A Tale of Two Courtships

How reactions and relationship to parents has shaped 2 contrasting courtship experiences. 

Hayley and Dan met at a mutual friend’s wedding. They experienced an immediate spark and keenly saw each other several times the week following their introduction. They both sensed that they shared much in common and matched each other creatively.  It was easy to talk for hours, as if only minutes had transpired.  In the early weeks of their relationship Hayley and Dan relished setting up dates for each other at favourite restaurant’s and cultural events. They lost interest in other friendships and immersed themselves in the pleasures of their apparently perfect connection. After a passionate 2 months of romance and intertwining of lives, Dan proposed to Hayley on a surprise weekend luxury retreat. Hayley unquestionably accepted and they set about planning a wedding 4 months later. The first time they met each other’s parents and siblings was after their engagement was announced.

Pete and Trish were introduced by mutual friends 6 years ago. They had begun dating and seemed to get along well and have shared values. When they began courting they were both in their early 30s and established in their careers.  Their friends were all getting married at the time and Pete sensed that he should make an effort to connect with Trish or he might miss his chance to find a life partner. Trish was keen for the relationship to move towards commitment as she was ready to settle down and found Pete attractive and interesting. Both appreciated that they shared the same religious faith and moved ahead in their courtship with openness for romance and love to grow. Pete was slow to take initiative in the early days and Trish began to make suggestions for their get-togethers. As the months proceeded Pete became increasingly ambivalent about the relationship. He didn’t want to lose the friendship with Trish but he was reluctant to allow things to become too close. He used the busyness of his demanding work to slow the pace that he sensed Trish was angling for. They often gathered with friend’s and had frequent dinners with each of their parents. As the months and then years rolled by, friends increasingly encouraged Pete to step up and commit but the more he experienced other’s pressure the more he struggled to imagine a future with Trish. Rather he would find fault with her and become irritated easily when they were in their family and friendship groups. Trish lost patience a number of times and separated. She was however quite attached to Pete and felt drawn to helping him manage his life. Pete was lonely without Trish and would convey this when they were apart.

These two courtship stories appear to be an antithesis.  One is hastily and passionately committed to within 6 months. The other proceeds ambivalently over 6 years. What they share in common is a driving force of unresolved attachments in their families of origin.

Both Hayley and Dan had distanced from their parents in their late adolescence. They had experienced their parents as an imposition to their freedom as emerging adults. They each had been very close to one of their parents as children but this had become tense during their high school years. They had competitive, strained relationships with their siblings and were pleased to distance from this family intensity. They occasionally visited family on special occasions but things were kept quite superficial. Dan felt some guilt about distance from his mother as he knew she struggled in a tense marriage.  He was completely cut off from his father who he viewed negatively. Hayley experienced her parents as exceedingly proud of her during her growing up. She was a high achiever and she sensed that they admired her and were quite invested in her academic success.  Hayley had relished her father’s pride in her especially during her school years. She liked to be admired but could become reactive to the intensity of her parent’s expectations. She saw her mother as needy and her father as demanding.  Of course this was intensified as she increasingly pulled away from them. At the time she met Dan in her mid-twenties she was almost completely cut off from her family.

Pete and Trish also had quite intense relationships with their parents but instead of using distance or cut off to manage this they remained highly involved with their families. Pete was a youngest son who had always felt very close to his mother. He would tell her everything about his life and depended on her advice in making life decisions. His mother remained his closest confidante well into his 30s. Trish was very involved as an eldest daughter in caring for her aging parents. Her father had some chronic health problems and she remained central to organising health care and supporting her mother in the task of managing life with a dependent husband whose capacities were low. Trish was comfortable as an over-responsible daughter. For both Trish and Pete their families remained central to their life functioning. Much of their relationship energies went towards their parents – albeit in different ways. Pete was quite dependent, Trish was a responsible carer.

