In between the extremes of selfless devotion and the war of egos lies a compromise position that brokers a mutually beneficial exchange. Unlike the unconditional love of being to or for the other, this second response to being alone places all sorts of conditions on the relationship. Termed ezer or a ‘helper’ in Hebrew, the implication is that we enter into relationships due to the assistance that the other can offer us. My commitment has the proviso that it be good for me. If it works (‘we’re a functional couple, we make a good team, we are partners in life’) then keep it. If, however, an imbalance exists in the relationship, then we may feel like we are getting short-changed and seek to dissolve the marriage. ‘This is not an even exchange. You are getting the better deal.’ Such remarks give new meaning to the idea of a ‘bartered bride‘ and ‘husband for hire.’  As evident in the language that describes this type of connection, we are dealing with a transactional relationship–a give and take.

Along the lines of this social contract we may greet our significant other with a list of demands. There can even be a standoff until someone decides to draw first: ‘I’ll show you love, respect and consideration, if you promise to do the same.’ ‘If I get what I want then you’ll get what you want.’ Extending this logic to absurd lengths, we may imagine a social experiment where a couple is living together and divides everything straight down the middle–all expenses, chores, and responsibilities. She says to him: ‘I can’t make dinner tonight because you have still not put away the laundry.’ To which he responds ‘True, but I did take out the trash.’ ‘Not so fast, trash doesn’t equal dinner–at least not an entire meal made from scratch. That will cost you trash plus laundry. Trash by itself gets you reheated leftovers.’ This is quickly followed by him saying that ‘we just ate ice cream which I paid $6 for. Would you like to pay your $3 share dear with cash or credit? I’ll also accept PayPal.’ We could even envision such a couple having a ‘points’ system that assigns a relative value to each helpful act and then tallies the total at the end of the day to ensure that both parties are pulling their own weight. Part of the currently trending gamification movement has been getting couples in the real world to compete for virtual (and some would say ‘virtue’) points by taking care of household chores with a rewards system for the person with the highest score.

While this sort of relationship may provide company to alleviate loneliness and there certainly is a need for compatibility and fair trade agreements in any relationship, nonetheless, it seems a little bit distant when compared to the enthusiasm of selfless devotion and unconditional love. The ‘spouse as my business partner’ somehow seems less intimate than ‘spouse as the love of my life.’

Despite this, having a good ‘working’ relationship where all involved are mutually benefiting, is a good and healthy thing too. It certainly beats a dysfunctional association that de-evolves into domestic warfare. Pragmatism favors peace. Establishing new trade agreements, we may usher in a reasonable armistice which can be maintained as long as the dictates of the treaty are adhered to. The problem is that we are often less than reasonable and violations of the truce can be easily triggered, especially when there is no love lost over the entire relationship which we predicated, not on love for the other, but on love for what the other does for me–the fringe benefits. We might dramatize this with a voice that says ‘I stayed with her because I got to use her car,’ or ‘he is my personal shlepper, so I guess I have to keep him–no one else is going to carry my stuff….”

Sometimes, the Sages read the term ezer (helper) together with the term k’negdo (opposite) such that ezer k’negdo often translates simply as a ‘wife.’ Normally, the terms are split and placed before us as two alternative possibilities: if we are meritorious then our significant other will be helpful to us, but if we are not meritorious, then our spouse will oppose us. Another way of reading the expression (which ties both states together), could be to translate it as ‘helpful opposition.’ Every once in a while what we really need, what would truly be helpful, would be someone standing up to us, someone to give us a reality check. The support I receive from the other may be imparted to me in the form of calling me into question by voicing objections and filling in my blind spot. If our soulmate was meant to unequivocally agree with and back everything we want, think or say, there would be almost zero opportunity for personal growth. Real help takes me higher even if it paradoxically involves deflating my ego and critiquing my ideas or limiting my spontaneity.

Another reading of these two words (ezer k’negdo) can be brought out from the Targum Onkelos (the essential Aramaic translation-commentary of the Torah) which renders the expression as samech l’kivlai wherein ‘samech’ means ‘support’ and ‘l’kivlai’ means ‘parallel.’ In this reading, it is not opposition pure and simple but rather mirroring. I will become a reflection of you and you will become a reflection of me. You are the one standing opposite me and as I act towards you, so will you act towards me in corresponding fashion. Merging both terms, our significant other is enlisted as ‘parallel support.’ If I want to gauge how well I am doing, if I want to have a good assessment of my performance, my spouse may supply me with this kind of feedback. In this way, the support stems from the parallelism, from the face to face, from the dialogue and exchange. All of it builds me up just as it builds the relationship. Trying to attain of ‘model’ relationship, where we are together for all the right reasons, revolves around the utility of this parallelism. Consequently, we end up mimicking one another subconsciously as part of our natural mode of being.

Folded up inside me, this case morphs into an arbitration of divergent drives within our psychic nature. It brings to mind metacognitive functions that have to relate and integrate diverse thoughts and feelings. When I reflect upon myself, I am challenged to support my own conclusions and to feel justified with how I perceive myself and the world. I need to be reconciled with myself–to find a ‘second’ self within me who supports the ‘first self’ throughout life’s challenges. The personification of one’s second self usually falls under the title of acquiring a conscience. To get the backing of one’s owns conscience reinforces the direction that one is taking and amplifies convictions and certifies one’s internal state of affairs.

When I fall into a state of inner opposition and do not have the support of my inner voice (this voice can raise very loud objections against me in fact), I may come to feel self-persecuted and self-critical. Lacking a ‘clear conscious’ and mired in self-doubt, I stand divided within the home of my conscious mind and beat myself up in attempting to provoke inner change and personal transformation.

My second self mediates conflicts between my various drives using the calculus of profit and loss. We ‘sell’ things to ourselves using the trading license of our conscience. Rationalizations seek to steady the wheel and prevent major course corrections because we don’t want to rock the boat too much. Let everything be ‘measure for measure’ as my understanding adjudicates all of my experience. Unlike the overdriven state of selfless dedication (I’m going to keep going at all costs–even if it costs me my prized rationality), here I am fine as long as I have continued internal support. Only the absence of help (in this instance an absence of self-reliance) will push me out of my nest and teach my to find the wings that will take me aloft. Transcendence of this sort cannot be achieved by playing it safe with even exchanges. Significant self-transformation must look beyond the moderation of our ‘rational’ support system to the excesses of super-rational dedication, for when our conditional reasons for change weaken and wither, we dismiss the need for it and remain unaltered.

For Part Four we will engage the other as a source of continual conflict. Through conflict management and new rules of engagement, we may come to see the upside in the disturbances of our outer and inner peace.

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-4/

http://www.interinclusion.org/inspirations/relationship-differences-fusion-and-defusion-part-2/ 

Print PDF