There is a curious cultural debate happening now. Let me summarize it like this: when it comes to interpersonal interactions, impact trumps intention. Meaning that, regardless of what Person A’s intention was behind what they said or did, the only thing that matters is how their actions impacted Person B. The reasoning for this, as proponents say, is to prioritize the harmed party's pain and the damage caused. This assumes there is a Victim and a Perpetrator, whereby the Perpetrator is harming the Victim. Advocates say only when you prioritize the painful impact can repair happen.
Myself and most of the couples therapists I know disagree with this. Strongly.
Before I get into why, let me first say that I am talking about interpersonal interactions between friends, family, and intimate partners; not interactions between a system or organization and an individual or group of people. I am also not talking about illegal or abusive behavior done between a system and an individual or group, such as between an employer and employees. Those situations generally involve different dynamics and motives (mainly about power and resources). What I want to discuss here is plain 'ol, run-of-the-mill, person-to-person interpersonal relationships.
So let’s dive in.
When couples come to see a couples therapist like myself, one thing we usually examine is how they communicate. We process, or deconstruct, a past interaction between them that did not go well. I ask questions about what Partner A said, the feeling motivating what Partner A said, and then how Partner B heard or received what was said. We look closely at the interaction in all directions.
I usually encourage a couple to use the language of “intention versus perception” in their processing: “I intended to say X” and “I perceived Y.” When we examine the interaction this closely, something interesting happens: how the interaction got derailed usually becomes apparent fairly quickly.
For example, Partner A may have said, "Why are you cleaning the dishes now?" The emotion behind their question may have been curiosity, whereas Partner B heard or perceived a veiled criticism of their choice to clean the dishes now. It is often a combination of how the Intender communicated and how the Perceiver perceived.
In this case, the Intender was not clear in their communication and the Perceiver had a distorted perception. The Perceiver, deep in their pain, might use emotional reasoning in their perception of what occurred (“I feel criticized, therefore you must be criticizing me”). So the Perceiver perhaps makes an assumption about the Intender's motive and then says so. The Intender goes on the defensive because they did not use good communication skills and have now been accused of something else (“I wasn’t criticizing you!” or, “I didn’t mean that!” or, “That’s not what I said!”) As you can see, both partners played a role in the creation of this predicament.
What psychotherapy hopefully teaches clients is that each of us has a worldview. We experience the world through a filter or lens informed by things like our families of origin, childhood experiences, traumas of all kinds, cultural messages, our faith practice, past experiences, our friend group, as well as our own individual psychologies (for instance, are we prone to anxiety and/or depression?) A filter is like rose-colored glasses only…maybe not always so rosy.
Hopefully, what psychotherapists do is help increase a client’s awareness of their lens’ contours and then offer alternate lenses to their clients through which to see, experience, and consider the world. Do you notice how you often feel criticized by others? Your perspective is your way of seeing the world, yet it is not the way the world necessarily operates. Perhaps your partner did not mean what you heard. Can you hold in your mind both your way and an alternate way? Can you hold your pain in feeling criticized and also understand that is not what your partner communicated or intended? This is the deeper work of psychotherapy and personal growth.
Once you begin to understand the contours of your own filter, you begin to understand that your emotional pain is often (but not always) the result of how you interpreted what just happened. And while, yes, that hurt is real, it has a few possible causes or interpretations. Emotional pain is well, painful. And in the overwhelm, intensity, and confusion of that pain, you may claim to have been mistreated. Between this and emotional reasoning is precisely where “impact trumps intention” comes from. But emotional pain is different from abuse or trauma, and feelings are not facts. Psychotherapy is a great place to learn these differences.
The way through this intention versus impact impasse is empathy. There are bad actors in the world who have bad intentions, I am not denying that. However, most of us are not in intimate partnerships with truly pathological people. We are more likely in a relationship with someone who does not possess good communication skills and has their own struggles, as we all do. Recognizing this shared humanity is an important first step.
Empathy Essential Reads
Humanizing Others, Humanizing Ourselves
Can Empathy Heal Democracy?
Practicing empathy is tough, I know. Not only does it now seem regrettably politicized in today’s cultural discourse, every day in my practice I see people struggle with it. If you feel you have been harmed, it is a big psychological stretch and a risky step to venture into vulnerability, to set aside—but not let go of—your filter, open your heart, and try to understand the person you believe has bad intentions. (Trust me, most of the time they don’t). And if you have been accused of harming your partner, it is a big psychological stretch and risky step into vulnerability to set aside—but not let go of—your defensiveness, open your heart, and get curious about how your partner is telling you they are hurt. (Trust me, their hurt has less to do with you than you think.)
Giving your partner the benefit of the doubt, or believing they have good intentions, does not negate your hurt or erase their accusations. If it works, it softens those harder edges and allows for your dynamic to maybe, hopefully, shift in how you relate to each other. This is a way through the impasse.
