Apparently when Paul McCartney and his first wife, Linda, married, they made a private vow: ‘I will never put you down’. To my mind, this didn’t only mean that they would never insult or disparage each other. It didn’t only mean that they would never betray or abandon each other. It meant that they would never stop being aware of each other’s feelings, never stop giving attention to each other’s needs, never fail to open up to each other, never fail to reply. Emotional responsiveness at its best.
Four tendencies
We come now to perhaps the most intricate of all issues by which we may assess relationship potential – how we relate, not just when one of us has an emotional need but when the connection between us threatens to fray.
Because all of us will inevitably, at some point in our relationship, feel insecure, even unloved. Where we differ is what we do with that. At the heart of understanding what we need in a partner is understanding just how we differ, and how that plays out.
For which insight, we thank psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth and their work on child development (which, for easier consumption, I’ve here simplified). Bowlby began, in the mid years of the twentieth century, with a simple but innovative idea: that for humans, life is insecure. This starts early. We lose trust when we are propelled at birth into a world that is totally unlike the safe and comforting womb we just left. We lose more trust when, however devoted our carers, they’re sometimes too distracted, busy or stressed to give us the attention we need. Yes, we survive, and largely we survive well. But underneath it all we’re still mistrustful, fearing that we won’t be loved and if we are that love will disappear – when such insecurity hits, we fall back on our own individual coping mechanisms, ‘attachment’ tendencies, as Bowlby called them.
Mary Ainsworth built on this theory with an in-depth study of seventy-six toddlers and their mothers, exploring more fully what these coping mechanisms might be. Mum and baby were shown into a room full of toys and with a research assistant on hand. Once toddler was happily playing, Mum left the room three times for three-minute intervals – during the last time the research assistant also left. Some little ones cried at first, then calmed, seeming ‘secure’ that Mum would come back. Some became ‘anxious’, and when Mum returned, clung on in case she went away again. Yet others protested by cutting off, ignoring Mum on her return, punishing her for her absence; Ainsworth called this ‘avoidant’ behaviour. Others got angry with Mum for leaving; I’m naming this tendency ‘attacking’. Four toddler reactions, four emotional strategies, four tendencies to behave a particular way when feeling insecure, unloved and wary that love might never return.
As adults . . .
A few decades on from Bowlby and Ainsworth’s work and we see a growing realization that these tendencies don’t just fade as a child grows up. As adults, we’re certainly more secure because we’re more in control of our world, but we also repeatedly learn – often through the route of heartbreak – that we can’t always trust that world to deliver. And we still harbour those four attachment tendencies, sometimes majoring in one, mostly doing mix-and-match to differing degrees. When we are ‘secure’, trusting in ourselves and others, we handle love situations with calmness and confidence – even if in the end a relationship dies. When ‘anxious’ we are worried by love, unsure of our competence and needing reassurance. As ‘avoidant’, we fight shy of emotional engagement, pull away if commitment looms. ‘Attacking’, we feel an inner frustration, perhaps creating conflict in order to connect.
If any of this sounds familiar, you’re right. We all have all these tendencies in different proportions. We may not manifest the more challenging ones except when we feel insecure or feel a relationship connection weakening – but they’re there in all of us. For that, no blame, no shame; attachment tendencies are the human condition.
Which of course is why so many characters in literature and film display them (aside, of course, from the ‘secure’ tendency, which is so mature and wise that it has zero dramatic potential). The other tendencies, however, provide endless raw material for compulsive characters and angst-driven plot. For ‘anxious’, see Bridget Jones’s romantic insecurity and her readiness to cling again and again to Daniel Cleaver even when he behaves badly (though thankfully, in the end, she sees the light and walks away). As an example of ‘avoidant’, we might turn to the butler Stevens who, in Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel The Remains of the Day, is so wary of the relationship that might develop if he showed his true feelings for housekeeper Miss Kenton that he fails to admit his love over a period of several decades. For ‘attacking’, we need look no further than Heathcliff and Catherine in Emily Brontë’s novel Wuthering Heights; while they think of themselves as one – ‘Whatever souls are made of, his and mine are the same’ – they are nevertheless endlessly intense with each other and Heathcliff in particular can often only express his love for Catherine through absolute rage.
These tendencies have had an undeserved bad press. As is clear from the last paragraph, particularly when they’re presented in art rather than real life, they’re often seen as being all downside, fault and weakness. ‘Secure’ is, rightly, viewed as the poster child for happy and mature relationships. But the other tendencies have their upsides too. Being anxious may mean we’re motivated to ride out a partnership storm, stay loyal, stay committed. Being avoidant may mean a certain emotional independence, the ability to give partners space. An attacking tendency can mean being comfortable with dissension, or being able to summon huge intensity and passion.
So, to what extent do you stay calm and serene, trusting in life and love to give you what you need? How far do you stay loyal – even though you also sometimes cling? How far do you maintain your emotional independence – albeit you may get accused of not caring? How far do you engage energetically – granted that you occasionally pick fights? How do you respond when you feel love sliding away from you? What, in short, are you going to bring to the partnership table when you feel less than fully connected?
Partner tendencies
And what will a partner bring to the table? Discovering that is never going to be as simple as gauging height and weight, values and life goals, or a capacity for emotional responsiveness. Crucially, attachment tendencies may not kick in at the start of a relationship because at that point we likely feel perfectly loved and perfectly secure. So how can we make at least a top-level guess on a beloved’s tendencies in time to make a reasoned decision?
Here’s a useful diagnostic. Sex. Sex is one of the arenas where a person is most themselves, and reveals that self most early and openly in a relationship. It is Sue Johnson who here again offers guidance. She suggests that sex which involves a healthy balance between physical pleasure and emotional bonding might be called ‘synchrony sex’ and reflects a secure tendency. Sex used largely for comfort and as a way to calm doubts or conflicts, which Johnson terms ‘solace sex’, suggests a tendency to be anxious. Sex that is self-focussed, performance-oriented, with little emotional openness, could be labelled ‘sealed off’ sex; it signals avoidant tendencies. I would add that energetic, forceful, ‘fight it all out’ passion is what one might call ‘squabble sex’ and might reflect an attacking tendency.