I was first introduced to the idea of romance being an addiction by Donal Logue's character, Dex, in the Tao of Steve, when he delivered a brilliant monologue to his two married friends - something to the effect of "Romance is America's addiction." And the more times I watch that film, which is enjoyable on many levels, the more this scene becomes integral to my understanding of personal relationships. Later he asks his married friends, "Do you ever think your addiction to romantic love will prevent you from reaching enlightenment?" To which they respond, "Do you ever think your philosophies will prevent you from having a life?" Zing.
Why am I discussing this? Because I am a romance addict. I cannot sit still with my uneasiness, without transforming my malaise into some sort of fantasy for an ideal romantic relationship. I'll surf craigslist or yahoo personals and dream about an ideal relationship complete with companionship, philosophy (literally the love and pursuit of truth), sex, outdoor activities, kids, etc. I'll escape into this fantasy when I get lonely, feel disconnected and/or drift into a spiritually bankrupt space. "Oh wouldn't it great to find that special someone!" When I'm meditating or even catch a glimpse of the Eternal in daily life, romance is the furthest thing from my mind. Romance is a cheap substitute for the real thing. It approximates what it is we seek, but it is not it.
The only way I can envision a healthy relationship, or what I call, True Partnership, is to outline a set of principles from the outset.
- To pursue truth at whatever the cost, even if it means the dissolution of the partnership.
- To come from a place of wholeness and sufficiency whenever possible and to admit when a need has arisen.
- To look into every need, every motive of action, such that the need/cry of the ego/inauthenticity is revealed, after which wholeness and sufficiency become manifest.
- To pursue activities together which mutually enhance the experience of life, but which could easily be done without.
- To utilize the relationship as a means of self-expression and actualization.
- To have compassion and patience for the other in their moments of need, inauthenticity.
- To understand that the relationship is a mirror into our own selves; to generate introspection during conflict above all else; our individual path is the key to our happiness and there is nothing the other can do to truly remedy our malaise
I've decided to come to terms with my addiction and just sit with the dis-ease, loneliness and isolation and allow the deeper reality, the true heroin, the Eternal to make itself known.
For most of us this is a taboo subject, as marriage, monogamy, lust, passion and romance are lynchpins of our daily life and institutions. Telling a Westerner that romance is an addiction is like telling a Democrat that people suffer because they are inferior. It just runs so counter to the way we perceive life. However, when we look at lust and emotions we see that there is no difference between the addictive patterns of lovers or substance abusers.
'What the Bleep' made this point best during the wedding sequence where individuals at the reception were hooked up to their I-V drips of emotional chemicals. Whether it's drama, rage, lust, over-indulgence or self-loathing, each individual in the scene was held hostage to the cell receptor /emotional chemical of their choosing. Once we push past food, water, shelter and safety, need is addiction.
To engage in true partnership, one must approach a union from a position of wholeness. Without such wholeness, co-dependency exists and relationships become pharmacies. During one's teens and twenties, one looks for a partner to complete them, as they themselves are incomplete. Relationships are seen as a short cut to Eternal communion - we believe we can remedy our ignorance with a visceral expression of God (our partner) which complements our own.
More specifically, during this age one's identity and value system are in constant flux - adopting one image, value, opinion and shedding another. Usually this manifests itself in a push-pull with Mommy and Daddy, such that one never really gets to be oneself, but exists only in congruence or opposition to existing institutions, people, etc. Unless one breaks from this disease via post-conventional thought, this lack, this absence of self-awareness, one sees their partner as mostly as a way to conform to / reject an idea / group / person. Thus, they utilize their mate as a substitute for self-expression, to define who they are and who they are not. Since they are incomplete, they will always need something from their mate.
Philosopher Alan Watts quoted an exchange between one of his psychotherapist friends and patient; the psychotherapist asked, "With whom are you in love against?" In this regard, the dependency of modern relationships creates resentment or antagonism, because ultimately one wants to be whole and free, not whole and co-dependent. The catch is that the initial yearning for wholeness is what attracts us to each other (opposites attract), but the addiction cycle that results is what ultimately transforms the charming characteristics, in our eyes, into loathsome attributes and reasons for divorce. No divorce or breakup ever need happen. Every issue is an opportunity for growth - failure to see that and remain trapped in our limited selves with our limiting addiction cycles is what severs. Irreconcilable differences, is just a fancy term for ignorance and fear.
Let's examine the average marriage. To do that we must examine the average person. Men are 26.7 years old and women are 25.1 years old at the time of their first marriage. Developmentally, marrying at this age or even before 30 is ridiculous. Given what we know now about developmental psychology, this would be like saying the average age in which somebody learns to tie their shoes is 7 weeks. It's simply impossible to properly make that kind of judgment in one's 20's. Per Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development, there are three main stages: Pre-conventional, Conventional and Post-conventional.
