Legal Theory lecture Part One
Relationships - The Missing Links

Author: Dr Robert N Moles

A no-blame analysis of human relationships
Level 1 - Going around in circles

At the outset, we should remind ourselves that with any group of students in one year, or with the total number of students in a law school, there will be some amongst us who have experienced situations of the sort we will be speaking about. Epidemiology is the study of health on a statistical basis across communities.

I heard it said for example, that every 7 minutes, a man is knocked down in a motor vehicle accident in London – and apparently he is getting sick and tired of it. Or we know that it is said that every family has about 2.4 children, and when I was brought up, they told me I was the point 4. Statistics can seem strange things, when we find them difficult to apply to the individual case. They do tell us about the incidence of abusive relationships, and that within any group of the size of the average law school intake, their will be some students amongst us who have experienced (and may still be experiencing) some very disagreeable situations. We feel that it is therefore important for each group of students undertaking this course, that there be some counsellors available who can deal confidentially with any issues which arise.

Dawn Rowan from Melbourne has worked extensively with people who have problems with their relationships and with their own view of themselves. The situations have involved families, co-workers and friends – and have ranged from a general sense of unhappiness, to situations of domestic violence, incest and sexual assault. She has developed models which help us first to understand and talk about the difficulties, and then to help to resolve them. The following discussion is derived from her work notes and video tapes.

Healthy Relationships – model 1

Dawn suggests that a healthy relationship will look something like this:

Each person has some degree of overlap in their activities and interests. However, there is still space for each of them to have individual activities and interests of their own. This may be in connection with their work, sports, friends, children or just time for themselves. Each activity or interest, outside the area which is shared, is seen to enrich and enliven the area of shared interests. Each of them will bring back something each day that they can talk about – maybe they just won a game of tennis, or met up with a new friend or an old friend. Perhaps they might have talked about the new releases at the cinema, or a book that they have just read. This might encourage discussion of a trip to the cinema, or perhaps having the friends over for a meal.

Enmeshed relationships – model 2

An unhealthy relationship might look more like this:

In the unhealthy relationship, we can see that all of the activities are overlapping. The relationship takes over everything else. All activities become “shared” activities, and neither person can act or relate to others without the involvement of the other.

In the enmeshed situation, the circles may represent the people in the relationship, or of their involvement with other situations. The “workaholic” becomes enmeshed with their work – no time off for social life, or family – work takes priority to everyone and everything else. It may also be a “hobby” where a person spends all their time with their motorbike or with the computer. In some circumstances such situations may meet with social approval. The government minister or leader who works at their job 18 hours a day, or the concert pianist who does likewise. “All I need is the air that I breathe and to love you”. Such situations have the potential to move into the entrapped situation as depicted in diagram 3.

Controlled relationships – model 3

Instead of simply overlapping, in this situation, one of the parties moves into a more controlling position with regard to the other:

In this situation, the relationship moves from being enmeshed to being trapped and controlled. Here, person A cuts off B from other people or activities. The technique for control can be physical, social, psychological or familial. Means of physical control may be isolation – B is living out of town without transport – in some cases people have been locked in the house with deadlocks and unable to go out without the other’s consent. A might insist on driving B to work, and meeting up for lunch and driving them home after work. It may be social – A says, “your friends are crazy”, or “dangerous”, or “they all think you are silly”, or that “they are just using you and don’t really like you” – and “I’m not having them in this house”. The psychological will emphasise the fact that B is not worthy, or that B’s perception of reality is not shared by others. The fact that they laugh at B behind B’s back, or don’t trust B, all involves assertions which cannot be proved. After all, the nicer people are to B, the more it confirms A’s argument about how “devious” they are. The essential part of this relationship is that B learns first not to trust others, and as a result learns not to trust oneself. It then means that the essentially abusive aspect of this relationship is less likely to be revealed to others. After all, if B does not trust people because “they” are untrustworthy, then B is hardly likely to reveal serious and personal concerns to them.

Psychologically, the techniques are very similar to that of “brainwashing”. The person is trapped, isolated, and subject to repetitive and controlling influences. They learn not to trust themselves, but to seek guidance from the other. Reality is then defined by that other and accepted by those subject to it. The defining of reality is the insistence upon the adoption of a conceptual framework or an organising framework of thought, which colours all that one sees.

