The Three States of Mind in Marriage


Some of the brightest people I know become idiots when faced with marital conflict. I've seen this happen in case after case. An intelligent man listens to his wife talking about her needs, her desires, her interests -- and it's as if she's speaking a foreign language. A brilliant woman hears her husband describe his perspective, and she doesn't get it. What makes marital communication so tough? Is it that men and women just can't communicate? Or is there something about marriage that blurs their thinking? Having spent decades counseling couples who seem communicationally challenged, I am thoroughly convinced that it is marriage itself (or more specifically, romantic relationships) that makes communication difficult, and not differences between men and women. The men I counsel have very little trouble resolving conflicts with women, and their wives are usually just as good negotiating with men. It's conflicts they have with each other that seem impossible to resolve. My experience trying to help couples negotiate has led me to the conclusion that, left to their own devices, they negotiate from one of three states of mind, each having it's own unique negotiating rules and it's own unique emotional reactions. I call these states of mind Intimacy, Conflict, and Withdrawal. And regardless which state spouses are in, negotiations can be very difficult.

The First State of Mind in Marriage:
IntimacyThe Three States of Mind in Marriage

The First State of Mind:
Intimacy

The most essential prerequisite for the state of intimacy is the feeling of being in love. As I discussed in my section on the Love Bank, you obtain that feeling when your spouse has deposited enough love units into his or her account in your Love Bank to trigger that reaction.

In this most enjoyable state of a relationship, spouses follow the rule of the Giver, Do whatever you can to make your spouse happy, and avoid anything that makes the your spouse unhappy, even if it makes you unhappy. When both partners follow this rule, both are getting their emotional needs met, and all is well with the world.

In this state of mind the Giver is in charge and giving to each other seems almost instinctive. Both spouses have a great desire to make each other happy in any way they can, and want to avoid hurting each other at all costs.

As they protect each other, trust builds. They can share their deepest feelings, becoming emotionally vulnerable, because they know that they both have each other's best interests at heart. They feel so close to each other that to hurt the other person would be the same as hurting themselves.

Conversation in the state of intimacy is respectful and non-judgmental. The partners also express their deepest love for each other and gratitude for the care they are receiving. By lowering their defenses and forming a close emotional bond, they feel even greater pleasure when they meet each other's needs. This is the way marriage was meant to be.

Negotiation in this state of marriage is controlled by the Giver and the Giver's rule. When one spouse expresses a desire, the other rushes to fulfill it. There is no thought of repayment, because the Giver's care is unconditional. As long as both spouses are in the same state, there's actually nothing to negotiate--they give each other anything that's possible, and they do it unconditionally.

But giving unconditionally isn't really negotiating. It's giving whatever is requested without the need to bargain. And more importantly, it's with the attitude that bargaining would be somehow immoral, because it would imply conditionality.

You can get into some very bad habits when you are in the state of intimacy. A new mother in love with her husband may let her husband completely off the hook when it comes to child care. A husband in love with his wife may do nothing to restrain her tendency toward irresponsible spending, driving them both into backrupcy. And once these bad habits have been around for a while, they are very difficult to change.

You'd think that the state of intimacy would guide a husband and wife toward marital bliss. But, instead, because of the failure to negotiate terms that benefit both spouses, it tends to drive them toward the second state of mind in marriage, conflict.

The Second State of Mind in Marriage:
ConflictThe Three States of Mind in Marriage


The Second State of Mind:
Conflict

As long as a husband and wife are happy, the state of intimacy hums right along. But no one is happy all the time, especially when making sacrifices to make someone else happy. And when unhappiness is experienced by either spouse, the slumbering Taker is immediately alerted to the pain.

"What's going on? Who's upsetting you?" the slumbering Taker wants to know.

It can be a temporary lapse if your spouse is still in a giving mood and apologizes for the error (whether or not it's his or her fault). Your spouse may promise to be more thoughtful in the future or make a greater effort to meet an unmet need. The Taker is satisfied that all is well, and goes back to sleep, leaving the Giver in charge, and keeping you in the state of intimacy.

But what happens if there are no apologies? What if the damage is not repaired quickly? What if one spouse continues to be thoughtless or unwilling to meet an emotional need?

When that occurs, the Taker, mindful of all your sacrifices in the state of Intimacy, comes to your defense.

I think it's time for a new rule, the Taker advises. Youﾒve done enough giving for a while, now it's time to get something in return. Instinctively, you adapt the Taker's rule: Do whatever you can to make yourself happy, and avoid anything that makes yourself unhappy, even if it makes your spouse unhappy. When that happens, you've entered the second state of mind in marriage -- Conflict.

When one spouse follows this new rule, it isn't long before the other spouse's Taker pushes the Giver aside and is ready for battle. In this state of Conflict, spouses are no longer willing to be thoughtful or to meet each other's needs. Instead, they demand that the other spouse become more thoughtful and that their own needs be met first. They no longer guarantee protection, but instead, threaten each other unless their demands are met. When demands are not met, the Taker resorts to disrespectful judgments, and when that doesn't work, out come the armaments. Angry outbursts are the Taker's last-ditch effort to solve the problem.

In the state of Conflict, conversation tends to be disrespectful, resentful and even hateful. Mutual care and concern have been replaced by mutual self-centeredness. Your Taker no longer trusts your spouse to look after your interests, but pulls out all the stops to see to it that you are treated fairly. The problem, of course, is that your Taker does not know how to treat your spouse with that same fairness. Fairness is viewed by the Taker as getting its way at all costs.

In the state of Conflict, couples are still emotionally bonded and that makes the pain of thoughtlessness even worse. Love units are withdrawn at a very fast rate. They may still hope that the hurting will stop and there will be a return to the state of Intimacy, but they don't trust each other to stop the madness. Occasionally, one spouse may revert to the state of Intimacy, but if peace is to return, they must both do it simultaneously. The only way to calm down both spouse's Takers is for both of them to be protected at the same time.

Couples can return to the state of Intimacy from Conflict, if, and only if, they stop hurting each other and return to meeting each other's emotional needs again.

But it's very difficult to be thoughtful in the state of Conflict, because your Taker urges you to return pain whenever you receive it. So for most couples, the state of Conflict inspires them to think with short-sightedness. Instead of wanting to meet each other's needs, they want their own needs met before they'll do anything. That makes resolving the conflict seem almost impossible, because our Takers would rather fight than try to make the other spouse happy.

Negotiations in the state of Intimacy really don't work, because each spouse is trying to out-give each other. Sooner or later, one spouse feels used by the arrangement. It's not what I consider bargaining -- it's like giving away the store!

However, negotiations in the state of Conflict don't work either. Each spouse is trying to out-take each other. There is no effort to make the other spouse happy, only the self-centered effort of pleasing yourself at the other person's expense -- it's like robbing the bank.

When a husband and wife are in the state of Conflict long enough, the resentment and disillusionment they experience eventually convinces their Takers that fighting doesn't work. A new approach is warranted, and that approach ushers in the the third state of mind in marriage, Withdrawal.

The Third State of Mind in Marriage:
WithdrawalThe Three States of Mind in Marriage


The Third State of Mind:
Withdrawal

Reason would dictate that demands, disrespect and anger are not the way to resolve conflicts in marriage. But with the Giver and Taker as the only instinctive alternatives, reason doesn't play much of a role in marital problem-solving. Instead, mood is almost everything, and after a fight, most couples do not feel much like going back to the rule of the Giver.

So they leave the Taker in charge, and the Taker adopts a new approach. In the state of Conflict it's strategy is fight. But in the state of Withdrawal, it's strategy is flight.

When you're in the state of Conflict, your Taker tries to force your spouse to meet your needs, making demands, showing disrespect, and threatening your spouse with angry outbursts to get its way. But if that doesn't work--if your spouse does not meet your needs--your Taker suggests a new approach to the problem: Withdrawal. It tries to convince you that your spouse is not worth the effort, and you should engage in emotional divorce.

In the state of Withdrawal, spouses no longer feel emotionally bonded or in love, and emotional defenses are raised. Neither one wants to try to meet the other's needs, and both have given up on attempts to get their own needs met by the other. One becomes two. They are completely independent, united only in living arrangements, finances and childrearing, although they often have to keep up appearances for neighbors and friends.

When one spouse enters the state of Withdrawal, the other usually follows. After all, what is the point? If she is meeting none of his needs and rebuffing every effort he makes to meet hers, he might as well give up, too. The thoughtless behavior by each spouse toward the other becomes too great to bear, so they stop caring. Trust is a faint memory.

Emotional needs can be met only when we are emotionally vulnerable to someone who meets those needs. When we are in the state of Withdrawal, our emotional needs cannot be met because we've raised our defenses. Even when a spouse tries to meet an emotional need, the defensive wall blunts the effect to prevent any Love Bank deposits.

Couples in Withdrawal are really in a state of emotional divorce. When they've been in Withdrawal for any length of time, they will sleep in separate rooms, take separate vacations, and eat meals at different times. They will not communicate unless they must. If that doesn't work, they either separate or obtain a legal divorce.

I've already explained that the states of Intimacy and Conflict discourage negotiating. But in the state of Withdrawal there isn't the slightest interest in it. In Intimacy, couples must only ask in order to receive. In Conflict, they fight to try to get what they want, and the bargain is usually less than intelligent. But in Withdrawal, there is no discussion, no bargaining, not even arguing. In that state, a spouse is unwilling to do anything for his or her spouse or let the spouse do anything in return.

When a couple is in the state of Withdrawal, the marriage seems hopeless. There is no willingness to be thoughtful or to meet each other's emotional needs, and no willingness to even talk about the problems. When both spouses are in the state of Withdrawal, at that point in time, it really is hopeless, because neither are at all interested in saving the marriage.

But the state of Withdrawal doesn't usually last very long. Sooner than most couples think, at least one spouse has the presence of mind to try to break the deadlock. When that happens, it's possible for that spouse to lead the other all the way back to the state of Intimacy. But it's possible only if the Giver and Taker are relegated to the back room.


Next:
How one spouse can lead the other back to Intimacy

The Three States of Mind in Marriage


How One Spouse Can Lead
the other Back to Intimacy

Marriage partners do not necessarily experience the same state of mind in marriage at the same time. One spouse may disrupt the other's state of Intimacy by failing to meet an emotional need, or inadvertant thoughtlessness. In the state of Conflict, the offended spouse begins to complain, nag, and may even try to start a fight. As the complaints escalate, the other spouse who has been in the state of Intimacy, is dragged into the state of Conflict as well, and then the fighting begins in earnest.

Typically, if they fail in their efforts to resolve the conflict, and if the unpleasant effects escalate, one spouse will go into Withdrawal first and raise his or her emotional barriers. The spouse that remains in the state of Conflict continues to argue, while the withdrawn spouse tries to escape. If the arguing spouse persists, the withdrawn spouse may be goaded to re-enter the Conflict state, and fight back. Or, the arguing spouse may give up and enter the Withdrawal state, too.

One spouse may also lead the other on the road back from Withdrawal to Conflict and eventually to back to Intimacy. In Withdrawal, a husband may decide to make a new effort to restore Intimacy and toss out an olive branch. That effort places him back into the Conflict state, while his wife is still in Withdrawal.

Suppose his effort is an encouragement to her and she eventually joins him in the state of Conflict. Now they are both willing to have their needs met by the other, but their Takers encourage them to fight about it, rather than negotiate intelligently and peacefully. In all too many cases, if they follow their Taker's advice and argue rather than negotiate, they both find themselves back in the state of Withdrawal, convinced that in that state their marriage is safer, and certainly more peaceful.

But this step from Withdrawal to Conflict is a step in the right direction, and provides spouses an opportunity to regain Intimacy -- if they can resist the advice of their Takers. Withdrawal may seem more peaceful, but it is actually a shuttering down of the marriage. A return to the state of Conflict is a sign that the partners have restored hope -- the marriage is worth fighting over. By coming out of Withdrawal, they are lowering their emotional defenses and taking the risk of getting close to each other again.

While demanding and arguing is instinctive in the state of Conflict, one spouse can lead the other back to Intimacy by resisting the Taker's temptation to fight. It takes two to argue, and if one spouse makes an effort to avoid making demands and judgmental statements, and tries to be thoughtful and meet the other's needs, the other spouse usually calms down and does the same thing.

Once they see each other's caring efforts, and rebuild their Love Bank accounts, they re-enter the Intimacy stage. But there's an irony that trips up some couples. Which spouse do you think is the first to move back into the state of Intimacy: the one who makes the first effort to meet the other's needs, or the recipient of that effort? You may have guessed it. The recipient of care is usually the first to return to the state of intimacy, and not the one who make the greatest effort to save the relationship.

If you set a good example by meeting your spouse's needs first, alas, that usually means that your own needs are met last. Your Taker is not pleased with this arrangement, and may try to sabotage it. You will need to make a deliberate and patient effort to override the Taker's instinct to retreat back to fighting and name-calling. But if you resist that instinct to argue, and instead focus attention on behaving thoughtfully and meeting your spouse's needs, your spouse will be encouraged to reciprocate.

Granted, when in the state of Conflict, it's much more difficult to be thoughtful and meet each other's emotional needs. That's because the Taker's advice dominates the Giver's advice, and the Taker isn't interested in thoughtfulness or meeting someone else's needs. So if you want to return to Intimacy, you must override this instinct with great effort. Meeting an emotional need in marriage is easy when you are in the state of Intimacy, because the Giver encourages you to do just that. But in the state of Confict, it seems very unnatural and even unfair.

