America Needs Couples Therapy (Part Four): Solutions and Conclusion

The Current Predicament

Political polarization is nothing new for society. Humans have always been politically liberal/conservative, risk-tolerant/risk-averse, and spontaneous/calculated. What feels unique, and has been observed by many, is that fragmentation and division have increased, recognizable by average citizens and our elected officials' lack of acknowledging and validating the arguments of the opposing side's perspective. In essence, we haven't been living in a bipartisan era. Discourse seems to have intensified to the degree that merely expressing an opinion feels like social or career suicide. 

While this is not a new phenomenon, it is new to us. Just as the pandemic was new to us, earlier generations of people have been exposed to the same fear of contagion, media hysterics, and residual physiological and psychological impacts of such periods. 

This begs the question, with the gap of civil discourse widening, leaving little room for consensus, how did we get to this place? Also, what does it take to find and reclaim some common ground with space for civil discourse? In this article, I examine how we became more polarized, what this does to our psychological well-being, and how we might return to a place that might feel more mutually agreeable. 

In the first part of this series, I look at several ideas, including American enlightenment ideals and historical cycles theories, to examine historical perspectives. In the second part of this series, I discuss psychological perspectives contributing to the issue of polarization. The third part of this series looks at the phenomenon of declining democracy.

Solutions and Conclusion

There are a few obvious solutions to help increase democracy: rank-choice voting, reevaluation of the electoral college, voting for the sake of self instead of voting for the sake of identity, devaluing safetyism as a parenting technique and cultural demand in universities and at the office, decreasing mass media and social media consumption, devaluing politicians who do not take accountability for their actions or wrongdoings, a commitment from both parties to cease gerrymandering practices, eradicating the filibuster, fixing estate tax loopholes and low marginal tax rates for the wealthy, reappraising the meritocratic value of certain jobs/careers, and insisting on objectivity through viewpoint diversity; as opposed to university departments being homogonous with regard to their political leanings.

With this said, we also need to address the topic of how we interact with each other. Democracy requires a set of shared values in order for it to function optimally. Americans, particularly those who have fallen victim to propagandist polarization campaigns, need tangible and grassroots tools to implement this in their day-to-day interactions with their spouse, friends, parents, co-workers, politicians, and strangers. 

Something that is common in arguments amongst couples, particularly ones where their relationship is in jeopardy, is that they employ what is referred to by Dr. John Gottman as "the four horsemen of the apocalypse," which are essentially his labelings for the behavioral ways couples interact with each other that lead to catastrophic results. These maladaptive communication tactics make it evident that negotiation is off the table. That's precisely where the country has arrived; we're at a stalemate, with little bargaining power, much like a couple is when they are at the point where ultimatums feel like the only pathway forward. 

In my first psychotherapy sessions with couples, I'll listen to them argue for roughly 45 minutes without much input. This ultimately helps me understand how and where they are missing each other when they communicate; most often, it has much to do with the ability to actively listen to each other. Regardless, in the final 5 minutes of the session, I'll tell them this: "I have good news and bad news, you're both right, and you're both wrong." Often this statement is met with befuddling stares from both partners, but it helps set the tone for the work that needs to be done in future sessions. The reason I make this statement is to disarm them. When a couple sees me in such a state of crisis, it is because they have both doubled down on their self-righteousness that any outside perspective is interpreted as utterly stupid and absurd. What needs to occur is that they need to embrace the identity of the relationship as a whole, not the identities of parent/child or tyrant/slave. 

There needs to be a blueprint for recognizing how the ways that we are communicating with one another are not conducive to any compromise while understanding how to move forward in a more prosocial manner. If we attempt to parent our partner or rule over them, we should expect them to rebel against us like a child or resent us as a slave would. Let's take a look at the four horsemen so we can self-diagnose our own fallibilities and find ways to communicate, adult to adult. 

