All relationships do not require depth. Some are classified as an interaction to serve a purpose – to help you achieve that which you desire (temporary gratification or a long-term goal). It could be as simple as getting ice-cream at your favourite parlour or the one you have with your supervisor/boss/coworker. Once we understand what a specific interaction brings and what we are willing to forego to maintain it, I believe that our lives will be better and less stressful.
Whatever our reason for the interaction, we all have standards by which we operate and those that we hope to maintain throughout our interactions, superficial or otherwise. Because we have very little control over how a person operates within the context of our standards, we must decide what it is that we are willing to tolerate at any given point. We must, however, bear in mind that people do not always have access to our standards, because 1. We have not let them in or 2. They simply do not have the brain capacity to appreciate our standards, and 3. They are not interested in knowing or meeting our standards.
That is not to say that a person cannot develop a deep and rewarding relationship with an interaction that started off with the specific intention of receiving a thing. Those relationships that we engage in for the sole purpose of getting that which we require, because of something that we are giving, despite our personal feelings or preference, can be referred to as a transactional necessity (TN). It is also prudent to point out that you can also have a rewarding relationship from one that lacks depth. The reward comes from the thing that the transactional necessity brings or even the temporary gratification one might achieve from the interaction itself and not necessarily the object of the transaction. Psychologists postulate, for the most part, that our relationships with others fall under one of four categories with six relationship subtypes.
The conundrum with TN is that some of us give the wrong impression that the relationship means more than it does, while others of us are simply unable to read the transactional necessity room. Then the relationship dilemma ensues. Unfortunately, many of us are pulled in by “pretty talks” – those conversations that spark your interest because they appear to feed our mental and emotional needs. It is, however, the consistency of reconciliatory actions that determine the true depth and (often) longevity of the relationship. In other words, the detriment or success of that relationship is incumbent on talk-the-talk reconciling with walk the walk, or the lack thereof. This is something that most require for long-lasting relationships, which usually occur once both parties have an interest in genuinely meeting each other’s needs.
Regardless of the nature of the relationship, boundaries are still necessary. When you go to dinner at a restaurant, you must pay to receive the food. Whatever the established system between yourself and the proprietor, you must operate within the set boundaries. In our dealings with others, we must, however, apply context to know what those boundaries are. Often those boundaries are explicitly established, or they can be alluded to. Whatever the case, we all know that regardless of our preferred modus operandi when dealing with others, there are some relationships that are only there to serve a transactional purpose. This means that there is something that you have that I want, and I will pay you in cash or kind to get that thing from you. The same is true when the roles are reversed. I may have something that you need – a service that I am offering, and you pay, in some way, to access that service, and then I give you the goods or service, without any other expectation. The word “pay” (along with service) is being used very loosely to mean giving up one thing (for another) which in some cases could mean the expending of one’s dignity, peace, silence, time, laughter or joy for the need/want.
Even if you enjoy deep relationships with people, transactional necessities are unavoidable. How many times have you been in a situation that you would rather not, but you are forced to engage because there is something in that space that is beneficial to your long or short-term needs? Case in point, the fruit vendor. For you, the experience is partially daunting, because you like to engage and get to know people. While you have never gotten more than platitudes or a pasted-on smile, you continue with the routine because an important need is being fulfilled. Essentially, while she makes you uncomfortable (which may even be because of your skewed perception of her), she does offer the best goods, and having your daily intake of fruit is important to you than the temporary discomfort. Ultimately, the benefits outweigh your discomfort; therefore, you do what you must to maintain your relationship with your fruit lady. This is a transactional necessity.
This “fruit lady” anecdote can be applied in any situation that we are required to continue, despite our discomfort or preference to cut all ties. This can be with any person with whom we interact at work, school or even in our own families. It can even be with someone with whom we have had a close relationship. Let’s be honest, many of us have had to endure transactional necessities at some point. How many of us have had to bite our tongue and understand that not every situation requires a complete cutting of ties, especially if we are to achieve one of our goals? In addition to this lady selling the best fruits, she is also in the best location because there are many parking options. Therefore, you will endure her “unfriendly nature” to achieve a need. Similarly, for whatever reason unique to us, we may be called to shift/redefine/relax our boundaries/standards as it relates to our relationships to facilitate a long-term growth, want, or need. Let me hasten to say that I am by no means suggesting being a hypocrite and faking a friendship. The point is, we do not always have to completely sever ties. There are times when we must change the trajectory/nature of our relationships to continue to meet our needs, so that we can live peaceably and protect our mental health. Depending on the context, it may simply serve you and the specific environment better to accept the shift (from friendship to TN). We may have to change from being friends to being friendly, without a conversation or a falling out. Unfortunately, we are often way too emotionally invested to make that switch.
An existential crisis is mistaking a transactional necessity for a relationship of substance, loyalty, and love thereby developing, in your mind, a closeness that for the other person never existed. With this awareness, comes even greater pain and disappointments than those that are actually built on mutual love, loyalty, trust, and respect (even healthy relationships experience pain and disappointments too). That’s one side of the transactional necessity coin. If you are the person doing the shift, from a relationship that once appeared to be one of depth, it is important to your righteousness (if you are so inclined) to make it clear the way the fruit lady has to you and you to her that the relationship is what it is. In this case, the transactional necessity is not void of kindness. Some people have mastered the art of faking friendships, marriages, etc. and fooling others into thinking that there is more to the relationship than the performance of it. Either way, we can either take the relationship for what it is, or we can shift the dynamic, without fuss, when we find out that it is NOT what it pretended or once was. Bottom line, our relationships do not always have to be deep for it to be rewarding. Notwithstanding, we need to establish what it is or we can shift into the TN mode so that we fulfil what we need to without strife.
PARENTING, ADVOCACY AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN 