Compromising Positions...
It's been a while since I wrote something of substance here, but I decided to do some public pondering. My wife and I have been having some discussions about relationships, all different aspects of them. A topic that came up last night was one about compromise. What does compromising really mean? If I want to do something, she doesn't and I do it anyway, is that a compromise? If she wants to paint the kitchen blue, I want red and it gets painted blue, is that a compromise? According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, Compromise is defined as such:
- Settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions
Interesting. Mutual concession. So, I researched the root word of concession, Concede, and came up with this:
- To grant as a right or priviledge. To acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly.
Sooo... Basically, if there is a decision to be made, one side must always give way? Or is the middle ground able to be found? In the kitchen example, what if the colors chosen were maybe blue tile with red edging, or something similar? To me, that's a true compromise, when both parties give a little. It's not red or blue, but somewhere in the middle. But what of matters where there is no middle? Like having kids or not having kids. No one has ever been slightly pregnant, or almost pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. How are those decisions made, those compromises resolved?
Is it truly a compromise when, say, in our house, my wife wanted a dog. I was extremely opposed to getting a dog and she was all for it. Needless to say we now have three of them. So, did I compromise? What was the compromise? Did she simply assert her right as an adult and go do what she wanted? Or the time I bought a piece of property she was vehemently against purchasing. Did she compromise even though I bought the property despite her objections? More questions than answers on this topic. What gets labeled as compromise and what gets labeled as "just doing it".
In my mind, compromise is when two people with two seperate ideas can sit down and find some common ground and make a new, third idea that, while it may not fully please both parties, pleases them enough to be willing to agree to the third idea. Otherwise it fits the definition of Acquiesce, which is defined as such:
- To accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively
This definition describes you just letting stuff happen, sitting by passively as it does so. Just accepting that what will be, will be. Which is odd, since most of the time we say that a compromise was reached. I just don't see what was compromised, I rather see Acquiescence the majority of the time. For example, in Green Acres, Mr. Douglas wants to live in the country on the farm, Mrs. Douglas wants to live in the city, so they go live in the country. That's Acquiescence. If it was compromise, they'd live in a major suburb with a few acres of land for him to enjoy, yet near to all the shopping and social stuff for her to enjoy. See, third choice, Compromise.
So, in your own relationships, do you tend to see more Acquiescence or Compromise? Do you work together and come up with unique solutions to solve both of your problems, or does one person give in and let the other have their way? And if so, is it a matter of knowing that something is more important for the other person so you just let them have their way, or that it's not worth a fight over whatever particular thing happens to come up, or even that you may not be qualified to make decisions about a certain thing. I'd be interested to hear from everyone on this. Acquiesce, or Compromise... You decide...
Comments
The reality is that one person generally gets what they want more often than the other. As long as both parties are comfortable with the situation I guess I'd have to say that's OK.
Gender is not the power determinant in our household, but I have to say, Mr. IG does get his way a disproportionate amount of the time. I think for us it's just a matter of who is higher maintenance and who is more easygoing. If I paint the kitchen blue because I like blue, I know it means putting up with Mr. IG's obvious discomfort with the color for the next 8 years or so until we repaint. So I'd just as soon paint it tan or whatever he likes, because my preference for blue over tan is fairly moderate to begin with. There are occasional exceptions: e.g. once in a while I'll exercise veto power over a piece of furniture...but for the most part Mr. IG gets what he wants. I tend to reserve my firepower for the big ticket items. :-)
Veto Power... LOL.
No soup for you! LOL
In our case, I pretty much leave almost everything to do with the house in her hands. The painting, the curtains, appliances, whatever. She will consult with me, but it is usually just to let me know that she is going to do something. Which I appreciate. But I have very little fashion sense when it comes to putting the house together. So, she gets to rule that part of the relationship.
Ken and I have pretty much the same philosophies as you folks have mentioned here.
In most cases he is happy to just be told what is going to happen in the house. If he does have an objection we definitely discuss it and it can be changed or we wait until we find something both of us like.
