Better Alternatives to Unhealthy Relating
Is your relationship or marriage plagued by fights that leave one or both of you feeling unprotected, defensive, controlled, disrespected, unloved or lacking security? There is hope. The mystery behind what causes couple discord has been de-mystified. There are only so many sources of relationship division. They have been understood and named. Anyone with a series of failed relationships might look in the rear view mirror for these tactics. The good news is that they all have antidotes.
Some of the unhealthy tactics noted below are found in abusive relationships, or in relationships complicated by a personality disorder. Cluster B personality disorders include Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Grandiose or Vulnerable), Borderline Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. There can also be narcissism and codependence commingling in the relationship. These can all be difficult to identify, yet wreak havoc in a relationship. One need not be an abuser nor have a diagnosable personality disorder, however, to exercise some of the unhealthy patterns listed below.
In fact, personality disorders are best understood as tendencies that exist on a spectrum. We all carry some unhealthy tendencies, and some of them are listed below. We can all improve our relationships by resisting and replacing the behaviors below. Even when a diagnosable personality disorder is present, I don’t ascribe to the notion that such relationships are hopeless. If persons can own the behaviors below and practice their antidotes, there is hope. (For example, see this video resource on Narcissism, and this video resource and this one on Borderline.)
For those of us who are not “disordered,” but just having relationship problems, we may have picked up these behaviors from childhood, from media, or from culture. They may be natural to our temperament. We may have learned at some point in our past that they worked to defend ourselves, or to get what we wanted or needed. But now they’re creating problems. To recognize this is a good thing, as it gives us something to blame other than our partner, and something to change in our selves.
These unhealthy forms of relating, along with their alternatives, are organized into:
Research-identified destructive patterns
Pitfalls to communication over regrettable incidents
Common driver
Expecting or Demanding Conformity
Control
Emotional abuse
Evasion
Irrationality
Throughout the above categories, underlying themes transcend categories and may be found in multiple specific tactics: self-centeredness, lack of empathy, failure to check and reflect understanding, entitlement, critical negativity, exploitation, manipulation, control, lack of shame, disregard for appropriate boundaries, double standards, and diversion to evade responsibility. These are all in service to self-benefit.
Manipulators are out to win; to have their way. That’s not a loving relationship; that’s a contest. To “win” means one’s partner has lost. It also means the relationship has lost. And if one partner repeatedly loses, they may grow weary of losing and leave a toxic relationship. Rather than defeat one another, lovers protect one another. Love serves the other’s benefit.
Read on to find the culprits underlying marital discord. More importantly, note their remedies. If you begin to accuse your partner of these things, be conscious of the tendency to project. Projection is the unconscious transfer of one’s own emotions, thoughts, motives and methods onto another. It is a common form of self-protection and is a tactic of its own, listed below. Anatol Rapoport’s Assumption of Similarity advises that we search ourselves for a negative quality we’re ascribing to our partner, and consider whether our partner has a positive quality we’re attributing only to ourselves. Before you use this list as a reason to leave a relationship (and it may be that), use it to challenge—and to change—yourself. Self-reflect. Ask “Do I do the very thing(s) I accuse my spouse of doing?” Change the relationship by changing yourself. Then your partner may be able to hear what you’d like to see them change.
If you find that volition is not enough and that you need help changing entrenched habits, seek therapy. Seek coaching for skill development. And pray. Nothing changes the heart toward another like prayer.
In this first section, six destructive patterns are detailed. These have been identified through the observational research of Dr. John Gottman as consistent patterns in unhappy marriages and relationships.
Dr. Gottman’s Six Destructive Patterns
Harsh Startup - Harsh words create self-defensiveness in the recipient. Whether at the start of a conversation or elsewhere, harshness includes a negative tone, excessive volume, name-calling, “you” language, global language (all, nothing, every, always, never), sarcasm, condescension, and sometimes profanity. These feel unprotective to the recipient, who therefore becomes self-protective, and conflict is underway. The antidote is to be protective of our partner, even from the outset; to be gentle.
