Commitment

I am taking a course called, "Close Relationships" in the Psychology Department at the University of Minnesota. It is a very good class. Right now we are reading up on "commitment" in close relationships. Here is a down and dirty view of three major models of commitment.

Following that is the Chris Gonzalez ponderings on commitment.

Levinger's Model of Commitment:
3 forces

1. Present Attraction
2. Alternative Attraction
3. Barriers

3 kinds of attractions

1. Material
2. Symbolic
3. Affectional

These forces exert pressure on the cohesiveness of a relationship.

Rusbult's Investment Model:
Based on interdependence theory, Rusbult talks about

1. Satisfaction level
2. Quality of alternatives
3. Investment Size.

• Depenedence is greater when an individual wants to be in the relationship and has no other alternative.
• However, a great investment might keep someone in a relationship that is unsatisfying.

Johnson's Tripartite Model

Personal commitment -"I want the relationship"

Moral Commitment - "I am obligated to be in the relationship."

Structural Commitment - The combination of social pressure, potential alternatives, termination procedures, and irretrieveable investments.

The Gonzalez Blowing Smoke Model
These thoughts are musings, perhaps reiterations of what I read and perhaps the beginnings of something, but are certainly nothing more than that. These thoughts are probably guided by systems theory, human ecology theory, and social construction more than anything else. It shouldn't be too hard to find elements of these theories if you are familiar with them.

Feel free to critique these thoughts (if you have nothing better to do) and provide some feedback. I'd love to hear what the great minds have to say. Seriously, tear it up!

Word count: 1600

Musings on Commitment
Commitment is a creative dynamic agreement made on multiple social levels with varying degrees of complexity.

Creative - This means that the commitment is generated, collaborated upon, and invented. It is a creative act between the individuals, the relationship itself, and the social environment. By no means are relationships a clean slate on which commitment is authored and neither is there a sense of determinism in that the commitment script is prewritten or issued. Creativity involves agency

Agency - The extent to which an entity (individual, relationship, social group) asserts itself. Agency is capacity for internal and external change.

Dynamic - Commitment is an ongoing and fluid component to a relationship, always in process. It is never static, though it might be stable. This means no relationship is immune to dissolution and no relationship is determined to dissolve. And yet it does not mean that all relationships have equal chance of success either. Commitment varies in levels of stability, vulnerability, and risk.

Agreement - The complexity of and the extent to which the individual, the relationship, and the social environment negotiate their co-existence. This agreement involves dynamic rules (usually unspoken) and dynamic roles (explicit and implicit) to which there is varying levels of adherence.

Multiple Social Levels:
1. Personal - The individual takes stock of his or her own agency (conscious of unconscious) and decides to what extent he or she will allow that agency to be accessed by the relationship and the other individual. The decision to determine how much of his or her agency is to be accessed by the relationship or other individual is performed daily more than it is intentioned. Multiple influences on all levels assist the individual to perform (literally act out) his or her commitment.

More personal agency released into the relationship is not necessarily an indicator of more commitment to the other person. Amount of personal agency released into or invested in the relationship is more likely curvilinear in nature as it relates to amount of and quality of commitment. Too little agency released into the relationship means little commitment. The individual is unwilling or incapable of co-creating the relationship and is more willing to co-create other things or create nothing for himself or herself. On the other hand, too much agency means little commitment as well. The loss of self-agency into the relationship can hardly be considered commitment as their is no longer any creative contribution to the relationship if there is no self.

Furthermore, the individual's response to the other person's agency works for or against commitment. When the individual receives the other's agency as that person's contribution to the creative act of commitment, the dynamic agreement is made more likely. However, whereas the individual consumes the other's agency for personal advantage or gain, there will be little commitment in that he or she is taking that creative energy and using it somewhere besides the relationship. Or, if one person is consumed by the other's personal agency, there is no mutual creative contribution and commitment is jeopardized.

2. Relational - If it is a close relationship, then there is a degree of relational agency present. Commitment is partially indicated by the balance of personal agencies merging into relational agency. This relational agency is dynamic and fluid as it is dependent upon the two levels of the individuals agencies. The extent to which the couple is able to contribute their personal agency in a balanced manner and receive the other's personal agency in a balance manner combined with the degree to which they develop competence in creating a mutually agreeable roles and rule within and beyond the relationship will influence their level and quality of commitment.

