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

Re: success, morals, etc

[j4.livejournal.com]

we all end up privileging different parts of our own characters at different times, and by thus privileging them indicate that those aspects are what we apparently want others to respect about us at that given time.

Hmmm... I'm not sure that what I privilege in my own character is what I want others to respect about me. I'm not quite sure why I'm not sure about that, but something about it makes me uneasy. Maybe it's the wanting-others-to-respect coming into conflict with trying-not-to-want-to-be-liked-too-much, if you see what I mean (very garbled explanation, sorry!). Need to think about that.

but it all starts with respect for self and for others

I'm interested to see that you put it that way round. (Not arguing with it; just interested.)

Re: different ways round

[vinaigrettegirl.livejournal.com]

Respect for self comes first for lots of reasons. One is pragmatic (it's my job, my responsibility, to define myself so other people can know where I stand and decide for themselves what they want to do with or about me) but also moral: being untruthful to oneself is disrespectful both to the self and to others, to others particularly because it presupposes that they cannot or should not be empowered to make a clear choice about me.

There is the theoretical: if I don't respect myself who will do that for me?

Additionally, though, I cannot respect someone else if I don't know, internally, what respect feels like.

(I am leaving my God-bothering habits out of this, you'll be happy to know!)

Trying-not-to-want-to-be-liked-too-much versus wanting-others-to-respect is certainly a tough and daily struggle for lots of us. However, it is all about responsibly accepting consequences, which means thinking through one's actions, setting the consequences against one's own internal checklist ("Things Up With Which I Will Not Put", "Things I Can Forgive Myself and Others For", "Things Which Will Rain S*** Upon My Head In Years To Come", "Things Which Are Worth Doing", and so on, for example) and acting accordingly.

If you consistently privilege parts of your character which you really, actually do think are most important to your self-respect you will find yourself having a core group of people who know you as a whole person. Others will distance themselves more or less: if you aren't happy with their choices then you can examine why that is the case and if they have a point you have the ability to make amends, to re-think, and move forward.

Does that make the order of respect (self, then others) seem tenable?