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Named after the image painted in Revelation 6 of the end times, the following ride like a team of horses, working in concert to destroy a relationship.
Criticism: This is finding fault in our partner, assigning blame, accusing, or demeaning their character. The antidote is to find the longing under the criticism and name it as a positive request, even adding an affirmation of when our partner has done what we’re seeking. This turns a criticism into a compliment and articulates a path for relational success.
Defensiveness: This is self-protection. It arises naturally in response to harshness or criticism. Mutual defensiveness fuels conflict. The antidote is other-protection, including owning what we can for at least part of the problem. If both parties are protective of one another’s feelings, interests, wounds, and what is important to the other, then the self-defensive cycle will slow, or even stop. Before getting defensive, get curious. What can you protect for your partner so they don’t have to be self-protective?
Contempt: This is disdain; it is a “negative sentiment override” that sees our partner in the worst light, assumes the worst intent in their words or actions, and dwells upon aspects of our partner that irritate us or that we dislike. It is recalling their failures and disappointments and not calling to mind their successes, ways they are there for us, and the positive side of their personality traits. The antidote is a “positive sentiment override” that nurtures what we admire or are fond of in our partner.
Stonewalling: This is withdrawal. The stonewaller has become overwhelmed and stopped talking; dropped out of the conversation. It is now like we’re talking to a stone wall. Stonewallers give two reasons for stonewalling. Either they have given up being understood, or they can’t think of anything to say that won’t make matters worse. Either way, it is a form of self-protection, or insidiously, an attempt to protect the relationship from the stonewaller’s flooded condition. The antidote is to ask for understanding and/or to ask for and take a break for physiological self-soothing.
Flooding and Body Language: Flooding is a physiological condition characterized by elevated biometrics that Dr. Gottman calls, “body language” (not here referring to eye rolls, crossed arms, heavy breaths, etc.). Flooding is also sometimes known as “diffuse physiological arousal,” Amygdala hijack, animal brain, reptilian brain, and the fight or flight response. It is characterized by an elevated heart rate, the presence of cortisol and adrenaline in the blood stream, an elevated oxygen saturation level, dilated pupils, sweaty palms, reduced activity in the prefrontal cortex, and increased activity in the more primitive, instinctual parts of the brain. Norepinephrine drives this condition, for which there is no offsetting enzyme, meaning that it will take time to come down from this condition. The antidote, therefore, is physiological self-soothing; it is recommended to take twenty minutes or more to return to a resting state where respectful, listening conversation can resume. The difference between this and stonewalling is that stonewalling is done by unilateral decision to protect oneself, while taking a break is done by mutual decision to protect "us."
Failed Repair Attempts: A repair attempt is any attempt to restore harmony once a relationship has been interrupted by discord. Repairs fail either because they were not initiated, were poor repair attempts by the recipient’s judgment, or were rejected, thus leaving the couple at odds. The antidote is that couples “not be okay with not being okay” and that one or both partners initiate repair— and that the recipient lets there be repair—even if the recipient makes a positive request for an adjustment to the repair.
Negative Memories: Negativity, in general, destroys a relationship. But negative memories—the way a partner or couple describe their shared history—has a direct correlation to their perspective on their present relationship—positive or negative. And that lens is predictive of whether a partner or couple will regard their future positively. It is a glass-half-full versus glass-half-empty lens. The antidote to negative memories is to re-write one’s history from a positive perspective. That is, to notice and recount the positives in the relationship history; to count the blessings; to see the silver lining; to be thankful.
Dr. Gottman’s research has also identified a method by which couples can review a past regrettable interaction and mine it for gold. It is a guided conversation that explores the key ingredients that tend to spark conflict. Its purpose is to gain mutual understanding that can be used to avoid future conflicts. It helps a couple identify what each partner was trying to protect during the conflict (perhaps a past wound, or feelings for which they wanted empathy, or a perspective they wanted understood, or something important to them they wanted the other to regard as important, etc.). The goal is that in mining the past conflict for understanding, a plan may result by which the couple can better avoid similar future conflicts.
