thinking too much on relationships, connection, and "kinship"

[adrienmundi]

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.

Comments

[arcticturtle.livejournal.com]

The lowest-common-denominator thing is counterbalanced, in non-kinship relations, by the enormous number of potential relationships; you can simply select friends who match your committment. Kinship relations are pre-selected for you, though. Darn.

I think the idea of family primacy is pretty new; I'm not sure exactly how it developed. I know that pre-modern literature commonly depicted the fiercest loyalty and deepest attachments in friendship in a way that you don't see much now. Blood is thicker than water only because we thickened it sometime in the last couple centuries.

[adrienmundi]

Counterbalanced, theoretically, assuming that parity is what is sought by all parties. I can see a case where disparity could be sought out, particularly by those who might want more than they are willing to give. But that's all theoretical; practically, there aren't a limitless number of potential relationships to be investigated or sought out.

And I guess I should have overtly said that I was talking about "right now*". I suspect it was the concept of land ownership and inheritance that made family primary, even though I desperately want to blame the Victorians (I want to blame them for all sorts of social wrongs).


*+/- some years

[arcticturtle.livejournal.com]

No, I'm thinking that the friendship-focused literature goes all the way from the Epic of Gilgamesh through Shakespeare, spanning the introduction and hardening of private property law without breaking stride. It's later than that. So go on! Blame the Victorians, stupid know-it-alls with all their tidy little fresh-minted myths and their arrogant dismissal of practically all inherited wisdom!

[adrienmundi]

I guess I get caught up in history, with the clan/family wars and feuds and such that seem to seriously predate Shakespeare (though their literature may not have reflected the social reality, a point I'm willing to grant. I mean, just look at contemporary romance novels!). I wonder if what made friend-love so fiction worthy was because it was exceptional?

loyalty

[fourounces.livejournal.com]

I think the alienation and superficiality that is characteristic of friendship as contrasted with family (by which most people would include one's spouse or SO) in our society undoubtedly has its roots in the social relations of production of capitalism on a large scale. That observation seems rather banal to me, but then I tend to see every sociological issue through my Marxian prism...

Like you I'm also frustrated with the lack of commitment people have to their friends, and with how society structures our senses of loyalty and love to fit neatly into these suburban plats accessible only by car, mail and phone. Friends can occupy the level of buyers or sellers in such a society, and the phenomenon of "working your contacts" for gain becomes an expectation rather than an offense to the friendship relation. So yeah you're right, one can always refuse to buy or sell, and nothing apparently follows. There's always another seller/buyer out there with a better product. Ugh.

I see many needy trans-people who are cut off from family, and they seem to me to suffer quite a lot from the modern devaluation of friendship and community. If you don't structure your love-relations as society requires, then you will have none. I fear it, I know.