Making conflict safe
Conflict is unavoidable in a relationship. There exist two separate people, with two separate brains, two different histories, and not always identical needs or wishes. Thereâs no way, even in the best relationship with the best and most compatible people, for there never to be conflict. In a successful relationship there must be ways to address those occasional conflicts. There needs to be a way for partners safely to engage with rather than avoid conflict. Partners need ways to navigate territory where there is conflict without feeling that they have to sacrifice either safety or self. Letâs look at two different ways of addressing the same conflict.
Scott and Martha were both bright, high achieving professionals. Frankly, they were both used to being right and having their opinions prevail. It was starting to look like a stand-off over the dinner issue. âScott, of course weâre going to my momâs for Sunday dinner. Thatâs been my familyâs tradition for years.â⨠âMartha, we are not going to your momâs for Sunday dinner. She serves the least healthy food on the planet and I can hear my arteries screaming when weâre there.â âOh, Scott, stop being a drama queen. Her menu is traditional, I grant, but it wonât kill you. We will do what weâve always done and go there for Sunday dinner. Case closed.â âMartha, I cannot believe that you donât care about my health. How insensitive can you be?â
I think we can all agree that that one went badly. Wherever they end up eating on Sunday, both partners and the relationship have taken a hit. What were the things that went wrong here? First, Marthaâs use of the phrase, âof courseâ, sends the message that thereâs only one right answer, and itâs hers. Scottâs declaration that, âwe are not goingâ, is his statement of unwillingness to negotiate. Martha then resorted to name calling (âdrama queenâ), a demonstration of disrespect that is dismissive of Scottâs point of view. Name calling is always likely to bring down the quality of any discussion. It moves attention to personal insult and moves attention away from the content of the discussion. Martha went further to shut down any discourse by declaring, âWe will do what weâve always doneâ. Anytime someone pulls this one out it terminates discussion by implying that there is only one right way and itâs the pre-existing model. Any change is wrong and must not be considered. Just in case her intransigence wasnât clear, she added the âcase closedâ comment. This relegates Scott to irrelevance. She has communicated that she has no interest in his thoughts or feelings and that they do not influence her. Scottâs attack on Marthaâs basic nature, calling her âinsensitiveâ, moved the fight from one about Sunday dinners to one about whether Martha cared about his health. At that point we have partners who have dismissed and accused each other, likely causing significant injury to each of them. They not only havenât resolved the Sunday dinner question, theyâve demonstrated that disagreeing is painful and dangerous.
Ellie and Andrew handled things differently. âEllie, Sunday dinners at your momâs are really tough for me. I know she cooks out of love, but she serves food that leaves me feeling really unwell and uncomfortable.â âAndrew, are you saying you wonât go to my momâs? I love our traditional Sundays there.â âI know you enjoy that tradition, and I donât want you to give it up. What would you think about cutting it back to every other Sunday instead? Or maybe we could skip the dinner sometimes but show up for coffee and dessert? Would that work okay for a compromise?â âWell, Iâll admit that her old country recipes are really not all that healthy, and who still cooks with lard? What if she let me bring a vegetarian entree and we ate some of hers too; would that work?â âThat would be great! I love your family and that would let us continue tradition AND be healthy.â
In Ellie and Andrewâs case there was a clear intention on both partnersâ parts to be sensitive and generous. They started with a willingness to compromise and to be flexible and with a commitment to their partnerâs needs. Neither one needed to win, so they both did. Martha and Scott fight to win, so someone has to lose. For Martha and Scott, only one person at a time could have a voice. The other partnerâs voice had to be silenced. For Ellie and Andrew, both partners had voices that were solicited and respected. If a fight has a winner and a loser, then the relationship loses. In a safe relationship, each partner must carry a commitment to the survival of the partnerâs point of view as well as to their own.