This method of “talking it out” is spelled out in The Gottman Institute’s booklet, Aftermath of a Fight: How to repair after a fight or regrettable incident, which can be purchased through the Store at Gottman.com. But for the purposes of this paper, the unhealthy forms of relating that can be pitfalls that derail the process, are listed here.
Pitfalls to Talking It Out
Interrupting -
When we interrupt, we’re more interested in being understood than in understanding. Interrupting inhibits listening, which impedes understanding. Instead, let your partner fully express themselves as you listen to understand.
Failure to Reflect Empathy and Understanding -
To listen without voicing empathy and understanding is to fail from the start. Empathy and understanding does not mean agreement; it means we heard. Saying, “I get it,” doesn’t count. Sarcasm, derision, minimizing and sighing make inert even the best words. Responding reflexively to our partner by stating our own feelings and point of view is to skip empathy and understanding.
Self-Defensiveness and Rationalization -
When we defend ourselves—through the above Four Horsemen or other means—and rationalize things our partner has explained had an ill effect on them, we bypass empathy that could have connected us. The goal of "Talking It Out" is to understand how something affected the other, so we can protect and defend them. Don’t get defensive, get curious. How can you defend and protect your partner? If both are asking this question, both get protected without self-defensiveness.
Detail Derailment -
The goal of understanding can be derailed by sparring over details, such as what day of the week something happened, or in proximity to what other events, or myriad other details. The brain trims details over time, and two brains will trim different things. Let it go and focus on understanding the other's feelings and what was important to them. Then you'll be poised to protect and support them.
Disrespecting Feelings -
Partners sometimes object to or minimize how their partner felt, or tell them they should not have felt that way. Instead, empathize. Empathy does not mean you would have felt the same way; it means you can feel what they felt.
Judging -
Judging is could mean deciding that the other doesn’t mean what they said, or that their apology was insincere, or that their motives in reconciling are self-serving, or that while they’re saying the right words, “their heart isn’t right.” It is also returning to the interpretation we had prior to listening to our partner, of what their words or actions “meant.” It is putting oneself in the place of judge. “I’ll decide what your words meant.” Yes, trust is vulnerable, and a partner may may prove themselves untrustworthy, insincere, or with ulterior motives. But, we cannot know another’s heart or what they “really meant,” despite their explanation. The alternative to judging is to give the benefit of the doubt, to believe the other, to accept that our partner’s perspective can have legitimacy, too.
Somatic & Emotional Derailments -
The way something feels physically and emotionally will remind us of past events that “felt” the same way. This is natural, but “garbage dumping,” or piling on topics, confuses the process. Stick to the subject at hand. The exception is where we note similar events in the “triggers from the past” section of the talking it out or Aftermath of a Fight process. When either party is flooded (see Gottman’s Destructive Patterns above), agree to a time-out and to an appointed time to resume the discussion after both partners are calm.
Negative Body Language and Lack of Eye Contact -
Mirror neurons pick up the "heart" (accurately or not) of a person’s meaning. Thus, body language— the look on the face, the tilt of one’s eyes, the position of the body—all can seem to confirm, or perhaps contradict, the words we’re hearing. Be attentive to your non-verbals cues.
(End of Pitfalls to Talking It Out)
______________
More Unhealthy Forms of Relating
&
Their Better Alternatives
Use this list not to accuse your partner, but to understand and come together
against these common enemies that harm your relationship.
As you read, own those to which you are prone and commit to their antidotes.
Common Drivers:
The categories below also have common denominators; factors that cross over all of the categories. These include:
Selfishness
Selfishness is the root. It is the mothership; the cancer lurking somewhere underneath all of the relationship-harming tactics below.
Human nature is self-interested, at least; often self-serving, self-centered perhaps, and selfish at worst. Selfishness puts our own feelings, point of view, past, preferences, needs, and circumstances above those of our partner. It insists upon its own way, serving the self rather than the other, protecting the self rather than the other.
