Concept 6: Styles of loving

The last concept that I’m going to talk about for the purpose of this blog is part of the chapter 11 in the book, which talks about committed romantic relationships. I found the idea that there are different styles of loving very interesting. I learned that people differ in how they experience and express love. In fact, there are three primary styles of loving: Eros, Storge, and Ludus (p.280). There are also three secondary styles of loving but I’m not going to discuss them. While Eros is a powerful and passionate style of love, Storge is basically based on friendship and compatibility. The other one, the Ludus, is playful love, while lovers see love as a game.

This means that not everyone see ``real love`` in the same manner. Some believe in love at first sights, and others think it grows gradually out of being friend and doing things together. Everyone’s style could fit into one of the six styles of loving, depending on some social factors such as how they see love, sex, friendship, etc. Just as the picture I choose: the heart is formed with different elements. People often look for people with the same love style as themselves for a relationship. Some of my class partners in my Interpersonal Communications course asked us different questions to discover in which category each of us was fitting into. According to the survey, my style of loving is Storge. To be honest, I really think it represents me!

Actually, I don’t really remember falling in love with my boyfriend. My love for him just grew gradually and I had more and more the feeling that we belonged to each other. He was one of my friends and I have developed a little something for him as we were doing things together. I feel really comfortable in my couple. It has been easy with him from the start! Personally, I don’t believe that love at first sight is possible. I think it may be just physical attractiveness. ``True love`` grows out of slowly developing attachments that lead to lasting commitment.

Here is an article called ``The Experience of «Being In Love» Is Not The Same For Everyone``, in which you could read more about the six styles of loving that I'm talking about, including the secondary styles! It's well summarized!

http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/relationship-issues/love-styles.html

Concept 5: Conflict may be expressed overtly or covertly

Now, I’m going to talk about conflict, particularly, about the way people express their disagreements to others. In fact, I am referring to the second principle of conflict, which is ``Conflict may be expressed overtly or covertly`` (p.226). That concept explains that the overt conflict is out in the open and explicit; it exists when people express their differences in a straightforward manner. They can deal with their disagreements calmly or engage in a shouting match. On the other hand, covert conflict exists when people articulate their feelings about disagreements indirectly. There are two forms of covert conflicts: passive aggression, which is acting aggressively while denying it, and games, which are highly patterned interactions where the real conflicts are hidden or denied and a fake excuse is created for arguing.

The way I understand it is that expressing conflict overtly is when someone is very upfront about what he is upset about and makes it known. Although this manner can be abrasive, it can also be easier to deal with. Those who express conflict covertly internalize it, making it more difficult to point out what’s wrong and makes it difficult to find a solution.

Why I choose to talk about this concept is that I’ve experienced covert conflict many times with some of my friends, and I found it interesting to read more about it. I often recognized that people were expressing their anger or resentment indirectly, and I think this way of doing is very bad. I think it can be more hurting to know that, for example, someone is trying to set us up for a fall than to argue directly about our disagreements. I remember once that a friend of mine have asked to another friend, who isn’t a very good dancer, to be in the front of the stage during a dance show that we were performing into. She knew that her friend was going to forget the moves but she just wanted to make her fail… and that’s what happens! At the end of the performance, she told her how much she did wrong. Personally, I think it’s very rude and I prefer to deal with overt conflict because it’s more openhearted.

I found that video of Friends TV show in which the guy is arguing with his friends about the reason why they didn’t accept his flaw. At the beginning, they discuss very calmly, but at the end, they engage in a very intense and messy discussion while everybody is talking at the same time. They express their disagreement in a direct manner. It’s a funny example of overt conflict!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwavS1gWclU&feature=related

Concept 4: Autonomy/Connection

The first concept that I am going to talk about in the second section of my blog is part of the chapter 8 in the book, which develops about the communication climate. The concept that I am interested into is Autonomy/Connection. This is one of the three relational dialectics that have been identified by researchers. Relational dialectics are ``opposing forces, or tensions, that are normal in relationships`` (p. 200). As related in the book, the most central and continuous friction in most close relationships arises from the opposing needs for autonomy and connection. Basically, this concept explains that we all experience tension between the want to be independent, and the desire to be close to others in our relationships. Both autonomy and closeness are natural human needs; the idea is to conserve our individuality, and at the mean time, to nurture connections.

To me, this concept is the opposition between union and individuality. Humans need to keep an autonomous identity and to do have their own space. However, they are also looking for closeness with their partners, and to have joint interests. This tension is part of friendship as well as in romantic relationships, and is totally usual. To have a successful communication climate in our relationships, we have to be aware of this tension and to smartly deal with it. It’s important not to spend too much time together, neither to spend too much time apart to avoid the lack of commitment.

The Autonomy/Connection tension has captured my attention because it makes me think about one couple that I know well. One of my friends, Melissa, is a very independent girl. She likes to do her own thing, to have time for herself, and to hang out with her girlfriends. On the other hand, her boyfriend, Jonathan, is a true lover. He likes to feel connected with her partner. This tension was part of their couple and leads them to breakout because the two of them has different needs: Melissa felt suffocating, and Jonathan felt unloved. However, after having spent time on their own, they realized that this opposition was natural and that they could work on it. After having talk in depth about it, they came back together and learned to deal with their differences by finding the right balance. Today, they are a very happy couple!

This picture, I think, is a very good representation of that relational dialectic. The couple is separated by a wall, which can represent their individuality, but are also searching for getting close to one another.

I also found an article that explains why spending time apart can save relationships in the long run. Have a look at it, it’s interesting! =)

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/dating/connection_vs_autonomy_why_one_helps_the_other_7728/