Schnarch, David. Passionate Marriage: Love, Sex, and Intimacy in Emotionally Committed Relationships. New York: Owl Books, 1998 (reprint). 432 pp. ISBN 0805058265. $16.00.
Schnarch has written one of several recent books (well, recent meaning since the late 80s) on renewing and nurturing relationships among couples. As in his earlier book for therapists, Passionate Marriage argues that monogamous sexual relationships naturally create social friction within a couple that each person can use to become more mature. This focus on the sexual crucible, as Schnarch terms it, requires that individuals use the conflict to confront their own behavior and attitudes. If people can act to preserve or develop their own core integrity as well as their partners', Schnarch argues, they can create and maintain mature, fulfilling relationships.
According to Schnarch, the common danger of monogamous relationships is when people define their own worth through their partners. Sometimes, people seek validation in their partners' views of themselves, depending on reaffirmations of competence, love, and so forth. But people can also seek validation through conflict with their partners. In either case, Schnarch argues, one is engaging in an absolutely normal but dysfunctional dynamic. To him, we function better as individuals who can stand on their own emotionally as well as practically. Whenever we act based on our own sense of integrity (and respecting the integrity of our partner), we can connect with a partner in a mature, deeper way.
Schnarch's contribution to the marital-therapy literature is in his psychodynamic model: A couple in a rut -- with a mutually frustrating or deadlocked set of behaviors -- is generally not in need of greater communication and generally is not suffering from a lack of importance. In Schnarch's model, long-term relationships push people to communicate very effectively, whether in foreplay or in arguments. Couples who push each others' buttons are communicating very efficiently! And when one partner is withholding affection, that is not necessarily because the partner has become less important but rather more—so important that the withholding partner is anxious about intimacy.
Schnarch's therapeutic approach is the flip side of this model. When one partner acts based on her or his sense of integrity instead of depending on the other partner for validation, the other partner is cut off from the rut that the couple had been stuck in. One partner is no longer playing her or his typical role, no longer reinforcing the long-term definition. According to Schnarch, normal marital conflict creates dilemmas that can be useful for personal growth, if at least one partner faces that dilemma as an issue of personal integrity rather than an interpersonal struggle. Schnarch provides several in-depth cases of couples who used his approach to solve major marital problems or develop more fulfilling relationships (as well as the occasional case where the couple split up). Schnarch appears to have interesting, substantive research to support his larger psychodynamic claims. Several of his observations have common-sense appeal when explained: marital problems are normal, there will generally be one partner with greater and lesser desire for sex at any point, foreplay is negotiation, fights are as sure a form of dependence as mutual admiration societies, and so forth. Several of the exercises he recommends — long hugging and eyes-open intimacy (whether kissing or making love) — are consistent with his hypotheses about relationships.
Readers of Schnarch may be curious why I have not used the terms he coined: differentiation, reflected sense of self, self-validation, and other-validation, among others. In part, I think this jargon is unnecessary. Schnarch's argument about integrity and the dynamics of long-term couples stands on its own. I hope I have done justice to his argument, without needing the terms. (And, if so, I think I have made a decent case to toss away the terms.)
In part, I have avoided Schnarch's terms to highlight my primary concern with the book, which is Schnarch's writing about improved long-term relationships while undermining the concept of commitment. In the first chapter, he talks about one man's using his own sense of integrity to act differently and improve his marriage. The word "integrity" then disappears from the book until after p. 300. Schnarch explicitly warns readers against believing in the value of commitments. He meant this in a restricted sense: If your marriage is on the rocks, asking your partner for a commitment is asking for an illusory promise, worth nothing in the long run. But in a book whose subtitle includes the word "committed," the omission of a broader discussion is significant.
The larger trouble with Schnarch's argument is the assumption that only mature individuals can have deep relationships and fulfill commitments. Young couples cannot truly have the experience or wisdom to know each other. That is what marriage is for, to develop each other, at least in Schnarch's view. But Passionate Marriage thus has a static, two-dimensional view of young people in new relationships and one that assumes they are ignorant of life's troubles. Some couples marry in naivete, true. But many are like good students entering a field: They may not know everything at the beginning, but they know they'll have to study hard and work hard on the way. And, guessing something about the future, they are willing to make a commitment for the long term.