Selfishness is worsened by formative wounds and unprotective relationship experiences. But whether so rooted or a mere fallout of human nature, in an egalitarian relationship or marriage, selfishness must be yielded to love. Love is the opposite of selfishness; love treats another in a way that benefits them even if—especially if—it costs us something. A healthy relationship is characterized by mutual other-centeredness; by love.
Expecting or Demanding Sameness:
Allowing little differences to become major divisions
This is also an over-arching theme to bear in mind when reviewing the specific harmful tactics below. Anything and nothing can destroy a relationship bond; big things and little things, important things and inconsequential things.
Relationships—and certainly the unique union that is marriage—are fragile bonds. They are protected when we unite against the myriad things that could divide us, disallowing a hostile takeover. Only the couple can protect itself against "death by a thousand cuts," against sure-to-come differences that can permanently divide them, if allowed to do so. Expect differences in feelings, opinions, and priorities; yield to one another in order to win.
Rejecting Temperament Differences
This is rejection of temperament differences like extroversion versus introversion, internal versus external processing, etc. It may include ridiculing or vilifying differences, demanding change. Yes, we adjust to one another out of consideration, but without expecting a transformation of temperament or conformity to our own. Love seeks to understand innate differences, accepting them as part of the whole. Positive Sentiment Override is about seeing the positive side of what we could view sely, but choose not to.
Emotional or Cognitive Hijack
A form of rejecting differences, this occurs when one party insists that his or her thoughts, logic, rational, and ideas for resolution are the most important part of the discussion, or opposite—that his or her emotions and the feel of the relationship are the most important part of the discussion. One is seeking empathic connection; the other is seeking a logical conclusion. In this “hijack,” the cognitively-focused-partner dismisses empathy and connection on the way to a conclusion, or the emotionally-focused person skips validation of the other’s thoughts and ideas on the way to emotional connection. Both need empathy and understanding, but in a different order. The opportunity is to recognize your partner’s needs in this balance, which may be different or even opposite from your own. Learn what is important to each other and support it.
Control:
Manipulation and control underly many of these unhealthy behaviors, but the following are overt attempts at control:
Passive aggression
Passive aggressive speech and behavior is attempting to get what one wants through indirect, non-physically-aggressive means. The aggression (seeking to get something from someone else) is passive; it is hidden. There is a disconnect between what one is saying or doing and what one is actually seeking. The antidote is to identify what you desire directly, but respectfully. Kindly. State what you desire positively, and even add a commendation of an example of when your partner has provided what you’re seeking.
Threats
Threats are an attempt to control by targeting something of importance to someone, perhaps even something necessary to survival. The threat might be physical, emotional, social, familial, financial, occupational, or otherwise. For example, “If you don’t do as I say, I’ll post on social media those compromising pictures of you.” Or, “If you divorce me, I’ll take the kids and move out of state and you’ll never find us.”
Emotional Blackmail
Emotional control is wielding control over someone by withholding love, approval, affirmation, acceptance, and other things spouses have a right to expect from one another, unless a certain demand is met. In a loving relationship, partners ideally give to each other more empathy, support, love, affection, and encouragement than either finds anywhere else.
Using “authenticity” to excuse inconsideration
It is healthy to live authentically. But in relationships, authenticity is always in tension with consideration. No one gets to live in complete authenticity at all times, unless they live self-sufficiently on an island, alone. Every one of us balances what we authentically want to do with, for instance, what is legal and healthy. We balance what we want to do with what we need to do. Relationships are a constant balance between authenticity and consideration for the other person(s) in the relationship. The way we want to live, what we want to say, and the choices we make are all balanced with caring consideration for our partner and others with whom we live.
Failing to Accept Influence
This is disregarding one’s partner’s point, perspective, ideas, preferences or tastes, and simply proceeding as one would as if not in a relationship. The opportunity is for both parties to instead "yield to win."