The whole point of this discussion is to put forward “an organising framework of thought” in the area of human relationships. An area where such conceptualisations are strangely and sadly lacking. This is especially so for law students. However, anybody reading this book or looking at the video tapes, is entirely free to debate, discuss and to accept or reject the ideas – in accordance with their own understanding. But the abuser will not allow for dissent or disagreement, and will insist upon “seeing things” a certain way. It is important that we recognise here, that such a framework of thought can no more be proved or disproved, than we can fall over a triangle in the street. They are just ideas that colour what we see. However, if I can persuade you that all the people in the world (apart from me, of course) are frightening and dangerous and out to get you, then you will feel frightened and vulnerable, and will learn to see that I am the only person you can trust and feel safe with. Unfortunately the “safety” comes at a price – but given the way the world is, there really is no alternative. The intellectual coherence within such a view is palpably lacking. If “all people” are not to be trusted, then why should I be trusted?

One can clearly see the same factors at work with cults or sects which isolate newcomers from family and friends. The cult provides them with all that they need and defines the new shared reality in a non-negotiable fashion. The newcomers have their role to play, which may involve asking questions, but which will not allow for disagreement.

Such abuse will not work in situations 1 and 2, because of the capacity which B has to balance A’s views with those of others. Clearly, this situation represents a continuum, from an A – who is just a bit pushy and insistent – to an A who engages in serious managerial, physical or sexual abuse. We specifically include the managerial here because it is not just in the “home” that these situations occur. They can just as easily occur in the school, office or university as anywhere else. The advantage here is that to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Once one can see the elements of a relationship which carry this capacity then choices arise about its ongoing management or curtailment.

In situation 3, if anything changes, apart from therapeutic interventions the most likely outcome is separation. In 3 there is no prospect of B obtaining gradual development and improvement, because the situation is predicated upon ensuring that it does not happen. B’s only hope therefore is to break with the situation, and then be de-programmed. Or, as we would put it in terms of the discussion throughout this book, enabled to develop an organising framework (or frame of reference) which fits “B’s” sense of authenticity. One which allows B to determine the range of contacts or exposure to issues which are thought by B to be meaningful. As we point out in the lecture on Dworkin, a person may be a university professor, or even a famous university professor, but this does not mean that they may still say some very silly things. There is no “authority” in the realm of ideas, apart from one’s own sense of value and judgment.

The situation in 3 develops because both A and B suffer from low self-esteem. A wants a captive audience, and B does not know how to control it.  In the case which we study in lecture on gendered stereotypes, it seems clear to us that Mary wanted to keep things in control, and thought that she could manage the relationship with Louis. However, Louis was continually placing Mary in situations where she found it hard to limit her involvement with him. He would “buy her groceries for her” which she did not want him to do. She was prepared to go out for meals with him, but he insisted on buying “French champagne”, and giving her gifts which made her feel uncomfortable. The most difficult thing in the development of “pushy” relationships is knowing when or where to draw the line. Each individual pushing of the boundary by A gives rise to discomfort. But B often feels that it would look like an over-reaction to respond to the individual situation. Often the situations will occur when immediate reaction is seen to be inappropriate. The giving of a present in a crowded restaurant – telephoning someone in their workplace – speaking about them in front of all their friends. Many people do not want to respond with apparent negativity in front of a crowd of strangers, or in front of one’s workmates or friends. By the time they are alone with A again, the time for reacting feels past. “What’s the point”, “we’ll only have a row”, “I’ll make sure it doesn’t happen again”, are all comforting feelings at the time to explain to oneself the reasons for inaction.

But for the A who sees B as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves, it was a good night. B’s sense of obligation has been increased, and A feels that B owes them something. “Look at all the things I did for you”, “you didn’t complain at the time,” “all your friends thought what a kind and caring person I am” (they might even fancy me), “you are taking advantage of me” “you are an insensitive and uncaring person after all I have done for you” (and your friends think so too). After such a blast, B now sees that A has pre-empted and trivialised the so-called “concerns” which B might have. B will now have to put off until another time, or just forget, the concerns which were felt at the time. In these situations, B is often comforted by the fact that the time for putting things right will have to be postponed. It doesn’t mean that it won’t happen – it’s just that the time is not right now.

