|
Playing With Fire
After years of trips to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness with friends or my children, my wife finally agreed to make her maiden voyage with me. It was to be an easy four-day trip with minimal portaging. My goal was to give her a taste of the beauty of the wilderness and leave her wanting more. On a warm and sunny July day we launched our canoe into Brule Lake to begin the trip. As we dipped our paddles into the pristine water the stress and tension of civilization faded with each stroke. Gliding past glacial outcroppings of granite we witnessed trees that seemed to miraculously cling to this inhospitable surface and watched eagles soar high above us. It was perfect. That is, until the mosquitoes came out that evening! The next morning was overcast with a threat of rain, but we packed up camp and headed toward our first of two portages to reach our camp for the next two nights. As we started our second portage I heard the first rumbles of thunder in the distance. By the time we were back on the water the wind was picking up, the sky grew dark and we were being chased by what looked like a black wall of clouds. We barely made it to the campsite when the rain started and the wind began to howl. Trees were blowing down all around us as we sought cover. It was July 4th, 1999, the "Storm of the Century" in the BWCAW. Near 100 mile per hour winds devastated 585,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota and southern Ontario, Canada, with 367,000 of these in the BWCAW. Approximately 25 million trees were blown over or snapped in half like toothpicks, leaving the potential for catastrophic forest fires that most experts predicted would be a matter of when, not if. You may wonder what happened to us as a result of the storm. And while that would make an interesting story about transcending our perceived limitations and finding previously unknown strengths in ourselves and each other, that is not the focus here. Fire is the star of this story, and by the time you get done reading it you may learn something that will make a difference in your marriage. The boreal forest of the BWCAW is actually dependent upon fire. In fact, fire ecologist Bud Heinselman stated: "Not long ago forest fires were as vital as rain, snow, wind and temperature in shaping the ecosystem." Prior to European settlement in northeastern Minnesota the BWCAW burned every 120 years on average. Red and white pine trees actually thrive when low-intensity fires occur frequently. The fires kill smaller trees and underbrush, and their thick bark and lack of low branches protect these large pines. Human fire suppression in the BWCAW began around 1911. This altering of the natural role of fire in the ecosystem had a dramatic impact on the character of the forest. At the present rate of forest fires, Heinselman estimated it would take 2000 years for all parts of the BWCAW to experience fire. As a result, there has been an increase in shade tolerant fir and other species of trees that populate the landscape and limit the resources and space available for the previously dominant red and white pines. In addition, the lack of regular fires and abundance of underbrush and other tree species increases the fuel available when fire does strike, creating significantly more intense fires that may kill mature red and white pines. Thus the forest is more vulnerable to catastrophic high-intensity fires that will permanently change its character, a condition that was exacerbated by the devastation of the July 4th, 1999 storm. In the wake of the storm the U.S. Forest Service developed a fire management plan to address the threat of catastrophic wildfire and restore the natural ecosystem of the BWCAW. This plan includes controlled burns in the blowdown areas to reduce the volume of fuel available and avoid uncontrolled high-intensity natural fires, as well as recognition of the role of natural fires in shaping the character of the forest. While it took a natural disaster to realize the potential catastrophe we were creating by violating the natural processes of the wilderness, the "Storm of the Century" may ultimately be the best thing that happened to the BWCAW in the century since human fire suppression began. At this point you may be wondering: "What on earth does this have to do with marriage?" That's a fair question, so here it is: like fire in the BWCAW, conflict is a natural part of the marital ecosystem. Think of it as the natural wildfire of marriage. And like our response to fire in the forest, our reaction to conflict is often to try to suppress or eliminate it. It strikes fear in our hearts and thoughts of our marriage going up in flames. However, we may actually be putting our relationship at higher risk by following this instinct. Without periodic low-intensity conflict, which is a natural outcome of trying to resolve the thorny issues of building an intimate relationship, the underbrush of disappointment and resentment may grow. This not only limits the resources available to allow for natural growth in our marriage, it puts us at risk for a more intense conflict that can threaten even the more solid pillars of our relationship. Despite this, conflict avoidance is the mantra of many couples, whether a conscious choice or an unconscious mandate. Some even see conflict as proof that they chose the wrong person to marry, believing harmony is the natural state of a good relationship. Psychologist John Gottman has devoted his research efforts to understanding couples in relationships. His findings explode our myths and expectations about what makes a good marriage and how conflict fits into the picture. Gottman found that only 31% of conflicts get resolved over the course of a marriage. That leaves 69% of conflicts as perpetual, unresolved or unsolvable problems. I call this the 2/3 rule (2/3 of our conflicts are unresolved). He noted that in stable relationships there are five times as many positive factors present (e.g., love, support, affection, humor, interest in each other, friendship) as negative ones, even during conflict. In unstable relationships there are slightly more negative than positive factors present. The four most common negative factors seen in unstable relationships are criticism, defensiveness, contempt and stonewalling (avoidance). Based on this ratio of positive to negative factors, Gottman claims that within the first three minutes of a conflict discussion he can predict which couples will divorce. Think of it in terms of our forest model. When there are more positive factors present the fires (conflict) will more likely be low-intensity and enhance the ecosystem. And even when there is a difficult issue to address there will be less fuel (negative factors) to stoke the fire. On the other hand, when negative factors start to outweigh the positive, the risk of high-intensity, catastrophic fire increases dramatically. Repeating this negative pattern over time will eventually destroy the marital ecosystem. Given the potential dangers of conflict in marriage and that only one third of conflicts get resolved anyway, perhaps the couples that choose to avoid it have the right idea after all. Unfortunately for those who might want to adopt this strategy, a consistent finding across studies of marital satisfaction and outcome is that conflict avoidance is the number one reason for marital dissatisfaction and a major contributor to divorce. This makes sense when you consider that negative factors such as resentment commonly grow along with the pile of unresolved conflicts. And as resentment grows it is natural to begin shutting down the positive factors that feed the relationship, such as affection and support. Using our forest model, the underbrush grows out of control due to the lack of low-intensity fire, and over time drought begins to slowly choke the life out of the ecosystem. Then all it takes is a small spark to set off a devastating wildfire. So what's a couple to do? The most obvious solution is to learn to manage your conflicts more effectively, increase the number of positive factors operating in your marriage, reduce the negative factors and figure out how to live with the 69%. For those couples dedicated to conflict avoidance, some "controlled burns" might be necessary to clear out some of the underbrush and reduce the risk of a high-intensity fire. At this point I can imagine many of you making lists of the ways in which your spouse can change to accommodate this solution. Let me remind you, as I do the couples I see in therapy, the only person you ultimately have the power to change is yourself. Besides, I bet you've already tried to change your spouse in an attempt to make your life better, so you should know by now that it won't work! Several questions come to mind to stimulate your thoughts about conflict in your relationship. How would your thoughts and feelings about your marriage change if you actually believed the 2/3 rule? What are the positive factors operating in your marriage? How would you rate yourself regarding the number of positive factors versus negative factors at work in the relationship? What are the most serious negative factors that you bring to the relationship? In what ways do you need to learn how to better manage conflict? How will you determine what belongs in the 31% category and what falls in the 69% group? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what will you do with the 69%? The answer to this final question strikes at the heart of your own growth and potential for true intimacy in your marriage. A paraphrase of the Serenity Prayer seems to capture the essence of my message: God grant me the serenity to accept conflict as a natural part of marriage; courage to resolve the 31%; and wisdom to know what to do with the 69%!
|