I think it's convenient that he is pretty easygoing on household stuff and I am pretty lenient on yard/car stuff. There's some gender lines, eh? ;)
As for animals...Ken did NOT want to foster these kittens and there was no compromising...he was just basically badgered into it. Now that they have been around for so long, he has accepted and enjoys them. So...that was just unrelenting whining and begging on myself and my daughter's part. He's a patient man! :)
You know my thoughts.
kind of sounds like maybe 'i get this, so you get that?' i'm not a relationship person, so, as this forum suggests, i am also flummoxed as to what the word 'compromise' brings, de facto, to the table....decades of ann landers columns aside.
do you think 'compromise' is a word that was coined by persons of earlier generations (okay, men) who realized that they'd have to sacrifice huge amounts of independence to participate in marriage and/or committed relationships and that each sacrifice was considered 'something of a compromise?' i'm only bringing this forth because words have huge social and historically repercussive weight, especially in gender and power dynamics, and maybe your post alludes to the fact that this word bears a sacrificial onus.
oh my god, i'm so going to get my roots done..
I acquiesce much more than Chris ever does. We compromise on some things but he usually 'wins'. He's all about 'winning' and 'losing'.
When we were looking at houses last fall if he didn't like the house, it wasn't even in consideration whereas if I didn't like the house but he did it was always in consideration. Luckily we found a couple of houses that we both liked and then had to choose between the two. However, he liked one more than the other and I liked his lesser favorite more than the other. We ended up with his most favorite after much discussion in which I was convinced of the better qualities of his favorite house.
Now, on day to day decisions such as: "what's for supper tonight" I usually make the decision. I don't want to make that decision all the time, but it is a discussion that more than once has led to anger and hurt feelings---because neither one of us is willing to make a final decision....for fear of 'forcing' our will on the other one.
What color to paint a wall? I usually get to decide the color and then Chris will decide the hue. For instance, I wanted to paint our bedroom yellow, he picked a pale yellow. When we painted the guest bedroom, I wanted blue and he picked a pale/baby blue. I still haven't 'won' the right to paint our bedroom any hue of purple.
When we were picking out furniture for the new house---if he didn't like it; it wasn't in consideration. But, if I didn't like it--it was in consideration---unless I just flat out said 'no'.
In the case of our son. Chris gets the final word. "Because I've been a boy and you haven't." I don't necessarily agree to the things Chris decides is okay but in order to remain united in front of the child---I agree. Then try to remember to discuss my opinion on it later. Currently we are having discussions about what is appropriate conversations to have in front of Jordan and what isn't appropriate---I'll end up losing this one---but it will be on record that I was opposed to some of these issues.
What's so neat about this sort of compromise process--and Mr. IG and I had to work hard to get to this point, lots of squabbling over flatware patterns along the way--is that when you do discover the common ground it usually turns out to be really great. The end result is very personal, unique and fun. I'm thinking about aesthetics now (vs matters of principle, which are infinitely trickier). Solving a design problem that involves two strong, different, design aesthetics is a challenge but I think much more rewarding in the end than if you both happened to love mid-century modern or whatever. My 2 cents.
But Ken you are the only one there. Why can't you man up and just be cool once a year. That is why your son never comes home. You only think you are in charge. Everybody else has left because you are so unyielding.
Compromise is everything. Kevin and I have a plan. We take turns or we mutually come to a decision. In most cases one of us is totally willing to let the other one decide.
The good news is that I have final say and what I say goes,lol.
Ken. You live alone. You don't have to compromise. If you are sitting there arguing with yourself over furniture color you might want to put that pipe down and call a Doctor. You seem to need a little Ex-lax this week. You're acting like a mean little child all over the internets. Sleep in today and don't drink so much. You're really becoming an irritant. Or if you need help picking furniture colors you know I am genetically predisposed to being able to do these things.
Life is about compromise and the long term stuff like furniture you will be looking at for a decade is a great place to start. Otherwise, if you make the choice alone it will be held against you for as long as you have the couch.
I think when analyzing the notion of "mutual concessions," though, it's important not to drop the "mutual" part. Doing so removes a third outcome that actually stands closer to Agreement than the other two. I'll try to explain...
Concessions are undoubtedly a sort of "giving in," but when that yielding is mutual, it takes on an entirely new character. It becomes an act larger than a single concession. Whatever is decided in the end can no longer be called a Concession nor an Acquiescence because those indicate something is not wanted. The result is closest to an Agreement because both parties now want it (if only because the other wants it so much).
