Relationships as Identity (or Not)

If there’s one thing everyone in the psychology business agrees on, it’s that people really benefit from being in relationships. We are happier, feel more connected, feel that our lives have more purpose and direction, we are healthier, less stressed and more relaxed.

(That is not a factual statement, and isn’t meant to be. It is aspirational, a statement about what the consequences of relationships should be. A relationship that doesn’t have some of those consequences is “un-healthy” or “toxic”, “abusive”, “exploitative”, and other words meaning“bad”.)

Writing this, it struck me that the Big-Name philosophers don’t write much about relationships. They focus on the individual (morality) and the institutions that govern individuals (politics). They might have talked about one’s “relations with other people”, but that was about how well one dealt with, got along with, and otherwise had-to-with others. One could be arrogant in one’s relations, or too meek, or well-judged, or many other qualities.

The current idea is a tangle of different things: it refers to a kind of informal implicit contract: I expect this and that from you, and you expect this and that from me; it refers to how we behave with others; it can also refer to the possibilities for the future, and the lost opportunities in the past; the history of how and when we met, treated each other, and felt about it at the time and afterwards; it is the current condition of our dealings and feelings; it may also have institutional or social significance, such as being part of the feudal hierarchy of an organisation, or “significant others”, or “sworn enemies”. “Relationships” make up a large chunk of our biographies, and hence in some sense, our so-far realised selves.

This idea emerges with the development of a line in psychology that defines an individual’s identity as much or more by their relationships, than their personal qualities and abilities - and this makes sense, as after all, many of our personal qualities refer to our behaviour around other people. However it often turns into the implicit claim that people with very few relationships are not fully people, but rather just a collection of ingredients waiting to be made into a person by mixing and baking them in the heat of “relationships”. (There is no doubt that children do not develop into functioning adults unless they have parents, teachers, and peers, but after reaching adulthood that ends. Adults without much interpersonal contact may become eccentric - or do other people avoid them because they are already slightly eccentric?)

If there is a definition of an “ordinary person”, it is one for whom their relationships form the principal part of their biography and identity.

One may be “un-ordinary” in many ways, perhaps by having a goal or skill to which one is dedicated, and which one’s relationships either enable, or are subordinate. Athletes, performing artists, research mathematicians, entrepreneurs, politicians, and similar, are good examples. They may also have partners, children and an extended family life, but they fit around the central purpose (especially in providing excuses for getting out of unwanted purpose-related engagements). That’s where their identity comes from. If those people use therapists at all, they will use therapists who specialise in whichever type of un-ordinary they are.

Faced with a generalist, ideological psycho-therapist used to dealing with ordinary people, the un-ordinary person should apologise for being an introvert. This is a Magic Word that therapists must respect. They will usually adapt their “go out and meet more people, and join a local club or association” advice accordingly.