The Lost Art of Listening (25 page)

“So all this time you’ve been thinking that I’m mad at you, and that’s

why you thought I didn’t want to be affectionate. No wonder you’re

upset. You must have been feeling hurt for a long time.”

“You Just Don’t Get It, Do You?”

When one person says, “The world is round,” and the other replies, “No,

it’s flat,” it’s clear that the second person got the first person’s point and

disagreed. But when the subject is more personal, disagreement— without

some acknowledgment of the other person’s point of view—can come

across as invalidating the speaker’s feelings. If people spoke in therapeutic

jargon, they might say “I see what you’re saying, but I don’t agree.” But

since most of us not only don’t speak like self-help manuals but often react

in heat and haste, many conversations take on the form of two-part dis-

harmony.

The simple failure to acknowledge what the other person

says explains much of the friction in our lives.

The more heated the exchange, the more important it is to acknowl-

edge what the other person says. When two people are talking about

something important to them, each feels an urgent need to get his or her

point of view across. Without some acknowledgment, each may continue

to restate his or her position, thinking
If only he [or she] would listen to what

I’m saying, we wouldn’t have to keep arguing like this.

One Friday night, after a long and tedious week, Sheila said, “We

never go out.” “That’s not true!” said Rob, feeling attacked. “We went out

last week.” This just upset Sheila more, and she renewed her attempt to get

Rob to understand what she was feeling. “You mean when we went with

Linda and John for pizza? I don’t call that going out. You never want to do

anything but sit around in front of that stupid TV.” Now Rob was pissed.

How to Let Go of Your Own Needs and Listen
147

“I work hard all week, and if I want to relax on the couch, what’s so wrong

with that?” By this point Sheila felt completely invalidated. “You just don’t

get it, do you?” Then she went upstairs and slammed the bedroom door.

Maybe you can identify with Sheila. Or Rob. Or both of them. The

choice between going out and vegging out is one that most of us have

feelings about. But what was unfortunate in this quarrel that left both

Sheila and Rob feeling so misunderstood was that neither took the time to

acknowledge the other’s point of view.

You don’t have to be responsible for someone’s feelings

to acknowledge them.

When Sheila said, “We never go out,” she was expressing a feeling—

she’s bored and lonely—and making a request: she wishes that she and

Rob could have a little more fun, do something together, maybe be a little

closer. But something about the way she said it (or he heard it) made Rob

defensive. Instead of showing that he understood what she was feeling,

he just felt criticized. He heard her saying that he was lazy, selfish, unin-

volved—just the things he worries he might be—and so he didn’t listen to

her feelings, much less respond calmly to her request.

Dueling Points of View

When two people keep restating their own positions without acknowledg-

ing what the other one is trying to say, the result is dueling points of view.

One is tempted— especially if one is a therapist—to think of two people

involved in dueling declarations as simply lacking a communication skill,

that of paraphrasing what your conversation partner says before responding.

The trouble with this communication-as-skill perspective is that it leaves

out conflict and anxiety, precisely the things that make understanding one

another so difficult. The partners who don’t acknowledge what each other

says are afraid to. They’re afraid that acknowledging the other’s position

means surrendering—“You’re right and I’m wrong.” Unfortunately, as in

many vicious circles, their efforts to break through to each other by restat-

ing their own positions just locks misunderstanding in place.

When the subject isn’t too emotional, the result is a mildly unsatisfy-

148
GETTING THROUGH TO EACH OTHER

ing sense of at least having said what you mean, even if the other person

didn’t acknowledge it. But when feeling runs high, dueling declarations

escalate into painful misunderstandings.

Professional advice givers often talk as though couples could get along

fine if only they’d learn “to communicate”—making “I-statements” and all

the rest. That’s nice, but it overlooks the existence of real conflict.

Although they hadn’t really discussed it, Charlotte assumed that

when Hugh finished his PhD they would move back to New York. But

Hugh liked where they were living, and when he announced that he might

take a teaching job at the university, Charlotte felt betrayed.

Because the question of where to live was so important to both of

them, they found it difficult to discuss without disparaging each other’s

point of view. When Hugh presented his arguments for staying, Charlotte

would try to discredit them or say that he had a responsibility to make

up to her the sacrifice she had made in leaving the city for the sake of

his career. He’d respond by talking about the sacrifices he’d made for her.

Later, after months of estrangement, Charlotte said that if at any point in

the process Hugh had acknowledged that she had given up a lot for his

schooling or had said that she would get her turn later, she could have

agreed to stay. But instead of listening and acknowledging her right to

feel the way she did, Hugh responded by saying that his career was more

important than hers.

In another couple who faced the same issue, both wanted to move;

the problem was where. Raymond was an accountant and Joyce was the

dean of women at a small college. Both agreed that since he would be able

to find work more easily, her search for another deanship should be given

priority. Raymond, however, felt strongly about
where
he wanted to live. It

wasn’t so much a regional preference as wanting to live either in a big city

or well out in the country— anything but suburbia, where Lawn Doctor

reigned. And so half the time when Joyce told him that she’d read about

a job opening, he’d respond by saying “I’d never live
there
.” She’d feel

defeated and angry and think he was being totally unreasonable.

