Sunday, October 3, 2021

"Because We Belong to Each Other."

I took the title of this post from the last line of a story on NPR this morning.  The story was about the efforts of a woman named Priya Parker, whose book is called The Art of Gathering, to figure out how to make gatherings of people, usually at celebrations, deeper and more reflective.  She focused on the idea of constructing topics of toasts made, and how to encourage gatherers to make them more incisive, and appreciative.  She ended her NPR discussion as I said, with the quote that is the title of this post.

And this concept is critically important, and not to be forgotten.  Sometimes, we belong to each other by accident, like the families, or cultures, or societies or countries into which we happened to have been born.  But mostly, we choose our surroundings, and the people in them.

I do a certain amount of couples or marriage counseling, and one theme that is never out of focus is that the people involved chose each other, from among many possible choices.  Sure, they're complaining about each other now (that's why they're seeing me), but however long ago it was, they wanted, and preferred, each other.  The time bomb in these situations is that everyone in the world has neuroses, and every choice contains a conflict.  So, the basis for complaint now actually contains the reason for having chosen the person in the first place.  For example, "So-and-so is so controlling, and ignores my suggestions."  "What attracted you to so-and-so when you met and were getting to know each other?"  "So-and-so is so well-organized and self-assured."  There are loads of examples, but they all distill into personal and internal conflicts like that.

The same can be said for things like where we choose to live.  If we consider, say, Biscayne Park, no one is forced to live here.  We all chose it, and each of us for our reasons.  And as small as is Biscayne Park, each of us chose one part, or one street, or one house, instead of another.  "I'm dissatisfied with my house.  It's too small, or plain, or on too small a lot, or on too busy a street."  "How did you choose that particular house?"  "I could afford it much better than I could a larger, fancier, more up-to-date house, on a bigger lot, and a quieter street or cul-de-sac."  It's the same thing as the relationship complaints and conflicts.

But having made these choices, we commit -- to a place and to each other.  They're not commitments that can't be reconsidered, or changed, or abandoned.  But until we conclude that we've somehow made a mistake, and should save ourselves from it, we do belong to each other, and to the setting or place that contains us.  And our continued belonging is not without the conflicts it contained when we first made the choice.  We just have to remember what we intended to gain from this choice, and what we agreed to sacrifice to make it.

Now, it's fair to say that not every situation in which a choice is made was fully evolved, as it is when we become dissatisfied, when we made the choice.  "S/he wasn't a drug addict when I met her/him, but s/he is now, and I can't live like that."  "Biscayne Park didn't use to be directly under the flight pattern from MIA, but the flight pattern was recently changed, and BP is under it now, and I can't live like that."  Then, you make changes, or you appeal to someone else to make one.

But absent changes like that, we belong to each other, because we chose to belong to each other, for our conflicted reasons, and it's in our interest to find the value in belonging.


5 comments:

  1. Certainly, my favorite post among all your writings. Nothing to add. Just appreciate the wisdom and insight. R

    ReplyDelete
  2. You know, I forgot to mention another approach some people take, and it's encapsulated in the title of another book: "I Love You; You're Perfect; Now Change." A choice is made, but the conflict is temporarily rejected or ignored, and then, who/what is chosen is expected to be remade, or to remake him/herself. I would call an approach like this unfair and unreasonable, and the "right" answer is either for the person who made the now unsatisfactory-seeming choice to develop more equanimity and appreciation (do you remember why this was a good idea when you made this choice?), or to abandon the choice made.

    Fred

    ReplyDelete
  3. There’s a sibling to that latter book. “I love them as they are… but I’ll love them more when I fix their flaws”. 😂

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rafa,

      The dilemma here is that there might not be agreement as to what the flaws are, and who's flawed. That's why the trick is to choose someone, or something, you can appreciate in spite of their/its flaws (or because of them!). And we all have to live with imperfections. We can't "fix" everything we consider imperfect, and often not without destabilizing a system, so that what was good before becomes not so good any more.

      I gave one example in a post some time ago. My mother lived in Surfside, and the Town decided that in order to impede "cut-throughs," it would block the ends of some avenues. That worked to impede the cut-throughs, but it made travel in the Town very difficult for everyone else, including welcome visitors and even residents. Another (fictional) example comes from a movie called "Happy Accidents." The woman's mother was explaining that decades ago, the woman's father used to drink too much. But the woman's mother worked hard to get her husband to stop drinking. One result (an "unintended consequence") of this "improvement" was that "the passion was gone" from the relationship.

      Generally speaking, people are not forced to choose a particular domestic/romantic partner. If we're careful enough with our choosings, we choose one we can "love...as they are." Generally speaking, people are not forced to live in a large metropolitan area that has a busy airport, or an interstate. Nor are they forced to live in a municipality that has NE 6th Avenue running through it, nor to live in a house ON NE 6th Avenue. Plenty of people would not make these choices, precisely for the reasons other people complain about them. No one should choose an overweight smoker, then tell them they're flawed, and they have to lose weight and stop smoking. Nor should they choose a house on a four lane road, then demand that the four lanes should be reduced to two lanes, because four lanes are too many, or too dangerous. There are plenty of people who are not overweight, and don't smoke, and plenty of streets that are not four lanes. If that's what anyone wants, they should choose it.

      But the point is that when we make these choices that we then say are unacceptable, and everyone else needs to change (get "fixed") to accommodate us, then we stop belonging to each other, and we just becomes each others' adversaries.

      Fred

      Delete
  4. "Anonymous," if you mean that some extremely childish person around here is incontinent of excrement, I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete