I have been thinking about contempt.
That is one of the hazards of therapy school. You learn a name for something, and suddenly you begin seeing it everywhere—not because everyone around you has suddenly changed, but because your eyes have.
John and Julie Gottman describe four communication patterns that can become particularly destructive in relationships: criticism, contempt, defensiveness, and stonewalling. They call them the Four Horsemen.
Criticism attacks the person rather than addressing a particular behavior. Defensiveness protects us from an accusation by denying responsibility or returning the blame. Stonewalling shuts down the exchange entirely.
Contempt adds something especially corrosive: superiority. It can appear through sarcasm, mockery, disgust, ridicule, or that particular tone that says, I am above you, and your position is ridiculous.
Contempt does not always arrive as hatred. Sometimes it is one sentence, one facial expression, or one moment in which someone places themselves above a person they still love.
I noticed it recently in a conversation with my son.
I told Miller that I had left school early because I had been somewhat manic that morning and was beginning to crash. He asked, with unmistakable scorn, “How many times have you left school?”
I said, “Twice.”
Then I let him continue talking, because Miller can be a Chatty Cathy.
I did not defend myself. I did not explain bipolar disorder, describe the morning, justify my decision, or build a case proving that leaving was responsible. I answered the literal question, and he accepted the answer. The conversation moved on.
I did not identify the contempt until later.
That distinction matters. I was not wounded in the moment and then searching for a psychological term with which to prosecute my child. I was lying down afterward, replaying the conversation, when I suddenly recognized the posture inside his question.
Miller does not hold me in contempt. He occupied a contemptuous position for perhaps ten seconds.
Maybe he was jealous that I could leave school when he usually cannot. Maybe he thought I was being irresponsible. Maybe there was worry underneath it. I do not know, and understanding therapy does not grant me magical access to his private motives.
What I do know is that the first return did not determine the entire volley.
A contemptuous remark is an invitation, even when the speaker does not consciously intend it to be. It invites defensiveness, counterattack, withdrawal, or another dose of contempt. One Horseman can summon another until the original subject disappears and the relationship reorganizes itself around escalation.
But I returned a factual answer rather than the implied fight. Miller accepted it rather than hitting another sharp shot back. No one announced a repair. No formal apology occurred. Together, we simply prevented a ten-second moment from becoming a thirty-minute argument.
Sometimes the healthiest return is not a brilliant response. It is answering what was actually asked and declining the invitation to fight about everything implied by the tone.
That brings me to repair.
People often hear “repair” and imagine a grand apology after a major betrayal. Repair is usually much smaller and far more ordinary.
It can sound like:
“That came out wrong.”
“Let me try that again.”
“You have a point.”
“I’m getting defensive.”
“I need a break, but I will come back.”
Repair can be a softened voice, a well-placed joke, a hand extended across the couch, a clarification, or a decision not to return the ball with equal force.
Gottman’s point is not that healthy people never fight, miscommunicate, or hurt one another. Those moments are inevitable. Healthier relationships become better at recognizing them, repairing sooner, and accepting repair when it is offered.
An apology looks backward at what happened. A repair changes what becomes possible next.
I recently caught myself making a repair while I was still talking to my mother.
I had gone to see her because I had been experiencing some dark thoughts. I was not suicidal, but I had enough awareness to recognize that isolating inside my house with all my usual distractions was not the best move. I deliberately changed my environment and connected with another human being.
At first, however, I gave my mother a tangential explanation for why I was there. It was not exactly a lie. It was simply the safer and less important part of the truth.
Halfway through speaking, I heard myself doing it.
I stopped and told her what was actually happening: I had been having dark thoughts, I was safe, and I had intentionally decided to get out of my house and spend time with people rather than remain alone inside my own head.
She appreciated knowing. She asked more direct questions. I answered honestly. Then we continued with our day.
Honesty did not transform the visit into an emergency summit. It gave my mother enough accurate information to care for me appropriately, and then ordinary life continued.
That experience forms an interesting contrast with the conversation with Miller.
With Miller, healthier communication meant saying less.
With my mother, it meant saying more.
The lesson is not “always explain yourself” or “never defend yourself.” It is this:
Say what the relationship actually needs in order to remain connected to reality.
Sometimes a long explanation inflates a passing remark into a trial. Sometimes a short explanation conceals the exact truth another person needs in order to understand us.
Repair requires discernment.
It also requires some willingness from the person on the other side. One person can offer a repair attempt, but cannot complete a repair alone.
Humor may restore warmth, or it may dodge pain. Moving on may de-escalate a pointless conflict, or it may leave the other person alone with an injury. Silence may regulate an overwhelmed nervous system, or it may punish someone. A boundary may be necessary, while also containing an element of avoidance.
Our behaviors do not carry one permanent meaning. Their function depends on the relationship, the moment, the history, and what happens next.
I know this because I have participated in conversations where repair became almost impossible.
Years ago, I helped someone I loved escape an unsafe situation. I gave her and her child somewhere to live. I gave her my car and drove a piece of shit myself. I told myself that whatever else happened, a child was safe because I had opened my home.
