Relationships

A concept I have yet to encounter in my admittedly superficial and very amateur study of philosophy is the nature of relationships in regard to people who are givers and people who are takers.

It is frequently said, for example, that every marriage requires a lot of effort and work, that each partner must give 100% (or 110%, depending on who's math is considered!). And that's where the sage advice of the ages ends. You must give 100%. But is that realistic or even possible? I suggest that it is but with an additional elements to consider.

Essentially, my thought circles around the question that if you have a marriage relationship where both spouses are each trying to give 100%, who's doing the taking? Hopefully, both are also taking 100% because you simply cannot have a giver when there is no taker. Yet, just as there are often people who rarely give or who don't give enough, whatever "enough" is, there are also those who simply don't take enough.

Can you give 100% of the time AND take 100% of the time? Perhaps it ultimately becomes the same thing. Read on.

We speak of givers as being generous and kind and "altruistic" but we never speak of takers as being any of those. Yet, that is exactly what a taker really is if you consider the context of a healthy relationship. Indeed, many relationships which are NOT healthy or "normal" are generally a result of a disruption in the balance between giving and taking during the course of the relationship.

Nobody can always be a giver or always be a taker otherwise balance in the relationship is disrupted. The time frames for each role is not utterly critical unless they become excessively long. A caretaker spouse, for example, caring for an ill spouse year after year will eventually get completely used up unless there are other relationships in which that individual is able to become the taker. This brings up the idea that giving and taking cannot be limited to just a relationship between two people. It is in fact, a universally applied circle of reciprocation where the deficit of one is fulfilled by the gifts of another, a third party. In relationships where a jealous spouse will not allow the significant other to pursue outside interests is going to prevent the refills so necessary to the health of the relationship. The gas cap is locked and the key is thrown away.

The giver's reservoir of giving must be filled up from time to time. That need can be filled by the other party in the relationship, however, it is often times not enough. The giver frequently has to go to other sources to refill the reservoir. And the other person in the relationship must allow that to happen. If the giver never gets a chance to refill the tank, the individual starts to decay and a multitude of problems result, both for the person and for the relationship.

Imbalance in the relationship comes when one or the other is always or nearly always the giver and the other is nearly always or is always the taker. While this may seem like an ideal situation in theory (they are made for each other and all that), the reality is that the relationship is out of balance. In fact, both are being selfish, both are not considering the consequences of their actions and furthermore, each of the spouses is enabling the other to continue in their unhealthy pattern(s) of behavior.

People fluctuate between being a giver and a taker. On a given day, you may see a spouse in a marriage giving well over 100% while the other is taking it all in and giving back very little. Three days later or even 10 minutes later the roles may be reversed and you'll see the other spouse giving and the other taking. Regardless of who is doing the giving, there is active participation for both giver and taker. But people do not consider the taker in any virtuous sense. There is never a time when one or the other is a 100% giver or taker but over a long period of time, adding it all up should establish an evenness which indicates balance, overall, to the relationship.

Ideally, each person in the marriage will be constantly aware of the needs of their spouse and when that individual needs to give, the one should step up and take and when that individual needs to take, the other needs to give. A sensitivity and concern for the spouse is, of course mandatory in the course of a relationship. Being aware of the needs of a partner is essential to the discernment of whether or not it is time to be a taker or a giver. Many times, a giver desires to be a giver simply out of satisfaction at the pleasure or gratitude of the taker.

However, determining the needs of a lifemate is rather a delicate art. Certainly, if you offer a solution or a gift to satisy a perceived need and it is, in fact, flatly rejected, it's time to back off. You either got it wrong perceiving the actual need, or the individual does not need to be in the role you were thinking. Same thing, really. Time gives the experience needed to be able to consistently get it right. At times, when feeling the emptiness of not being able to fill one role or the other, it is even necessary to ask. Either way. Sometimes, you may need to ask your partner to take from you for a while as you be the giver. And it isn't even about role-playing at that point and it doesn't cheapen the efficacy of the giving. in fact, it can enhance it because then you know that your partner is willing to accommodate your needs.

Faking it is not *always* a bad idea but if you're an insincere taker, you cause the other person to receive a mixed message about what kinds of things are needed or necessary in the relationship. Overdone, it can easily cause mistrust. Feeling the need to fake it may indicate other problems in the relationship and at that point, it would be good to identify that problem and solve it for what it is. While it is a dishonesty to graciously take what is given when gratitude is not truly felt, it may make it more satisfying to the giver. An occasional "fake" may be just as healthy as genuine appreciation, either as giver or taker, however, as mentioned, overdoing it can be hazardous.

