Many of these conflicts revolve around power struggles, and button pushing. People who you know and love understand your buttons, and will press them when they feel they need something that they think you may be unwilling to give. In contrast there are sadistic individuals who push buttons for the simple pleasure of exercising control. These people aren't confused about what they are doing. They know how to hurt others and they do it for personal gain, ego gratification, and sometimes for no reason at all, simply because it's how they operate in the world. Regardless of whether you are dealing with someone who is accidentally causing collateral damage with their careless remarks, or someone who is actually out to intentionally hurt you may make little difference. If you are already struggling with your own anxiety, worry, and insecurities these exchanges can be particularly difficult.
This drama is an old movie trope, the guy who goes home for that bad family Thanksgiving / Christmas / birthday dinner, and in response to the unpleasant lecherous-uncle / unforgiving-mother / angry-step-father / smugly-successful-yuppie-sibling our hero says something that makes everybody's jaw drop. The family realizes that they've misjudged that guy all these years, and in their stunned silence and new awareness of how badly they've behaved all their lives the hero of this story walks off triumphantly into the night satisfied that their life and relationships have finally changed. I've never seen this happen in real life, and as satisfying as it seems in the movies, in practice it just isn't how things ever go. The Will Ferrell comedy "Step Brothers" includes multiple truth bomb dropping confrontations like this. They are hilarious, and brilliantly executed in this comedy about a dysfunctional family that struggles to deal with two men who refuse to grow up. These situations aren't a reflection of reality, they are only something that we wish would happen.
In Recovery we make a distinction between the inner environment and the outer environment. The inner environment includes your thoughts, feelings and sensations, and of these aspects we only have marginal control over our thoughts. The outer environment includes all of the things that you cannot easily control like the weather, the economy, the next election, and other people. Spending effort trying to control other people leads to frustration and disappointment. The measure of control that you are able to establish is either usually very slight, or requires such an enormous effort that it becomes a full time occupation (think about a totalitarian state like 1940s Nazi Germany or modern day North Korea and what they have done to keep people under control). We recommend that you focus on the things you can control, this includes what you think, what you say, and what you do.
Conflicts with family often revolve around trivial notions of right and wrong. Letting this go can be a first step towards dealing with a difficult person. In the chapter titled "Temper, Symptom and Insight" from MHTWT Frank describes a conflict with his mother as follows:
Frank R.: I can give an example that shows two sides of the story, that is, the difference in the results whether temper is or is not controlled. The other night I walked home with Harriette and met my mother on the street. She had a letter to mail. I offered to let Harriette mail it so I could carry the bundles. But mother asked me to mail it. As usual, she had to have her own way. I lost my temper and grabbed Harriette and said, "Let's go," leaving mother to mail the letter. After that I was pretty angry for a short while but it was all over soon. In former years I would have tried to justify myself; I would have been furious about the domineering ways of my mother, but this time I didn't do anything of the kind. The incident was closed as far as I was concerned. Later on when mother came home I spoke to her and she did not answer. A year ago or so I would have got angry again but that evening I simply kept quiet. At supper mother hardly ate anything and after the meal was over she cried. Of course, I didn't like that but since as you all know there is a deadlock between us I couldn't do anything about it. As I said before there is a difference in results between now and before. Before I had my Recovery training the deadlock led to endless quarrels because neither of us would give in. Now I keep quiet and while the deadlock persists there is no argument. More than that, in former days I would have been angry and stayed angry for a long time and incidentally I wouldn't have felt like eating, either, but on this particular night I ate as usual.
Annette: In other words, both you and your mother would have staged a contest as to who would starve most and say least. Well, you say that this time you faced the fact that the manner in which you acted might have been wrong and temperamental. You refused to prove that you were right. That is of course the best way for cutting short arguments.
I always feel sympathy for Frank when we discuss this chapter in meetings. His solution to not engage in conflict with his mother reduces the stress that he experiences, and is an improvement on his past where he would have argued with his mother instead of eating his dinner, but it isn't a total resolution to the issue. The deadlock that he finds himself in seems really unpleasant. The important thing to recognize here is that Frank can't change his mother and since he still lives with her he can't easily walk away from the relationship. What he is accomplishing is improving his situation by recognizing that conflicts about incidental requests like delivering a letter are not worth staging an argument over. While his mother might resort to a guilt trip by crying over the disagreement and refusing to eat her dinner, Frank doesn't escalate the situation any further. By refusing to buy into the conflict his mother sets up he takes an important step towards improving his mental health.
