Building Healthy Relationships

A "Breakthrough" Approach

2010-02-03T13:44:46Z

An interview with Dr. Mark Lee Robinson about the applications of Creative Conflict Resolution to large scale conflict.

Why is your approach to conflict resolution a breakthrough?

My principles of Creative Conflict Resolution represent a major shift in our point of view. Even experts--people who have wrestled professionally with the problems of conflict resolution--need a new perspective toward the creative possibilities inherent in conflict, rather than simply offering the usual techniques to mediate it.

We need to redefine what we mean by conflict? How so?

We normally define conflict as what happens when parties with opposing interests start trying to dominate each other. For example, we may have a problem when someone in the office is not reloading paper into the copier when it runs out, but we decide not to say anything to him because we "don't want to start a conflict." Or we know there were deep hostilities between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda stemming from the colonial era, but we speak of the conflict starting in 1994 when Hutus began "cutting down the tall trees."

]]> Are you suggesting that the conflict started before the violence?

Exactly, and, while that seems simple, the implications of that shift in focus are huge. On the one hand we have the conditions in which tension between the parties arises, and on the other hand we have the choices each party makes in addressing the tension. Any observer of conflict is looking at both the conditions and the choices, but something important happens when we use the term conflict to refer to the conditions and speak of the choices we make as strategies or tactics for addressing the conflict. Conflict is not the choice but the conditions which evoked the choice.

Those conditions are not going to be managed away. They cannot be prevented. When we look at the conditions as the conflict it becomes absurd to speak of "conflict management" or "conflict prevention." We can manage a fight or we can prevent war, but we will not substantially and durably resolve the conflict unless we address the conditions out of which the fight arises.

If conflict refers to the conditions which existed before the fighting starts, what does it mean to resolve a conflict?

At its simplest, a conflict is the condition in which the other is not as I want the other to be. As a result, what seems to be the desired outcome is for the other to change to be as I want the other to be. We therefore tend to look for ways to resolve the conflict by getting the other to change. Almost without exception, resolution is conceived of as happening when we have seen a desired change in the other. As a member of the office community, the conflict will be resolved when I can get my office mate to reload the copier when he runs it out of paper. As a Hutu, the conflict may be resolved for me when the Tutsis no longer control the best land for coffee production and treat me fairly in dealings with the bank.

The only way to resolve a conflict is to get others to act in ways they see as contrary to their own interests?

Right! That doesn't seem very likely, does it? The bind is a consequence of this common way of thinking about resolution. It leads some really smart people to conclude that there are some conflicts which just can't be resolved. But let's adjust the focus a bit. Since we can't make others change, what if we focus instead on getting ourselves to change? What if resolution is when we work to create what we need without depending on or expecting that others will change? Two things happen when we make this shift. One is that it really matters who we think of as "us" and "them." The second is that it becomes crucial to figure out what "we need" as distinct from what "we want them to do." We have to become very clear about the qualities we are seeking to create.

We have to figure out what we need and then act together to create it.

Yes, and when we do that we discover how immensely powerful it is to act together to construct our common needs. When we act together to create the qualities we all need we are far more creative and effective than when we act alone. We have far greater positive impact than when we are trying to change others.

Iran's development of nuclear weapons makes us unsafe and it destabilizes relationships in the Middle East. When all of those nations who see Iran's actions as dangerous agree on the threat and act in concert to isolate Iran, we create greater safety by the fact we are acting together whether or not Iran persists in its activities.

But what if Iran does persist? Don't we have an obligation to try to stop them?

We have an obligation to create greater security for all...but that "all" includes Iran. If we are trying to get Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions (which is trying to get them to change) we may decide we will threaten them with sanctions or even military force if they don't do what we want. This will create a sense of fear in them and provoke a response of defiance. That won't get them to give up their pursuit of stronger weapons. On the contrary, it will justify their conviction that they need them.

Look at how well our stance with Saddam Hussein worked in 2002. We believed he had WMD's and he wanted us to believe he did. All he had to do was show us that he didn't. But we were so threatening to him that he couldn't. It meant he had to call our bluff and we had to call his. So we destroyed a country to make ourselves safe from an imagined threat. This is the logic of an approach to conflict which requires us to try to make others change.