Invalidation
This is invalidation of another’s feelings or point of view. It is to minimize another’s emotions and delegitimize their alternate perspective, experience, or thoughts. It is to insist that there are not two or more valid perspectives, but only the controller’s perspective.
Minimizing, Diminishing, and Dismissing
A form of invalidation, a partner’s differing ideas, opinions, or feelings are diminished, minimized or dismissed verbally or non-verbally (through eye-roll, a smug smile, a scoff, etc.). Empathy is withheld. Differences, including differences of opinion and conflict over differences are best approach first with empathy and understanding. Empathy is not feeling the same way; it is recognizing and coming alongside another in what they feel. Understanding is not coming to the same perspective and conclusion, it means we have taken the time to consider and recognize the other’s perspective. Reflecting understanding does not mean we agree; it means we heard.
Brainwashing
An intense form of invalidation, brainwashing is manipulating someone into believing that their legitimate, and sometimes even superior, views are untenable and need to be forsaken in favor of the brainwasher’s views. The brainwasher will have something to gain. Research, debate, and verification are devalued, mocked, or disallowed. In healthy relationships, differing ideas are given a patient, respectful hearing, and verification of truth and efficacy are welcomed.
“But”-ing
A form of invalidation, this is responding to what our partner has said with “But…" It is casting aside or discounting, or even objecting to the other’s feelings, point of view, experience, or needs. It is making the conversation about our own feelings, point of view, experience or needs. It is the opposite of empathy and understanding; The conversation becomes an unproductive series of “Buts…” with neither party feeling heard. It is argument as sport. The opportunity is to instead always lead non-defensively with empathy and understanding. Empathy does not mean we feel the same way; it means we can feel what the other feels. Voicing understanding does not mean that we agree; it means that we listened.
Triangulation
Triangulation is in contrast to direct communication wherein two people seek to understand one another in order to reconcile. Triangulation is telling others one’s own version of events—usually outside the hearing of the other—portraying oneself as the victim in order to gain allegiance against the other. The third party might be a close friend, a sibling, a parent, a counselor, or an institution. Healthy conversation communicates directly and respectfully, wanting to understand and find a mutual peace, not to defeat one another.
Objectifying
This is seeing a person as utilitarian… an object from which to derive pleasure, a means to an end, a stepping stone toward a personal goal, a tool in service to one’s agenda. It is reduction of a person to an object without concern for their human experience, feelings, and needs. Love sees another as precious, cherished, of inestimable worth; whose own needs and experience are worth protecting and defending.
Punishment or Rewards for Conformity
Control is the goal of abusive relationships. Punishments or rewards for conforming behavior may be dispensed as a misuse of the principles of behavioralism by which we all live (that which is rewarded tends to increase; that which is punished tends to cease). For example, access to a car or money or entertainment might be given only in exchange for a task done, or done in a way that conforms to the controller’s desires. Love learns what is meaningful to one another, unselfishly giving and serving with mutual expressions of appreciation.
Positive Reinforcement
This is giving positive attention, behavior, resources, affection, praise or rewards for conformity, especially when that conformity serves the controller’s purposes and ignores the victim’s desires or needs. It is positive reinforcement for the purpose of manipulation. In healthy relationships, appreciation is mutual and generous, upbuilding, unconditional and other-centered.
Love Bombing
Love bombing is the lavishing of gifts, get-aways, attention and declarations of love and affection after treating someone with inconsideration, unkindness, or verbal, circumstantial or physical abuse. Love and attention are good things if they are part of a sincere repair followed by tangible, lasting change. But with love bombing, the motive is self-beneficial—to get away with mistreating someone, and to do so again and again without lasting repentance. The gifts and attention are designed only to restore oneself to good standing, then the abusive behavior resumes. By contrast, in safe relationships, kindnesses, gifts, attention, affection, and declarations of love are normative, selfless, mutual, unconditional, and if compensating for bad behavior, are followed by cessation of that bad behavior.
Symbolic Aggression
This could be something as small as a glare or a threatening gesture, or as overt as slamming a door, punching a wall, throwing something, or brandishing a weapon. The goal is to condition others through intimidation or fear to avoid upsetting, confronting or contradicting the abuser. Mature, safe relationships use power to protect, not threaten.
