Complaining and Complainers

All of us have probably met at least one chronic complainer. You know the type. He always has something negative to say. He's never satisfied. He's quick to find something he doesn't like in any given situation. He's not very pleasant to be around; he casts a dark cloud wherever he goes. Even the most compassionate of us has a point at which listening to the woes of others becomes emotionally depleting.  Being around the chronic complainer is draining; he leaves us feeling exhausted.  For this reason, we try to avoid him whenever possible. 

Or maybe you've known someone who seems to complain about the same thing over and over again. She never does anything to change or improve the situation in question.  She is quick to reject suggestions or advice.  She seems completely uninterested in solving the problem yet she constantly complains about how unhappy it makes her. You eventually get sick of hearing about it.  Her negativity and hopelessness are contagious.  You become frustrated when your attempts to help are repeatedly rejected.  Talking to her makes you feel bad.  Understandably, you start avoiding her calls.

This kind of complaining has negative social consequences. Nobody wants to be around someone who complains all the time.

And yet complaining is pervasive, despite the negative social consequences. It stands to reason, then, that we must derive some benefit from it. Why else would we be willing to risk social ostracization?

As it turns out, there are actually a lot of good reasons to complain. On the most basic level, complaining allows us to express frustration and to receive validation from a sympathetic other. It enables us to discharge negative emotions, to "vent," or to "blow off steam." It has a cathartic effect. We feel better after complaining. In fact, research suggests that people who rarely complain have higher levels of depression than people who complain regularly.

Complaining also helps to avoid the consequences associated with holding emotions in. We need an outlet for our negative emotions. We have to have some way to express them. They don't simply go away if we choose not to deal with them. Feelings like frustration, anger, and resentment tend to fester. We ruminate on the object of our frustration, which only makes us angrier. These feelings eventually boil over and we lash out at whoever happens to be nearby.

Complaining is essential to maintaining healthy relationships. It is the means by which each person in the relationship expresses dissatisfaction or brings to light existing problems. Once problems are identified they can be addressed and ultimately resolved. This prevents the build up of resentment and other emotions known to be toxic to relationships.

 

So while complaining is beneficial and even healthy, in excess it becomes caustic.  The problem is that most people who cross the threshold from healthy to excessive complaining are not aware of having done so.  We rarely tell someone we are put off by his or her constant complaining; instead, we start trying to avoid him.  I suppose one day the chronic complainer wakes up to find himself isolated and alone with no idea why.  Ironically, this gives him something else to complain about...if he can find someone to listen.

Defensiveness and Blame in Conflict

Over the past couple of months I've expressed frustration about how conflict is handled in my marriage.  Specifically, I've said I feel like I automatically get blamed when something goes wrong.  I started doing some research because I wanted advice on how to deal with this effectively.  I wanted my husband and I to learn to resolve conflict constructively.

Unfortunately, I didn't find the kind of advice I was looking for. While a lot of research has been done on conflict there was very little about how to respond to being verbally attacked and blamed.  I did, however, discover a few helpful tips: Avoid responding to negative emotion with negative emotion; this only escalates the conflict.  Express empathy (e.g., "I can see you are feeling hurt and angry").  And above all, try to remain calm. 

This is good advice but it seems to be asking a lot.  It is very difficult to remain calm when someone you love criticizes your very character and blames you for problems you didn't cause.  When attacked, most people automatically become defensive.  We quite naturally want to protect ourselves. A range of emotions are triggered, from fear to sadness to anger.  In the face of this emotional torrent, rational thought and clear reasoning are severely compromised. 

Not that I'm a complete hothead.  There have been times my husband blamed or criticized me that I initially remained calm.  In what seemed like a calm (but firm) voice I have replied, "Please stop blaming me."  I said things like, "It doesn't matter whose fault it is,"  "If one of us 'wins' the other loses.  That means the relationship loses," and "Let's focus on solving the problem, not on blaming each other."  My composure gradually evaporated, however, when my attempts were met with continued blame and criticism.

It occurred to me that it might be easier to remain calm and express empathy if I could understand what was motivating my husband's behavior.  You see, my husband is essentially a good man so I assumed his intent was not malicious.  Maybe there was some underlying reason for his hostility during conflict.

