Deconfliction: How to Stop a Fight Before It Begins

Having served both personally and professionally in the “marital trenches” for over four and a half decades, I've become a seasoned veteran of couple conflict. Certainly, for most of us, conflict is an unwelcome but expected part of the often emotionally craggy topography of close, meaningful partnerships. It's tightly woven into the very textured, complicated fabric of all our relationships but it's especially odds-on within our most intimate ones.

Predictably, individual partner differences can be, on occasion, troublingly abrasive. Sparks can fly like a downed power line when discordant desires, needs, feelings, and values inevitably flare. What's more, partners come from differing families of origin which predispose “culture clashes” that fan the fires of conflict by arousing disparities and divisiveness in partner preferences and values.

Like home ownership, despite its broad range of advantages, the deeply enriching benefits of our most consequential relationships keep close company with the often-burdensome emotional costs of periodic maintenance and repair.

Deconfliction

The word “deconfliction” is a military term referring to procedures designed to prevent “friendly fire” attacks on soldiers within the same fighting unit. Similarly, partners in close relationships are perpetually within the "range of fire" and too frequently are the hapless victims of unnecessary and emotionally injurious, "friendly fire.”

Of necessity, for optimal relationship hygiene and health, preventative strategies ought to be in place to eliminate or at least mitigate the painful, and most often, non-productive arguing, fighting and the avoidable frustrations and despair of partner "warfare."

A “Cognitive Vaccine” to Prevent Partner Fighting

A typical viral infection takes roughly two to twelve days to incubate before its victim becomes symptomatic. However, a disgruntled partner's foul or combative mood can be transmitted in a millisecond as the emotional contagion instantly "infects" their significant other who can, in turn, become similarly beset. Yet, like a flu vaccine, this speedy transmission of negativity can be tempered or even avoided with an effective "cognitive vaccine."

So, what exactly would a cognitive vaccine look like?

Mining Partner Conflict for Meaning

First, do you think partner conflict would be at all possible were it not for the fact that partners bring fundamentally valid needs to one another? Can you imagine any partner dispute where one or both partners bring an invalid need to the other? Do partners fight for illegitimate reasons? Do they defend the indefensible?

Most likely not. So, what then is the basis for partner skirmishes, especially heated ones? Certainly, partners routinely perceive their individual needs and feelings to be reasonable and justifiable, even "crowned" with irrefutable legitimacy. Therefore, a partner's needs are at least deserving of recognition, if not, sensitive, and respectful understanding.

Not uncommonly, however, partners fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of each other's needs. When this occurs, partners may ratchet-up, in some form, their efforts to be understood which can divert attention from the legitimacy of the need to its mismanagement. Worse still, one partner's poorly managed need raises the possibility of poor need management in the other partner--now, the moment is ripe for hurtful squabbling and counterattacking conflict.

A Common Example

Rushing to get things done, a partner yells out in a frustrated and demanding tone, "I need your help...I can't do everything myself." In response, her partner, feeling disrespected and criticized, angrily snaps back, "Well, I'm busy too." Note, the need for help is as valid as the need for a respectful request for help. Had this reasoning or "cognitive vaccine" been injected into this couple's dialog, it might have forestalled the conflict.

Relationships Essential Reads

7 Questions That Only Secure Couples Can Handle

7 Reasons People Send Mixed Signals In Relationships

Speaking Personally

As you can easily imagine, after forty-five years of togetherness tucked under my belt, there have been many occasions where I've had questions, doubts and criticisms about my wife's intentions, choices, and judgments. However, I can’t think of a single instance where--upon deeper reflection--she failed to communicate, in one form or another, anything other than a fundamentally legitimate need. Admittedly, there are moments when I'm forced to dig deeply to see the validity of her needs while trying to look past the less-than-ideal need management that enshrouds them and would otherwise conceal their legitimacy. In her defense, there are times when she does the same for me.

Ending the "Warfare"

It's safe to assume that independent of partner agreement or disagreement, rational partners usually bring reasonable, understandable needs to each other. And to the degree partners subscribe to and apply this presupposition, they're "cognitively vaccinated." Arguing and fighting can be mitigated, or better, preempted all together. Regardless of the exact nature of the disparity among partners, when thought about in this way, there is no rational basis for partners to go to "war," to touch off conflict over their differences. Instead, they acquire a potentially powerful incentive to become more diplomatic, compromising and problem-solving.

A Clinical Case in Point

During one couple's initial therapy session, a husband berated his wife for her "laissez-faire attitude" over the discipline of their three children. His poorly managed need for greater discipline for their children frequently expressed itself in maelstroms of bristling, contemptuous criticisms of his wife as being "over-indulging," "ingratiating," and "neglectful" of the children.

With each lamentable round of his rage, his wife countered him with her own fiery, defensive backlash--her version of poor need management. She vehemently charged him with being "emotionally unhinged," "irrational" and "overly demanding."

When their emotions receded and it appeared timely, I proposed the following therapeutic intervention--the "cognitive vaccine:" I asked the couple if they thought they could be at odds with each other to this extent were it not for the fact that each one had brought to the other a fundamentally valid need?

As this question slowly percolated and with some coaching, they begrudgingly began to recognize that neither of them had sufficiently acknowledged the legitimacy of the other's need.

Hence, each partner felt compelled to escalate a boisterous, attack-like defense of the validity of their respective need in order to be heard. As a consequence, the bulk of their attention was drawn to the angry veneer of the gross misrepresentation of their individual needs rather than to their underlying legitimacy.

Then in a very deliberate, purposeful way, over of the course of a number of bad-habit-removing sessions, the angry veneer was gingerly stripped off, thus revealing the legitimacy of their respective needs. In the husband's case, he expressed his strong feelings about the transforming and long-term advantages of discipline for their children, just as he had felt the lingering benefits of his own parent's efforts to discipline him.

In her case, she felt their children would be more responsive to her warm, loving and patient encouragement, methods that were familiar and safe to her. She also acknowledged that her soft approach came, to some degree, as an off-setting counterbalance to her husband's "rigidity and firmness."

Devoid of the vitriol, the naked truth of the basic legitimacy of their individual needs was plainly and openly obvious. The blinders were off. Clearly, children need both discipline and loving encouragement. What's to fight about?

As the fundamental legitimacy of each partner's need became increasingly apparent, a mutually respectful atmosphere slowly blossomed, and compromises were made. He agreed to temper his behavior toward the children by showing them warmth and affection which freed her to become more rule-setting and enforcing. With continued effort, the little bouts of "warfare" that would occasionally pop up became easier to manage.

The vaccine was effective.