The Stuff of Relationship

LoveAndFriendshipNesisElishevaIn a recent tweet, Jerry Michalski asks:

Is the www really connecting us? or just creating thin, artificial relationships?

To which I replied:

What is the ‘stuff’ of relationship anyway, and have we forgotten what it means, in the growing dearth of authentically shared experience?

Twitter is a great place for posting interesting rhetorical questions, but I thought these questions merited a blog post.

Let me start with Jerry’s questions. In a recent post, I posited that the number of relationships you can sustain at one time varies from 2 to perhaps 150, depending on their depth, since we only have a finite amount of time to invest in relationships. I hypothesized that one could develop a ‘quantum’ model of relationships that would depict them from inner to outer circles in decreasing level of intensity, with an outward shift making room for a closer one elsewhere in your community of relationships, and an inward shift forcing you to move other relationships to the periphery or even out of your orbit entirely.

Jerry’s question suggests the risk that online relationships, which are easy to establish and jettison, are mostly the ‘outside ring’ type, thin and somewhat artificial. Yet most of us have seen some such relationships blossom into close friendships and romances, not to mention powerful work colleagues, suppliers, customers, employers, publishers, and artistic, scientific or philosophical collaborators. What does it take for ‘gravity’ to kick in and add weight and depth to a casual relationship, online or face-to-face?

Looking at my own relationships, I would say the main gravitational forces are need and passion. What defines relationship most, however, is reciprocity. A one-way need or passion is pretty sad, but one that is reciprocal is powerful, what I have called (to use another term from molecular chemistry) covalent (literally ‘sharing or exchanging capacity’). This is the stuff of relationship — sharing or exchanging (knowledge, ideas, experiences, perspectives, and/or love, through conversation, in the broader sense of ‘turning together with’ another person).

How deeply can we share or exchange with ‘online’ relationships, where it is difficult to appreciate the other person’s context, needs and passions, and when there is usually not enough time or attention to nurture the relationship to move it to the inner circles — the circles of intimacy at which relationships really bubble, sizzle and soar. But there are exceptions. I have fallen in love online (in Second Life). I have developed online friendships so close that when we first, finally, met face to face we immediately embraced and talked for hours as if we had known each other a lifetime. I have been so sparked — intellectually, emotionally, or otherwise — by the ideas or rhetoric or creativity or knowledge or articulateness of some people that I first encountered online that I have aggressively pursued them to the point they are now good friends, lovers, intimates, and some of these relationships have lasted and others faded, largely based on reciprocity and whether the spark was sustainable.

What drove me to move these relationships to a more intimate level was a sense that, without close and frequent connection and an acknowledgement of reciprocal interest (need or passion), these relationships were really imagined, fantasies, exaggerated by my anticipation and imagination of their possibilities. I wanted to authenticate these relationships.

As I’ve mentioned before, relationships are complex phenomena, not predictable nor controllable. They are a form of dance, or play (in both sense of the word), that is largely unstructured, with the moves and ‘plot’ of the relationships co-developed by the players.

What do you think? Are we fooling ourselves into believing our 150 ‘relationships’ online are more valuable, reciprocal, and authentic than they really are? Are we imagining them to be what we want them to be because it’s easier than actually negotiating a ‘real’ relationship? And are we settling for large numbers of superficial relationships at the cost of true, dizzying, powerful, deep, intimate, authentic relationships, the kind that fill us with love, with intention, with meaning for our lives?

Photo “love and friendship’ by Nesis Elisheva from

This entry was posted in Our Culture / Ourselves. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Stuff of Relationship

  1. Pingback: The Stuff of Relationship « how to save the world | Bitter And Sweet Blog

  2. Pingback: The Stuff of Relationship « how to save the world « Internet Cafe Solution

  3. Pingback: Tips For Men For Dating Mature Women

  4. Pingback: Why do most caribbean parents get annoyed when their kids start talking about relationships? | Island People Search

  5. Jon Husband says:

    I’m curious .. I found my self trying to “authenticate” yours and my relationship / friendship in the context and content of this post. We’ve met x times, had some deep and not-so-deep times together, whether F2F or virtual. I don’t quite know how I characterize it to myself. I know I will “know” you the rest of my life, yet sometimes it feels connected and real, sometimes less so ..

    What I do know is that we connect on a deep level re: ideas, beliefs and values .. and that is something very important to me. Whether it is enough for a relationship, or is just a deep connection, is what I am noodling on here. And of course I realize that both of us are not dead yet, so the connection may yet expand in one or more of several possible different directions. Which is I think a core principle of human life .. in the words of Doris Day, que sera, sera

  6. John Powers says:

    I’m easily deluded, so it’s easy to imagine I’m wrong. But relationships across distances seem very important. This week it seems many bloggers have been ruminating on the subject of online relationships. In the mix I’ve noted Dimitri Orlov’s advice to get offline and it seems that security is his primary reason for caution. But ever sense the photographs of our blue planet from space, it seems to me that a change in consciousness has emerged. We now know in our bones that our challenges are global. Sure we’ll have to re-localize, with civilization collapse, but our global connections seem one aspect of civilization worth preserving in some form. It’s a way to avoid extreme stupidity and provides a potential for collaboration on global issues. I’m not sure how to weigh the risks, and Orlov is surely right to point to risks of online exposure. However it seems there are advantages to many people having a web of relationships that span the globe, and therefore risks to severing those relationships.

  7. Dale Asberry says:

    @John Powers

    In a recent Jeff Vail post, he quotes and expands a New Scientist article that indicates weak, distant connections leads to emergent behavior.

  8. Steve Reed says:

    I’ve really not been into “friends” until lately. That looks a little weird when I put it in I’m referring to online friends, followers, etc. Actually the last time I tried to build my “friend list” it was in a deliberate attempt for business purposes. As much as I tried it never really seemed to work out like it was supposed to.

    Now, this time around. I guess it was still somewhat business involved but not in the same way. This time I have been trying to connect with people on line who have similar interest or better yet interest in a direction that I want to head.

    As was referred to earlier, this really broadens your circle of influence more then is usually possible in your “offline” circle.

    I guess it boils down to this. Just like everything in life. It has its purpose and what its purpose is to me may end up being different then what it is for you.

    For now, I’m really enjoying the opportunity it is giving me to see into other people’s thoughts and experiences. I believe that someday some may even turn into “offline” beneficial relationships.

    So to answer you question. Yes, I think it has a place. What it is probably depends on the people involved and their intentions.

    BTW. Just bought your book and am engrossed in it. Only reason I am on the computer was to look up your web site!

    Thanks for everything!


  9. Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  10. More killed transaminases should divert relefen in the [b]allegra benefits how it works[/b] of any rhubarb that may endocervically participate achlorhydria clearance (see precautions, laboratory tests).

  11. Pingback: Interview Series - with Carlos Xuma | Attraction Dynamics For REAL

Comments are closed.