I wrote in my last article about stonewalling, that nefarious process (and pattern) of shutting down a partner’s communication either aggressively, or passive aggressively, the effect of which is to leave the “stonewalled” partner feeling voiceless, alone, dismissed, negated as a person.
Many sociopathic personalities stonewall, but many stonewallers aren’t sociopaths, so how do you tell the difference? What are some signs that your partner’s stonewalling is an aspect of his “sociopathy” versus, say, his high “conflict-avoidant” personality?
Clearly some individuals are terrible at dealing with communication in general and conflict in particular. Their stonewalling may be mainly avoidant. Their wish to “deny” that trouble is afoot, their deep discomfort with emotional sensitivity and vulnerability, their high levels of defensiveness, their sense of incompetence and even hopelessness to contribute to the resolution of differences and meet confrontation effectively, may cause them to retreat, shut down, or “stonewall,” less from an attitude of indifference, disinterest and dismissiveness than from anxiety and fear.
Some individuals “freeze” in the face of perceived conflict and take “flight” literally in closing the communication hatches. Their intent may be less to hurt you than to protect themselves, and even you, fearing as they do that danger could ensue from an engagement of your concerns.
This is still stonewalling, and its effect is still perfidious, make no mistake. But its origins may come from a less malign place.
While stonewalling, then, can arise from less malign motives, sometimes, too often, it expresses serious pathological aggression, passive-aggression, hostility, contempt and callousness.
Clearly when “stonewalling” is accompanied by cold indifference—any form of cold indifference—to the stonewalled party’s wounded response to being “shut down,” this is a sign of serious insensitivity.
To state it differently: when the stonewaller, as a pattern, shows contempt towards the stonewalled party’s disturbed reaction to his stonewalling, this alerts us that we are dealing with a deficiently sensitive individual who almost certainly can be located high up on the narcissistic continuum, if not in the range of the “sociopath.”
This isn’t to say that the non-sociopathic stonewaller will react with sensitivity to your experience of his stonewalling. That’s a bit oxymoronic—if he were particularly sensitive to his stonewalling, by definition he wouldn’t be a stonewaller. But his reaction will typically express discomfort with the impact his stonewalling has on you.
He won’t, for instance, like the more sociopathic stonewaller, characteristically lash out at you with blatant hostility and nasty, hurtful, degrading accusations in response to your complaints of his stonewalling. He won’t typically blame you.
More likely he’ll shirk away, convey a perhaps somewhat sincere sense of helplessness to offer up anything more than the inadequate silence he’s offering up, as if to say, “What can I say? I have nothing to say. I’m not trying to hurt you. I just don’t want to, or can’t, deal with this. Leave me alone. Give me a break. I’m sorry you’re so exasperated and hurt. That’s the way it is.”
You will feel shut down, but you will feel shut down by someone who can’t deal, who himself seems, and perhaps is, in a sense, paralysed and helpless to deal responsibly, thoughtfully, engagingly.
In contrast, you will have a different feeling with the more sociopathic stonewaller. When he shuts down your communication, you will feel yourself—I can’t stress this enough—the object of his contempt.
You will feel palpably, viscerally, his indifference to the impact his stonewalling has on you; his indifference will feel as traumatizing as the stonewalling itself, leaving you, in effect, doubly traumatized by the interaction.
There is a sense of shock—that is, his emotional indifference, his callousness, his devaluation of your emotional experience will feel “shocking.”
As I suggested, you are likely to feel his scorn, his scoffing; are at high risk to endure his insulting, degrading comments, along the lines you are making trouble, talk too much, always looking for problems, don’t know when to “shut up,” always have to “over-analyse” everything; that you are mental, miserable; but the key thing that will accompany these, and similarly patronizing remarks, will be, as I keep emphasizing, the “contempt” for your experience that will be dripping shamelessly from his mouth.
These are some of the red flags to heed that you aren’t dealing merely with an incompetent communicator who stonewalls, which is bad enough, but with a seriously, hostilely disturbed communicator from whom you need protection, and most likely, escape.
(This article is copyrighted © 2012 by Steve Becker, LCSW. My use of male gender pronouns is for convenience’s sake only, not to suggest that females aren’t capable of the behaviors and attitudes discussed.)
Excellent, Steve! Thank you so much for this explanation.
Steve, thank you SO much for continuing this discussion. The contempt that you speak of is almost tangible. Yes, there IS a difference between someone who just doesn’t have communicating skills and a sociopath. Contempt – the perfect description.
Thanks, again, Steve.
Steve,
I have heard of “withholding” as a form of emotional abuse. I see a lot of similarities to what you said about stonewalling.
Do you know if they are considered one and the same or are there differences?
Steve, while a person with ‘communication problems” may stone wall, even if they are not sociopathic, I’m not sure that there is a great deal of hope for improvement unless the person is willing to get some therapy for themselves.
Having dealt with people who stonewalled as a self protective mechanism, but who I don’t think were sociopathic, none-the-less were not likely to learn better communication skills until they were willing to engage in some vigorous therapy in order to learn to communicate.
