Professor Ana Maria Navarro,Universidad de Ciencias de la Educacion Universidad De Navarra This paper is not going to consider the legal or doctrinal aspects of marriage, rather it has been written as a personal reflection on the matter and to serve as a basis for group discussion for participants in the Family Enrichment Program. Hence, this paper will deal with some of the situations and problems of interpersonal relations between spouses, which inevitably arise when the diversity of their roles or functions cross-purposes. This text is a synthesis of various articles that touch partially on related matters.
Every human being is born with the fundamental right and duty to perfect, form and fulfill himself. This personal goal of every man and woman IS inviolable, natural and supernatural. The diverse institutions that bind a person also have their own goals, what we call specific ends: production and efficiency at work, learning in school, loyalty to apolitical party, etc. These specific goals shouldn't interfere with, but rather reinforce personal goals; such is the nature of human activity. Any other way causes not unity in life, but rather schizophrenia. Marriage, as a natural, social and religious institution also has its specific ends: procreation and education of children, mutual support, and communal life. Under good laws there isn't (there shouldn't be) any conflict between the personal perfection of the individual and his function or role as spouse or parent. Nevertheless, we frequently hear and read the opposite opinion. Some come from the criticism of the family and matrimony from various ideologies, hedonists, collectivists or extreme individualists. Others come from the internal conflict between spouses caused by the complexity of roles that they assume and that our " stressful" society imposes on them. Moreover, there are a series of pressures in society that confuse many well-meaning people. The women's liberation movement, for example, tries to create a spirit of revenge against their "secular oppressors," the men. It goes without saying that if a woman sees her husband as an oppressor, she can hardly see marriage as mutual support and as communal life. There are also those who say that having children is detrimental to the happiness of the couple, as if children (especially after a certain number) interfere with marital happiness and prohibit the personal fulfillment of the parents. And finally, there is the divorce mentality, as well as those who support other forms of coupling, either homo or heterosexual, who demonstrate a lack of faith in the possibility that marriage can produce profound and lasting personal happiness. It is clear that marriage does not automatically provide either happiness or personal fulfillment, but it is able to provide both if it is undertaken with the right disposition. We will deal with some concrete problems, hoping that the discussion that follows completes and amplifies the brief suggestions and criteria that are described here.
The natural trust that arises from the spontaneity and intimacy between a husband and wife can degenerate from abuse, and this is nothing but a lack of respect for the spouse or oneself. Trust is one of the signs that characterize marital life. However, there are abuses of defect and excess. In the first case, we would find jealousy; in the second, unilateral decision-making in matters that ought to be shared between the two. There are also circumstances that frequently pass unnoticed that can be included in the two previously mentioned defects: the absorption of functions by a spouse would be included in distrust; ordering about or delegating all or most functions to the other would be the opposite extreme. If "love is deeds not sweet words", recognition of the value of the spouse does not excuse one from the responsibilities that he has or from sharing in communal tasks.
Regarding respect, in the words of D. Isaacs, "respect is that thing you must have so as to obtain it", and from the same author, "not only should you not harm the other, you should help him ". Both expressions will be the basis for reflecting on this question. Respect functions on two levels: (a) in terms of conduct, and, (b) interiorly or deeply. At the level of conduct, it appears to be more or less codified in the laws of good manners and in civil behavior. In marital relations, in family life, this type of respect is the equivalent of kind gestures towards the spouse, not only birthday gifts, but rather something more mundane, almost imperceptible, although much more important: proper language, setting the table, listening attentively to the other, thanking him, etc. It is at this level that one can measure the quality of respect between spouses. In order to live respectfully, one must be respectful. But this isn't sufficient. Interior respect bases itself, according to the second definition, in a helpful attitude and acceptance of the spouse. One doesn't help the other by imposing oneself either in an authoritarian manner or by emotional coercion or by drawing every thing to oneself. The most subtle and difficult to detect is emotional coercion. It is the subtlest, but perhaps the more harmful to both spouses because, normally, neither of the two notices it. It implies that a spouse deceives himself, believing that he is leaving the other free to choose while at the same time, showing by his own behavior his approval or disapproval. For example, the wife says that her husband can go out with his friends, but if he actually goes out she gets sad and begins to complain about other things unrelated to his going out. Perhaps in this sense, it is more serious that the person is fooling himself, even though it might be more uncomfortable for other. It demonstrates an inability to let the other do as he pleases. It is a lack of sincerity and respect. Sharing responsibilities and constructive criticism marriage don't mean sharing everything equally. One has to take into account the capabilities and prospects of the spouse on the one hand and the real necessities of circumstances on the other. Standards can't be rigid. On the contrary, the style of each marriage relationship is unique and unrepeatable, although they can serve as examples or points of references, either positive or negative, for others. There is a set of criteria that must be taken into account: exclusiveness alienates; and marital communications should be converging not parallel. There must be "something" to share. This "something" refers to the basic questions. Matters such as the purpose of marriage and the fundamental principles of raising children are the basic matters about which the spouses should agree from the start or which towards which they work over time and with "mutual support." As for the rest, respect should base itself on accepting areas of personal freedom with or without consulting the spouse, according to the matter.
