This is the answer to part 1
Ms. Maven Responds:
Having read both letters, you may conclude that each writer is a bit of a neat freak who can’t understand the messy tendencies of his/her spouse. However, the categories of “neat” and “messy” are not all that clear-cut. It is quite possible that the writers are actually married to each other. Both regard themselves as valuing neatness and order, they just do so in different ways. The key difference between them is in how they define clutter in context. Clutter is made up of objects that are neither decorative nor useful so that they just take up space and disturb the clean look of a neatly arranged room. However, if something is out of place because it is being put to use – say a book that is normally on a shelf, or a kitchen gadget that is normally in the cabinet – would the person using the object regard it as clutter? Of course not, it is out because it is needed; therefore, it does not constitute clutter. But from another person’s perspective who does not see the particular object in use at the moment, it may, in fact, be regarded as clutter that renders an otherwise neat room messy.
The wife’s letter indicates that she values neatness primarily in the most public space of her home – the living room. That is the first room a visitor to her house would see. In fact, the visitor may not see any other room, so that the sole impression of her ability to maintain her home in order would be based on the state of the living room. Consequently, for the woman who takes pride in her home’s public appearance would put a priority on keeping the living room looking pristine, and she would not want any clutter to mar the effect. Her husband, on the other hand, regards the living room as one in which he can relax while pursuing his own interest among his books. He certainly does not regard his books as clutter when he is using them and would see no contradiction between being a neat person and leaving his books about the living room while he still intends to return to them.
Now let’s move on to the second letter. Could this husband be the same one who leaves the books about the living room? If so, how could he fault his wife for a messy kitchen? The answer is that he does not regard the books as effecting a messy room, but he does see the items about the kitchen as messy. Now, why would a house-proud wife not clean up after herself while she is in the kitchen? While she is in the throes of preparing a cake, she is not bothered by the spilled flour and cocoa and would regard stopping to clean up in the middle as inefficient and pointless, for mixing the frosting may just add a layer of confectioners sugar to the spills. And while she cannot tolerate a mess in the room into which visitors are ushered, she regards the kitchen as her own working domain and not the room that presents her home to the world. So she can be content with a mess in the kitchen that she would never tolerate in the living room.
What we have in the two letters is not an instance of an easy-going personality in conflict with a neat-freak personality. We have two personalities with different perspectives on what constitutes neatness and mess. This is a situation in which “each person tends to be especially sensitive to a different form of mess,” according to Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman describe in their book, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder. (New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 2006 p. 115). While the situation will naturally give rise to some tension, it is not an impossible situation, so long as each one is respectful of the other’s particular inclinations. It may be obvious that some compromise is necessary, but how is it to be effected. Abramson and Freedman offer two approaches:
“Complementary mess takes the general form of ‘I’ll struggle to keep one sort of mess under control, and you struggle to keep a different sort of mess under control.’” This approach requires exercising both tolerance and perspective. So when the wife discovers her husbands books open on the couch, she will realize that he did not do it to mar her perfect living room but just because of his habit. Likewise, the husband can bear in mind that the chaotic state of the kitchen is a temporary one and not intended as an assault on his preference for neatness.
“The mess demilitarized zone defines boundaries between areas that will be subject to the mess preferences of one person, areas subject to the preferences of the other, and areas over which neither holds mess-related sway. It’s most useful when one or both people need to have some space where they brook no compromise to their preferences.” So if there is a den available to this couple, it may be set aside for the husband’s use as a library in which books are not limited to shelf space only. The wife may claim the kitchen as her own territory if she is the only one with kitchen duty. And they will have to come to an agreement about approaching the other rooms in the house and agree on whether books or kitchen overflow would be allowed in the dining room, for example.
The husband and wife would have to come to a consensus as a couple to achieve the balance between order and mess that would be most conducive to their own home’s harmony. It is not the state of neatness but the respectful and cooperative attitude that prove key to maintaining the real beauty of the home, that of shalom.
Related articles: http://www.examiner.com/jewish-bridal-in-new-york/relationship-reality-check-part-1-of-2
For more articles on marriage advice, see http://kallahmagazine.com/ShalomBayis.htm
l
Comments