Reality Check: Can We Resolve This Dispute?

Some of us like to solve problems. In fact, we might even identify ourselves as problem-solvers, based on successful problem solving incidents in our past! It’s satisfying to be able to assess a situation, interact with the involved parties, and offer up suggestions for resolution. Especially when those helpful suggestions are implemented and everybody goes away satisfied. Or at least, more satisfied than they were before we got involved.
Thus, it’s ego-bruising to see what seems to be a straightforward dispute that stubbornly refuses to be resolved.
Why isn’t this working? Because we all know that if people were logical (like us) these disputes would be solvable.
Close relationships, such as marriage, family, etc. can be fertile ground for disputes. One of Dr. Glasser’s areas of practice was marriage counselling. He used a specific method for this counselling, which he refers to as “structured reality therapy.”
In his book, “Counseling with Choice Theory,” he says that regardless of the specific marriage problem, he approached the counselling in the same way. He focused in on what was good for the marriage, rather than what was good for one or the other of the people involved.
That sounds like a pretty rigid approach, and we can understand where some people might see it as unsympathetic. After all, there’s little discussion about how each party feels, or how miserable they are, or whose fault it is. Glasser doesn’t even focus much on the specific problem that brought them to seek counselling.
“How could that possibly be effective?” you might ask. It’s worth taking a look, because the general direction of this approach could be useful for many disputes, not just marriage.
For example, an opening question would go something like this: “Are you here because you want help for your marriage? Or are you here because you want a divorce, but you want to see me first so you won’t feel guilty about breaking up the marriage?”
Essentially, Glasser is defining the terms around the counselling; he is telling the participants that he is a “marriage” counsellor, not a “divorce” counsellor.
What’s the big deal? Glasser is establishing whether both parties actually want to resolve the dispute. If either or both don’t want it resolved, if they want the dispute to continue, then there’s no point in carrying on with counselling.
You might ask; who would bother going to a counsellor if they don’t want to resolve the dispute? Well, let’s think about that.
Maybe I want the dispute to be resolved, but only if the resolution is in my favour. Maybe I want to be recognized as the good guy, while the other guy is clearly seen as the problem. Maybe I think I want a resolution, but only if the other person makes amends for the harm that I perceive has been done to me.
If we hear the word “but” creeping into the answer, that may be a clue that while we say we want to resolve the dispute, there are other things that we want more.
If we really want what is good for the relationship, then we may need to give something up. We may have to give up actions that make things worse, such as nagging, withdrawing, or complaining. We may have to give up our resentment of things that have happened in the past. We may need to give up a grudge that we are so sure is deserved. This may sound unfair!
That opening question is a key. Do both of you want to resolve the dispute? If so, it may be possible to do so. If not, what do you think?