ITK

[j4]

I don't need to know, but I'm interested to know:

What (if anything) do people regard as essential for a successful relationship?

(I'm thinking more in the general sense than the personal -- I'm not really interested to know whether individual people couldn't possibly have a relationship with somebody who worked for Microsoft, or whether they need somebody who will accept and indulge their Swarfega fetish.)

Or do you think relationships are so individual that they're impossible to generalise about?

(20 marks.)

Further questions:

Do you think there's a (moral?) judgement implicit in a suggestion that anything is "essential" for a successful relationship? By stating the question in those terms, are we imposing our own definition of "success" on other people? (I'm assuming a broad context of Western culture; at the moment I'm not really interested in hearing, say, how the Mgosh tribe regard a "successful" relationship as one where the female bears twenty children and then eats her mate.) Or do questions like this merely make us disappear rapidly up our own solipsistic arses?

(40 marks.)

Note: You may define "relationship" as broadly as you wish, but please make your working definition explicit. Do not attempt to write on both sides of the paper at once.

Comments

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

Somewhat meta, this one: I think it's essential that at least one of the parties involved believe that the relationship is successful.

Re:

[j4.livejournal.com]

at least one

Not all? (This is not a disagreement, just a request for clarification.)

[bjh21.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about "all". "At least one" was as far as I felt I could go without starting to impose a value judgment about what constituted "success". On the other hand, I have a suspicion that without going to "all", I've just produced a fairly uninteresting tautology.

The problem with "universal" is that it's just so big, and I'm trying to cover things like business and family relationships as well as romantic and sexual ones. Even so, I'm having difficulty coming up with scenarios where "all" isn't necessary. Perhaps the relationship between a robber and their victim might qualify, but I'm really stretching "relationship" there.

Actually, I'm not sure my condition works in the presence of time. Indeed, time makes the notion of "success" a bit trickier to grasp. Can something be successful now, but not later, or does its later failure mean it was never successful, or is a momentary success enough to brand something "successful" for all time? I think I'm skating dangerously close to solipsistic-arseness here.

Re:

[j4.livejournal.com]

Can something be successful now, but not later, or does its later failure mean it was never successful, or is a momentary success enough to brand something "successful" for all time?

Interesting point...

I wouldn't want to assume that a relationship has to last forever to be "successful". I suppose, really, this is a bit of a recursive thing as it comes back to whether the people involved think the relationship is/was "successful".

Also, to some extent "success" depends on what one's goals are...

[kake]

> I wouldn't want to assume that a relationship has to last forever to be "successful".

The relationship I had with Paul was successful. It didn't last very long considered in the context of my other relationships - about a year, I think, if that.

It made us both happy, it made us closer friends, it taught us each something about ourselves. Yes, I went into it expecting it to last, but while it lasted and when it ended it was the right thing for both of us. That's not failure in my book.

Re:

[j4.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a success to me too. :)