There is a series of universal topics that reflect how knowing acceptance between spouses can be a problem at times. Let us just note these two: "who can understand women" (lack of knowledge) frequently said by the men, and the frequent approach of the wife who feels lonely, "you don't love me anymore". In our times, much importance is given to knowing each other, so much so that not knowing each other is given as the cause of broken marriages. As a result, much effort is made so that marriage candidates know almost everything about each other. In the extreme, this idea is used to justify the existence of "trial marriages", and it lends credibility to the selections made by computers in marriage agencies. It is considered enough to know the spouse and find things in common to guarantee a successful marriage. It's good to know each other, but it isn't everything, nor is it the most important thing. At times, this desire to know can spoil the natural reserve of proper intimacy or even polarize its efforts in an almost pathological (almost always upsetting) analysis because nobody will ever know anyone completely. Nor can we know anyone with complete objectivity, and, moreover, we are changing beings. Also, getting to know someone and getting to be known often leads to a value judgment: "I like him". "I don't like him" can cause enough tensions in a marital relationship as to destroy the trust and natural behavior of a common life together. Knowledge grows progressively with the passage of time, and people reveal themselves without reserve or duplicity. And logically, because we need some points of reference to orient ourselves, we often classify people, the spouse in this case. These classifications: hard working, organized, meticulous, optimist . . .or his defects . . .should never be taken as definitive. It is better to see them as tendencies, to draw support from them if they are positive, to redirect them if they are negative. It is much more constructive to trust in the possibilities of a person who is open to improvement in the face of life's challenges, than to close him and ourselves off from all hope of change or to demand some form of smothering perfection. To open the door to hope is an act of trust, and approval of future possibilities. It is already an act of acceptance. It's even more; it doesn't matter so much that the spouses know each other in whatever aspect of their personalities so long as they trust in their ability to improve, because acceptance produces attachment; to be united with the needy spouse both when he is happy and so he won't feel alone in the face of any danger. This security is a consequence of unconditional love, no matter what type it be: conjugal, parental-filial, fraternal or among friends. In synthesis, a certain amount of knowing each other is required for marriage. This generally happens in the earlier stage traditionally known as engagement. In fact, that is the purpose of engagement. Once married, acceptance is more important. It makes one see the good in one's spouse in the face of defects, causing the other to invest their energy in helping their spouse correct these defects instead of analyzing or censuring them. Acceptance, by definition, is positive. On the other hand, it provides better understanding of the spouse, and on the other, it stimulates them to respond to our expectations so long as they are realistic. That is to say, prudent and patient. In this issue there are two common and controversial views. Some believe it is better if the spouses are equal, identical or very similar in tastes because that way the marriage will be more agreeable. While others {the minority) believe it ought to be like electricity--opposites attract. Both views support an idea that we consider erroneous, that of considering spouses, and therefore, their relationship, as something static, fixed in time and invariable in the face of circumstances. A marriage is born, but marital life is made. In order that it progress, effort must be put into it, as in the famous expression "stoke the fire", a more or less costly effort according to the circumstances, but always enriching. The initial attraction which drew the couple to marry must deepen by each spouse rationally and emotionally accepting the personal styles of the other, skillfully blending these in such away that each spouse remains true to himself, not just to the other. In fact, this complementarity grows little by little with the passage of time and the good will of the spouses. But if it is worked at consciously, it will be easier to achieve, starting with an unconditional acceptance of what the other person is and deserves on the one hand and removing all forms of stereotypes to imitate on the other. Each couple has its own path, unique and unrepeatable, which if followed well, even if there are pitfalls, will lead to the identification {even physical) of the spouses. Complementarity is achieved over time and nobody escapes the difficulties. Hence the goal, in a certain fashion, unites all the partial efforts made in the area of respect and trust, knowing and accepting the spouse. According to Guitton, generosity shown on a daily basis is what reveals a marriage union to be alive and well.
