Rabbi
Haim Lifshitz
EMOTIONAL DYNAMICS
SADNAT ENOSH:
The Human Workshop
Essays
and Articles:
Go to Hebrew site
|
|
EMOTIONAL DYNAMICS
Compatibility in Couples
Rabbi Ze'ev Chaim Lifshitz
Translated from Hebrew by Dr. Sara
Nathan
l'ilui
nishmat Esther bas
Mordechai
l'ilui
nishmat Meyer Hirsh
ben Laibel
We need: Tradition.
We want: Openness/Individual
Freedom
"What was good enough for
our grandparents should be good enough for the
young folks as well." This claim is often
made by people who belong to traditional
societies, feel loyal toward tradition and have
been trained to religious values.
They cite the
minimal divorce rate of previous
generations. This argument is persuasive and
cannot be ignored. Divorce rates of the past
rarely exceeded one percent, whereas today’s young
generation presents a divorce rate of such
dimensions as to significantly threaten the
stability of the marriage institution: More than
one out of two couples gets divorced.
It is well known that broken
marriages create hurt children who trust neither
themselves nor others nor even life itself. In
previous generations, the marriage institution was
the proud product of the private space, a
stronghold of individual sanctity, a fortified
wall defending its family members against invasion
by life's negative elements. Marriage was a vital
institution, critically needed, in order to
protect each family member's unique quality and in
order to foster and protect basic relationships of
love and trust among the family members: It
cultivated the parent-child relationships,
inter-parent relationships, and harmonious and
healthy inter-sibling relationships.
When Freedom came, and pushed Belonging to the
sidelines, the equilibrium between Freedom and
Belonging was breached. Breach became the dominant
feature of many of the phenomena of the secular
era, which has turned Freedom into wantonness, to
be trampled on by marginal people, who have
assumed the reins of leadership in modern society.
Wantonness, in the post-modern era, has become the
Establishment.
Married couples' intimate needs underwent change
as well, with the advent of this new
phenomenon. Rather than erasing individual
needs, the new married couple's individual needs
now enjoyed a heyday of natural expression.
This seemed to be a rather positive phenomenon in
itself, on the surface of things, for there is no
human situation more fraught with individual needs
and sensitivities than the relationship between
the two members of a couple.
Tradition pushes these needs to the sidelines and
lowers the lovers' expectations. It is true that
tradition serves to prevent open expressions of
friction between the couple, but it also does not
greatly contribute, to say the least, toward
maximizing opportunities for self-expression
between the couple.
We could summarize the difference between a
traditional society and a modern society by
suggesting that the lower expectations of
traditional society reduced the divorce rate but
also reduced opportunities for the deeper
experiences of encounter between a couple.
From decades-long, in-depth research investigating
over forty thousand couples from the Jewish
religious and ultra-Orthodox sectors, we have
consolidated a list of personal needs, which
differ in degree and in kind from person to
person. Some of these needs require a
complementary opposite, while others require a
parallel compatibility. (In another context, we
dedicate a lengthy chapter to a full description
of these needs.)
One vital need is the need for emotional
initiative. Though it constitutes but one need
(albeit a critical one) among the couple’s many
needs, it seems to prove the urgent need for a
methodology for classifying and defining couple
needs. The more detailed and precise these
definitions can be, the better.
Emotional Dynamics
Briefly stated, the problem is this: “Who starts
up with whom?” Who initiates the connection? Who
approaches whom, to express affection? Who employs
body language (this is a critical issue) to convey
the message of affection? Who is the more active
and who is the more passive in the pairing
connection?
The problem becomes more complex when we realize
that being an emotionally active
“initiative-taker” in pairing is not an automatic
outcome of being an active initiative-taker in
practical or social matters. Even an individual
who is widely recognized as a "wheeler-dealer" in
social organization, in counseling and leadership
activities, and who is perpetually initiating
interpersonal relationships in social settings
will not necessarily express active initiative in
the intimate sphere.
