relationship negotiation: to discuss or not to discuss?
Corey Alexander
weeks ago, about when one person in a relationship wants to talk about
something and the other says not now. I will not try to reconstruct my
answer for you, but as someone asked a follow up question after the
class, which I said I would email my response to, I thought I would
post that here as well.
I've been thinking about your question:
What if one person's need is to talk and the other's need is to not
talk; how to decide which of these conflicting needs get met?
When one person needs to talk, and the other needs not to talk, we
have a conflict. With any conflict, I think it is key to first name it
as a conflict, and to honor that both sides of the conflict have needs
and emotions and reasons for feeling what they feel. It can be very
important for both parties to listen to each other about the conflict,
especially if it is a common one in the relationship. It may be that
once both parties listen to each other describe their needs, that one
will decide that they would be ok with waiting, or ok with talking,
that they needed to be heard and recognized, and that was the
important thing. Recognition is often one of the needs we bring to
conflict. Conflicts are opportunities for growth and recognition, for
clarifying needs, issues, and boundaries, and for compassion.
In terms of resolving it, I would suggest a few avenues of inquiry to
try to get to a decision about what to do to resolve the conflict. The
how is so dependant on context and what is going on with both parties,
that I have no one size fits all solution:
-Timing: Is this a question of timing? Is there a deadline involved?
Can there be a scheduled postponement for the conversation?
-Evaluating Needs and Desires: Is this a question of need for both
parties, or is one perhaps a desire and the other a need? Is the need
about having the conversation at all, or about having it now?
-Impact on Others: Does the need to communicate now, or to wait,
impact others? How? Do they get a say?
-Agreements about the Spirit of Communication: Have the parties
involved made decisions about the spirit of their communication, and
what they lean towards--as in transparency, immediate resolution of
conflict, clear boundaries around what and how in terms of
communication, taking your time to word things right?
-Authority: Does one party have authority to order the other to wait
to talk or to talk now? Is it appropriate for such an order to be
utilized for the issue at hand?
-Origins: Where does the urgency to communicate now come from? Where
does the need to wait come from? which is more valued by the
relationship agreements and parties involved?
-Sacrifice: Is there a way to meet both people's needs in this
situation? Will one person be asked to make a sacrifice? If so, is
there an exchange of sacrifices possible, if such a thing is
appropriate for the relationship dynamic? Is there a power dynamic
that leans towards one party making sacrifices for the other's needs?
If so, is this an appropriate exercise of such a sacrifice?
-Right to Know: Does the person who needs to talk about it have the
right to inquire about such things from the other? Are there privacy/
confidentiality/boundary issues in play in terms of such a discussion?
Is this a situation where the need outweighs the potential issue?
-Compatibility: Is this an ongoing fundamental style compatibility in
terms of the way these two people communicate?
-Postponement Agreements: If the conversation is to be postponed, is
there a way to watch the topics that are tabled to make sure that they
are not tabled for too long? What is the appropriate length of time to
table things in this relationship? Does this topic fit into the
general accepted length of time or is there some reason to give it
more time, or less? Does the relationship already have a mechanism for
scheduling and/or postponing conversations?
-Relationship Values: Is the discussion connected to something that
this relationship places a high value on? Does that value help to
determine the desired outcome of the conflict?
-Common Issues: Is postponement a common occurance? Does postponing
have an emotional valence for the parties involved? Is demanding
communication a common occurance? Does demanding communication have an
emotional valence for the parties involved?
-Consequences: Will tabling the converasation, or having it now, have
consequences for either party that need to be named?
Once a potential path to resolution is determined, the question
becomes, what then? Will the parties involved be able to accept that
resolution? Could this conflict illustrate, be emblematic of, or point
to a larger issue in the relationship that needs addressing? What are
the parties willing to do, and willing to accept? What matters to
them?