3. Being able to reflect on and discuss the interaction between 1 and 2.
4. Being able to do all the above even when a partner can’t, won’t or doesn’t want to.
Notice what’s missing: any mention of solutions. Solutions may be vital, but a partner’s unlikely to even hear them, let alone do anything with them, until emotions are being honoured. So first soothe. Only then, solve.
At home by the fire
Let’s look at this another way, not as a list but a story. One of my favourite books is Thomas Hardy’s Far from the Madding Crowd – where headstrong Bathsheba Everdene turns down a proposal from good-hearted employee Gabriel Oak. Instead she marries dashing Sergeant Troy and, when he abandons her, accepts the courtship of reserved neighbour William Boldwood. Just to be clear, while there’s tragedy, there are no absolute villains in this story. In their own way, everyone does their best.
But only one man – Oak – is worthy of Bathsheba. That’s not just because he supports her practically through his work on the farm, but also because he is the only one who can stand firm emotionally. Sergeant Troy’s passion seduces Bathsheba but his feelings are unreliable, while Boldwood is emotionally crippled. Only Oak is capable of empathic generosity; in Hardy’s words, ‘the [things] which affected Gabriel’s personal well-being were not the most absorbing and important in his eyes’. If you’ve read the novel, you’ll know the ending. If not, then take a clue from Gabriel’s proposal to Bathsheba – which at first she rejects as uninspiring, but later learns to treasure: ‘at home by the fire, whenever you look up there I shall be – and whenever I look up, there will be you.’
Emotional engagement
Which makes it all sound very simple. But this kind of maturity is a big ask. It means, as Gabriel Oak knows, being there for a partner over time and under all circumstances. It means staying calm even when sad, angry or anxious. It means staying engaged even when our partner is sad, angry or anxious and we are sorely tempted to tell them to get a grip. It means staying rock-solid even when our partner is firing negative emotions, with us as the target – as they will do from time to time in even in the most loving relationship. Easy? Not at all.
So are we warranted in making emotional responsiveness a benchmark for partner choice? So long as we give back, surely it’s entirely reasonable to expect a potential partner to deliver emotional support, entirely justifiable to walk away if they can’t or won’t. Science is on my side in this. A landmark fourteen-year study by Professor Ted Huston of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that where partners aren’t emotionally concerned about each other during courtship, then even if they decide to wed they’ll probably part in the end. If couples are consistently kind, warm, sympathetic and empathic from the start, they’re hugely more likely to stay the course. We not only can, but should, make emotional responsiveness a relationship deal-breaker.
Adam realized at once that this relationship was going to be emotionally demanding.
You may at this point be wondering about the widespread belief that such demands could never be made of those with the Y chromosome. So can men respond emotionally? The answer is absolutely yes. Any male wariness of emotion is not because men feel it less – physiologically they actually experience it more strongly, more painfully, hence the wariness. Men’s main handicap is conditioning; little boys are told not to cry, big boys are told to ‘be a man’, but what they’re rarely told is how to manage their emotions. But another study from the University of Texas suggests that when told empathy is attractive and that emotional responsiveness makes for good relationships, men are totally capable of stepping up. I know this first-hand. I have had as clients many men who fully take on board this particular relationship challenge, reach out to their partners and respond to their partners reaching out to them. These men are certainly brave – but they’re not unique. There are lots of them out there.
Proofs of responsiveness
Earlier in this chapter, we needed to get very specific about values, goals and personality – thinking through what our definitions were, deciding what ‘proof’ there might be that we can deliver what a partner might need and vice versa. In the same way, it’s good to get specific about emotional responsiveness – what we mean by it, how we would know it if we saw it – or we again risk a relationship minefield where what one partner wants is not what the other can give.
How to unearth your definition? One good way is to think of the last time you actively felt emotionally supported; what did people say and do (or not say and do) to bring you back into balance? As contrast, when did you last feel unsupported; what went on that left you disappointed and discouraged? What were the differences between those times that made such a difference in how you felt?
Can we tell if a potential partner is capable of responding? It’s unwise to even try to judge this in the early going, when heavy-duty emotional interaction is rarely appropriate, let alone needed. That said, the following are excellent signs, their absence worrying: if a suitor listens with concentration when we are speaking, reveals emotional awareness when they are speaking, and – a sneaky one, this – shows empathy to those in the vicinity, even though these people are clearly not the object of courtship attention. One of my friends married a woman who on their first date behaved well to a waiter when he accidentally spilled soup in her lap. Another friend instantly dumped a beau who was rude to a nervous server. On both occasions my verdict was: good choice.
Serious tests of this dimension will likely come when strong and uncomfortable emotions first bite – on occasions that might be as huge as a bereavement or as small as a hellish commute from work. A partner may be able to listen, comfort, sympathize and soothe – and we may accept that from them, or not. We may be able to listen, comfort, sympathize and soothe – and a partner may let us in, or not. We need to pay close attention, for it’s here that both sides will show their true colours. And it’s here we will find the answers to the two questions which Sue Johnson claims are most crucial to relationship success: ‘Can I be there for you? Can you be there for me?’
Paul and Linda
What if the answer to the first question – can I be there for you? – is actually ‘no’? If we don’t feel inspired to deliver emotionally to a partner, we need to ask ourselves why and then listen carefully to whatever reasons our minds and hearts give back. ‘Because I’m just not motivated enough with this person’ is extremely useful information, even though it probably signals an ending.
The answer to the second question – can you be there for me? – may be unclear. We may sense a partner’s willingness but the way they respond to our ‘bids’ for care may not be quite what we need – a loss of attention, a turn away, an unresponsive comment. Is this just cause for dismissal? If all other signs are good it’s surely unfair to call a halt without giving a partner at least a chance to step up. So perhaps we ask, clearly and without criticism, for the response we need when we’re emotional? Listening or cuddling. Asking questions or staying silent. Looking on the bright side or joining in the pessimism. Giving time alone or being willing to stay for a while. While we’re on the subject, we might even turn the conversation to asking what response a partner might need from us when they are distressed. Just so we know.
This depth of conversation may not be possible at once. And those few preceding paragraphs may seem more like advice on how to relate to a partner than advice on how to choose one. But a huge element of successful decision-making is finding out whether each partner is both able and motivated to actually learn what the other person needs and what the relationship may demand. If either of us can’t or won’t learn then, harsh as it may sound, there is no future. If we’re prepared to study, the future is shining bright.