Someone I know very nearly bought a house he knew wasn’t right for him because he was gripped by the feeling that he’d be letting down the vendors, somehow breaching the ethics of relationship, despite barely knowing them. I had to talk him out of it by emphasising that he was in a transaction not a relationship. Your post speaks to this…Of course transaction and relationship intertwine, and as they do so, then ethical questions and challenges do arise. But I think they don’t when there is a) no harm being done to anyone and b) there is no prospect of continuing interaction, which of course requires the fostering and boundary-setting of relationship.
In the Christian life we can feel that imitation of Christ - an impossible demand, while also a necessary one - means extending care and love of neighbour to everyone all the time. But we can’t. God can, but not us. We are embodied creatures with limits of physicality and energy and capability. Not every situation can be met with the same commitment of care, and trying to do so will deplete us. We have to be able to discern ethical demand from ordinary (but humanly responsible) transaction. That may not be easy - I speak as a non-expert! - and will always be work-in-progress. But we can’t make the exhaustive effort to be Christlike if we are already exhausted by trying to relate when all we need to do is transact (nicely).
I think that as Christians the weight of expectation we place on the ideal of relationships and community is often more than they can bear. I've lived in intentional community in the past, and while there are many wonderful things about it (and I'd do it again), something I saw very quickly was how often we all project our desires for affirmation, security, and control onto our relationships and communities, and how much it is amplified in communal living. I've seen many communities and group projects fail over this kind of thing.
I love that Venn diagram, because I think it's so helpful to understand that not all relationships need to be invested with a great deal of energy and expectation. In fact, if you accept the idea of Dunbar's number— that as primates our brains have evolved to sustain a max of 150-250 social connections, it's probably unwise to try.
Elizabeth I loved this piece - especially the tendency to establish I - Thou relationships inappropriately! In my business, psychotherapy, we would conceptualize this as a characteristic of someone with poor boundaries, probably as a result of a developmental disruption of secure attachment. Psychodynamic and relational psychotherapy would prescribe reflecting on what went wrong in your attachment history to create this dynamic of over-empathizing and over-responsibility taking, as well as forging, in current relationships, a more adaptive behavior.
However, I am not sure attachment history is worth all this investigation. I think some people are just like this - we go out into the world with our wide open hearts always at risk not because we were conditioned to do it, but because it feels right. The trick is to have a refuge, a place of connection and encouragement, a place of recovery, to come back to when your heart has been at risk. This is, in fact, an I-Thou relationship with yourself that is side by side with the reflection that your community provides for you of your abiding connection. (So, attachment does matter!) Some people are lucky to find this refuge when they are children and recover better from diffuse boundaries, I think, but even those who do have a refuge repeat this pattern. Some of us are trying to cure this, whole theories and businesses are built around it. My theory is not to pathologize it as my work so often does!
So interesting Rebecca. I think in my case it’s more an out working of my theology plus extraversion plus nosiness that sometimes goes into overdrive, because I’m grateful to have a pretty secure attachment style. And yes, our community and my faith mean I have a sturdy “home base”. It’s lovely to be in conversation with you on here.
Elizabeth, your reflection on times when transactional relationships are appropriate makes a lot of sense. In our marriage, my husband is good at telling when to consider price over personality, and I'm the relational one who likes to reward friendliness. I was struck, too, by the idea that the things we hold sacred could have a shadow side, because this extends to many things beyond relationships. I think we can all get seduced into believing that our most cherished values will never fail us when, in fact, we have simply not yet faced the situation in which they do.
I am sitting in a very pretty church waiting for a concert to begin, and still thinking about this wonderful piece. Is there such a thing as being in an I-thou relationship with oneself? As a precursor to forming those relationships with other humans?
Yes, really interesting. I think The Relationships Project are exploring setting up sector specific hubs for people who want to work to make Relationships Centred Practice mainstream in their area. Might be worth getting in touch with them
It might be a cliche to say it, but isn't it simply a question of balance and not a binary? People, in whatever context, deserve to be treated decently, fairly and with kindness. That doesn't mean you are having one sort of relationship or another. It's a balancing act, a language that we 'speak' to each other more or less instinctively. Things get complicated because we are all a bit damaged, to a greater or lesser extent, and so project into and onto other people in all manner of situations.
(This piece almost made me glad I don't own property!)
"maybe I didn’t need an I-thou relationship with our friends estate agent on top of everything else"
ROARED with laughter! My lands, that is rich and diagnostic.
And this: "Writing this has made me realise all the things we hold sacred probably have a shadow side" - BAM.
Briliant.
What a tremendous post, Elizabeth! Thank you.
