Defense Mechanisms
Why a Partner Does Not Fight Fair
A childhood defense mechanism may be at play in an adult relationship.
Posted June 4, 2020
An issue pops up and a partner immediately erupts. Unable to discuss a problem without becoming defensive or indifferent, a partner deflects responsibility and externalizes blame. The issue festers because nothing is resolved. Resentment builds and trust wears thin because ruptures in the relationship are not repaired. Eventually, the two people in the relationship grow apart.
Although a partner may be partially aware of his or her inability to resolve conflict, it is often difficult for him or her to improve. One possible explanation, according to psychoanalytic thinking, is that it may be due to an unconscious defense mechanism connected to childhood called identification with the aggressor.
Witnessing a volatile dispute between Mom and Dad can be traumatizing for a child. A child is ill-equipped to deal with the terror of watching two people he or she loves physically or emotionally hurt each other.
A child already feels small in a big world, so empathizing with the powerless parent in the scenario may be too much. Feeling helpless is terrifying for any human being, especially a child. Some have proposed that in order to escape feeling intensely helpless, a child may identify with the aggressor.
In the child’s eyes, the aggressive parent is the powerful parent. When the child identifies with the dominant parent, the child then feels powerful himself. This alleviates the child's feeling helpless and terrified. Yet, the long-term consequence of this unconscious defense mechanisms may be devastating. Constantly needing to be the powerful person in an interpersonal interaction, the child may unknowingly incorporate a defensive structure comprised of different mechanisms.
Extreme deflection and projection may accompany identification with the aggressor. Deflection occurs when a person distorts the interaction in order to excuse himself or herself from owning his or her actions or words. Projection, in this instance, transpires when a person places unfair blame on another in order to excuse himself or herself from responsibility.
This defensive structure may grow so robust that it wards off anything which threatens the person’s ego or makes him or her feel vulnerable. Yet, it is vulnerability along with several uncomfortable emotions that allow a person to maintain close and healthy interpersonal relationships.
Accountability, insight, remorse, and empathy can be distressing, but they are necessary capabilities of a person who is able to resolve conflict, support a partner under duress, and modify the negative behaviors which threaten closeness. If a partner is defending against feeling vulnerable, he or she may be unable to “fight fair.”
Entertaining a partner’s perspective, even if it differs from one’s own, is critical in terms of resolving conflict. Understanding an alternate point of view does not require a person to surrender his or her own. It simply means the person is attempting to see the experience from a partner’s vantage point. Conveying an understanding of this perspective is essential. Once a partner feels heard, understood, and respected, he or she is less likely to escalate or dig his or her heels in. More amenable to compromise, the partner may agree to a resolution that makes both parties happy.
A partner who consistently turns disagreements into power struggles may be less able to respect, empathize, and work towards a healthy resolution. If arguments end with a clear winner and loser, it may be a sign that a partner’s childhood defenses are taking over.
For example, let's say Sally is upset. Her husband, Ron, forgot to check on the kids on Monday evening, her long day at work. When Sally asks Ron what happened, he responds angrily, “I needed to work out. I am always working. You have one long day, but every day is long for me! I just needed a workout!”
Sally explains that the kids had texted her asking where Ron was, but because she was at work, she was unable to respond to them. Worried and upset at the end of her shift, she raced home to find an empty home. Panicked, she yelled for the kids. She combed the neighborhood and found them watching TV at a neighbor’s house.
When Sally communicated to Ron the panic she felt, Ron lacked empathy. He scolded Sally and accused her of being a “bad communicator.” How was he supposed to know to be home that evening? Yet, when Sally reminded him that this was the normal routine on a Monday evening, Ron shrugged it off and claimed he forgot what day it was.
In this scenario, Ron angrily deflects accountability and projects blame onto Sally as if he is the victim. He refuses to consider Sally’s perspective or feelings. The conflict is left unresolved and Sally is upset and distrusts Ron.
Alternatively, let's say Ron says to Sally, “I am so sorry. You must have been a nervous wreck. I completely forgot what day it was. I won’t forget again, honey.” Ron’s ability to view the situation from Sally’s perspective, allows him to understand and resonate with her. Sally feels understood, respected, and continues to trust Ron because he authentically owned his mistake.
If a partner is unable to consider a perspective other then his or her own, deflects accountability, projects unfair blame, and lacks empathy, perhaps he or she internalized a common childhood defense mechanism, identification with the aggressor. Because defense mechanisms are largely unconscious, a partner may not fully realize what he or she is doing. Encouraging the partner to initiate therapy in order to work through childhood trauma may help. If the partner lacks motivation to access help, it may be necessary to think deeply about the relationship. Talking to a therapist about the difficulties may illuminate whether it is worth attempting to salvage.
References
