Conflict in Personal Relationships

Dudley D. Cahn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135443450
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

In keeping with a broad conception of interpersonal conflict, this book is organized into two parts. The first focuses on conflict on different types of couple relationships -- homosexual, cross cultural, dating but violent, engaged, and married -- and group relationships -- student peers, parents and their young children, and adult children and their aging parents. The chapters not only review past research on conflict in some relationships, but also take a significant step forward in introducing a variety of other relationship types for future research on conflict. These chapters also offer evidence that conflict is experienced differently in different types of interpersonal relationships. The second part of this book describes basic underlying principles and programs for dealing with interpersonal conflicts. Chapters in this section discuss patterns of argument in everyday life, issues associated with competence in interpersonal conflict, and mediation as a form of intervention for resolution.

I

Conflict Management/Resolution in Specific Relationships

1

The Social Construction of Conflict in Intimate Same-Sex Couples

Davis G. Patterson
Pepper Schwartz

University of Washington

Modern couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual, married or cohabiting, seek love, intimacy, and long-term companionship. Homosexual couples are no exception: They often describe a successful relationship in ways similar to heterosexual couples (Dailey, 1979). But the challenges of establishing interdependence and “corporate” goals while maintaining individual happiness are substantially different for same-sex couples. The unique social forces that impinge on gay and lesbian intimate relationships create special issues that make conflicts a more difficult challenge. Without the institution of marriage, same-sex romantic partners also lack norms about how to be a couple. At the same time, these couples must often build their relationships in either nonsupportive isolation or gay and lesbian communities where local institutions and norms present new conflict issues and opportunities that can work against couple relationships. Although these forces do not necessarily create more conflict for homosexual than for heterosexual couples, this potential requires added skills to deal with conflict.

The noninstitutionalized nature of lesbian and gay male relationships has several significant effects on their conflicts. By institution we mean a basic and durable definition of correct conduct and meaning that both guides and constrains behavior. Institutions create, and are created by, the common norms and values around which social life is organized. The institution of marriage defines what a couple is by giving clear behavioral guidelines both for the married partners and for others with whom they interact; individuals act and react to each other within the conceptual guidelines of marriage.

Same-sex couples have to create their relationships without the benefit of the institutionalized social supports and norms that favor heterosexual coupling. Marriage is the only sexual relationship where partners can expect to receive public approval, through formalized rituals such as weddings and baby showers as well as a host of informal opportunities where couples can “do marriage.” But gay and lesbian couples¹ (and heterosexual cohabitors) are left to their own devices. With such freedom, it is not clear how same-sex couples should look, even to themselves. Additionally, these couples have the problem of how to telegraph to others the shape and seriousness of their commitment. They must invent some “marital” rules, borrow others, and pick some to avoid. This is a difficult addition to the already difficult task any couple has in establishing a relationship that is durable and satisfying. And although we recognize that ready-made rules do not eliminate conflict in marriage, it seems fair to wonder in what ways the lack of an institutionalized relationship contributes to conflict for same-sex couples, as they bargain over issues that married people may take for granted.

Societal gender patterns, which allocate material and cultural resources differentially to men and women, also affect gay men and lesbians, who occupy different positions in the social structure by virtue of their genders. For example, more advantageous labor-market access confers greater economic power on men, giving them more money and mobility than lesbians. This difference has a direct impact not only on substantive issues of conflict, such as money, but also on the interpersonal bases of power that determine the processes of conflict in each type of couple. A double dose of same-gendered behavior, rather than gender-differentiated approaches, also gives a gendered flavor to the conflict issues each type of couple confronts. For example, men must often reconcile a tendency to compete with the need to cooperate in order to succeed as a couple, whereas women must work not so much on getting close as on maintaining their personal boundaries (Berzon, 1988; Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Clunis & Green, 1988; Pearlman, 1989; Zacks, Green, & Marrow, 1988).

In addition, we must take into account that, unlike the heterosexual world, which is organized around creating and maintaining families, gay microlevel institutions are organized around nothing of the sort. They are generally not even constructed in a way that supports the couple relationship. A case in point is the gay bar that, among other possibilities, creates courtship opportunities. But unlike heterosexual bars, the “pool of eligibles” presents an incredibly diverse group, drawn together only because few other places to meet exist. The likelihood is that like will not meet like. Lesbian and gay institutions remain in a nascent form, largely subordinate to and often at odds with the dominant institutions of the broader culture.

