Tags: campus life, culture arts, dialogue, intimacy, Psychology, relationships, social norms
I’m sure there are really moving biochemical explanations or manipulative marketing schemes that quantify and model this phenomenon to ends that satisfy both biologists and marketing consultants. But, what about when you don’t have the ability to collect all the data points necessary for a biological model (pheromone levels, body language, and other environmental factors) or to develop a strategy to foster closeness between yourself and another. The idea that we unconsciously realize these signals and compile them intuitively in order to determine the potential closeness we can realize with another really titillates me.
I’m intrigued by how much control we have in the meaningfulness of our interactions with another. There are an overwhelming amount of circumstantial factors that could possibly overload the common ideas we have about what makes a good relationship (I’m talking about the stuff we perceive ourselves to have control over, like conversations). I’m curious – does it matter what we say? What we do? Do we (can we) have any control over how well we’ll mesh with someone?
Over the past week, I had two different experiences that made me ruminate on human closeness. The underlying similarity: I felt some new closeness. The distinction: an insincere representation of myself vs. a genuine representation.
The first was over Halloweekend. My friend and I dressed as a duo costume – a 1950s couple – a business executive and a housewife. We concocted an elaborate story about our relationship and created fictional pasts and names for ourselves. I want to focus on the relationships between my friend and I as fictional characters and other party goers. Funny conversations, fun music, etc. – there was a communal atmosphere of closeness in the people I interacted with. I felt the vibe, and it was dependent on the people I’d recently met. The troubling part was that I really wasn’t sharing any true information (verbally) about myself … yet there was some type of meaningful relationship.
The other instance was at an Interfaith Action Dialogue dinner, where a group of students interested in inter-faith issues talk about certain topics. The topic this week asked us to explain our spiritual and personal journey to where we were in our lives and why we’re at this specific dialogue. People’s stories were beautiful. I found myself leaning towards others who shared similar experiences and interpretations of events, and when it was my turn to share my story, pulling at the deeper parts of my conceptualization of myself … well … interestingly, I felt a similar closeness to this group of people that I’d felt at the Halloween party.
I want to put forth this interpretation: there is some amount of pre-determination and hardly controllable guiding forces that led me to these group interactions, and the closeness I felt with others had little to do with what I said or how I presented myself. (Perhaps, those actions were also a part of the larger controlled superstructure of human interactions.) This is a really, really gross compilation of my experiences with others, but I do feel that there’s some truth to the idea that we really don’t decide who’ll we’ll be friends with or why.
Do you have counterexamples? Share your thoughts.
By: Lexie Tourek
(Photo courtesy of sxc.hu)
| Share This: | Tweet |
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
17 Comments
I agree with what people said above: we are definitely programmed to find people who are like us, and we naturally seek that feeling of human energy. Is this some universal unfolding bringing us closer together? I don’t see a difference–it may be a ‘science’ that explains how and why we seek each other, and in this sense, it is totally out of an individuals ability to seek human connection (or not). To me, this IS a force outside our control…it’s vital to being human, and the universe ‘wanted’ us to be this way. In other words, in some sense, it is predestination. We’ve all been made to find and understand each other.
Thanks Ryan.
I really love … “We’ve all been made to find and understand each other.”
You have such beautiful, poetic writing.
Hi Lexie,
This is so interesting! I enjoyed your thoughts! I think it is really interesting about how people connect. Mothers connect with their children by doing things with them at their side, but fathers connect with their children by looking at them face to face. I wonder how these early interactions create patterns for future interactions.
Dang! I hadn’t even thought about gendered interactions in those terms. I too wonder how that patterns our relationships with other genders. I appreciate your psychological insight.
Lexie,
two things:
1) Desired intimacy vs undesired intimacy. We’re not always in costume, but sometimes we’re liked for undesirable reasons (looks, reputation, or some characteristic that we feel doesn’t represent our truest self).
2) We can feel intimacy that’s context specific. Examples: people we’ve known for a long time–”like a brother to me”, people we work on a stressful project with, people we actualize chemistry — fancy word for hook up — with, etc. these can be powerful, although not comprehensive, forms of intimacy.
and as per your last point, I’m inclined to think it’s both, in and out of our control. we don’t choose the random interactions that lead us to each other but we choose how we respond to them. (For example, we spoke for a bit on halloweekend. Will I e-mail you to continue the convo or start a new one? This is a conscious choice).
a couple side notes:
–I’m curious how institutions — events, classes, offices, schools, even social networks — can be designed to facilitate genuine connecting between people.
