Achieving Equality in Relationships, cont.page 2
The ratio of communication between partners should be
very close to one-to-one, even if one of the partners is the strong, silent
type. When a partner receives a grunt or platitude in response to an introduced
topic, the communicative partner receives the signal that her partner has lost
interest. Though other areas of interest may persist, an abatement of interest
in a partner’s thoughts about general, cultural, and social issues is a major
negative development in the relationship. The lack of equitable response in a
timely fashion with sufficient equal depth frustrates the underbenefitted
partner because it indicates not only a loss of interest in sharing ideas, but
also a lack of even superficial effort by the noncommunicative partner, and the
possibility that the current interests of both partners, which was an initial
attraction, are no longer the same. When one partner is too busy or already
knows how the other will respond and stops discussing issues introspectively,
the other partner is no longer reinforced to introduce topics for discussion
(and doesn’t want to prod and nag for a response), and the couple cease
communicating altogether rather than one partner maintaining a one-sided
monologue.
The talkative partner can solve the problem by
finding a new friend or a new lover with whom to discuss topics of convergent
interest. The noncommunicative partner can solve the problem and restore the
peace by providing value (this is what keeps jewelry stores in business), if the
slighted partner places a high value on the object or service in trade for
having to talk to a stone wall. Or one of the other of the partners can research
topics more thoroughly, incidentally gaining an interest in the topic, to be
able to converse. Sometimes, interest simply doesn’t develop, as when one
partner has a high level of technical or engineering expertise while the other
is a philosophy and language expert, each explaining their fields tediously to
one another.
Equity theory has made considerable advances in
clarifying human interactions in conflictive interpersonal relationships, group
task performance (Gergen), business relationship bargaining (Rapaport), and
sociology, but data on how equity theory operates in intimate relationships is
scarce, because people are attracted to other people so similar to themselves
that individual exchanges must be analyzed to determine fairness, and the
concept of fairness must be shown to contribute to some degree to a couple’s
happiness. Some equitable relationships are happy, some aren’t, and not all
happy relationships are equitable ones. An equitable exchange of angry words
doesn’t indicate that a couple is happy, even though each gave his or her fair
share of jabs in the argument. If the relationship is satisfactory to the
partners, even if one partner is happy giving more or receiving less or one
prefers to be dominant and one prefers to be submissive in a complementary
personality dynamic, then a weird kind of equity soup can simmer for decades.
Others prefer defacto leaders and followers, having one partner make the
plans and the other review and okay them, one partner doing the detail work
while the other does the big picture work.
People tend to choose as their romantic partners
those who roughly equal themselves in physical attractiveness, economic status,
attitudes, interests, and overall social desirability (Baron); if a man wants to
attract a woman who’s out of his league, he has to bring additional value (his
“A-game”) to the relationship, and maintain this elevated level of desirability
to keep her, which involves hard and continual effort, and possibly some
self-immolating humiliation, if that’s what his high-maintenance, upgrade model
values.
Within one’s class, we meet others who have a greater
likelihood of possessing equal emotional and material needs, and, therefore, a
higher potential to maintain equitable relationships in which we can feel safe
making demands for equitable treatment. People with similar assets, or the
capacity to obtain similar assets upon which both partners place equal value,
attract one another, and, “so long as individuals perceive that they can
maximize their outcomes by behaving equitably, they will do so.” (Walster, p. 5)
So, two people meet, evaluate the approximate
comparable resources and costs they can expect from one another, see some
complementary balance in what each brings to the table, and a dance of romance
begins between socioeconomic adjacent-class partners, or between gigolo and
loaded elderly spinster.
But what about the love, or respect, or excitement,
or romance, or sexual passion that develops and infuses the relationship, making
the questions of fairness in exchanges untenable:
“Did you get a fair return of appreciation in the
form of a head nod, a hug, or a ‘Thank you,’ for instance, from your partner
when you gave him the gift of a new sweater?” an equity theory researcher asks.
“I gave him the sweater because I love him. My love
is unselfish, unconditional, sentimental, and special. My love is not a duty or
obligation. I give because I want to show my love. I give because others need. I
am a giving, compassionate person. Besides, we have a joint banking account. So,
ehhnn.”
There can be no further analysis about equity in such
an exchange, just as there can be no value placed on the shared parenthood
experience, what raising a child means to a mother or father, the pride and joy
parents feel when a child succeeds. No value can be assigned to the varying
perceptions of value each person brings into an intimate relationship or what
each partner is willing to negotiate and compromise away.
| Previous Page | Read more |