Living at the margins of mainstream society means that same-sex couples are frequently at odds with heterosexual family and friends. As the level of kin support varies, so too do the levels and kinds of conflicts a couple is likely to experience. When a couple’s relationship is not recognized, partners suffer from the added stresses of secrecy and isolation that increase their dependence on the relationship, but with less guidance and fewer models for their behavior.

Apart from the effects of the social environment, a couple’s gender shapes the critical interactions giving form to interpersonal conflict. Men and women use distinct communication strategies because their goals and skills in interactions differ. The gender equality of same-sex couples does not solve the problems of power inequalities affecting cross-sex couples; instead, other personal and situational characteristics create power imbalances for gays and lesbians. Power itself may have different meanings for male and female couples, such that women and men are not likely to view the use of their interpersonal power in quite the same way. Gender and power therefore interact to affect the strategies couples rely on to engage and resolve conflict.

On several levels, then, we show how the gendered cultural and institutional contexts of same-sex couples shape both the issues and processes of their conflicts. We round out the discussion by examining the special conflict issues of domestic abuse and the impact of AIDS, and conclude by making suggestions for therapy and future research.

At times we make comparisons to heterosexual couples not because they are the standard by which all couples should be judged, but primarily because this strategy is useful analytically. Research has moved increasingly in the direction of studying gay and lesbian couples as types in the elaboration of theoretical issues about all intimate relationships (Risman & Schwartz, 1988). Nevertheless, the study of same-sex couples is decades behind the vast tradition in research on heterosexual couples. The impossibility of obtaining a representative sample or even one reflecting the entire range of diversity of lesbian and gay couples means that generalizations must be considered tentative and interpreted with caution. Urban, less closeted, and more educated couples tend to be overrepresented (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Particularly in the area of conflict, the dearth of research about same-sex couples constrains us. Therefore, we often make assertions indirectly, by relying on the findings of the broader literatures on conflict and on same-sex couples, supplemented whenever possible by literature that handles these topics together. Perhaps these can serve as hypotheses for future research.

The Mechanics of Gender in Noninstitutionalized Couples

Although marriage is in flux, tradition still exerts considerable influence on the lives of heterosexual couples, from household economics to the obligations of kinship (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Millman, 1991). Traditional marital roles can mitigate conflict when both partners agree on their domains of influence (e.g., instrumental vs. expressive). Alternatively, with changing gender expectations, prefashioned roles can also serve as a basis for conflict in married couples because the roles are becoming more of a negotiable source of contention. But compare with changing marital roles the flexibility and ambiguity of roles in gay and lesbian couples. Without a marital tradition, they are even freer to negotiate the allocation of roles in their relationships. Same-sex couples, therefore, have the opportunity to avoid some of the issues built into marriage by the gendered distribution of power and division of labor (Toder, 1979).

However, lesbians and gays are subject to at least two checks on their freedom to innovate. First, the extent to which they can afford to do so depends on how much initial conflict their relationships can endure. Married couples can afford to engage in more conflict because they have a contract that solidifies their relationships against breakup (indeed, this has been one of the criticisms leveled against marriage in that its security is a “license to abuse”). Without such a contract, same-sex couples have less security in their future as couples, perhaps part of the reason why same-sex couples may exhibit lower levels of conflict on average than heterosexual couples (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1994). Rather than actually disagreeing less than married couples, same-sex couples may exercise a protective restraint to control conflict (or underestimate its existence) in order to survive as couples.

Second, gender itself constrains innovation and presents same-sex couples with unique sources of conflict. Gays and lesbians are prepared to assume the traditional, efficient, marital role division by gender (see the classic argument on role complementarity in Parsons & Bales, 1955). With no models for their relationships or for conflict management, a couple’s gender, then, becomes an important ingredient in its conflict dynamics (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Galvin & Brommel, 1991; Toder, 1979). Striking a balance between the demands of the relationship and outside pressures and interests is one of the most critical determinants of relationship viability and the kinds of adjustments needed between female and male couples. Peplau, Cochran, Rook, and Padesky (1978) conceived of these opposing centripetal and centrifugal forces in relationships as dimensions of attachment and autonomy; partners must accommodate needs for both interdependence and dependence.