If we work together with other nations who are similarly alarmed at the saber rattling of Iran and respond in a fashion which creates greater security, not only for Israel but for the people of Iran, then we take away the reason for militarization. We work with others to create what we all need. This doesn't mean that those in Iran who have the power to militarize will decide they don't have to. We can't control them.

When Iran is our "enemy," we won't do what helps Iran even when it helps us. We will "cut off our nose to spite our face." But showing that we are committed to the security of the Iranian people will strengthen the hand of those cooler heads who understand that the resources going to arms can instead go to development which actually benefits the Iranian people.

It is clear that what we are doing is not as effective as we would like. And it is also clear that we can't make others change. So how does this all fit together?

When the conditions of our relationships with others are such that we find ourselves having what seem to be competing interests, we can decide what we will do to address this tension. When we choose to do something which tries to change them--seeks to dominate and control them--we are committed to a strategy which creates the opposite of what we actually need. When we instead work with them to discover what we both need and work to create what serves all of us we actually build a stronger safer world. Addressing conflict can be marvelously creative.

When conflict means "fight," we don't see the creative potential. Then conflict is just a problem to be managed or prevented. But when conflict is an opportunity we discover the very tension which seemed dangerous and paralyzing can actually be powerfully transformative.

Nothing Israelis do which harms Palestinians will create stability and peace. Nothing Palestinians do which harms Israelis will benefit Palestinians. It is only when Israelis and Palestinians work together to meet their mutual needs that they will get what they need. Their interests are tied together. When each refrains from any action that is harmful to the other, and when both act together to meet shared needs--whatever the need may be--they are creating a more durable and stable relationship and the context for peace.

Everyone benefits. This is not a zero sum game. When we create what we genuinely need, we create what everyone needs. We can use the context of conflict to create justice.

The Building Healthy Relationships class and intervention with domestic violence

2010-01-28T19:06:26Z

We are fairly often asked about whether the Building Healthy Relationships class is appropriate as an intervention for persons who are involved in domestic or family violence in some way. This is a more complex question than first appears. The simple answer is yes, but...

]]> The content of the Building Healthy Relationships is consistent with the Abuse Prevention Program which for many years was a member of ABIP - the Association of Batterer Intervention Providers. The Abuse Prevention Program was also a program of the Center for Creative Conflict Resolution which was discontinued in 2008. The material in the class addresses several sets of issues pertinent to interpersonal violence and abuse including;

clarity about what is abuse, violence, and oppression,
what does a healthy relationship with anger look like,
how we can make a keep durable agreements, and
how we can repair relationships when we have damaged them.

The "but" is that there are some features a program must have if it is to address the needs of the community when working with criminal offenders. The Building Healthy Relationships program does not have these features and is not prepared to coordinate with a probation officer the way programs that are members of ABIP must.

From time to time a worker with the Children's Division will contact us to see about enrolling one of their clients into the class. This has worked well and it has worked poorly. The principal issue is the degree to which the client is self-motivated to learn from the class. We do not have the tools to impose motivation onto the client, but when the client is very interested in improving the quality of his or her intimate relationships we can be very effective.

Development of the Philosophy of Creative Conflict Resolution

2010-01-15T00:06:03Z

Almost all of the conflict resolution literature is about conflict between groups. This includes labor management issues, governmental issues, armed conflict, and war. Some material in the literature is about addressing marital conflict or other interpersonal issues between only two people. Most of this is about techniques for resolving conflict by improving communication skills. These include learning to use "I" statements, doing active listening, and taking "time outs" when the intensity of the conflict is too great.

These are all helpful tools and I support and teach them myself. But they are all geared toward working with the couple to teach them skills they can both use to address the mutual responsibility they have for the problems in the relationship. That is not the context in which I found myself working for much of my career as a psychotherapist.

]]> Yes, I work with people in high conflict relationships. But there is another important dynamic at work. I often work with men and women who are perpetrators of violence against their partners or other loved ones. Doing traditional couples work with them is impossible for legal reasons but would not be safe in any case. Being forced to work with only one party to the relationship, and for that to be, in most cases, the person who had the most power physically and financially, meant that I was continually confronting the same set of issues. He was trying to get her to change when all he had to do to repair the relationship was to change his own behavior.

