kizik Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 "The real relation is one of reciprocity… the relation is a struggle between conscious beings each of whom wishes to be essential, it is the mutual recognition of free beings who confirm one another’s freedom, it is the vague transition from aversion to participation." -Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex," 1952 Bolds mine
GodofNietzsche Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 "The real relation is one of reciprocity… the relation is a struggle between conscious beings each of whom wishes to be essential, it is the mutual recognition of free beings who confirm one another’s freedom, it is the vague transition from aversion to participation." -Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex," 1952 Bolds mine If I may try my hand at it. It means that you must respect the other person's right to determine their own life, while still recognizing your own. It is NOT about trying to dominate/control the other person, for your own benefit. It means being a partner in a relationship, and recognizing the other person's thoughts and feelings as legitimate, even if you don't agree. Basically, relationships are give and take, not just give, or not just take.
Author kizik Posted June 14, 2008 Author Posted June 14, 2008 Thanks, GON. I like that reading of it. Unfortunately, my opinions in my relationship were not recognized as legitimate, and I wasn't given respect any more. I was just "Wrong." I think Beauvoir does an excellent job in describing, ideally, a healthy and loving relationship.
GodofNietzsche Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 I should give you the name of another great social theorist (unfortunately, I can't remember it right now). He explains that relationships are based on the economic idea of 'marginal utility' (that you are in a relationship, friendship, etc., because it in some way benefits you, and when you no longer feel that the benefits outweigh the negative aspects, you bail on the relationship). Unfortunately, for those of us 'truly in love', we will suffer through the down times, because we love the other person and it is the right thing to do (look at Max Weber's comparison of instrumentally rational behavior vs. value rational behavior). I know how you feel. Towards the end, I was criticized for anything and everything. But I know that it was her way of taking me off the pedestal and getting over me. Things that she liked about me before, she didn't like about me at that time. I recognize that she choose to get over me, because it was necessary for her (not because she didn't love me any more). It makes me sad that someone who loved me would choose to get over me, instead of doing what was necessary to make it work. You don't need to devalue someone (to their face) to get over them. But I believe Beauvoir's idea of an 'ideal relationship' is impossible. It's ultimately about forgiveness and learning to accept the other person, while doing your best to respect them.
Trialbyfire Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 "The real relation is one of reciprocity… the relation is a struggle between conscious beings each of whom wishes to be essential, it is the mutual recognition of free beings who confirm one another’s freedom, it is the vague transition from aversion to participation." -Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex," 1952 I like his concept of an idealized relationship. I must admit to finding his use of the word "aversion" quite funny. It's very male.
Author kizik Posted June 14, 2008 Author Posted June 14, 2008 AHA! But Beauvoir was female, as a poster pointed out to me weeks ago.
Storyrider Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 "The real relation is one of reciprocity… the relation is a struggle between conscious beings each of whom wishes to be essential, it is the mutual recognition of free beings who confirm one another’s freedom, it is the vague transition from aversion to participation." -Simone de Beauvoir, "The Second Sex," 1952 I like his concept of an idealized relationship. I must admit to finding his use of the word "aversion" quite funny. It's very male. Hi TBF. She's a feminist woman.
Storyrider Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 AHA! But Beauvoir was female, as a poster pointed out to me weeks ago. Ha, that was me. I suspect the other paraphrase might be from Ayn Rand, but I could be wrong.
Trialbyfire Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 Hi TBF. She's a feminist woman. That's even funnier! She's adopted male theology.
GodofNietzsche Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 Not at all. She places blame on both men and women for faults in gender relations. It takes two to tango, and she recognizes blame on both sides.
Storyrider Posted June 14, 2008 Posted June 14, 2008 That's even funnier! She's adopted male theology. You're probably right. I think in her time, 1940s-ish, feminism was very much about women fighting for the right to act more like men.
LikeCharlotte Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Ha, that was me. I suspect the other paraphrase might be from Ayn Rand, but I could be wrong.Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness I believe, I could be wrong also. "When a man declares: 'There are no blacks and whites [in morality]' he is making a psychological confession, and what he means is: 'I am unwilling to be wholly good—and please don't regard me as wholly evil!'" -Ayn Rand I'm fond of this bit. "I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire." -Ayn Rand "To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'" -Ayn Rand Finally:"I can accept anything, except what seems to be the easiest for most people: the half-way, the almost, the just-about, the in-between." -Ayn Rand
v33 Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I have to say that I think the notion that relationships should require "work" in order to succeed is a bunch of crap. If that were the case then ANY two people could have a good relationship if they chose to work at it. I don't think that's true. People have to be fundamentally compatible. On the same wavelength as far as morals, ethics, beliefs, etc are concerned. Yes, there will have to be some effort put in to getting over differences, and a certain amount of energy has to be put forth and invested into your partner, but I feel that if two people are compatible things should just fall into place. Not to say that it is acceptable to just let things be, and eventually start to take your loved one for granted, but if the compatibility is there and if it is real it should be near effortless to maintain that spark and excitement. You will just naturally do it, and WANT to do it. Clearly I have been chosing the wrong partners.
