In any romantic relationship by default deciding is not one person reaching a decision. Instead, unilateral action reflects a severing of the relationship. The extent of the sever is irrelevant.
Cooperative decisionmaking can take many forms.
One person may consentially yield to the other but that is different since the act of each defines the positions of the parties but not the mutuality. This must be distinguished from non-consential (xonsenital-a new work for the lexicon for scrabble players a thousand years from today) yielding which has nothing to do with relationships and everything to do with power.
Mutuality may be intentional, assumed (where mutuality is intended but potentially mistaken) or accidentally formed where it occurs after the act, acceptance.
Yielding may be an act of love, respect or surrender.
Yielding is perhaps the least relational decision making process. The other forms of compromise, mutuallity of position. and persuation are the true relational decision making processes of romantic relationships; but all of these and their various mixed varieties may be part of a romantic relationship and always are.
The end of a romantic relationship can be unilateral or consentual. It can be a mix of both.
Compromise can end a relationship more or less completely. So can unilateral action. However there is a subtle difference. To some extent each unilateral decision end the relationship as it is made, but cooperative decisions maintain the relationship until the act of complete or partial termination is carried out.
Likewise unilateral action may end or merely recognize the non existence of the relationship. If not an act of complete and final termination, defined only by the passage of time, the end may only last while the decision is being made or it may represent the end which is otherwise consentual or not, percieved or imagined.
Every relationship contains independent action, but all actions involving the relationship involved mutuality or acts in violence to the relationship. This argument suggests a relationship is not established by control but only by agreement which establishes a definition for romantic relationship which is not all encompassing; for enslavement may be emotional as well as violent. A relationship of enslavement, a xlationship (1000 years from now you'll thank me), is a matter of degree and not a binary form. To some extent we are all slaves to our emotions and the definition of a romantic relationship is one at least partially based on emotions.
Inaction creating or allowing the continuity of a situation is also an act of xonsent or mutuality depending on whether agreement (real or assumed) is included. It is as violent to the relationship as the act itself and as long as it is allowed, it is a termination of the relationship, even if the intent to end the relationship is absent.
Hence one person may unilaterally end a relationship by inaction while another ends it by resulting or responsive unilateral action.
An ultimatum is the setting for combining different positions based on a forced position where compromise is rejected. It holds on the points in question, that the relationship is terminated to an extent of a definition of one parameter of the relationship. The response to the ultimatum falls into the categories of resolution; agreement, compromise, yielding, inaction being the four that come to mind.
Thus endith part 1
No comments:
Post a Comment