Yakın Bağlarda Varoluşsal Değer Temelli İlişki Modeli

Extended Summary

In this article, I proposed a model to improve the quality of relationship for close relationships between adults. First, I reminded a few points about the ways in which we think about social life. Taking the social cognition literature as a reference, I elaborated on mental schemas and our tendency to distort reality because we think through schemas. Then, using the social perception literature, I summarized fundamental attribution errors. My purpose in providing this information was to remind ourselves that we should be more modest in creating our ways of thinking about social life. Then I explained the model I proposed for close relationships between adults. The model I propose makes it possible to manage problems experienced in close relationships constructively, mainly by intervening in cognitive processes and by respecting the individual’s own reality. It aims to improve the quality of our relationships, without any preconditions, only by making changes in some of our mental processes and in our behaviors. Within the scope of the model, the concepts of recognition-acceptance, existential value, validation and relation distance are taken into account respectively. A holistic view of whole existence without judgment, from the past to the present and from now to the future, paves the base for the recognition-acceptance stage. Ourselves and our ecosystem are only a tiny part of all existence, and all existence is interactive. As for the interaction of all existence over a long period of time, that itself is a great mystery. With our current abilities, we can only observe small-scale linear interactions. Traces of evil can be found in the very foundation of good things, or many beauties may have laid the groundwork for great evil. “Acceptance” requires a mind that knows about the limitations of thinking skills, thinking form a place where nobody knows what will lead to what. To accept everything that has ever existed is to attribute value to that which exists, free from any judgment. Recognition, on the other hand, is about a mind which is conscious of the mysterious nature of existence in the vast period of time, and its desire to receive every data it can reach. Since there is no judgment, the mind does not avoid any data. Everything that has happened is recognized without escape. Here there is an effort to observe existence as it is. “Acceptance” functions in this milieu. Seeing everything as it is can be facilitated by acceptance that attributes value to everything without judgment. One has the opportunity to watch at least some of the secrets of mystery in the flow of time. The more one recognizes, the more one believes in acceptance. The more you accept, the more you want to see. Acceptance and recognition, as two mental processes which feed each other, based on observing existence in the flow of time. Establishing healthy relationships is possible when a person feels that they are but one small and unique part of a great whole. One must first attribute an existential value to all of their close relationships. One must not skip this effort to attribute an existential value, even to those who have hurt them or are very upset. The recognition-acceptance stage of the mind is without judgment. Recognizing and accepting ourselves as a whole and our close relationships as a whole is the most basic building block of healthy relationships. That the individual encompasses this awareness is the single solution to the struggle for “existence”, a fundamental pain point in close relationships. This solution is best both for one’s own self and for one’s close circles. Attributing existential value to all that exists does not mean that we have to approve of all individual events. In the “validation” phase, the mind must function with values. Here, our values stemming from our worldview come into play. It is critical how we think and communicate at the validation stage. Here I propose four critical principles. The first is to be aware of the subjectivity and dynamism of values. The second is to be aware that we may not have perceived the situation accurately. The third is to focus on the behavior, not on the personality. The fourth principle is to avoid using the “I” language. Our individual values should be the basis for validation. In the “validation” stage, our mind must detach from the “I”. The validation process will cease to pose any impact if our personal reasons – such as our own wounds, desires, and impulses – interfere with our judgment of a behavior as right or wrong. Value-centered language of judgment for individual cases has two main purposes. The first is to communicate openly about our own life values and our approach to life events. Trust is the foundation of close relationships. The second is to reach a consensus on values. Achieving consensus leads to a growth in our shared space in close relationships. However, there may not always be consensus, or even if consensus was achieved, the other party may insist on their behavior we had defined as contrary to our values. If value-based communication does not work, the language of judgment should be discontinued. Diversely, problems in close relationships are not always about values. In fact, personal expectations are often more influential. It is necessary to distinguish the two. When one of the parties is dissatisfied because their personal expectations have not been met, the language of judgment should not be used at all. Whether there is a disagreement on values or expectations are not met, at this junction I focus on the concept of relationship distance. Any communication can be maintained at an ideal distance. It is very difficult to establish a sustainable relationship if we force sharing in areas where sharing is not possible. When we find ourselves in synchronization with another individual in the areas, we currently interact with them, we need to get rid of our desire to achieve the same level of sharing in all spaces. We should be aware of shared spaces in close relationships and make special effort to keep unmet expectations from depreciating the value one attributes to the other. From this perspective, evaluating close relationships would be more in the context of “the right distance”, rather than that of “presence-absence”. At the right distance, any communication is sustainable and gives a certain degree of satisfaction. This approach, when adopted as a mentality, also reflects on our communication. The communication here should be limited to expressing “our current feelings and thoughts”, “in the context of our current values and expectations”, “without holding the other accountable for our own feelings and thoughts”. The rest of the communication would be shaped according to the reaction we receive. If the other can conceive our message and we establish a common language, we can make decisions together about the future. This would be the ideal case. Wounds can be healed together or the right distance can be created together. If the other does not share this view, it means that both sides will make independent decisions. Our decision must be in the context of relationship distance. Our responsibility here is to state that we do not want to force sharing what we are not able to share “right now” and that we will stop the sharing in these areas; then without taking any further action, to wait for the relationship to get back on track in time. The model I have presented is limited to the recognition-acceptance interaction, existential value attribution, followed by validation and relationship distance. First of all, one’s acceptance of the past and what has already happened to exist will allow them to attribute existential value, without judgment, to one’s own self and to others around them. In such an ideal case, one would not experience, no matter what, the feeling of worthlessness; the most fundamental problem in close relationships. Then one would use their individual value judgments to establish value-centered communication with the other. While doing this, they would be aware that each individual responsible for their own life. If value-centered communication does not work, or if the issue turns out to be about personal expectations rather than individual values, then one would take responsibility for their feelings and seek a solution through a context-based communication using the “I” language. If the issue still remains unresolved, then the individual will take a relationship distance approach to initiate a kind of communication that would help the relationship settle on a new ground over time. At the right distance, every relationship gives some satisfaction and is sustainable.

Kaynakça