The above snippet of writing suggests that at least some human relationships are deterministic – they are doomed to failure because the ‘calm, crisis, calm’ model has to be followed.
It was a conversation with ‘A’ which set the wheels of this idea in motion. ‘A’ suggested that her life is akin to a film, and I drew the conclusion (without any evidence) that she is far from the only one so inclined.
On Tuesday, a conversation with ‘J’ added further support to this idea. J stated that her partner requires constant validation, and no matter how much love or attention is lavished upon him, it is apparent that more is expectedof her. Furthermore, J’s partner conjures crises in their relationship during times which are smooth and uninhibited.
What other reasons are there, besides the execution of the crisis theory, for someone to behave in such a manner towards their partner? There is at least one other, and it’s one that we’ve touched upon before. Is it better to sit in apparenly contented silence, with the awkwardness of such obvious parentheses, or to create a situation which requires dialogue?
Creating a conflict situation satisfies two criterion, then, and I assume it to be one of the reasons why people argue. When there is nothing left to say – a situation more grave than a temporary, pleasant hiatus – then at least some of us engineer scenarios where the silence must be broken.
Why is having nothing left to say of such significance to the western mindset? It must be significant, otherwise we'd not go to enormous lengths to fill the empty space with false, angry dialogue.
I suspect it is significant because the western mind can never countenance a lack of activity; can requires always something to stimulate it. We eat quickly and move quickly because we are always about to do something more important or interesting. The westerner perpetually travels but can never hope to arrive.