We have come across many students who do not like the way in which they are treated at the law school. They are reluctant to say so, because they do not want to be seen as “troublemakers”. In any event, the staff (who seem unaware of their concerns) will have to assign their grades. So, we’ll do the best we can for now, and when I leave the law school, I will be a free agent. But of course, by that time, you are just as likely to find an employment situation which is just as bad or even worse. This is why we feel that the law school charter must publicly proclaim the student’s right to express concerns, and indeed make complaints, and that this be seen as not only part of the duty of a student, but as an expression of their positive concerns. We think that knowing how to address an unsatisfactory situation in the law school is an important part of the development of “legal skills”. As we often say to the law school students, if you cannot fight for your rights within the law school, how on earth can you learn to fight for the rights of others?

It is important to appreciate that the controlling A may not necessarily be “scheming and devious” although it is perfectly possible that they are. The cult or sect which isolates people from family and friends, no doubt has a strategy which has been carefully worked out, although this will no doubt be explained as necessary for the well-being of B. In some situations, the controlling A might be just as trapped by their behaviour as the B’s who are subjected to it. Their “mental models” and linguistic routines in terms of the way they see and talk to people, can be learned, just as B’s get to learn their sense of helplessness. They each throw themselves into new relationships, often seeking out those who will play the assigned roles, and then find that only some crisis or mental breakdown will free them to start again.

Without an explicit understanding of the mental models we are using, or of the linguistic routines and interactions which will result from them, we will have little capacity to transform our relationships and take control of our involvement in them. Dawn often says that it is strange that most people take far more care about buying a pair of jeans or a t-shirt, than they will about entering into a new relationship. We’ve all learned to go into shops and try the clothes on – we often do it with our friends – and we all know how to discuss what suits us in terms of colour and style. Any newsagent will have scores of magazines which discuss “fashion”, “how to organise a dinner party” or a barbecue. But where do we learn how to talk about the structure of relationships, and how to identify the needs that we have in terms of them? It seems silly to think that we would buy our jeans in a pub or at a party, but there seems to be nothing silly at all in terms of falling into a relationship at a pub or a party, which might quickly become all-absorbing.

It seems to us to be astonishing that lawyers, who will face the sure and certain prospect of dealing with people who have serious problems in their business or in their private relationships, will have had no training at law school about how to conceptualise or discuss relationship issues. This will no doubt be justified on the basis that you see a counsellor to discuss relationships, and you see the lawyer to sort them out – legally speaking. To us, it seems dysfunctional to suggest that the two can be separated in this way. The lawyer should be asking the client what they want to achieve in their business or social relationships, and successful outcomes for the client may be rendered impossible by the sending of a solicitor’s letter, or the issuing of proceedings.

The issues which we have outlined apply to all relationships. The issues which we discuss can occur as easily between adults or between an adult and child. It should also be made clear that we are not talking about time spent together. A controlling A can exercise control even where they spend very little time with B. They can continue to exercise that control even though they may be living hundreds of miles apart. The parent who has successfully convinced a son or daughter to think of people in a certain way, can be confident that they will continue to do so when they go to university, or when they get married. A controlling A can continue to exercise the control through the occasional telephone call, or with the assurance that their son or daughter would not want to disappoint them. We have known both A’s and B’s who may well be in their 30s or 40s, and married, who will still go home each weekend to their parents – ostensibly to ensure that they are happy and well – but just as clearly for the reinforcement that they need.

It is also clear that the behavioural routines which are learned can be passed on from one generation to the next. A controlling A will drill and skill sons or daughters in the proper way to view the world and others. The sons and daughters may have such great admiration for their father or mother that they see it as a matter of both loyalty and respect to continue with those views. When they attempt to build their own relationships, they model them around the frameworks which they have learned. Whilst respectful and dutiful to those who have given them so much,  they have now learned (and become dependent upon) their way of seeing the world in terms of their relationships with others. The dutiful B is now an insistent and controlling A in their new relationships. This loyalty and fidelity to a world view can last long after the person responsible for it has died. How many people have said that “I feel as though I am in a relationship with your parents or family, more than I am with you”? Once in the law school, I said that I thought that Hart and Dworkin were academic vandals, only to be met with the response “you can’t say that”. Why not? I think it, I’ve written it and published to that effect, and I’m prepared to argue it. What view of the world do my academic colleagues have if they are prepared to say, “you can’t say that” without being interested in listening to, or evaluating the argument. If they would say that to me as a fellow academic who can point to published books and articles on the subject, what hope would students have who may think it, but feel that the possibility ought not to be discussed?

