The Politics of Relationship - IV
Oriental Venus wants to possess and be possessed – to merge individual identities and surrender individual initiative in order to create something greater; whereas Occidental Venus prefers a free, easy, laissez faire relationship which serves merely as a springboard or a base of support from which to operate. To dispassionate types the idea of commitment to relationship as an end in itself seems quite foreign and bizarre, and these natives tend to view possessive types as clingy, overbearing, and a bring-down; whereas possessive natives regard the idea of a community of interests as quite superficial, and these natives see dispassionate types as cold, aloof, and selfish.
One might suppose, therefore, that marriage would be more likely to succeed between natives of the same type: possessive or dispassionate. In a “mixed” marriage the individual partners soon discover that they’re not going to get what they want from each other, nor is the other person going to be satisfied with what they have to offer. The respective partners have contradictory expectations of marriage. In the politics of relationship, the fact that the power in a relationship resides in the hands of the party who has the least stake usually gives the dispassionate party an edge in the normal course of things; but possessive types have a way of upsetting the apple cart when they feel they’ve been dispossessed. In yin-yang fashion, at the bottom of the dispassionate psyche there lurks an unrecognized possessiveness, a dependency usually unacknowledged until the relationship terminates (or threatens to terminate). And at the bottom of the possessive psyche there lies an unrecognized dispassion – a cold, brusque, utilitarian independence to which the native resorts when he or she is blocked.
Marriage between two Venus oriental natives or between two Venus occidental natives is in some ways easier than a mixed marriage, because then the partners possess a like spirit of cooperation and can take the same assumptions about marriage for granted: they at least share the same basic map of marriage. However this is no guarantee of success because even in this case one usually finds the other partner reading the map upside down.
Even though the basic assumptions they are making may be in accord, does not mean that the common interests which bring two dispassionate natives together at the beginning will be enough to sustain them through the years; nor does it mean that the total union which the two possessive natives seek will be harmonious in all its specific implications. The universal struggle of marriage is the slow and excruciating acceptance of the fact that this person who stands before you isn’t the image that you had thought they were; nor will they satisfy the needs you hoped they would. A marriage between two natives of the same phase is as likely to underscore respective insecurities as it is to address respective needs. On the other hand, mixed marriages have greater potential for growth – if the initial divisiveness can be overcome – because each partner is challenged to defer to the other, to give up something of his or her self (which when all is said and done limits one’s scope) to find happiness in a situation which he or she cannot fundamentally control. In other words, mixed marriages require and teach greater trust.
If we are going to manipulate other people and exploit them for our own ends – and everyone is doing this all the time with everyone else: this is what the action of the planet Venus is all about, so there is no point in being shameless and pretending that we aren’t doing this – then we should try to be skillful in our machinations. This means appreciating other people and what they do for us (also the action of Venus): being able to see things from their point of view, not taking them for granted, being gentle and kind to them, instead of just grabbing what we want from them and then tossing them aside.
Both possessiveness and dispassion can be strategies of avoidance of intimacy: possessiveness a strategy of control and dispassion a strategy of escape. Both can become strategies of self-protection, refusal to take responsibility for there being a relationship, and thus both can be wrong. The right strategy is to be willing to make a total commitment (as the possessive types do) but to maintain one’s own individuality (as the dispassionate types do).
Control is avoidance of intimacy. The dispassionate types aim for control in a day-to-day sense, whereas the possessive types seek long-term control; thus dispassion and possessiveness can be viewed as natural divisions of labor in the economy of marriage. It’s up to the dispassionate types to keep things on an even keel – to keep things light and in perspective; and it’s up to the possessive types to keep things grounded and take a long-term view. Then the types can work in collaboration instead of competition.
More of Bob Makransky’s articles are posted at: www.dearbrutus.com
Subscribe to Bob Makransky’s free monthly ezine at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MagicalAlmanac