I am thinking today that it would be a valuable exercise for each partner in the marriage to fill-in a detailed picture for their partner of their own vision of how a particular conflict situation would come to resolution, totally from their own point of view, from inception to conclusion. This would be done in a turn-taking way, so that while one is describing their vision of the situation the other is simply listening and taking the picture in. The task is not to solve the situation. The task is to see how the other person sees it. To walk in the others moccasins. Objections are saved for latter. Often we do not stop to actually take the other person in on their own terms. To actually be with them as they are. This is an exercise meant to increase both the experience of connection and empathy with ones partner.

This experience of empathy/connection is necessary for each in a marriage to feel that their partner “gets them.” This is a necessary foundation to feeling that we “have our partner’s back.” That we are “there for them.”

Related to our mammalian/primate evolutionary roots, core attachment in the home base is typically the place of safety from the threats in the outer world. And psychologically this is probably our deepest longing towards our primary partner… that with them we will be emotionally most safe. But there is a complexity inherent in this process, because our very vulnerable reaching to our primary partner for safety can itself be fraught with its own feelings of deep threat. In order to come home to the safety of our partner, we must first heal our fears about reaching for home with our partner. Something well worth doing. 

The two different action tendencies (pursuing and avoiding) are two different ways of responding to vulnerability. One reaches for reassurance from the other to be reassured while the other holds back and cautiously proceeds until the signs indicate that is is safe to proceed. The pursuer will commonly not be reassured by the avoiders holding back, and the avoider will commonly feel intimidated by the pull from their partner to come forward.  `

Thinking about the two different action tendencies… to pursue or to avoid. And about how each in the marital dance, is somehow doing the best that they can… but within the framework of their respective tendency to either reach or to hang back. If each could tell their attachment story, there would be two different depictions of how contact comes to be made. 

Each has a picture of how the love dance comes to fruition, but the pictures are commonly different, and in the fusion of loving, both are commonly unaware of how different the other’s picture is. And when the love dance fails each often miss-concludes that the other doesn’t actually love them at all. 

Some cannot escape the feeling of “being bad,” while some others cannot bear the feeling of “being bad.” This is a common but very difficult contrast in many marriage-of-oppposites. Among these couples the core experience of each partner can be inherently threatening to the other. This sense of mutual threat can deeply interfere with the couple’s experience of mutual empathy, joining/connecting, or being “on the same page.” 

Commonly, the partner identified with “being bad” can end up feeling very alone and judged in their badness… that they are the only one in the marriage who is bad. This sense of not “sharing the badness'” can overwhelm profoundly threaten their sense self-worth/self-esteem, resulting in defensive attempts to throw the “badness” back at their more self-assured, defended partner.