BEYOND ROMANTIC LOVE
Copyright 2001, 2006
.
“YOU’RE NOT WHAT I EXPECTED: Love After the Romance Has Ended,” Polly Young-Eisendrath, Fromm, New York, 1997.
p. 265: CHAPTER SEVEN – TV or Not TV? That Is the Leisure Question
p. 266: “While planning this book, I decided to design a survey to ask questions of heterosexual couples about their use of leisure time – in large part because of my curiosity about television watching. Later in the chapter I’ll report the results of the survey, administered to sixty-two married couples from mostly middle-class backgrounds. Many interesting patterns of difference emerged. One of them was that men like to watch television at the end of a busy day as much as they like to converse with their spouses, but women much prefer conversation to TV. On the way to understanding gender differences in television watching, I learned a great deal about the crucial importance of leisure time in the life of a couple.”
RESPONSE: Such studies are certainly the place to start. Until we realize something exists it’s difficult to explore the matter in depth. However, for me it seems important to go to the next level and attempt to understand what is beneath this difference. What is going on in the male body when he chooses watching TV over sharing some intimate conversations with his wife?
p. 267: “In our society, increasingly partners and spouses spend longer times apart because of the extended workday, as economist and professor Juliet Schor shows in her recent book on the ‘overworked American.’ Separation anxiety (fears and insecurities that are experienced as anger, depression, and apathy) is aroused by long hours of separation from those to whom we are attached. When reunited with our partners and children, we cannot easily shift into enjoyment. We tend unconsciously to want to punish the person from whom we’ve been separated. Separation anxiety may interfere with a couple’s ability to enjoy leisure time when partners have been separated for days and weeks, and then are reunited for a weekend or a few days of expected relaxation.”
RESPONSE: As indicated before it seems to me that for some men (women?) even one day of being apart is enough to kick in the separation anxiety feelings and that this is what is provoking that feeling, “I just want a little while alone when I get home. Don’t bug me while I’m reading the paper, watching TV, or whatever I want to do.” It seems very important and useful to bring the idea of separation anxiety into this situation.
Hopefully, this model might provide some useful ideas for things couples can do to break through these patterns and get reconnected with feelings of intimacy and satisfying shared time.
p. 267: “Long working hours tend to increase the expectations and significance of leisure…. I may say to myself, ‘What good is a relationship in which the few hours we spend together each week are spent either being bored or arguing?’”
RESPONSE: And, that certainly seems like a fair question!
p. 269: “This chapter is about becoming unafraid to confront differences. The differences that I explore here have to do with the use of leisure time. Choices for spending leisure time may seem to be a trivial matter in contrast with fighting, sex, children, and money (topics we’ve already covered), but as it turns out leisure may be the glue that keeps a couple (and a family) together – or the wedge that drives them apart. Shaping activities for leisure time covers a range of questions as diverse as whether one wants to engage in religious worship or whether one would rather take an evening stroll or watch the news on TV.”
RESPONSE: So, possibly the way individuals use their leisure time, at this moment of history in the U.S., reveals more clearly than any other recognized markers, the actual values of the individual. If the individuals confront these differences and come to realize there is a core dimension on which they do not connect then ending the relationship makes sense to me.
This was a key issue for my ex-wife. She thought vacations were essential. I can take them or leave them. Unless they are tied into something else – such as my writing interests, or related – they are of minimal interest to me. I can do them for the good of the family, and enjoy doing things together, but that wasn’t enough for my ex. She wanted me to take a bigger role in the planning and contribute to the enthusiasm for deciding where to go and what to do. Sometimes I could. Other times I couldn’t. Since I couldn’t do that enough it caused her to question the value of the marriage.
p. 269: “Conflicts about leisure may be the central access that couples have to an arena of equal influence between the sexes.”
p. 270: Leisure experiences provide bonding for contemporary couples and families in a new way, compared with other periods of history.”
“Modern families are dependent for their satisfaction, in large measure, on their ability to negotiate differences and preferences for leisure activities.”
p. 270-271: “Although patterns vary somewhat with each couple, the trends I have noticed as the strongest are women’s desires for interaction in joint activities (talking together and finding similarities in experiences) and men’s desires for relaxation or entertainment in ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ parallel activities with little direct exchange. Another trend is women’s search for self-improvement (through church, education, or therapy), seen by them as an exciting development of the self through leisure time. Mostly I hear men rejecting self-improvement as ‘more work,’ not an ideal way to spend leisure time.”
RESPONSE: This may be a window through which a couple can look and realize that some key values are not being shared in their relationship that got hidden by symbols that turn out to be far less important. So it seems very useful to me to examine the internal dynamics provoking these differences in desires for using leisure time. This may be a key factor in computer matching interested persons. Leisure interests might help to clarify those things that support a relationship and those that interfere with maintaining one.
p. 271: “Most of the research that has looked at the leisure behavior of couples and families has examined its consequences for marital satisfaction. Most important is a consistent finding that husbands and wives who share leisure time together tend to be much more satisfied with their marriages than those who don’t.”
RESPONSE: What seems clear is that these different interests in use of leisure time may often come out of conflicting values hidden by lack of understanding by the couple of the essential differences in those core values. To me that is research that must be done. In the process we may learn what it takes to provide a foundation for a lasting marriage.
p. 273: “Three types of leisure activity affect couple relationships in somewhat different ways. The first type is called joint activity, and it involves direct sharing and interaction. Generally speaking, joint activity enhances satisfaction. The second type is called parallel activity, and it involves doing something together without much interaction, like watching television. Parallel activities can have a positive, modest, or negative impact on couple relationships. A 1988 study, designed specifically to understand the effects of parallel leisure on couples, found that activities involving little or no communication provide little benefit for the relationship. They may even hurt the relationship because they suggest togetherness when people are feeling separate – and so may lower the experience of satisfaction. The third type is separate leisure activity, which has a negative effect on couple satisfaction if the amount of separate time exceeds a partner’s sense of the ‘norm.’”
RESPONSE: It seems to me that at some level these differences regarding leisure time come out of the degree of shared interests, and how the individuals feel about each other. Do they want to spend time doing the same things, or are their interests different and really not suited to a deep relationship with the person they are now with?
p. 280: “Both men and women like to talk to each other at the end of the day. On the other hand, men’s average rating for watching television ‘to relax’ was the same as their preference for conversation although women rated television watching as a much lower preference.”
RESPONSE: For the male this may boil down to saying I don’t find it very satisfying to talk to you and share time with you. I’d rather do something else. Or, it might also involve separation anxiety as indicated before. At any rate clarifying the psychodynamics driving the male desire to watch TV in these instances seems important.
p. 280: “Regarding the weekends, our respondents saw things differently. Men indicated being significantly more annoyed by ‘idle chatter’ than women were, and women indicted being significantly more annoyed by television watching.”
RESPONSE: For me the above would support the idea that at least from the male’s perspective the partner doesn’t have anything to say worth listening to. And part of this may come out of an inequality in the relationship such that the female lives a boring life and really has nothing worth talking about in her life. Or, it may be tat the couple don't share core interests so they really have little of significance to talk about. And because of differences in male/ female communication styles the male may be more influenced by this issue.
p. 281: “When the car [automobile] is part of leisure activity, its handling can become a point of contention.”
p. 283: “Studies of vacations show that they can be both a source of satisfaction and a source of stress.”
RESPONSE: For me this fits into the idea that if couples really don’t have basic needs, interests, and values in common spending more time together only makes that more obvious.
p. 285: “Large differences in age or physical abilities can interfere with a couple’s companionship because of the ways in which these factors are linked to different leisure activities.”
RESPONSE: But in the final analysis this gets back to the issue of shared interests. If that is lacking then it becomes a matter that because they are not doing the same things – at least often enough – they don’t share enough in order to feel like partners.
p. 287: “One preference showed the kind of difference that I anticipated we might see. Men gave higher overall ratings to the idea that couples should learn to accept differences without talking them out.”
RESPONSE: Again, this gets back to the old vision of a marriage as a business in which he gets his sex and someone to take care of him, and she gets food, a place to stay, and to raise their kids. If a couple agree that the goal is mature dependence then dialogue is essential and everything about the partnership has to change. But my guess is that ost couples would require a great deal of re-education and counseling in order to make the necessary changes.
p. 287: “Throughout these chapters I have stressed the importance of acknowledging and respecting differences – something I have often dubbed ‘differentiation.’ At the same time, I have insisted on the importance of empathy in responding to difference: the ability to see something from another’s point of view.”