Someone I know very nearly bought a house he knew wasn’t right for him because he was gripped by the feeling that he’d be letting down the vendors, somehow breaching the ethics of relationship, despite barely knowing them. I had to talk him out of it by emphasising that he was in a transaction not a relationship. Your post speaks to this…Of course transaction and relationship intertwine, and as they do so, then ethical questions and challenges do arise. But I think they don’t when there is a) no harm being done to anyone and b) there is no prospect of continuing interaction, which of course requires the fostering and boundary-setting of relationship.
In the Christian life we can feel that imitation of Christ - an impossible demand, while also a necessary one - means extending care and love of neighbour to everyone all the time. But we can’t. God can, but not us. We are embodied creatures with limits of physicality and energy and capability. Not every situation can be met with the same commitment of care, and trying to do so will deplete us. We have to be able to discern ethical demand from ordinary (but humanly responsible) transaction. That may not be easy - I speak as a non-expert! - and will always be work-in-progress. But we can’t make the exhaustive effort to be Christlike if we are already exhausted by trying to relate when all we need to do is transact (nicely).
I think that as Christians the weight of expectation we place on the ideal of relationships and community is often more than they can bear. I've lived in intentional community in the past, and while there are many wonderful things about it (and I'd do it again), something I saw very quickly was how often we all project our desires for affirmation, security, and control onto our relationships and communities, and how much it is amplified in communal living. I've seen many communities and group projects fail over this kind of thing.
I love that Venn diagram, because I think it's so helpful to understand that not all relationships need to be invested with a great deal of energy and expectation. In fact, if you accept the idea of Dunbar's number— that as primates our brains have evolved to sustain a max of 150-250 social connections, it's probably unwise to try.
Elizabeth I loved this piece - especially the tendency to establish I - Thou relationships inappropriately! In my business, psychotherapy, we would conceptualize this as a characteristic of someone with poor boundaries, probably as a result of a developmental disruption of secure attachment. Psychodynamic and relational psychotherapy would prescribe reflecting on what went wrong in your attachment history to create this dynamic of over-empathizing and over-responsibility taking, as well as forging, in current relationships, a more adaptive behavior.
However, I am not sure attachment history is worth all this investigation. I think some people are just like this - we go out into the world with our wide open hearts always at risk not because we were conditioned to do it, but because it feels right. The trick is to have a refuge, a place of connection and encouragement, a place of recovery, to come back to when your heart has been at risk. This is, in fact, an I-Thou relationship with yourself that is side by side with the reflection that your community provides for you of your abiding connection. (So, attachment does matter!) Some people are lucky to find this refuge when they are children and recover better from diffuse boundaries, I think, but even those who do have a refuge repeat this pattern. Some of us are trying to cure this, whole theories and businesses are built around it. My theory is not to pathologize it as my work so often does!
So interesting Rebecca. I think in my case it’s more an out working of my theology plus extraversion plus nosiness that sometimes goes into overdrive, because I’m grateful to have a pretty secure attachment style. And yes, our community and my faith mean I have a sturdy “home base”. It’s lovely to be in conversation with you on here.
Elizabeth, your reflection on times when transactional relationships are appropriate makes a lot of sense. In our marriage, my husband is good at telling when to consider price over personality, and I'm the relational one who likes to reward friendliness. I was struck, too, by the idea that the things we hold sacred could have a shadow side, because this extends to many things beyond relationships. I think we can all get seduced into believing that our most cherished values will never fail us when, in fact, we have simply not yet faced the situation in which they do.
I am sitting in a very pretty church waiting for a concert to begin, and still thinking about this wonderful piece. Is there such a thing as being in an I-thou relationship with oneself? As a precursor to forming those relationships with other humans?
Oooh
Thank you for lots of insights and much wisdom. This an essay published in 2020 about the impact of COVID on general practice and Primary Care. I wish I had had your materials to reference! https://wihsc.southwales.ac.uk/documents/3416/With_2020_Vision_-_COVID-19_and_primary_care.pdf
Yes, really interesting. I think The Relationships Project are exploring setting up sector specific hubs for people who want to work to make Relationships Centred Practice mainstream in their area. Might be worth getting in touch with them
It might be a cliche to say it, but isn't it simply a question of balance and not a binary? People, in whatever context, deserve to be treated decently, fairly and with kindness. That doesn't mean you are having one sort of relationship or another. It's a balancing act, a language that we 'speak' to each other more or less instinctively. Things get complicated because we are all a bit damaged, to a greater or lesser extent, and so project into and onto other people in all manner of situations.
(This piece almost made me glad I don't own property!)