Intentional relationship design: What the research says
In my last story, I described how Alana deliberately chooses what each of her relationships will include. This is the essence of intentional relationship design.
Intentional relationships are those in which decisions are made mutually, consciously, and deliberately. This is not limited to whether to have children or should you take that job in California; it extends to things that tend to go undiscussed, such as:
What does commitment mean to us?
What kind of time will we take for ourselves separately, and what will that look like?
What kind of emotional connections can we have with other people, including friends?
What would it look like for our relationship to end on good terms, and can we commit to that if we decide we are no longer compatible?
The idea of intentional relationships is that the partners have open-mindedly explored the available possibilities for what a relationship can look like and have chosen what is best for them in a self-aware and well-informed way.
That does not mean that you reject traditional models such as monogamy, having children, and even buying a white picket fence; it just means that you only do so after considering the other options and weighing each against your own values.
Intentional relationships have not been studied by social scientists, though it is being talked about. Instead of summarizing nonexistent research, I will present different relevant angles.
Fairy tale relationships
Fairy tales are what we tell ourselves our romantic relationships will be like. The broad form is boy meets girl, they fall in love, they get married, they have children, they live happily ever after. There are many details that each of us can fill in---you might be familiar with your own. For me, you live together before marriage, you have a carefree (but not too crazy) time for a couple of years before settling down, you don’t have more than three children. I also have a concept of ideal appearance and demeanor.
A major feature of our relationship ideals is that they tend to have a linear progression: certain things are “supposed to” happen before others, and each step on the path makes the subsequent stages more likely. Thus, if you move in together then you are closer to getting married. I remember when I first got engaged I thought we would wait years before having a wedding, but the constant questions about what the date would be wore me down, and it just seemed easier to start planning (I was young, forgive me).
A troubling feature of this progression is that many people never think about what happens once you get married. Few would argue that nothing ever changes again, and yet even those with an otherwise sophisticated view of interpersonal dynamics can overlook that every long-term partnership is going to face evolution. In fact, many of us strive for continuity in our relationships, as if lack of change is the gold standard.
Myths about what brings happiness
A “Relationship Belief Inventory” was developed in the early 1980s to help researchers evaluate the ways someone believes a partnership “should” function. Three categories of belief stand out for how they portray unrealistic yet very common assumptions about what makes for a “great” relationship: the beliefs that
anything more than minor disagreement is a sign of dysfunction
an intense mutual attunement to the point of mindreading is necessary, and
the quality of the sexual connection reflects the value of the relationship.
For example, users are asked whether they agree with statements such as:
I get very upset when my partner and I cannot see things the same way.
I get upset if I think I have not completely satisfied my partner sexually.
People who love each other know exactly what each other’s thoughts are without a word even being said.
The full list of validated questions is available in this paper. Although some of them may appear far-fetched on the surface, many subtly pervade our standards for decisions about compatibility, long-term prospects, and what is reasonable to tolerate in a partnership.
Be optimistic, but not unrealistic
Several studies have shown that positive illusions actually predict trust, satisfaction, and even continued love over time. However, optimism needs to be tempered by some degree of realism to avoid leading to complacency or even giving up in face of differences of opinion. One study found that people who believe in destiny are more likely to avoid conflict in face of relationship stress and are faster to end the bond over disagreement.
Another study found that people who generally have a positive outlook on life engage in better problem solving with their partners, whereas those whose sanguine attitude is limited to their relationship are less constructive in face of conflict.
The many ways to be monogamous
My favorite book on intentional relationship design is called Designer Relationships. In addition to describing many options and ways to think critically about our assumptions, the book lays out four facets of our relationships, and encourages conscious thinking about how “monogamous” you wish to be in each one. These facets are:
sexual
emotional
social
practical
Sexual monogamy is usually the first facet we think of when entering into a relationship. While people have difference tolerance---for example, some partners will be faster to forgive a drunken kiss than others---the lines are still pretty clear in the sexual realm.
Emotional monogamy can be much trickier. Not only is there more gray area in emotional connection, but it takes a high degree of self-awareness to stop yourself once you begin falling in love with someone else---not to mention strong self-constraint to separate yourself once it happens. Many consensually nonmonogamous people try to limit emotional nonmonogamy because that is frequently where the complications lie.
Few people expect total social monogamy, but it happens in practice much more than we think about. Many of us (especially those socialized as men) have few if any friends outside our partners. We may have connections from our past, but in many cases we no longer spend time with them without our significant others, or may garner an unpleasant reaction when we do (“Wait, I’m not invited?!”). In the words of Designer Relationships, “for many couples, autonomous pursuits and outside interests are something to be tolerated but not celebrated” [my emphasis]. How socially monogamous are you?
Practical monogamy is things like who you have children with, or who you share a home and/or finances with. Only the most equal-opportunity of nonmonogamous people have multiple partners in the practical realm. Many solo polyamorous people are only practically monogamous with themselves.
What does this mean for an actual relationship?
The sum total of all of this is that there are many more possibilities out there than we are taught. And even though a lot of them are discouraged explicitly or indirectly, they are working for many people right now as I write this.
Most importantly, we can think critically about each of these aspects and more, and then make conscious and meaningful decisions about what works for us. And the more we dig, the more we will discover.
The biggest obstacle that I encounter to people doing this is not awareness, it’s looking honestly at yourself and separating your personal values from the voices telling you otherwise. That often requires facing shame we may have lived with from a very young age.
Based on my experience, it is the people who design (and continually re-design) their relationships who are happiest in the long term.