Marital vs. Martial

I find it interesting that the difference between the words "marital" and "martial" is merely the placement of an "I".  Isn't it the case that how we insert ourselves in our relationships can become the difference between working together (marital meaning relating to) or generating conflict (martial meaning relating against).  This is a profound distinction solely determined by the positioning of "I".

 

Are you aware of how you enter into a discussion with your partner?  Do you impose your "I" into the conversation without true regard for other?  Do you insist on being attended to? heard?  Do you show up already wanting a particular outcome, attached to having it go your way?  Is your underlying tenet one of respect for the collaboration or do you come ready for a battle? 

 

Marital vs. Martial - is up to "I".

Fact or Fiction

The one hope we have regarding transformational change - that is to once and for all end conflict and suffering in our lives - is to begin to ground ourselves in reality.  In fact, aligning oneself with reality - what IS true vs. what we want to be true - is the very meaningful act of change itself.  Sound easy? 

 

The realization of how extraordinarily difficult this is for each of us to do in every moment is also a reality and a necessary starting point. 

Consider the ways in which we attempt to avoid reality, the ways we trick ourselves into believing a more palpable story.  We deny the facts, uphold an image of ourselves that we want to be true.  We create a story, then choose to believe it, so much so that we are no longer even conscious that we made it up in the first place.  And did I mention that we are very adept, well-practiced story-crafters.  We can build a case, compile the supporting arguments and then justify our actions based on this fictional story.

 

Pick an example from your life, any instance, big or small, where conflict exists.  Look into it.  What assumptions are operating?  When you truly hold these assumptions up to the light of investigation do they seamlessly match the facts? Can you truly stop and challenge the arrived at conclusions long enough to ask open questions?  Are these assumptions really the truth or are you turning assumptions into 'fact' and by doing so conveniently avoiding reality.  Look into it.

Do you invite the truth in as a welcome guest or block the door as if the truth is an unwanted invader?

Are you actually interested in the truth or is the story in your head more attractive?  For most of us, we pick the story every time.  Who wants to deal with any contradictory reality about ourselves. 

 

This is why we make it so difficult to receive the truth.  When the reflection does not adhere to the precious image that we hold about ourselves, when there is a disconnect between how we want to see ourself and what is being told to us, we put all energy into resisting.  Better to dismiss the truth than have to deal with the unpleasantness of reality.

 

Think of the occasions when your spouse, friend, boss - or therapist for that matter - has told you something about your behavior that you do not want to hear.  What happens then?  Do you get defensive and debate it?  Do you advidly go on the attack to disprove what is being told to you?  Do you just plain ignore and disregard the feedback as if it was never said.

 

The lack of openness to input from others, particularly input that goes against the grain, demonstrates an attachment to seeing the world only through one's own lens.  It leads to an aggressive demand that others cater to MY story.  The message is, I get to decide what is reality.  I get to control who is allowed to give me feedback and it must happen on my terms only.

 

What if rather than seeing the truth as intruding, you opened the door to truth as an invited guest.  How you respond is your choice afterall.  If you are willing to dismantle the self-image long enough, there would be room for real learning, exploring, authentic self-questioning.  Yes, then there would be room for actual relating.  The choice is yours.  Look into what you habitually choose.

Listening is an act of love

How well do you really listen to your partner?  Would they say they feel truly heard? 

 

Listening seems like a simple, passive, everyday occurence that we give little thought to.  However, real listening requires something much more from us.  What I am talking about is the deep, intentional act of being open to hearing deeply, allowing the other's words to penetrate us, to fully absorb what is being said.  Real listening requires the absence of one's own agenda, interpretation, judgement.  Real listening is an act of love.

 

Notice how often you enter into a conversation attached to an outcome.  Are you building a case for a certain point of view while you are supposedly listening?  Is the framework with which you enter into dialogues one of winning or losing?  How oftern do you assume what the other person is going to say?  How often do you just tune him/her out entirely, pretending that you are listening when you are not?  

 

Real listening conveys the importance of the other person.  It is relational.  There is a genuine interest in creating a bridge between self and other.  Inherent in this form of connecting is the possibility for discovering something new, exploring something meaningful, having a sacred meeting between two human beings.  