The first horseman that Gottman describes is criticism. While criticism, particularly in its most constructive form, is nearly synonymous with feedback, Gottman differentiates this by stating that "criticism involves attacking someone's personality or character—rather than a specific behavior—usually with blame." Criticisms are often black or white, not considering the other instances where a person did or did not behave in the way you're accusing them of acting.46 "Republicans are always doing" this or "Democrats can never figure out" are examples of criticisms that are essentially assaultive on a person's political identity.

According to Gottman, complaints differ from criticisms in that complaints take more ownership and are specific to the person's feelings. "I feel (a word describing an emotion) when this occurs (a specific action being employed by the opposite party)." Ultimately, complaints are less accusatory and do not immediately assign blame.47 

The second horseman is contempt. It is different from criticism in the sense that the purpose is "to insult or psychologically abuse" the other person.48 This is essentially a Republican calling someone a "libtard" or "snowflake" for expressing a concern surrounding how they perceive themselves or someone else being treated. Another example is a Democrat referring to someone as "racist" because of how they voted in a presidential election, for simply having lower levels of melanin, or expressing concerns surrounding meritocratic processes. Both examples of contempt attempt to demean the value of someone else through what have now become politically lobbed vitriolic sentiments. Name-calling, hostile humor, mockery, and even body language (i.e., crossed arms, head shaking, flipping the bird, and eye-rolling) are all forms of contempt that can typically manifest themselves in our political disagreements. 

The third horseman, according to Gottman, is defensiveness. While the most obvious of the horsemen, it is perhaps the most crucial blockage of the bunch. There are several identified ways that people employ defensiveness, some self-explanatory and others requiring further explanation. In the camp of self-explanatory, some examples of defensiveness are denying responsibility, making excuses, repeating yourself (as opposed to responding to someone else through acknowledgment of their statement), whining (in a childish manner), and one's body language.49 

Several of the defensive responses listed may need more explanation. One of these is disagreeing with negative mind-reading. This involves when someone projects what they imagine you might feel, triggering a defensive response that employs negative mind reading.50

An example:

Democrat: You claim to be concerned about crime but aren't worried about prison reform

Republican: You just want to live in an anarchistic wasteland

The actuality of this scenario is that most people want to live in safer communities, albeit they prioritize the means to get there in different ways. 

Another defensive response is cross-complaining. This involves meeting someone's complaint with your perspective with a complaint regarding their perspective, as opposed to acknowledging their point of view and exploring its validity.51 

Rubber man/rubber woman is a defensive response by taking the complaint that someone has lodged against you by throwing the same complaint immediately back at them.52 The old "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" is the essence of this defensive formula. 

Finally, in the category of defensive responses, we have yes-butting. This diversion is when you start agreeing with someone but immediately switch to disagreeing with them.53 "Yes, I benefit from the Trump tax plan, but if you just worked harder, you could as well," or "yes, I think looting is wrong, but the Black Lives Matter movement is more than a few bad actors."

Lastly, we have the fourth horseman, which is stonewalling. This horseman usually comes with the excuse that the person who is stonewalling is trying to "remain neutral" when they are really just distancing themselves from the dispute through silence. Stonewalling someone else can have unintended consequences, such as elevating their physiological state of arousal, making matters worse, and reaching a consensus even more difficult.54 

Of the horsemen, those who respond with defensiveness or employ stonewalling are the most likely to trigger an internal script of feeling like an innocent victim—offering a further explanation for why the victimhood archetype appears to be so prevalent amongst the most polarized members of our society.55 

Gottman offers several solutions for combatting one's employment of the four horsemen in contentious conversations. The first of these solutions is learning how to calm down. 

Often in scenarios where we disagree with someone, more particularly when they offer a perspective that contrasts with the perspective of one's political identity, one can feel overwhelmed with emotion. The physiological experience of being flooded with emotion, mainly frustration and fear, is often what leads to defensive responses. The easiest way to recognize this is to be mindful of what you are experiencing in your body when in the heat of the moment. Many will notice their heart rates increasing, perhaps tension in their shoulders or fists, stomach pain/discomfort, or may physically heat up or begin to sweat. If you observe this, it's time to take a beat. Do whatever is needed to feel better regulated for the conversation.56 

A few suggestions:

-take deep breaths

-request a break and offer a time to return to the conversation

-identify which identity you feel is being threatened 

-exercise

-utilize progressive muscle relaxation

-meditate

-consider, for a moment, your cosmic insignificance

Once you have had a chance to regulate yourself better, Gottman recommends working on speaking non-defensively. One of the easiest things you can do is to identify specific points in the other party's argument that you agree with and move forward by vocalizing this commonality.57 Just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them some demonic hellspawn; they have many positive traits beyond your perception of the subjectively pesky logic they employ in their argument. 

In listening to them, they may express themselves angrily as a way to feel like they are more emphatically getting their point across, which can undoubtedly be distracting and evoke defensiveness—stonewalling or responding in a similarly angry way can often only add fuel to the proverbial fire and blow the discussion out of proportion. Use subtle body language such as nodding, "yeah"s, or "mmm-hmm"s to signal that you're following along. 58

Humanistic psychologist Carl R. Rogers notes that by consistently listening to a speaker you are conveying the idea that "I'm interested in you as a person, and I think that what you feel is important. I respect your thoughts, and even if I don't agree with them, I know that they are valid for you. I feel sure that you have a contribution to make. I'm not trying to change you or evaluate you. I just want to understand you. I think you're worth listening to, and I want to know that I'm the kind of a person you can talk to.”59

When you're speaking, it's essential to recognize the difference between complaints, criticisms, and contempt. One should avoid criticisms and contempt at all costs, as they will likely yield a defensive response. Remember, complaints are non-blaming and usually limited to a specific (one) situation. In keeping with Democrats' and Republicans' polarized talking points, coloring all white people as "this" or transgender people as "that" doesn't account for any nuance and is usually an attempt to bastardize the person(s) being referenced. 

Gottman's third suggestion is validation. The most challenging but essential form of validation when listening to the perspective of someone you may disagree with is being able to reframe their argument back to them, in your vernacular, and then requesting if you understand them correctly.60 61 They will fill you in on what you missed or misinterpreted if you did at all. This signals to the opposite party that you're following along with them. Remember validating someone is different from seeing their logic as reliable. You'll have a chance to tell them what you agree and disagree with. When validating someone, you confirm that you're hearing them and let them fully express their perspective or concerns. 

Additionally, if someone points out a flaw in your logic and you agree with them, take responsibility. Immediately going into your rebuttal without acknowledging someone else's ability to identify your gap in knowledge, misinterpretation, or incorrect facts does no justice to the truth and increases your foolhardiness. 

The last strategy is to practice. This type of communication is complex, and you won't get things right with every debate you engage in. You may find yourself being wrong or changing your perspective, and you may be communicating with someone who does not want to use these skills or forget to use some of these skills yourself.62 It's a small price to pay in order to renew your faith in democratic processes and witness, before your very eyes, decreasing polarization. Polarization is becoming synonymous with poor communication. Moderate ideals will continue to play out; however, we can increase the viability of radical ideals through sensible and less combative discourse. America needs couples therapy; if not for us, then let's at least model more fit ways with how adults deal with conflict for posterity's sake. 

References

46-58.  Gottman, J. (1995). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make your marriage last. Simon & Schuster.

59.  Rogers, C. R., & Farson, R. (2015). Active listening. Martino Publishing.

60.   Gottman, J. (1995). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make your marriage last. Simon & Schuster.

61.   Rogers, C. R., & Farson, R. (2015). Active listening. Martino Publishing.

62.    Gottman, J. (1995). Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make your marriage last. Simon & Schuster.