Perspectives Chapter 7

7

BY INVITATION

Human beings were never meant to live in isolation. They all have a desire for some degree of involvement in the lives of others, and for many, getting to know another person intimately is one of the finest joys of living. Within most people there is a craving for a sense of belonging - to be on the inside of someone else's world rather than forever on the outside looking in. Often people enter a committed relationship in the hope that it will satisfy this yearning. They anticipate that everything will be shared including relatives, friends and even personal thoughts and that they will be totally included. The relationship seems to promise guaranteed access to something they need, and they are surprised and taken aback by unexpected resistance and reservations.

To understand this problem, we must suspend any preconceived ideas about 'marriage', 'relationship' or 'partnership', and view the situation as nothing more than individual people who are just being, doing and feeling.

Privacy

Most of us feel much more comfortable, less inhibited, more free and less burdened doing some things without certain people present or indeed anyone else involved at all. We must have our 'space as a person' into which other people enter only by invitation. There are times when we don't want to be advised, criticised or even observed or feel a need to adjust our behaviour to the presence of another. We would like that to be accepted and respected and we are not accountable for why we feel this way.

When we welcome another person into that domain, it is because we anticipate their presence to be good for us. The person will be gentle and non-judgemental. They will not even be constructively critical unless we ask them and they will respect us regardless of what they learn. Otherwise we will keep them at a distance that is safe and comfortable, often for their sake as well as ours.

The Deeper Issues

Distance' is more than a physical dimension; it includes time together and the circumstances of contact. Even more important is the degree of interdependence that is allowed and the extent to which thoughts, feelings and personal information are revealed.

Among the central issues motivating distance are power, strength and comfort. Knowledge is a form of power, and it is not unnatural to resist handing it to another person who has not earned our trust. The greater the 'distance', the less the power another has over you, that is, the ability to threaten, coerce, manipulate, force and intentionally influence what is known to be important to you.

Strength and comfort are the other side of the equation. Strength is not power, but the ability to maintain ones integrity or sanity despite the forces to the contrary. The stronger we are in a particular way, the easier it is for us to expose that area of our lives. Weakness, in this context is limited robustness rather than lack of power. It is the ability to get hurt. Despite the unfavourable connotations of the word, this kind of 'weakness' is often the unavoidable price of sensitivity, which is vital for any level of effective functioning. In short, the need for these areas to be protected is why animals have skins, humans wear helmets (and psychological masks), computers have casings and houses have walls: The insides ought not to be unduly disturbed by external forces. Entry is restricted and necessarily selective. Wisdom does not allow a sledgehammer wielding moron into a watch factory! The more sensitive, delicate and vulnerable the area, the more good sense suggests erring on the side of caution as far as access is concerned.

Openness

This is not a debate on the relative advantages of being open or closed. It recognises a person's need to be both . It is an assertion of his freedom to choose who enters his private domain and how far. There is a point beyond which no institution, tradition or relationship, including marriage, grants automatic entry, and that point is determined by the individual. If their partner has conflicting expectations in this respect, then the relationship was not sufficiently clarified in terms of accountability before the arrangement was entered into. The question of whether another person's 'boundaries of privacy' are justified, reasonable or even feasible within our perception of the relationship, is best avoided by taking a pragmatic approach. Open conflict in this area is a war that is already lost.

There is another side to the willingness to allow others their privacy. To extend this 'freedom' we must have our own independent strength. There must be a quiet confidence in our own resilience. We also need to be able to trust the other person's character. If we cannot do this, we are either dealing with the wrong person or we are unsuited to them.

Circumstances will often limit the amount of physical privacy that is possible. Here it becomes even more vital to respect the other forms of 'space', and to be the kind of person who is welcome.

We should not delude ourselves with myths like, 'an honest person has nothing to hide,' or 'married couples must be totally open with each other in everything.' A wise guru once remarked that to be truly close we must maintain a little distance. No relationship is a licence to intrude beyond the accepted ground. Perhaps that will be extended as a deeper trust is earned but we should strongly resist the temptation to force our way in if we don't want to be shut out even more. As people, we have a natural desire to be intimate and included, but we must be perceived by the other person to be safe and worthy to enter what they regard as their private world. Entry is by invitation only.