This is why I love thinking about philosophy, by the way.
Hum. That's like saying, "Purple sucks! Violet is the way to go!" If you had only bothered to look at what we educated people refer to as a "dictionary," you would have seen that the very definition of "trade-off" is:
trade-off, n, [1960-1965]: the exchange of one thing for another of more or less equal value, esp. to effect a compromise.
I made sure to use italics, bold, and underline so you wouldn't miss the salient part. FYI: "esp." means "especially". As in, "this in particular more so than anything else". I hope I explained that well enough for you, ken.
How boring and sad is your life that you continue to set yourself up this way? I sincerely hope you're just a loser troll and not some angry simpleton who actually believes the inane crap he posts.
kirk,kirk,kirk,let me see if i can explain this to you,in the town i grew up in we had 2 cops that were brothers one of them was a by the book kind of guy,the other one was threw the book out the first day on the job,one had kids throwing eggs at his police car,the other got invited to weddings.the one got killed in a bar fight,the other is now police cheif.that a trade off and a compromise are 2 different things and will remain 2 different things is a matter of common sense,try to grasp that concept.
Some very interesting thoughts. One thing we did discuss further on this was the scenario of compromise being a matter of dealing X for Y. If you get X, I'll get Y or similar. That too is a compromise. It's not always about a third choice as I put it above. If you want seafood and I want steak, we don't go get chicken, we just find a restaurant that can cater to both our needs. Tada! Or as IG said, I pick the color, but you pick teh hue, or I'll pick the sofa, you pick the upholstery pattern.
As for Ken's comment, he does have a point amongst the bitterness. If you are in a relationship where you are continually giving in and getting nothing, that isn't much of a relationship at all. Things should be fair and equitable for both parties, hence the compromise. I may give in on something today, but later, something will be given back my way. If not, then it's just a one way relationship, which can be a very toxic situation to live in. Give, give, give and never get.
Oh, and for the record, I don't want a red kitchen. LOL. It's actually a very pale yellowish color the name of which I couldn't remember to save my life, which the Missus picked out. LOL
You told me you had a son and you hardly see him. Your wife is dead. Of course how would I know that unless you told me.
Anyhow, this is somebody else's Vox so let's keep the drama off their page. Not a good thing to do.
I am completely lost by the police example there. A tradeoff is a compromise. You didn't achieve your sole objective, you gave in and traded off, you compromised. What that has to do with a police dude getting shot in a bar, I don't know. Also ken, for the record, my brother is gay, has a wonderful relationship and does not throw tantrums full of self pity. Your generalizations are based upon wrong assumptions. Please do some more research before using those kinds of sweeping generalizations or clarify it further by stating that "In my experience..." or similar. Thanks.
I compromise every time I let you comment here ken, because most of my other neighbors have already booted you from their pages for your rash behaviours and sweeping negative generalizations. Yet, I understand that most people have something of value in what they say that needs to be heard. Your original comment plainly shows the need to have compromise in a good relationship, or else it soon becomes every man for themselves. Which goes against every principle of civilized society.
I understand your bitterness about the world, but could you step up the quality of your comments a bit? Or better yet, throw some of your own personal life into it. Tell us how this makes no sense, sure, but do so in context with your own life. If you did that and kept the personal attacks to a minimum, people just might understand what point you are trying to get across a little better.
Interesting points. I can see where the things that are important to you would be something you wouldn't want to ever compromise, but what of simple things, likk a bedspread? She likes Design A, you like Design B, how do you come to some sort of agreement as to what to get? Granted, it's not a life or death important thing, like maybe choosing a religion would be, but there needs to be some compromise in a relationship or it is simply a one way relationship, which again, is a very toxic situation.
Also, another excellent point is that if you are unwilling to compromise on those items, then it would be best to be truthful and upfront about them. I told my wife when we first started talking way back when about things that I personally would never tolerate in a relationship. Things like abuse. I feel it's important to get them out there early on and make the other person aware of those conditions.
