↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
      

What is a good spouse?

Before reading this question, read the question 'What is a good friend?'
Indeed, a good spouse is almost the same thing. The relationship therefore presents the same fundamental characteristics of respect for others, trust in others, solidarity, projects or common interests.
Simply, at the level of a spouse, solidarity must be more important, because you can have several friends, but only one spouse.
In addition, the common project must be broader since it is a global life project.
Finally, the relationship with a spouse presupposes a minimum physical attraction.

Simplistic typology of couples

Also start by reading the question 'How to succeed in life?' which describes the individual approach to life. Indeed, it is very important to understand that the couple will reflect the two individual approaches to this question, and this in an even more relentless way than in the context of friendship.

In this table,
'seeks to succeed in life' means motivated mainly by one or more of the alliance strategies mentioned in the answer to the question 'What are the consequences of social ambition?' or does not sufficiently control his ego (see the question 'Why do you need to control your ego?'). This implies that the individual wears a social mask that does not correspond to the background, or adopts a cynical position.
'seeks to succeed in life' presupposes an approach as recommended in the answer to the question 'How to succeed in life?' or at least a motivation to go beyond alliance strategies directly motivated by social ambition.

The irresponsible couple is very widespread, even statistically in the majority. The paradox of this couple is that it can be very stable, as long as the vagaries of life do not call into question the common beliefs and common interests, and quite satisfying for the partners as long as one does not does not allow infidelities, because they end up sharing the same beliefs and lies to themselves, at the cost of consequences for the rest of the family and society in general which are not taken into account. Its archetype is the bourgeois couple, since in bourgeois society, we are usually educated more to succeed in life than to succeed in life.

Couples whose failure is predictable correspond to configurations where the one wearing a mask will try to exploit the other, whose sincerity will prevent them from defending themselves. These couples are less common, but a source of great suffering, often poorly explained, for one of the two.

Finally, let us note that not all individuals adopt a perfectly clear-cut position regarding the alternative between succeeding in life and making a success of life. There are therefore intermediaries between the boxes in the table above. What should be remembered is simply that this is the attitude that each individual will take towards this question 'How to succeed in life?' which will determine the future of the couple, and the quality of communication within the couple, and not the other way around.

The risk of living as a couple

We can live for years without realizing that in others, respect and solidarity are only a facade, that the other wore a mask even in the intimacy of the couple, therefore that trust was an illusion on the bottom. It is often only the troubles of life that lead us to discover the real intentions of the other.
This is to be differentiated from betrayal, for example adultery, which can be the result of a temporary outburst.

The limits of communication

Fashion is about communication. In fact, couples therapists tend to reduce everything to communication problems. However, couple problems have two very different causes.
The first cause is that we don't dare, that we don't have the courage to address the problem, or that we let ourselves be overwhelmed by emotions when expressing it. In this case, it is indeed a communication problem... and again. It is often more a question of a lack of mastery of the problem-solving technique (identifying the problem, exploring the causes, finding a partial solution, implementing it).
On the other hand, the second cause is that we regularly come back to the problem, but this does not produce change. In this case, it is a fundamental problem at the level of one or both members of the couple, and communication will not change anything. Worse, if it is a problem of respect of one member of the couple towards the other, then by reducing this to a communication problem, we transfer part of the responsibility from the aggressor to the victim 'who didn't communicate well enough'. See questions'Why do you need to control your ego?', 'What do you have to do to be a good person?' And 'Is fidelity necessary in a relationship?'.

To separate, or not?

When the union (marriage or alternative form) does not give satisfaction, the question of termination arises. At this stage, it is important to move beyond the simple 'I don't get along with him/her anymore' before seriously considering separation. A better starting question is: Is it still possible to find a constructive way of living with the one we initially chose?
Such a reformulation has two advantages:

Then, answering this question requires working on two levels:

Go deeper

Voir la question 'Dis moi comment tu prends les décisions, je te dirai qui tu es' qui propose une typologie de l'individu.

Regarding the troubleshooting technique, refer to the question 'What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning?' as well as the book From capital to reason chapter 9'The problem log'. La technique de résolution des problèmes y est décrite au paragraphe 'Fonctionnement'. Cette méthode prévue pour le monde du travail peut sembler étrange, rigide, dans la sphère privée, mais le fait de savoir s'assister mutuellement dans la production du raisonnement face à un problème est un savoir faire de base qui trouve pleinement son utilité dans la sphère privée. Mieux vaut un raisonnement conduit de manière un peu rigide qu'un raisonnement conduit souplement mais qui a escamoté l'une des étapes.