The road to relational repair can be a bumpy one. When we have behaved poorly, our bruised ego or sense of shame can hijack our accountability. When we have been wronged, it can be tricky to hold those we esteem to account, especially if we have unclear boundaries.
Friendships and acquaintanceships can be particularly tricky to navigate as, unlike some other relationship types, there is often no agreed upon dynamic. Most people enjoy the informality and freedom these relationships bring (when compared to familial or workplace relationships for example), but as roles are often unclear, repairing or leaving a platonic relationship can feel even more confusing.
For example, punctuality and responsiveness are generally expected in our workplace relationships, but may not necessarily translate to our friendships. Therefore what is a relaxed dynamic for one person can feel disrespectful to another. Essentially, without the structure that features in some other relationships, platonic ones can either a) flounder and die with little discussion of what went wrong or b) explode in a fiery bust-up which, while expressive, may still not result in repair.
This opaqueness around the rules of engagement can leave us feeling unsure about how to handle ourselves and our expectations. Combining the landmarks of emotion with the work of Dr Monnica T Williams, the table below outlines a) the traps we can fall into when we have erred in our relationships and b) alternative behaviours based on self-reflection rather than reaction. These are by no means limited to platonic relationships. Additionally, because the reflective behaviours offer options for re-connection over lashing out or shutting down, they can also apply when we have been wronged by others.
| Reactive Behaviours | Reflective Behaviours |
|---|---|
| Out-of-choice Reach This is where we attempt to placate the person we’ve harmed by over-apologising, continually checking in on them, or pushing for forgiveness. The main motivation for these behaviours is wanting to feel better about ourselves, therefore we don’t allow repair/re-connection to come about organically. Instead, because we can’t sit with our own distress, we rush the other person through their hurt, potentially forcing them (the transgressed) to tend to us (the transgressor). Ultimately, this erodes trust. | Challenge This involves sitting with our sense of shame and reminding ourselves that missteps don’t negate our worthiness. We can also notice the desire to move into out-of-choice reach or defend reactions. These self-preserving behaviours can be instinctive, but with some reflection we can see they don’t help move us towards re-connection. |
| Defend (fight/flight) Fight This is when we deflect blame by calling someone over-sensitive or by honing in on their flaws. Either way, we invalidate their right to feel hurt by our actions. Flight We avoid the person we’ve harmed or situations where we’re likely to be faced with our discomfort. This avoidance helps us to keep going without examining our behaviour in any meaningful way. Fight-Flight Combo This generally involves passive aggressive attempts to prove we are a good person without taking responsibility for our misstep. | In-choice Reach In this state of mind, we are willing to hear and validate the other person’s experience. Having reflected on our behaviour, we can apologise for it (without deflecting or over-apologising). From this position we can also ask for more information, acknowledge our blind-spots and ask what we could do differently. This may require tending to ourselves -noticing our own discomfort and offering ourselves some compassion. That way we’re less likely to deflect/defend. After this exchange we may need to reflect again on what we have heard and make a plan for change. |
For those relationships we haven’t been able to salvage, it can be easy to come away thinking we’re too much this or too little that. However, applying Martin Seligman’s ABCDE model may help re-frame the experience into something useful:
Adversity – what was the difficult situation?
Belief – how have we interpreted this situation?
Consequence – how did we respond, based on these beliefs?
Disputation – what evidence is there to refute the negative core belief that has arisen from this adversity?
Energisation – will we try again or change direction?
– Dr Martin Seligman, Learned Optimism
Addressing conflict is never comfortable, however these approaches can help us move toward re-connection rather than adding to our relationship body-count. And that sounds like something worth working towards.
Image credit: The Creation of Adam, Michelangelo
Additional reference:
Eramian, L., & Mallory, P. (2021). Unclear endings: difficult friendships and the limits of the therapeutic ethic. Families, Relationships and Societies, 10(2), 359-373. Retrieved Apr 22, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/204674320X15978605993604
This One Too 