Agree to Disagree

Relationships work better when people agree to disagree. It is actually not that difficult to do this. Yet it is surprising how many persons have not done so. Frequently when I have asked couples in premarriage or marriage counseling whether they had agreed to disagree, they admitted they had not really done so. I would ask them to verbally agree right then that it is just fine if they don’t agree about everything, that each has a right to their opinion, and that the coexistence of differing viewpoints is both inevitable and healthy. I say how boring it would be if they agreed on everything. Then I tell them marital research indicates that one of the most significant characteristics of a successful marriage is that the couple has agreed to disagree while still respecting each other’s viewpoint.

Disagreements can be handled in three ways. We can capitulate, coexist or compromise. There is a time for all three options: a time to give in, a time to live and let live, and a time to find a mutually satisfactory alternative. We can’t get what we want all the time; but we need to get what we want some of the time.

Let’s say a couple has a disagreement about which movie to go see. One wants to see an adventure film, the other a romance. One could give in and sit through what the other wants to see; both could go to the movie they really want alone, and reconnect afterwards; or they could settle on a second choice for both, like a comedy.

A problem arises if a single option comes to predominate the relationship. If we feel we are mostly capitulating to the other, we likely also feel resentful and that we lack power. And if we have not told the other about our feelings, the other may simply be assuming that we do what we do for reasons of enjoyment rather than for giving in to get along.

If we do not tell another that we do not enjoy doing something, or that something is not really to our liking, how is this person supposed to know? And if the other has been assuming that we did like the options this person chose for both of us, how can we blame that one for not being a mind reader?

If the persons are mostly coexisting, their lives are running on parallel courses, which intersect only infrequently. While it is healthy to have interests apart as well as interests together, too much separateness means too little sharing. And too little sharing means too little caring.

If the couple strives to compromise at every turn, constantly seeking the middle ground, neither is ever getting their first choice. It gets tiresome and frustrating to always search for alternatives both persons can accept. A life of compromise too easily becomes a compromised life.

Should a couple try to exercise these options in three more or less equal proportions, so that they end up capitulating, coexisting, and compromising roughly a third of the time in their disagreements? Every love relationship is different; the key is mutual satisfaction, that both see themselves and the other as giving and getting to a satisfactory extent. Actual proportion is less important than mutual satisfaction.

It is instructive to have couples evaluate how they exercise these three options in their disagreements. They usually know if they are getting with too little giving, or giving with too little getting, or merely coexisting.