Schnarch's view is likely to be a barrier to reaching younger couples because there is an implicit disrespect for the capacity of younger couples. For those 35 and older, Schnarch's sometimes-caustic humor about "normal marital sadism" will strike a real chord. His discussion of rejuvenated sex among those 40, 50, 60 and older will be encouraging. But to the extent that Schnarch is correct, wouldn't he want to educate younger adults about the dynamics of long-term relationships? His approach is novel enough, and resonates enough with my experience, to make me wish he had been more respectful of younger adults.
There are other quibbles I have with the book, from Schnarch's misunderstanding of evolution and quantum dynamics in the first part to his talking about spirituality at the end of the book without mentioning ethics. But the gist is above: Schnarch has captured an essential element of monogamous dynamics and described some plausible therapeutic approaches that will work with many, but has used unnecessary jargon and may put younger readers off with assumptions that they are unlikely to have risen far enough to put his ideas to good use.
Let me guess: you are under 35 and are questioning the extent of the commitment in your marriage?
I really think you need to read the book again if you think he is undermining 'commitment' in marriage. I believe Schnarch's view on commitment is this: you either are or you are not; YOU have to decide, if you are going to improve your marriage, if you have the personal integrity to stay committed to your relationship long enough to see it improve. There's no waffling. There's no "I'll stay committed as long as I see improvement from my spouse," etc., etc., etc. The book is about you, not your partner. YOU are the only one who can determine your level of commitment. It is a forgone conclusion if you are reading the book that this matter of 'commitment' has already been decided. Or you wouldn't be reading the book.
Quote: Schnarch explicitly warns readers against believing in the value of commitments. He meant this in a restricted sense: If your marriage is on the rocks, asking your partner for a commitment is asking for an illusory promise, worth nothing in the long run. But in a book whose subtitle includes the word "committed," the omission of a broader discussion is significant.
I disagree. Like I said, Schnarch's assumes if you are reading the book, you have made the decision that you are committed to your marriage and will do whatever it takes to make it work. Your partner has to decide also if they are or are not committed. But you cannot make that decision for them. And you can still work on the marriage and be committed to the marriage even if your partner has made no such declaration or is in fact considering divorce.
Quote: Schnarch has captured an essential element of monogamous dynamics and described some plausible therapeutic approaches that will work with many, but has used unnecessary jargon and may put younger readers off with assumptions that they are unlikely to have risen far enough to put his ideas to good use.
Sorry you don't like his jargon. He wrote the book for his colleagues at first, and re-wrote it for the masses after several requests. It is a deep read, there is no doubt about that. He even says so in the beginning of his book, and he makes no excuses for it, nor does he apologize.
Are you saying you are surprised that a book of this type actually defines an audience for itself? Don't most books? And really, if you think you are capable of, or have already reached the level of intimacy with your spouse that this book describes, why would you care if you fit into the 'age range' or not, if you can in fact take away with you useful information to apply to your marriage?
In other words, SO?
Quote: There are other quibbles I have with the book, from Schnarch's misunderstanding of evolution and quantum dynamics in the first part to his talking about spirituality at the end of the book without mentioning ethics.
You mean, you cannot believe a man makes statements or give opinions on these things and doesn't do your thinking for you in regards to applied ethics? How dare he. You get to decide whether you agree with him or not, and he doesn't really care what conclusions you draw. Wow.
Sounds to me like this is a guy who has a few things to say about 'this and that' based upon years of research and practice, has the courage to lay it out there, and if you want to plow through it all and apply some of his suggestions, great for you. If not, hey, you might want to head back to the book store and find a different book.
I believe your indignation over 'age' and the rest of your protests could be his exact reason for writing to an older audience.
Quote: Let me guess: you are under 35 and are questioning the extent of the commitment in your marriage?
No (on both).
Quote:
Are you saying you are surprised that a book of this type actually defines an audience for itself? Don't most books?
I think highly enough of Schnarch's concepts that I wish he had written the book to be accessible to adults considerably younger than me.
Quote:
Quote: There are other quibbles I have with the book, from Schnarch's misunderstanding of evolution and quantum dynamics in the first part to his talking about spirituality at the end of the book without mentioning ethics.
You mean, you cannot believe a man makes statements or give opinions on these things and doesn't do your thinking for you in regards to applied ethics? How dare he.
It's a tad inconsistent to talk about the need to focus on one's own sense of integrity, then make claims that one's psychotherapeutic approach (no matter how intriguing or useful) will lead one to deeper spirituality, while centering that description of spirituality in rather self-centered language. Maybe I'm misreading the passages in that chapter, but it didn't connect for me. That's why it was a quibble.