Relational agency and creativity is not only influenced by the personal agency of the individuals, but is also influenced by the social context of the relationship. Not only are two individuals creatively producing commitment, but the social environment is making contributions as well.

3. Social and environmental- The agency of the social and environmental context of the relationship is influential in the lives of the individuals and the relationship. Social context, defined broadly, means every other relationship and structure which has any contact with either of the individuals or the relationship. Friends, co-workers, family of origin, extended family, workplace, laws governing relationships, availability of resources, media, etc.

The social and environmental context is a dynamic and creative force in the relationship. It provides opportunities, alternatives, privileges, threats, constraints, and oppressions. The influence of the creativity and agency of the social and environmental must never be underestimated. Context, in large measure, defines content. A "model couple" in one context is a "snobby elitist couple" in another. One context is affirming while the other is hostile.

So, commitment is not merely a measure of the extent to which two people can, in a balanced way, creatively contribute their agency to each other, but also the extent to which the relationship can creatively contribute its agency to the social and environmental context and receive the agency of the social and environmental context in a balanced way.

The extent to which the social and environmental agency is allowed into the relationship is also curvilinear in it effects. Too much social and environmental influence and the relationship loses its ability to create and thus is awash in whatever the environment determines. Whether the environment is supportive of or hostile to the relationship, the relational agency and creative force is gone and commitment is compromised. Too little social and environmental influence and the relationship is isolated, creating dependency, not commitment.

Levels of Complexity in Agreement:
Commitment depends on agreements. Agreements can occur at varying levels of complexity. The more complex or sophisticated the kind of agreement, the greater diversity that relationship can tolerate.

1. Simple. An agreement is simple when there has to be an exact match in content between the individuals. "She likes pepperoni pizza and I like supreme. How are we ever going to make it?" or "We both love romantic comedies. We'll live happily ever after."

It is also simple when there has to be an exact match between the content of the relationship and the content of the social and environmental context. For example, if individuals in a close relationship can no longer tolerate single people because they look down on them for not having a relationship or envy their "freedom," so they decide as a couple that they will only spend time with other couples, this is a simple agreement between the relationship and the social and environmental context.

Commitment is fragile when based upon simple agreements.

2. Moderate. An agreement is moderate when there has to be a match of deep content or process and identity markers. "We're both very religious people." Religion is (should be) a deeper and more complex thing than pizza and movies and it is indicative of a way of life that includes values, beliefs, faith, and so forth.

There are also moderate levels of agreement between the relationship and the social and environmental context. "I am a university professor and my husband is a janitor. For the most part, we're fine, but the more I get into my work and the more he gets into his, the further apart we become. My friends don't even know how to talk to his friends and vice versa."

Commitment is stronger, but still vulnerable, when it is based on deep content or process.

3. Complex. An agreement is complex when there has to be acceptance of the person. This is complex because it bound to be filled with contradictions and paradoxes. An individual is in the relationship by choice, but is not exclusively defined by it. His or her partner can enjoy or participate in things that carry no mutual interest, but there is space in the relationship for diversity because the agreement is not located on the content or the process level, but rather at the personal level. Complex agreements are not to be confused with diffuse agreements or no agreements or a complete loss of self. That is not commitment. In contrast, the tolerance or embracing of diversity within the relationship is an indicator of how few things can threaten the relationship.

There is also a complexity of agreement between the relationship and the social and environmental context. If the couple is conservative and Muslim and living peacefully in and with a social and environmental context they perceive as "dark," they have a complex agreement with that social and environmental context. The couple does not impose their relational agreements on the social and environmental context, and yet chooses to remain connected to it without malice.

A Few Propositions:
1. Although agency on the personal, relational, and social levels are required for commitment to exist, commitment can only be sustained when relational agency asserts itself (or resists) most strongly.

2. Losing one's own identity (abdicating self-agency) is as costly a breach of commitment as selfishness (imposing self-agency).

3. The more complex the relationship, the more it can tolerate a social and environmental context hostile to the relationship.

4. The more complex the agreements of the relationship, the more diversity the relationship tolerates or embraces.

***It could be (and should be) argued that family of origin is not of the same kind as social and environmental context. I'll get to work on that. Family of origin issues adn generational influences are powerful when it comes to relational commitment in different ways than other kinds of relationships.