I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.
If refugee ceased to think of herself as having more or less power and just thought of conversation as pleasant and natural interaction between two human beings, the hard and fast rules about who should do what wouldn't be necessary. Yeah, it makes sense to not want to feel vulnerable, but the existence of the rule is in itself the source of so much disappointment that i don't think it's worth having (in my personal experiences as least). I would rather accept vulnerability as a necessary element to a successful relationship than something i should try to protect myself from. For me, that is the core of all intimacy... my choice to become vulnerable is the best way i know to express my interest in someone. So, to answer the question of how i protect my heart: poorly! But the fact that i'm in a happy, stable relationship makes me think that i've done something right. I concede that you and kb undoubtedly know more about all this than i do. It's entirely likely that i sound totally naive, but oh well. I noticed that kb said people who acknowledge the power struggle are more equipped to cope with it, but i wholeheartedly believe that the struggle only exists if you want it to. Speaking as a paralegal for a divorce attorney (if that even counts for anything), i've observed that it's entirely possible to have an equitable, fulfilling relationship without keeping score. Doing so doesn't make the relationship function any better, it just makes the value of the intimacy worse. Although which option is more healthy in the long run i can't say for sure. kb and plenty other people would probably consider my romantic endeavors clumsy. And they're probably all right. But i would much rather be clumsy and happy than careful and upset.
Well . . . we don't have to consider a situation to be a "power struggle" if we throw out the notion that power is something that is won. Power is dynamic and fluid. Negotiating power dynamics is something we do all the time on the small scale. Many languages deal with abstract concepts kind of sloppily (no surprise). For example, in English many of these concepts are expressed in a way that implies permanence or a static state. Furthermore, this lends itself to the idea of "winning" and "losing". If we consider power to be something that is dynamic and that must be continually negotiated for, then we can get out of this mindset that when we don't have power that we have somehow "lost" instead of found an opportunity to renegotiate our position. By imposing rules, we then resort to the mindset of, "what rights do I have?" vs. "what rights do you have?" In a rights-based frame, we are again confronted with the "win/lose" dynamic, which of course means that if one side wins, then the other loses. That's a pretty shitty way to relate to someone, in my opinion. Another frame we might resort to is a relational frame, wherein the people involved try to collaborate in order to foster the relationship. In this sense, I'm using "relationship" in a greater context than "a romantic relationship". For example, you might be familiar with this frame in the context of friendships. Let's say that you and your buddy agree that you are hungry. Your buddy wants to go to his favorite place and you want to go to your favorite place. It might turn out that your buddy really just wants a burger and you want a slice. Therefore, you might decide to go to a place that has good (or good enough) burgers and slices. Or, through conversation, you might find that you both want to try that new place, or could go for nachos instead. Note that this is not a compromise, but a renegotiation. A compromise implies that at least one party must lose something, which often does not have to be the case. The thing is, the relational frame only works if all the people involved are willing to play. That said, this is something that people only use when they're interested in maintaining or continuing the relationship. If that's not the case, then an interest-based frame might be the way to go.I hate that we have to consider there to be a "power struggle" in the first place. I mean, yeah, there's a system of giving and taking and gestures that are offered and then reciprocated. But perceiving not only power, but a struggle for that power just seems to create arbitrary competition over something that no one can win anyway.