Tasmia asked:

I am a student of economics. I have never taken a course on philosophy. I am writing a research
paper for my composition and writing class on the therapeutic effects of quarreling in marriages.

I would like to know how the therapeutic effects of quarreling in marriages can be explained through
philosophy.

============

I do think that philosophy has something to say about this. But we have to be careful. It is a matter for
empirical research, which things do, or do not have a therapeutic effect in a marriage. What the
philosopher can do is give reasons why, other things being equal, one would expect quarreling in a
marriage to have a therapeutic effect, or not, as the case may be.

I am married, and my wife and I sometimes quarrel. In the heat of the exchange it is hard to think that
this has any therapeutic effect at all. One might imagine, 'If only we didn't quarrel, things might be so
much better.' However, the fact that this thought seemsto me to be true, does not prove that it is true.
The fallacy here is that that in our imagination we take away the quarreling and suppose hat
everything else would be just the same as it is now.But what right does one have to make that
assumption? On what evidence is it based? No two relationships are ever exactly the same, so it
would be very difficult to come up with reliable evidence from one's own experience alone.

Why should quarreling be therapeutic? The starting assumption is that we are dealing with real
people who have their own views which do not always coincide. Now, the philosopher Hegel has
something to say about this. One of the most fundamental issues in human relationships is the
dialectic of 'master and slave'. It would be possible to avoid quarrels if one of the partners always
gives in, but such a strategy must be ultimately destructive of the relationship, making one into the
'master' and the other into the 'slave'.

Nor will it do any good to come to an arrangement whereby whenever there is a difference of opinion
or disagreement about what is to be done, each party takes it in turn to concede the point. There are
logical reasons why it would be impossible this arrangement work. Imagine the following exchange:

"Honey, will you answer the telephone?"

"It's your turn, I answered the telephone last time."

"No you didn't.

"I say I did, and you have to concede my point, because I conceded your point about who was
to do the washing up. So it is your turn to concede."

"But I distinctly remember picking up the telephone..."

The logical point is that what motivates two people to argue is that each holds a different belief about
the situation. For the sake of peace and quiet, it is OK to hold one's tongue. But each still believes
what they believe. In a trivial case such as this, it might not hurt to concede. However, as soon as the
stakes are raised — let's say, we are arguing about which school to send our children to — the matter
is far too serious to say, "It's your turn to concede."

In my answer to Clara (Eighth page of questions and answers) I talked about the ethics of dialoguein
the context of relationship. In simple, stark terms, unless we agree to disengage — which we have
seen is not an option — then the alternatives are dialogueor war.If it were for the threat of war, there
would be no need for the subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle game theory of moral dialogue, the
negotiation, the haggling, the give and take, the hard choices, the aggravated feelings. When two
persons feel strongly about their views, and those views do not coincide, then if they are being honest
with one another they have to express their feelings: and honesty is one of the basic requirements of
moral dialogue. If you choose not to be honest, then all you are doing is playing games with the other
person, using them for your own ends.

The idea that quarreling is therapeutic in marriage goes further than this, however. It seems to imply
that two persons who were of one mind, who never disagreed — or who disagreed only about small
things and then only rarely — would have something wrong with their relationship. But suppose they
really were the ideal couple, perfect soul mates? It seems to me that this is such a rare occurrence
that for practical purposes, it can be ignored. If two persons say that they never, ever quarrel in their
relationship or marriage, then it is a fair bet that either they are lying, or there is something wrong and
they need help.

Geoffrey Klempner