And so I set out to learn about "conflict behaviors."  My initial findings reinforced what I already knew: defensiveness and hostility during conflict is associated with high levels of "marital distress" and increased likelihood of divorce.  Nobody had to tell me this.  Each time a conflict went unresolved I felt a little more hopeless than the time before.  A sense of distance arose in my marriage that had not been there before.  For a marriage to work there must be away to resolve conflict. 

I then learned that "aggressive denial of responsibility" (e.g., criticism, blaming) is employed most frequently by people with fragile and/or unstable self-esteem.  I read about "contingent" self-esteem, whereby one's sense of self-worth is dependent upon maintaining certain self-imposed standards.  (What if those standards include "always being right" or "never losing an argument?"  If that were the case I was completely screwed)!

"Conflict behavior" is also related to "attachment style."  Briefly, attachment style as a concept comes from attachment theory.  Attachment theory states that an infant's relationship with his primary caregiver becomes a template for his interpersonal relationships throughout life.  A healthy, secure infant-caregiver relationship facilitates "normal" social and emotional development.  Problems in the infant-caregiver relationship disrupt social and emotional development.   Inconsistent availability and/or responsiveness to infant needs by the caregiver leads to the development of an anxious or ambivalent attachment style.  The defining feature of this attachment style is anxiety over abandonment.  Adults with an anxious/ambivalent attachment style have a higher tendency than others to display hostility during conflict, to include the use of blaming, threatening, and other verbal aggression.  When compared to adults with secure attachment, they show greater attempts to dominate conflict discussion. 

My research led me to a tentative conclusion: "defensive hostility," "criticism," "aggressive denial of responsibility," and similar "conflict escalating behaviors" stem from underlying insecurities.  (Incidentally, none of the research seems to suggest such behaviors stem primarily from "being an asshole."  So that's good news).  It is not immediately clear to me how to use this information.  Assuming my conclusion is accurate, my husband is unlikely to ever acknowledge said insecurities, perhaps not even to himself.  But perhaps just being aware will arouse my compassion in the midst of conflict.  Maybe seeing criticism as motivated by fear and anxiety will help me to take it less personally.

Conflict, Argument, and Who's to Blame

A few weeks ago my husband and I had an argument.  Things got kind of ugly and both of us ended up saying some not very nice things.  After taking a few hours to regroup, we sat down to talk about what happened.  I've mentioned before that my husband has a tendency to blame me when there's conflict in our relationship.  In this particular instance, I'd clearly said and done some things that were hurtful.  I was angry over what I felt were legitimate grievances but that didn't make my behavior okay.  (Unfortunately, this was a conclusion I reached only in hindsight).

So when my husband sat down to talk things out the first thing I did was apologize.  I admitted that my actions were inexcusable.  My husband immediately agreed.  He then proceeded to list a number of grievances he had with me.  He concluded by asserting that anything he said or did that was upsetting to me was simply a natural reaction to having to deal with my bad behavior.  He went on to say that if I would stop being so difficult to deal with then everything would be fine and we would get along perfectly.

I cannot completely capture how it feels to try to resolve a conflict with someone I love, to humble myself enough to admit I was wrong and to apologize for it, only to be told that I am the root of the problem.  The most immediate emotion is anger.  It feels like a slap in the face.  I become defensive, like I have to justify myself or somehow prove my intentions are good.  I feel frustrated.  Sometimes I feel hopeless.  "What's the point of trying to fix things?" I ask myself.  "We never solve anything.  He just ends up blaming me.  Nothing changes."  On several occasions I have ended the conversation at this point.  I get pissed off and walk away.  It doesn't solve anything but sometimes walking away seems like the only good option.

In this particular instance, however, walking away would have made things worse.  So I told him it wasn't fair for him to place all the blame on me.  "So you're saying that every argument is always both people's fault?" my husband asked. 

I actually had to stop and think about this for a minute.  In any given argument, are both parties at fault?  Is this a rule that applies in all cases?  Or are there arguments where one person is clearly to blame?

"Yes," I finally decided.  "Because a disagreement doesn't have to turn into an argument," I explained.  "And it always takes two people to argue. If one person refuses to engage then you can't have an argument," I added.  I went on to qualify my statement.  "I don't think both people are always equally to blame," I said.  "There are times when one person clearly initiates an argument.  The initiator would probably bear more responsibility in that case.  But still, it takes two people to argue.  If someone tries to start an argument and the other person won't take the bait then there's no argument.  It's just one person acting like an asshole." 

