More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
September 16 - October 9, 2020
For one person, an incident that started the rift was truly a volcanic event that changed the relationship forever; for the other, it was a minor occurrence that is barely remembered.
over and over among the estranged, I heard the claim that the other person simply refused to “see the reality” of what went on.
What do the reconcilers have in common? It is stunningly simple: They let go of the need to align two versions of the past.
consensus would never be reached on what went on in the family. They did not abandon their individual view of events in which they were deeply invested. They decided, however, that it was no longer important that the other person subscribe to their version
They did not give up the past, but rather they gave up imposing their narrative on their relative. As they often put it, rather than remain frozen in the past, they decided it was “time to move on.”
spend a brief time discussing why they had not gotten along well, but they moved on almost immediately.
It wasn’t like we were looking for reasons, you know? It was just an “it is what it is” kind of thing, and we just went along our merry way, not trying hard to figure out where the chasm came from. I don’t recall either one of us apologizing. We just pretty much started from present. We did dip into our mom and dad’s history and their relationship, but not about each other.
not to go over old wounds, to just start from [the] present. Later, maybe you can go back and take inventory about how you got there. But to get back together, keep it in the present day and don’t dwell on past insults.
Letting go of one’s own narrative is not easy, however. Some reconcilers admit that they gave up imposing their view of the past at a cost to themselves. They did it because they believed the restored relationship was more important.
We saw in the chapter on volcanic events that a swift and sincere apology can be important “first aid” to repair the relationship. Among people in long-term estrangements, however, there is often a desire for something broader: an apology for how the entire relationship was conducted. Indeed, what some people want is for the relative to apologize for being the person he or she is. The issue is not one of “Apologize for this thing you did to me.” Rather, the demand is “Apologize for how you have treated me for my entire life.” It is asking others to abandon their lifelong narratives, to which
...more
reconcilers focused on changes in behavior in the present relationship, rather than repentance for past infractions.
they started treating my fiancée as a member of the family—in other words, poorly. I stood up against it, which was a shock for the family. Usually my reaction to their behavior was to check out. But this time I didn’t check out; I pushed back for very first time, and that was a huge shock.
We took the attitude of “operant conditioning.” You know, rewarding positive behavior, and backing off when they went to the negative
actions speak louder than words. If one cannot reconcile the views of the past, one can make sure that the past behavior does not continue into the present.
During the estrangement, Bethany did her best to substitute friends for the family she was missing. Peace of mind, however, escaped her.
I wanted her to acknowledge the problems she had caused before I was willing to reconnect. During the estrangement, she would write me letters saying things like, “Can’t you let this go?” Or “Can’t you just give it up?” But what I wanted was, “I’m sorry—all that shouldn’t have happened.” I needed her to apologize and say what’s going to be different.
When I finally got back into the relationship, I knew I wasn’t needing anything from her—I had no expectations. I had been through counseling and realized that I didn’t want to step into this journey unless I was willing to go to a place of full forgiveness on my part.
I’m glad I didn’t wait any longer for an apology, because she could only make it after we reconnected.
When they resumed contact after a long estrangement, they envisioned it as an opportunity to start over, in which they discovered things they had in common with each other. These reconcilers told me that the key to bridging a rift was to focus on what could happen next in the relationship, rather than what had already happened.
Building a shared future does not need to be a major project, organized around creating a brand-new life together. Some reconcilers found that settling on simple activities they could share helped build a common future.
“Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.”
You can and should, perhaps with the help of a counselor, piece together the incidents that led to a rift, understanding your role and that of others involved. However, when it is time to reconcile, the relationship must be lived forward. For many people, the attempt to create a shared “backward understanding” will fail,
At one point, right before he died, my dad said to me, “Ask me anything you want—anything—and I’ll answer you.” And so my brain raced. All these scenarios went through my mind. I realized I could ask him: “Why did you reject me when I was young? Why did you leave us?” Then, in that moment, I asked myself: “Is that the question I wanted to be the last I asked my dad? And was the answer anything I really needed to hear?” I mean, it just doesn’t make a difference. So, what I asked him was, “Dad, what were you looking for all these years?” And he looked at me and said: “Treasure. And I found it
...more
Why did it work out after such a long estrangement? The most important thing I did was realize what part I played in it. As long as you think everything is the other person’s fault, you’re never going to have any kind of communication. If you want to reconcile, you have to have some understanding of that and stop throwing blame totally on the other person. In fact, drop the blame altogether and say, “This is the situation, and this is what happened” and accept that.
“taking on the role of the other.” As humans grow up, we develop the ability to “see through another person’s eyes.” We learn to imagine how someone else might think and feel about a situation, and we orient our behavior by mentally stepping into his or her role. This capacity to shift your perspective to that of another person allows you to make a satisfactory business deal, avoid saying the wrong thing
I heard over and over from estranged family members: “It’s not my fault.” And my research revealed that few greater barriers to reconciliation exist than an absolute belief in that statement.
the family therapy literature point to a different principle: Estrangement is rarely one person’s responsibility.
acknowledging shared responsibility was liberating and empowering, whether or not the relationship was restored. Reflecting deeply on their own actions helped remove the mystery about the rift and opened doorways for action.
propensity to defensiveness. Many individuals in long-term estrangements adopt an impenetrable defensive posture. As time goes on, the actions and inactions of the other relative become magnified and serve as additional justification
humans have well-documented ways of responding to threats. We are highly motivated to see ourselves as good people. An event like an estrangement threatens our self-image.
we possess a mental system that is designed to preserve a high level of self-esteem. When our self-esteem gets damaged, we try to repair it. One of the most common mechanisms we use is dismissing negative feedback as irrelevant, biased, or just plain wrong.
