How Framing In-Law Conflict As "Competing Loyalties" Overlooks Dysfunctional Family Patterns

And Why We Need To Challenge This Argument

A dilemma is a situation that requires choosing between two or more alternatives that seem equally difficult, undesirable, or unsatisfactory. Often, these choices involve competing priorities, principles, or consequences that make the decision particularly challenging. Dilemmas over loyalties are at the heart of many in-law conflicts. But they don’t have to be. Or so goes the argument that Terri Apter makes in her book, “What Do You Want From Me? Learning to Get Along With In-Laws”. In her book, Apter argues that in-law relationships are primarily structural rather than arising from individual personalities. She states that conflict arises from competing maternal influences, competing loyalties, and differing family cultures and expectations. Apter believes that negative expectations create defensive behaviors, which then confirm those negative expectations. Her assertions hold varying degrees of truth across different families, and they are at the heart of many memes and tropes regarding in-laws. But I do not think they reflect a complete picture of why in-law relationships falter. Here is why.

Apter completely overlooks family systems theory in her research. This is akin to trying to understand why a car won’t start by only looking at the battery. There could be so much more going on, and glossing over or ignoring those other reasons is reductionistic. For example, when Apter presents case studies of closed family systems, which often have dysfunctional patterns of communicating and relating, their behavior is described as a symptom of their child getting married rather than a symptom of much larger relationship issues in the family. She describes minimization and coercion from parents-in-law as “strategies for getting needs met”. They are strategies, but they are incredibly unhealthy ones that tend to backfire and worsen relationships. She argues that a mother’s fear of losing her relationship to her son when he gets married and feeling threatened by a newcomer is normal, and part of the “structural reorganization” that happens when a child gets married.¹ That’s fair, but then using that argument to justify some of the cruelty, manipulation, and gaslighting she describes from the mother-in-laws in her case studies is off the mark. Her work completely overlooks the possibility that there could be systemic family issues, or personality disorders at play in in-law relationships, which made it both fascinating to read, and infuriating.

Apter presents a number of case studies in her book, and she focuses heavily on mother-in-law and daughter-in-law relationships, frequently placing the burden of resolution on the women in the family. This flies in the face of more modern research in which the “linchpin theory” (which states that the relationships between a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law is reliant on the son/spouse) is thought to be the driving factor in determining the health of MIL/DIL relationships. Indeed, Apter’s work feels heavy on the gender bias, and dated. For example, she suggests that “..setting boundaries can escalate demands” when it comes to daughter-in-laws protecting grandchildren, or wanting their parenting rules and privacy to be respected by parents-in-law. She argues that the more a daughter-in-law emphasizes boundaries for her mother-in-law, the more the mother-in-law’s fear of exclusion is activated, and the more she engages in strategies of minimization and coercion, and defies the limits set by her daughter-in-law in order to get reassurance. In turn, the daughter-in-law doubles down on the boundaries, which escalates the mother-in-law’s sense of being left out.² I fully believe this happens. I have seen it happen. But the emphasis in this case is on the wrong syllable. Apter seems to be suggesting that the boundaries are part of the issue, and not the mother-in-law’s intrusive, manipulative behavior. It’s ok to need reassurance. It’s not okay to use manipulative tactics to get your needs met, and it will likely result in more rigid boundaries from the person on the receiving end of this behavior.

Apter’s solution to this struggle is to emphasize the importance of grandparents in the children’s lives and admonish that everyone loses if they are not included. She then requests that each party assures the other that they will be responsive to the other’s needs and expectations, not coerce others to meet each expectation and wish, and work on changing specific behaviors, while believing that everyone is capable of change. She then offers some reflective journaling exercises.

I mean, that’s nice. It’s also completely absent of any understanding of how emotional immaturity and intergenerational trauma make this impossible for some families. It ignores the idea that shame, denial, and a deep commitment to the status quo make it all but impossible to effect change in some family systems. It also villainizes healthy boundary setting as part of the problem, when in fact, it is the perception of boundaries as a rejection on the part of the parents that is likely at the heart of the problem.

In her introduction, Apter dismisses the idea that there could be different “types of in-laws - those who control, those who meddle, those bully or blackmail”, instead asserting that in-law relationships have a “mix of qualities” and that we have to “accept these mix of qualities and our mixed feelings”. She justifies this argument throughout her book by comparing the attachment work we do with our families of origin, and accepting the “positive and negative feelings” we have towards our parents and siblings as a framework for how we should approach our relationships to our in-laws.³ But in doing so, she overlooks the possibility that the family systems we are born into or marry into may be abusive, neglectful, enmeshed, and carry years of untreated trauma.

She also describes loyalty as the “touchstone of attachment”. The touchstone of attachment, according to preeminent attachment researchers John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, is proximity seeking, and a caregiver’s sensitivity and responsiveness during a stressful situation for the child. It is the caregiver’s ability to provide a secure base for the child. Attachment is not loyalty. Loyalty is the touchstone, however, for narcissistic family attachments. I find this gross misstatement about the foundations of attachment in Apter’s work to be somewhat alarming. Children can remain loyal to caregivers who do not provide them with a secure base. They remain loyal, in spite of not having secure attachment. Usually this is because the parent has used some form of coercive control to maintain loyalty. This is the opposite of secure attachment.