RESPONSE: However, it all boils down to how much difference – how much differentiation – is possible and still leave two people with a bond powerful enough to hold them together? Obviously, no thinking person can totally agree with every thought, belief, idea of any other person. So with sufficient discussion they must always reach a point upon which they disagree. The question is what do they do then? They might decide they must divorce because the point is so important to each of them it divides the “us” from the “them.” They might agree to disagree and never talk about it again, or just skirt around it when it comes up. Or, they might continue to examine all aspects of the point with each other and eventually reach a new level of understanding upon which they could agree. But what determines which course the couple will take? Young-Eisendrath doesn’t ever address this issue head-on, but only indirectly as above.
p. 290: “Although religious beliefs and spirituality are rarely considered under the topic of ‘leisure time,’ I have chosen to put them here. Contemporary couples are often faced with dilemmas about free time that include questions about church attendance and the development of spirituality.”
RESPONSE: I would agree with the above approach because I see the issue in terms of shared values. I take the position that if the couple don’t share basic values (and the basic value may be that it’s OK for one to golf while the other takes the kids to church) then they lack a foundation upon which to build a sustainable relationship, at least in the model of mature dependence.
p. 291: “Religion encompasses a specific system of beliefs about a deity and usually a form of worship. When speaking of such things as church affiliation, people often mention ‘organized religion,’ referring to the social and political structures that go along with most major forms of religious worship.”
RESPONSE: Of course the above uses what I would call a naïve understanding of religion which very few persons are currently astute enough to escape. For any who desire to utilize Science of Ethics they must move beyond this level of knowledge.
But to do this requires recognizing that religion is one of the essentials for a human being. For those who don’t recognize this they basically cut themselves off from the core of their being. But having said that it must be recognized that the relationship between God and religion is the relationship between the “elixir of life” (providing eternal youth) of alchemy and decoding the human genome made possible by modern chemistry. In other words God has nothing to do with religion except in the domain ruled by our “tribal” propensities. Our “wisdom” potential permits us to work with the naturalistic core that actually defines religion. And religion requires organization. That is what makes it religion rather than philosophy, or "spirituality."
p. 291: “In a famous lecture on the topic of psychology and religion, Carl Jung characterizes religion more in terms of an attitude of mind.”
Religion appears to me to be a peculiar attitude of the human mind, which could be formulated in accordance with the original use of the term ‘religion,’ that is, a careful consideration and observation of certain dynamic factors, understood to be ‘powers,’ spirits, demons, gods, laws, ideas, ideals or whatever name man [sic] has given to such factors as he has found in his world powerful… and meaningful enough to be devoutly adored and loved.”
RESPONSE: Anything that is only an attitude of mind is not yet a religion. It is only as it bonds people and produces organization that it become a religion. Jung struggles to move beyond a naïve definition of religion and moves in the right direction. However, his position misses many issues necessary to truly understand religion and Science of Ethics.
p. 291: “In this passage, Jung broadens our understanding of religion to go beyond organized religion, and to include those values or ideals to which one may be ‘religiously devoted’ or those matters that one ‘studies religiously.’ Jung emphasizes that whatever truth one takes to be most powerful and meaningful is religion. In this period of time, Jung’s definition of religion would include science.”
RESPONSE: A key issue missed by Jung is that religion does in fact require social organization. And lacking those structures one merely has beliefs and idiosyncratic behaviors. The essential bonding role religion plays in a society is not addressed.
p. 292: “It would seem that with this daunting array of possibilities for religious and spiritual activities, I would have encountered a lot of conflict among couples in psychotherapy on these issues, but in general I have not…. Most couples who commit themselves to long-term relationships have some basis for a similar ‘religio’ that allows them to sustain their differences and negotiate solutions to problems.”
