|
↖ Homepage of the site 'What to do with your life?'
What is a good partner?
Before reading this question, read the question 'What is a good friend?'
Indeed, a good partner is almost the same. The relationship thus shares the same fundamental characteristics: mutual respect, trust in the other, solidarity, and shared projects or interests.
Simply put, in the case of a partner, solidarity must be greater, because one can have multiple friends but only one partner.
Moreover, the common project must be broader, as it constitutes a comprehensive life project.
Finally, a relationship with a partner implies a minimum level of physical attraction.
The couple as the realization of an ideal
Confrontation with our peers shows us every day that few people are capable of overcoming the instinct of personal social ambition, and the resulting cognitive dissonance that gradually develops. Thus, the larger the group, the lower the likelihood that it will succeed in realizing the ideal of a functioning based on benevolence (considering the other as important), sincerity, and problem resolution. Therefore, the couple can be seen as the least unlikely configuration for achieving this ideal. This is expressed implicitly in the work of an author such as Zola (series The Three Cities).
The risks of couple life
Conversely, one can live for years without realizing that in the other, respect and solidarity are merely superficial, that the other wore a mask even within the intimacy of the couple, and therefore that trust was fundamentally an illusion. It is often the hardships of life that lead to discovering the other's true intentions.
This should be distinguished from betrayal, such as adultery, which may result from a temporary outburst.
The limits of communication
Communication is in vogue. Indeed, couple therapists tend to reduce everything to communication problems. However, couple problems have causes of two very different natures.
The first cause is that one does not dare, lacks the courage to address the problem, or is overwhelmed by emotions when expressing it. In this case, it is indeed a communication problem... and even then. It is often more a lack of mastery of problem-solving techniques (identifying the problem, exploring causes, finding a partial solution, implementing it).
On the other hand, the second cause is that one repeatedly returns to the problem, but it produces no change. In this case, it is a fundamental issue at the level of one or both partners, and communication will not change anything. Worse, if it is a problem of one partner's lack of respect for the other, then reducing it to a communication problem transfers part of the aggressor's responsibility to the victim 'who did not communicate well enough'. See the questions 'Why must one master one's ego?', 'What must one do to be a good person?' and 'Is fidelity necessary in a couple?'.
To separate, or not?
When the union (marriage or alternative form) is unsatisfactory, the question of rupture arises. At this stage, it is important to go beyond the simple 'I no longer get along with him/her' before seriously considering separation. A better starting question is: Is it still possible to find a constructive way of living with the person one initially chose?
Such a reformulation has several advantages:
•
|
It excludes the 'suffering glorification' where couple life would become a path of crosses.
|
•
|
It sets an extremely high requirement: not to have passively accepted the observation that 'it was no longer working' or 'he/she betrayed me', but also to have attempted everything reasonably feasible to reposition the relationship on constructive bases.
|
•
|
Expectations of others thus tend to be reduced to: a little good will, and a minimum of rationality, that is to say the essential bases for being able to solve problems.
|
Then, answering this question requires working on two levels:
•
|
The possibility of making the couple satisfying, i.e., restoring the four qualities of friendship at the couple level (mutual respect, trust in the other, solidarity, shared projects and interests). From the above, we can conclude that this requires both partners to shift towards an approach of 'succeeding in one's life', which is quite unlikely if one of them had an approach clearly oriented towards 'succeeding in life'.
|
•
|
Assessing exogenous reasons for the couple that may justify its continuation even if its functioning is not entirely satisfactory. For example, protecting the children. Once exogenous reasons are established, if the stakes related to them are major, then the question may eventually transform into: What can I, as an individual, reasonably endure?
More detailed explanation: Let us recall that friendship and love are measured by how much one is willing to be disadvantaged in the relationship with the other to preserve this relationship. In the present case, this can be formulated as: how much is one willing to be disadvantaged at the couple level to protect exogenous reasons, such as children? Ultimately, it is about finding the right balance between 'I do not want to be disadvantaged at all' and 'I accept being disadvantaged beyond my capacities, or beyond the stakes related to exogenous reasons'.
|
Conversely, separating 'because one has found someone with whom one gets along better' is always a bad idea. This consists of giving free rein to the toute puissance de l'ego, and it reflects a double conceptual error: on the one hand, believing that succeeding in one's life mainly consists of finding the right person as opposed to building one's life ; d'autre part considérer que les individus sont jetables dès lors qu'un nouveau modèle plus performant est disponible, ce qui implique que l'on est soi même jetable. Tout cela repose de fait sur la réponse que l'on donne à la triple question : What is happiness ? Do we find it, or do we build it? And finally, what is the purpose of life ?
Going deeper
See the question 'Tell me how you make decisions, and I will tell you who you are' which proposes a typology of the individual.
Regarding the problem-solving technique, refer to the question 'What are the conditions to be met to produce serious reasoning?' as well as to the book From Capital to Reason chapter 9 'The Problem Journal'. The problem-solving technique is described in the 'Operation' paragraph. This method, intended for the workplace, may seem strange or rigid in the private sphere, but the ability to mutually assist each other in producing reasoning in the face of a problem is a basic skill that finds its full utility in the private sphere. It is better to have reasoning conducted in a somewhat rigid manner than reasoning conducted flexibly but which skipped one of the steps.
|