By Lissa Carter, LCMHCS
My client had ‘come in hot’ (her words). She put her tea down forcefully on the table and leaned forward, her eyes expressive.
“Want to know why I’m late today? I was sitting out there in the car, in an argument, again, and to be honest I don’t even know what we were arguing about. If I were with the right person, it wouldn’t be like this—fights, misunderstandings, shutdowns, all the time. It shouldn’t be like this, right? Two fights before noon? It just really, really shouldn’t be this hard.”
I hesitated a moment and she started laughing. We’d been working together a long time, and she could read me pretty well. “What are you about to say?” she asked. “I’m not going to like it, am I?”
“Yeah, I think you’re not going to like it,” I said. “But I back what I am about to say with the full weight of my education and the confidence of years of counseling experience.”
“All right,” she said, sighing. “Sock it to me.”
I leaned forward.
“It depends.”
When I was training as a counselor, I was pretty sure my professors had a manual of how to correctly practice therapy that they were purposefully withholding because they thought the Socratic method would be a more effective teaching tool than just handing us the answers outright.
Now I find myself in the position of being the one who can’t for the life of me give a clear yes or no answer. The world of counseling, it turns out, is rife with maddening ambiguity. Because humans are complex. And the only thing more complex than a human is two humans trying to relate to each other.
“You’re right,” she said, settling back into the couch and crossing her arms. “I don’t like it. What a cop out.”
“Honestly, I would feel the same way if I were sitting where you are. But will you give a moment to redeem myself?”
As I said, this client knows me pretty well, and she knows all my tricks. She reached into the drawer where I keep my fidgets and pulled out my sand timer, which she dramatically flipped on the table between us.
“You have two minutes,” she said, and resumed her crossed-arm position.
Gauntlet accepted. I now present to you my two-minute condensed complexity-of-relationships spiel, as elicited by my wonderful, saucy, take-no-prisoners client.
Here goes.
Imagine that you could design the perfect little hermit house for yourself. It has everything you need to be wonderfully comfortable—your favorite books, games, foods, your favorite landscape surrounding you, access to all of the activities that bring you alive. You have everything you could possibly need or want.
Imagine yourself, now, after ten years of that life. I imagine you are pretty content. I imagine you have lived a relatively conflict-free life in which you could do all of the things (go to bed when you want, get up when you want, eat when and what you want, flow with your own rhythms and timing) that get logjammed when you have to navigate other people.
Now ask yourself: am I basically the same person I was ten years ago? Or have I grown?
When I do this little thought experiment, I have to admit to myself—dedicated introvert that I am—that I would not have grown much. I would have read A LOT and might be more knowledgeable on certain (predictable) topics. But I wouldn’t have grown. I would have been too comfortable to necessitate much growing. So—maybe—not all conflict is bad.
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I am not in any way arguing that people who live alone aren’t constantly growing and changing. It’s not the alone part that causes the lack of growth. This thought experiment is about dwelling in a state of comfort and content, everything just as you like it, without any challenge. I have friends who live alone and are some of the most evolved people I know, because they’ve designed their lives to challenge them regularly.
Let me add as well that I am not arguing against the joys of long periods of contentment and calm! These are vital. As with everything else in counseling, it’s that maddening, maddening middle ground that we are going for. Enough safety and comfort to be well-cared for and rested, enough challenge to be activated and growing.
For example, we could do this the other way—if you are in a high-conflict relationship, you might imagine ten years alone and ten years with the person you are currently with—which version of you do you like better, ten years later?
The point I am trying to make is not that alone is bad and relationship is good. It’s that you can’t judge the ‘good’ness of a relationship by how easy it is. Not all conflict is bad. And all relationships, inevitably, contain conflict.
Most humans, when offered the chance to opt out of growth, will take that option every time. Change is hard and dangerous and we prefer homeostasis. So we tend, when left to our own devices, not to change. Even when we cognitively believe that we really value feedback, flexibility, and change--we’re up against our organismic design. Our default wiring is to prefer ease to challenge in most scenarios. But this doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes.
Enter: THE HUMAN RELATIONSHIP.