Nowhere is Apter’s lack of awareness and omission of family systems theory more evident than in her solutions for in-law conflicts. In her book, she offers exercises for “both sides” of the in-law struggle at the end of each chapter in order to help move towards resolution. These exercises require the participants to be capable of accountability, empathy, vulnerability and have the ability to self reflect and set healthy boundaries. It doesn’t seem to occur to Apter that part of the problem she describes in her case studies are that the family members are not capable of this level of emotional maturity. And that there may be issues with enmeshment, or narcissistic family dynamics at play. As an example of these types of omissions: Apter has a section offering guidelines for “Engaging a partner whose help you need to manage in-law conflicts”. ⁴

When your partner is overwhelmed with feelings such as ‘There is no way of meeting her demands

without betraying my mother or being a bad person’ the challenge to a partner is to assure him,

‘You can help me improve the situation without being disloyal to your parents.’ The first step is to

move away from the position, ‘It’s all your mother’s fault.’ To resolve the dilemma:

-Don’t insist ‘You should support me and not your mother.’

-Assure him you value his bond to his mother, and you want to help him maintain it.

-Show your mother-in law that you are helping her son sustain his bond with her.

Aside from the fact that her advice places an inordinate amount of the burden on the spouse to navigate a family dynamic that is likely not of her making, the assumption that the spouse should be the one to reassure each party of her willingness to sustain the bond between mother and son assumes the bond is a healthy one to begin with, and, ironically, points out the fragility of the bond. A family system that struggles with role adaptation and identity shifts as part of their children growing up is understandable. A family system that struggles with this change so much so that the child feels caught between loyalties, the relationship between mother and son becomes frayed, and the stability marriage is threatened, is moving into unhealthy relational dynamics, and possibly enmeshment. If the relationship between mother and son is enmeshed, why would the spouse support this bond?

The opposite of enmeshment is differentiation. “Barber and Buehler (1996) described the experience of differentiated people as an inherent freedom to think and feel independently of their families without feeling a sense of betrayal.” Individuation is an effort on the part of the child, supported by parents, who actively promote the development of an autonomous identity. Differentiation happens when the parent creates and encourages opportunities for increasing degrees of emotional separation. If we accept this definition of differentiation as true, it dismantles Apter’s argument that dilemmas over competing loyalties are at the heart of in-law conflicts. Or at least, if they are, the issue has far more to do with enmeshment and dysfunctional family systems than it does the inherent structural conflicts that arise when two families come together. One should be able to choose a spouse, establish their own values in life, parent according to their value system, and have their privacy and autonomy respected without feeling like they are betraying their family of origin. ⁵

The fears of loss and lack of connection and importance in a child’s life from a parent that Apter describes in her book are valid. However, managing these fears of loss and connection lay primarily with the parent, and not the child or the spouse. This is part of continuing to facilitate differentiation. It is helpful for the child and the spouse to acknowledge and understand these fears. But if the parent cannot acknowledge them, and do the work of reflecting on their own behavior, their own grief and loss, they will continue to behave in ways that undermine their children’s marriage, and damages their relationship to the spouse.

In most of Apter’s case studies, I found the lack of self awareness in the mother-in-laws to be glaringly apparent. In contrast, the daughter-in-laws seemed blind to their husband’s shortcomings and the roles they play in the dysfunction. They were also unaware that their mother-in-laws were fearful of losing their connection to their son, or to their grandchildren, and that there was role/identity confusion. But I do not believe that it is the daughter-in-law’s job to figure out their mother-in-law’s feelings and see through her dysfunctional behavior. This puts unfair emotional labor onto the daughter-in-law. On the contrary, it is the son’s responsibility to manage his relationship with his mother, and the responsibility of all adults in the relationship to learn to manage and communicate their feelings.

Moreover, if the family system is enmeshed, meaning there are patterns that facilitate psychological and emotional fusion among members, there is likely also a lot of manipulation, demands of conformity under the guise of “unity”, and enormous efforts to maintain the status quo. In systems like these, members have a limited sense of who they are, and make decisions based on other family members’ reactions. This means, a child who chooses to marry outside the family cultural norms, whether those norms are psychological, class-based, racial, political, sexual, etc. will feel they have betrayed their family when these differences come to a head, and will feel pressure from their family to align with their way if thinking, or even try to change their spouse’s behavior. ⁶

This is indeed a dilemma for the son or daughter. They are having to choose between two or more alternatives that seem equally difficult, undesirable, or unsatisfactory. And like Apter, I don’t think it has to be this way. However, unlike Apter, I don’t think that normalizing these power struggles between in-laws and framing them as “structural” is the answer. And while her suggestions are helpful for those who have a certain amount of emotional maturity, proper levels of individuation and a high degree of self awareness, I do not think that most people who struggle with their in-laws are dealing with individuals who have these qualities. Last, if the family system you marry into is not healthy to begin with, the suggestion that you can change it by introducing healthy boundaries, less emotional reactivity and more acceptance is extremely aspirational. Yes, it’s possible. Yes, these qualities benefit everyone. But more often than not, a person who married into a family that is committed to maintaining the status quo must assimilate, or they will be viewed as a threat. And due to the low self awareness, there will be little to no curiosity from the family about the role they play. Instead, the spouse gets the blame, laying the groundwork for family scapegoating. It is not the spouse’s job to smooth things over in a dysfunctional family system.

Competing loyalties and competing maternal influences that result in harmful interpersonal behavior should not be the “norm” in in-law relationships. Nor should differing cultural expectations create a relationship fraught with tension, manipulation, minimization and coercion. If you are dealing with these types of interactions with your in-laws, it is more than likely because there were already issues in the family system before you showed up. With that said, if there is enough emotional maturity, capacity for self reflection and tolerance for differences in your in-law family to have some conversations, then Apter’s book has some wonderful reflections for everyone.

Paid Subscribers Can:

1. Apter, T. (2004). What do you want from me? Learning to get along with in-laws. W.W. Norton & Company.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Hann-Morrison, D. (2012). Maternal Enmeshment: The Chosen Child. Sage Open, 2(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012470115

6. Ibid.