RESPONSE: And, I would say that has not happened by accident. In order for individuals to connect and form a couple they must have some foundation values that they share to make this possible. That may be that each takes the position that it is OK for the other to believe and/or practice whatever it is they do. But if they totally conflict on this key issue the relationship will never move beyond the initial stages. When either significantly change their religious beliefs this frequently imposes a severe strain on the marriage.
p. 292: “Where I find the greatest conflict in contemporary couples is in the area of spiritual ‘lifestyle.’ This includes issues of diet, ritual, leisure time, and reference groups.”
p. 295: “Most couples have the same fundamental religious beliefs. Where there are differences in tradition, I have found that these differences are either benign or uncontested (the atheist and the Christian who don’t try to convince each other, but share a common ground of humanism). The particular differences of spiritual beliefs are the ones that are often most important for couples to explore. Spiritual differences are similar to different preferences for leisure time. They need to be aired. As couples talk about the differences that connect them to preferences for diet, reference groups, charitable works, and beliefs about death, partners deepen their knowledge and intimate ties.”
RESPONSE: Or, it seems to me another possibility is that they might decide to break up over incompatibility of basic beliefs.
p. 296: “Separate activities during leisure time, especially religious or spiritual ones, can threaten trust and stability. The overall sense of being friends or companions is the target to keep an eye on. When one partner begins to feel that the relationship does not provide enough ‘companionship’ or friendship, both partners need to be alert to this symptom of possible dissatisfaction. As I’ve said several times throughout the chapter, marital satisfaction and stability are strongly linked to a sense of successful companionship for contemporary couples.”
RESPONSE: To me this seems to be as it should be. However, I think that couples may need assistance in realizing that some of the things that they believe interfere with feeling a “sense of successful companionship” are being viewed too superficially. My take is that couples often get focused on these superficial issues and lose the chance to get to deeper levels where they in fact do connect and could thereby provide the basis for a truly nurturing relationship. This is where better research into what couples need in order to have a successful marriage could be of fundamental importance.
p. 296: “The integration of dream lovers and the development of a relational self take place in an atmosphere of equality and trust. As we saw in the last chapter, equality may mean ‘equal influence’ rather than equal income or sameness. Trust is a belief in the ability of both partners to sustain a shared horizon of meaning and honesty between them. Trust builds gradually through the process of handling conflicts without enacting dominance-submission and aggression. Trust is the product of airing differences and finding a way to work with them.”
“In the use of leisure time, how much difference can be tolerated without its being a threat to trust? I don’t know a formula for determining this, but I believe the key issue is the capacity of each person to understand and accept the other’s point of view.”
RESPONSE: For me “understand and accept the other’s point of view [as deserving respect]” sounds critical as the key for maintaining a marriage based on trust and sharing. People can live together without understanding each other. Or, if they do understand they may not accept that the other’s point of view has any value or merit, and is worthy of respect. But if they want intimacy and trust they must have understanding and respect.
p. 297-298: “Differences in leisure preferences can be serious difficulties for any couple. Heterosexual couples, in particular, are at risk for being pulled apart by the kinds of gender-related differences that our survey described – debates about television watching, different conversational styles, different commitments to self-improvement. Early in a relationship, during the romance stage, partners are usually eager to accommodate to each other. During this time, preferences for shared leisure are usually high. Ideal dream lovers are fully projected, and both partners may believe they have found a soul mate. When the romance is over and disillusionment begins, partners begin to move away from shared activities as they project negative dream lovers and fear they have fallen into a wrong relationship. At this time, leisure preferences can interfere with trust. Angry and belligerent defenses around one’s leisure preferences can disrupt conversations and prevent true dialogue.”
p. 299: “In this chapter and elsewhere, I have tried to stress the importance of airing differences and negotiating solutions – either compromises or agreements to differ. The best possible outcome of disillusionment is a continuing ability to remain close friends and companions. The greater the agreement about leisure time, the better. When no agreement can be reached because of differences in preferences, circadian rhythms, work schedules, and the like, then differences must be made tolerable through understanding and reassurance. Most couples have some differences regarding the use of leisure time. They find those differences to be tolerable and even meaningful when they can make them an ongoing part of their shared meaning system. In the next chapter I will talk in more depth about this shared meaning system as a ‘fusion of horizons’ between partners, as it permits differences within an atmosphere of trust.” RESPONSE: If a couple is indeed working to achieve mature dependence then dialogue is essential. In this chapter it sounds like most of the couples were not working to achieve mature dependence. And I guess in many cases there were doubts as to whether or not there existed a foundation on which to base a mature dependence.
.
.
1. “YOU’RE NOT WHAT I EXPECTED: Love After the Romance Has Ended,” Polly Young-Eisendrath, Fromm, New York, 1997.
.
.
.
.
.