Theory Thoughts: Evaluating the role of reactivity in our efforts to define self

How can we use our reactivity to inform thoughtful and more differentiated responses?

The following is a scenario provided to me by one of my friends. The names used are pseudonyms.

Story time. When Robyn and her ex-husband, Mike, separated, it took several months for him to find a permanent place to live (it was the spring of 2020) and even when he did, it was a bit smaller than the townhouse they’d shared and had no extra storage. A number of years prior, Mike had built a very large shed in the backyard. And when I say built, I mean everything from cutting the beams, making the roof, adding a window and siding…everything. This, from a man who had never so much as built a bird house. A very ambitious project, and he nailed it (badum tsss). This was an area where Robyn felt a lot of empathy for him; he was leaving a home that included things that he built with his own hands. Robyn expressed to me how painful she thought this must have been for Mike.

The empathy hook

Robyn went on to explain:

Empathy is typically where my self-betrayal begins. I have always had a very difficult time managing my feelings around doing something that I know will hurt someone else. As such, I packed up the things Mike hadn’t yet taken with him, and I kept them in the shed. I wasn’t willing to organize them for him or get rid of things I knew he didn’t need anymore, even though it would have been helpful to me to have more space. I wanted to leave that responsibility for him. But I couldn’t bring myself to hand it all over.

I knew he didn’t have a lot of space in his new home, and it would have been a significant imposition on him. I wanted to save him from having to deal with it on his own and figure out where he was going to put it all. Maybe part of me wanted to hang onto it to delay the acceptance that the marriage was over. I definitely wanted to avoid the pain I would feel in letting him take responsibility for it. The cost to me, though, was frustration in not having anywhere to store things I needed to store, anger that he wasn’t offering to take it, resentment (i.e., envy that he didn’t have to deal with it), and feeling disempowered; I willingly forfeited some agency. I was very aware that I was hurting myself in exchange for hurting him, as well as the aftermath of doing so.

Reactivity and Agency

As Robyn was saying this, I wondered if her choice was, in itself, an act of agency? A number of other questions came to mind as well.

Was Robyn making this decision based more on wanting to avoid causing Mike hardship, or more on taking the position that she wasn’t willing to deal with it at that time because of the other “battles” she prioritized? The reactivity came from the degree of fusion in the relationship (hurting you hurts me), and at the same time, she used that reactivity to inform a thoughtful process. Is this the work of differentiation: Holding onto emotional reactivity and allowing it to inform my decisions, not dictate them? Although, what precipitated the thoughtfulness was an automatic reaction to avoid pain.

Robyn continued, I’d consider taking all of his stuff and leaving it on his doorstep, but I would automatically dismiss that as I pictured his hurt and angry face. It was too painful. Can avoiding pain by managing other ever be a move towards differentiation? Doing so may prevent a worse pain and a variety of side effects. For example, giving him his belongings from the shed likely would have spiked contention which is not ideal during the process of separation (especially when kids are involved). Is managing self over managing other always the more differentiated move? I would say yes, it is, and it’s also important to evaluate how the actions are interpreted. Was Robyn trying to manage Mike or herself? If the answer is both, does that mean that it was both a vote for differentiation and a vote against it?

Sneaky benefits of reactivity

This is the name I give for learning opportunities that are less evident. You may have noticed a couple of paragraphs ago that Robyn had said, “…letting him take responsibility” rather than “…making him take responsibility”, which I thought was interesting. For one, she couldn’t make him do anything, and second, she saw it as a learning opportunity that she could have facilitated for him. An opportunity for him to exercise his resourcefulness, practice asking for help, expanding his creativity, and who knows what else. Yes, he could have seized this opportunity himself, so it isn’t that she denied him the opportunity, but she contributed to a context that made it easy for him not to do that. Perhaps putting the responsibility on him would have been more helpful to him in the long run. Maybe for Robyn, as well. This is not to say that neither of them learned anything from the way things went, it just would have been different learning.

Peace or principles

I’m choosing to see it as more differentiated than not. Robyn had so many choices to evaluate, to think about, and to make decisions on. As I mentioned earlier, she paid a price for prioritizing peace between her and Mike in favour of honouring other principles that Robyn needed to consider; a (relatively) peaceful separation as a model for the kids and to help them with the adjustment, conserving her personal resources for some of the more significant decisions that needed to be made, focusing on self rather than trying to change him or make him do something. Robyn also discussed the value she places on offering grace.

Some additional questions I’ve considered:

1. Can reactivity be thoughtful, or is that an oxymoron?
2. Is differentiation the most important aspect to consider?
3. When is it reasonable (helpful, or preferred, even) to thoughtfully attempt to manage other?

This post was provide by:

Rebecca Van Der Hijde MA, BCBA
Behaviour Analyst
Resonance Autism + Family Therapy