I wonder if you can see how reactions and relationship to parents has shaped these 2 courtships. The intensely fast tracked courtship of Hayley and Dan is driven by the degree of ‘cut off’ from their families. This had left them needy of replicating an admiring togetherness in a love relationship. The intensity gap they left in distancing from their parents had been waiting to be filled by someone who shares a similar need for being special. Rather than growing away from their parents in becoming independent adults they had each broken away. They ran away from quite fused relationships only to replicate a high expectation fusion in their relationship with each other.

Pete and Trish also experienced quite intense involvements with a parent as they moved into their adult years. They didn’t run away from this but instead were quite dependent on the roles they had in their families. Pete was so close to his mother that it was hard for him to invest in intimacy with another. Trish was so responsible for her parents that she equated closeness with being in charge.

For Hayley and Dan their cut-off from parents and siblings transmitted into an intense fusion with each other. For Pete and Trish their fusion with their parents translated into an ongoing distance with each other. Both relationships had many challenges ahead.  One of the keys to giving the relationship a chance to flourish was to build a more mature relationship back to each parent. To be connected in a genuine way without being overly sensitive or overly involved. Parents of course can have an important part to play in contributing to a better resolution of shifting attachments from one generation to the next. Parents can reduce the various ways they depend on their children and work on their marriages and peer relationships so that their relationships with their children are not primary. Distant parents can work on gradually increasing non-intense contact with adult children; Being interested in their lives, without imposing expectations.

There is an interesting directive in the Judaeo Christian scriptures (Genesis 2:24) about one generation leaving their parents to cleave to their spouse. The idea is that a ‘leaving and cleaving’ is necessary to establish a new generational family. The leaving however is not a running away just as the cleaving is not an over involvement.  I value Bowen’s idea of growing away from parents rather than breaking away.  A gradual shifting of attachment allegiance lays important groundwork for courtship and marriage. It can avoid the ‘hot housing’ of a relationship and all the pressures that unravel from this. It can also prevent excessive anxieties about commitment that contribute to either serial short relationships or long term ambivalent courtships.

CAVEAT – continuum not categoriesThese 2 examples are based on real scenarios with identifying details changed. Each represents a quite polarised position, from overly hasty to overly cautious. It is useful to remember that each serious dating relationship will fall somewhere on a continuum between these positions. In Bowen theory there are NOT neat categories but rather a CONTINUUM that represents the level of differentiation and tendencies to either cut off or fusion that we have inherited from our family emotional system. You may find it helpful to reflect:

Was/Is my courtship more a reflection of diving into the new relationship with some distance from my parent/s?

Or was/is my courtship more a reflection of a tension between my pull to past attachment to my parent/s/family and the investment in my future priority attachment?

Relationship boundaries in social media

As a pre digital revolution baby boomer, traversing the world of IT and social media has been challenging.  I was slow to venture into the realm of Facebook and was certainly naïve about how to use it helpfully. For my first 7 years I friended family only, ignoring all incoming friend requests. Then I did an about face and somewhat impulsively accepted all requests in one foul swoop, announcing that I had decided to come out of the ‘stone age.’

When my book publisher fed back that I needed a social media presence in order to gain entry into the US publishing market, I decided it was time to be better informed about this area. This prompted my seeking assistance to start up this blog site along with its attached Facebook page. I wasn’t aiming for a large reach, just a platform to gradually work out how to utilise this medium for sharing ideas. For the past 2 years I have been fumbling my way through navigating this strange boundary-less online world; and it hasn’t all been smooth sailing.

Like any new relational domain, my interactions with social media reveal much about myself. In particular it has revealed ways I’m inclined towards fusion in relationships. For example, I have written some personal blogs along the way, which have  included my intersections with broader family member’s lives. Often in ways that identify some of their circumstances – at times including photos. Importantly this has been done without fully asking permission. While I have consciously focussed on representing my own ‘growing up’ journey, I have come to see ways that I have inadvertently invaded other’s personal boundaries.  While it has been uncomfortable, I have been grateful to receive some honest feedback about other’s unwelcome experience of reading mentions about them in a blog or post. This feedback has helped me see the subtle ways I make assumptions on behalf of others.

