Be nice
Dr. John Gottman’s off-quoted four decades of research on marriage, from which he has compiled reliable predictors of divorce and trustworthy principles for marital success, can be summarized—I believe— in this advice: “Be nice.”
Decades of scientific research has discovered that people prefer to be married to someone who is nice to them. Whodathunk? In fact, his data from observing 4,000 couples shows that satisfied couples make each other feel good twenty times more than they make each other feel bad. Even during conflict, they maintain a ratio of 5:1, making each other feel good five times more than they make each other feel bad during disagreements. Such a mathematical approach invites the simple self-check of identifying one’s planned actions and verbiage as a plus or minus on the “feel good“ scale. That is, asking ourself before we speak or act, “Is this going to make my partner feel good?” If the answer is, “No,” then can we redirect ourself? Is firing a shot into our marriage worth it? Terry Real, LCSW, brings it down to respect; he insists that his clients counter harshness with the mutually agreed-upon standard of treating each other with respect. If the goal is to a happy marriage,
Marriage counselors are often faced with the initial task of getting partners to quit blaming each other for marital problems, and to begin focusing instead on their interactive patterns that have pit them against one another. Uncaring patterns fraught with misunderstanding have not “felt nice,“ and thus have served as a rationalization to each "victim" to not be nice in return. That is, rudeness, inconsideration, and failure on the part of one’s spouse to “be there“ in a supportive way leaves a person defensive, or self – protective, thus justifying behavior that is not protective of the other. The relationship is thus cannibalized. As a result, "communication" becomes a toxic swirl of harshness, criticism, blame, and defensiveness. In this toxic swirl, one or both partners is more interested in communicating how they feel than communicating in a way that protects the other's feelings, and thus is protective of the relationship.
What need happen is the recognition that, instead of being torn asunder by in-fighting, the two can be drawn together by mutual protection in pursuit of a mutual mission (“Shared Meaning” in Gottman terminology).
This Recognition results in a shift from “me” to “we.” Partners switch from protection of self to protection of other, and protection of "us." Marriage is a union; the two are one. To wound one's partner is to wound oneself. Yes, to defend the other with the same level of interest as protecting oneself is vulnerable; it comes without guarantee that the other half of the union will be equally protective. That’s the risk we take when we risk loving. The apostle Paul – ironically a bachelor - summed it up well in Romans 12:18 when he admonished, “As far as it depends upon you, live at peace with others.“ This removes the rationalization for self-protective, self–centered behavior… “Well s/he was mean, first.” That justification might have worked on the playground, but it will destroy a marriage. Adults go first.
This is not easy, of course; no easier than when warring countries call a cease-fire and sit together together at table to work out a peace accord. Nothing about restoring peace can be easy after so many wounds have been inflicted. But, thankfully, countries have been doing it for millennia. Wars end. Peace and reconciliation are worth it. Trust between former enemies is thereafter built, safe interaction by safe interaction. One comes to experience a former enemy as one’s present and future friend through now kind, protective words and deeds. Witness Europe.
If a person cannot be nice to the person they profess to love—even with the help of a counselor trained in couples therapy—then there are likely a few things going on. One possibility is that the person who cannot be nice is convinced that the other’s injurious behavior will continue. Perhaps this is because there has been no meaningful conversation where the hurt partner has felt understood, and their hurts validated. Perhaps there has been no apology (without rationalizations), and a vow to do differently. Or perhaps the unrelenting partner needs individual counseling. Hypervigilent self-protection is often rooted in a personal history—or even trauma—that deserves treatment. If one can't love and protect others, then there is a need help and healing. Ideally, the defensive person will recognize this for themselves. Rarely (never?) does it work well when the victimized partner suggests the other’s need for counseling – or worse – proceeds to diagnose the other with narcissism or bipolar or borderline. That may turn out to be the case, but better to hear it from a professional who can offer support and tools for change.
All relationships have interactive patterns that exist on a spectrum of health; most could be healthier. It is rare that there isn’t room for improvement on both sides of the patterned equation. Best to begin with oneself. A harsh, critical, blaming, defensive cycle changes most quickly when both partners to a kind, respectful, safe , when when change through humble mutual focus on the interactive patterns. Only then will friendship and mutual protection replace reciprocal volleys of criticism, blame, and defensiveness. Only then will the nice-to-nasty ratio rise, such that the marriage is each partner's safest place on earth.