it's kind of like entitlement, in its own way
this concept came up for me again recently in two unrelated-to-each-other and unrelated-to-me contexts, which has become a kind of "no-really-i-don't-make-this-shite-up" benchmark for me. and when it shows up in both school textbooks and as a subplot on QAF, i know we've hit the big time.
it's the idea that a lot of people seem to assume, that just because they didn't get their own way or what they wanted in a particular situation, therefore obviously the other party or parties involved *clearly* couldn't have taken them or their needs into consideration. as matthew and i have dealt with this very issue ourselves on occasion over the years, and as i have grappled with myself in my own therapy and now therapy education: it's frequently the case that people will take the needs of others into consideration, evaluating the outcomes and implications (risk and impact, cost analysis) of subsequent actions, and still put addressing their own needs above addressing those of another. the fact that there is a relationship does not guarantee entitlement to having another person put your needs above their own in a situation that may be an explicit drive to have their specific needs met.
in short: "Meeting your needs is not always going to be more important to me than meeting my own, even after consideration."
gloria taught me that there's no such thing as a "shortest distance between two points" when those two points are Unmet Needs in one corner and Met Needs in the other. given the vagaries of each individual needs set and the equal vagaries defining the relationship between those individuals, people will resort to whatever tools come to hand to move from Unmet to Met, sometimes effectively and sometimes not. nor is "effectiveness" measured by any one set of standards, but rather by a complex algorithm of values that varies, again, from person to person and relationship to relationship. ergo, one person's "effective" means of moving from Unmet to Met is likely to be another person's Catastrophic Fiasco no matter how you chart the course. a big part of the reason that relationships seek therapy is because of variances in effectiveness of those means of moving from Unmet to Met, and the aforementioned assumption: "I didn't get what i want, so *clearly* you aren't thinking of me/don't value me."
i've learned the hard way what it's like to be on the receiving end of that kind of process, and i know what it's like to be on the end explaining that, "yes, i did take you into consideration before i acted; here are the things i considered and/or presumed, here's what i expected it would feel like, and yes, i did what i did anyway because i perceived [action] to be the best tool i had at the time for achieving my needs, which in this situation was more important to me than meeting yours." i would have to say, some of the hardest relationship discussions i've had have been rooted in one side or the other having to come to terms with the fact that, just because their needs are taken into consideration, that consideration isn't sufficient to *entitle* them to always get what *they* want in any particular situation. it's a hard lesson, and it's a particularly sucky one to be on the receiving end in times of crisis, but therapists will tell you, the best you can do is give someone the data they need about you to make informed decisions, and let them make those decisions with the understanding that they are individuals too, with their own needs and perspectives and agendas, some of which will sometimes take priority over yours.
gloria also taught me (and this was perhaps the harder part of the lesson to internalize, and something i struggle with on both sides of the equation) that being taken into consideration and NOT getting your own way, while hard, is also not a guaranteed sign of disrespect or malice. again, we assume that if Person A treats us in a manner we perceive as "poorly" or "ineffectively" by not meeting our explicitly- or implicitly-stated needs, then obviously Person A intends malice towards our person. we feel entitled to be treated [insert adjective here], dammnit, and we aren't, so therefore Person A must hate us/dislike us/disrespect us/be an arsehat/[fill in your own pejorative here]. and that's just patently untrue, in a lot of cases. whenever you have two unique and individuated people in a relationship (regardless of whether this is your soul-mate or the lady scanning your groceries), you have two distinct sets of values and priorities present in the encounter. sometimes these will be in balance, and sometimes they won't. there is no one right way or wrong way to achieve or restore balance; there is, at best, only what works for *that relationship*, in *that encounter* (which is why relationships often come back to counselling to tweak tools that worked for previous situations but don't seem to be so effective in current ones).
and that's almost always going to come down to finding a way to manage the needs-in-crisis first (moving them from Unmet to Met somehow), and hoping or trusting that your needs are at least taken into consideration even when it looks like maybe they're not in the short term because you're not getting what *you* want out of the particular situation. odds are very good that your needs going unmet is less the result of malice, and more the result of that temporary crisis imbalance that puts your needs at a lower level than someone else's, even after due diligence and consideration. it's how balance is restored, within the individual or in a manner appropriate to the type of relationship, that indicates best how encounters between the individuals will continue into the future.
it's the idea that a lot of people seem to assume, that just because they didn't get their own way or what they wanted in a particular situation, therefore obviously the other party or parties involved *clearly* couldn't have taken them or their needs into consideration. as matthew and i have dealt with this very issue ourselves on occasion over the years, and as i have grappled with myself in my own therapy and now therapy education: it's frequently the case that people will take the needs of others into consideration, evaluating the outcomes and implications (risk and impact, cost analysis) of subsequent actions, and still put addressing their own needs above addressing those of another. the fact that there is a relationship does not guarantee entitlement to having another person put your needs above their own in a situation that may be an explicit drive to have their specific needs met.
in short: "Meeting your needs is not always going to be more important to me than meeting my own, even after consideration."
gloria taught me that there's no such thing as a "shortest distance between two points" when those two points are Unmet Needs in one corner and Met Needs in the other. given the vagaries of each individual needs set and the equal vagaries defining the relationship between those individuals, people will resort to whatever tools come to hand to move from Unmet to Met, sometimes effectively and sometimes not. nor is "effectiveness" measured by any one set of standards, but rather by a complex algorithm of values that varies, again, from person to person and relationship to relationship. ergo, one person's "effective" means of moving from Unmet to Met is likely to be another person's Catastrophic Fiasco no matter how you chart the course. a big part of the reason that relationships seek therapy is because of variances in effectiveness of those means of moving from Unmet to Met, and the aforementioned assumption: "I didn't get what i want, so *clearly* you aren't thinking of me/don't value me."
i've learned the hard way what it's like to be on the receiving end of that kind of process, and i know what it's like to be on the end explaining that, "yes, i did take you into consideration before i acted; here are the things i considered and/or presumed, here's what i expected it would feel like, and yes, i did what i did anyway because i perceived [action] to be the best tool i had at the time for achieving my needs, which in this situation was more important to me than meeting yours." i would have to say, some of the hardest relationship discussions i've had have been rooted in one side or the other having to come to terms with the fact that, just because their needs are taken into consideration, that consideration isn't sufficient to *entitle* them to always get what *they* want in any particular situation. it's a hard lesson, and it's a particularly sucky one to be on the receiving end in times of crisis, but therapists will tell you, the best you can do is give someone the data they need about you to make informed decisions, and let them make those decisions with the understanding that they are individuals too, with their own needs and perspectives and agendas, some of which will sometimes take priority over yours.
gloria also taught me (and this was perhaps the harder part of the lesson to internalize, and something i struggle with on both sides of the equation) that being taken into consideration and NOT getting your own way, while hard, is also not a guaranteed sign of disrespect or malice. again, we assume that if Person A treats us in a manner we perceive as "poorly" or "ineffectively" by not meeting our explicitly- or implicitly-stated needs, then obviously Person A intends malice towards our person. we feel entitled to be treated [insert adjective here], dammnit, and we aren't, so therefore Person A must hate us/dislike us/disrespect us/be an arsehat/[fill in your own pejorative here]. and that's just patently untrue, in a lot of cases. whenever you have two unique and individuated people in a relationship (regardless of whether this is your soul-mate or the lady scanning your groceries), you have two distinct sets of values and priorities present in the encounter. sometimes these will be in balance, and sometimes they won't. there is no one right way or wrong way to achieve or restore balance; there is, at best, only what works for *that relationship*, in *that encounter* (which is why relationships often come back to counselling to tweak tools that worked for previous situations but don't seem to be so effective in current ones).
and that's almost always going to come down to finding a way to manage the needs-in-crisis first (moving them from Unmet to Met somehow), and hoping or trusting that your needs are at least taken into consideration even when it looks like maybe they're not in the short term because you're not getting what *you* want out of the particular situation. odds are very good that your needs going unmet is less the result of malice, and more the result of that temporary crisis imbalance that puts your needs at a lower level than someone else's, even after due diligence and consideration. it's how balance is restored, within the individual or in a manner appropriate to the type of relationship, that indicates best how encounters between the individuals will continue into the future.