The close-hostile symbol—combining parallel lines with a zigzag—represents relationships that oscillate between intense intimacy and conflict. These volatile connections feature both deep emotional involvement and recurring hostility, creating a pattern of connection and clash.
Close-Hostile: Two parallel lines (closeness) + zigzag line (conflict)
A close-hostile relationship combines elements of both intimacy and conflict. According to McGoldrick, Gerson, and Petry, "A zigzag line with 2 straight lines indicates a close-hostile relationship." This symbol captures relationships where strong emotional bonds coexist with frequent conflict.
These relationships are characterized by intensity in both directions—family members may love each other deeply while also fighting regularly. The connection is real and significant, but so is the friction. It's the classic "can't live with them, can't live without them" dynamic.
The close-hostile pattern suggests that any conflictual relationship implies underlying connection. By definition, you can only have intense conflict with someone you care about—pure indifference produces distance, not hostility. The closeness and hostility are intertwined.
The relationship cycles between periods of closeness and periods of conflict. Reconciliations may be intense, followed by new blowups.
Despite conflict, the emotional bond is strong. Neither party can simply walk away—they're invested in the relationship.
Small triggers can escalate quickly. The emotional temperature can shift from warm to hostile rapidly.
Often involves high levels of mutual dependence—practical, emotional, or both—that keeps parties connected despite friction.
Perhaps the most common setting for close-hostile dynamics. An adult child may deeply love their parent while frequently arguing about life choices, boundaries, or old grievances. The parent may criticize constantly yet remain deeply involved in the child's life.
Siblings who grew up close may develop patterns of both connection and competition that persist into adulthood. They may be each other's biggest supporters and harshest critics simultaneously.
Couples married for decades sometimes develop close-hostile patterns—they can't imagine life without each other but argue frequently about established patterns that neither has been willing to change.
Close-hostile relationships present unique clinical challenges:
From a Bowen theory perspective, close-hostile relationships often reflect moderate differentiation. The individuals are differentiated enough to have their own positions (hence conflict) but not differentiated enough to hold those positions without emotional reactivity.
Higher differentiation would allow:
| Pattern | Closeness | Conflict |
|---|---|---|
| Close | High | Low |
| Hostile | Variable | High |
| Close-Hostile | High | High |
| Distant-Hostile | Low | High (when contact occurs) |
| Distant | Low | Low |
Close-hostile dyads frequently triangulate others to manage their intensity:
The Rodriguez Family: Elena (55) and her mother Carmen (78) have a close-hostile relationship. They speak daily, Carmen is deeply involved in Elena's life and her grandchildren's activities, and Elena describes her mother as her "best friend and worst critic."
Their pattern: Carmen offers unsolicited advice about Elena's parenting, Elena feels criticized and snaps back, Carmen feels hurt and attacks Elena's "oversensitivity," they don't speak for a day, then Carmen calls as if nothing happened. This cycle repeats weekly.
The genogram reveals Carmen had a similar relationship with her own mother. Therapy focuses on helping Elena differentiate—maintaining connection while setting boundaries—without expecting Carmen to change.
Intimacy without the conflict element
Conflict without acknowledged closeness
Enmeshment combined with conflict
Conflict without the closeness
Not necessarily. Some families and cultures accept more open expression of conflict as part of intimate relationships. The clinical concern is when the pattern causes distress, prevents growth, or negatively impacts other family members (especially children).
Yes, through increased differentiation. When both parties can maintain their own positions without needing the other to agree, and when they develop skills to discuss differences without escalation, the hostile element can decrease while closeness remains.
Close-hostile is a persistent pattern, not occasional disagreement. If conflicts follow predictable cycles, involve the same unresolved issues, and are a defining feature of the relationship, it qualifies as close-hostile. Occasional arguments in an otherwise close relationship wouldn't warrant this symbol.
Use GenogramAI to document close-hostile and other mixed patterns in your family system.
Start Free