compromise and collaboration
this one is for angeliquewisdom and chasewisdom, since it was going to be too long to serve as a comment in their recent posts.
tough lessons learned over many years in relationship counselling are
first things first:
a relationship between intimate partners should NEVER be *about* compromise. compromise is a tool you fall back on only when all else fails.
the reason for this is that "compromise" as a relationship concept is a destructive process - compromise is chipping away at each individual's wants, needs, desires, or expectations until you reach the lowest common denominators from which to negotiate peace with your partner. compromise is all about saying "you can't do something unless i get something". it's a very negative standpoint from which to try to achieve any kind of interpersonal harmony.
you can't *build* with negatives.
one of two things happens in a compromise situation:
in either case, someone gets downplayed so someone else gets emphasized. inother words, *no-one* gets what s/he wants.
now enter the idea of collaboration.
collaboration is a very different way of looking at building a relationship. it's one fo the Five Critical Components of a healthy, *balanced*, supportive relationship that works to positives, not negatives (the other four components are Communication, Compassion, Responsibility, and Availability).
collaboration is a process that, more often than not, looks like this: "what are your needs/wants/desires? how can i best help you achieve those things?"
it's a process in which you use Communication to achieve understanding, or Compassion. as part of that process, there's a degree of vulnerability achieved when you can look at your own skill set honestly, and ask, "what can i do to help my partner achieve those goals that keeps us as equal partners in a positive-growth enterprise? what does s/he need or expect from me that i can offer to meet those goals, without sacrificing my own?"
both partners working to achieve collaboration on the individual needs are a significant part of what make a relationship work as an equilateral structure... bearing in mind that "balance" and "equilateral" do not mean that equality is an all-the-time thing, because sometimes, one person's needs take priority, and sometimes the other person's needs take priority. the objective is that it all evens out over the long run, without leaving behind the feeling that someone always gets his way. THAT situation is on that leads back to the disgruntled mate feeling "entitled" to powertrip and start pulling down the other mate until a state of angry compromise is reached...
see where that cycle leads?
the two major difficulties most relationships have with the principle of collaboration, even in long-term relationships, is two-fold. first, it requires a heightened degree of communications skills - you have to be able to talk and *listen*, to investigate, to understand. communication is most people's downfall in a relationship. secondly, it requires a degree of vulnerability and risk - both parties have to be willing to set aside personal needs (NOT subsume or diminish them, just set them aside and take the ego investment offline long enough to *listen* to someone else) inorder to understand the mate's situation. a lot of people can't or won't take that risk, for fear that their own needs will get ignored. we're very much the "All About Me" culture, and it's a *huge* personal risk to put those needs aside - even in the short term - to see what's required to help a loved one achieve his or her needs.
all this being said, learning the fine art of collaboration - and all the subset interpersonal skills that go with it - is a fine and lofty goal in any relationship. we all suck at it at first, and anyone who tells you differently is lying to himself as much as to the listener - but it's a worthwhile skill set to develop, because it keeps both partners (or all partners, in a poly structure) aware of the balance between the Self needs and the Other needs, in a way that builds the trust and vulnerable openness *without* undermining the relationship with power struggles and fears.
not easy to do.
i've been on that learning curve for the past couple of years myself, with varying degrees of success (i'm currently single, in part because i didn't learn what i needed to know fast enough to suit someone else's needs, and i wasn't willing to subsume my own in the short term to meet his). but i think that Collaboration is a key concept in any relationship, be it an intimate one, a professional one, or a transient one. think in terms of building up and building together, not tearing something down to create a lowest common denominator or balance point. you can't build by tearing down, the two processes are not compatible no matter how you slice it.
i've got a lot of thoughts on this subject based on experience and philosophical readings in the past years. if you've got specific questions, i'd be happy to field them, or direct you to those who can explain things better than i.
tough lessons learned over many years in relationship counselling are
first things first:
a relationship between intimate partners should NEVER be *about* compromise. compromise is a tool you fall back on only when all else fails.
the reason for this is that "compromise" as a relationship concept is a destructive process - compromise is chipping away at each individual's wants, needs, desires, or expectations until you reach the lowest common denominators from which to negotiate peace with your partner. compromise is all about saying "you can't do something unless i get something". it's a very negative standpoint from which to try to achieve any kind of interpersonal harmony.
you can't *build* with negatives.
one of two things happens in a compromise situation:
- one individual assumes his needs are more important than the partner's, and tries to diminish, limit, or control the partner's needs in order to meet his own, first and foremost, or
- one individual assumes her partner's needs are more important than her own, and undermines or subsumes her needs in the belief that she's not as important, or that meeting his needs at the cost of her own is the best way to "not rock the relationship boat"
in either case, someone gets downplayed so someone else gets emphasized. inother words, *no-one* gets what s/he wants.
now enter the idea of collaboration.
collaboration is a very different way of looking at building a relationship. it's one fo the Five Critical Components of a healthy, *balanced*, supportive relationship that works to positives, not negatives (the other four components are Communication, Compassion, Responsibility, and Availability).
collaboration is a process that, more often than not, looks like this: "what are your needs/wants/desires? how can i best help you achieve those things?"
it's a process in which you use Communication to achieve understanding, or Compassion. as part of that process, there's a degree of vulnerability achieved when you can look at your own skill set honestly, and ask, "what can i do to help my partner achieve those goals that keeps us as equal partners in a positive-growth enterprise? what does s/he need or expect from me that i can offer to meet those goals, without sacrificing my own?"
both partners working to achieve collaboration on the individual needs are a significant part of what make a relationship work as an equilateral structure... bearing in mind that "balance" and "equilateral" do not mean that equality is an all-the-time thing, because sometimes, one person's needs take priority, and sometimes the other person's needs take priority. the objective is that it all evens out over the long run, without leaving behind the feeling that someone always gets his way. THAT situation is on that leads back to the disgruntled mate feeling "entitled" to powertrip and start pulling down the other mate until a state of angry compromise is reached...
see where that cycle leads?
the two major difficulties most relationships have with the principle of collaboration, even in long-term relationships, is two-fold. first, it requires a heightened degree of communications skills - you have to be able to talk and *listen*, to investigate, to understand. communication is most people's downfall in a relationship. secondly, it requires a degree of vulnerability and risk - both parties have to be willing to set aside personal needs (NOT subsume or diminish them, just set them aside and take the ego investment offline long enough to *listen* to someone else) inorder to understand the mate's situation. a lot of people can't or won't take that risk, for fear that their own needs will get ignored. we're very much the "All About Me" culture, and it's a *huge* personal risk to put those needs aside - even in the short term - to see what's required to help a loved one achieve his or her needs.
all this being said, learning the fine art of collaboration - and all the subset interpersonal skills that go with it - is a fine and lofty goal in any relationship. we all suck at it at first, and anyone who tells you differently is lying to himself as much as to the listener - but it's a worthwhile skill set to develop, because it keeps both partners (or all partners, in a poly structure) aware of the balance between the Self needs and the Other needs, in a way that builds the trust and vulnerable openness *without* undermining the relationship with power struggles and fears.
not easy to do.
i've been on that learning curve for the past couple of years myself, with varying degrees of success (i'm currently single, in part because i didn't learn what i needed to know fast enough to suit someone else's needs, and i wasn't willing to subsume my own in the short term to meet his). but i think that Collaboration is a key concept in any relationship, be it an intimate one, a professional one, or a transient one. think in terms of building up and building together, not tearing something down to create a lowest common denominator or balance point. you can't build by tearing down, the two processes are not compatible no matter how you slice it.
i've got a lot of thoughts on this subject based on experience and philosophical readings in the past years. if you've got specific questions, i'd be happy to field them, or direct you to those who can explain things better than i.