Hurt and Rescue
This is putting someone in a desperate situation from which they’ll need rescue, then coming to their rescue, similar to pushing someone into the ocean and then throwing them a life preserver. The motive is to foster dependence. By contrast, love does not endanger; it protects proactively and at all times, not just when self-serving or endearing.
Emotional Abuse:
Abuse is a strong term and should be used cautiously. But some things are abusive, whether physically, circumstantially, in matters of power and control, or emotionally.
Emotional Barriers
This is disallowing someone’s emotions. Legitimate frustration, anger, sadness, hurt, etc. are not allowed. Even positive emotions, such as happiness, might be suppressed if such emotions do not fit with the controlling partner’s interests at the moment. The objective here, once again, is control or conformity. The opposite is to allow each other to feel what each person feels and to empathize with one another—not feeling the same way, but supportively coming alongside one another’s feelings.
Shaming
Shaming is humiliation through mockery, insults, expressions of contempt, voicing disappointment, etc, whether privately or in the presence of others. Lovers protect one another, including each other’s image and feelings of self-worth.
Double Bind
The Double Bind is to put someone in a position wherein, no matter what they choose, it will be wrong. It is setting up a person for failure. It may be placing a person in a role for which he or she is ill-equipped, assigning more tasks than could be accomplished under the circumstances, or disallowing adjustment to changing circumstances. The victim’s subsequent failure is then used against them. In caring relationships, partners do not put loved ones in impossible binds; they set each other up for success and help one another.
Infantilize
This is to reduce the other to the status of a child, such that they perceive themselves, and perhaps are perceived by others, as incompetent to hold power or to be trusted with significant choices and tasks. In egalitarian relationships, spouses respect each other, honor their different gifts, different ways of doing things, and different standards. There is a yielding to differing strengths, and an allowance for growth.
Monitor and Stalk
To monitor or to stalk is to surveil someone for the purpose of gaining information to use against them, control, blackmail, or somehow gain advantage over them. (Monitoring the whereabouts of one another’s phone for safety is not stalking if mutual permission has been granted and that access is not abused for selfish or nefarious purposes.) Love trusts and is trustworthy.
Intrude and Interrupt
This is to have no respect for boundaries. It is interrupting conversations, walking into closed rooms without knocking, opening others’ personal mail, inserting oneself into another’s task or project. It is essentially doing as one pleases, despite convention, rights to privacy, declared boundaries, voiced objections or requests. Sound relationships are built on mutual consideration and respectful treatment.
Covert Aggression
This is the disguising of insults as helpful advice, instruction, or unsolicited help. Such “helpfulness” is recognized by the recipient, and perhaps by others, as a vote of non-confidence designed to make someone look inferior. Loving relationships are marked by encouragement and protecting of another’s pride.
Amplification
This is amplifying someone’s weaknesses, flaws, or failures, while minimizing or ignoring their strengths, virtues and successes. Its goal is to elevate oneself. By contrast, a secure person affirms, encourages, and builds up their partner.
Stonewalling
This is withdrawal into non-communication for the purpose of punishment or manipulation until getting one’s way. It is deprivation of attention and affection, perhaps even with the intent of triggering fears of abandonment. Taking a break when flooded is not stonewalling, nor is one’s silence after they’ve given up on receiving empathy and understanding for what they’ve been trying to express. Rather than stonewalling, stay in the conversation, seeking to understand as much as you seek to be understood. If flooded, request a break and propose a time for continuing the conversation when mentally ready to hear one another and reflect understanding.
