In article <[log in to unmask]>, J
Bryant <[log in to unmask]> writes
>Like many academics in the UK I've had a free copy of 'The Independent'
>newspaper today! A feature there each week is Virginia Ironside's
>'Dilemmas' page. This week it was about Frances:
>
>Frances's partner of 22 years has confessed to a series of affairs, but
>excuses himself by saying that as they aren't married (though they have a
>child) he hasn't committed adultery or infidelity, he got lonely on trips
>abroad, and women threw themselves at him. he says he loves Frances but he
>doesn't fancy her. Frances wants to stay but feels she'll lose her
>self-respect if she does.
>
>Anyone feel like doing a drama theoretic analysis of this?
With this information (I haven't seen the Independent article), the
analysis would seem to be as follows.
F P t d
FRANCES
leave 0 0 1 0
PARTNER
be faithful 1 0 0 0
Frances's position (column F) is that she won't leave if he'll be
faithful. Her partner's position (P) is that she shouldn't leave, but
let him continue to sleep around. The threatened future (t) is that she
leaves, leaving him to continue to sleep around. The default future (d)
is the same as his position; that is, to do nothing is to give in to
him.
Frances' problem seems to be that her position is 'unrealistic'; he
prefers t to F, so it's impossible that he'll agree to her position at
F. There are three different ways of reacting to this, each of which she
has no doubt tried or thought of trying.
- One is to 'demonise' him, with emotions of bitterness & anger, so as
to think up & make credible some way of punishing him: if she can do
this, her position will become realistic as she'll be able to threaten
him with a t' that is worse for him than F. Trouble is, his reaction is
likely to be to get angry with her in order to enable him to prefer t'
also (or some reaction to it, such as *leaving her*, an option not
presently under consideration) to F.
- A second reaction, which she has no doubt also thouhgt of, is to give
up & accept his position P; emotions of despair, depression & apathy go
with giving up one's position.
- The third reaction is probably the healthiest, but may not be possible
in Frances' position. It combines the above two emotions & adds positive
emotions of love & goodwill. It consists of finding & moving to a new
position F' which is both more attractive to him than t (presumably
because it gives or allows him something he doesn't get from their
present relationship) & also more acceptable to her than P. This is how
emotions of despair, love & anger will help her achieve this. Love will
help her to find something he wants & make her want to give it. Anger
will make her willing to leave him (column t) if he won't accept F', but
still insists on P (though by assumption he prefers F' to t). Despair
will enable her to give up the position F & adopt the more conciliatory
position F'. Thus these three emotions can put her in a good bargaining
position.
This depends, however, on her being able to find a position F' that
meets the bill - ie, it must be more attractive to him than P (where he
continues to be unfaithful) while at the same time salvaging her self-
respect. If none such can be found, it looks as if she'll have to decide
(quite apart from any feelings of wanting to punish him) which future
she prefers: P (with loss of self-respect) or t (with loss of partner).
>
>Better still any advice for this next week's dilemma subject, William who
>writes:
>I'm 35 and have been married for 7 years. Both my wife and I have
>successful and reasonably rewarding jobs. To start with my wife simply put
>off the idea of having children, saying she wanted to re-qualify and so on,
>but four years later she still didn't want children so we went to Relate,
>where it became clear she never wanted children.
>This prompted a six-month depression, a separation, then a reconciliation.
>I feel such a sense of betrayal, as I have had no part in this decision.
>Her attitude and that of many people is that if I wanted children badly
>enough then I'd leave and find someone who wanted them. But I still love my
>wife. How can I stay with someone I love, and learn to accept life without
>children - or how can I leave someone I love in the hope that I can find
>someone who does want children?
The fascinating thing is that this is almost the same problem. We have
W F t d
WILLIAM
leave 0 0 1 0
WIFE
have children 1 0 0 0
William's position W, like Frances's, is unrealistic; that is, William's
wife seems to prefer t to W, so that nothing at present on the table can
shake her from her position, F. Moreover, the default, d, consists of
giving in to her.
The whole of the previous analysis thus applies, word for word, except
for the swapping of gender prononouns ('him' for 'her', etc) & replacing
'loss of self-respect' with 'loss of prospective children'. There's no
point in repeating it. Just read it again!
This strict repeatability comes, of course, from lack of data. It might
be (we don't know) that Frances (or William) can do something concrete
to satisfy their partner or wife (Frances' partner might be demanding
sexual acrobatics, William's wife commitment to help with baby- & child-
care). Lacking any knowledge of such details, all that the analysis can
do is deal in generalities.
The one thing common between the two cases (& we're not sure how much it
has influenced our analysis) is that the unrealistic character in each
case is basing its position on accepted mores (partners are expected to
be faithful, couples are expected to have children). Here's a
hypothesis: maybe what makes people cling to unrealistic positions is,
very often, the feeling that society in general, & accepted mores, are
on their side. And maybe that feeling (together with the dilemma that
their socially-accepted position is unrealistic!) tends to make them
want to put their case in a public forum such as a newspaper.
--
Nigel Howard Immersive Soap Co Nigel Howard Systems
Email: [log in to unmask] Phone/Fax: (44)(0)121-449-4480
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