It is a tricky question though.  I think most of us are inclinced to blame the other party when we get into any sort of conflict.  This isn't always a bad thing.  People are motivated to fight for something when they believe in the rightness of their cause.

It's different when the conflict is with someone you love.  The best approach is probably just to agree to disagree, whenever possible.  When this isn't possible compromise is the next best option.  Of course this means that neither party gets everything they want and that both parties have to give something up.  People are not always willing to do this. 

I also think there is something to be said for acceptance.  For example, I'm (begrudgingly) learning to accept that my husband is not going to actively participate in keeping our house neat and clean, no matter how often I ask him to help with these tasks.  And he is (slowly) learning to accept that I become irritable when I'm stressed out and that unfortunately, I get stressed out pretty easily.  Our tendency has been to get upset about these things again and again, to demand that the other change, and then to feel frustrated and disappointed when this doesn't happen.  For me, it is extremely difficult to accept that my husband won't do something I think he should do.  It makes me angry but not as much as it used to.  I try to recognize the other ways he contributes to our lives.  This is a work in progress.

Does it take two for positive change in a relationship? Can one person do it alone?

From time to time I've had individual patients come to me requesting marriage counseling.  "Where's your spouse?" I ask them.  The reply: "He/she refuses to come."  My response has always been to explain that marriage counseling requires the participation of both partners; you simply cannot do marriage counseling alone.  But is this really true?

Change on the part of one person can certainly alter the dynamics of a relationship.  A dynamic is by definition an interactive system or process.  Change in one part of a system therefore changes the dynamics of that system.  An inter-action requires at least two individuals, each responding to the other.  Person A says or does something; person B says or does something in response.  Person A responds to what person B has just said or done; person B then responds to person A, and so on and so forth until the interaction is over.  Because humans are creatures of habit, two people in a relationship begin to develop "typical" ways of interacting with one another over time.  These sytles of interaction become increasingly automatic and are repeated across a variety of situations; they solidify into identifiable patterns.  If these patterns facilitate effective communication and serve to enhance the relationship the relationship will most likely thrive.  Sometimes the patterns of interaction between two people are dysfunctional: they interfere with effective communication and perpetuate conflict.  If the couple does not learn to interact in healthier ways their relationship becomes toxic and will probably not last. 

One person can disrupt unhealthy patterns of interaction in a relationship; it takes two to tango, so to speak.  To do this, one person in the relationship must choose to alter his or her reaction to the other person's behavior.  It only takes one person, for example, to walk away instead of engaging in conflict.  One person can choose to stop making demands of the other and learn to accept that their partner is not going to comply, give in, or otherwise do what they're being asked (or told) to do.  One person can decide not to become defensive when their partner makes a negative comment.  One partner can stop bringing up a topic that leads to arguments. 

There are a lot of things one person can do, particularly if the goal is to reduce overt conflict and/or confrontation.  And sometimes change in one partner can lead to change in the other.  The key word is sometimes. 

On the other hand, one person cannot "fix" a broken relationship.  One person cannot coerce another to acitvely participate in a relationship.  One person cannot force another to care about his or her wants and needs.  One person cannot convince another person to share his or her desires. 

If a person wants help in reducing conflict in his or her marriage then there are things I can do to help.  It is important, however, for the person to understand that this might mean accepting the behavior of his or her partner, even if the behavior in question is not really acceptable (e.g., cheating).   

What makes a relationship last?

My husband and I have been married three years in November.  I wish I could say that I’ve learned a lot about what it takes to make a marriage work during the past three years.  I suppose I could say it, but it wouldn’t be entirely true and I’m not a huge fan of lying.  It’s not that I haven’t learned anything in the past three years.  It’s just that I haven’t been able to successfully apply the knowledge I’ve gained in any meaningful way. 

Here’s what I do know: Marriage is hard!  I realize this isn’t very insightful.  While I am usually a fairly introspective person, I find it very difficult to reflect on and understand my thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors as they apply to my relationship with my husband.  And if it’s hard for me to make sense of myself, I often find it impossible to understand my husband. 

All this makes me wonder, what does it take for a marriage to work anyway?  So of course, I decided to do some research.  I discovered that there has been a lot of research done on this topic.  This research has led to the development of many different theories about what makes a successful marriage.  While each study generated a different list of variables associated with marital success, there were some common themes. 