What this brought home to me over and over was the prevalence of a couple of cognitive distortions which make it seem impossible to resolve certain persistent conflicts. One of these is the belief that we can make others change and the other is the belief that the only way we can resolve conflict is for the other to be different. This line of thought says that it is both possible and necessary for me to make the other be different...to make them make the choices I want them to make.

On the face of it, nearly all of us know that we can't make others be who we want them to be. Even with our children we can't seem to make them do what we want, but with our spouses or colleagues at work it is not only impossible but inappropriate to the relationship. We all know this. But this knowledge doesn't stop us from trying.

There are good reasons for this. Most especially we become aware of the presence of a conflict precisely because the other is not doing what I expect or what I think I have a right to experience. The other isn't doing what the other "should" do. Obviously the way to resolve the conflict is to get the other to change.

One particularly vivid example of this arrived in my consulting room in the person of Gary. Gary was a successful businessman and community leader who was in a second marriage which was rapidly coming to an end. Though he very much loved Jennifer he was also very scared and angry and had given her an ultimatum. Either she cleaned up her behavior or in three months he would divorce her.

Gary had good reason to be upset. Jennifer had to travel for her work. She would get lonely when she traveled. She would go to the hotel bar, get drunk, and end up in bed with someone she had just met. Gary knew that she didn't love these guys but he couldn't tolerate this behavior and unless she got it under control, their marriage was over.

But Gary loved Jennifer and wanted to be with her. He knew she was not happy with herself and he was hoping she would be scared enough about losing him that she would address her acting out with alcohol and sex. The problem was, his approach wasn't working. It seemed the more he tried to make her do what he knew was the right thing, not only for himself but for her, the more she seemed depressed and felt worthless. The lower her self-esteem, the more she acted out. Gary could see that he was creating the opposite of what he wanted and needed.

Gary resisted looking at what he could do the change himself. He wasn't the one who was acting badly. He had not been abusive to her outside of being loud about his anger and hurt. She was the one who was abusing him.

He was considering writing a letter to everyone they knew to tell them about Jennifer's behavior in order to shame her into changing. I let him know that I thought that was a seriously bad idea. He thought so too, but he was desperate.

Gary is smart and dedicated and he is willing to look critically at his own behavior. These factors work in his favor. Before the three months were up he had rescinded the ultimatum and he began instead to work at creating the relationship that he wanted to have with Jennifer. While from time to time he would try to get her to change, he would catch himself and let go.

He told her how he felt. He thanked her for her honesty. He consulted with her about what he might be able to do that would help her address the behavior she didn't like. They set up ways to stay emotionally connected when she traveled.

She became able to talk to him about her feelings and they discovered that she was terribly afraid that she wasn't loved and couldn't be loved by any man. When she was away from Gary she got scared. These feelings were like when she was as a little girl and her dad left her mom and in the process abandoned her. When these feelings came up, Jennifer sought the comfort of any man she could find. But once she could talk about the feelings with Gary, he became the man whose love reassured her.

When he was angry and threatening to leave, he had been the man who reminded her that she was unlovable and his ultimatum only made it harder for her to not act out. Now that he was creating openness and honesty he became the man who supported her healing. He was even able to ask her to tell him when she began to feel shamed or controlled by him as he knew that would work against his own interests.

One of the primary reasons Creative Conflict Resolution is so effective is that it helps us let go of ways of understanding the problem that create the problem or make it worse, and replaces those ways of understanding with perspectives that support actions that actually create what we need. Gary couldn't see a solution that didn't include Jennifer changing so he assumed he would have to make her change. When he discovered that he could simply change himself--which, while simple, is certainly not easy--he was able to create the qualities that were missing for him in the relationship and, at the same time, create what Jennifer needed.

They remain happily and securely married now five years after Gary first came to see me.

Creating a "committed" relationship

2010-01-08T02:31:51Z

One frequent rough place in the development of an intimate relationship occurs when one party to the relationship wants to confirm that they have a "commitment" to each other or that they are truly "in a relationship." This is tough for a couple of really good reasons.

One reason is that this may be the first time that have actually talked about the relationship itself. It is one thing to be in relationship with another; it is another to make the relationship itself the focus of shared attention.