Quote: You get to decide whether you agree with him or not, and he doesn't really care what conclusions you draw. Wow.
Except of course when he's amused (miffed, too?) that a client talked about hugging as an exercise. There Schnarch didn't want the client to make the meaning. Hugging Until Relaxed has the meaning Schnarch says it does. I think that's a form of therapist ego, and it's a pretty minor point, but of course Schnarch cares what clients and readers think. Why else write a book, except to convince people to try his approach?
I like the book, quite a bit. I'm an academic, and I guess I approach books a certain way because of my training, even if it's out of my field (and psychology is not my field). The fact that I have criticisms of it means that it made me think. And because I haven't seen a longer description of the book on this board, I thought I'd try describing it in the best way I could. Your mileage may vary.
As a HD woman, one thing that seems very clear to me was how both PM and SSM are unconsciously? biased due to their author's viewpoints. I feel a little like Goldilocks in that PM is a bit too "cold" because it was written by a HD man and SSM is a bit too "warm" because it was written by a LD woman. Where is the book that is just right for me? I considered buying a book called "The Ethical Slut" on a recent trip to the bookstore, but it seemed to be oriented towards single women . I know I'm probably being a whiner, but it seems to me that a lot of HDWs have to deal with a double-whammy. We have to take the lead in order to improve our sex life because we are HD and we have to take the lead in order to improve our emotional connection because we are women. The potential reasons for the problem and the potential solutions to the problem presented in the books just don't ring quite true for me. I feel this way even though I've had success applying methods from both books. My discomfort, I believe, is due to the fact that I can't follow these methods to success in a way that feels entirely true to my identity and therefore my integrity. I can have a happy, passionate marriage if I become a Stepford Wife or if I become Wonder Woman, but how do I succeed in marriage as your garden variety ethical slut?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
A person who operates with integrity, with love, does not worry about always being the ‘strong one.’ It never occurs to them to be anything but. There is no resentment there for a role assigned. It is a natural way of being. You lead because that is what love does, not because you 'choose' to lead, or be strong. You lead, you are strong, because that is what you do as your authentic, loving self. Even if you are not an obvious leader, assigned the role of leader, you lead nonetheless because you are you. It is not about titles or assignments. It is about doing whatever needs to be done through compassion and empathy and wisdom. Those always stay at the forefront. There is no question of need or boundary, what comes first, who comes first and when. There is nothing to protect, there is nothing to need because you cannot protect love. You cannot guard it. You can only give it away. Always. Through the mediums of compassion, wisdom, strength, joy, empathy… you are the loving person you are... not some HDW who has no place in the world.
You listen authentically. You give authentically. When someone makes a request of you, you listen with love and you give with love. That does not mean you become a door mat to life. But you can be a door -- a welcoming haven to all who request shelter in your space. Love yourself first, yes, but do not guard it. There is nothing to protect. There is no fear in love. When fear is absent, there is no resentment. There is no question. All there is is love.
When anger and resentment are present, fear is present, and that means you are not loving. If you are not loving, you cannot make a decision or take action IN love. All you are doing is whining and complaining and NOT being YOU.
To get yourself back to the loving YOU that you are, suspend all thought, all action, all decisions. You clear your body of the negative energy and surround yourself in love… immerse yourself in the positive energy of love. Then you resume your thinking. If you cannot rid yourself immediately of the aner/fear/resentment, hold off on whatever you are doing, hold off on any action/decision/thought, if you can.
Take a break. Take a bath. Take a walk. But get those negative thoughts out of your lovely heads and both of you remember the incredible loving beings you are, always, first and foremost. Then go do whatever needs to be done, with love.
Quote: When anger and resentment are present, fear is present, and that means you are not loving. If you are not loving, you cannot make a decision or take action IN love. All you are doing is whining and complaining and NOT being YOU.
That is one message I have received from my husband recently. He told me that I came home whingeing and whining about all the things in my life. Little did he know it was because I was screaming with frustration because he won't make love to me. However I have made every effort to change that behaviour and although my sex life has not changed, at least my home and family are happier.
Quote: To get yourself back to the loving YOU that you are, suspend all thought, all action, all decisions. You clear your body of the negative energy and surround yourself in love… immerse yourself in the positive energy of love. Then you resume your thinking. If you cannot rid yourself immediately of the aner/fear/resentment, hold off on whatever you are doing, hold off on any action/decision/thought, if you can.
