In relationships when you run into an issue where you know you are right, but the other person thinks they're right, and the stakes are so high that you can't let the other person have their way, how can you argue your case with out having the other person feel alienated?

This can be a difficult situation in couples, and it is extremely common.

In satisfying relationships, there is little room for one person to "know" they are right without alienating the other. In asserting your belief that you have a direct line to an absolute truth that the other person in their limited view cannot access, you are putting yourself in a position of superiority. You are left in the situation of listening to the other, and responding, "Yes, but. ." thus trouncing their perspective as wrong and again asserting yours. This does not lead to understanding but to an escalating, ongoing argument in which each attempts to prove their rightness to the other. This is more akin to a court case than healthy communication.

Couples often present for therapy in the hope that an "objective" person can be the judge of which partner is right and which is wrong (usually the one who thinks they are "right" drags the other in for therapy!). I am more comfortable approaching this from another perspective. Rather than one person being "right" and the other "wrong," I am going to assume that each partner has their own, entirely subjective "truth" on an issue, and that this truth is a complex interplay of feelings, thoughts, and life experiences that inform a unique narrative which then informs their bottom line. This individual's narrative is "true" and "right". for them. It may make no sense whatsoever for someone else.

For example, it is common for a couple to present with an issue that focuses on shared finances. For one partner it makes perfect sense to manage money one way - of course we buy a house immediately regardless of how we leverage ourselves to finance it. The truth is , our house is the most important investment we'll ever make and we need to do it immediately. For the other partner, you simply don't attempt to buy a house before first saving 20% down and being assured that the mortgage and taxes are affordable. The truth is , it's irresponsible to get in over your head.

As conveyed above, this is a content argument. To avoid mutual alienation, it's critical to get to the feelings underneath that argument. Perhaps a more accurate statement of the first partner's predicament is "Since I believe it's important to buy a house immediately, I will feel very anxious if we don't act on this belief, because I will believe our entire financial future is on the verge of collapsing as we throw away money in rent." Similarly, perhaps we can better summarize Partner Two's predicament as "There is no way I can buy a house now without being overrun by the anxiety of whether or not we can afford to eat if we get in over our heads in debt." A couple that is able to have this conversation is much closer to mutual understanding than the couple that is stuck on the content.

With couples, I will also be curious about what the "stakes" are in such an argument. The "stakes" are rarely in the content. It is common for these issues to be more about the ability to trust, fear, and the ability of certain personalities to be in an egalitarian partnership. In some situations, partners must either agree to disagree or one partner must choose to yield to the other partner. However, it is important that yielding is freely chosen after one feels fully validated and understood, or it will lead to resentment.

The best way to have this conversation is to validate each perspective. Partners need to hear "Now that you've explained to me that your family had a home repossessed when you were a child, I understand much better why you are afraid of excess debt. If we buy this house it will be important for me to continue to assure you that our income can cover it." Or, conversely, "Now I see that you are embarrassed that your parents never bought a house and now don't have anything to retire on. If we don't buy this house it will be important to begin building a retirement fund now even as we save for a house too, so you know that won't happen to us." This is a conversation that builds trust, and increases the likelihood that one partner may choose to yield to the other. Further, it makes it more likely that the other partner will receive the yielding in gratitude because they understand the emotional cost of doing so. This, I believe, is what the Bible considers "submission."

Who is our Therapist?
Joanne Weidman, MFT, is a licensed marriage and family therapist and former "Development-girl". A graduate of PennStateUniversity and Fuller Theological Seminary, she is on staff at La Vie Counseling Center in Pasadena. Email Joanne with questions or comments at joanneweidman@yahoo.com