 

Beginning to see that the absence of deep listening is but one manifestation of not loving one's partner is beginning to look more deeply into oneself. 

Compromise is NOT a solution.

I have an issue with "compromise" when used in the context of primary relationships.  Why, you ask, isn't it healthy to be able to find a compromise with your partner when it comes to decision-making?  Isn't this the goal?  Only if you want to have a compromised relationship.

 

Compromise implies a giving in, a giving up.  Each party settles for a partial loss that seems like the best agreed upon lesser alternative.  There is an implied dissatisfaction with the outcome.  Inherent in this process of compromise is the potential either for resentment or score-keeping.  By this I mean that it is likely to come back up in the form of, "last time I didn't really get what I wanted, now I should get x, because you got y the time before."   There is a lingering sense that the other person got a better deal and both can hold this view simitaneously!

 

Compromise can also be instituted as a way to avoid having to work through each decision as it comes up.  A common example of this is often illustrated in how couple's 'compromise' about holidays with one solution.  A couple might decide to spend every other X-mas with alternating sets of parents. This is a common form of compromise that potentially breeds not only a rigidity, but also an inherent resentment.  It doesn't allow room to make other choices in a given year that might make more sense for their circumstance, because someone feels 'owed". 

 

In contrast, a real resolution isn't about finding a compromise, it is an orientation towards discovering the best solution for the situation and the relationship.  This involves a full process of exploration, dialogue and self-discovery.   Both people are willing to look at their own attachments, their feelings, the consequences of possible decisions.  Both feel they have an equal voice.  They are committed to fully participating in the process until they reach a clear deicision, not just driven by a desire to rush to a quick solution in order to be done with it or avoid conflict.  In this way there is joint ownership of the outcome.  And the process itself elicits a relaxed closeness, a sense of teamwork and confidence in what can be understood and accomplished while working together.  The process even if difficult, when worked through, serves to strengthen the intimacy between them. 

 

Compromise leaves a deficit.  A real solution leaves a surplus.

 

 

Cloak and Dagger

I would venture to say that most marriages operate by the "cloak and dagger" method.  What I mean by this is that one's honest feelings, thoughts, motivations are more often than not "cloaked' from the partner.  There can be many justifications assigned to this withholding behavior.  Not wanting to 'hurt' the other's feelings, fearing their reaction, convincing oneself that it is no big deal, prejudging one's own feelings... are but a few of the ways to convince oneself to hide from the relationship.  And all these "reasons" are no more than elaborate justifications to not be honest, vulnerable or take responsibility for the truth. This very "cloaking" then sets up the resultant "dagger".  This may eventually come in the form of simmering resentment over time, or further withdrawal, or explosive anger, or a mutitude of other behaviors that act out whatever hasn't been said directly.

 

Thus to "cloak" one's truth from ones partner makes one accountable for setting up the "dagger".  The stab back is just waiting to happen.  There is inherent and inevitable violence in the withholding.  And the payoff for this?  to maintain control, uphold an image of oneself held dear, to bolster a superior position, to avoid vulnerability...   Remember that the "cloak" serves a selfish purpose.  Best to delve into this before the "dagger" is already in hand.  

 

How do you "cloak"?  How do you then use the "dagger" against your loved ones?

We are the violence in the world

The violence that we condemn in the external world exists within us.  We, each of us, are the violence in the world.  If we deny this, if we push away the truth of this, then we are invariably perpetuating it.  We must be actively struggling towards this realization for this is the necessary start and the only opportunity to exact real change. Herein lies the crucial importance of reflecting deeply on every thought and action.  Anything less than a dedicated committment to this is not taking full responsibility for contributing to the violence upon others.

 

You say you are not violent, look again.  Wherever there is a lack of honesty, a withholding, a refusal to give, a relunctance to set a clear boundary, an attachment to having it your way, a wanting something from someone that is based on past needs...These are the conscious or unconscious acts of violence in relationship.

 

If we want real peace in our lives and in the world at large, then we have to be committed to ending the violence within ourselves that we otherwise inevitably act out onto others.  This difficult process begins with deep, unremittting self-reflection.  It is motivated by seeing the harm caused.  It is our calling as human beings.