The fundamental math of relationships seems to be that it always defaults to the lowest common denominator; any given participant retains veto power at all times. They seem, from that perspective, fundamentally imbalanced (unless all parties explicitly agree to terms and conditions on the outset, and then work diligently and evenly to maintain them). Ideally, of course, all parties would come to a level of comfort in which they could all look at the contributions they were willing/felt obligated to make, the contributions of the other(s), and make a peace with that, find it acceptable. Conflict seems to arise, though, when expectations and willingness to contribute do not match, when it seems unacceptable. I guess that's almost always a decision that has to be made; is it sufficiently unacceptable to excercise the veto option, or is it worth trying to communicate and renegotiate?
I'll take renegotiation as a point to move on to "kinship"* and how it plays out socially and culturally. Between family and romatic pairings, it looks to me like that's expected to fulfill the primary social needs of most people, or at least, it appears to be the social expectation that it do so. Oftentimes it seems to me that this expectation is so pronounced that it takes up residence in the subconscious expectations of people, potentially to the exclusion of other relationships (I know it had done so in me at one time, at least on the romantic pairing side; family hasn't meant much to me for a long time). The problem isn't that I'm against "family" or the primacy of romantic relationships, but that the unexamined expectation that they be the end all, in combination. To step outside of that construction seems to take a conscious, agreed upon buy in by all parties that more often than not seems to exceed the levels of comfort of most people. Whether this is a reflection of social and cultural force, or a case of needs being met by this construction set, I honestly can't say. I can say that in my own case, it was the former, and assuredly not the latter; it's probably a reflection of both my own vanity and arrogance to assume that's probably true for others, as well.
Lots of unfinished thoughts: this is a quick sketch of what's going on in my head right now. Comments are welcome, more so than usual; I could use the kick into another train of thought
*yeah, reading Butler... again. More on my issues with her later.
I'll take renegotiation as a point to move on to "kinship"* and how it plays out socially and culturally. Between family and romatic pairings, it looks to me like that's expected to fulfill the primary social needs of most people, or at least, it appears to be the social expectation that it do so. Oftentimes it seems to me that this expectation is so pronounced that it takes up residence in the subconscious expectations of people, potentially to the exclusion of other relationships (I know it had done so in me at one time, at least on the romantic pairing side; family hasn't meant much to me for a long time). The problem isn't that I'm against "family" or the primacy of romantic relationships, but that the unexamined expectation that they be the end all, in combination. To step outside of that construction seems to take a conscious, agreed upon buy in by all parties that more often than not seems to exceed the levels of comfort of most people. Whether this is a reflection of social and cultural force, or a case of needs being met by this construction set, I honestly can't say. I can say that in my own case, it was the former, and assuredly not the latter; it's probably a reflection of both my own vanity and arrogance to assume that's probably true for others, as well.
Lots of unfinished thoughts: this is a quick sketch of what's going on in my head right now. Comments are welcome, more so than usual; I could use the kick into another train of thought
*yeah, reading Butler... again. More on my issues with her later.