Briefly, Preconventional describes a decision-making mechanism oriented around obedience, punishment and self-interest. Somebody with pre-conventional moral development can be heard saying, "What is in it for me?" I know many 30 year-olds still in this stage. Conventional describes a decision-making mechanism oriented around interpersonal accord, conformity, authority and social order. Somebody with conventional moral development will do the "right" thing, because that is what is expected. The capability to become conventional arises around age 13, but as mentioned, some never make it.
Post-conventional describes a decision-making mechanism oriented around individually arrived upon universal ethical principles and a percieved social contract. Somebody with post-conventional moral development owes no allegiance to anything but that which he/she experientially or deductively understands. Cognitively, this capacity arises in one's twenties, but less than 20% of humans ever make it to this stage. Of those that do make it, most take a very long time to employ this sort of critical reasoning... Fear, desire, addictions (shopping, drugs, booze, gambling, overwork, mindless media, etc.), keeping up with the Joneses, etc. keep us from really examining our lives.
At this post-conventional stage, the wholeness, unity and completeness of oneself and one's relationship to the universe emerge and True Partnership can occur. At previous stages, only addiction-laden symbiosis can occur.
With regard to relationships and romance, 80-99% are formed at the conventional stage or lower. The implications are that the mate must perform explicit stated and implicitly expected actions to conform and be in good standing, i.e. they must give the proper drugs in the proper amounts at the proper times to receive their payment in kind. This is where ill-informed couples and psychotherapists interject that "compromise is the key to relationships." And this is where I say nonsense. Touting comprise in this regard is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, in that the true remedy of the malaise is not in getting two immature souls to coexist, but to mature the two individual souls.
An excellent window into the consciousness of America is music. Listen carefully to the lyrics of the songs you hear. With the exception of New Age music and pop anomalies like Tool, Live and U2, popular music is replete with yearning, the "you complete me" pathetic co-dependency we now know is an obstacle to our genuine happiness. We are not only drawn to these songs because they depict our hope that the other will complete us, but we actually like the short highs of the addiction, so we reinforce our addiction with media. We find the same cycles in TV and movies.
Developing one's own moral principles and living a reasoned existence ought to be heralded, but is typically judged as stubborn or not conducive to being in a relationship. The reality is that principles are of no concern to an addict. Addicts need drugs. And until one weans oneself from his/her vice of choice, he/she brings more disharmony to life and relationships than harmony. One will continue to plague the people in their circle for drugs - all sorts of vindication, attaboys, sensory stimulation, economic resources, status, etc. That is, the only key to relationships is the same key to everlasting happiness - the eradication of desire (emotional, intellectual, physical and spiritual addiction), the death of the ego, non-dual awareness, enlightenment, etc.
Aristotle's talk on friendship is quite illuminating as well with respect to this topic. He states that there are three types or veins of association:
- Utility - quid pro quo, etc. Relationships based upon what you get from the other, e.g. sex, food preparation, beauty, offspring in exchange for security, wealth/comfort, protection.
- Activity - "We like doing the same things! We have so much in common!" The association is based upon shared activities, such as work, hobbies, cooking, golf, etc.
- Affinity - "I like you because of the person you are." The association is a reflection of the goodness and the superior qualities of the other. Kindness, wisdom, compassion, creativity, leadership, etc. all draw us to people - very similar to the guru effect.
As Aristotle observed, most relationships are complex and have all three veins coursing through them. However, those relationships which are the most sturdy, which endure lapses in utility and activity as time all but guarantees, are the only ones worth cultivating. The caveat here is that the only way to work on any relationship is to work on oneself and cultivate the self-awareness requisite to espouse superior qualities.
Step one to breaking our romantic addiction, our posturing with respect to utility and activity, is to modify our media intake, as most media only reinforces our ignorance. Pop music, sitcoms and romantic comedies need to go. Step two would be to develop an earnest spiritual / self-awareness practice.
Step one can be done in the next couple seconds, by just deciding to do it. Step two could take the rest of our lives, but ultimately is the only way to get what we want - wholeness, expansion and expression. We ought do it for our own sake; do it for the people we care about (our continued codependent relationships hurt everyone over the long-term); do it for the spiritual health of the planet (raising our individual conscious resonates on unseen planes making the transformation of others more likely). If we care about ourselves, those around us and the planet, let's make our spiritual practice top priority.
Brandon Peele is Founder of Namaste Economics, a set of economic principles defining the path of conscious business.
You'll find the Cultivate Life! Podcast at LearnOutLoud.com - your one-stop destination for audio and video learning. Browse over 15,000 educational audio books, MP3 downloads, podcasts, and videos. |
