Counseling, Therapy & Life Coaching
@ Sacred Practice

Countless are the problems which we have to meet in living together. Our whole lifetime is given over to overcoming obstacles. Marriage is of definite advantage, for it brings together two people for mutual help in the struggle for existence. But though marriage helps us to meet the tasks of life-it is also a task which must be met. In matrimony we encounter not only the general problems of life, but the special problems arising in marriage. We may consider problems as a test of our capacity to solve them. Our marital problems are a test of our ability to live closely together with another human being.

These considerations suggest that every problem is related to various levels of our personality and our life. It is on the superficial level that the actual content of a problem appears first. We are aware of uneasiness. This subjective feeling of calamity seems to be caused entirely by a definite concrete situation. Economic, social, professional, or sexual conflicts seem to demand special efforts. If these efforts do not resolve the problem, disappointment and discontent follow. Formerly assistance and advice were limited to specific regulations which had to be observed in order to maintain cooperation and harmony in life or marriage. The suggestions offered were technical, recommending specific procedures to be followed to meet specific evident circumstances. Written laws directed personal conduct.

The modern psychologist seeks behind any concrete problem a structure totally different from the evident problem itself, which can be regarded as merely a symptom. Each problem is related to the entirety of a given life situation, which is established by all forces converging on us from the outside and meeting our personal attitude deriving from our past-our style of life, our training, our preparation.

Any constructive discussion of the problems causing discontent and friction must disclose psychological errors which have provoked the problems or are hindering their satisfactory solution. Although it seems to us that our encounter with life results in real and concrete clashes which hurt, insult, and sometimes even kill, in reality the conflict is only within ourselves. The question, whether reality exists at all, or only in our conception of it, remained a mere philosophical issue-and a very confused and confusing one-until physicists revealed the "spiritual nature" of matter, discovering that any concrete substance, tangible as it is, consists entirely of abstract and utterly immaterial waves. The chair on which one sits is real, it consists of wood or metal. One might expect to find the same material no matter how far one analyzes the constituents of the chair, but that is wrong. If one goes far enough, one finds particles which consist only of electrons, neutrons, and other smallest bodies which, however, are actually only waves without what we generally consider substance. The speed and number of waves alone determine the material, wood or metal, the consistency, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, and the color . We are living in an entirely different world when we look behind the surface of the "real thing." Great is the similarity between the conception and approach of modern physical science and psychology.’ The analysis of concrete problems discloses a similar fundamental difference between the appearance of a problem and the forces constituting it. Each problem is the expression of personal and social forces beneath the surface. Solution of conflicts demands an understanding of the underlying facts, of conditions and personalities involved.

The following example is characteristic of thousands of episodes and conflicts found in the history of almost every marriage. They could have been avoided or easily solved had both spouses understood the underlying motives and goals of each other, had they refrained from resenting and accusing each other and looked instead for their own chances to change the situation.

Mrs. M. came for advice in a matter that seemed to her thoroughly trivial and yet was threatening her whole marriage. Married about one year, she got along very well with her husband. Sexually and socially they had fun together and were devoted companions–except for one disagreement which lately had taken on such proportions that the harmony between them was gone, affecting almost every phase of their marital life.

She reported that despite all her efforts she was unable to make Mr. M. give her her weekly allowance for food and other housekeeping expenses on time. She had to ask for the money each week, several times; and, if she did not ask, he "forgot’" altogether to give her money until the week was over. She talked to him, pleaded with him, and threatened him-nothing helped. The more they quarreled, the less he obliged. What could she do? Now he had started to accuse her of spending too much; she should have saved something from last week. "From my fifteen dollars a week-when I try so hard to make ends meet since he simply refuses to give me more." She could not understand why he was so miserly in this regard, since he spent rather generously on her otherwise.

What could she do to avoid the fighting, quarreling and invariable final submission to the humiliating experience? We can well understand her predicament. It was impossible for her to plan her budget and even her meals. She had to borrow and to make debts, both of which she hated. What could she have done instead of talking, pleading-and threatening?

Here we reach the crucial point. Despite the fact that the majority of housewives probably would have acted as Mrs. M. did, they all miss the boat. A little understanding of the little guy who wants to play the big boss would have saved many sleepless nights, tortuous scenes, wasted hours, days, and weeks. It is obvious that the "unreasonable" behavior of Mr. M. appears only unreasonable when looked upon at the logical level. He certainly had neither the "right" nor any logical reason to behave as he did. But the situation looks different when regarded from the psychological point of view. He loved his wife dearly, was devoted to her to such a degree that she could wind him around her little finger. And she did so, except in this one field of action. The only point where he could exert his superiority was in his role as provider. And-without being aware of it-he wanted to make full use of this one advantage. He wanted to be asked, to be begged. If he had given her her allowance at the beginning of the week, without any ado, then even this sign of his authority would have been taken away from him. Instead of power he would have accepted just another duty. He could not explain that to her, because he was not aware of his psychological motivation. Therefore, when she accused him, he had to come back with rationalizations, with flimsy retaliations and unfounded reproaches, which made Mrs. M. only more furious. And so they became deadlocked in a battle which could result only in the break-up of their marriage.

Once Mrs. M. realized the situation, overcame her hurt pride and resentment, she found easily what she could do to solve the problem. First, she no longer resented asking him for what she knew was due her. She wanted him to be happy -and if that was what made him happy, why not give it to him. It was so easy, once her false pride was gone. Still, there remained some difficulty. She had to ask him several times for the money, of course, as he did not give it to her immediately. That sometimes involved hardships as bills had to be paid. What to do? But Mrs. M., clever as she was, found a simple answer. She discovered that she could as easily get from him a hundred dollars as fifteen dollars if she asked for it several times. He actually was very generous. So on several occasions she got a hundred dollars, which gave her a reserve to fall back on if he did not provide the weekly allowance on time. And reproaches and scenes were never necessary.

What she had learned from this experience went deeper than the successful handling of the allowance problem. She discovered that their real danger lay in their mutual competition, that he was afraid of being just a "sucker," that his love and devotion would make him her slave, and that she wanted, more than necessary, her queenly position, ambitious and pampered as she was. In the limelight of the one conflict, she learned to understand the deeper conflict endangering their entire relationship-and she found the way of solving the whole problem.