Puzzle Pieces and Relationship Identity "Puzzle Pieces" is what I call the theory I am developing on the developmental perspective
on relationships. This
theory does not focus so much on relationships at different ages through
the lifespan, but on the development of specific relationships over
time…the development of the relationship itself.
I use the analogy of puzzle pieces as the theory suggests
that we develop, over time, what I will call a "relationship personality". This is a "self" that we reserve specifically for interactions
with people we have significant relationships with. We may have a unique "relationship personality" for
each person important enough to warrant one so we have many selves that
we utilize to interact with others in different ways.
I am most interested in the relationship personality
we develop in close partnerships such as boyfriend-girlfriend and marriage
relationships (as well as in same couple relationships).
Consider an unfinished jigsaw puzzle and
note that there is an edge that is convoluted based on the pieces that
make up that edge. In a
jigsaw puzzle there is only one specific set of other pieces that will
fit to that edge.
Assumptions
I make some assumptions in this theory.
Being a thinker more than a researcher I owe much of
what I have put together in this theory to a number of specific theories
of human development and psychology put forth by some of the greatest
names in the field.
Stage
1 - Basic Trust vs. Mistrust
Just
as in Erikson's general theory we bring to life certain traits, expectations
and skills, so do we bring certain traits, expectations and skills to
each new relationship.
James Marcia
James Marcia looked deeper into this 5th stage of Erikson and has given us a way to describe the ways in which
we go about defining our selves, including our RP.
Marcia refers to the concept of Identity Status meaning that at any given time each of these puzzle
pieces is in a specific state. This lends support to the idea that our identity is a changeable
aspect of our existence. Each state is described in terms of the process
of Crisis and the decision of Commitment.
For clarity, Marcia defines Crisis as the active process of "looking at the alternatives" related to choosing a specific identity. The term Commitment is
the process whereby we select a specific identity.
These states are as follows:
Achievement: individuals who have explored alternatives and have deliberately chosen a specific identity (both crisis and commitment) Moratorium: individuals who are still examining different alternatives and have yet to find a satisfactory identity (only crisis) Foreclosure: individuals whose identity is determined largely by adults, rather than from personal exploration of alternatives (only commitment) Diffusion: individuals who are confused or often overwhelmed by the task
of achieving an identity and are doing little to achieve one (neither crisis nor commitment)
As we experience early relationship,
we begin to formulate a template for what we are "looking for". In essence this is a form of Marcia's
Foreclosure.
Bob Sternberg has developed a model of love that I
have been looking at as almost having prescriptive applications (being
able to guide people on how to correct relationship that are not going
well).
His "Triangular Theory of Love" states that
a love relationship, and its various related types of relationships
are composed of three dimensions: intimacy (knowledge of the person),
commitment (agreed upon goals for the relationship) and Passion (a desire
to be with the person).
The presence or absence of these indicate different
kinds of relationships between people.
This diagram depicts this theory and some of the different kinds of "loves" that it can describe.
Making it Work
In the end this is how my theory works…
We are drawn to individuals that best meet these needs. Some of them can be rational (I want someone
who is financially secure) while others can be irrational (I need someone
who depends on me for survival). You can see that these contours could act to bring us to someone
who meets our needs, but is not "right" for us.
By focusing on the developmental process of a relationship we can see that it changes over time and that change is part of a healthy, dynamic relationship. If someone is fighting for things to "just stay as they are"…there is trouble there!
In the end, following Sternberg's theory, we wish for
a balanced caring relationship that has a good helping of passion, commitment
and intimacy. If any of
these are lacking, we can take measures to correct them.
In the end the stability of the system comes from our
ability to continue to develop parts of our identity, including those
that identify and define the relationship personality. We do this by adding a "depth" to the triangle of
Sternberg.
I call this "depth" personal growth.
My theory dictates that within a relationship each
of the individuals needs to continue to sustain a personal growth path
of learning and experiencing (within the limits of the commitment of
the relationship). This way the personality of the person
is, in some ways, always in flux, or always changing.
A relationship then becomes dynamic as the process
of forming Intimacy (knowledge of the person) is always needed because
each is growing.
Happy and Unhappy Relationships
|