That was true.
It was not the entire truth.
I was also in love with this woman. Some part of me hoped that if I loved her well enough, helped her enough, and gave the relationship enough time, she might eventually love me in the way I wanted.
I did not want her dating other people while she lived with me. At the time, I told myself that she knew I loved her and therefore understood what she was getting into.
What I failed to understand was that she did not have a meaningful alternative.
She depended on me for housing and transportation, and a child’s stability was involved. That meant my request was not occurring between two independent people with equal freedom to say no. The security I controlled became leverage over her romantic autonomy.
My help was real.
My love was real.
The coercion was also real.
The first two truths do not erase the third.
For years, I resisted naming that cleanly because I thought context was part of accountability. I wanted the entire ecosystem considered: what I provided, what I sacrificed, what she did, what I was experiencing, what I intended, and how much I cared.
Context does matter. It helps explain how we arrived somewhere.
But explanation can also become a defense of identity.
I was trying to prove that I was not a bad person while another person was waiting for me to name the thing I had done.
“I did abusive things” felt dangerously close to “I am permanently and entirely an abuser.” Because I could not tolerate the second statement, I kept avoiding the first.
Real accountability required something more precise:
I used—or allowed—the security I controlled to function as pressure on someone’s romantic choices. I believed she understood because she knew I loved her. Knowing that someone loves you is not the same as freely consenting to exclusivity, especially when refusing may threaten your housing, transportation, or a child’s stability.
I was wrong.
That does not make every loving act counterfeit. It does not require me to erase the good I did or hate the former version of myself. It requires me to stop using the good as evidence that the harm could not also have happened.
During one later conversation, I tried using AI as an interpreter between us.
My intentions were not entirely foolish. We had repeatedly failed to understand each other. I wanted help organizing my thoughts. I wanted to be transparent that I was receiving help, and I hoped showing her the process might introduce her to a tool that could help her articulate her experience too.
The problem was that my “interpreter” had mostly heard me.
It knew my history, my reasoning, my pain, and my framing. It had not independently heard hers. When I sent her its interpretations, what felt like transparency to me may have felt like arriving at an argument where the other side had already briefed the judge.
A tool that helps me understand myself can still interfere with my understanding of another person.
Reflection becomes triangulation when I bring in a third voice to validate my position instead of returning to the person with a better question.
The AI was not the only problem. I used psychological language badly too.
I admitted that some of my behavior had been abusive—and then began explaining her wounds to her.
I discussed her history, her lack of healing, and the ways her pain affected people who loved her. I even told her that I believed I was more healed than she was.
That was contempt dressed in therapeutic language.
It allowed me to admit one sentence about my conduct and then spend several paragraphs evaluating her psychological condition. I placed myself above her as the more insightful and evolved person. I thought I was supplying context and compassion. She experienced someone interpreting her rather than answering her.
Insight is not always a gift, especially when offered during conflict by the person who caused harm.
Eventually, both of us began using psychological language as a weapon.
“You need to heal.”
“No, your healing is avoidance.”
“You refuse to examine your patterns.”
“You are trapped in victimhood.”
We were no longer discussing what had happened. We were competing for the authority to define one another.
Every return became a judgment about the person holding the racket.
I repeatedly asked for the conversation to stop, but I made another mistake: I attached final diagnoses to my boundaries.
“Please stop contacting me” is a boundary.
“Please stop contacting me because you cannot move on, think you have won, and need to heal” is a boundary carrying several final shots across the net.
Then I wondered why another ball came back.
Sometimes ending the volley is necessary. Repair does not require endless access, reconciliation, or agreement. The person we hurt does not owe us forgiveness because we finally understand what we did. Accountability is not a transaction through which the correct apology purchases absolution.
But if I am going to put down the racket, I have to stop swinging it while announcing that I am finished.
I understand something now that I could not understand inside that conversation.
She told me my silence was avoidance dressed as healing. At the time, I heard only another accusation. Looking back, I think she was partly right.
I needed the silence. I also used it to escape the sentence I could not yet say.
I had helped save her, and I had used the safety I provided to exert control over her.
Both were true.
Distance did not absolve me. It eventually gave me enough room to admit it.
That is why repair deserves more attention than we usually give it. Repair is not groveling, self-hatred, or surrendering every part of our own story. It is also not saying “I’m sorry” before explaining why the other person is equally damaged.
Repair begins when we can accurately name our part without immediately negotiating its size.
Sometimes repair means saying less.
Sometimes it means finally saying the whole truth.
Sometimes it means catching ourselves halfway through a sentence and changing direction.
Sometimes it means accepting an imperfect olive branch.
Sometimes it means recognizing that reconciliation is impossible and allowing changed behavior—not another explanation—to carry the accountability forward.
Healthy communication is not the ability to strike every ball perfectly.
It is the ability to notice where the exchange is heading, change the next return, and recognize when the other person is trying to change direction too.
And sometimes, after we have acknowledged the shot we made and the damage it caused, the healthiest thing left is to put down the racket and leave the court without insisting on the final point.
Frank M. Anderson's Writing 
Leave a comment