Commitment and Variations
In my last entry, I mentioned a few things about exclusivity and commitment. This sparked some conversations in the comments that brought a few other interesting things to the forefront of my mind, and they're actually a bit more organized now.
There are at least two types of commitment. There's the "de facto" situational commitment, which comes from the environment you're in, and then there's the internal commitment, which is a decision to see something to its end.
As an example of situational commitment, consider going to college. If you are halfway through college, and you've taken out loans to pay for the first two years, you will be screwed if you drop out, have loans to pay, and can't command a salary high enough because you have no degree. You are situationally commited to continuing, because there's an immediate cost to leaving. If, at that point, you no longer care about your schooling, it's still in your best interest to keep slugging along. You may eventually hate it so much that you leave anyway, but it's less likely. That's a type of commitment.
As an example of internal commitment, consider going to college. If you are halfway through college, but all of your college career is paid for by grants, if you drop out, you're fine. If you stick it out, you'll be sinking more of your time into the gamble of coming out ahead in the end, but there's no "penalty" for ditching besides discontinuing to learn. If you stick that out, that's an example of internal commitment. There's no "cost" of leaving -- actually, there's a cost to stay, and you're hoping that cost will be worth it when you get to the other side. That's a different type of commitment.
Imagine what happens to the first student if someone comes and somehow makes all his school loans go away. Huge inheritance, rich uncle, whatever. If he doesn't care about his schooling anymore, that student will drop out of school in a heartbeat. There's no internal commitment there.
Now, take a look at exclusivity in relationships, and how it affects commitment. If exclusivity is a requirement for the relationship (romance, business partnership, whatever), then you've got all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. You're forbidden from setting up alternate options, which means that if the relationship dissolves you're left with nothing, and have to start over from zero. You're setting up a situational commitment: There is a cost to leaving, making it the easiest choice to stay, even if your heart isn't in it. This is a huge difference from open relationships, where you explicitly have other options readily available, and leaving only means that you don't get to continue.
What does this mean? Well, just as with school, it means you're probably going to deal with issues that arise, instead of just leaving. It takes a really big issue to get you to leave, because the cost of leaving is so high. You'll have fights but will work things out, and you'll be safer joining money matters because your partner won't leave so quickly.
After you've been together with someone for a while, you can look at the relationship and realize you've built something good. You can look back and realize that, even if you weren't situationally committed, you'd stay with them, because you care about continuing the relationship. Perhaps you've realized that you're becoming a better person for it, perhaps you've realized that you really like spending time with them, or perhaps you've realized that their presence makes your life better somehow. This is the hope.
There's another option. After you've been together with someone for a while, you can look at the relationship and realize that you've built something bad. You can look back and realize that, if you weren't situationally committed, you'd leave in a heartbeat. If you build something bad enough, as with college, it might be worth leaving anyway. And if that cost of leaving were to vanish -- for instance, by randomly (or purposefully) coming across another option, like another lover for emotional support or a different business partner -- you would leave. Then, exclusivity becomes what's keeping you together.
That other option is really bad. It's like the student who hates school, but is sloshing through it anyway just to get through it, because it hasn't gotten bad enough to warrant the cost of leaving yet. That student will probably never finish anyway, and just incur more loans as he keeps taking the short-sighted easy decision of one more quarter until he can't stand it anymore. It becomes a balancing act between the cost of leaving and the cost of staying, and that's just not fun for anyone involved, especially if it continues.
With exclusivity, you're gaining a situational commitment. That is, you're manipulating the environment around you to enforce a situational commitment, regardless of where one's internal commitment lies. This isn't always bad, by any means. It's great if, for example, you need a kickstart to build something. It gives you the safety of an environmentally enforced commitment, while reasons for an internal commitment can be explored and possibly created. This is often an excellent idea, and can lead to the first option, above, where you'd stay with them even if that situational commitment were to vanish.
With an open relationship, you're avoiding that situational commitment. You don't have the option of depending on it while you build something. On the other hand, you also can't get into that choice between a rock and a hard place, where you have to decide between the cost of leaving and the cost of staying. All commitments that exist are internal commitments.
What does this mean? It means that your partner has no reason to leave you, other than wanting to leave you. It means that if they want to leave you, there's nothing external that's stopping them. I'll say it outright: They're more likely to leave you, and they're more likely to do it sooner.
But! If you can manage to actually build something worth keeping, that first option above, they won't want to leave. The ones who leave will either leave before something is built (the downside of being in an open relationship), or after something bad is built (the upside). Whoever stays, you know they stayed due to an internal commitment, which isn't subject to environmental fluctuations, like meeting a hot secretary at work, or a one-time better price on a business deal.
Really, it's all the same arguments as for and against a free or controlled market.
What does all this mean? Well, if you think you have good chances of building something without any need for environmentally enforced commitments, then try open relationships. If you think you have bad chances of building something without environmentally enforced commitments, try exclusive relationships. Or, if you're like me and place great importance on avoiding the possibility of that bad, second option, go for open relationships. If you're not like me and place great importance on avoiding the possibility of losing a great partner at the beginning due to environmental fluctuations, go for exclusive relationships.
Personal choice and all that, but I for one prefer to avoid situational commitments. I don't seem to have problems building relationships worth keeping, even without that particular safety net.
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
zanfur) wrote,