]]> When I was in graduate school I became close friends with a guy who lived across the hall in my dorm. His name was George. I went home to see my folks one weekend and as I was driving back to school I became aware that I was looking forward to seeing George. As I walked down the hall towards my room, George came out of his room and called out, "Hey, Mark! Good to see you. I missed you." We had never before spoken about our friendship and so as we acknowledged missing each other we were moving to a new level of interaction.

In primary intimate relationships this transition is especially fraught with danger. Not only are we now talking about our relationship, we are using language that may not mean the same things to each other. Are we dating, going steady, hooking up, hanging out, going together...what? I had a teenage client mention to me that he was "going with" one girl but really wanted to "go with" another. I asked him what it meant to be going with someone. He didn't understand the question. They didn't actually do anything; it was just an understanding that their relationship was special and different.

Adults who are exploring an intimate relationship have this problem as well. Even if they say they are committed, what are they committed to? Relationships work much more smoothly when these expectations and agreements are very clear. But coming to this clarity can be very difficult.

Typically one party to the relationship is urgent that the understanding be clear and the other is less excited about having this conversation. In my experience, women tend to be more anxious about establishing clear expectations than are men, but I have certainly known couples where it was the man who was pressing for sharp boundaries.

Having the talk about what we mean to each other is hard because it is talking about the relationship instead of just being in it. Additionally, we each need some clarity about what we want from and for the relationship. Coming to this clarity involves a series of steps. At each one we can get hung up.

1) "This relationship is not so important to me that I am going to put energy into figuring out what I want it to be like. Whatever is fine with me."

Not all relationships are so important that I am going to be willing to figure out what I want it to be like. This clarity takes time and attention and I am just not willing to do that work when the relationship is with someone I know from work, for example. Just talking about our relationship makes it seem like more than it is for me.

2) "I care about this relationship and want it to be clear and strong, but I'm not sure what that would be like."

Even when I can say that this relationship is special in some way, and that it is more important to me than just a routine relationship with anyone, that doesn't mean I actually know what I want it to be like.

3) "I know what I want it to be like but I don't have the words to describe it clearly enough."

Even when I can be clear about what I want, I may not trust that I have the words to describe what I want. I have been clear in prior relationships only to find that what my words meant to the other something was different from what they meant to me. I can't trust that my words will convey my meaning.

4) "I think I can say what I want the relationship to be like but I am afraid that if I do my statement will be a source of conflict."

Even when I know what I want and trust that I can communicate my wishes clearly there are still potential problems.

a) "When I say what I want but what I want is not what my partner wants it will become something we will fight about."

It may be that my definition for the relationship is so different from what my partner wants that she or he will be angry and perhaps even choose to leave the relationship.

b) "When I say what I want and I am not always able to follow through on how I want to be it will be a reason to confront me."

Even if we are both clear about what we want and we are pretty close in how we want things to be between us, I know that I don't always act as I have intended. If I say how I want things to be, and then don't do what I need to do to create what I said I wanted, I will be subject to criticism. A part of me wants to protect me by simply being vague.

For these reasons it can be very difficult for a couple to talk about what they want the relationship to be like. So let me offer a suggestion about a couple of topics the couple can address in trying to navigate these potentially treacherous waters.

1) Is this relationship sufficiently important to each of you that you want it to be special? Do you want this to be different from any other relationship you currently have?

2) If it is special for both of you, what are your concerns about being clear about how you want it to be different from any other relationship?

Be aware that as you have this conversation you are not going to name the same things. This is not a problem. It would probably be a bigger cause for concern if you only had the same concerns. You are different people. If you were totally alike it would be really hard for you to get along.

Be aware also that what you each want the relationship to be like is certain to change as you get to know each other better. If what you each want isn't changing, you probably are not in a relationship with each other. Instead you are each in a relationship with who you want the other to be, not who the other actually is.

If you have trouble with this, you may want to review Discipline #10.

Rick's Christmas

2009-12-16T02:28:34Z

A few years back I had a man in my program I will call Rick. He was in his early twenties. He was ordered to complete the Abuse Prevention Program as a consequence of abuse in a relationship with a girlfriend. While in the program he found a new girlfriend. It was a much healthier relationship and Rick was able to understand and apply the principles of Creative Conflict Resolution in that new relationship.