*Communication: I wasn’t surprised to find good communication repeatedly identified as a factor associated with successful marriages.  Healthy communication allows a couple to understand one another; this enables partners to validate and empathize with each other.  Good communication facilitates allows day to day activities to run smoothly.  (Frequent miscommunication creates unnecessary crises.  For example, miscommunication about where to be and what time to be there can lead to confusion and disappointment.  Important tasks go uncompleted.  Problems arise.  Plans have to be changed, sometimes drastically.  More time is spent trying to fix problems caused by miscommunication, leaving less time for enjoyable activities that would strengthen the relationship).  Good communication also promotes successful conflict resolution.  It prevents disagreements from inevitably turning into arguments.

*Conflict management/resolution: This one didn’t surprise me either.  Couples who can resolve conflict have less conflict.  Successful conflict resolution prevents the same problems from arising again and again.  The ability to compromise leads to the development of solutions that leave both partners feeling loved and respected.  Time isn’t wasted arguing over who is right or who is to blame.  Both partners understand that if one person wins, the other one loses.  If one person loses, the whole relationship loses.  Thus, blaming always has a negative impact on the relationship.    

*Trust: I’ve always heard that you can’t have a relationship without trust – at least not a good one.  The presence or absence of trust impacts the level of security a person experiences in a relationship.  Security – a sense of safety – is one of the most fundamental of human needs.  An individual’s basic needs must be met before higher-level development can occur.  Thus, an absence of trust prevents a relationship from growing.  Distance emerges between two partners.  The relationship becomes dominated by feelings of doubt, fear, and hurt. 

There is a final factor that I believe deserves at least an honorable mention: commitment.  Commitment is the belief – held by both partners – that a relationship is permanent.  Commitment also describes a set of behaviors devoted to maintaining a relationship, even (and especially) when things are not going well.  When people are committed to a marriage, they are willing to do whatever it takes, again and again, to make the relationship work.  If one strategy does not work, they try something else.  Commitment is also characterized by the willingness of both partners to make personal sacrifices for the good of the relationship.

To trust or not to trust?

To trust is to place one's confidence in someone or something.  Trust implies a belief in the truth of what one is told or promised.  It suggests a willingness to place one's faith in another while having no guarantee of a positive outcome. 

With trust comes uncertainty.  The more confident we are that a person or entity will fulfill his/her/its commitment the more willing we are to trust him/her/it.  Still, we can never predict what will happen in the future with complete certainty; thus, there is always some degree of uncertainty associated with trust.  For this reason, we talk about trust in terms of probability.  When deciding to trust (or not to trust), we try to assess the most likely outcome(s) of the situation at hand.

So how do we know who (or what) to trust?  This is a question with important consequences.  If we place trust in the wrong people, we end up getting manipulated, used, or taken advantage of.  If we refuse to trust anyone, we become paranoid and suspicious and we deprive oursleves of meaningful and fulfilling relationships with others.

Unfortunately, there is no magic formula that allows us to make a calculated decision about who we can trust.  There are, however, a few basic guidelines that I have found helpful.

1. Trust is not an allor nothing concept.  Many of us assume that either we can trust a person or we can't; there is no middle ground.  If we can't trust a person completely then we can't trust him at all.  This mindset can create a lot of unncessary problems.  It can cause us to place unconditional trust in the wrong people or to prematurely terminate meaningful relationships in response to even the smallest violation of trust.  It is more helpful to think of trust as varying by category and degree.  From this perspective, you can decide to trust someone in one area but not in another.  For example, I might trust a friend to pick me up from the airport on time but have absolutely no trust in her ability to keep a secret.  We can still have a perfectly healthy relationship; I just know not to tell her anything I don't want anyone else to know. 

2. It is best to trust a person only as much as you know him.  Some of us have the tendency to get ahead of ourselves.  We meet someone new; by the end of the week we've told him our entire life story.  Having just met this person, we have no idea how he will react to or what he will do with this information; we have no information upon which to form an opinion.  Sometimes I talk to my patients about red flags.  For example: if someone you've known for less than a month asks to borrow money, your car, or some other significant item - RUN!  This is a red flag!

