Verified by 
Punishment
To Accommodate or Confront? The Key Relationship Question
Couples need to learn what’s important to accept—and what should be challenged.
Posted June 20, 2018
Over the years, I’ve seen many couples that entered counseling, because they could no longer tolerate their differences. Whether they were still openly confronting their conflicts or merely trying to keep the peace, the friction between them not only had endured, but had grown worse. So they required professional help to discover what was going on beneath the surface of their distressing dilemma: what it is that was so undermining their union that both now experienced it as tenuous.
Doubtless, all couples must deal with differences that, without open-hearted, creative problem-solving, will eventuate in ongoing tensions between them. But if they’re able to grasp which problematic behaviors are changeable and which ones are not — and therefore need to be accommodated — their relational discord can be substantially reduced.
Let’s first consider some possible areas of disharmony between couples, which frankly could involve almost anything. So, for example, their conflicts might relate to:
- The best way to bring up their children, including how to discipline them, what religious training (if any) they should be subject to, and what boundaries ought to be set for them — right down to what they should eat, or when they should go to bed
- An enormous variety of issues relating not only to expressions of affection (both verbal and physical), but — and even trickier — the kinds and frequency of sexual activity they should engage in
- Who’s responsible for which domestic tasks, as well as who gets to have final say on them
- What their aims and goals are as a couple — what is (or should be) important for the two of them
Sue Johnson, the originator of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy, argues in her many articles and books that once a couple develops a secure attachment bond, they’re quite capable of solving their own problems — without, that is, therapeutic assistance. But when it comes to core priorities and values, I’ve often found that committed partners may still need to learn what it takes to harmoniously work through longstanding differences. In fact, their establishing such a secure bond may depend on first showing them how to look at themselves, as well as their dissimilarities, in a more empathic, understanding way. After all, the issues challenging them may be less between them than within them. And this is where interpersonal counseling dovetails with intrapersonal counseling. (And here, see my "Compromise Made Simple: 7 Handy Tips for Couples.")
So, for instance, if one party was raised in a particular manner — was, in a sense, “programmed” that way — they may be adamant that their children be brought up by the same rules. So if they concluded that the corporal punishment they received was ultimately beneficial to them, that this was how they learned right from wrong, they may get into endless marital debates if their partner holds strong beliefs against any sort of physical discipline.
In such cases, where there’s a values clash, and neither party is willing to surrender to the other’s authority, my goal as therapist would be to help them locate what might be called a meta-value they can agree on. In this particular example, I’d review with them the most up-to-date literature on the subject. And a consensus currently exists that corporal punishment, though it can immediately extinguish a child’s misbehavior, eventuates in a large variety of markedly negative consequences (far too numerous to mention here, but which have been delineated in many articles — e.g., see my own three-part post: “Parenting Without Punishment”). So if both parties agree — as a meta-value — that, essentially, they want their child to be better behaved, I’ll suggest to them non-punitive parenting methods that have proven more effective (let alone more humane) than physical punishment.
When both partners are willing to experiment with alternative child discipline methods, they routinely report that they work much better than what, till now, they’d been practicing. Problems arise when one party can’t get comfortable treating the child in a way that’s vastly different from how, growing up, they were treated. And that’s when I need to explore individually the (as yet unrecognized) psychological costs of the harsh treatment they’d endured.
This is just one of innumerable examples I could offer for when I need to examine seemingly irreconcilable differences in a couple and help them discover a solution viable for both of them. But moving beyond a couple’s settling arguments about how to treat their children, typically what I need to target is how they’re treating each other. And here what needs to be addressed is how they can accommodate one another as regards their hard-core differences in native temperament, personal tastes, and preferences. And also, how they can actively (though peacefully) confront and minimize differences at the root of their disharmony.
The simple answer on when to accommodate and when to confront is fairly straightforward. That is, if any of either partner’s habits, positions. or compulsions can clearly be pinpointed as harmful — to themselves, to their partner, and/or to the relationship or family generally — then such behavior, once identified as dysfunctional, should not be accommodated. If the couple is to achieve the desired outcome, then the “erring” party must, however cautiously, be confronted. Effectively doing so will lead both parties to experience a win, though obviously the party needing to change is likely to face a tougher struggle. As I repeatedly stress to clients, change — even small change — can be difficult, because initially it pulls us outside our comfort zone, and so engenders anxiety.
So, to provide one quick example, say a husband has exhibited chronic problems with anger. He came from a family where yelling and screaming was the norm, and consequently it became “normalized” for him. When his wife tries to explain its abusive effect on her and the children, he responds: “That’s just the way I am. Why do you all have to be so sensitive anyway?”
The offender here may well think it’s in his genes or in his (irreparable) conditioning, and therefore that it ought to be accommodated. But, in fact, this well-entrenched “habit” of anger reflects powerful, dysfunctional environmental influences on his development. And such conditioning is subject both to deconditioning and reconditioning. Counseling would then, as concretely as possible, show him how his poorly managed anger has elevated his stress level and compromised his relationships. And also that he’d be a lot happier if he could deal with his frustration in ways other than flying off the handle and intimidating, or alienating, those around him. It’s all a matter of helping him become more motivated to work on what he finally must admit hasn’t served him very well.
For this man’s spouse to try to accept — or better, accommodate — his plainly maladaptive behavior won’t, and can’t, satisfactorily resolve the problem. So this is just one of many areas where the problem must be confronted. Accommodating it, especially when it’s something that over time is remediable, makes neither practical nor psychological sense.
On the other hand, there are at least as many things that couples would be better off accommodating in their partner.
Yes, you’d love to get a cat — you’ve always had one — but your mate is allergic to them. This isn’t something that will be worthwhile (or even humane) to confront your partner about. And the same is true about a variety of tastes and preferences. If your partner likes French provincial furniture, and you have a distinct preference for a much more contemporary style, there’s little sense in confronting the issue in terms of right and wrong, good or bad. No, what needs to happen is that you find a middle ground between the two of you and creatively seek to accommodate both preferences.
Additionally, there’s no sense in arguing, say, that your partner is not extroverted enough, that they should want to get out more. Their introversion is simply core to who they are: They neither want nor need as much external stimulation as you do. This really isn’t something that's subject to change, nor can it be seen as necessarily maladaptive. So meeting in the middle would require each party to bend a little in the other’s direction. That’s a mutually adaptive — or "accommodating" — resolution.
So the next time your partner (or anyone else for that matter) reveals a belief or behavior that seems antithetical to yours, ask yourself: “Can I accommodate this difference, and without in any way sacrificing my core values or personal integrity?” If you can, or can learn to, then back off. But if their behavior is hurtful to you or others, you need to take a stand.
And — as tactfully, compassionately, and respectfully as possible — let the other person know that their behavior is too disturbing for you to accept, and that you need them to seriously consider changing it. For it may be impossible to get the relationship you desire without asserting your wants and needs directly. And don’t forget to come from a place where the other person gets that you’re not competing with them (as in, “My needs should come before your needs”), but that you’re striving to collaboratively improve the relationship, so it’s as healthy — and happy — as it can be.
Finally, just as you’re requesting what reasonable changes you need from them, be willing to ask them what tenable changes in you they might wish for. That’s only fair. And it’s also how the two of you can co-create the relationship you always dreamed of.
© 2018 Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