When your Love Bank balances are finally restored, and your love for each other is triggered again, the struggle is over. You will have returned to Intimacy, and along with it, everything you need to do for each other will seem almost effortless.

The passage from Intimacy, through Conflict, to Withdrawal is a slippery slope. You can get there before you know it. But it takes quite a bit of work to climb back up that hill. While one of you can help by pulling the other back up the hill, it's a lot easier when you both work together. And the best way to work yourselves back to Intimacy from Withdrawal and Conflict is by negotiating effectively.

My next concept is designed to helps you negotiate in all three states of mind in marriage, when your insticts tell you to either give or take or even give up entirely. It's a rule that I want you use as a way to override the short-sighted advice of both your Giver and Taker. I call the rule the Policy of Joint Agreement.

Next Concept:
The Policy of Joint AgreementThe Policy of Joint Agreement


When in the state of Intimacy, both spouses want the other to be happy, and neither spouse wants to see the other hurt. In the state of Conflict, both spouses want to be happy and neither wants to see themselves hurt. Actually, both objectives are important, and that's why I created a negotiating rule to achieve those important objectives regardless of the state of mind spouses happen to be in. I call it the Policy of Joint Agreement -- it takes the best from the advice of both our Giver and our Taker.

The Policy of Joint Agreement also avoids the worst advice of our Giver and Taker. In the state of Intimacy, we are encouraged by our Giver to sacrifice our own happiness so that the other person can be happy. In the state of Conflict, we are encouraged by our Taker to let our spouses sacrifice so that we can be happy. Neither of these are worthy objectives because in both cases someone gets hurt.

In marriage, your interests and your spouses interests should be considered simultaneously. One of you should not suffer for the benefit of the other, even willingly, because when either of you suffer, one is gaining at the other's expense. If you both care about each other, you will not let the other suffer so that you can have what you want. When you are willing to let the other sacrifice for you, you are momentarily lapsing into a state of selfishness that must somehow be corrected before damage is done. The Policy of Joint Agreement provides that correction.

Before I tell you what the Policy of Joint Agreement is, I want to warn you that when you read it for the first time you may think I'm crazy to be suggesting such a rule. But the more you think about it, and the more you follow it in your marriage, the more you will recognize it as the breakthrough you need in the logjam that the Giver and Taker create in marriage.

The Policy of Joint Agreement
Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement
between you and your spouse

When you follow this policy, your Giver likes the part of it that requires your spouse to be in enthusiastic agreement about every decision you make, and your Taker likes the part that requires you to be in enthusiastic agreement. But the Giver will think that you're being selfish when you don't do whatever it takes to make your spouse happy, and your Taker will think you are just plain dumb to let your spouse's lack of "enthusiasm" prevent you from doing whatever makes you happy. Yet, if you follow this rule, it will prevent you from giving so much that it hurts you, or taking so much that you hurt your spouse. It forces you into the balance you need in marriage to create and sustain a compatible lifestyle and the feeling of love.

This rule teaches couples to become thoughtful and sensitive to each other's feelings when they don't feel like it. If both spouses follow this policy, they avoid all the Love Busters because they won't mutually agree to anything that hurts one of them. Demands, disrespect and anger are eliminated because even negotiating strategy must be mutually agreed to, and no one likes to be the recipient of abuse. Annoying behavior is eliminated because if one spouse finds any behavior or activity of the other annoying, according to the policy, it cannot be done. It even eliminates dishonesty, because a lie is certainly not something that you would agree to enthusiastically. It helps plug up the holes in the sieve of the Love Bank that cause most couples to drift into loveless incompatibility.

It also forces couples to negotiate fairly. The Policy itself prevents either spouse from making unilateral decisions about anything, so they must discuss every decision they make before action can be taken. Demands are out of the question, because they are not made to create enthusiastic agreement -- they are made to force one spouse to lose so that the other can gain. The same can be said for Disrespectful Judgments and Angry Outbursts. What role do any of those Love Busters have in a discussion where the goal is enthusiastic agreement? In their place, each spouse learns to make requests and express opinions, showing respect for the other spouse's opinions. The sheer folly and stupidity of demands, disrespect and anger are vividly demonstrated when a mutually enthusiastic agreement is your goal.

Successful negotiation in marriage creates a solution to every problem that benefits both spouses and doesn't hurt either of them. The Policy of Joint Agreement forces a couple to find those solutions. None of the states of mind in marriage encourage them to do that, so they need this rule to override their instincts that prevent successful negotiation.

The Policy of Joint Agreement encourages couples to consider each other's happiness as equally important. They are a team and both should try to help each other and avoid hurting each other. It just makes good sense. Why should one spouse consider their own interests so important that he or she can run roughshod over the interests of the other? It's a formula for marital disaster, and yet some of the most well-intentioned couples do it from their honeymoon on.

