Let’s contextualize the discussion with some notion of the model’s origin. My wife and I were preparing to build a home on a select parcel of property. The contractor requested a meeting to go over expectations we had in this process and wanted to clarify from his perspective the goals we had in mind. As he joined with us, putting us at ease in this anxious process, he stated that when building a home, there are three dimensions or factors to be considered. And before he articulated what the three dimensions are, he quickly explained that of the three, we can only have two. My wife and I were quite intrigued and somewhat dismayed at this prospect and we didn’t even know of what dimension/s he was speaking. I thought to myself, “what do you mean I can’t have all of those for our home?” The contractor went on something like this. “The three dimensions are as follows: cost, speed and quality. Tell me which two you would like.” My wife and I were puzzled and asked him to elaborate. He continues, “resources are finite. There is only so much money, time and manpower available for any project. Most people have limits to these available resources. If you want me to build this house quickly and with high quality workmanship, it will be very, very expensive. If you only have a modest amount of money to work with and want to still have high quality workmanship, it will take quite a while to build your home. You will go down on my priority list and I’ll fit you in where I can. But the point here is that you choose how you want me to proceed with regard to these factors. Choose two.” Well, of course, it was not a hard choice. As a marriage & family therapist with a modest income, we’d have to choose controlling costs and high quality workmanship. As a result, building our home took longer than we would have liked, but we were very satisfied as we knew why, based on the contractor’s preliminary discussion.
This scenario stuck with me. And the more I thought about it, it became apparent that it had utility for marriage and family life as well. Granted, the factors or dimensions would be different, but the basic ideas had merit beyond the contractor’s model. As I pondered the couples I have worked with in the past thirty years, there were life expectations presented over and over again that represented cultural and personal ideals. I was unable to pare down the model to three factors or dimensions like the contractor, but I did come up with four, fairly easily.
Most people, when speaking of marriage, express a wish to have two elements present. These include what I will call “hot romance” and “abiding friendship.” “Hot romance” includes the attraction, chemistry, sex appeal, sex, and special feeling people report having for a partner. “Abiding friendship” reflects a dimension of marriage that includes a kind of conversational intimacy. This is where partners share private thoughts and feelings with one another.
In the years of my practice, I have heard these ideals expressed through the marital issues presented over and over. In the last 15 years, the most common refrain that captures the lack of “hot romance” in a relationship is “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” Others have framed it this way, “You treat me like I’m your sister.” “I feel like a business partner.” “I’m just a maid, who washes your clothes and bathes your children.” “As far as I’m concerned, I’m just a paycheck to you.” These comments explain how the reality of the relationship does not meet up with some ideal. With the tremendous increase of women in the workplace, the affluence of our society and lessening concern for marrying to solidify one’s economic security, the qualitative dimension of marriage has taken precedence over the financial ones. We expect and idealize that our partner is attracted to and desires us.
Another common refrain from couples heard in a therapy context is the lack of friendship in a troubled relationship. Some examples follow: “You don’t talk to me.” “When’s the last time we had a serious conversation.” “With all the things going on in the world today, why can’t we talk about them?” “You just tune me out.” Through these everyday expressions, one can capture an expectation that a marriage relationship should in the least possess some depthful, conversational intimacy. The functionality would be either validation and/or emotional nourishment. And it is this quality that makes the relationship different or “special” when compared to the more superficial relationships one has in his/her broader social network.
Along with the first two ideals that characterize many American marital expectations are ideals concerning parenting and careers. After many years of working with families, I have yet to hear a person who did not want to be a “great parent.” Even in the most pathological situations, people still aspire to the goal of parental excellence. Granted, most people think parental excellence is closely tied to child outcome, but it is an ideal nonetheless. This ideal is expressed in such common idioms as, “I just want them to have a good start.” “They (the children) mean the world to me.” “I will do whatever it takes to provide a good home.” “I don’t want to treat them the way my parents treated me.” So, in addition to taking on the role of husband and wife, the couple must now take their respective roles as “mother” or “father.” This seems to be where the role strain can be most keenly felt.
