Instigator / Pro
7
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5700

Relationships don't work

Status
Voting

The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.

Voting will end in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
3
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description

The resolution "Relationships Don't Work" was inspired by this essay by Barry Magid:

NO GAIN (Tricycle Magazine, Summer 2008)

My teacher Charlotte Joko Beck pretty much sums up her attitude toward relationships when she says, “Relationships don’t work.” Rather than talk about everything we normally think that we gain from relationships, like love, companionship, security, and family life, she looks at relationships from the perspective of no gain. She focuses on all the ways relationships go awry when people enter into them with particular sorts of gaining ideas and expect relationships to function as an antidote to their problems. Antidotes are all versions of “If only…” If only she were more understanding; if only he were more interested in sex; if only she would stop drinking. For Joko, that kind of thinking about relationships means always externalizing the problem, always assuming that the one thing that’s going to change your life is outside yourself and in the other person. If only the other person would get his or her act together, then my life would go the way I want it to.

Joko tries to bring people back to their own fears and insecurities. These problems are ours to practice with, and we can’t ask anyone else, including a teacher, to do that work for us. To be in a real relationship, a loving relationship, is simply to be willing to respond and be there for the other person without always calculating what we are going to get out of it.

Many people come to me and say, “I’ve been in lots of relationships where I give and give and give.” But for them it wasn’t enlightenment; it was masochism! What they are missing from Joko’s original account is a description of what relationships are actually for—what the good part is. In addition to being aware of the pitfalls that Joko warns us about, we should also look at all the ways in which relationships provide the enabling conditions for our growth and development. That’s particularly obvious with children. We would all agree that children need a certain kind of care and love in order to grow and develop. Nobody would say to a five-year-old, “What do you need Mommy for? Deal with your fear on your own!” The thing is that most of us are still struggling with remnants of that child’s neediness and fear in the midst of a seemingly adult life. Relationships aren’t just crutches that allow us to avoid those fears; they also provide conditions that enable us to develop our capacities so we can handle them in a more mature way.

It’s not just a parent-child relationship or a relationship with a partner that does that. The relationship of a student with a teacher, between members of a sangha, between friends, and among community members—all help us to develop in ways we couldn’t on our own. Some aspects of ourselves don’t develop except under the right circumstances.

Aristotle stressed the importance of community and friendship as necessary ingredients for character development and happiness. He is the real origin of the idea that “it takes a village” to raise a child. However, you don’t find much in Aristotle about the necessity of romantic love in order to develop. His emphasis was on friendship.

Aristotle said that in order for people to become virtuous, we need role models—others who have developed their capacities for courage, self-control, wisdom, and justice. We may emphasize different sets of virtues or ideas about what makes a proper role model, but Buddhism also asserts that, as we are all connected and interdependent, none of us can do it all on our own.

Acknowledging this dependency is the first step of real emotional work within relationships. Our ambivalence about our own needs and dependency gets stirred up in all kinds of relationships. We cannot escape our feelings and needs and desires if we are going to be in relationships with others. To be in relationships is to feel our vulnerability in relation to other people who are unpredictable, and in circumstances that are intrinsically uncontrollable and unreliable...

From Ending the Pursuit of Happiness: A Zen Guide, © Barry Magid 2008.

Round 1
Pro
#1
In the 1987 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up,” singer Rick Astley indulges the fantasy of anyone who has wished for a partner that will unfailingly meet their needs for stability, security, honesty, and safety. Astley represents that fantasy partner when he sings: 

Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you

There is, however, no such person. There is no person who will perfectly and reliably meet our desires for support, love, reassurance, or respect.  The primary reason that relationships don’t work is simply this: our expectations are unrealistic. Other people were not placed on this earth to meet our needs. Even when we know someone who offers us some degree of stability and satisfaction, the truth is that they will inevitably disappoint us – not just more than once, but repeatedly. People are flawed. People are inconsistent. People are complicated. People have agendas other than catering to our needs. Long-term commitments do not improve this picture in any fundamental way. If we are fortunate enough to have one or more long-term relationships, we have to face the fact that time itself will work against others’ capacity to meet our needs, as well as our capacity to meet theirs. In addition to being imperfect and unpredictable, everyone gets old, everyone becomes diminished in their abilities, everyone gets sick, and everyone dies. We struggle with these facts. As the Buddhist teacher Barry Magid explains,

To be in relationships is to feel our vulnerability in relation to other people who are unpredictable, and in circumstances that are intrinsically uncontrollable and unreliable. We bump up against the fact of change and impermanence as soon as we acknowledge our feelings or needs for others. Basically, we all tend to go in one of two directions as a strategy for coping with that vulnerability. We either go in the direction of control or of autonomy. If we go for control, we may be saying: “If only I can get the other person or my friends or family to treat me the way I want, then I’ll be able to feel safe and secure. If only I had a guarantee that they’ll give me what I need, then I wouldn’t have to face uncertainty.” With this strategy, we get invested in the control and manipulation of others and in trying to use people as antidotes to our own anxiety. With the strategy (or curative fantasy) of autonomy, we go in the opposite direction and try to imagine that we don’t need anyone. But that strategy inevitably entails repression or dissociation, a denial of feeling. We may imagine that through spiritual practice we will get to a place where we won’t feel need, sexuality, anger, or dependency. Then, we imagine, we won’t be so tied into the vicissitudes of relationships (an excerpt from Magid's essay "No Gain: Relationships Won't Solve Our Problems, But They Can Help Us Grow, published in Tricycle Magazine, Summer 2008).

Our habitual approach to relationships tends to create more suffering for ourselves and others. Therefore, relationships don't work.

Con
#2
Forfeited
Round 2
Pro
#3
I extend all arguments.
Con
#4
Forfeited
Round 3
Pro
#5
I extend all arguments.
Con
#6
Forfeited
Round 4
Pro
#7
Forfeited
Con
#8
Forfeited
Round 5
Pro
#9
Forfeited
Con
#10
Forfeited