Without the ability to see our parents, teachers, advisers as people who have their views, which may well be right or wrong – but no more so than anybody else’s, we learn to trust another for our world view, rather than trying to understand our own. Any healthy relationship should be able to respond to the needs of each, with an appropriate setting of boundaries. Dawn emphasises that even the newborn have needs which have to be understood and acknowledged. Some parents will encourage their children to explore and to try out new things. Even to risk making mistakes. Others know “what is best” and continually try to prevent the children from making “mistakes”. Indeed, a child may learn not to act on their own initiative to avoid making a mistake. We can have smothering parenting and smothering teaching. The lecturer “who knows all about their subject” and says “you can’t say that”, is one such.

On one occasion, I set up the seminars in my subject which were to be a series of “disputed questions”. I said in my draft seminar notes that it was clear that my fellow lecturer and I had differing views on the topics, and so we would take joint seminars and debate the issues with each other and with the students. I was called to his office, and told that as I was new to lecturing, I probably didn’t know that there were some “unwritten rules” about teaching. I have always been interested in rules, and especially the “unwritten” sort. This lecturer continued to explain that one of the most important of them was that the lecturers should not “disagree with each other” in front of the students. This, he said, would only confuse them. The sensible thing to do, he said, was that he would take over the seminars, and then he could give the students a “clear view of things”. No doubt this “clear view” would be given back to him in the essays and exams, and everyone could be re-assured that real progress was being made.

Students, of course, are very good at “mimicking” understanding in such situations. But as John Searle says, we can mimick the rainfall pattern over London – but no-one gets wet. We can mimick the flow of money through the banking system, but no-one is better off. We all know how to play roles to avoid making people feel uncomfortable. But in our view, this is an insensitive and inappropriate model for teaching. Insensitive - because most (or many) students do in fact feel uncomfortable with it. Inappropriate - because we cannot have a genuine debate about issues, where one of the debaters is clothed with such authority, that their views cannot be changed or questioned. Have you had one of those discussions with people where their ideas cannot be changed, but the reasons for them are infinitely changeable? Show them that the reason which they have put forward just won’t work, and they will immediately select another, and so on.

In order to have a genuine debate, one has to be prepared to consider that one’s current views may be in need of revision. It does not mean that we have to change position with each passing storm, but we have to be prepared to listen, to consider, and if unable to see the inadequacy of a view, then we must be prepared to consider adopting it.

For an abusive relationship to succeed, the person subjected to it must be (at least in the formative stages) cut off from other influences and unable to discuss their concerns with others. The abused subject will, or will soon, see themselves as inadequate, or at least, not on the same level as the perpetrator. This may be the head of the family, or the head of the law school. The appearance of “authority” clearly assists the process. The familiar argument with concentration camps is that there were so many of them and so few in charge – so why didn’t they (the inmates) just overwhelm them? The answer frequently given is that the people in charge had uniforms – military or medical – and these were potent symbols of authority. The inmates on the other hand had their identities taken away from them – personal possessions – clothes – anything, which gave them a sense of individuality and worth. [1] How often, we reflect upon the fact that at a modern law school, a good proportion of students do not like certain things about the teaching, or the way in which the student’s law society or the faculty works. As a group they are supposed to be one of the most empowered groups of their age in our society. As for making complaints – well, “we don’t want to be seen as troublemakers” and perhaps “the Dean may not like it”. So we keep quiet and grin and bear it.

Relationship Planning

Dawn tells us that in her first few meetings with her clients, she usually gets them to make out a statement of their needs, as individuals, and of the extent to which they feel those needs are being met in their particular relationships. She asks them to think of themselves as a whole person and to list their needs

Physical, social, psychological, emotional, sexual, intellectual and spiritual. Each person can list their own way of conceptualising their needs in terms of what they want out of life, and the extent to which the feel that they are achieving it, as individuals, or in their relationships. This simple step is really just the first stage of planning. Clearly we cannot think about where we want to go - until we have some idea of where we are. Most people have a pretty good idea of the areas of their life which are not working although many might actually find it difficult to say so.  Dawn suggests that some of her clients will list their achievement rating on areas which are important to them at around 25%. She also makes it clear that this rating can and should be done in all areas of our lives, not just “personal relationships”. She says that the “sexual” might not seem appropriate on a listing to do with one’s work, but if there are unwanted sexual overtones, then it may well be a matter for serious concern. One can think also in quite abstract terms about issues such as happiness, sense of security, am I making progress? Do I feel good when I am going there?

Dawn suggests that often the issues of concern will involve problems of communications, which we will come back to later. The example she uses is of the wife who wants the husband to talk to her about some things which are worrying her. Dawn says, “have you asked him to talk to you”? She says, I ask him all the time. When Dawn says “tell me specifically what you say when you ask him”, she might say, “I asked him last night to help me with the dishes”. She thinks that she has said that she wants to spend some time with him and swap stories about what has gone on during the day, as she might do with her sisters when they wash up together. He thinks that she is suggesting that he is a lazy good-for-nothing, who does not do enough around the house. He is angry, especially after he has worked so hard all day, and had all those crazy drivers to contend with on the way home. And now he has to put up with all this. He says he has to watch the news – she hears that he is not interested in talking to her. Mutual resentment grows stronger. 

Dawn also suggests that it is not uncommon in her experience for one partner in a relationship to feel happy and enthusiastic about what they are doing and for the other to feel neglected. One gets happiness and self esteem from work, but the other has spent time at home with the kids and misses the engagement with adults and the satisfaction which they got from their work. If the working partner were to say that they wanted to go back to university to study, or to join a new club, the other partner might feel vulnerable and further neglected. Dawn says that it is important to realise that we cannot expect one person in a relationship to fulfil all the needs of the other. But each should have avenues available which enable them to feel significant and that their satisfaction rating on most issues should be around 80%.

Level 2 – The Dysfunctional Loop

Dawn suggests that sex-role stereotyping begins at an early age, and that by the time we are about 2 years old, we have learned what counts as appropriate or inappropriate responses.

She suggests that the four basic human responses are

Happy                                                             jealousy – rage – depression

Sad                                                                 anxiety – unresponsiveness

Frightened                                                       are combinations of the basic emotions

Angry

By being given covert or explicit messages at a very early age about what is appropriate in terms of our responses, we adapt and learn and attempt to get our needs met by utilising them.

Girls – are given permission to act frightened or sad – but told not to act angry. It is unladylike, inappropriate, and not the sort of thing we do around here. So when girls feel angry, they learn to substitute an acted fear or sadness in its place. In a grown woman this manifests most commonly as depression. Dawn suggests that if you scratch the surface of many depressions, you will find a repressed anger.

Boys – are given permission to act angry, but told that it is not appropriate to display fear or sadness. Such things in boys are seen to be unmanly, or pathetic. So when men actually experience fear or sadness, they will learn to substitute anger for it. Dawn suggests that if you scratch the surface of anger, you will find fear and sadness lurking beneath.

The trouble with all of this is that we end up giving out the wrong messages. Although a person may be experiencing fear or sadness, and may need looking after, if they display it as anger we are unlikely to give them a hug or see if we can reassure them. The most likely response is that we will either fight back – or run away – which exacerbates the sadness which they are feeling. They now either have bigger problems on their hands in that others are out to get them, or else they are more isolated and lonely. If the only response available is to pump up the angry beast – then it is no wonder that we have increasing occurrences of violence and aggression amongst men. Dawn says that she has frequently worked with men who say that they seem to be getting more angry - “its getting worse and out of control”. But they do not understand why.

Dawn suggests that if you put the

feeling sad – but acting angry man – with the

feeling angry – but acting sad woman – then you have a potentially explosive mix.

The man is at work, and told that his latest report is not up to scratch. He may be frightened or sad, and probably both. He is disappointed that his efforts have not been recognised and fearful about his future employment prospects. He can’t cry or disclose to his colleagues that he is frightened or sad. So he “acts tough” – “what do they know” he says, and “what do I care” – “I can get a job anywhere”. He’s angry on the way home and blasts some of the drivers for being maniacs and idiots. By the time he gets home he is in “full angry” mode and meets his wife looking dishevelled and depressed. He can now give her a good earful about the kids, the house, the meal – and although she is angry about being treated like this, she becomes more sorrowful and more depressed. Much of the anger, of course, which the man has brought home, has been that which he really wants to express to his bosses. The fear, anger, sadness loop then continues.

