I believe that every good relationship must be perceived as approximately equal by both parties most of the time. To put it another way, you have to give as good as you get, and you have to get as good as you give, to achieve sustained mutual satisfaction.

I say “perceived” because beauty, as well as everything else in this world, exists only in the eye or mind of the beholder. Period. I enjoy listening to the piano music of Chopin. You might prefer Lady Gaga. Or silence. That is why an outsider can never know for sure how and why a relationship works, or doesn’t work. A relationship is an invisible connection between two people.

I say “approximately equal” because exact equality is rare and unnecessary. That is where the 80% Solution comes into play. When I rate another person as meeting 80% or more of my ideal for their role in my life (friend, barber, spouse), that is good enough. (In the case of a brain surgeon I would probably go for 98%, or whatever is the very best available.) My life is sunny when I’m satisfied. I do not need always to search for better. So if I feel I get out of a relationship about as much as I put in 80% of the time, I am happy.

You can achieve approximate equality in a relationship either by giving more of yourself or giving less. My usual tactic, if I feel I am not getting enough, is to rework the balance by giving less. If you keep our conversations superficial, I will spend less time with you. This was true with my mother when I was an adult. She refused to have a heart-to-heart talk. Ever. When I was child we had wonderful conversations for hours at a time, but when I was an adult, for some reason she withdrew. After many attempts over a number of years, I simply gave up and chose to spend less time with her. I felt I was getting less from her so I gave less of myself, and as a result I found myself more satisfied with our relationship.

The Equal Relationship can be attained, and often is, but it is a balancing act and can usually be achieved only if both parties are willing to work at it.

Richard is a close friend of mine, and in his marriage used the tactic of giving less of himself to restore a perceived imbalance.  This turned out to be more than useless, it was just plain wrong. When he was unhappy with Ruth Ann, his wife, Richard withdrew. As a result, Ruth Ann hid her feelings from him more and more. Then Richard withdrew even further. Their marriage, like many, went straight downhill until Richard decided to try something entirely different – giving Ruth Ann more.

Richard told Ruth Ann that she has been his number one priority from the day they were married.

After that, they “cleared the decks” and talked about what each of them wanted in their relationship and what they had withheld. Their marriage has never been better. It’s still about equal, but at a much higher level (90% instead of 40% on the Fox Satisfaction scale).

If it’s really important to you to get more—give more. But you have to go first. It will be worth it. And if you are in a relationship where your partner is unable or unwilling to reciprocate, then at least you’ll realize the true situation and you can choose to give less or get out.

The Equal Relationship is well worth pursuing. And maintaining.

Alan

When I was seven or eight my father started holding “the family conference.”  The primary purpose was to talk about and resolve family grievances which inevitably arise. For example, my little brother David often ate the last of the peanut butter and didn’t leave any for my lunch.

At each family conference, if possible, we would take action to solve whatever problems were discussed. We met in the living room. I can still see my father sitting in the big stuffed chair in the corner, smoking his pipe, with me and my little brother on the sofa next to him, and my mother in her chair on the other side of the room.

The rules were:

1. Any family member could call a family conference, which was normally held within a day or two of the request.
2. Any of us could speak for as long as we wanted to, without interruption.  I frequently cried when describing my problem, but everyone else waited for me to compose myself.  No one could interrupt or directly argue.
3. The conference lasted for as long as it needed to, until everyone had been heard on any subject they wanted to talk about.
4. There was no “blaming” allowed, and there was usually an attempt to resolve each problem by all family members agreeing on a solution, often after a compromise was reached.

I found “The Family Conference” to be very helpful, even though I usually didn’t think of my best arguments until the next morning.

I was a sensitive kid.  I cried when I was frustrated, which was often. These conferences made me feel safe to be myself—first crying, and finally expressing my needs and opinions.  Even if my problem wasn’t solved every time, I felt much better after the conference because both of my parents had taken the time to sit and listen to what I had to say.  In other words, I felt that they heard me.  The process also seemed more democratic than parental dictatorship which is the governing process for many families.

So parents, if you aren’t already doing so, I encourage you to starting holding family conferences. It will involve your children in running your family on a more egalitarian basis, preparing them to be better parents for your grandchildren. This is one form of glue that does hold families together. It teaches your children to use their words, rather than their fists.  It also encourages direct communication, rather than having children hide their feelings, or communicate only with friends.  Shouldn’t family members be best friends and look out for each other?

I think so.

Alan