The term “equity” is a financial term that’s often used when discussing money but not in the topic of marital dynamics. We more often hear people discuss "equality" in relationships. However, it’s not as useful for guiding a couple towards creative balance in a relationship. There’s a fundamental reality that people ignore when they refer to equality in their relationship. The reality is that people have different needs and desires that make them unequal. A couple shouldn’t focus too much on making everything equal because they will become too rigid. Solutions for mutual gain require trade-offs that take differences into consideration.
Jack Spratt could eat no fat.
His wife could eat no lean.
But in betwixt the two of them,
They licked the platter clean.
Everyone knows that most women tend to better at sewing while most men are better at auto mechanics. However, it’s more of a challenge to negotiate creative trades in other dimensions such as relocations to different parts of the country or trading off vacation preferences. A strict focus on equality doesn’t encourage one to make sacrifices to promote the other or to benefit the relationship as a whole. A strategic sacrifice is when a partner accepts a loss when he or she knows that the loss allows the partner to make a gain that’s more important to him or her. If the trade is done with wisdom, the partners can reciprocate in the other direction when there’s something that the first partner cares about more passionately. Over time, both partners make out better than if they sought equality on each issue. A narrow focus on equality, issue by issue, would promote a more selfish orientation because it would be a zero-sum game. One of the best aspects of equity is that it connotes the dimension of time. A temporary loss or sacrifice is acceptable if it can produce a gain over time. The term “equality” doesn’t have such a connotation involving time.
You might be one of the many people who read this article and feel repulsed at the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps you feel you’ve been a victim in previous relationships that have been inequitable. If this is true you may have lacked some necessary skills for implementation. One of the most common problems is that partners often assume reciprocity and don’t explicitly negotiate for it. If they only assume that their partners will reciprocate and they don’t get an explicit agreement about a trade then they’re often setting themselves up to feel cheated. Without an explicit agreement, it’s common for many people to forget that their partner made a sacrifice to benefit them. The human psyche tends to drop from awareness what’s more important to the other.
If you assume that your partner will be aware of and remember most of your sacrifices without your explicit negotiation then you’re probably being naïve. You might need to do some hard bargaining to make an equitable trade really stick. For example, if your partner wants you to move so that he or she can follow his or her career then it would be smart to nail down a commitment that the next move will be yours. You might also negotiate some other specifics up front such as the maximum number of years spent in the new location before the next move. If you don’t want to trade for the next relocation then you might want to trade for something else. Perhaps you want to be subsidized to go back to school and get a new degree. Maybe you want to trade for an investment in a sailboat. Whatever it is, negotiate for an explicit agreement before you make your sacrifice. Otherwise, your partner may assume you accommodated him or her because you didn’t have a strong feeling about the matter. Your sacrifice and accommodation will be minimized or possibly even forgotten.
In our current discussion, we’ve been discussing sacrifices that are necessary for each person to get what he or she wants. However, there’s another type of sacrifice that’s more superstitious. Some people actually sacrifice because they feel guilty merely because they’re serving their own interests. It’s as if they feel they’re a bad person for being “selfish.” Even when there’s no victim they might feel that somehow their own gratification will be costing someone else. You can probably imagine how poorly such a person will balance their own relationship. This kind of problem is more fundamental than mere conflict of interest. It’s best handled in a self-help group such as Adult Children of Alcoholics, Codependents Anonymous or even in psychotherapy.
Jack Spratt could eat no fat.
His wife could eat no lean.
But in betwixt the two of them,
They licked the platter clean.
Everyone knows that most women tend to better at sewing while most men are better at auto mechanics. However, it’s more of a challenge to negotiate creative trades in other dimensions such as relocations to different parts of the country or trading off vacation preferences. A strict focus on equality doesn’t encourage one to make sacrifices to promote the other or to benefit the relationship as a whole. A strategic sacrifice is when a partner accepts a loss when he or she knows that the loss allows the partner to make a gain that’s more important to him or her. If the trade is done with wisdom, the partners can reciprocate in the other direction when there’s something that the first partner cares about more passionately. Over time, both partners make out better than if they sought equality on each issue. A narrow focus on equality, issue by issue, would promote a more selfish orientation because it would be a zero-sum game. One of the best aspects of equity is that it connotes the dimension of time. A temporary loss or sacrifice is acceptable if it can produce a gain over time. The term “equality” doesn’t have such a connotation involving time.
You might be one of the many people who read this article and feel repulsed at the idea of sacrifice. Perhaps you feel you’ve been a victim in previous relationships that have been inequitable. If this is true you may have lacked some necessary skills for implementation. One of the most common problems is that partners often assume reciprocity and don’t explicitly negotiate for it. If they only assume that their partners will reciprocate and they don’t get an explicit agreement about a trade then they’re often setting themselves up to feel cheated. Without an explicit agreement, it’s common for many people to forget that their partner made a sacrifice to benefit them. The human psyche tends to drop from awareness what’s more important to the other.
If you assume that your partner will be aware of and remember most of your sacrifices without your explicit negotiation then you’re probably being naïve. You might need to do some hard bargaining to make an equitable trade really stick. For example, if your partner wants you to move so that he or she can follow his or her career then it would be smart to nail down a commitment that the next move will be yours. You might also negotiate some other specifics up front such as the maximum number of years spent in the new location before the next move. If you don’t want to trade for the next relocation then you might want to trade for something else. Perhaps you want to be subsidized to go back to school and get a new degree. Maybe you want to trade for an investment in a sailboat. Whatever it is, negotiate for an explicit agreement before you make your sacrifice. Otherwise, your partner may assume you accommodated him or her because you didn’t have a strong feeling about the matter. Your sacrifice and accommodation will be minimized or possibly even forgotten.
In our current discussion, we’ve been discussing sacrifices that are necessary for each person to get what he or she wants. However, there’s another type of sacrifice that’s more superstitious. Some people actually sacrifice because they feel guilty merely because they’re serving their own interests. It’s as if they feel they’re a bad person for being “selfish.” Even when there’s no victim they might feel that somehow their own gratification will be costing someone else. You can probably imagine how poorly such a person will balance their own relationship. This kind of problem is more fundamental than mere conflict of interest. It’s best handled in a self-help group such as Adult Children of Alcoholics, Codependents Anonymous or even in psychotherapy.
No comments:
Post a Comment