Lying
A lie is an intentional denial, misrepresentation, or manipulative omission of what one knows to have been factually true. A lie of commission is knowingly making a false statement. Lies of omission leave things out in order to paint an inaccurate picture favorable to the liar. But be cautious before using the combustible word, “lie.” It is not a “lie” to be unable to recount every detail of an incident (that is impossible). It is also not a lie to have different memories and a different experience of the same event (that is guaranteed). It is also not a lie to refrain from saying volatile or wounding things, even though they are what we think and feel. Rather, honesty means that loving partners do not intentionally deceive one another for self-benefit. Honesty (considerate honesty, not brutal honesty) builds trust, and trust is a pillar of a mutually-satisfying relationship.
Gaslighting and Crazy-Making
The term, gaslighting comes from the 1938 play, Gas Light, and its subsequent 1944 screenplay Gaslight and subsequent remakes. In the storyline, a man marries a woman for her inheritance, then through lies and manipulation leads her and others to question her sanity. His intent is to gain control of her wealth by having her institutionalized.
Gaslighting in a relationship can take various forms, including saying something, then denying saying it, or telling someone that what they clearly saw did not happen, or saying something hurtful, mean, or manipulative, then blaming the recipient for being hurt or offended by it, or for having “read into it” some unintended meaning.
Be cautious in the use of this term, as it is not gaslighting for one’s partner to have different feelings, to hold a different point of view, and to have experienced the same event differently. This is actually guaranteed. Gaslighting, by contrast, is willful misrepresentation for personal advantage.
In healthy relationships, partners do not lie to win or to gain advantage over the other; partners have each other’s best interest at heart. They can trust that what they hear from their partner is true; each can rely on the other’s integrity for protection.
Negative Insinuation
This is the use of subtleties, such as veiled comments, innuendo, tonal inflection, and body language to insult, or to imply another’s inferiority. Because the forms it takes are intangible and somewhat subjective, it is possible for the offender to deny meaning what seemed clearly insinuated. By contrast, love is kind.
Gang Stalking
Gang stalking is enlisting a group, mob, community or institution to negatively impact a victim. It may be in-person, online, in professional, social, or family settings. It might be overt or the organizer might hide behind anonymous communication. Mature, healthy relationships are characterized by direct, respectful communication where each respects the other’s feelings, listens to the other’s point of view and takes into consideration their legitimate (and often contrasting) needs.
Feigning Innocence or Confusion
A form of gaslighting, this is pretending to have not done what one intentionally did, or feigning confusion over why something that was intended to wound, caused wounding. The denier may feign a look of surprise or “play dumb.” Maturity owns up and apologizes.
Moving the Goalpost
This is changing the “win” just before or after the victim has satisfied the originally set goal. For example, if having dinner at 5:30 was agreed-upon, then there is criticism that it wasn’t ready earlier, or that dinner didn’t include dessert. If a spouse plans a date as requested, there is criticism that it was the wrong kind of date, or that the wrong sitter was chosen. The victim will never get it right. In good relationships, agreements are kept, changes are negotiated, efforts are appreciated, and affirmations are generous.
Evasion:
An unhealthy relationship tends to devolve into criticism and defensiveness, with escalating harshness and eventual withdrawal into silence. This cycle can be stopped, in part, by each partner taking responsibility for what they can. We own our own faults, alleviating our partner from criticizing or blaming us. Evasion is the opposite, specifically:
Deflection or Diversion
When a person is called out on a lie, or asked a direct question, the answer to which would cast the person in a negative light, this tactic evades responsibility by diverting attention elsewhere. Or it may deflect the question, or give an irrelevant or vague response. Another method is to change the subject, or call attention to the questioner’s or someone else’s wrongs, or to challenge the challenge, such as: “How dare you accuse me of that!” Instead of evasion, the opportunity is to seek to understand someone’s complaint, asking in turn for mutual understanding. Be quick to own what you have come to understand was hurtful, disrespectful, inconsiderate, wrong, etc. Apologize, make amends, and refrain from the same behavior in the future.
Blame-Shifting
Blame-shifting is responding to someone’s disappointment, hurt, sadness, or other emotion resultant from a legitimate complaint, by evading responsibility. The victim is instead blamed for causing the abuse, or for being thin-skinned, or unable to take a joke, or for bringing it on themselves. It is not blame-shifting to want one’s experience of the situation understood, but excusing an abusive response is not okay. Whenever there has been an unsatisfying exchange—to whatever degree—couples have the opportunity to explore and own misdeeds, inconsiderations, or inexcusable behavior, apologize and repent.
