At the family level, we find the pull represented at the extreme by the state of enmeshment. Members of the family are “in each other’s hair” all the time. Regular phone calls (or texting) occur to ensure constant contact and monitoring among family members. Everyone’s behavior is interwoven with everyone else’s behavior within the family. Once again, cultural factors often play a major role in encouraging (or even demanding) close family ties.
At the level of neighborhood, we find pull represented in traditional American communities. Homes were built with indoor parlors and outdoor porches. Neighbors were invited into homes for conversations—the French word for speech is parlant(e). While walking down the street, neighbors were invited to sit on one’s porch “for a spell.” Informal conversations regarding what was happening in the community ensured. Neighborhood parks in suburban areas brought children (and attending parents) together for playful activities. In urban areas, local cathedrals and churches hosted a wide variety of neighborhood services – ranging from summer camps and potluck dinners to education and even health care. Gemeinschaft reigned supreme.
At the societal level we find many forces that bring people together. They are based once again on a number of factors ranging from social norms to the configuration of buildings and the space between buildings (plazas, commons, etc.). Work-related relationships are also personal relationships. Business is conducted with an emphasis at first on “getting to know” one another and building shared trust. This in turn often means an exchange of gifts, several dinners together or even a long period of time in which personal information is shared. One does not just “leap into” business-related issues.
Given this multi-level distinction between relational push and pull, I will explore several of the ramification associated with each. I begin by offering a collective perspective on relationships—noting that there are two different kinds of relationships (transactional and autotelic). I then adopt a personal perspective—noting that there are two different orientations toward relationships (Introversion and Extraversion).
Type of Relationships: Transactional and Autotelic
There is a fundamental distinction to be drawn that helps to define the nature of interpersonal relationships and the reasons why we relate to other people. This distinction concerns the reason(s) why we enter into relationships with other people.
Transactional Relationships
There are transactional (or instrumental) relationships through which strong relationships can be formed. They prevail in a Gesellschaft society where “practical” relationships are of greatest concern. Two busy people find a good “excuse” to work together and find that there is mutual benefit in the formation of this relationship. Each of them is responsive to the distinctive need(s) of the other person—even if these needs differ significantly from their own.
The two participants in a transactional relationship are able to set aside time (in their jammed schedule) to meet together—sometimes even in person. At least initially, their reason to meet is instrumental in nature. They both wish to achieve some goal with the assistance of their colleague. It might be an opportunity to meet in some wonderful spot where they can collaborate in person – a spa in California, a seaside resort in Cancun, a mountain cabin in Oregon. What better “reason” to enjoy good company at a great location. Much can be done when lounging on a deck while chatting about the outlines of a new book – there might even be an audio recorder to pick up the conversation. If a “business” trip to the seacoast isn’t feasible, then the conversation might take place via Zoom—with this constructive interaction being recorded.