When I first see a couple in marital crisis, they are usually very incompatible. They are living their lives as if the other hardly exists -- making thoughtless decisions regularly because they don't care how the other feels. As a result, when I introduce The Policy of Joint Agreement, it seems almost impossible to follow. They have created a way of life that is based on so many inconsiderate habits that it seems the policy would force them to stop all their activity -- so much of what they do is thoughtless and insensitive.

But once they start to follow the policy, it becomes easier and easier to come to an agreement. As they throw out their thoughtless habits and activities one by one, they replace them with habits and activities that take each other's feelings into account. That's what compatibility is all about -- building a way of life that is comfortable for both spouses. When they create a lifestyle that they each enjoy and appreciate, they build compatibility into their marriages.

But the most powerful incentive for following this policy is that it helps sustain the feeling of love. Once the Policy of Joint Agreement is acted upon, it helps insulate a couple from many of the destructive forces that are ruining marriages. And it helps couples learn to meet each other's needs in ways that are mutually fulfilling and enjoyable. Spouses that follow this policy and meet each other's needs fall in love and stay in love with each other.

As I already mentioned, negotiation is very tough in marriage because each state of mind, Intimacy, Conflict and Withdrawal, tends to discourage negotiation. But the Policy of Joint Agreement can help us override our instincts, and enable us to negotiate fairly regardless of our state of mind. That's because "enthusiastic" agreement is the goal, as opposed to "reluctant" agreement.

In the state of Intimacy, our Giver would agree to almost anything if it would make our spouse happy. But it would not be an enthusiastic agreement -- it would be a self-sacrificing, suffering-servant kind of agreement. Only our Taker is capable of "enthusiastic" agreements, because it's only enthusiastic about something that's in our own best interest. If you and your spouse are in enthusiastic agreement, it means that both of your Takers agree that the decision is in your best interests. Those are the agreements that are most likely to make you both happy.

In this short introduction to the Policy of Joint Agreement, I have presented a broad panorama of what it is, why it's so important in marriage, and how you should apply it in your marriage. But there are many details I've left out of this introduction that I describe more completely in the Q&A section of this web site. To make it easier to find these columns and answer some of the questions you might have at this very moment, I will describe some of those that are most relevant to the subject, negotiating with the Policy of Joint Agreement.

Q&A Columns Regarding the
Policy of Joint Agreement

All marital conflicts are opportunities to negotiate. And when done correctly, with the Policy of Joint Agreement, most marital problems are relatively easy to solve. But I have received many letters wondering if this policy is reasonable. Can a husband and wife be expected to agree on everything? And enthusiastically? So I posted the column,

Incompatibility is at the core of marital conflict. How to Survive Incompatibility is a Q&A column I've posted that introduces the problem of incompatibility, and offers the Policy of Joint Agreement as a general solution. The problem of incompatibility and the solution are readdressed in Following the Policy of Joint Agreement When You're VERY Incompatible.

What happens when the Policy of Joint Agreement is not followed in marriage? Disaster! And the disaster is seen in many forms. One of its most common forms is a Love Buster I have already introduced to you, annoying behavior. To refresh your memory, an annoying behavior is any habit or activity that one spouse does that bothers the other spouse. It may not seem like much of a disaster when annoying behavior is in its early stages, but there are many examples of it growing into ugly monsters. How to Overcome Annoying Behavior describes the seriousness of the problem and offers the Policy of Joint Agreement as the only reasonable solution.

One of annoying behavior's ugly monsters, drug and alcohol addiction, clearly creates marital disaster. If every couple followed the Policy of Joint Agreement, there would be very few alcoholic spouses. But without that rule, alcohol and drugs can sure wreck a marriage. What to Do with an Alcoholic Spouse is a column that addresses this common problem that has plagued marriages for thousands of years.

Negotiation assumes that two people are willing to resolve a conflict. But in many marriages, one spouse is not willing to negotiate, or follow the Policy of Joint Agreement, particularly when the marriage is in serious trouble. A commonly asked question is, how can one spouse negotiate when the other spouse is not interested? I have posted two Q&A columns on the subject: Can a Marriage Be Saved by One Spouse (Part_1), and Can a Marriage Be Saved by One Spouse (Part 2).

Having Trouble with the Policy of Joint Agreement? In this column I not only discuss the Policy of Joint Agreement, but I also describe Four Guidelines for Successful Negotiation, which is my 10th and final Basic Concept,

Four Guidelines for Successful Negotiation