Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#5772

Relationships don't work

Status
Debating

Waiting for the next argument from the instigator.

Round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
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
I'll begin by conceding that many romantic relationships don't work, and I think a lot of excellent points were made here for why and how they fail. In fact, I would even say I agree with the vast majority of what was written in both the description and pro's opening argument. But the statement "relationships don't work" in this context seems far too radical to me, and not sufficiently justified by the arguments presented.

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.
Do all people enter into relationships with ambitions such as this? I think it depends how broadly you define "antidote" and "problems", but it's clear from the argument presented that they really only mean to justify this statement when using a relatively narrow definition of one or the other. Where "antidote" might mean "unrealistic solution" or "problems" might mean "fundamental issues that should not be externalized". If we instead define them as "solution" and "issues of some sort", I think it's perfectly reasonable that many romantic relationships could cause (even if not on their own) a solution to issues of some sorts.

For example, a decent number of people feel very alone if they cannot be completely open and vulnerable with someone. And for a noteworthy amount of such people, sexual intimacy plays a significant role. Even if we are to discard [them suffering significantly less] as useless, it seems likely that it would provide a better state of mind for overcoming the issues causing the loneliness when they are without such a partner.
Another example: some people are very insecure about their sexual performance and consider it a very important part of themselves, and many of them have no realistic means of changing that mindset in the near future except via a romantic relationship that can lead to them overcoming that insecurity.

 The primary reason that relationships don’t work is simply this: our expectations are unrealistic.
Are all romantic partners' expectations unrealistic? Maybe technically, I doubt any of them have a perfect idea of what their partner can or will do. But it seems absurd to claim that a relationship where the partners have a very good (but not perfect) understanding of what the other can do is inherently a relationship that won't work. Sure, many would likely fail for various reasons, but I would argue that a decent number should be able to work through the problems they encounter and "work" by any reasonable definition.

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.
I completely agree with this, but in many relationships we will also be pleasantly surprised many times. And the disappointment we experience doesn't necessarily have to be about something very fundamental. We could be only slightly disappointed many times about surface-level characteristics that the partner can quickly change, or which we recognize don't matter much. And even if they are fundamental, there are many effective methods of dealing with such issues with the relationship still working, as far as I can tell.

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.
I also pretty much completely agree with this. I think we do tend to go in one of the two described directions when coping with that vulnerability. But I don't think it's inevitable that we use these strategies to very damaging extents, I think we just tend to go in one of these two directions. It seems that many partners in romantic relationships recognize these pitfalls and their own emotional state and take adequate steps to largely avoid them. When they fail to avoid them, many are able to effectively talk it out and figure out a long-term solution to the particular issue they could not avoid. I wouldn't dare claim that such relationships are perfect, but again, it seems unjustified to say that they don't work merely because they have such manageable issues.

In conclusion, as far as I can tell, I agree with the vast majority of pro's position on this matter. I just don't think such relationships can always be fairly described as not working, even if they do have many flaws.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
I waive this round.
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet