The relationship-organism

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about what could be called the “relationship-organism”. I’ve tried to blog about it for six days now, but I find it difficult to express my thoughts about this clearly.

My feeling is that, today, relationships are often regarded as contracts regulating the interaction of two separate individuals. The contract is breached whenever either party no longer gets his/her rightful outcome from the relationship – or, rather, when the other party ceases to fulfil his/her needs. The focus is on “getting” instead of “giving”. Although getting assumes giving, I think it is more healthy to instead focus on “giving”.

There’s also a danger in regarding a relationship as an interaction between two separate individuals. Whenever you interact closely with someone, it becomes obvious (if you’re paying attention) that it’s very difficult to draw a distinct line separating you and whomever you’re living with. When one has problems, they inevitably become the problems of the other. When one feels happy, the other feels happy.

So the two people in a relationship can be said to constitute a single organism, a relationship-organism. Instead of focussing (however consciously) on getting “your rightful share”, I have found that focussing on the well-being of the organism is much better. When faced with a number of alternatives for what you should do in a particular situation, if you regard yourself as a separate individual, one alternative might stand out as the best choice. But this choice might negatively affect the relationship-organism.

As a very simple example, let’s say you’re late for work and don’t have time to do the dishes. The choice to leave the dishes and go to work clearly saves “you” from coming late to work. Let’s say that your girlfriend or boyfriend is still asleep, but when he/she wakes up, he/she has to do the dishes to be able to eat breakfast, which causes him/her to miss an appointment. In the evening, he/she is angry with you, because it was your turn to do the dishes (otherwise he/she would have set the clock to ring at 7 instead of 7.30). The relationship-organism suffers, but at least you made it in time to work.

With this example I don’t mean to say that the right thing is always to go for the option that makes the other happy. That’s not acting with the organism in mind. This is not about giving up “individuality” – your interests are the interests of the organism. In fact, they’re inseparable.

Since I became a parent, I have noticed that in the inevitable shift of focus towards the well-being of the child, this is actually a shift of focus towards the well-being of the “family-organism”. Some actions are directly targeted at the well-being of the child (feeding her, comforting her, changing diapers), while others are indirect (eating, sleeping, resting, to have enough energy for taking care of her). So this shift happens rather naturally, but if you’re unaware of its importance, you might fight it.

For example, you might choose to watch TV although you know you have to do the dishes and the laundry. For a while, you defer the interests of the organism for your own. Again, I don’t mean to say that this is always wrong. Sometimes it might be just the rest that you need. I just find that doing things for the well-being of the organism makes it easier to deal with household chores when all I want to do is to slump onto the sofa and watch The Sopranos.

Somehow the alternatives that benefit you as a separate individual, instead of the entire organism, seems to generally be more short-term. A little like: Think about yourself and feel good today; think about the organism and feel good tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow…

This view also puts a new perspective on equality at home. In Sweden, at least, equality is a Big Thing. In many relationships, the rule is that both should do 50 percent of every task: 50 percent of the dishes, 50 percent of the laundry etc. I think this is an effect of regarding yourselves as two separate individuals. With this paradigm, you seldom do more than 50 percent without a (perhaps secret) motive. Why would you? “Oh, John! You have done 76 percent of the dishes this week! I love you!” There’s no need to keep track! All that counts is that the organism feels good.

It is about realizing that in a relationship or family, it is impossible to separate the individuals from the whole. Each one affects the other in infinite ways. Only thinking about yourself, about getting your fair share, about not doing more than you rightfully should, is asking for trouble. Trust me, it will be a perpetual struggle.

I think it’s for the same reasons that I don’t buy political ideologies that are based on the notion that “if everybody just mind their own business, the system will work”. (It might be the only satisfactory solution for the justice system, but it won’t work in the entire society.) If one only cares about oneself, there’s little long-term thinking – and no long-term thinking at all beyond the length of one’s life. Someone said that “All politics is local”, but I’d rather say that all politics must be global and long-term.

But does the organism mindset “scale”, as us programmers like to ask? Yes. It scales beyond the relationship and family. It scales to the entire world and the entire future. You can always choose to act for the well-being of all people and the future of our planet. If everyone did this, you would benefit, as part of this world-organism. So, your interests are catered to, after all. Did I hear someone say “win-win situation”?