Saturday, September 16, 2006
Theory #30: Relationships: Compromise
We had a discussion on an email list a few days ago about what makes a relationship successful, and one of the factors mentioned was compromise.
...more
In previous discussions, "compromise" has gotten a bad name. It seems that a lot of people who are either single or in unhappy relationships view compromise as never getting what you want/need, that even if it is mutual, it means that whenever you really want something, you're going to have to settle for only part of it.
Maybe it's just semantics, or a skewed view of relationships, and I think it's true that people in relationships do need to learn to really compromise rather than having a continual battle with a winner and a loser. However, there are still some who view even true compromise as losing. As if giving in even a little is relinquishing part of their independence and personhood.
I'm not going to go into the psychological implications--I'm not qualified, nor do I want to explore it that deeply. I am well aware that it's not a simple, one-solution problem. However, one thing seems to stand out to me, and it's about how people look at things.
For example, last weekend, Carl wanted to go out and I wanted to stay home. We compromised by having one of our wine & cheese evenings upstairs. This weekend, we're going out. It wasn't an all-or-nothing decision. We've been together long enough to know that it will balance in the long run.
But that takes time and practice. Particularly in a new relationship, or one that's having other problems, even compromising on what to do on the weekend becomes a power struggle. Part of adjusting to a new relationship is finding the balance between your old single self and the new self that's part of a couple. Compromise takes on the meaning of giving up your single self, and it's only natural to rebel against that.
In that case, don't consider it compromise. Instead, consider it as a choice, an alternative, as wanting the relationship more than you want your life to go on exactly as it was before.
Looking at it logically, ask yourself if you really want to be in the relationship. If you do, then you really can't expect your life to be identical to what it was when you were single, with just the addition of regular sex. That's not going to happen, unless your relationship is with a blow-up doll. If you want a relationship with a real person, an individual with their own wants and needs, your life is going to change. And you're going to have to do things to make it work.
So when a conflict comes up, you have to decide if this is the one where you draw the line in the sand, or if you can give a little.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
...more
In previous discussions, "compromise" has gotten a bad name. It seems that a lot of people who are either single or in unhappy relationships view compromise as never getting what you want/need, that even if it is mutual, it means that whenever you really want something, you're going to have to settle for only part of it.
Maybe it's just semantics, or a skewed view of relationships, and I think it's true that people in relationships do need to learn to really compromise rather than having a continual battle with a winner and a loser. However, there are still some who view even true compromise as losing. As if giving in even a little is relinquishing part of their independence and personhood.
I'm not going to go into the psychological implications--I'm not qualified, nor do I want to explore it that deeply. I am well aware that it's not a simple, one-solution problem. However, one thing seems to stand out to me, and it's about how people look at things.
For example, last weekend, Carl wanted to go out and I wanted to stay home. We compromised by having one of our wine & cheese evenings upstairs. This weekend, we're going out. It wasn't an all-or-nothing decision. We've been together long enough to know that it will balance in the long run.
But that takes time and practice. Particularly in a new relationship, or one that's having other problems, even compromising on what to do on the weekend becomes a power struggle. Part of adjusting to a new relationship is finding the balance between your old single self and the new self that's part of a couple. Compromise takes on the meaning of giving up your single self, and it's only natural to rebel against that.
In that case, don't consider it compromise. Instead, consider it as a choice, an alternative, as wanting the relationship more than you want your life to go on exactly as it was before.
Looking at it logically, ask yourself if you really want to be in the relationship. If you do, then you really can't expect your life to be identical to what it was when you were single, with just the addition of regular sex. That's not going to happen, unless your relationship is with a blow-up doll. If you want a relationship with a real person, an individual with their own wants and needs, your life is going to change. And you're going to have to do things to make it work.
So when a conflict comes up, you have to decide if this is the one where you draw the line in the sand, or if you can give a little.
Categories: Theories, Relationships
Labels: relationships, theories
Comments:
<< Home
With parenting, people often say you have to 'choose your battles', because if you try to get your own way on everything, you'll spend most of your time fighting with your child or otherwise making a huge effort to discipline them into conformity with your wishes. Obviously a relationship with an adult isn't the same, and if you're lucky there won't be temper tantrums (or not very often ;-)), but as you say, Darla, you can't expect someone to agree with you all the time unless they're a toy. So you do have to accept that things won't always be done the way you want them all of the time. If one half of the couple wants to go out, and one wants to stay in there are a variety of options - you could both stay in, you could both go out (and you could agree on future dates for outings/stayings in), or you could do separate things for the evening - one going out and one staying in.
I suppose I wouldn't call this 'compromise': I'd think of it as 'exercising diplomacy' and 'negotiating in order to reach a solution that's acceptable to both parties'. That sort of terminology means that both parties retain their sovereignty, neither lose face, and the international treaties remain unbroken.
And I blame that extended metaphor on (a) the references to 'battle' and 'conflicts' in the OP, and (b) the fact that as I type there's the cover of Improper English clearly visible, with a UK flag on it.
Post a Comment
I suppose I wouldn't call this 'compromise': I'd think of it as 'exercising diplomacy' and 'negotiating in order to reach a solution that's acceptable to both parties'. That sort of terminology means that both parties retain their sovereignty, neither lose face, and the international treaties remain unbroken.
And I blame that extended metaphor on (a) the references to 'battle' and 'conflicts' in the OP, and (b) the fact that as I type there's the cover of Improper English clearly visible, with a UK flag on it.
# posted by 
: 9/17/2006 1:00 PM
: 9/17/2006 1:00 PM << Home
