Principle of Least Interest
Frustrating are the days when lofty teaching aspirations do not match classroom outcomes. Maybe it’s the weather <everything’s the weather>: cold, drizzly atmosphere –> apathetic students? Not an unlikely relationship. So what I fear I failed to communicate in class, I will gladly rehash in writing.
In my Marriage & Family course, we’ve come to the discussion of interactional dynamics in romantic relationships, kicked off with the question, Who sets the tone for the interaction in the relationship? i.e., Who’s in control? Who wears the pants? <or in more gender-ambiguous terms, Who wears the sarong around here?> Put in socio-speak, what characteristic of the interaction determines who has the power? Answer: the partner with the least interest in the relationship. It takes little reflection on our own romantic endeavors to realize that this is, in fact, the case and just a few clips from He’s Just Not That Into You to locate this reality parroted in pop culture. Basic economics, supply and demand: I want something, you have it, you’ve got the power in the situation. I do what you want (offset, of course, by the cost of what you want from me) in order to get my (in this case) emotional payoff. Infatuated with Partner A, Partner B will routinely tolerate or otherwise rationalize suboptimal treatment in return for a modicum of interest shown on the part of Partner A. Meanwhile, least-interested Partner A behaves as pleases, all the while garnering the benefits of Partner B. (He’s Just Not That Into You example couple: Connor and Anna)
How can we further reconcile the norm that the individual who typically sets the pace of the relationship is the male partner? <I could insert an asterisk here about how this is decreasingly the case, that women are more assertive today, etc. But I feel certain that it remains the general pattern for the female interest to let the male be the actor in the situation, the prime mover, at least in the initial stages of dating.> I might speculate that the perpetuation of male direction in romantic relationships is reinforced by the gender differences in romantic priorities. Psychologist Willard Harley has identified a set of common needs that individuals cite as important to a relationship and, no surprise, these characteristics tend to break down along gender lines:
- Hers — Affection, Honesty/Openness, Family Commitment, Conversation, Domestic Support
- His — Admiration, Honesty, Recreational Companionship, Sexual Fulfillment, Attractiveness.
http://xkcd.com/110/
Note that the needs men cite in relation to women are consistent with what we think of as feminine, or in the very least, not at odds with femininity. However, the opposite is not as strongly true. Those things that women cite as needing from men are not particularly virile in nature. Affectionate? Loquacious? Committed? Supportive? These are not at the top of the masculinity scale. In other words, the default or at least stereotypical performance of masculinity also happens to mean keeping those qualities females most desire in short supply. And it is not only that limited supply creates greater demand, but alternately that the person in the position of least-interest is the person who has the least difficulty acquiring a desired end– again, the list of men’s needs is not inconsistent with the performance of femininity.
Ultimately, the point seems almost tautological: the male partner controls the relationship because he is the male partner. But there’s a nuance there. Traditionally in a heterosexual relationship, the male partner has controlled the initial progress of the relationship simply on account of his gender such that this arrangement has been the normative interactional structure guiding the behavior of the two individuals in the romantic question mark. Today, it would seem that control is less a matter of being of the male gender, than of being masculine– or more accurately, the interplay of masculinity and femininity. Masculinity itself is relevant only inasmuch as it translates into a meted supply of some desired emotional (or tangible) good for the romantic counterpart. It is the scarcity of women’s emotional/affection needs that masculinity tends to effect that wins it the least-interested throne.
Uh-oh– is that a potential tautology, too? To be masculine is to be emotionally detached is to be in control is to be emotionally detached is to be masculine. A multi-word palindrome… That’s how it went in class today, too.