By becoming aware of our natural defensive tendencies, we can understand how estrangement threatens our self-esteem and adopt more flexible and less defensive strategies.
What keeps people from an objective evaluation of their own role in a rift?
“defensive ignorance.” This standpoint cuts them off from information that might help them understand their relative’s perspective and stands in the way of reconciliation.
Some people described actions of their own that objectively appeared to be causes of estrangement, but they did not interpret them as “deal breakers.” Typically, the person who cut them off provided them with a detailed description of the reasons, often in the form of a letter. Respondents dismissed such messages as “crazy” or “just plain wrong.” Estranged relatives described themselves as walking in a fog of ignorance, struggling to understand how the rift could have occurred in their families. But they also offered reasons, and sometimes plenty of them. I came to describe this paradox as
...more
What struck me powerfully was this: During the same interview, John pointed to major events in the relationship that could explain the estrangement. In so doing, he was not alone. Many people who had been cut off by a loved one both declared ignorance of the causes and yet provided ample grounds for estrangement. As we will see later in this chapter, a key task is to acknowledge and investigate these reasons.
a single event can symbolize years of conflict.
How is it possible to both describe relationship-long conflict and a volcanic incident while simultaneously feeling that one is entirely in the dark as to the causes of the estrangement? The psychological research on defensiveness provides an answer. Defensiveness encourages us to selectively edit information we receive, treating as “facts” events that help protect our self-esteem, and discounting those that may threaten a positive perception of ourselves. As a rift deepens, both sides come to believe that they possess the truth. Bridging the gap in hardened viewpoints becomes a daunting task.
Katrina’s view was not influenced by the fact that all three children cut her out of their lives. According to the reconcilers, this kind of self-defense can protect against the emotional effects of estrangement, but it makes it nearly impossible to overcome it. Defensive ignorance puts up a formidable barrier to exploring one’s own role in the estrangement: dismissing and disregarding concrete reasons that are actually provided by the relative.
“Some people tell us that they did get a letter or another explanation, but they go on to say, ‘Yes, they gave me reasons, but those reasons were crazy.’ They didn’t want to accept the reasons. What do you think about that?”
You know, the estranged parents, they’re saying, “Well, I don’t know why my kids aren’t talking to me.” I don’t say “guarantee” a lot, but I guarantee somewhere in their dresser they have a heartfelt letter from their kid that’s ten pages double-sided that says in detail why they’re not talking to the parent. I can almost guarantee it. I’ve written those letters, I’ve known many people who’ve written those letters, I’ve sent those letters. I’ve tacked my hope and my heart onto those letters, and they’re summarily ignored.
The reconcilers believe that there is a way to move beyond defensive ignorance: stepping back and taking a more detached view of the facts of the estrangement. They are not demanding that you accept fault for the rift. What they do insist is that you examine as objectively as possible whether or not you may have contributed to the rift.
THE TOOL KIT
three specific strategies that worked for them. First, they recommend that you experiment with seeing the rift from the other person’s point of view, even if you do not agree with it. Second, they encourage you to get some distance from your own view by writing from the point of view of the other person. Third, they propose that you go beyond the network of people who are already on your side to more objective outsiders.
Connie decided to drop her defensiveness and take a good, hard look at whether she had contributed to the estrangement. She posed some difficult questions to herself: “So, okay, how would I like this to turn out? How did we get to this point? What happened, and what was my involvement in it? What part did I play in how we got to where we are? And what can I do about fixing my part?” She went on: “You have to honestly be willing to admit whatever the situation is and how you were a part of it. You know, it is not all one person’s fault.”
This example shows that a deep and meaningful understanding of the other’s perspective in an estrangement is possible. Our fundamental tendency to protect our self-image when we are attacked may be a formidable barrier, but we can overcome it. Indeed, the reconcilers taught me that if persistently asked to describe the relative’s interpretation of events, most people can do it. Whether you initiated the estrangement, your relative did, or you both had a hand in it, it’s worth taking a step into the other’s perspective.
A lot of writing goes on during the process of estrangement. People write letters, long emails, and Facebook posts. Much of the writing is to the other person involved, and often it is done from a place of anger. Nowadays, of course, people text one another, using our newest communication medium to spit out their point of view in terse messages. From my research, I’ve found that it’s a rare rift that doesn’t have at least one pivotal incident that hinges on something someone wrote. (John’s unfortunately misdirected email is just one of many examples.)
“Imagine that your relative is having lunch with a friend, and the friend asks, ‘What’s up with the two of you?’ What would your relative say?”
I journal a lot. That’s my cheap therapy. And I think that if I were giving advice, I’d first of all tell people to write about this question: “Okay, perfect world, how would you like this to turn out?” Write about that, because sometimes just the act of writing about something makes your brain work differently, and things come up. So, “How would you like this to turn out?” And then, “How did we get to this point? What happened, and what was my involvement in it?” You know, honestly being willing to admit that whatever the situation is, you have a part of it. It is not all one person’s fault.
...more
Think about the problems you have had with your estranged relative. Think about these problems with him/her from the perspective of a neutral third party who wants the best for all involved; that is, a person who sees things from a neutral point of view. How might this person think about the causes of the estrangement?