He presents a simplified structure of the mind where he breaks it into three basic components, the higher reasoning brain, the emotional relationship oriented midbrain, and the primitive feeling brain, sometimes called the reptilian or lizard brain. This breakdown, while a helpful analogy, is also based on real biology. Last weeks article on the "Biology of Depression's Vicious Cycle" discusses how recent researchers have used fMRI images to observe the activity in the prefrontal cortex, or the reasoning part of the brain and the activity in the amygdala, or reptilian brain to understand how depression changes brain activity. In a reasonable individual Goulston argues that these three components are in alignment, usually with the rational part of the brain making decisions based on information from the other parts. When dealing with someone who is irrational or aggressive, often one of the other components has taken over.
A strategy that difficult people sometimes use is the "amygdala hijack", where they shout and behave badly, or demand sympathy attempting to get their target's amygdala, or primitive reptilian brain to take over. Once the target is in an upset state, and either frightened or shouting back, what in Recovery we would call being in temper, the instigator often gains a measure of control. Some people are very used to living in a state of hyperactive fear or aggression and when they drive other people into that same state they obtain a maneuvering advantage by being in familiar territory. After many years of practice they know some tricks for getting what they want, and by disabling your rational side they are able to go for a win.
Both Goulston and Low give the same recommendation, maintain poise and control, and resist the urge to respond with unreasonable or threatening tactics. In Recovery we say "Temper begets Temper, Peace begets Peace", this is one of the tools we use to explicitly acknowledge that when you meet someone else's anger with your own you simply perpetuate the conflict, you don't really resolve anything. If instead you remain calm, or at least present yourself in a calm and reasonable way and don't allow your primitive reptilian brain to take over you will have the opportunity to deal appropriately with the situation. This isn't easy. Being shouted at can feel like being hit with a hammer and your instinct will be to hit back with the same level of force to make the attack stop, however, in this scenario your instincts won't help.
In Recovery we are not suggesting that you should become a dishrag. Responding reasonably to an unreasonable assault doesn't mean rolling over or giving up. When we talk about not arguing about trivialities we don't mean to say that you should always give in, we mean don't get into meaningless fights, instead choose your responses carefully. You can always make very reasonable choices, like recognizing that someone is baiting you into a nonsensical conflict, or recognizing that someone is trying to shut down your reasoning faculties by shouting at you. Always stick up for yourself, but remain smart and stay in control. Being civilized doesn't mean you should wimp out, it means keeping your cool and making a choice rather than responding impulsively.
The most basic thing to evaluate after the umpteenth conflict with an unreasonable person is whether you need to keep this relationship at all. Many people hold on to old friends out of loyalty, and stay in contact with unpleasant family members because that is just "what you do". If these relationships are particularly fraught it is worth considering whether you can limit your time with these people, or possibly even remove them from your life entirely. Limiting your involvement can take the form of attending fewer family dinners, being at those dinners for shorter periods of time, or skipping them all together if the scenario is sufficiently toxic. Goulston provides the following checklist to help you make this decision about whether to keep this person in your life or not:
- Can you rely on this person for emotional or psychological support, or is the person distant or even abusive?
- Can you rely on this person for practical help, or does the person let you down whenever you need assistance?
- Does the person accept responsibility for his actions or blame others?
- Is the person reliable or unreliable?
- Is the person self-reliant or needy?
- What should this person expect from you, and what are you actually giving?
Based on this list ask yourself whether this relationship is worth saving, or whether you should cut this person out of your life. Try to be fair in your assessment and consider your whole history with the person. Sometimes you will owe this person loyalty because you are grateful for things they did in the past. With others you will find you are just sticking with an irrational person because you don't want to feel like the bad guy. If you are concerned about the guilt that you would feel if you left this person and this guilt is the only reason you are staying with them, this is a very strong signal that you need to disconnect.
Keep in mind that there are degrees to which you can reduce your involvement with some people. You can respond to fewer invitations or requests for favours, you can limit the total amount of time you spend with this person, or change the type of time you spend with them. For example you can engage with them in group settings instead of one-on-one settings, or you can reduce your relationship to e-mails and telephone calls rather than visits. Who knows, the person might change on their own, but don't bank on that eventuality.
In Recovery we emphasize trying to find civilized solutions to conflicts. This means not shouting back when shouted at, but instead speaking reasonably to people regardless of their conduct and if necessary walking away from someone who constantly shouts at you and won't relent. It is always fair to try to engage with people who are having a hard time. Sometimes we are the ones who fail to control our urge to shout, blame or sullenly withdraw. I'm very grateful to everyone who has patiently talked me down when in this state of mind. If you can engage with someone on a rational level, despite the crying, shouting, and guilt tripping, that is ideal. However, not everyone has your best interests at heart, and it's important to keep in mind that while you can change how you respond, and you have some influence over other people, you can't control them. If when you improve your behavior they don't improve their's, you may need to accept that there is nothing that can be done, and you may need to choose to move on.
More Information