Once a participant completes the Abuse Prevention Class he moves into the Practice Group. Rick had completed the class months earlier and was addressing well the conflicts in his relationship with his girlfriend, but he had not addressed other conflicts in the group, particularly those at work. He was having trouble staying at a job. As he interviewed well, he easily found a new one, which he would then again quit in anger.

]]> No one completes the program until they have met all of the goals. Because he was doing so well in his primary relationship, he challenged me on why I was saying he hadn't completed the program. He wanted to know what he still had to do.

I asked him to identify his five most significant relationships. This is the first question in the oral final exam for the class. Rick had heard this question at least twenty times.

Well," said Rick, "there is my girlfriend, my brother, her mom, her dad..." and he paused thinking if there was anyone else.

"How about your dad?" I asked.

He had told some of his family history months earlier. His dad had gone to prison when Rick was four years old for child abuse. Rick never described what his dad had done to his brother and him. As this event happened nearly twenty years ago it must have been pretty significant. After his dad's release while Rick was a teenager Rick had trouble in his relationship with his mom and went to live with his dad. That arrangement lasted about a year and a half.

Shortly after Rick entered the program his dad had done something dismissive to Rick's brother. Rick and his brother were really tight and Rick wasn't going to let that stand. He went to his father's shop to confront him. But knowing how his dad is, he tucked a gun in his belt at the small of his back.

Standing in his dad's office with his dad seated at the desk, Rick began to tell his dad what he thought of him and what he thought he should do. Dad would hear none of it and ordered Rick to leave. Rick became more demanding and Dad opened the top right drawer. He pulled out a gun and waved it at Rick. Rick pulled the gun from his belt and they leveled loaded pistols at each other.

Fortunately neither had the poor judgment to pull the trigger.

Rick knew that his relationship with his dad was an important one for him. He also knew he wanted to get out of the program so he started paying attention to his feelings about his dad. He was psychologically minded enough to know that he didn't need to actually talk to his dad to address his issues with his dad.

The first thing he noticed was that he put his dad's face on every boss he had. As soon as he had a job long enough to begin to feel comfortable in it he started reacting to his boss with the feelings he had towards his dad. Just identifying that allowed him enough distance that he stopped quitting jobs and, because he was actually pretty bright and industrious, he quickly got promoted to a place where he wouldn't go any higher unless he got his GED. He put his mind to that and a month later passed the test.

It was early September when Rick started to work on his issues with his dad. By mid-October he was working on his GED and by mid-November he had passed it. Just after Thanksgiving he decided that he wanted to talk to his dad. He called him on the phone and, at the end of the nearly two hour conversation, his dad was in tears. They spent a couple of hours together on Christmas and they both enjoyed it.

It is not typical that participants in the program experience this kind of rapid transformation. Rick already knew the principles and had practiced applying them in his relationship with his girlfriend. What is typical is that Rick initially "knew" that he couldn't positively impact his relationship with his dad. He "knew" that everything that was wrong in the relationship was his dad's fault. He "knew" he had nothing to gain by even addressing the issues.

What he didn't know was how powerful he could be in transforming his relationship with his dad simply by changing how he approached him. When he was able to calmly identify what he needed as qualities in his relationship with his dad, and persistently act in ways that moved to create those qualities, he no longer had to change his dad or be changed by him. He created an entirely new and healthier relationship.

Emotions: Feeling your Feelings

2009-10-05T13:02:23Z

Pros and Cons by Kieran Meehan

I have been a follower of Kieran Meehan's strip, Pros and Cons, for about a year now. If you are not familiar with it, the central characters include a psychiatrist, a cop, and a prosecuting attorney. The feature I most often see and like about the strip is the way he is able to skewer some widely held and unwise notions. These are cognitive distortions which are so common they become hard to recognize.

In the case of this offering, the clueless client is so attached to the notion that emotions can be turned on and off that he hears his therapist's intervention as a response to his analogy, not to the notion itself. We can turn off awareness of our emotions but to do so takes a large investment of energy. Such a choice also results in us being disconnected from our experience.

While Meehan makes the choice look foolish, the truth is we all from time to time decide not to feel our feelings. We decide to turn off our emotions to get through a difficult situation. We can do this, for a while, at great cost.

Getting Others to Give Us What We Need

2009-09-19T15:08:27Z

We are hurt when we don't get what we need. It is healthy to act in ways that move us toward what we need. We use our best cognitive maps to guide us in figuring out what we can do to get what we need. Sometimes we use a poor map and, not only don't we get what we need, we actually create the opposite of what we need. Here we will examine a very common way this happens.

