By Joseph Shaub

It takes a lot of courage to stay married. This point was really driven home for me recently when I attended a two day marital therapy workshop by U.W.’s John Gottman down in Portland...but more on that in a moment.

For years, I have been a family lawyer. I do divorce.

The field provides more than enough good, lawyery-type issues. At a recent CLE, Tom Hamerlink transfixed a room full of practitioners with his analysis of child support in high income families (The child support guidelines top out at combined net monthly income of $7,000. What do you do at $9,000...at $19,000?). A brand spanking new Supreme Court decision has once again analyzed--and killed--grandparent visitation. I recently had a business valuation issue that had one expert throwing uncharacteristic insults at the other... I thought they were going to end up on the plains of Weehawken. Both had good arguments and trial would have been interesting had the case not settled. The point being that divorce law is often fun law... for the lawyers.

For the people going through the process, it is a disaster. The ruptured bonds evoke exquisite responses of betrayal, rejection and loss. For the stay at home mom, there is the anxiety over financial security. For the working dad, there is the sudden isolation which comes with the loss of “family.” I don’t think people really understand the wreck that divorce makes of their lives while they are contemplating their exit strategy.1 While kids can certainly recover from, and bloom after, the rupture of their parent’s marriage, in almost all cases the transition is a grievous life tragedy for them.

So, given this particular bias and world view, it was with particular interest that I went to Oregon to hear Dr. Gottman. For two days he lectured an auditorium full of marriage therapists and, aside from the fact that he is an extremely engaging, funny and organized lecturer, the information imparted was valuable and worth sharing here. Some of his nuggets which may fit into this limited space include:

Research indicates that, as a general rule, couples seek the assistance of a marriage counselor six years after they detect serious marital difficulties. Other surveys indicate that only 1% of divorcing couples sought help in the prior year.

Of the kinds of disagreements couples have, 69% involve perpetual issues that never get resolved. The couples who endure, engage in an ongoing dialogue around these differences in personal values or basic personality preferences (child-rearing; money; sex; in-laws; togetherness vs. separate time; religious practice; spontanaeity vs. need to plan, etc.) while those in trouble become “gridlocked” in a cycle characterized by Gottman’s “Four Horsemen.”

In Gottman’s view, it’s not the disagreements that are the problem, but rather the presence of any of the following four styles which are inherently destructive to marital intimacy and trust: Criticism (as distinguished from “complaining,” which may raise unhappiness or anger, but which does not attribute a character flaw to the partner); Contempt (reflecting a feeling of superiority over the partner); Defensiveness (refusal to acknowledge any contribution to the problem) and Stonewalling (emotional disengagement).

Women are more apt to engage in criticism; men, stonewalling. Gottman stated repeatedly that while all four are problematic, it is contempt that assassinates love. He noted that of the thousands of couples he has assessed, contempt was never present in the good, enduring marriages.

Couples who came to his U.W. clinic tended to fall into two categories: The relatively brief (seven year) marriage characterized by a volatile “attack and defend” style and the mid-range (fourteen year) marriage, characterized by emotional disengagement and a marked absence of joy, shared affection or humor. He noted that novice therapists might be lulled by the absence of volatility in these bonds, yet the dissipation of connection actually renders these couples more difficult to treat than the “attack and defenders.”2

Enduring marriages have a positive-to-negative interaction ratio of 5:1. In troubled marriages, the ratio is 1:1.25. These positive interactions need not be overtly “loving” or complementary, either. They are folded into the many simple, day-to-day interactions we have. Gottman views virtually any statement made to a partner as being a “bid for connection.” Statements as simple as “I talked to Barbara today,” or “Look at that new model SUV,” or “Sorry I’m late. The meeting ran over” are all bids for connection.

There are three ways to respond to such bids: We can turn towards our partner (comments acknowledging what was just said and responding affirmatively (“Oh, how is Barbara?” “Nice looking (ugly looking) car” or “That’s okay. Give me a call next time you think you’re going to be late.”); We can turn away from our partner (usually not responding at all or changing the subject without responding); We can turn against our partner (“Did you and Barbara just sit around gossiping as usual?” “I hate SUV’s. I can’t believe you like those things. What is wrong with you?” “You’ll have to get your own dinner. I threw yours away. Thanks for not calling, again.)

The latter two responses drain the partnerships “emotional bank account” while the first continually adds deposits. This is critical to Gottman, because when the inevitable argument occurs, those with depleted emotional bank accounts are much more likely to descend into a round of attack and defend, blame and stonewalling. The ability to utilize an argument as an opportunity to dialogue, rather than escalate, is based in large measure upon a history of “shared positive affect” between the partners. Thus we are in the process of managing our most fundamental disagreements in our mundane, day-to-day interactions with our partner.

We cannot be married or intimately involved in a committed relationship and be emotionally “safe.” If we believe that a good marriage does not involve pain and raw conflict, at certain points, then we are apt to be frightened or despairing when these occur. One reason this is so poignant for us lawyers is that we have such a rich and demanding life outside of our home, that when these moments of deep discomfort arise in our personal lives, we have places we can turn to absorb our interest--to divert our attention.

John Gottman often noted that these difficult exchanges are about conversations we’re not having but that we need to have. Such conversations may feel much like inching out on a high wire over the Grand Canyon. One of Gottman’s points is that the cultivation of a marital friendship and the willingness--and courage--to engage our partner in a healthy way when our blood is up, form the safety net, so that the drop won’t be nearly as steep as we feared.

1. Of course, I am not speaking of the emotionally, physically or sexually abusive marriage, which must end for the safety of a spouse or children.

2. We need to bear in mind that the whole point of this two day seminar was to introduce a protocol, assessment and intervention plan for both of these kinds of couple and their differing dynamics.