–My sister always told me it’s not the quality, not quantity of time you spend with someone that’s important. For me, it’s not only about quality — it’s the extent that I feel completely understood by someone that allows me to be intimate with them in the way I want to.
Awesome piece. would love to see you continue to explore this.
Erik
*last paragraph: it *IS* the quality, not the quantity…
I’d like to respond to something that I think is lacking your analysis … what about the other person in the interaction… if someone likes you for impure reasons that doesn’t mean you have to like them.
If you reach out to someone to initiate an interaction, it doesn’t mean they’ll respond.
It seems like intimacy can’t (or at least I think shouldn’t be) in one person’s control, and that’s what I think shifts it towards the uncontrollable-unknown abyss.
I agree about quality. Thanks for commenting!
I think it would also be interesting to explore the reasons why relationships DON’T form. What are common barriers to intimacy? Like, for example, imagine meeting a new, average-type person, with similar background to you and similar interests/desires. It seems rather that, given self-protective insecurities surrounding how you are perceived by others, how you imagine you are understood in this new person’s mind, are determinants of how much oomph you put into strengthening or developing a bond. It would seem like people are too similar to not be friends, and that we would have more friends than we do if not for the things that turn us off. Ultimately, these are the same question.
Human beings also maybe have a limit to how much intimacy they can handle. Think of how many really close friends you have, then think of doubling that number? Doesn’t that sound exhausting. Also remember when you first came to a new place and were friendless, you extended yourself more to strangers than you did after you had formed a set of friends, suggesting there is some satisfaction limit for intimacy. Also, why else would monogamy have survived so long.
Whoa – these are really exciting ideas. I’ve never thought about friendship in these terms, but it’s kind of relaxing to know that there is some sort of impossibility in having tons of friends at one time.
I remember hearing once that the number of people we’ll actually get to know in our life maxs out around 100, and there is a big disconnect in what we perceive this number to be. Like, I may feel like I know everyone in the city where I live, but really, I only know a small fraction – and, I use that fraction to make assumptions and generalizations about the rest (but, I don’t really comprehend that…)
Lexie, I found your ethnographic research of interest; perhaps what needs to be explored next are qualities of closeness. We are social animals who are motivated to affiliate with others, but like many human behaviors connection and intimacy are very complex. When we are “in character” such as you were on Halloween you were engaging with others and felt a connection of closeness, but I would guess the degree of intimacy was quite different from when you were sicerely revealing more private parts of yourself at the IFD dinner. Intimacy exists on a continuum thats why we have many acquaintainces nad far fewer real friends. I really liked your honest observation and conversation about this subject. Keep writing.
Cool! It’s interesting to think of intimacy that way.
In response to the first comment:
There’s a saying that your good points are your bad points- that our friends love us for what our enemies hate you for.
In reponse to feeling less vulnerable:
That definitely makes sense. You’re probaly just as fun, entertaining, etc. w/o the costume around your friends, but among strangers, maybe having the security of an alternative identity/mask makes it actually easier to be yourself before you know someone well.
In response to the original article:
Yes,there is definitely predestination at work.
The one thing all the interactions had in common was that you were present with a specific group of people in a specific place at a specific time. When you’re with a large group of people I think there’s always going to be a group energy that encourages a common bond, but even in these groups, some energies just seem to mesh together better than others.
In response to the picture: Love it!
Thanks for commenting!
It’s interesting that you say “there’s definitely predestination at work.” In conversation, I’ve heard a lot of strong responses against this idea – both pessimistic and optimistic. Like, we’re have absolutely no control – we’re only decaying machines that react to stimulus for no rhyme or reason for what we do. Or, we have complete control over everything we do, and we can always act to create what we want out of our “destiny.”
Likewise, isn’t it funny how some people can think that you’re boring, while others can think you’re one of the most interesting people they’ve ever met? And sometimes, it’s because you’re trying too hard with the former, while you’re carefree with the latter…Also, it kind of makes me question what I think about people….am I really seeing who they are or are they just reacting to me?
Thanks for commenting, Alex!
Yes! I think there are so many different angles to think about these things. It’s a really good reason not to judge someone else by what other people say, too!
Maybe we just see people for who they are to us and there are millions of versions of us floating around in other people’s interpretations… freaky!
Cute! I don’t think that it matters whether you’re spilling your guts or just having a fluffy conversation (true or not). The connection is from the closeness you feel, which does not mean you have to talk about things close to your heart.
There’s so much to think about!