Although I could argue that all rigid role relations are difficult to work out and change, I believe that competitive symmetry would be the hardest to change. When there is a struggle for the one-up position, it is usually a pattern that is persistent and never-ending. Also, if the core values of the male and female stress that the male should have dominance, and the female wants dominance as well, it could be hard to alter the cultural perspectives that have shaped the two individuals. The book stresses that patterns should be looked at, and not personality or character, but sometimes being a dominant controlling individual can lie in the core of who you are as a person. Power and control are important to some, so if you get two people are in constant strain for the dominant position, it would be a pretty difficult aspect to alter.
I believe that the rigid complementarity pattern would be the most damaging to the self-esteem of the individuals involved because one partner is feeling as if their opinion doesn't matter. The text talks about how interpersonal communication builds self esteem, and sense of identity, and if the conversation and decisions are always being made by the dominant person, the submissive partner could feel a loss of importance or self-worth. Always being told what to do, or how to act, can make one feel as though they are incompetent, resulting in a lower self-esteem.
A Rigid complementarity pattern would also be the most damaging to a relationship because of the loss of self-esteem or need to be heard. If there is a member of a relationship who is feeling like they are being dominated, and has taken steps to gain a one-up position and has failed, it wouldn't take long for the relationship to go into a "regressive spiral".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can relate to your comments in terms of the difficulty in letting go of a desire to be in control, however, I would argue that it can be extremely healthy to go through that very exercise in any long-term relationship. I know people who feel they need to be that dominant controlling individual you speak of, but they are always either alone or in terrible relationships. It is often unthinkable for them to give up that power, so in that I would again agree that it is most likely the hardest to shift away from. Then again many submissive folks don’t know where to start in terms of standing up for what they want/need.
ReplyDeleteI agree that all rigid role relations are difficult to change. Most of these roles create strain and damage relationships beyond repair. Competitive symmetry, trying to always dominate over the other and vice versa, would be very difficult to change or tolerate. If no one backs down from the dominant role because they are naturally control freaks, it would create extreme stress and strain on the other person. Being in a relationship is about compromise. Being equal in decision making. Also being able to let the other person dominate if the circumstances calls for that allows for both partners to feel equally important. Though submissive people are quieter and less demanding, it does not mean they don't know what they stand for or need. Submissive individuals are just more reserved and need approval to feel comfortable.
ReplyDeleteYes, rigid role and competitive symmetry both seem real hard to change. Both can be very demanding and frustrating roles. Takes a lot of engery to maintain it and having a tipping effect. "Also, if the core values of the male and female stress that the male should have dominance, and the female wants dominance as well, it could be hard to alter the cultural perspectives that have shaped the two individuals."(Summer10) Yes, great point, it would be like a tug a war. Also like how you putted out the "regressive spiral" effect and how it would lead to that. Overall, relationships need to have a balance and each person shouldn't lose themselves within the relationship or they'll go nuts.
ReplyDelete