In the loop – and its getting worse

Dawn suggests that if we work out why we sometimes act differently to the way that we feel, especially when relationships seem to be going wrong, or getting out of control, then “the loop” that we get into might look something like this:

       Explosive Relationships - Diagram 4

We can see from this that when the man is experiencing fear or sadness, he may well feel inclined to “act angry”. When he does so, it feeds the sense of anger which the woman is experiencing, but this is translated by her into fear and sadness. This developing sense of fear and sadness in the woman, exacerbates or heightens the man’s sense of fear and sadness, but is then translated by him into greater anger. Without any form or therapeutic intervention, it is hard to see how to break the dysfunctional loop.

It is clear that the active and learned aggression in males, and the learned helplessness by women, depends upon a form of crude stereotyping. The roles can easily be reversed in families or groups where the woman is expected to “act tough” or where the men are in environments where “we don’t get angry around here”. In those situations, further layers of complications can arise, where one has to revert to the “more normal” stereotypes in work situations, or at the sports club.

All models are of course simplifications of a more complex reality, but their value is that they enable us to get some sense of orientation to the problems. Dawn takes the view that we all need to have access to the full range of emotions and that we should feel able to express them when confronted with unacceptable behaviour. We should each of us be able to express our humanity, and if necessarily - assertively so - without threatening the well being of others.  Once we are “in the loop” then there is no real prospect other than lose / lose.

If we consider that the experiencing of emotions is to trigger off some of our autonomic systems, which will help us to survive, then human beings seem to have learned to signal the opposite to what they are experiencing. We signal anger when we are depressed and our needs are not being met – and all we get in return is a lot of abuse and we end up with no friends. Dawn suggests that the real danger is that we tend to be emotionally illiterate. Often where any one of the feelings of anger, fear or sadness are thought to be inappropriate, then happiness might also be thought to be inappropriate. She has dealt with many families where children have come home from school with good grades, only to be told they could have done better. Or, if they got eight questions right, the emphasis is always on the two they got wrong. Especially where the reactions are likely to be unpredictable, the child is more likely to act as either withdrawn, or tough and uncaring, when perhaps they felt like smiling. Sometimes, to protect themselves, people learn to smile when they are sad or frightened. We learn to minimise risks by ensuring that we do not signal what we are actually feeling.

Dawn says that many of the men she meets in therapy tell her that they cannot describe “feelings”. This is what she means when she says that we have learned to become “emotionally illiterate”. In such conditions, it is hardly surprising that people find that their needs are not being met. When asked about how to begin unravelling all of this in her therapy sessions, she says that it is like unravelling an onion. At the core of our humanity, she says that she believes that we need to be happy. However, around that, in many of us lies a layer of sadness. Around that is a layer of anger, and that is kept in place by a layer of fear. Because the expression of fear in our society is found to be threatening, many people learn to layer that over with what she describes as “acted anger” – “being tough”. In her therapeutic work, she says that she has to work carefully with her clients to gradually expose the layers one by one. Get through the “over toughness”, to deal with the fear underneath. Then by enabling her clients to deal with the anger and sadness which may have lain dormant for many years, they may be able to reach to their inner core and expose the happiness which has been beyond their reach for so long.

 

 

Of course, after all of this, one might ask “how do you know what you are really feeling?” In answer to this, Dawn has one simple response – IDEAS and INFORMATION. She says that for her, all therapy starts with the provision of information, which she has provided in relation to her experiences. That this is tied in with the important ideas which help us to provide a framework for our thoughts about the subject. So just as John Austin has done in respect of law, Dawn has provided us with some key – essential ideas with which we can begin to work. As we saw with John Austin, one can neither prove such ideas to be right or wrong. That would be the wrong question to ask of them. It might be better to say, “are they useful?” “Do they help you to get a handle on things, and begin to organise discussions in a better way?” Do they enable us to think of a strategy or plan which will give us some basis for action? If they do, then those of us that have some degree of illiteracy in these areas can at least make a start on a new type of discussion. At least for a law school.

 

Part 2...

 

Top of Page