]]> One of Abraham Maslow's most enduring contributions was his map for a hierarchy of needs. He pointed out that there are different kinds of needs and that we have to have met certain lower order needs before we can fully establish the higher order ones. We have to have shelter and food before we can fully experience self-esteem and affiliation with others.

When it comes to the lower order needs of things like food, water, clothing, etc. we can get what we need by having others give them to us. If I am hungry and you have a sandwich and I can prevail on you to give me half, then you have met my need. I was able to get you to meet my need. I may come to believe that I get my needs met by getting others to change how they treat me.

But the higher order needs are different. They are not physical objects which we can receive or be denied; they are qualities which are created out of the relationships we create with others.

If, as a child, I had parents who were curious about what was going on with me, I was repeatedly invited to discover my own feelings so I could tell them. I was thus taught how to attend to myself by the fact that they gave me attention. I will then be able to grow to adulthood as someone who can attend to my Self. I enjoy the attention of others, but I don't need it.

On the other hand, if my parents didn't pay attention to me, I did not learn to attend to myself, and I grew to adulthood as someone who doesn't know how to attend to my Self. I will need to get attention from others since I don't know how to create it for myself. I will be needy for attention.

When others attend to me I will sense a great relief as those needs are met. But as soon as the light of the other's attention is focused somewhere else, I will be plunged into darkness, will be hurt and angry at the other for leaving me bereft, and will go in search of someone who will attend to me.

Suppose then I find someone who gives me attention and affection. We build a stable relationship and enjoy the comfort and security we build for each other. When at some point I do something which disappoints or hurts my beloved and she responds by withdrawing, I will be afraid and angry. I may demand that my beloved return to being my source for attention and affection. She gave it to me before. I can't create it on my own. I have to get her to give it to me.

The problem here is that the very things I may do to try to create what I need are most likely to get me the opposite. Since my cognitive map for our relationship and my way of getting my needs met is that she is my source for affection and she has met that need in the past and could meet that need now, I will have to demand that she return to meeting my needs.

But affection is not a sandwich. This is not something she carries around in her pocket and can choose to share or not. Affection is a quality which is created in the relationship by the choices we each make. For me to get what I need, I will have to repair the relationship we both want. The more I blame her for not being who I believe I have a right to insist she be, the farther I will move from the relationship I need. It is not that I can't get what I need. It is that she can't give it to me. I will have to create it for my Self. And that may take learning some skills as an adult that I didn't learn as a child.

Comments from a recent BHR class member

2009-05-24T20:23:30Z

Having completed the winter 2009 conflict resolution class with Dr. Mark Robinson, I have notice an increased quality of life with my significant relationships. Dr. Mark has structured a working classroom environment challenging each group member to discuss patterns of conflict in their life and to recognize the signs when a conflict is upon us, behind us, or will be one in the future. Conflicts are around us all the time.

Dr. Mark has a simple approach to self analysis and how we should work through these issues. His class challenges each group member to work through your own personal tough issues. A tough issue for me was/is hidden trauma; that I had no idea was affecting me on a daily basis. This was discovered when breaking down some of my current conflicts, and discovering a pattern in myself that need to be addressed.

Dr. Mark Robinson, techniques has allowed me to re-think how I will 'show-up', with a different lens in my significant relationships. Acknowledging the barriers in myself has allowed me to handle current conflicts on their own unique terms. This has allowed communication to flow more easily and allows for tougher issues to be resolved in a quicker fashion.

Dr. Mark Robinson program has already improved/strengthened my current relationships and has set a 'map' for new relationships.

I think at times we can get lazy/comfortable with who we are; the class will remind you of your evolving self.

I still use many of the techniques learned, practiced, and discussed in Dr. Mark's class.

Suggest this class to anyone who dares to discover themselves.

Kind Regards,

List is building for the next class

2009-05-23T15:32:42Z

The most recent class [Spring 2009] has ended and we are building a list if interested persons for the next class. This next will probably be for both men and women (we sometimes have single sex classes) and will most likely be on Wednesday evenings though the option exist to have it Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. It will be from 7:00 - 8:45. There will be a class starting in September as well.