|
↖ 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 thing. The relationship therefore shares the same fundamental characteristics: respect for the other, trust in the other, solidarity, shared projects, or common interests.
Simply put, at the level of a partner, solidarity must be greater, because one can have multiple friends, but only one partner.
Moreover, the shared project must be broader, as it concerns a global 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 transcending the instinct for personal social ambition, and the resulting major cognitive dissonance that gradually develops. Consequently, the larger the group, the lower the probability that it will succeed in realizing an ideal functioning based on kindness (treating the other as important), sincerity, and problem-solving. Thus, the couple can be seen as the least improbable configuration to achieve this ideal. This is implicitly expressed by an author such as Zola (series The Three Cities).
The risks of living as a couple
Conversely, one can live for years without realizing that the other's respect and solidarity are merely superficial, that the other wore a mask even within the intimacy of the couple, and that trust was fundamentally an illusion. It is often life's hardships that reveal the other's true intentions.
This must be distinguished from betrayal, such as adultery, which may result from a temporary outburst.
The limits of communication
Communication is the trend. In fact, couples therapists tend to attribute everything to communication problems. However, couple problems have causes of two very different natures.
The first cause is that we dare not address the problem, lack the courage to do so, or become 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 we return to the problem regularly, but this produces no change. In this case, it is a fundamental problem at the level of one or both members of the couple, and communication will not change anything. Worse still, if it concerns a lack of respect from one member toward the other, 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 move 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 to live with the person we initially chose?
Such a reformulation offers two advantages:
•
|
It excludes a morbid pessimism where life as a couple becomes a path of cross.
|
•
|
It sets an extremely high standard: not to have passively accepted the fact that 'it no longer worked' or 'he or she betrayed me', but also to have attempted everything reasonably feasible to reposition the relationship on constructive foundations.
|
Subsequently, answering this question requires working on two levels:
•
|
The possibility of making the couple satisfying, that is, restoring the four qualities of friendship at the couple level (respect for the other, trust in the other, solidarity, shared projects and common interests). From what precedes, we can conclude that this requires both partners to shift toward an approach of 'succeeding in life', which is quite improbable if one of them had a clearly oriented approach toward 'succeeding in life'.
|
•
|
Assessing external reasons to the couple that may justify its continuation even if its functioning is not entirely satisfactory. For example, protecting children. Once external reasons are established, if the stakes related to them are significant, then the question may eventually transform into: What, as an individual, am I reasonably capable of enduring?
More detailed explanation: Let us recall that friendship and love are measured by how much one accepts to be disadvantaged in the relationship with the other to preserve that relationship. In the present case, this can be formulated as: how much one accepts to be disadvantaged at the couple level to protect external 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 to be disadvantaged beyond my capabilities, or beyond the stakes related to external reasons'.
|
Further reading
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 problem-solving techniques, refer to the question 'What conditions must be met to produce serious reasoning?' as well as the book From Capital to Reason, chapter 9 'The Problem Journal'. Problem-solving techniques are described in the paragraph 'Functioning'. This method, intended for the workplace, may seem strange or rigid in the private sphere, but knowing how to mutually assist in producing reasoning in the face of a problem is a basic skill that finds full utility in the private sphere. Better to have reasoning conducted somewhat rigidly than flexibly but skipping one of the steps.
|