The older I get, of course, the more I'm inclined to stand by what I've learned the hard way. But I'm also more able to shrug off small stuff--like bedspreads...
ken, when I researched definitions of trade-off and barter, they are two seperate things. Bartering has to do with a goods for goods exchange in place of monetary compensation and when I looked up trade-off, the exact definition was as follows:
:a balance achieved between two desirable but incompatible features; a compromise
So in truth, if you are making trade-offs for you child, they are in fact compromises, under another name. Which is really what Kirk, in his own way was trying to say. We all make compromises in life, otherwise, there'd be nowhere left to bury the bodies.
Be careful about "giving in". Be careful about "being right". You need a balance of both otherwise one person's the bully and the other is the wimp. And the latter will rise above when they get sick and tired of it and seek vengeance on your @**. And then everyone has to pay for both the bully being too pushy and the wimp who can't stand up for him/her self. It becomes an issue of overcompensation on both sides, but it rears it's ugly head at different points in the relationship.
I have been each of those roles in my past of relationships. Once the bully then the wimp. Something I'm not proud to admit. But I've also had a balance... balance of give and take works best. In my experience. That way each wins at least at some point in the relationship.
I've said this in my own way many times as on my own, but Kirk referenced it as well...what do you want: To be right? Or to be married?
Stick up for one's self when it matters; let it go when it doesn't. But make sure to find stuff that matters. Otherwise you're skatin'. And that's even worse in a relationship. (In my opinion.)
I used to be kind of pushy when it came to Nathan but I eventually acquiesced. Thankfully, I'm not sorry I did...however, when Nathan cuts off his arm jacking up the tractor or his face gets blown off charging yet another battery, there will be "I told you so's". In the mean time, though, I'm very proud of the problem solving skills Nathan's gotten from the freedom to experiment that DeWitte's given him, even if it means I've gotta listen to DeWitte gripe about Nathan leaving his tools out in the yard. :P
As far as big ticket items...dang, I don't think either of us has an opinion that's stronger than the other. Actually, I can't think of the last big thing we've purchased that wasn't flat out fun to buy. And that's because we don't usually have a lot of money so when we do, it's fun to spend it together!
Well, that was fun to think about. I guess that's why we don't fight very often..it's DeWitte and Jamie against the world!
Compromise by process of eliimination... Hmmm... LOL
Out of this I got that people look at 'compromise' in different ways. Some are very literal and see joint decisions only as a compromise if there is a third choice derived at from the two different original options. others see compromise in the broad sense which includes the literal -if not a or b then c - and the broader 'trade-off' if not a now then b on the next decision.
from the responses you can see that everyone has different things they place more importance on than others do, which is why there ends up being compromises and trade-offs in relationships.
I have noticed the different personal choices in how many compromises and/or trade-offs a person will allow in his or her relationships.
I agree with the previous statements about stating up front the things that are not up for compromise, so that there are no surprises down the road.
I tend to be a very acquiescent kind of person on many things and yet I do have certain things that I will neither acquiesce or compromise on. I do not currently have a significant other, but I do co-own my home with my best friend. That actually was/is a point of non-acquiescence in previous relationships, in so much as I would not ask her to leave just because I was in a relationship no matter how permanent it was. to me there was plenty of room for her to have her space. if she chose to leave that would be her choice, but I did not and do not plan to ever ask her to leave in favor of a significant other. Because this is not up for any kind of compromise, it is something that I let be known right away.
Some people see compromise as a sign of weakness, while others as a sign of civility. To what degree you see it is probably more a matter of upbringing and your own personal life history.
This is a very interesting thing to think about!
I find that quite often people are opposed to an idea when they first hear about it, but if they get time to consider it, they might change their mind later. I call it planting the seed. Jason and I both use that method and we usually come to an agreement eventually. You've just got to be patient and give the other person time. Things that we don't agree on, we just don't do, until we can agree on something. But sometimes, we compromise for each other because we want to see the other person happy. It's give and take.
The definition of mental health is wrapped around change. Your acceptance of change equals your level of mental health. If you ever notice, mentally retarded people are all about schedule. Things remaining the same. Because they have a difficult time dealing with things outside the norm. Different is hard to compute.
They develop a routine and stick with it because they are extremely comfortable doing that. And people in general tend to gravitate towards habit. Change is always a scary thing, the unknown. Yet, those who deal well with change are among the healthiest mentally.
I guess the point of all this is that if a person is so hard and fast stuck on their choices that they never compromise, they actually fear compromise, perhaps there is something else going on in their head...