The fourth ideal I have encountered repeatedly in people’s search for fulfillment and happiness is a “successful career.” Successful is not only defined in terms of wages, but status, prestige or power. It may be more appropriate to define successful as it relates to the career aspirations of the individual. What I have seen, however, is that it usually includes a work ethic and some confidence about mastery or competence in one’s occupation. (This career ideal should be broadly defined and include “stay-at-home” parents, who make a career out of child-rearing.)
The tenuousness of committed relationships, whether married or cohabiting, suggests people are very unrealistic in their expectations regarding marriage & family life. Because of the finiteness of an individual’s energy, time and availability, he/she cannot realize any more than two of these four ideals at “any one moment in time.” It is possible to have all of them, but it is over the course of the person’s lifetime. As one moves developmentally through life, various role demands predominate requiring others to recede in priority, temporarily, into the background. (Example: When the couple begins to have children, it is not unusual for the “hot romance” to recede as a priority for the couple. It is rediscovered as the couple moves to a time when child-care demands and parenting responsibilities are lessened. This is usually middle age.)
The strength in this model lies in offering a more realistic and longer-term perspective for young adults regarding the ideals they have for their lives. The tendency for people in early and middle adulthood is to think a marriage relationship is over when the “hot romance” wanes and does not match the ideal each partner still possesses. This model says that this is not necessarily the case and that in fact “hot romance” may be rediscovered when additional energy, time and availability permit. Also, as people mature, it is the companionate aspects of married life that become a larger priority (altering the ideal somewhat). Emotional security concerns predominate and these are found through companionship and to a certain extent conversational intimacy.
3 Comments
May 2, 2008 at 5:43 pm
he stated that when building a home, there are three dimensions or factors to be considered. And before he articulated what the three dimensions are, he quickly explained that of the three, we can only have two.
Reminds me of the definition of a triangle…and if you only have two sides, you’re stuck with a right angle, an acute angle, an obtuse angle, or a straight line.
The tenuousness of committed relationships, whether married or cohabiting, suggests people are very unrealistic in their expectations regarding marriage & family life.
Such is human nature? Or, such is a habit or pattern that could be broken if one just altered the thought process first?
I like your commentary on “hot romance” and “abiding friendship” polarities. Physical attraction vs. intellectual attraction. Excitement vs. reliability. Starting roster vs. practice squad.
I’ll take an “abiding friendship” over a “hot romance” any day.
What do you make of the either/or regarding career and personal life? In the pursuit or maintenance of each?
Some folks have a great job but can’t seem to keep a potential friend or beyond-friend coming back for more than a second encounter.
Other folks can’t seem to figure out the career thing (perpetually dissatisfied or prone to job-hopping) but have a great social network?
And of course to round out the permutations, those who have neither, those who have both and are extremely content, and those that have both but are indifferent to both.
May 3, 2008 at 9:36 am
1. I like your image of the triangle. Some in my field think all relationships are triangles, so much for dyadic relationships.
2. I think it is probably both human nature and thought processes. Most people want to realize the dreams the culture provides for them, but I think in post-modern America the dream is too daunting. And to challenge the dream with a different perspective can feel un-American. My hope is that people can recognize that human relationships are full of complexities and intricacies. To devalue or discard a committed relationship before one explores how their view shapes a problem and actually may contribute to its creation is premature. “Falling in love” is a romantic myth. It is the same as how I see happiness (See related post.). It comes and goes and to expect it to be any different will ultimately lead to “weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
3. As far as career vs. personal life, our culture has made its choice and work wins! Intellectually, people tell themselves that their careers are about the breadwinning role, which is partially true. But the reality of work as the number one priority overshadows the “family first” ideal, intentional or by default. Now as far as maintenance, balancing career & family is a juggling act, ongoing and reflexive. If people can be realistic, they may save themselves a lot of angst.
4. I love your use of mathematical language! The permutations can be endless, but the point is to ponder where one is in his/her choice/s. It is all about choice/s. And if you do not examine it, the culture will make the choice for you, which makes us mindless. And that’s what worries me.
May 3, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Thank you for loving my use of mathematical language. It’s a cryin shame I’m not better at it. ^O^