Because I Said So
It’s inevitable individual differences lead to relationship disagreement.
In most societal interactions, disagreements are resolved by the recognized power in the relationship. Parents make the final call with their children. Bosses have the prerogative with employees. The same between teachers and students, coaches and players, officers and members.
However, romantic relationships aren’t like that. They have no inherent pecking order. If neither partner has greater authority, we claim we’re entitled to our preference. We claim we should get our way, even without our partner’s buy in, because our justification has greater weight and relevance.
Entitlement is a natural expression of fundamental drives. We not only know in our gut what to do, we believe we’re upholding time honored standards of conduct. These include reciprocity, we’re owed in return for our effort, propriety, our way adheres to social norms and efficiency, our way is effective. We’re convinced what we prefer is indisputably correct. Something we want morphs into something we have a right to. We’re entitled.
Therein lies the relationship rub. When stressed or anxious, our mind prioritizes our perspective. But in asserting our position is warranted, we invalidate our partner’s experience and undermine the very thing we most desire, a respectful, loving bond.
In contemporary relationships, reciprocity is a cornerstone of closeness. It can also be the cause of strain, depending on how it’s used. When invoked as an entitlement, it’s troublesome. That happens when we believe we’ve given more than our spouse and then pronounce this disparity to indebt them to comply with our wishes.
Turning to our spouse when we feel anxious or stressed is foundational for relationships, but it too, can become thorny if enacted as an entitlement. We state the case when we declare our feelings have top priority.
While adherence to cultural guidelines is a natural drive, it can aggravate conflict when presented as an entitlement. We fall into that trap when we allege conventional norms are the final arbiter. That social expectations trump all, what’s so very important to each spouse gets ignored. Frankly, we selectively use the rationale when it suits us, no one obeys every mainstream standard.
Marriage is a two person team striving to stay on top of the demands of a family and household. It makes sense to have a spouse take the lead in things they have more relevant knowledge and skill. But there needs to be agreement about this. Declaring the right to assume command because we know what’s best is merely a self serving strategy.
Don’t misunderstand personal preferences. Desires are important and fulfilling them is how we naturally ease distress and gain pleasure. However wanting our way is not the same as being entitled. We may feel a strong imperative how something should go, we must ensure our spouse has equal input. If we impose our position, we deny the legitimacy of our partner’s experience and encroach upon their autonomy.
This is the crucial distinction between entitlements and agreements. Entitlements are unilateral. We award them to ourselves. By contrast, agreements are jointly consented, arrived at together.
In mutually valuing what both partners want, trust and security take root. Control is replaced with consideration. Self focused responding is transformed into caring for one another.
Regrettably our society’s mixed messages on the subject offer little relief. Capitalism reveres self interest the ticket to success. Feminist philosophy exalts self assertion. But when our gratification is elevated above our partner’s, the lifeblood of the shared union gets drained.
Russell B. Lemle, Ph.D.
in From Me-First to We-First
Psychology Today
No comments:
Post a Comment