Take a break. Take a bath. Take a walk. But get those negative thoughts out of your lovely heads and both of you remember the incredible loving beings you are, always, first and foremost. Then go do whatever needs to be done, with love.
Corri
I too am an ethical sl#t and when I read MM post I wanted to respond just as Honeypot did, however do also respect and appreciate Corri's view.
I am so confused and clearly struggling with what I can do while I 'wait' for action or response however have just ordered my copy of PM and cannot wait for it to arrive. Unlike when I purchased SSM, I will not be lovingly explaining why to my LDH, I will be openly reading it as a sign that there is a problem and that I am willing to do anything to overcome it.
This is what I meant by a method that is too "warm" and makes me feel like a Stepford Wife. I am not an incredible loving being. I feel like a big faker if I try to be one. I am pretty much an ordinary loving being with a low tolerance for "mush". Hallmark stores give me hives.
I am frustrated because though I am happy that my H is now behaving in a more loving manner, that isn't really what I was after. I like it when my H gives me presents and cuddles and declares his love, but I mostly like these things because they make me think that maybe some sex is forthcoming. I feel like by using methods that improve the emotional connection in my marriage, I have improved the emotional connection but E-C doesn't necessarily spell S-E-X to my H. He can understand that I want to be loved, but he thinks a dozen roses can take the place of a roll in the hay.
On the other hand, if I try to concentrate on the methods that are most effective for just getting me more sex, these are not great for EC. Basically, they are methods that would make any man want to have sex with me more. Namely, making myself more attractive, appealing to alpha dog competition and being extremely sexually confident. These are the methods that seem a bit "cold" to me. I have solid evidence that they work quite well, at least in the short run, but it's kind of depressing to me that they do work so well. Also, it is kind of exhausting to use these methods. This is why I said that I'm not comfortable being Wonder Woman and, frankly, the more time I spend in this role, the more I wonder what's wrong with wanting to have sex with the cute guy on the beach who's checking me out?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Quote: I like it when my H gives me presents and cuddles and declares his love, but I mostly like these things because they make me think that maybe some sex is forthcoming.
Congratulations, Mojo, you just described my thinking to a "tee." I remember when we were getting ready to be married, we had 9 dead oak trees on our property. I needed to cut them down, and cut them up, before the wedding, which was to take place outside in the yard. Yeah, it's fun wielding a chain saw, but my thoughts were, "if I do this, she will want to have sex with me!" Funny, it didn't work then, and it doesn't work now. Now I just do the chores because they need to be done, not because "I" need to be "done."
My W used to make me feel downright evil for thinking this way (that doing a deed should be rewarded with sex), and I used to feel guilty about it. Now I don't. Sex is a great motivator for me. If she'd figure that out, she'd live in a house with no undone "honey-do" jobs. Now, I just don't have the motivation. I want the EC, too, but have trouble getting there without the ML. I guess we'll both figure that one out sooner or later.
Yeah, but how much would it motivate you, if you were married to a HDW and could get as much as you want. My Mom used to drive me and my sisters crazy by saying "A man won't buy the cow, if he can get the milk for free.". My personal version would be "The cow won't be happy in her stall, if the farmer keeps neglecting to milk her."
I feel like the main benefit of following the PM methods for me has been the fact that I am no longer insane with emotional-fusion. Why was I so "in love" with a man who didn't want to have sex with me and didn't really treat me all that well otherwise? I feel like I've done a lot to conquer these masochistic tendencies of mine. I'm certain my problem now is that I am still a bit of a coward. If I want to be true to myself, I have to tell my H "I don't want sex because then I'll know you love me. I want sex because I won't be able to continue loving you without it.". I'm afraid to tell him this because I believe his response might be to tell himself that I am a "heartless b*tch". I just think this truth will be harder for my H to accept than it would be for the average LDW, because I have cultural stereotypes working against me too.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
. I know I'm probably being a whiner, but it seems to me that a lot of HDWs have to deal with a double-whammy. We have to take the lead in order to improve our sex life because we are HD and we have to take the lead in order to improve our emotional connection because we are women. The potential reasons for the problem and the potential solutions to the problem presented in the books just don't ring quite true for me. I feel this way even though I've had success applying methods from both books. My discomfort, I believe, is due to the fact that I can't follow these methods to success in a way that feels entirely true to my identity and therefore my integrity. I can have a happy, passionate marriage if I become a Stepford Wife or if I become Wonder Woman, but how do I succeed in marriage as your garden variety ethical slut? 