A role is the equivalent of a function and has its basis in activity. However, a person is one and activities are many, some times at cross purposes, and often conflicting, that is to say, some are mutually exclusive and cause difficulties. Perhaps the first problem to study is the hierarchy of activities; for the husband in his condition of worker, and for the wife in her role as housewife, to which is added, in some cases, the role of professional as well. And, almost always, besides being spouses they are also a mother and a father. Traditionally, the role as spouse takes precedence. The spouses give the example and together they lead the family. A husband and wife who are happily married are well on their way to raising their children well. This truth is clearly demonstrated by the positive cases and, unfortunately, by the negative cases. Nevertheless, in practice it happens that activities are reversed and the woman is more mother than wife or the man has become more of a public or professional man than husband. Hence, it is a good idea to address this question to discover ways to resolve the problems that can arise. We will do this from two angles, from the masculine and feminine points of view. There is no such thing as an "ideal" wife. I have to live with mine. My wife is a woman of flesh and blood, with good qualities and defects. Of course, I have a few too; it's my responsibility to improve her while accepting her help to improve myself. So, I have to really accept her completely, not according to how she behaves, or according to what she thinks or feels; and to accept her words for what they mean rather than how she says them: what lies behind her reproach? In practice this will lead me to look for occasions to be together to talk and listen; to speak of my interests and worries and to listen to her in the same fashion--with attention and respect, valuing her life as much as mine. I need to recognize that maintaining a home is complicated work requiring intelligence, initiative and organization, not to mention raising the children. If my wife needs to work outside the home for legitimate reasons of career, economics or even a change of pace, I should respect her needs and help her make the right decisions. In either case, taking care of the home is my job too. My participation can take the form of physical help (bathing the children, picking things up) as the need arises, but above all, moral support. A woman who feels loved and valued will be more encouraged. Love is based on actions more than on words, although it's necessary to use both unsparingly, giving them their true meaning: the jobs I perform around the house are not tricks but expressions of a profound love, an attitude of service. Obviously this demands time and physical presence: what they call "quality time". As my circumstances permit, I will be able to give more or less physical time to my wife, but I can always find a little time if I know how to use it well. The strength for this comes from a deep conviction that my dedication to the home isn't just another task added to the many I already have (duty for duty's sake) but rather, a dear responsibility, knowing that it is deep within the duties I undertook when I got married. Thus my work has to focus on my family as well. I need to have the conviction that the family belongs to both of us, not just to her: in order to open ourselves out to the others starting from the base of our mutual support and help. With this clearly in mind, I have to learn to say "no" to offers or commitments in my work or social life when they interfere with the time I have to dedicate to my family. Or at least, I must have the delicacy to consult with my family and ask for permission, acknowledging that I am stealing time that isn't mine, but rather theirs, my wife's and my children's. A job that continually interferes with family life shouldn't be a job for a married man. On the other hand, I need to broaden our relationship through other people or common interests; we should enjoy each other and have occasion to discover areas of agreement. I have to be steady in my resolve. If there are mistakes or troubles in our marital relationship, I shouldn't add to the situation the way some men do, but face the situation, trying to correct it. The more my wife is tired, irritated or upset, the more I, as a man, as her husband and head of the family, should bring peace. If there are men who enter into marriage with a lot of macho ideas, there are also women who echo the same as if passive submission and total dependence were her best bet. Nevertheless, love in a prolonged situation has never been based on dependence, but rather on dialogue between equals. Hence, a woman must work to enrich their love, hers and that of her husband, on the basis of freedom. She must do this without ceasing to be a woman, that is to say, in her style, which in general is gentle, persuasive, steady and without attracting attention; to convince from below (by suggestions) more than from above (by imposing) one must respect individual wishes, and" here, as in many things, there is nor room for dogmas.
