Arguing Points from Esther Perel’s book, The State of Affairs
Esther Perel is world renowned for her work with couples and in particular, extramarital affairs. I usually really appreciate her insights. I’ve read several books, I follow her work, and I like how she has broadened the discussion around couples and infidelity. I recently re-read (or rather, re-listened to) her book, The State of Affairs, and there are several things in Ch. 8 that I just cannot get behind. Whether these are her own true opinions, or she’s just presenting the other side of the argument, the book seems to be promoting the virtues of secrecy and lying. I’ve picked out the most glaringly obvious examples of where I felt like it was completely contradictory to what I believe is not only morally right, but also counter-productive to promoting equal, intimate marriages. First off, I recognize fully that she has decades more experience than I do in this field, and I respectfully give her all the credit she is due. I just want to present some counter-arguments to some of the things she said.
In Ch. 8 of The State of Affairs, Esther Perel is talking about the dilemma “To tell or not to tell” as it relates to infidelity in marriage. She presents both sides of the argument in order to answer the question, “Is lying categorically wrong?”. After providing some examples of clients where they are weighing the cost of confession, she states:
“For some, the answer is simple: secrecy is lying, lying is wrong. The only acceptable course of action is confession, complete transparency, repentance, and punishment….I wish it were so simple, that we could use such categorical principles to neatly organize our messy human lives. But therapists don’t work with principles, they work with real people and real life situations.” (emphasis mine)
I couldn’t disagree more.
Principles are solid guide posts that help govern behavior. They can transcend individual desires and cultural differences. They are self-evident, and foundational to a life well-lived.
I completely agree that humans lead messy lives; real life situations are not always clean and tidy. But I believe the messiness is created when we betray our principles in the first place! I would also argue that the solutions to our messy lives lies in grounding ourselves to true principles and values to get us back on track. To right the wrong. That is the greatest irony of her statement: the principle of honesty actually does make life simple. One misdeed does not justify committing another simply because “the cost is too high”.
I would guess that if I could do a large-scale study of all the people who have ever cheated on their spouse, the bigger problem would be a lack of principles, not people that were “too principled”! I firmly believe that we need MORE people who are willing to live by principles--including therapists! The further we stray from true and correct principles, the more likely we are to live a life of self-service; justifying and rationalizing away our very character. In fact, it looks more like a toddler in an adult’s body--impulsive, egocentric, unable to delay gratification or consider our impact on others.
The following are other quotes from this chapter I would like to refute. I have provided very brief context where needed, to understand the quote. But please feel free to get a copy of her book for a fuller understanding. (I also apologize for not citing it properly with page numbers. I listened to it as an audiobook.)
Quote #1 from Perel: “Honesty requires careful calibration.”
My thoughts: The careful calibrating only becomes an issue after the trust has been betrayed. Consistent honesty needs no calibrating.
*
(Context: A woman got drunk and slept with her ex-boyfriend while she was engaged. She didn’t want to tell her fiancee because he had been cheated on before and she knew he would be devastated and probably call off the wedding.)
Quote #2 from Perel: “Yes, she should have thought of that before, but should her slip up derail their whole life?”
My thoughts: Underneath that argument is the belief that she shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions, that her selfishness should bear no consequences for herself or anyone else. We try so hard to live in an age of no consequences, but the truth is that we can’t truly get away with anything. Given enough time, our actions will always catch up to us eventually. And that is exactly the point; if there were no downsides to cheating, it would be (even more) very widely used and accepted. I believe it’s possible to hold compassion and regard for the suffering of both partners, while still helping them through the necessary repairs, which I believe involves complete honesty moving forward.
*
Quote #3 from Perel: “The other is repelled by the destructive spilling of secrets in the name of honesty.”
My Thoughts: This is a misattribution of fault. The destructive piece in this scenario is the affair/infidelity, not the “spilling of secrets”. I don’t like how she portrays honesty as the arbitrary trouble-maker, rather than what should have been the guiding principle for the one who committed the wrong.
*
(Context: a daughter wrestled with the decision of telling her mom that she caught her dad cheating)
Quote #4 from Perel: “In her Individualistic framework: the personal “right to know” trumps the harmony of the family.”
My Thoughts: I believe that the true individualistic framework here is the entitled person who did the betraying in the first place. Are you really trying to say that a person who cheats on their spouse is more concerned with the collective well-being, or family harmony? Let’s be clear: an extramarital affair is what disrupts the harmony of the family, not the person who reveals the dirty little secret.
In conclusion, I think the subtle message here is that her proposal of “re-thinking infidelity” is couched as being progressive, expansive, and the future of therapy. (And seeing how influential she is, it very well may be the future for many therapists.) But I ask that we seriously consider the consequences of adopting such views. If the goal is self-preservation and an erosion of the very foundation of your marriage, then yes, we can loosen up our stance on what it means to be loyal, committed, and trustworthy. However, if our goal is to build unity, intimacy, safety, equality, and connection, then we absolutely must see this philosophy for what it is and oppose it wholeheartedly. We must uphold the ideal standard, and then offer help and grace for when we fall from that ideal. But abandoning our principles, and even going so far as to say that our lives are too messy and “real” to be bothered with trivial, old-fashioned principles, is very dangerous and should sound alarm bells for therapists and couples worldwide.