Classification Divides
Couples into Groups
The Best Group:
On the surface it would appear that the best
couple would be the one where both sides initiate.
Here no problem of creating the connection can
possibly occur. So it would appear. However, in
reality, a one hundred percent connection only
occurs when each side has an initiating capacity
of fifty percent. When both sides’ initiating
capacity exceeds fifty percent, this creates
excess, which falls under the heading of: “Whoever
adds, detracts.” Excessive initiating, bal
tosif, is experienced as a sense of being
pestered, nagged, or being denied breathing space.
“He gets on my nerves.” “She’s a real nudnik,”
etc.
The Worst Group:
When the initiating capacity of both sides taken
together still cannot cross the one hundred
percent threshold, this creates a void. It is the
sort of void that evokes Rashi’s description of
the pit into which Joseph was thrown by his
brothers: “‘And the pit was empty; it had no
water.’ Water, it had none, but snakes and
scorpions it had.” In the gap that yawns in the
void created by a deficiency in pairing dynamics,
emotional snakes and scorpions proliferate, and
these threaten the functional continuity of the
couple’s sense of being paired.
Illustration:
He comes home after a long
day of work or study. She is busy in the kitchen,
or in the children’s room, or she has just come
home from a long day herself. He anticipates that
she will come to greet him warmly, and express –
in body language if not in words – how much she
has missed him. She anticipates a similar gesture
from him. Emotional passivity expresses itself as
anticipating and waiting, while taking no
practical initiative.
Both of them are
disappointed. He turns to the bookshelf, to the
newspaper, to the telephone. She continues her
frustrating wait in the kitchen, in the children’s
room or in her study. This mutual disappointment
repeats itself on a daily basis in the routine of
their marriage.
Routine fills ninety nine percent of the life of a
marriage. Routine is only broken only by unusual
events that occur on the outside, which
occasionally arouse the feeling of pairedness. A
routine that is intrinsically frustrating
eventually suppresses anticipation and
expectations, to the point that the couple no
longer take interest in rare events or
opportunities. Bitterness accumulates, creating
mutual suspicion; a creeping distrust eats away at
their sense of pairedness.
Soon enough, frustration consolidates into a
search for reasons, to supposedly offer an
objective explanation for the deterioration of
their sense of being a pair. From here, the way is
short to dismantling their state of pairedness
entirely, out of bitterness and mutual accusation,
based on causes that are beside the point and
usually imaginary: He/she doesn’t understand
me/consider my needs/ is selfish. Her mother/his
mother, etc. All of this has usually followed many
wearing attempts at compromise and counseling,
which have taken the couple far away from the real
cause.
When the couple’s various counselors have all
despaired, the couple arrives at Sadnat Enosh, our
counselling center, loaded with bitterness to such
an extent that the simple explanation of passivity
has a very difficult time penetrating their
mutually accumulated bitterness, hatred, and firm
conviction that they were never really a
compatible couple after all. Indeed it is
difficult to expect a simple couple to transcend
their painful and anguished state in order to gaze
down upon their relationship from the heights of
theory, which provide an amazingly simple
explanation for it all.
When No Routine Exists
During the courting period, no routine exists, and
it is difficult for the couple to understand a
condition of routine. During this period, there is
instead a condition of the emotional exertion of
mutual attraction. This attraction is further
nourished by the tension of curiosity, about the
realization of yearning, which beckons in the
prospect of pairedness. The couple is unable to
fully understand the dangers that lie in wait for
them in the form of creeping routine, once they
have finally attained their heart’s desire. After
all, won’t they deserve some rest from the tension
of “before”? They have difficulty accepting the
fact that a future threat exists that could
destroy the idyllic state they have attained at
such great effort.
On the other hand, when
dealing with senior couples who are laden with
descendants, it is no simple matter to break apart
their state of pairedness. One must instead make
them conscious of the dangers of passivity, while
dismantling their frustration to expose its roots,
which are embedded in a pairing formula that is
deficient in the element of mutual initiative.
