Ambivalence: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay ( Archived) (290)

Part of that title is from Mira Kirshenbaum's insightful book on ambivalence in relationships: Too Good to Leave, Too Bad to Stay.

This issue is raised, albeit rather less directly, in another current thread (poll): "Choose between a traditional marriage (death do you part) or a five year renewable contract."

This question essentially asks how one views commitment, so I would like to devote a thread specifically to that and strongly corollary issues such as ambivalence.

With this in mind, I want to quote here and respond to some CSer posts in the "renewable contract thread" (I assume this doesn't violate any CS rules?).

"Commitment" can mean different things to different people, of course, so I'll begin by telling you what I mean by it in the context of a romantic relationship.

Commitment in a romantic relationship clearly has at least two and possibly more stages. The first commitment would be to get to know the person you're interested in. The second commitment might be to exclusively focus on your partner - or to commit to following some agreed-upon rules in an open marriage or otherwise polyamorous relationship.

The third kind of commitment - the one I'm mainly concerned with here - is the commitment to have an exclusive romantic relationship that assumes a long-term involvement. Because it assumes a long-term involvement - that is, an involvement without any foreseen or anticipated terminus - this kind of commitment includes planning for a future together. In other words, you've answered YES to the question: Do I want to make a life together with this person? Of course none of us can absolutely predict how long our lives or involvements may last, but the presumption is of an indefinitely long relationship. In other words, this commitment does not entail staying together *no matter what*, but rather the belief that you and your partner may very probably be together for the remainder of your life.

Ambivalence, like commitment, also occurs in various stages and to varying degrees. One would quite reasonably be "ambivalent," for example when one barely knows the person in question. Ambivalence in this nascent stages of love is obviously appropriate (most of us cringe when we see people pledging eternal love after fifteen minutes of virtual contact! ).

As the relationship deepens, however, a continuing questioning of one's partner's compatibility may lead to a more or less permanent state of ambivalence. You may both love each other dearly, but somehow you can't quite believe your partner's right for you - beyond the moment or near-future that is. THIS is the state of ambivalence I wish to discuss.

So with that in mind, let the games begin -

Commitment for me means to stay. I don't believe in the traditional marriage vows where people feel they have to say "till death do us part". I think it should be a given when you have no other interest in any other man or woman that you are in a commitment to that person.

As far as the comment "somehow you can't quite believe your partner's right for you" is just a lack of self-esteem thinking that you aren't good enough for someone, not that they aren't good enough for you.

they re committed so long as there is something in it for them. if not, u r dumped,,,ruthlesly

Hi, Al.

True, there are doubtless a number of variations of "programming for failure" in romantic or other relationships.

Your point about "failure" is well-taken. I wrote the same thing to a friend some time back, where I argued that 14 years of marriage need not be considered a failure just because it ended; indeed, no relationship can be unqualifiedly declared a failure just because it ends. And certainly some relationships which end are better in the important respects than some relationships which endure. We all know couples who probably would be better off apart, but who persist mainly out of fear or simple habit.

First, if you intend to be in a lifelong relationship, you have failed your intention if you do not succeed at achieving this. No judgment beyond that necessarily follows.

However, the reasons that relationships fail to meet our expectation - including the expectation of a lifelong relationship - are important in measuring the success or failure of that relationship. If you fail to achieve your relationship goal out of fear or perhaps an unwillingness to devote sufficient effort in it, for example, that is different from, say, leaving your relationship because you and your partner have simply grown apart or you found someone clearly more compatible.

What I'm most concerned with here is a particular mindset which I think predisposes one to failure (programs one for failure). I believe "ambivalence," as I've defined it in the OP, is a form of programming for failure, and I'd like to delve into why and specifically how it works to undermine one's relationships.

Hi, Lucy.

I agree with you and Al here. Loving someone isn't necessarily a waste of time or a failure just because you eventually break up with them. And there are no guarantees.

What I think is key, rather, is one's attitudes toward relationships. For example, if you aren't terribly confident **in principle** in romantic relationships, you probably aren't going to make the same kind of effort as someone who is **in principle** confident that romantic relationships can work.

Ambrose, I don't think you can love every single thing about a person. My motto is.....Expect nothing and you won't be disappointed. If I don't like it that he leaves his socks all over the place that isn't necessarily setting up the relationship for failure. He doesn't put the toilet seat down and it makes me angry but I still love him.

People have different opinions on religion and politics but it doesn't always send their relationship to the graveyard. I would never expect someone to think the way I do about everything. Sharing opinions when you don't agree can be a learning experince.

Heh. Insightful as usual, Al, and the bolded/colored parts is something that has been said to many times in my current (?) relationship.

I agree that you should not overlook the present as you consider your future together. You probably shouldn't even consider a future together in the early going. In the beginning, I think the most one reasonably expect is that your potential partner give you a "fair shake" (and vice versa) as you explore each other.

But at some point, I think, the admonition that we should content ourselves with the "NOW" and that "time will tell" about the rest, becomes an exercise in evasion. I can't say, to be fair, exactly when that point comes. But I'm confident that it does come for some people.

I would say that once you have professed a deep love for each other, the time to look at the future has arrived. If you have reached that point and still have little interest in - or perhaps even an aversion toward - looking at the future, then I believe we have a "WARNING WILL ROBINSON!" kind of moment.

hi, ambrose

i get what you're saying about the effort to make work a relationship...

what i consider not so valid is the motivation that you want to put behind this effort that is "being terribly confident **in principle** in romantic relationship"

i just think that it depends more upon individual's character/personality rather that on his/her believing in romantic relationship...

i don't think romantic relationships are much different of any other task in life, therefore, i, personally, don't care much about the strong belief in romantic relationship of my potential partner rather than about his general attitude...

Hi, Monte. Well, I don't see why believing someone isn't quite right for you need be a matter of self-esteem. I'm fairly sure you're not saying that there's something psychologically suspect about someone deciding a person isn't right for them. I'm guessing you mean the notion that "I or they aren't good enough" would be a self-esteem issue, and in that I would be closer to agreement, because I think the "good enough" formula is psychologically suspect (though not necessarily wrong in all cases, but just too judgmental of a perspective, imo).