Relationship Futures?

[dagibbs]

"Does the relationship have a future?" is a very interesting question. It comes with a whole whackload of assumptions about what "a future" for a relationship should be. Moving in together, getting married, having kids, etc. Progress, growth.

Our culture doesn't value stability, steady-state. It is either growing or stagnating. The whole idea of "progress". Is the economy growing? Does this thesis make a significant contribution to the growth of human knowledge? Does that company have a growth plan. We have a very strong cultural bias that if something isn't growing/expanding/getting better then it isn't worth it, and isn't worth pursuing. We see this in personal pursuits -- why are you doing X - playing a sport, painting, or whatever if you're not getting better at it?

But are there things we value that are not growth/progress oriented? I think of Sam Lake (the lake my parents cottage is on). Within the time scale of a human life, the lake is neither growing nor stagnating. It does fluctuate -- in the spring the lake is a bit deeper, a bit bigger and as the summer progresses into fall, the water level drops and the lake ends up a bit shallower and a bit smaller. And next spring, it happens again. Some years, the high water mark is higher than others, some years the low water marks are lower than others. But in the scale of a life, there is a rhythm, but no progress.

Is that a reasonable way to look at life? Is that a reasonable way to look at "the future of a relationship"?

Am I too western to view things this way?

Comments

[jagash.livejournal.com]

You are quite right, society is driven by progress rather then stability. I just recently read the classic book "Future Shock" which speaks of the same points. One of the problems with modern society is that we are too focused on change and that we lack stabilizing elements which previous social structures (religion for instance) provided.

Still, a relationship can only have a future if both individuals are thinking of the same future. It may be stability or progress, but both parties need to decide on common terms.

[sultrysong.livejournal.com]

I don't think my relationship with my bride has grown significantly in the last, say, five or eight years. We've both grown, as people do, and we're fortunate enough to do it together. But what we have together has remained steady and is something we can count on -- I don't see it changing or growing in any substanstial way in the next 50 years.

I'm okay with that. She's okay with that. What matters is that we believe that *this* relationship is where we want to be in 50 years.

(She turned to me as I was typing this to tell me that you had posted and to say exactly the words I had keyed in.)

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

I agree with the Sam Lake model, if a relationship is working for both people why does it need to grow and improve?

[i-and-t.livejournal.com]

Well,

I agree with much of what you are saying and I think that it goes to other topics very well. It is however, not a perfect analogy to the question of the moment.

I think when the question is raised 'Does the relationship have a future?' means:

1> If you are happy with the way the relationship is and do not need/want it to change, do you foresee it staying the same way

AND / OR

2> If you DO want the relationship to change (be it living together/marriage etc.. etc..) do you foresee that happening.

So, the original question of 'Does the relationship have a future' does not mean it has to change. Simply, 5 years etc.. from now do you foresee the possibility of the relationship being the one you think you would want in 5 years from now. (And that of course the time spend during that interval is enjoyable and positive).

T.

[soul-diaspora.livejournal.com]

I'm both too close to this situation and not close enough to safely offer advice. I can only wish you well in your decision.

*hug*

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

I have to go with the "Life is a flow" people. Life is constantly changing, and it's necessary to make adjustments according to what's happening at any given time. Jobs change, housing changes, people develop new hobbies and lose old ones, find new friends, have older relatives and friends pass away. Even people like my parents who had one-company careers and lived in one house for forty years have their relationship go through phases, as age and disease and economic conditions take their toll.

The constant question is something on the order of: Are we still both headed in the same direction? When paths converge, it's good; but when they diverge, it can be a problem. It's hard to maintain relationships if there's too much physical distance, for instance, or if one party develops an interest the other party doesn't share. Can the participants be headed in the same direction if they don't share the new interest? Well, sometimes, but it's a challenge.

I wouldn't call the change "progress" unless I were some new-age practitioner wanting to put positive spin on everything. Some steps are definitely backward, after all, but one still has to deal with the change.

Any relationship can have a future if the participants can find common ground. Any relationship can be doomed if either party decides not to deal with the changes.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well, hurm and it depends and all that.

Carrying on the Lac Sam analogy, I suppose the question is, is the current ecosystem sufficiently rich? IOW, is there enough there, at this time, that if this is what's going to be there, that will be fine? Or is it likely to get a bit thin and worn and unsatisfying, IOW to stagnate?

I have relationships that are still growing, and some that have reached the stage of being, as you say, rhythmic.

This is probably neither clear nor helpful.

[pezchica.livejournal.com]

I don't know if it's a western question so much as a question that originates from a monogamous point of view. Our culture, inherently monogamous, says that if this relationship is not going to lead to an end such as marriage, then it's a "waste of time" and should be cast aside to make room for a relationship that will lead to such an end-future. Not being monogamous, I don't think you're bound to the same path.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I'd say it's a bit different than that for relationships. The cultural norm is to be married and having at least a kid, preferably two, in a monogamous relationship. If that's not what you want then you're relationship will be considered "stagnating" at some point, because at some point it just will not look like its moving towards that.

[bixkitty.livejournal.com]

I think the pressure and assumption to 'progress' in relationships can be vastly suffocating, but it doesn't have to be. I struggle with that question with myself- do I *want* that model of relationships? Can I have parts of it, without falling completely into a 'progress' model?

I can't answer to whether or not you're 'too Western', but my guess is that once you've decided if the 'progress' model relationship is where you're at or not, then you'll know how to approach new and existing relationships from that point.

I myself want some of the things that our monogamous, 'progressive' culture say I should want- kids, a partner, blah blah. BUT, I don't really want these things in the order of the progression- kids have nothing to do with my relationships, except as being a part of me that needs to be negotiated. I fully intend to have relationships that do not involve my kids in the future- I just can't see everyone I sleep with or carry on with being convinced that babysitting or parenting for a weekend a month would be fun. :) I have a few relationships that do 'stagnate', in that I'm very happy in the confines of the relationship, and I wouldn't want it to change or go anywhere progressively. But, I know that I don't really want to follow a mainstream, monogamous relationship model of 'progress', so I can approach those relationships without the questions.

[jackspryte.livejournal.com]

I think what you are talking about is "comfort". You can dwell a very long while in a emotional and relationship space that is "comfortable" for two people.

Maybe you can focus on the idea of "comfort". Making life as comfortable for each other as possible. I think there is something noble and possibly affectionate in that.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Well, either the relationship is satisfactory (whatever that may mean) in its current state, or it isn't; either it's changing in some direction, or it isn't. A relationship that is headed for or staying somewhere "unsatisfactory" may not have much of a future if the parties don't take deliberate action.

I think there are at least two main stages to a relationship: the first is a familiarization stage, during which the change is largely directed by mutual discovery; the second is a settled stage, during which the change in the relationship is an outgrowth of the change in the people involved and the decisions they make.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying, "it depends."

[atropis.livejournal.com]

yeah, i've considered the same thing off and on. no really good answers as such. however, i am strongly inclined to suspect that stability is a really, really good thing. you know, a point that doesn't pitch and lurch and try to throw one off of it, even though everything else does. there's a lot to say for a thing like that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/niall_/]

Wayyyy late...

For me, I interpret "the future" of a relationship as: "will it survive in its present conditions". All relationships are at least travelling in time; to survive, they must have a shared goal, or at least enough shared sub-goals, and the decision to at least move towards those goals must be shared. "Stability" is definitely one of those goals.

I share your belief that bad (and old) commerce thinking has permeated many facets of western living. A lot of what is called "eastern philosophy" is just different examples of common sense...