One can hope for success with couples who have a
high level of intellectual and human insight, that
is to say, who are not imprisoned in a primitive
mentality. Primitiveness for our purposes means a
hardened and inflexible approach that impedes
transition from an old, habituated track to a new
track built on new and consciously created
foundations.
In another, bleaker scenario, a couple’s lack of
understanding can reach rodef proportions.
Each side becomes “a persecutor” of the other,
causing the other side to deteriorate mentally and
physically.
The number of cases in which pairedness
deteriorates on the basis of a lack of emotional
dynamics is far greater than estimated, and often
not visible to the eye. Attributing malevolent
intentions is misleading. It has nothing to do
with the real complaint, and causes a search for
guilty parties that only leads the couple further
away from exposing the real cause.
An Existential Tragedy
It is common among couples that the wife is
endowed with considerable initiating potential,
and is easily capable of arriving quite naturally
at a point of encounter with her passive husband.
However, due to a certain type of traditional
upbringing, this blessed abundance of initiative
is held back. From grandmother to granddaughter,
provisions are supplied for the long journey into
pairedness, to guarantee her happiness: Protect
your own honor, granddaughter dear, don’t court
him, courting him will make him despise you. He
will take you for granted; you will be cheap in
his eyes. Let him exhaust himself to bitterness
courting you, until you finally accept him; then
your husband will hold you dear, etc. etc. In such
cases, an artificial gap is created, yet this
artificial gap causes a frustration that is no
less painful than the one experienced by a couple
genuinely deficient in mutual initiative.
A typical example is the couple where the woman is
blessed with a free-flowing, bubbling,
initiative-taking personality. Truth to tell, it
was this initiative-taking personality that first
attracted her dry and passive husband to her,
while she admired him for his high level of
intellect, or scholarship, or professionalism. Yet
lo and behold, after their marriage, the lady
envelops herself in utter, infuriating passivity.
She has become the inhibited wife.
They are married fourteen years, they have three
children. The husband is an outstanding,
God-fearing Torah scholar, immersed in his
learning. She is constantly harassing his friends,
avreichim like himself, study colleagues.
She harasses his teachers and rabbis as well: Her
husband is unfaithful to her! Countless hours
spent attempting to persuade her that this is not
true have only intensified her frustration.
All else having failed, their despairing
counselors send the couple to us. She opens her
case with a furious attack: You men lack a woman’s
sharp senses. For years now, I have not been
fulfilling my obligation to purify myself in the mikveh,
just to test him. He never once bothered to
comment, never once asked why I was not pure.
There can be only one reason for this: There is
another woman in his life.
After allowing her to
compose herself, having vented her fury, I
discreetly pointed my finger in the direction of
her husband, who sat silent and frozen, the tears
flowing from his eyes. Rather than suggesting to
the husband that he defend himself, I answered in
his stead: Your husband is passive, of an
aristocratic nature. He is too shy to express his
personal needs. I pray that Heaven will forgive
you for your cruelty, which has caused him
suffering to the point of despair.
I then turned to him and requested that he confirm
or deny my statements, but he had begun to weep
uncontrollably, and could only nod his head in
agreement. The woman leaped from her chair and
began to kiss him and beg his forgiveness, at
which point I terminated the meeting, which had
lasted approximately twenty minutes, suggesting
that they continue their reconciliation in their
home.
Had this incident been a one-time event, it could
be rightly attributed to a supernatural miracle.
The numerous instances of such "miracles" points
to a much needed approach, supported by an
intrinsic logic based upon awareness of the
components of emotional dynamics.
This particular component of the ability to
initiate a
connection -- among all the other factors
that comprise the formula for pairedness -- may
not be taken lightly, for its role is decisive .
What is interesting about its lack is that it is
invisible to the eye, and works its insidious and
destructive effect behind the scenes. The above
remarks may be understood as a word to the wise.
|
|