If one partner to a relationship never takes from the other, it can cause all kinds of trauma in the individual and ultimately, to the relationship. Can we say "rejection?" The giving person is never adequately fulfilled if, in fact, the individual's "gifts" cannot or will not be received by an effective and generous taker. If both are giving to and neither are taking from the other, they cannot be fulfilled and will nearly always feel a rejection of self. And yes, it can get personal. That such feelings are not expressed in a relationship is rather irrelevant. They are generally always there in such a circumstance.

There ARE relationships which allow BOTH parties to be takers. But these are nearly always relationships of a business nature wherein the buyer and the seller both take from a given transaction and receive value as a result of it. And they never or rarely change roles. Indeed, if the transaction doesn't go well it can be reversed so that both parties are restored to their original condition and once again, neither are givers or takers. This analogy is not a good one in the context of social science, however, because in this case, there is a tangible item of worth and a clear trade-off in regard to the fact that each has to take. In fact, the very introduction of a giving or a taking element into a business transaction can alter the dynamic rather drastically. Giving and taking can be a good thing here but it can be easily abused. Hurt people are a result and unnecessarily so.

Takers abuse givers but givers abuse takers as well. Givers frequently play the martyr or takers frequently take unrealistic advantage of the giver. Accusations fly and both parties begin to bring up harbored grudges and hurt feelings. In such a situation, it is important to realize that the giver is potentially the problem. That dynamic should be explored fully. Does the giver never become the taker? Is the giver monopolizing the give portion of the relationship? Is the taker never allowed to be the giver? And does that individual finally start rejecting the excessive giver as a form of passive resistance? In a long-term relationship, it would be easy for a taker to feel abused and never really know or understand what is going on. Yet, that person has the skill and agility needed to subconsciously push the buttons of the excessive giver and make life a difficulty. And never completely understand why.

Being an excessive giver is not necessarily a good thing. It is smothering and can be perceived as condescending and patronizing. It gets more and more difficult for a taker to be effectively gracious about the gifts and ultimately, passive-aggressive rejection begins to become patternistic and becomes the facilitator for damaging and destroying the health of the relationship.

Then there is the issue of keeping score. It is self-defeating. The score-keeper is not really interested in the relationship itself or the other person but is concerned primarily with his or her own merit as a partner in the relationship. Excessive givers are notorious for this but it isn't their exclusive domain. Excessive takers can easily get into the role of believing they are there to make the giver feel good about their "self" and proceed to make themselves constantly play the role of taker and even demand the gifts of the giver, erroneously believing they are truly doing their partner a favor at every turn.

Some people are more capable of giving and others more capable of taking. Money relationships are a good example of this. Two friends, one rich and the other poor but still friends on a level that supercedes their social status, will often encounter such a dynamic. The rich one pays for everything and the poor one goes along for the ride. In an psychologically warped relationship, the poor one always feels bad that he can't reciprocate and never realizes that it is his companionship, something about his personality or character that the rich person desires and hence, he does what he can to maintain that relationship. That the costs of going to dinner and a movie are borne by the rich individual is incidental and does not affect his desire to continue to do so. Of course, the poor individual can also abuse the relationship but then the merits of the relationship are compromised and it rapidly decays into a non-relationship.

The same is true of marital relationships. Some individuals are more capable of giving than taking. Others are more capable of taking than giving. But each should realize that it is to the benefit of both if they can turn the quarter over on occasion and switch roles. This is one of the areas where "work" is required. It generally means doing the difficult thing and stepping up to the plate as needed. Thus, the taker can be generous, considerate, compassionate, and willing to give up the role of taker and become the giver as it is needed. The giver, of course, can do so as well and become the taker in the relationship, even if only for a short time.

Which leads to the next comment, people who are 100% givers and never take, are, in reality, rather selfish in that they don't satisfy the need of the other person in the relationship wherein that individual's need to become a giver is not satisfied. On occasion, as frequently as needed, you must be a 100% taker so your partner can be a 100% giver. And vice-versa.

Balance is then attained and we find ourselves giving 100% of the time and taking 100% of the time.

The two then become one.

--Wag--