It is all too rare that college students show sympathy for the lover who chooses to end a relationship — also known as the “dumper.” It is all too often that college students overreact with sympathy for the shocked and brokenhearted “dumped,” especially if the “dumping” is done over the phone or through a letter. There are many reasons why this happens, but the reasons for why it should not happen are more compelling.
Imagine this dialogue over lunch at Price Center food court: “Yeah man, it’s over. But get this — she told me over the phone.”
“That’s harsh, man. Totally uncool.”
Or how about, “He ended it. But can you believe that he wrote it to me in a letter?”
“I’m so sorry. That’s not just cruel, that’s lame.”
Within a dialogue consisting of a few short exchanges, feelings are shared and judgments have been made. Yet only one side of the story has been heard. Why is there a tendency to be critical of one party, the “dumper,” with such one-sided information?
The tendency to show sympathy toward someone in pain is understandable, especially toward a friend. It is difficult and perhaps uncomfortable to experience, live and direct the hurt of another person. With someone crying to your face, chances are you won’t stare at them stoically and state, “Get over it.” That they allowed themselves to open up indicates some level of trust, which also implicates some level of responsibility to you, the listener, to respond appropriately. But what is an appropriate response?
It goes without saying, given the moral relativity of any situation, that there is no single appropriate response. But there are typical responses — better yet, cliche´ responses commonly offered to those in pain, especially to the dumped party of a former relationship. These responses often come without deep consideration of the situation.
When break-ups are discussed openly and dramatically in a public space, there is an overwhelming occurrence of knee-jerk reactions to the “uncool” and “wimpy” means people use to end a relationship — namely, over the phone or through a letter. The consensus seems to be that the “real” way to do it, the “best” way to do it, the most humane way to do it, is in person. Yet it’s ridiculous to assume that everyone would want to approach ending a relationship the same “ideal” way. People have varying tastes in food, music and humor. Is it fair to expect that when handling something as intricate and intimate as a relationship people should act uniformly?
While the dumped person often deals with shock, hurt, confusion, low self-esteem and loneliness, among other emotions, it is often the case that the “”dumper”” deals with some of these feelings too.
The dumper and the dumped were both in the relationship — both shared deeply personal aspects of who they are and both became highly connected. The loss of that connection will affect both parties, though in different ways. If that connection is no longer felt by one of the lovers, it is not because that individual has mutated into a cold and callous automaton.
From the dumper’s perspective, there is probably a level of confusion and sadness with the paradoxical realization that it’s possible to be very close to someone and yet not feel for them as strongly as in the past. To realize that the spark is gone may bring a sense of loss, of something missing, not to mention a load of guilt if the other party feels differently.
Yet if the desire to be in a relationship has faded on one end, the relationship needs to be seriously questioned. In the case of a relationship, each individual has the responsibility to be primarily true to his or her own needs and desires. Reina Juarez from Psychological Counseling Services at UCSD notes that this is very important and that “it takes courage for people to face their own personal truths, even if it means hurting some one they care for. We must be responsible for ourselves.” So, as much as students care for, trust and feel loyal to their friends, it must be noted that there is another side to the story. This is why it’s advisable to resist making a judgment too quickly, especially considering the complex dynamics that govern relationships.
Consider relationships that have gone sour, dull or distant. Even these are hard to break off because people grow accustomed to a powerful relationship dynamic — that of “having someone there.” Someone to provide a warm body at night, to eat dinner with, watch television with, study at Geisel with, complain to, etc. It’s frightening to realize how dependent on intimate social contact people can be, especially college students isolated from family and lifelong friends. But it is not unusual. This makes it all the more challenging to end those few relationships that are comforting simply by virtue of being routine.
In addition, it’s necessary to be sensitive to the fact that each individual has strengths and weaknesses, and not everyone’s strength is confrontation. Few people seek to incite negative sentiments, and the tendency is to avoid bringing up deeply troubling issues. Men, sometimes, say nothing and keep issues inside. Women, sometimes, make hints, hoping that men will be perceptive enough to figure it out. Imagine the difficulty nonconfrontational people would have in trying to end a relationship face-to-face.
There are also unique situations in which writing a letter or calling on the phone are ideal ways to end a relationship. Think of all those long-distance relationships that begin in high school or at a year abroad, but soon find much difficulty in maintaining significant connection. If the option of meeting the languishing lover is not available until much later, should the dumper wait three months, all the while concealing his or her emotions and fighting attraction to others? Or worse, start dating someone else secretly, while holding off the break-up for the “in person” stipulation?
Consider the milder type of person, the one who knows with certainty that he or she wants to end a relationship but can’t handle the unstable, histrionic or violent response expected from the more dominant beau. Or, consider the type of person that expresses him- or herself most clearly in writing.
Now this is not a blanket endorsement for one break-up style or another. Ultimately, importance does not lie in the means by which a break-up is guided, but rather how clearly, sensitively and respectfully the ending of the relationship is approached and handled. Juarez says that “at [the college] age, people’s relationships are sometimes shallow, and [when ending one] they just walk away from it.” She suggests that break-up confusion might be avoided by creating a contract or plan at the beginning of a relationship that communicates ideas of how each person would end the relationship if they had to. This way, expectations are clear and there is knowledge about what to anticipate from the partner — whether he or she is the type who wants to be cut off completely or the type who wants to try friendship afterwards.
One can never be in another’s shoes, heart or soul, but picking up on the pain of a heartbroken friend inevitably happens. The role of a caring friend should not be to join in the crying to form a duet of pain and sorrow, or to encourage the dumped buddy to ruminate in anger and hurt. Empathy can be practiced by attentive listening, not wholesale nodding.
A friend can help by looking at the big picture and, when the dumped is ready to hear it, showing that the ending of a relationship has multiple effects for all involved. Helping shed the role of “victim” (that the dumped so often takes) and encouraging an understanding of events in a larger context may help to mitigate the pain that the dumped feels so overwhelmingly; the dumper is most likely taking the transition hard, too.
If you feel overwhelmed by pain, too alienated from friends or fear burdening them, a strong support network is available, confidential and free, at UCSD’s Psychological Counseling Services. Call (858) 534-3755 or see the Web site at http://psychservices .ucsd.edu.
