Methods of Our Madness

I had gotten out of a relationship in Oct/Nov 2008 and was attempting to "date" again. It should be noted, I am a horrific dater. I never really had to do it before - I always just met someone and it "clicked." So I went through a month or two of trying to actually meet new people and go out on first (and usually only first) dates. This did not last that long. I was bad at it and in no way was it fun. But this entry came to me about in the middle of this dating exposition.

The following was originally posted in December 2008:

In the dating marketplace (and dating is basically a mercantile enterprise), we are searching for a commodity called a Relationship and we want just the right model to match our ideal of Mr. Right. We want someone with all the right attributes, whatever they may be - looks, brains, talent, income, prestige, style, religious beliefs… the list of requirements goes on and on. So we peruse, compare, evaluate, and consider, until we find the relationship commodity that best fits our requirements. Then we attempt to acquire it.

The Main Event: Dating

When we've made a choice (and been chosen) through whatever matchmaking methodology we've employed, we are ready to venture out on the extended test drive called Dating. This is when we take a long look at the merchandise, evaluate the handling, the responsiveness to our needs, the reliability, and, of course, the ease of maintenance. Is this model the right one for my active lifestyle? Will it enhance my image in the eyes of others? Is it suitable for everyday use or just weekend drives in the country? All these concerns and more are vetted during the Dating process.

Sometimes the Dating process ends very quickly. Our evaluative radar is on high alert. Is there “chemistry?” Are there any obvious flaws or faults, deal breakers or intolerable annoyances? Signs of ideological or religious incompatibility? Our antennae quiver alertly, our fingers hover over the relationship ejection button.
Many people have a hair-trigger inclination to dismiss a date out of hand with nothing more than a vague hunch or intuition as the basis for judgment. After all, who wants to get involved in the messy activity of building a relationship when you don’t like some... je ne sais qua?

If neither of you disqualify the other on the first encounter or two, you embark on the extended process of formal Dating. You are so damn lucky.
When two parties come together for the purpose of Dating, each side approaches with an expectation of the romantic happiness to which they feel they are entitled. Thus, a modern-day romantic relationship is essentially an exercise in entitlement: you must satisfy my needs or I will shop around for someone who will. “I want my needs met” is the war cry of relationship shoppers everywhere.

A Radical Redefinition of Relationship

The relationship-as-commodity model, based on the same logic on which we conduct our economic lives, is a failure in the world of love and romance. Even when both parties agree that the other adequately satisfies their needs, the relationship is nothing more than a dehumanizing transaction, an alienated arrangement that can be revoked, terminated, and abandoned at the whim of either party. The give-to-get equation, with it’s cold calculus and focus on self-gratification, is antithetical to a humane relationship, let alone one that produces romantic bliss.

The only way out of the state in which we find ourselves relationally speaking is to radically redefine what it means to engage in the activity of relationship. A relationship is not a transaction in which emotional goods are exchanged, as the relationship attorneys would have us believe. Rather, it is something built by the parties involved, an object of love that gets created, not exchanged.
I am not giving to satisfy your needs, and you are not giving to satisfy mine, but we are both giving to the relationship, which transcends yet includes both of us. Rather than giving in order to get, and obsessing over our needs, we both give in order to give, and marvel at the wonderful object of our creation, our Relationship.

Perhaps, in the forgotten words of John Lennon, I am a dreamer, but I hope I’m not the only one. I have no self-help plan, no glib Dr. Phil advice on how to achieve sure-fire relationship success. I am not even saying it would be easy. Giving for the sake of giving, for the sake of creating something with another person rather than getting something for oneself, is not an effort that lends itself to simple, paint-by-number steps. It requires a qualitatively different kind of activity, the kind of activity a mother engages in with her child, an artist with his work, a priest with his flock. There is almost a spiritual quality to it.

Can we imagine a way of dating that isn't organized like a serial job interview? Where objectification and evaluation are not the main activities? Where we could do other things, like create a relationship not based on idealized expectations but on the reality of who two people actually are? Perhaps, like imagining a world without divisive politics or religion, it seems hopelessly idealistic and naive.

If we could imagine it, we might also imagine having more than a single, eggs-one-basket relationship that must bear up under the stress and struggle of two people trying to get all their emotional needs met. Perhaps we wouldn't have to idealize and, some say, fetishize the couple. One can only imagine what that might free us to create with each other.

But a new way of relating is not easily conceived of or acted upon in this age of self-gratification. With the next relationship commodity just around the corner, why bother trying? I just want to get my needs met.