Relationships & Transactional Processes

Was talking with a client last night and an interesting nuance came up.

I like looking at reality as being a transactional process. 

I really like looking at relationshipping as a series of transactional processes.

He does agree with the transactional part AND that, for him, there is a balance to work towards (payments-in/payments-out) that would be the mark of a "good" relationship.

It’s as if relationshipping was one of those mathematical equations where something done on one side of the equation had to be balance on the other side of the equation. Doesn’t have to be the exact same thing, it just has to have the same value. In terms of the scale, it has to have the same weight.

I get a whiff of the “Fairness in Relationshipping Doctrine” when I look at that.

I don’t use it and I understand it.

For me, relationshipping is transactional. 

AND

Each transaction is a discrete event.

It’s not linked to “payback” or “need to balance”.

There is no scale that needs balancing.

I have story/experience that this is one of those Keanu Reeves, “Whoa” moments.

Looking at Morpheus jumping from building to building.

In relationshipping, I “buy” this interaction because I want to.

I’m not buying it because I expect the other to balance the scale. 

They might do their own “purchase” that will look like it’s “balancing the scale” to an outsider and that’s not my experience of it. They are buying it because they want to buy it, not because they have to be reciprocal.

Laughing in delight.

Totally aware how someone who is using the “balance the scales” POV could look at what we’re doing and say, “You guys are exactly doing the balance the scales thing.”

It’s not the “what” of what we are doing.

It’s the POV that we are using to do the doing.

If I’m using the “balance the scales” POV, part of the dance is an expectation that the other know/acknowledge/honor how I see/evaluate what I’m putting on my side of the scale and that they will reciprocate, that they will balance the scale in a way that satisfies me.

It I’m using the “discrete purchases” POV, I’m buying what I want because I want it. There is no expectation that the other have any idea of why I’m valuing it as I do. There is no expectation of a “balancing move” from them.

Relationshipping is a series of discrete purchases.

I can see how, from a developmental psychological POV, that reciprocity is a very important part of growing up. The creation of relational dance steps based on mutuality awareness of a balance that needs to be maintained. It’s good training to be a well-functioning member of society.

A discrete-purchases orientation to relationshipping…uh, just how is that going to work?

I think it’s an offshoot of, “Let them own their yes/no.” 

I don’t have to manage how they make values.

I don’t have to manage how they do decision making.

I don’t have to check with them if they are really sure about….

Which is the opposite of what I see society doing, "You are accountable/responsible for what they are experiencing."

"Trigger warnings" anyone?

I can treat them as if they are conscious, adult consumers in the relational market place, who can own their yes/no.

They get to manage their side of the transactional equation.

I think the concept of “fair” goes out the window.

As a meta-concept for “correct” transactions.

I sure as hell can use “fair” as part of my side of the transactional equation.

It feels freeing as hell to stand in the space that I don’t “HAVE TO” manage the other’s experience.

I can choose to.

I don't HAVE TO.

That is def a choice I could make.

“I and they are choosing to engage with this act of relationshipping because we choose to. Because we believe that the potential results are worth the cost. We step into this dance for this dance. When the dance ends, it ends. There is no externalized causal chain that this dance results in. There may be all kinds of internal/external expectations/desires. Those are not causal chains.”

I think that one of the potential “scary” things about this approach to relationshipping is that is seems to demand a great deal of awareness as to what is happening.

As contrasted to the “autopiloting” of the balanced-scale approach. “I’ve done this thing and, of course, they will do doing this thing because I did that thing. My doing this thing and them doing that thing is actually one thing.”

Hmmmm.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

“Discrete unit of value”, in a transactional sense, is present in both POVs.

With the balanced-scale POV, the discrete unit is both of the action, the initial one and the response. It is one unity. The balancing of the scale is the “unit of value”.

With the discrete purchase POV, the discrete unit of value is “I am purchasing this.”

If you are trying to make a “good purchase” in the balanced-scale POV, you have to pay attention to your side of the equation, their side of the equation and what how the balance point works.

From the discrete purchase POV, you pay attention to what your costs are in relationship to the perceived product.

What about from the seller’s perspective?

Laughing. 

"Silly boy. There are no sellers. Only buyers.”

I do see the attractiveness of being in a relational dance where the other is managing your experience in a way that you want.

Just not my choice of how to do relationshipping.