There will be plenty of occasions when the wife will have to accentuate the need for freedom--in order to love more; but not a freedom to do things--she has this in most cases, rather she needs a fundamental freedom of being, not to be what others expect her to be as a matter of duty (which in the long run is harmful and leads to rebellion), but what she herself wants to be. She must voluntarily make her desires and duties coincide. That way she can offer a more perfect relationship with her husband and others. The same applies to the man, but in his own particular situation. How does a woman achieve this? By being docile, but not passive. This will demand from the woman a reflective attitude about the daily life in which she is immersed. The oppressive work of caring for the home occupies her hands, but she ought to free her mind (this requires an effort). She has to learn the lessons of experience to know how to deal with things when they reoccur, and, looking ahead, she needs to know what to do to prevent other problems from arising. For example, she invents ways to make her husband's arrival at home pleasant and does not limit herself to complaining about his absence. Being on an equal level means giving and receiving; and when they don't give, she must ask in order to receive. By asking, she is giving: the humiliation of acknowledging that she needs the others. "Your very request is a gift. " After making the effort to give and then not receiving, the woman should not develop a martyr complex; then she begins to think about herself, that she has gotten the worst part, that everyone else is selfish. Sooner or later, sparks will fly, she will reproach the rest of the family for their lack of attention, for what's lacking in the way they treat her. This makes her family, especially her husband, feel guilty. But to himself he adds the question: "Why didn't she tell me this at that time?" From then on, either he withdraws--battle lost--or he gives her attention that is unnatural because it is based on pity, "poor thing!" or on emotional coercion, "what can I do to keep her quiet?" they have lost their naturalness and diminished their liberty. And the "victim" is in control, chaining her husband out of fear. She has become his "penance". To avoid this situation: talk and act. I need to talk--so that my husband knows my dreams, my plans, and to see how I can achieve them. That way he won't have to be indebted to me for "the great favor of my having handed over my life without compensation “. I need to organize myself within and to discover how, by giving myself something such as work, study, apostolate, social work, professional perfection in my work as a mother, housewife, etc. . . .. I can accept freely and responsibly the natural complications that derive from having fallen in love with and married this man. Tradition has prepared the woman to dedicate herself completely to one person (her husband) who only needs her partially. Let us learn, then, to love our husband "partially" in order not to become clinging vines. Let's not forget that the women, and the man, are complete individuals even though both complement the marriage. The union should enrich them as persons, not limit them. Of course, the duties of every day life mean accepting limitations: "To choose one thing is to reject the rest." This applies not only in professional work, but also in the demands of domestic life. Many women have discovered with great wisdom the means to harmonize both pursuits. I need to act. In the case of the wife, this translates many times into making the others act. That is to say, delegate activities, teach the others to carry them out, trust others and have patience, find an opportunity to take up the " art of homemaking " among which are good manners and getting along pleasantly and making time to be together; these are the most important things. A void the monopoly and exclusiveness that some women project into domestic tasks without allowing others to participate--husbands and children--causing them to relinquish opportunities to get involved in household chores. Prepare the rest to take care of themselves, including household tasks: how to make the bed, how to cook dinner, how to run the house, etc. . . .. Don't be indispensable even though sometimes showing them how to do it requires more effort than doing it oneself. The corresponding participation of the husband in domestic tasks and formation also serves to physically integrate him into the world of his wife. Love is based on deeds. For her part, the wife should enter into the world of her husband with a deep and serious interest, which means preparing herself to enter the realm of his work or his hobbies. This helps her to be not only a wife and mother, but also his companion, friend and confidant. It is a good idea to first reflect on what is expected of the wife and mother to see if it coincides with what God expects of her. Once again, there must be unity among the natural and transcendental ends of her life. What is expected of the woman? That she give everything in her particular circumstances. Of course this pertains to everybody, but here we are referring concretely to the wife and mother. To give completely is to forget oneself completely: not trying to have personal satisfaction as an end in itself. She will obtain satisfaction as a result of giving herself and of the natural affection and dealings with others. However, this implies a great degree of giving, overcoming limitations, what in human terms is called maturity and in Christian terms is called perfection or sanctity. As long as we continue, we advance; however, it is most likely that we haven't reached our goal yet. It is wise to recognize the goal of total giving; it is even better to desire it, but we must not lose hope if we aren't capable of living it immediately. Why? Perhaps because of youthfulness and inexperience, perhaps a lack of training, or a lack of conditioning in one's past (personal, educational or familial). We must measure our demands on ourselves. "You should be more generous," says one mother to herself, "and not get angry about the work around the house but I can't help it." Very well, instead of getting angry about the housework and getting even more angry about not being happy, perhaps it would be better to lighten the housework--by getting help or cutting back or seeking other compensations--if it makes the woman happy and makes her home happy as a result. This is one of the instances in which professional work can be "liberating" (to use the contemporary expression). Activities are means; never ends, and functions change with time. Hence, the goal must always be clear, but with a flexible attitude to adapt the activities accordingly instead of attending only to the activity itself. Nor should one continue an activity simply because at one time it gave good results. Life is dynamic and changing, and it should always be progressing--towards its goal. Normally people discover this with age. If they have tried to follow this route honestly and with good intentions, they discover that truly, the only thing that really matters in life is to have given themselves to others--in the case of the wife/mother or the husband/father, most importantly to their family even if they have had to leave their personal aspirations in shreds along the way. Universidad de Ciencias de la Educacion Universidad De Navarra,© 1985 |
|
Please be aware that another website is using the Family Life Institute and Dr. DiVietri's name without authorization. Considering the nature of the website and the contents it links to we are not naming the imposter website or giving a link to it. The Family Life Institute is currently seeking what recourse it can take to stop the activities of the website in question.
|
The Marital Relationship, Capable of
Fulfilling Each Partner