Gender roles are relevant to this balancing act: They affect how same-sex couples accomplish the emotional work of maintaining the relationship. If neither partner makes the welfare of the couple a central concern by performing the duties of emotional caretaker, neglect of the relationship and outside attractions may lead partners to drift away from each other and eventually break up (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). In heterosexual couples, the emotional work typically falls more heavily on women (Cancian, 1987). Because women are socialized to do this job, lesbian couples are likely to have at least one and maybe two relationship-centered partners. This might seem to be a strong centripetal force. However, some researchers believe that two such partners may be prone to losing their personal boundaries, or “fusing,” by constructing their identities too exclusively around the intimate relationship (Clunis & Green, 1988; Krestan & Bepko, 1980; Toder, 1979). Ironically, what might intuitively seem a benefit of role redundancy can cause some partners to rebel, retreat, or leave.

Fusion has been characterized as either pathological (Krestan & Bepko, 1980) or alternatively as a healthy adaptation whereby couples take refuge in their relationships from a hostile heterosexual world (Zacks, Green, & Marrow, 1988). In any case, when partners lack a measure of personal autonomy, individual idiosyncracies and small disagreements are likely to assume an exaggerated importance. Differences become more difficult to tolerate as partners smother each other with unreasonable expectations and overattention to details. At the extreme, fusion may impel one or both partners to break free. Terminating the relationship may be the only way they know to reclaim separate identities from engulfment, or to abolish fears of abandonment with a preemptive strike (Clunis & Green, 1988).

Gay men are more likely to suffer from problems of individuation than engulfment (i.e., they have been taught that other men serve as a focus for competition). Self-disclosure, for example, may disable a competitive edge (Berzon, 1979). How do gay men come to value the role of emotional caretaker and develop the skills needed for the task, if presumably these aspects of relationships are less a part of their personal training and gender socialization? It is likely that at least one man must rise to the occasion and learn these skills for a relationship to continue to exist. But in this process, gay men are prone to conflict over how to reconcile ambition and commitment to work with the requirements of success in the private realm of their intimate relationships.

Of course, this explanation of gendered role division for relationship maintenance is oversimplified. In fact, some gay men do fuse, and some lesbians do compete. A person may exchange roles with his or her partner over the course of a relationship or switch roles from one relationship to another. However, research on the way same-sex couples handle careers, money, and housework provides further support for making a distinction between male and female couples and between the kinds of role conflicts that tend to be salient for each type of couple.

Income and Work

Conflicts over income and work provide clues about how power is derived and how the consequences of power imbalances are distinct for lesbian and gay couples. Same-sex couples may be more egalitarian than heterosexual couples, primarily because there is no gendered role division, but also because the differences between partners’ incomes and educations are likely to be less, given that both partners are of the same sex (Harry, 1984). But notions of equality are relative: Being the same sex establishes a basis for partners to compare themselves to each other in a way that cross-sex partners cannot (e.g., a wife usually will not want to be as good a mechanic as her spouse). Same-sex partners can make direct comparisons; when the comparisons reflect less favorably on one partner than the other, tension and conflict may erupt.

As women in a world primarily run by men, lesbians have experienced the sting of inequality; therefore, they place importance on fairness and equality, and they try to bring these egalitarian principles to bear on their relationships. But ideology and reality are hard to bring together when partners have different resources. Avoiding dependence becomes difficult, particularly if one partner is economically dependent on the other (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Roth, 1985). Given that women have less labor-market earning power relative to men, they tend to have more money problems than men (Toder, 1979).

However, the relationship of income to power for lesbians is not clear-cut. Whereas Caldwell and Peplau (1984) found that lower earning partners, as well as those who were less educated and more dependent on the relationship, were less powerful, Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) concluded that relative financial power did not generally establish the balance of power for lesbians (exceptions involved decisions about spending money on expensive items and recreational activities). Still, in a study of lesbian couples who had been together at least 10 years, money, or lack thereof, was the second most frequently mentioned current relationship problem (Johnson, 1990). The discomfort of both partners over one’s dependence on the other creates difficulties: It is the awareness of financial inequality that tends to cause conflict, rather than the absolute level of income. Indeed, power imbalances in lesbian couples tend to correlate with lower satisfaction and expectations of future problems (Caldwell & Peplau, 1984). The lower income partne...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Contributors
• Preface
• Part I Conflict Management/Resolution in Specific Relationships
• Part II Approaches to Interpersonal Conflicts
• Author Index
• Subject Index