Structure Your Relationship Intentionally
Part 1: Play or Tyranny?
(photo from the author)
Joe Rogan had Jordan Peterson on his podcast again recently, and they spent much of their time talking about healthy intimate partner relationships. But they started out talking about the dangers of a relationship structure at any level, from diad to societal, built on tyranny.
A tyrant is someone who uses fear, manipulation, and force to control another, sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively. The tyrant is incredibly, or more likely wholly, egocentric and selfish, only interested in his or her wants. It’s all about control: how can the tyrant orchestrate the relationship to get the maximal amount of control that allows him or her the power to pursue everything he or she wants, without regard for anyone else’s needs or wants.
Other people, be it an intimate partner or the general population, only get in the way of that pursuit of power and control. So, they have to be subdued, by stonewalling (ie, ignoring their wants), manipulation (ie, gas-lighting, propaganda and ideological capture, or fear), or compulsion (ie, force). The tyrant keeps the other, intimate partner or general population, feeling trapped. Resistance is useless because it is either ignored or overpowered. The result is overwhelm, resignation, hopelessness and withdrawal, the slow crushing of your spirit, the withering away of your very soul.
In contrast to the tyrant, a true partner (in an intimate relationship) or leader (societally) invites the other(s) to participate, engaging from a place of reciprocity, mutual benefit guided by voluntary self-sacrifice toward something bigger than the self right now. I’ve written about this a number of times before. The best way to show up in the world is from a place of servant leadership. The best version of me voluntarily sacrifices my own short-term preferences for my long-term well-being. Then I sacrifice my own selfish desires for the good of my relationship. Then we sacrifice our selfishness regarding our relationship to do what is best for our children. That same hierarchical structure continues to cascade down through the ordered layers of extended family, friends, work, community, city, state, nation, and world.
Paradoxically, whether in an intimate relationship or scaled up to societal leadership, the best way to get what I want or need is to prioritize what you need and thus create an environment where you are motivated to give back to me. The reciprocal feeling of fulfillment in that is what makes it iterable, and iterability is a requirement of any relationship beyond only what is, right now. Iterability in an intimate partner relationship means that the relationship is both mutually fulfilling and long-lasting, positively and productively over time. Iterability scaled up to the societal level means that the interaction pattern benefits the collective, both now and across time. The good of the whole, be it relationship or society, should always be prioritized over the want of the individual.
In the podcast, Peterson made the argument that the opposite of tyranny is play. Play, as we will define it here, is not reduced only to things that are “fun.” It’s not simply running around like a 5 year-old on the playground. Play, in this context, would be voluntary flexible participation, oriented toward something better, in a way that is iterable.
The only way that play is iterable is if we both feel good about the experience. If we are only going to interact once, it actually makes more sense that I would take advantage of you to get as much as I can from you in that singular exchange. But showing up that way doesn’t work long-term because if I do that, and then try to get you to interact with me again, very soon you will refuse to continue the interaction. Our interactions only iterate if we both feel like we got something positive out of the experience, and so we are both motivated to interact (ie, to play together) again.
Force or compulsion are never the best options where a genuine invitation has any potential to be successful. Remember the story of Moses and the Isrealites when they ran out of water and asked God for help (Numbers 20:1-13). God told Moses to ask the rocks to produce water. But in his anger at the Israelites for their constant complaining, Moses reactively used force, striking the rocks. The force worked, and the rocks produced water. Sometimes force is appropriate, as illustrated when God explicitly told Moses to strike the rocks in a different story (Exodus 17:1-7). But Moses’ use of force, when using words in a calm request was adequate and appropriate, got him in lots of trouble.
It seems to me that the contrast between tyranny and play sums up marriage really well. In the healthiest of marriages, we play together. We both engage in voluntary flexible participation, oriented toward the betterment of the relationship over either of our selfish desires, in a way that is mutually rewarding to a sufficient degree such that it is iterable across the rest of our life together. As I wrote in my piece on Understanding Masculinity, the great paradox of marriage is that when I show up as the best possible version of me, focused on voluntary self-sacrifice and servant leadership, prioritizing your betterment and your needs, I create the space where you feel inspired to do the same back for me. Assuming that you show up from a place of love and in good faith, in prioritizing your needs over my own, I am in fact most likely to get my needs met by you. That makes it iterable: you literally want to keep playing with me (ie, doing life with me, giving back to me as I am giving to you). The more we play together, the more we reciprocally give to each other, the deeper our connection grows and the more meaningful and fulfilling our time together is.
Contrast that with a marriage built on tyranny. One person makes unilateral decisions for the two, without regard for or contribution from the other partner. The other partner may speak up, ask to have needs met, resist, formulate some boundaries, etc., but those are all ignored. A tyrannical partner might engage quite aggressively, or very passive-aggressively. He or she will make promises just to get you to stop asking, then never follow through. A tyrannical partner will agree with you, then go behind your back, or wait until you’re not watching, to do whatever it was he wanted in the first place. She will punish you by pulling away, withholding connection and expressions of love. He will pursue his own interests rather than investing time in you, in your relationship, or in the children. She might even become abusive, verbally or otherwise, to manipulate you into falling in line. There might be threats of aggression against you, or threats of self-harm aimed at holding you hostage and destroying your resistance. In the worst case scenario, the tyrannical partner will literally use fear and force, threats of harm or actual domestic violence, to control you so that things continue to go the way that he or she wants them to go, without any true regard for you at all. That’s deadly to a relationship, and possibly to your very spirit.
Be intentional about building your relationship on the principles of iterative play. Being a tyrant will only bring destruction to your relationship and do damage to your children.