LikeCharlotte Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I have to say that I think the notion that relationships should require "work" in order to succeed is a bunch of crap. If that were the case then ANY two people could have a good relationship if they chose to work at it. I don't think that's true.Sometimes people have issues that prevent them from having a really good relationship. Sometimes the work is about sharing, time, communication, frustration levels, responsibility or finances. It's foolish to think that having to do work is a sign of an impossible relationship. When a couple works together they are stronger for it. When people talk about doing work they mean work toward a better relationship, learning together instead of apart, and committing to the solidarity between them. I don't think anyone means excessive work in an impossible situation. Not ANY two people but two people who are happy together but have some problems individually or together. People have to be fundamentally compatible. On the same wavelength as far as morals, ethics, beliefs, etc are concerned. Yes, there will have to be some effort put in to getting over differences, and a certain amount of energy has to be put forth and invested into your partner, but I feel that if two people are compatible things should just fall into place. I agree with all but the last part. Nothing in life just falls into place and two people willing to work toward a full and healthy life together become able to handle crisis and difficulty that is not in the relationship more effectively. I've had to work for everything good in my life and I have been constantly improving because of it. I think it is silly to throw away an otherwise good relationship because one or both has an intimacy issue, depression or a communication problem, assuming the person is willing to work on it and the partner is supportive. In the end they both would be better for the experience. If the issue doesn't change after both people try to address it then its fair to move on. I'm not talking about issues like alcoholism or abuse. I'm also not talking about people who disagree on religion, morals, sex, or family. You can't force an atheist to accept a catholic or vice versa. Those are important elements of personality. Not to say that it is acceptable to just let things be, and eventually start to take your loved one for granted, but if the compatibility is there and if it is real it should be near effortless to maintain that spark and excitement. You will just naturally do it, and WANT to do it.Again, I agree with you very much here but I can't subscribe to should be's in love. They are a recipe for failure. Of course you should be attracted to your partner but that comes and goes as you become more secure. Of course you should both want to do it. I don't agree that it should be "effortless" of come "naturally" because there are times when two people can't find the time to be together or they are both on edge or petty arguments are getting in the way. They need to put in effort to change that and secure the bond. Sometimes both people need to swallow pride and reach out, other times one should support the other while they work through something difficult; even if it is hard or frustrating. I have friends with children that have to work to find the time to be together and not focus only on work and child. They have to work at communicating when things are stressful in life. They are very happy overall. Nothing is ideal in life and everything I've ever worked at has blossomed and become more than I expected. Clearly I have been chosing the wrong partners.Maybe that is true, because your story is so sad to read. You worked at something that is beyond the scope reasonably fixable. I know it hurts but try not to think of it as your fault. Those were her very deep problems and she chose to let them destroy a good thing. Not every woman or every problem will be like that. I'd hate to think you would yourself off because of how things should be. I hope I'm not being too forward or pushy but you could end up meeting a really great person who has a little trouble with talking effectively, finishing long tasks or frustration and if you don't simply run off and she is willing to work on it; you could be very happy. Am I reading into what you were saying?
v33 Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 I get what you're saying. I think I have adopted a somewhat cynical view of relationships because of what I have been through. I'll get over it though, I know it isn't healthy. Thanks for knowing my story though, it's nice to know that the good people here pay attention and remember what others have posted. I just went back to look for my first post but it is gone now forever.... would have been interesting to re-read it 2 months later.
mollers Posted June 16, 2008 Posted June 16, 2008 About the notion of not having to 'work' at a relationship. I think all relationships at some time will need 'work' - for example, it can become easy to take someone for granted after you have been together for a long time, to assume things about them. I had this discussion with my ex when we were splitting up. He used it as part of the reason for ending the relationship, 'we shouldn't have to work at it'. I disagreed, what I think you shouldn't have to work at is your feelings. If you don't feel love for somebody then you can't work at that. However if you love someone but your situation has hit a rocky patch, e.g. work is getting in the way, you have stopped 'romancing' each other and going on dates etc, then this can be worked at. Maybe 'work' is a bad word to use, it sounds so negative when really it is about wanting the best for your relationship.
Recommended Posts