I have not found it “worthwhile” to spend a lot of time trying to communicate with people of this “persuasion.”
For example, my egg donor is not a sociopath, but she is so entrenched in her family role of being the “family enabler” and protective of the “family bad boy” she frequently uses stonewalling as a method of protecting her position, but she is not willing to change, or even to speak about change, or to acknowledge that she has a communication problem.
She is only one example, I can think of many others in people I have known through out my life time. People I went to school with, people I have worked with or encountered in many different venues.
For me, this lack of communication, this lack of the ability to openly communicate about emotionally charged subjects (even lightly emotionally charged) precludes any kind of meaningful communication on anything deeper than “the weather.”
When I spot this kind of “stone wall” I turn and retreat. I have never been able to successfully scale this kind of battlement.
If you have been able to successfully engage some of these stone wallers in effective communication, I would really like some advice in how to proceed. Thanks. Great article.
I’m glad this discussion is continuing. I think there is a lot more to “stonewalling” than is usually thought. Or, many ways in which it can manifest. I am finding myself in agreement with everyone about it — there are many flavors of this.
G1S, I do think that “withholding” is a less-descriptive or fleshed-out way of saying this. Also, “the silent treatment” is another way I’ve heard it mentioned. But stonewalling, with all these descriptions, paints it most accurately.
Oxy, I agree with you that no matter what the cause, it is too frustrating to engage with.
Yes, the contempt IS palpable. I have been in relationships with stonewallers who are contemptuous, and with stonewallers who pretend that their stonewalling didn’t just happen, as though I imagined it. And with folks who just plain don’t want to address an issue directly, would rather avoid, and don’t even want to address their avoidant behavior directly. “What do you mean? There’s nothing wrong…” and I think they probably believe this. I have been in relationships with avoidant people who are not sadistic sociopaths, who are so avoidant that they make the communication problems all my fault — they see nothing wrong with sidestepping or not addressing issues, and I’m the crazy one for getting upset when they refuse to discuss. They get a hurt, bewildered expression on their face which I believe is genuine, and I find it MADDENING. (OK, I’m referring to a blood relative that I’m not willing to go “no contact” with because I do not believe they are a sociopath — just avoidant).
The results are NOT the same — I mean, I am frustrated no matter what. But the contemptuous ones who do it with obvious glee are the ones who really get under my skin and hurt me. The ones who stonewall , KNOW they are doing it, but refuse to admit it and try to get me thinking I imagined it, are the worst ones of all (because it is hard to get my mind around getting angry at someone who has the “nice” mask on all the time, and I keep doubting myself… and trying harder to communicate). The hurt, bewildered ones just exasperate me and I feel lonely that we cannot connect better. But in that case, I think they are disconnected from their avoidant behavior and truly DO believe that I am the nutty one.
The thing that comes to me is that of the range of emotions the pathological are capable of experiencing is anger.
So, if they come up with a reason to be angry and then stonewall (esp the silent treatment which is akin to violence as I understand it) then are they achieving a satisfying emotional experience for themselves?
Maybe.
The only way I could deal with it is to give them a real good reason to turn away. (old horse wisdom- if a horse turns it back on you, send them away).
In the long run, the strategy failed. So did the anti depressants. It all failed including my health and the marriage. The thing was doomed because there was no way to succeed.
In the longer run, letting go of all of it works because not figuring it out is a lot easier and healthier for me.
20 years, I am perfectly willing to go NO (or very limited and superficial) contact with someone who is a “problematic” relationship even if they are NOT psychopathic. Just because someone is not a psychopath pure and clean does not mean that they add anything positive to my life.
I am not willing to engage with anyone who is more of a problem than they are a joy….whatever their “problem” is. And whatever their blood relationship is. I am getting so “picky” in my old age that I only want to associate with folks who are fun, kind, honest and a joy to my life.
Um, I know men who are emotionally unavailable. They are not mean or malicious people.
They can’t handle intimacy. They don’t know what to say.
Women are better at communicating and sharing emotions because we are socialized that way. I believe there have also been studies that show women are born that way. I can’t remember the specifics, but I think the skill has something to do with ensuring that the young offspring’s needs are adequately identified and met.
How often is social ineptness misconstrued as stonewalling?
G1S:
To me anyway, it is obvious when someone is only socially inept and when they are being malicious. I can tell the difference right away. Usually the socially inept person has other characteristics that go along with that type of personality…shy, quiet, etc. I can just tell. To me, it is obvious when I am being stonewalled.
I’ve always thought of stonewalling as a tactic, often used in business or politics. It’s short term used for a specific objective.
It’s not obvious to me always when withholding is going on. It is much more subtle, I think, than stonewalling. Withholding is part of a game/emotional torture or it could be used as punishment (silent treatment.)
To me, stonewalling is obvious. It’s a negotiation skill. Sometimes you give in negotiations, sometimes you pull, and sometimes you stonewall.
Maybe I’ve been working in corporations for too long or maybe it has to do with your point of reference.