Relationships don't work
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair point.
Example I lifted from were actually baboons,
https://youtu.be/XvMQQsyPirM?t=3246
Stress and Health: From Molecules to Societies
All four of which I assume were males,
Which was more about monopoly on violence, than romance I suppose.
I also found his, Stress: Portrait of a Killer. A National Geographic Documentary (2008), interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYFZAYenR20
And you're right, BuddhistBadass seems to be talking more about romance, and whether one can succeed in achieving it or not.
Argues people often have false or high expectations, likely to fail.
Which I suppose people 'can have. Though not 'necessarily all or most people, depending on people and environment.
The caveman argument only seems to work if "relationship" is defined in a very broad way.
You could argue that BuddhistBadass didn't provide a clear enough definition that we aren't warranted to argue against his position using such a broad definition, but the context (the description with lots of arguments in favor of many other kinds of relationships) certainly suggests that they're arguing against romantic relationships specifically.
So interpreting the resolution this way seems to go against the spirit of the debate.
Four cave people,
They group up in gangs of two, and square off over a piece of meat,
One of the cave people runs away, while their partner gets beaten to death by the two cave people who stayed teamed up,
The two cave people eat the piece of meat.
Sure people 'might betray you, but what's the other option?
Fight in a free for all I suppose, and hope no one teams up.
But suppose you break your leg, or catch the sniffles,
Darn, you never bothered to build relationships because you don't believe in them?
Guess you're dead,
Too bad you didn't have a partner like that other cave person.
People sometimes call humans rational, somewhat predictable,
If a woman has a choice between starting a connection between a known wifebeater and a man 'not known as a wifebeater,
Is one of the relationships more likely to work?
Relationships working or not depends on the variables I imagine,
Different people in different scenarios, different outcomes.