Vilifying the Victim
This occurs when a victim is criticized for appropriately creating boundaries or standing up for himself or herself against harshness, aggression, selfishness, or harm. Instead, the partner’s self-defensiveness could be explored to learn what we can protect for them.
Playing the Victim
This is the abuser portraying himself or herself as the victim of circumstances beyond their control. They were just along for the ride; not the driver. Or, as with blame-shifting, abusive behavior is excuse because the other “forced them into it.” While circumstances and the other’s experience are always worth hearing, at the end of the day maturity means taking responsibility without excuse for the part we played, especially if abusive in any way.
Rationalization
Instead of accepting responsibility for wrong-doing, or for words or actions that had a hurtful or ill effect on another, the wrong is painted as right, or to be expected, or even as caused by the victim. Of course, room must be made for listening to understand each other’s different experience of the same event. But, rationalizers do not learn from listening; they repeat the same offense because they’ve justified it. Love means caring how words and behavior affect one another; making adjustments, not excuses.
Irrationality:
Some unhealthy relational behavior is simply non-sensical. Many of the following could also be categorized under control, as they insist upon one’s own way, no matter how irrational that insistence.
Splitting
Splitting is “black and white” or “all or nothing” thinking. It shifts from seeing a person or entity as “all good” to “all bad.” In family systems, splitting identifies one child as the “golden child” and another as the “black sheep.” Splitting is a disordered form of self-protection that occurs in response to a real or perceived slight, injury, or disappointment. It fails to acknowledge the tension that both positive and negative qualities exist in any person or entity—including in oneself. Relationships require the realistic perspective that people have good qualities and bad; will perform well sometimes and at other times not so well, or even quite badly. In healthy relationships partners accept that at times their partner will please them and at times will disappoint, and the same is true of our partner’s experience of us. Unconditional love extends grace.
Scapegoating
Scapegoating is refusing to acknowledge the breadth of a conflict and the role played by each person or part, but instead singling out a “fall guy.” In a family system, the fault might routinely be placed on a particular child who cannot effectively defend himself or herself. Mature communication is the brave acceptance of responsibility by each person and the acknowledgment when a circumstance is no one’s “fault.”
Expecting Mind-reading
This is holding someone responsible for not knowing what was not communicated. It is the expectation that the other should "just know." If the victim does not know what was not made known, they are charged with not loving or caring enough to know. The healthy alternative is to kindly voice to one another your hopes, expectations, and what is important to each of you about an upcoming event.
Double-Mindedness
This is living as if something is acceptable behavior for oneself, but unacceptable for others. For example, wanting to be excused for raging at others, but being incensed if one is raged at; or unilaterally making exceptions to mutual agreements, but declaring a breach if on the receiving end of the same. It is living by the double standard, “I do unto others what I would not tolerate being done unto me.” Maturity treats others with the same standard with which one wants to be treated.
Doublethink
Doublethink is to simultaneously maintain contradictory positions. For example, to publicly maintain a moral stand, then abandon it in private. It is remembering something when it is advantageous to remember, then forgetting if convenient, then remembering again when remembering better serves one’s purpose. By contrast, sound relationships are grounded in integrity.
Entitlement Mentality
Similar to Double-Mindedness, this is the mindset that “The rules don’t apply to me.” It is doing as one pleases, regardless of ethics. It is expecting or demanding that an exception be made or special treatment be given, such as being moved to the head of the line, or not being punished for violations. It is wanting courtesies that the entitled person would not afford to others. This is especially prominent in narcissism. By contrast, healthy relationships are marked by humility, justice, yielding to one another, or even putting another above oneself.
Remember to use this list not to accuse your partner, but to understand and come together against these common enemies that harm your relationship.
Own those to which you are prone and commit to their antidotes.