3. The best predictor of what a person will do in the future is what you have seen him or her do in the past.  There are, of course, exceptions to this rule.  People can and do change.  It is, however, rare that they do so spontaneously; there is almost always a precipitating factor.  Change requires long term commitment.  Rarely do people invest the time and effort to change unless the negative consequences of their behavior start to pile up.  Some examples.  If a friend is always late and has given no indication that she is committed to changing this behavior, you can trust that she will be late the next time you invite her somewhere (no matter how important the occasion).  If a family member has a history of lying, you can trust that he'll most likely lie to you at some point in the future.  It is in your best interest, then, to investigate whatever he or she tells you before accepting it as truth.  If your spouse has consistently demonstrated that he or she is bad with money, you can trust that he or she will probably continue to make poor financial decisions in the future.  It would be quite foolish to trust him/her to manage the family's finances; such trust would have no basis in reality.

4. If a person is determined to deceive you he will probably succeed.  Let's face it: there are people out there who lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate.  Some people are so good at deception that even the most discerning among us are fooled.  Fortunately, the majority of people are not con artists.  Over the course of a lifetime, almost everyone will be betrayed or deceived at least once.  It is never a pleasant experience.  While it is natural to want to avoid such pain in the future, deciding never to trust anyone ever again is not the best way to do it. 

Self-intimacy and Self-estrangement

Human beings are social creatures.  Sure, we value our possessions and our achievements but of all the things we value it is our relationships we cherish most.  Meaningful intimate relationships give our lives meaning and bring us happiness like nothing else can.  Unfortunately, problems in our interpersonal relationships can wreak havoc on our lives and bring us untold misery and suffering.

Everyone has had some sort of interpersonal conflict over the course of their lives.  Some of us, however, have more difficulty with intimate relationships than others.  Maybe we have trouble choosing the right people to trust.  Perhaps we keep repeating the same mistakes in our relationships time after time.  How do we get past the barriers that are preventing us from having fulfilling relationships?  Ironically, we have to start with ourselves.

Intimacy occurs in a relationship when two people are able to be fully present with one another.  The ability to be fully present with another person, however, requires the capacity to be fully present with yourself.  In other words, in order to develop intimacy with another person you have to learn to be intimate with yourself.  Self-intimacy means feeling connected to all parts of yourself and the full range of your experiences.  To be self-intimate is to accept all parts of yourself, even those that you dislike or that make you feel uncomfortable, ashamed, or vulnerable. 

Denying certain aspects of yourself or certain segments of your experience results in self-alienation or self estrangement.  Terry Cooper (http://www.ptypes.com/) describes self-estrangement as the process of "gradually becom[ing] a stranger to ourselves."  The more self-alienated we become, the less attuned we are to our real wants, needs, hopes, and dreams.  It becomes increasingly more difficult for a self-estranged person to find real joy in life.  Over time, life starts to lose meaning.  This is a natural consequence of losing touch with our innermost desires; we no longer have any idea what might bring us a sense of purpose, meaning, or fulfillment.  To be self-alienated is to be perpetually dissatisfied.  You reach a point where you are so far removed from your real self that you no longer know what makes you happy.   

And of course, self-estrangement causes problems in interpersonal relationships.  People who lack self-intimacy find it uncomfortable to establish intimacy with others.  They have denied whatever aspects of themselves they don't like and have hidden them outside of their conscious awareness.  It is far more difficult, however, to hide these aspects from a person who knows us intimately.  So in order to keep these parts hidden we erect barriers to keep people from getting too close.  Or perhaps the disowned parts of ourselves interfere with the development of intimacy.  Take, for example, a woman who is excessively jealous and controlling.  When her boyfriend confronts her about these behaviors she denies that they are a problem and blames her boyfriend for not making her feel more secure.  Or a man might be unwilling to share his feelings with his wife.  When she tries to get him to be more open he gets angry and defensive and accuses her of nagging.

If a person is unable to accept and tolerate a given aspect of himself then he will probably react poorly when someone else exhibits that same quality.  For example, a person who is not comfortable expressing anger might shut down when his partner becomes angry at him.  

The key to developing satisfying intimate relationships with other people is to develop a satisfying intimate relationship with yourself.  As with so many of the important things in life the way to do this is through mindful acceptance.  Accept whatever part of yourself emerges in a given moment; pay attention to it without trying to push it away.  As these moments of mindfulness accumulate you will come to know and love yourself.