What went wrong with our relationships in the twentieth century?
We live in a world that is out of control. Actually, the world was never controlled or controllable, but a fundamental shift occurred in the twentieth century - we became aware of this fact. Anyone who reads or watches television now knows that there is no end to the things that can hurt or kill you. Our reaction to this daily deluge of problems is understandable: Regardless of how utterly we have failed in the past, we still want to gain some measure of control. Anything that promises that possibility - from a new political movement to a new approach to health, from a new religion to a new gun - will inevitably appeal to many people.
The first line of defense against our recognition of chaos has been to withdraw into the smallest possible definition of ourselves. Large nations are breaking up into smaller ones. Religions and races are pulling in their boundaries and rejecting anyone who is dissimilar. Men and women, gays and straights, are preoccupied with their differences. And even neighborhoods of one culture now use arms against the neighborhoods of another.
Obviously relationships have not been immune to this atmosphere. Breakups and divorce are epidemic, even among the elderly. Those couples who do stay together may face addiction, infidelity, disease, financial uncertainties, sexual incompatibility, psychological and physical abuse, and problems with children, in-laws, and schools. Our relationships are as out of control as the world itself. This fact is now inescapable, and its recognition has brought a tide of anxiety and confusion that has engulfed most couples.
A little over a century ago, a person needed a partner just to share the labor involved in mere survival. Families were larger, with older children often helping to raise their younger siblings. Marriage was permanent; life expectancy was shorter; and it was not uncommon for children to remain at home throughout the lifetimes of their parents. Those who already had wealth looked at marriage as a practical means of increasing it, and for both the poor and the privileged, marriage was needed to continue the family name. In other words, marriage was a simple necessity, a part of life, and not something that had to be singled out and carefully watched, like some strange bank of clouds on the horizon that could bring either a miracle rain or a disaster.
Today there are no obvious reasons for getting married, and so, thinking that a reason is required, we have invented new ones. Now you need a partner in order to be supported and fulfilled, in order to be "all that you can be." Concepts such as the "soul mate" have been invented, and mysticism has been injected into sex. If you add to this the fact that we no longer have a moral objection to divorce, then potentially one can have anyone at any time. Little wonder that today most people are probing every aspect of their romantic relationships for inadequacies. If you can have anyone, is your present partner really giving you everything you could get? Or if there is a person with whom you are already mystically matched, the one right person for you, have you in fact found this individual?
Now couples who come to us for help believe that simply by having a relationship, the hurt and loneliness of their past should be healed. They weren't happy before they got married, but now that they have a partner, their continued unhappiness is their partner's fault. It doesn't occur to them that except for "owning" their "mistake" in choosing each other (an arrogant rationalization for passing judgment), undoing their present unhappiness will require a joint effort.
When you get married, you simply become like the majority of adults: You are married. That in itself changes nothing. But how you react to it can change everything. Most people still believe that getting married is the most important event in their lives, but being married has become like test-driving a new car. They really think that it doesn't matter whether they reject it or not and that they can make their decision quickly, conveniently, and in accordance with the latest Blue Book of spouse ratings. Many marriage-denigrating concepts such as the throwaway "starter marriage" are now in vogue.
The enormous spiritual cost of betrayal and abandonment is presently being so miscalculated that an entire generation is in danger of becoming emotionally and spiritually bankrupt.
A couple we counseled for three years - we will call them Ben and Mary - developed a deep bond early in their freshman year of college. They got married on the very evening of graduation day. Mary, who had won several titles in synchronized swimming, began teaching at a large racquet and swimming club to support them and to help pay Ben's way through law school. Two children and twelve years later, they came to us with a family on the verge of a breakup.
At the time we met them, they had basically everything that couples long for: wonderful children (two girls), successful careers (Mary was now a prominent hydrotherapist for the physically disabled, and Ben periodically gave expert testimony before Congress on the legal issues affecting the elderly), good health, a beautiful home, and a normal, if not above average, sex life.
At any other time in history, the issues that had arisen between them probably would not have threatened their marriage. Neither of them had ever had an affair, not even an emotional one; neither was abusive to the other or to the children, not even verbally; neither was addicted to anything; they had no in-law problems; they had no money problems; they shared common political and religious philosophies; and they liked most of the same activities. Above all, they had one of the deeper bonds we have seen between two people.
Basically their issues with each other arose out of the new selfishness in which they had both become steeped, primarily through the books they had read and the separate groups they regularly attended. (Mary went to one of the twelve-step spin-off groups, while Ben attended a large men's group.) To enhance their sex life, to be "a better physical example" to their children, and to avoid "embarrassing" her, Mary wanted Ben, who was prematurely gray, to dye his hair and lose twenty pounds. This Ben refused to do. He said that if Mary truly loved him, she would accept him as he was.
For Ben's part, he wanted Mary either to quit her job or to stop bringing home the "wrenching stories" of her handicapped patients and the soap-opera politics of the hospital where she worked. Mary insisted that she had to have a partner who would listen to whatever she had to say.
We have never worked harder with any couple than we did this one, nor have we ever felt our failure to keep a family together more acutely. These two definitely loved each other, and they loved their children, but weighed against the advice they were getting from their friends and separate groups - that above all, they must not give in - love was not enough. Or to state it more accurately, although love was unquestionably present, they chose to heed their "emotional needs" (Mary) and their "integrity as an individual" (Ben) rather than the bond between them.
When Ben found himself back on the singles market, he lost a total of thirty-eight pounds and dyed his hair, his beard, and his eyebrows. Mary found that the stress of the divorce, added to the stress of her job, was too much, and within three months of their separation she had left it. Their oldest girl now comes to us for counseling.
No comments:
Post a Comment