When we think of a couple, we imagine unity and harmony; two people moving forward together, ready to face any obstacle. But the truth is that life as a couple is probably only a perfect world in some films, books, or, more recently, on social media.
In reality, partners must constantly respond to challenges that test their ability to compromise, if the relationship is to continue to grow in understanding, acceptance, and happiness. More often than not, a sensitive or turning point is reached when differences in personality, opinion, or values come to the fore. While partners who are similar in terms of life history, emotional baggage, behaviour, and outlook may be accused of monotony and predictability, they are more likely to coexist harmoniously in the long term than those who frequently have to negotiate their expectations within the relationship.
However, there are also couples who defy this theory. For example, an extroverted man who is always eager for action and a reserved, melancholic, withdrawn woman; a conservative man who loves stable rules and a daring woman who is insatiably seeking something new; or a man who is anchored in concrete, tangible things and a woman who is fascinated by the abstract and mysteries can work well together as long as they manage to maintain that middle ground where complementarity is more valuable than the inconveniences of their differences.
Although it may seem difficult to constantly attune to each other’s needs and preferences, this laborious process of mutual shaping can be constructive and revealing. Through it, partners adapt for the sake of the whole without compromising their essence, unique qualities, and individuality. Nevertheless, becoming a skilful negotiator for the sake of a healthy relationship does not negate the inherent difficulty of this process.
“Incompatibility”
It is well known that incompatibility is a common cause of divorce. In other words, differences between partners can create an insurmountable chasm if they are unable to find a solution.
Assuming that the initial attraction between two people constitutes a solid foundation for a long-lasting relationship, despite their differences, it is not incompatibility that represents the real challenge when the first signs of disagreement emerge, but rather how they deal with their differences and whether they are willing to find a solution that works for both of them so they can continue on their shared path.
In a loving relationship, finding a solution does not mean the triumph of one’s will over another’s.
To understand the power of this shared solution, commonly labelled a “compromise”, it is best to set aside the somewhat negative connotations attached to this term. It is often associated with self-sacrifice, putting one’s own interests second, or resignation to the idea that what we truly desire cannot become a reality, leaving us condemned to accept a flawed, second-rate substitute.
In a loving relationship, compromise does not mean the triumph of one’s will over another’s, but rather the dynamic adjustment of both partners’ wills, aimed at reasonably satisfying their needs. Life itself can be likened to an endless series of such compromises, which people initiate or agree to in order to adapt to the subjective and objective conditions of existence.
“Procrustes’ bed”
However, as with anything worthwhile, the willingness to adapt individually in order to find common solutions must have its limits. Disagreements over the destination for the next summer holiday or the colour of bedroom furniture cannot be placed on the same footing as disagreements concerning matters of conscience, beliefs, principles, values, and personal choices.
It is neither right nor loving to ask our partner to dress in monochrome against their will, change jobs, abandon their friends, adopt a new religion, or give up their personal interests simply to align with our own preferences. Such demands betray the selfishness of those who make them and are sometimes accompanied by a desire to control the other person’s choices, blame them when they don’t accept proposals, or draw boundaries that deny their individuality.
This can lead to abusive practices of the “Procrustean bed” variety, which contradict the values that should underpin a relationship: love, respect, understanding, altruism, patience, pure intentions, and dignity.
Consequently, not all differences can be resolved through positive compromise, which involves adapting to find a common solution. The boundary is determined not only by the partner’s needs, but also by their values. If our chosen method of reconciling our differences causes the other person to ignore their basic needs, lose their moral compass, regress personally, or live with constant dissatisfaction, it means we are not on the right track.
Getting to know our partner
The first step in reaching a mutual solution is always to get to know our partner. It is not enough to know what defines them; we must also understand why they are the way they are. The behaviours underlying the differences between partners in a relationship stem from a rich and complex source where hereditary and environmental factors intertwine, such as the example set by parents, the influence of teachers, the impact of one’s circle of friends, and exposure to the media.
Understanding the key events that shaped our partner’s personality will help us to correctly interpret their reactions, emotions, words, and actions. This will make it easier for us to understand them when they behave differently to us, accept their individual traits, and identify neutral ground for discussion and negotiation that is accessible to both of us.
Unrealistic expectations make it harder to reconcile differences within a couple and create flawed patterns for reaching consensus.
Another important aspect of finding shared solutions is setting realistic expectations within the relationship. Contemporary ideals pressure us to expect our life partner to be a “jack-of-all-trades”, responsible for our constant well-being. In reality, however, high standards are only justified if they are appropriate to the stage of the relationship, the partner’s needs and resources, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They should also be flexible and easily adaptable to positive or negative changes, such as the arrival of children, job loss, or health problems. Finally, they should be expressed honestly, assertively, and reasonably, and with accountability.
In contrast, unrealistic expectations make it harder to reconcile differences and create unhealthy patterns of reaching consensus through behaviours such as a lack of empathy, emotional unavailability, prioritising one partner’s needs over the other’s, and using manipulation or blackmail to resolve conflicts.
Even if they save the relationship as a whole, not all joint solutions safeguard the health of life as a couple. Some become compromises in the negative sense, affecting individual personalities and the relationship itself. This is why we need to master the art of effective negotiation for the sake of the relationship without sacrificing one partner’s happiness.
Genia Ruscu explores the role of mutual solutions within a couple as a means of reconciling differences, highlighting the importance of understanding each other and setting realistic expectations of life as a couple.