would treat casual acquaintances whom we meet socially. We are all rather well trained to meet antagonistic interests in society, politely and with due respect for each other. Couldn’t we use this technique and knowledge also in our own family?

Intimacy can hamper Friendliness

Family ties alone do not guarantee friendly relationship.

Wooing and charming are no less necessary after the wedding than before, notwithstanding the mistaken adage regarding the futility of chasing a streetcar after one has caught it. On the contrary, close association demands more consideration and understanding for the preservation of friendship and affection. It is much easier to get along with people whom we see rarely. Distance facilitates harmony. It is necessary in marriage to accept and like each other, even unwashed and unkempt. But why must we take more pains to appeal to perfect strangers or casual friends than to those for whom we care the most? Parents make the same mistake when they expect their children’s love merely because they have begotten them. The devotion and respect of children must also continuously be won anew. A friendly atmosphere within the family is evident in many ways. The tone of voice in which father, mother, and children address each other reveals whether friendliness and respect reign, or friction and humiliation and force. We should sharpen our ears to realize these subtle signs of disturbed cooperation. Unfortunately, we cannot hear ourselves as we sound to others. A discovery which would enable us to do so would certainly merit the Nobel Peace Prize.

Intimidation Instead of Firmness

Kindness, however, does not exclude firmness. On the contrary, one can be kind only if one is sure of oneself, sure of the impression one makes, and sure of the final success. To be firm requires the same self-confidence. Firmness does not imply imposition. The less firm and sure we are, the more we tend to intimidate and impose. This mutual intimidation is only too often found in family life. Of course, we do not inject fear deliberately, but we ourselves are certainly afraid. Like two men unexpectedly meeting at midnight on a dark street, each afraid that the other wants to rob him, neither suspecting that the other one, too, is shivering in fear, many a husband and wife live in fear, the fear of being neglected, of not being appreciated, of being dominated or abused, frustrated or humiliated. They will admit their fears confidentially to a third person, but it is difficult to convince either that the other is afraid, too. None recognizes the fears of his opponent, especially in regard to relative superiority; we are all inclined to suspect others of being, or at least attempting to be, superior to us. Of course, the methods and weapons of warfare are clearly recognized as such only if used by our opponent; we consider ourselves harmless and full of good intentions, denying others any reason for self-defense with regard to us.

Logic Used as a Weapon

All marital quarrels show fundamentally the same structure. Listening to husband and wife, one feels sure that the one who talked last is right. And they are both right-or at least they believe they are. Otherwise, they would act differently. Logic becomes only a weapon which can be used, and is used, by everyone who fights. But fundamentally, the quarrel is never a question of right or wrong only of pleasing or antagonizing, of agreeing or opposing. The bone of contention plays, generally, a secondary and accidental role. The issue of right or wrong arises only when cooperation is disturbed and each wants to shift the blame for the discord. Human beings are remarkably clever and astonishingly adept at finding reasons to justify their actions. Their scheming minds invent slight provocations to incite the other to more drastic actions which then are justifiable causes for open hostility.

Demanding Instead of Winning

Methods of pleasing are easily available, but are far less frequently utilized. When we want to please we are all able to do so, although some are so discouraged that they have stopped trying, desperate of ever being liked. We all have hundreds of little ways to show affection and to attract it. Yet in family life we insist on legal rights first and try to get before we are willing to give. Otherwise we feel abused. If we do not get what we want, or what we believe we deserve, we punish, although in that way we diminish the readiness of the other one to do his share.

Shifting the Blame

Since we do not know ourselves, or admit our real intentions, or hear the way we sound, or realize when we provoke, how can we be sure whether we violate the fundamental rules of cooperation or observe them? We are able to evaluate ourselves properly only if we look at the consequences of our actions. Then we may determine whether we are provoking more friction and tension or promoting a better understanding. This procedure, however, demands that we abandon all hope of putting the blame for any family discord on factors outside ourselves. Nor will blaming ourselves help. Blame, excuses, and complaints - all indicate discouragement and resentment. ‘Whenever we detect in ourselves any sign of such inclinations, we can be sure that we are going to violate rules of cooperation. Our own emotions are good guides, if we regard them as indications of our own intentions, and not, as many foolishly do, as a natural “reaction” to stimulation from the outside. Taking full responsibility for our emotions deprives us of easy excuses, but it enables us to gain mastery of the situation. When we recognize hostile emotions as deliberate weapons of warfare, they may stimulate a reorientation, a new evaluation of living conditions and family members, so that new emotions, more benevolent and more courageous, may develop. Properly understood, the alleged lack of affection will no longer be an excuse for neglected human duties but a challenge to develop a new social interest.

Innumerable reasons are given for falling out of love.

One woman complained that she could no longer love and accept her husband, for the reason that he had absolutely no faults. “You can’t imagine how terrible it is to live with a man who is perfect. I really can’t stand it any longer. If he did something wrong only once! If he would be angry with me! But no, whatever I do is all right. Whatever I don’t do is all right, too. He never loses his temper. Can you live with an angel?” Unbelievable as it may sound, one hears such a complaint not infrequently. It only shows that if someone wants to find a reason for opposing, he always can. A lack of fault serves the purpose as well as too many.

The question arises, then, of whether personal faults are the actual causes of marital friction. Is it true that we reject someone because of his faults? I do not think so. As long as we accept and love someone, his faults do not matter; when we refuse to accept him, his faults simply supply us with a good reason for our hostility. We discover faults which we readily overlooked before when they fitted into our plans. Then why do we reject each other, causing endless pain to ourselves as well as to others? It is always the question of our own importance which interferes with our happiness and our cooperation. As long as we feel recognized, appreciated, worshiped-and pampered-everything is all right. But as soon as we feel inferior and unequal, our closest friend becomes our enemy.

This feeling of inferiority generally has no actual basis, yet compensations, namely, a state of superiority, may be sought in various ways. The position of a victimized martyr may seem to any observer a state of definite inferiority and humiliation, but the person who evokes this position for himself finds in it an opportunity for moral superiority. Suffering physical and mental torture may even enhance the spiritual “victory,” and martyr and torturer can get along happily on the basis of their distribution of power. One enjoys his physical dominance and the other one his righteousness. But the martyr may immediately rebel and reject his mate should he ever attempt to be virtuous and considerate, for considerateness would spell defeat and disrupt the equilibrium. This situation is, of course, extreme, but we must keep in mind that mutual acceptance means agreement about the equilibrium which permits each party to compensate in his way for his feeling of inadequacy. Friction is never caused solely by external disturbances. Economic or social pressure or misfortune can normally bring husband and wife closer together. If the equilibrium between the couple is shaken by these hardships, then friction results. Most frequently these adversities are not the cause of marital disturbances-they are merely a test of the ability to cooperate. They bring hidden conflicts and resentment into the open which indicate that the feeling of belonging is inadequate in both parties, and that they are unwilling to stick together through hardship. They look only for an occasion each to blame the other for the reverses.

Leave a Reply