Why did Hugh find it necessary to put Charlotte down by saying that

his career was more important than hers? And why did Raymond have to

How to Let Go of Your Own Needs and Listen
149

reject so many of Joyce’s possibilities so quickly? What made it so hard for

these two husbands to acknowledge what their wives were feeling?

Hugh was apparently afraid that acknowledging Charlotte’s feelings

would automatically lead to giving in and acting on their dictates. Like-

wise, Raymond didn’t seem to have the confidence that he could still say

no to a potential new place after he and Joyce had visited it. Otherwise,

why wouldn’t he agree to at least take a look? Why weren’t these two men

able to listen better to their wives? Is it simply “selfishness” or “mascu-

line insensitivity” or “immaturity” that prevents people from hearing each

other? Maybe Hugh and Raymond had trouble listening to their partners

because they felt anxious and insecure about their own ability to assert

themselves. Maybe we—men and women—always have reasons for not

listening, not understanding one another.

Listening is hard because it involves a loss of control—

and if you’re afraid of what you might hear, it feels

unsafe to relinquish control.

He Says, She Says

He says, “You should have said something,” she says, “You should have

asked,” and neither feels heard. She talks about the things she’d like to

do, and he talks about being tired. He never hears what doing these things

means to her, and she never hears that he hates his job. Arguments esca-

late, feelings go unrecognized, and minds don’t meet as long as we fail to

acknowledge what the other person says before we respond with what we

have to say.

He says, she says—but neither acknowledges

what the other says.

Behavior therapists teach couples to paraphrase what their partners

say before going on to give their side. This is a device to interrupt the

cross- complaining that keeps couples in conflict from ever feeling under-

stood, much less actually doing anything about each other’s complaints. If

150
GETTING THROUGH TO EACH OTHER

a husband tells his wife that he wishes she would cook something different

for supper, and she complains that he’s impossible to please—and he gets

defensive and withdraws to brood over how unfair she is— neither one of

them will feel understood. This misunderstanding—and many others like

it—has less to do with being unable to resolve conflict than with being

unable to tolerate it. If instead of getting defensive and attacking, either

person would simply acknowledge what the other said, it might not prove

so difficult to come together.

Even when conflict is serious, we all feel better if we can at least say

how we feel—what bothers us, what we wish—and have the other person

say those magic words: “I understand.”

Many of the people I talk to have less than ideal sex lives. Maybe

mine is a biased sample, but most of the people I see who’ve been married

for ten years or more have sex maybe once a month, maybe less. Even

in therapy, few people mention this issue. Not only are they embarrassed

(most people assume that most other people are successful parents and

have happy sex lives), but also they’ve given up hope. Why talk about

something so personal and painful when all their previous efforts have

only made them angry and ashamed?

Once they find the courage to talk about problems in their sexual

relationship, some couples are able to make changes for the better, while

others aren’t. But almost all feel better for talking about it. What makes

them feel better, even if nothing changes, is being able to say how they feel,

what they don’t like, what they wish, and to admit feeling inadequate—

something each partner inevitably feels and generally doesn’t realize the

other one feels.

Why do people need a therapist to have these conversations? They

don’t.
If
they can each say how they feel about the situation, and the other

can hear
and acknowledge
these feelings before going on to say how he or

she feels.

Most of us are reactive when it comes to sex, but some people are

reactive to so many things that they fail to acknowledge what anyone says

about anything. If you complain to such people that they always argue with

everything you say, they may protest that you’re asking them to always

agree with you. They’re not aware that it takes some kind of acknowledg-

ment of what you’re saying for you to feel not agreed with but heard.

How to Let Go of Your Own Needs and Listen
151

The Importance of Relinquishing Control

As I’ve said, I don’t like to be interrupted in the middle of a story by

someone giving advice I didn’t ask for or “sharing” a similar experience.

Interruption is interruption. What’s missing is some expression of under-

standing, something like “Gee, that’s lousy.” What’s going on in both

cases—and others—is that the listener won’t relinquish control of the

exchange. Many of us are convinced that we’re good listeners because we

say all the right things. But are we? Often the speaker ends up feeling

unheard, because what we’re really doing is going through the motions.

“Why Don’t You Just . . . ?”

A wise supervisor once told me that my treatment of a shy, overweight

young man was bogged down because I was trying to change him before

he felt understood by me. To me it seemed so simple: if the young man

would only make a little effort to initiate conversations with people, at the

same time we explored the roots of his insecurity, he could work toward

change on two fronts. He, however, felt that my suggesting that he simply

start doing what he found so difficult proved that I didn’t understand how

painfully self- conscious he was. The supervisor’s technical recommenda-

tion (which had to do with transference and countertransference) was:

“Shut up and listen.”

A Gaping Silence

If everyone followed my supervisor’s advice, the world would be a better

place. But if listening were only a negative accomplishment, you could con-

centrate (as many therapists, and people playing therapist, do) on simply

not interrupting. Speakers may be gratified at being allowed to say what’s

on their minds but frustrated by the absence of curiosity and apprecia-