In the realm of social media, I think us parents need to be especially respectful of the autonomy of our children (whatever their age). I recently came across a new word to describe social media boundary issues for parents: ‘Sharenting.’ It’s quite telling that such a word has emerged to describe how over-involvement with our children may spill onto a parent’s Facebook and Instagram pages. I remind myself that our children are not our property and hence their lives are not open slather material for our conversations and our social media. I have come to see more clearly that as my children have launched into their adulthood, their separate lives and boundaries are even more important to honour.  Mia Freidman, long time Mamamia blogger writes:

We are the first generation of parents who have to decide how much of our children’s lives are made public. We must choose how exposed they’re going to be. How much of their story we’re going to write through images of them and words about them before they’re old enough to decide how – and if – they want to be portrayed to the world. These are very big decisions.

For my adult children and for all of the people who are part of my systems of relationships, I have increasingly seen the importance of thoughtfully considering what I write and post. Given my blog is all about relationships, the appropriate lines of privacy can be easily blurred. Primarily I refrain from the fusion trap of assuming that any other person would approve of my referring to them in a public blog or post. I can mention the relationships I’m part of but if I refer to another’s life circumstance, then their permission needs to be requested. At the same time if I only write what I think others will approve, this can be another expression of togetherness fusion. I see that mindreading on others behalf is a form of ‘over-functioning’ in crossing boundaries while posting what we perceive will bring the most approval is an ‘under- functioning’ kind of fusion. If I’m honest I need to watch for both immature possibilities in my online relating.

What is this ‘fusion’ thing I keep referring to? Immature fusion (or undifferentiation) is when we fail to discriminate where our separate selves begin and end in relation to others. It is when the positive bonds of human relationships are amplified (usually unintentionally) to the detriment of respecting each person’s autonomy within the family/group. The more a person utilises the experience of togetherness with others to steady them self in life, the more vulnerable they are to ‘fused’ relationships. Additionally, the more a person avoids uncomfortable relationships and focusses on the validating harmony that can be found in a small nuclear family/ or ‘in’ group, the more likely they are to lose perspective regarding their boundaries with these people. I see that we all have degrees of such immature fusion in our lives and relationships.  My responsibility is to address indicators of my fusion, to the best of my capacity, when it is evident in my relationships.

Self- absorption and unhelpful togetherness is a challenge for us all in this anxious world. The realm of social media provides a new stage for this and hence calls for honest reflection and clarification of relationship principles. I have seen my own lapses in wisdom and maturity as I have engaged with this public, web based domain.  At those confronting times it would have been tempting to simply cut off my social media involvement to avoid the risk of future discomfort. However I consider that I’ll learn and grow more by continuing to work at managing myself online with clearer principles and awareness of my potential lapses.  For this work in progress, the following principles are emerging as helpful to me:

  • Is there any assumption made on behalf of another in posting this?
  • Am I conveying thinking about myself in my relationships and not crossing into giving a subjective commentary about another’s life?
  • Have I thought about the longer term implications for people’s privacy around what I post?
  • If I am conveying the thinking of others? Do I appropriately give them credit in my referencing?
  • Am I clear about the purpose of my site (which posts belong where)? Have I communicated this clearly to the potential readers? Do I keep within these parameters and not impulsively post about areas about which I have insufficient knowledge or permission?
  • Is my self-referencing in social media portraying an exaggerated picture of my accomplishments, my relationship strengths or the flip side = failures?
  • Equally is my other-referencing portraying an exaggerated picture of other’s accomplishments or failures?
  • Am I posting what conveys my own thinking or am I editing myself in an effort to garner the most online approval?

NOTES: Bowen conveys that = High Fusion People Live in a feeling dominated world. So much energy goes into seeking love and approval and keeping the relationship in some kind of harmony, there is little energy for life-directed goals.

Less fused people = have employed logical reasoning to develop principles and convictions that they use to over-rule the emotional system in situations of anxiety and panic. They are less relationship directed.

Summarised from: Family Therapy in Clinical Practice p 366- 370

Mia freedman blog and use of the term: ‘Sharenting’