PAtTErns iN rELatiOsHiPS

I think that submissive symmetry pattern would be the most difficult to change. Here is why. For long time I thought that in those cases where both parties try to avoid responsibility of making choice, each side tried not to have control or take an one-up role. However, author states “… both partners ostensibly avoid control, each does his or her best to CONTROL the other by forcing the other to make the decision” (p. 141). As for me, the key element that makes this pattern most difficult to change is a hidden motive. It is always easier to play a game, when both parties express their intent, when in this pattern desired outcome still can be opposite. From one hand, I still believe that people can do what they do in order to avoid responsibility, from the other hand, they both want to be one-up role, but they act as if they had opposite motive.

     There is no right answer for the question which pattern would be the most damaging to a relationship, because I believe that each of those patterns can be damaging. For example, there is time, when children should be submissive to their parents, but if one friend wants to dominate over the other, who doesn’t want to be in one-down role, those relationship won’t last long. Same tendency can be observed within competitive symmetry pattern when nature of relationships dictates that competition is not applicable. There are kinds of relationships where one partner should be submissive (to some level) to other and the other is required to dominate (to some level) too.

     Any patterns, where one dominate over other, is potentially damaging to anything that has “self” part. In its extreme application any supremacy can hurt, especially when we are talking about self-esteem of the individuals involved.