... or at least the choice or the alternatives aren't always obvious.
Three very different situations I read about in my weekly look at advice columns surfaced the same common thinking error. I've heard this called "binary thinking," but I'm not wild about the term. False dichotomy is another one that doesn't quite sit right with me here, although I like it better.
I'll roll with the above title and state that not every situation has a clean-cut, either-or set of correct alternatives, or at least if there is a clear-cut solution, its application requires enough thought that applying the solution will require significant effort.
Indeed, just after writing the above, I'm inclined to see discovering the issue or application of a clear choice as issue(s) that can muddy any problem.
Two of the three letters I considered are similar in many ways, and pertain to family dynamics being strained by strong differences in ethics or political opinion.
In one of these, Carolyn Hax tackles the question of a woman who, although very different from her in-laws, is looking for a way to continue seeing them, rather than not visiting them at all, as her husband suggested. To that idea, Hax correctly argues that the choice isn't keep seeing them as usual OR not at all:
[D]on't underestimate avoidance as a permanent solution. Boycotting is extreme, sure, but... You can make the visits a wee bit shorter, a tad less frequent, a smidge more structured (a movie, a play, another venue where conversation is similarly discouraged). After a day or two, you can spin off on your own to visit a friend who lives somewhere (remotely) nearby. You can become Super DIL and go grocery shopping (alone), weed the flower beds (alone), do the dishes (alone) ... especially when politics erupt.
In other words, you can control the dosage more, and more good-naturedly, than you think. A fresher you can then focus on where your interests do overlap.
The similarity to the adage,
The dose makes the poison, resolves the apparent contradiction of the woman being driven crazy by her in-laws, but still wanting them in her life. The rest of Hax's excellent answer concerns determining what, exactly, bothers the woman and helping her become able to make peace with not resolving that, at least any time soon.
An
Ask a Therapist letter
concerns a more serious problem that
does merit leaving a relative out of certain family gatherings, but not cutting off all contact. Again, for good reasons, the writer wants to maintain contact with a wayward son
and the sister he has alienated, but does not want to condone what her son has done:
Granted, this might feel like a hard limit for you to set, especially because your son might never repair the damage, but doing so accomplishes two things. First, it takes a clear protective stand: Those harmed shouldn't miss out on the joy of family gatherings; those who harm shouldn't be present in these settings. Second, it leaves room for you to continue to see your son separately -- though not neutrally.
Here, the time to cut all ties has plainly not come for the mother, who has some hope that it never will come.
The third letter,
regarding the difficulties a couple face when one partner has determined a need to become sober, presents a very clear choice that someone is having trouble applying in the context of his marriage and wider social life.
That difficulty disappears when Dr. Nerdlove reminds the writer that, while his spouse can certainly
support his efforts, she doesn't have to go sober herself, and that they needn't get rid of
everything that came with drinking socially:
[T]hat doesn't mean that your relationship is doomed. It just means that you're going to have to figure out ways to accommodate what can feel like conflicting, even mutually exclusive desires. They don't have to be conflicting, mind you; it will just require some creativity and mutual accommodation to make it all work without threatening your sobriety.
One thing that can help is if you can figure out what, precisely, you miss about drinking, besides the literal alcohol. Many times, part of what people miss when giving up any vice is the routine -- lighting up a cigarette at certain times of the day, mixing drinks for yourself and your wife before settling in to watch a movie, going out to dinner and drinks on a Saturday night. It can be helpful to find ways to keep the ritual in your life, but without the booze component.
Other times, it could be the tangible aspects that you miss, such as how people who give up soda often miss the sensation of carbonation and the mouth feel of the bubbles or the tang of the caffeine on the tongue. Having something that can replace those sensations or those tactile aspects can make it easier to resist when you're flooded with urges to relapse.
There're a few options, if you're of a mind...
The full answer is ingenious in that it doesn't
just address the very real relationship concern, but also the difficulties of making a major life change generally. Here, the choice was clear, but hard to apply, and hindered by the incorrect idea that many of the things that went with the vice would be lost forever when getting rid of that vice.
So after all of that, were there clear choices? Yes: (1) She wants to know her in-laws while keeping her sanity; (2) She wants to protect her daughter and possibly help her son; and (3) He wants to save not just his life, but his marriage, from his problem drinking.
-- CAV
