Relationship Assist; Live in the In-Between.

I want to explore a concept described by Esther Perel during her interview on Brené Brown’s podcast Unlocking Us called, “Splitting the Ambivalence.”  By the way, I highly recommend listening to this episode, I learned so much!

An especially valuable concept in understanding human emotion is the idea of “paradox”, the idea that, “both can be true,” that two seemingly opposing ideas, emotions, beliefs can exist at the same time.  (Read our previous blog on the topic).  The main thesis is this:  we, human beings, like certainty because certainty provides a level of predictability, control, and therefore comfort.  Our desire for certainty pushes us into either/or spaces (right or wrong, good or bad).  Within these spaces, life seems simpler, more understandable, and safer. However, either/or does not capture the fullness of life nor the realities of existence. 

I want to offer this beautiful Carl Jung quote shared by Brene Brown,

“The paradox is one of our most valuable spiritual possessions, only the paradox comes anywhere near to comprehending the fullness of life.”

We also try to fit ourselves and others into boxes in order to avoid dealing with ambiguity and ambivalence.  We live in binary concepts like someone is either this or that. For example, I think of myself as shy and introverted, which I predominantly am, but there is also a part of me that takes on experiences in which I am in front of a lot of people.  I tend to be a rule-follower, but I often find myself standing against the norm, so a part of me is also a rebel.  I am sure you can think of similar contradictions within yourself where you lean toward identifying with one part of yourself over another, yet both parts are true to an extent.  People tend to hold opposing needs and desires within them. We want novelty and security at the same time, togetherness and but also independence and freedom.  We may lean toward one over the other, but we tend to have longings for both.

Going deeper, we can also feel two contradictory emotions at the same time.  We can feel excited but also sad about an upcoming move because there is both a lot to look forward to, and there is the loss of things left behind.  Both feelings exist and are true.  I could sincerely want to cook dinner for my family but dread the ordeal of it.  So, I can want it and not want it at the same time. Nothing could be more important to you than being with your kids, but when they are little you can also feel drained by a day spent running around after them and need time alone.  You can be very angry at a parent but also love them.  Hopefully what’s starting to become apparent is some dualities may be easier to reconcile while others may be less acceptable both to ourselves and/or others.  The problem occurs when in our need to avoid the ambivalence of two opposing feelings, we focus on only one side of the truth.  We end up losing the multidimensionality of our feelings, and our lives.  This can happen within us, but it can also happen within relationships.

Let’s take this into the realm of relationships (and it can be any kind of relationship; intimate, familial, friendship, or work).  Perel suggests our discomfort with ambivalence can often manifest in relationships as “splitting the ambivalence”; instead of giving space to the ambivalence within ourselves, one partner is given one side of the ambivalence equation and the other partner takes the opposite stance.  As an example, Brown described how in her relationship with her husband, she tends to be “the certain one” always making decisions quickly and confidently, while her husband tends to be cautious and unsure.  Brown described a familiar dance wherein she may feel certain about a particular decision, but after she presses her husband and he finally decides, she then reverts to being more cautious and less sure. What’s happening in this powerful choreography is in truth Brené is both certain and also uncertain, but her discomfort with uncertainty makes her split that part of herself off, which is then taken on and carried by her husband.  So, in their relationship, she tends to be sure while he carries all the uncertainty she finds hard to tolerate. 

That was just one example, but in relationships splitting the ambivalence may happen subtly, unconsciously and frequently, across multiple issues.  Let’s say, hypothetically, my husband is the planner. He is decisive and knows what he wants, so he tends to do the deciding.  I can be indecisive, and because my husband is clearer and plans everything, I don’t. I allow him to decide.  Looking at the deeper level of the subconscious, being decisive may be a way for my husband to manage anxiety over not knowing. There may be uncertainty within him, but uncertainty may be too risky a position for him to tolerate.  At the same time, a part of him could also want to sit back and not have the burden of deciding and he may therefore resent always being the planner.  In this same underneath layer, I may hypothetically defer decision making to my husband because I fear making decisions, because internally I fear making mistakes and losing love if I disappoint people.  I am happy enough to not have to decide so I split the decision maker part off and give it to my husband. However, at the same time I may also end up resenting his position as decider because part of me also wants agency and control. This is just all hypothetical, of course. But hopefully you can start to understand how splitting the ambivalence works.

What is so interesting though, is something Perel pointed out in the podcast which is, the fact that we chose a person who has an opposite quality is a testament to the fact that part of us does want or need that quality.  It is like this: if we did not want adventure in our lives, we would not have married someone who seeks adventure.  As Perel said more elegantly,

“your choice of the other person…represents the part of you that is being often denied or pushed out or dimmed but is there. So instead of people reconciling the paradox inside themselves, what they do is they split the paradox and they take half of the story and they put the other half on the other person.”

What’s the cost to Splitting the Ambivalence?  The cost is, when partners don’t own all parts of themselves, they can feel they are in opposition to one another.  The piece they are fighting against within themselves is now being fought against in their partner; the part we find intolerable within us is now intolerable in our partner, and it is the couple that becomes split.  Couples can get split into certain versus indecisive, “yay-sayer” versus nay-sayer, risk-taker versus cautious, regimented versus easy-going, calm versus anxious or neurotic, etc., etc.  One can see how this can become problematic as it makes each person within a relationship feel further and further apart from one another.

So, what’s the solution? 

Own the ambivalence.  Live in the in-between.

One of the scariest things for us is living in the in-between, but if done, can lead to deeper understanding, empathy and connection within relationships.  Living in the in-between means we own all of the (sometimes contradictory) parts of ourselves, ALL of our feelings, fears, and needs.  For this to happen we have to begin with awareness, and as always, accepting and allowing all parts of ourselves. Then doing the same for our partner; accepting and allowing all parts of the other. 

What would that look like? 

Move away from the edges; the roles we take on with each other, the absolute positions, understanding that, according to Perel:

“the only way you can be so certain is because you have somebody else articulating the part of you that is being disavowed.”

Explore the parts of yourself that are not so certain or defined, explore the ambivalence and share that with each other.  Create space for your partner’s ambivalence.  In doing so we may find we share more with each other than we thought.

Let’s take for example, one person in a couple who says they want to move to the city, and the other person says they don’t want to move.  It may seem there is an irreconcilable difference unless one person absolutely compromises what they want.  In moving away from the edge, each person would explore within themselves the context for their position and their longing for the opposite.  For example, the person who wants to move may acknowledge they have some fears and doubts about moving while also expressing the context and reason behind their desire to move.  This would help their partner explore their own longing perhaps for consistency and security in not moving and fear of novelty as something that may be holding them back.  In the process, the couple find they are not so far from each other and more likely to feel heard and acknowledged no matter what decision they come to.  Each person may also feel freer to move into the spaces between, loosening themselves from roles they usually play, allowing a greater sense of fullness and wholeness within themselves. 

Two people, offering themselves and being accepted as whole beings in their relationship with one another, living courageously in the in-between, is my definition of deep connection and intimacy.  I imagine it can be a brave and beautiful space.