* Which pattern (rigid complementarity, competitive symmetry, or submissive symmetry) do you think would be the most difficult to change? Why? Which would be the most damaging to a relationship? Which would be the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved?
In my view, the rigid complementarity would be the most difficult pattern to change because the dominant party is not willing to give up the one-up position, and the submissive party wants to be in the one-up position so badly. Hence, the parties have different goals in mind. Trenholm (2008) mentions that “learning how to share the one-up and one-down positions gives a couple the flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances” (p. 149). Unless they both acknowledge the importance of alternating the one-up and the one-down positions, they will continue experiencing the frustration of dealing with two opposite forces within their relationship.
I perceive the competitive symmetry as being the most damaging to a relationship. I see a relationship as an institution where both parties bring their best assets and their imperfections into their day-to-day – either voluntarily or involuntarily. There should be no such as thing as competition between two people who are, for instance, married. It takes way too much effort to be always defensive. This time would be better employed if, instead of competing for the one-up position, the parties alternated the one-up/one-down position as life circumstances require them to do so.
Finally, I see the rigid complementarity as being the most potentially damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved. When two people are in a relationship, they inevitably need to alternate the one-up and the one-down positions in order to share the burden of the responsibilities, and to feel they can lean on each other. When one only takes the one-up position and refuses to take the one-down position, the other feels unappreciated and frustrated. Furthermore, it is always more complicated to come to an agreement when only one party is willing to change something that is not working.
Ibirapuera
W16 - Discussion Question # 3
16 years ago
I agree that it is difficult to be in a relationship with a domineering person who does not want to let the other person have a say or take charge every once in a while. Close interpersonal relationships should have a balance in who has the one-up and one-down position depending on each individual circumstance that arises from everyday life, as you stated. Abusive or damaging relationships can occur if people remain in their rigid and competing roles, which can greatly harm someone's self esteem and, therefore, their future relationships. Unfortunately, not everyone sees the damaging effects of these types of relationships because they are not widely classified to the average person as being abusive or harmful.
ReplyDeleteThat is right, Rena.
ReplyDeleteLife everything else in life, "balance" makes relationships more pleasant. It is way too exhausting to beg of battle for the one-up with the ones we love. That time is better spent on loving and caring for that person instead.
I found your post interesting, mostly because you gave me a new insight on it. My answers were completey different, but I am always willing to learn about what other people think. You brought up great points, especially how you said the rigid would be the most difficult to change, since the person is most likely unwilling to give up their position. When you brought up that the competitive pattern and how being on the defense is draining, I completely agree. It takes a great deal out of someone, which can not only damage a relationship, but their self esteem as well. I also agree that in a rigid relationship people start to feel "unappreciated". You made a lot of great points!
ReplyDeleteHi Chivista!
ReplyDeleteI tried to use real life experiences to answer the prompts for this week. I am glad my viewpoints made you think about things you had not considered before.
Thanks! :-)
Ibirapuera