am i the only one who's traded in an altar for a stage?
This is a difficult question to answer, mainly because of the sheer scope of interactions that come under the umbrella of the word “relationship”. Having said that, I believe that relationships are defined by the root of their names. The term that society has coined for inactive interactions is “acquaintanceship”. In order to take part in a relationship, one must actively relate to another person, find common ground, and build on it to form the rapport that is the starting point of a healthy relationship. However, a rapport cannot be the sole grounds of any relationship; once a rapport has been established, it is used to actively learn more about another person and to relate to that person more about oneself. True relationships thrive on the open and frequent communication of personal information between one another.
I agree with Erikson’s statement that we are not mature of capable love until we have sufficient confidence in our own egos to safely engage in an intimate relationship without fear of identity loss. I am at an age where many of my friends are in serious relationships, are engaged or have recently gotten married. Looking at those who are still unattached, I find that many (though not all) I would not consider as having a secure personal identity; they are still in the process of finding out who they are as a person. On the flip side of the coin, many of my romantically committed friends (albeit again, not all) have a strong sense of personal identity that is separate from their identity within their relationship. I can certainly understand from a theoretical point of view the practicality of Erikson’s theorem; how can one maintain a healthy relationship blending so much of two people’s lives together when one has really no idea how much of that relational identity reflects one’s own desires?
The social equity theory - that part of a couple’s happiness depends on their perception of equal contributions for equal costs and rewards - is a natural continuation of the Erikson theorem. If two partners are secure enough in their identities to pursue a mature love relationship, then they will be secure enough within themselves to allow for the concept of fairness. One rather cliché example of this is the typical complaint of every wife and mother: “I come home from work and cook and clean and care for six people while my husband sits on the couch watching the football game”. Part of any healthy relationship is an acceptable division of costs, both financial and those of time and effort.
In order for a relationship to be sustained, it must contain an acceptable blend of commitment, intimacy and passion. Two out of three creates an unbalance that leads to companionate love (friendship), infatuation or simple romantic love that lacks commitment. The ideal sustained relationship is consummate love, which involves all three elements; only consummate love will truly last “until death do us part”. Romantic love fades and infatuation is shockingly temporary, while friendship does not have the passion necessary to fuel a marriage. However, when combined they are a force to be reckoned with even in the face of such impediments as financial hardship, personal loss and infidelity. I once read an interesting poem by Kenneth Koch; the basic point was that of a job, love and social life, in order to be successful at any of them you could only have two of the three. I have found this bit of folk wisdom to be borne out by personal experience, and although there are other destructive forces that weigh on relationships such as abuse, children, and personal hardship, it is the cramming of too much stuff into our everyday lives that causes most relationships to disintegrate. Most relationships don’t lose their zing because of something dramatic; usually it’s something small like staying an extra half hour at the office each day or going out with a different set of friends every night, that causes the friction that breakups are made of.