We maintain that all Man’s social relationships are in essence, transactional indeed, contractual. Our metaphysical analysis, however, does not, prosaically, eliminate the element of sentimentality nor blandly commercialize human relationships, but merely notes their fundamental, and ubiquitously present commonality of interest, perceived need, or situational happenstance.
In the commercial world, contractual relationships are motivated by the desire to make profits, as a result of contractual relationships. Legally, a “contract,” may be defined as the mutual exchange of promises, concerning, for example, the delivery of goods or the performance of an act. It consists of an “offer,” an “acceptance,” and, ultimately, the performance of the undertaking. In commerce, its motivation is simple and singular, i.e., the profitable conduct of business.
In its social or humanistic context, the dynamic of the transactional undertaking (contract) is far from singular. By situational contrast, the variety of human expectations is couched in a plethora of varied and profound contexts. We have taken the liberty of advancing the proposition that all voluntary human relationships are, in metaphysical fact, functionally, transactional, and can permissibly be described as contractual. Man’s interactive relationships, empirically, are based on the mutual satisfaction of jointly perceived assumptions, needs, or the commonality of situational circumstances, brief or enduring.
FRIENDSHIP, FAMILIAL RELATIONS:
The transactional feature of friendship fundamentally rests on a mutual tacit acknowledgment of compatibility by the parties, regarding their predictable responses to stimuli as well as the commonality of interests and points of view, especially in the political context. The relationship is transactional in that it is grounded on the mutual satisfaction derived from such a common accord. An obligatory, tacit understanding or implied agreement, indicating the convergence of mutual perceptions, constitutes the dynamics of the transactional foundation of the relationship.
We include “familial friendship” in this category since said transactional features are identical, with the obvious addition of the existence and valued recognition of the familial relationship.
LOVE: The poetic and aesthetic relationship of love, in practical reality, and from an empirical view, is based upon a far more profoundly psychological and emotional dynamic, but one not factually dissimilar to that of friendship. One must add the existentially relevant ingredient of mutual sexual attraction to the transactional mix of required mutual response. For the relationship of love to be sustainable, as portrayed by literature and the arts, both parties to such an intimate transactional relationship are mandatorily required to observe the contractual obligation of singular loyalty. It is notable that since ancient times, the Hebrew tradition has been to have the parties to a marriage, preliminarily, enter into a written and witnessed contract.
SITUATIONAL AND TEMPORARY FRIENDSHIPS: In temporary or situational friendships, the formal strictures are somewhat more relaxed in the required nature and degree of mutuality of perception and commonality of interest. In this category of situationally or temporally limited experiences, the nature of the definitional relationship is the joint consideration and express acknowledgment of the similarity and commonality of their intimate situation. Next-door neighbors, Army buddies, school classmates hospital patients, vacationers, and individuals, suddenly finding themselves mutually threatened with danger and those who become disabled or aged, are examples of situational friendships viz.,, dependent upon the acknowledged commonality of personal circumstances. Such temporary transactional requirements merely require the mutual recognition of the common experience and the innate persona to identify with the plight of the other, equally affected, be it good or tragic. In dire circumstances, their bond is contractually dependent upon their innate, or feigned, capability for empathy, as opposed to sullen, singular despondency. In a happier context, vacationers and sightseers may enjoy the temporary friendship of similar experiences, provided they mutually, or transactionally, recognize the existence of the other’s separate and personal experience, in addition to their own.
DEPENDENCE: The ubiquitous and relevant feature of “dependence” is essential to the dynamics of all relationships, such as those referred to above. The predictable reliance on another’s expected response is the basis of mutuality and constitutes a transactional necessity. Specifically, recognition of the relationship with doctors, lawyers, and other professional advisors and certified experts requires implicit transactional confidence in their expertise. Reliance upon educators and religious leaders requires the commonality of acceptance of the respective relationships, resulting in the basis for confidence and the interactive feature of such transactional relationships. The experience is meaningless absent the mutual acceptance of the designated roles or the lack of confidence in the advisor. Respective transactional confidence and role acceptance are mutually required.
It should be stated, that, by notable contrast, the unhealthy dependence, diagnosed as “co-dependence,” amounting to the destructive, extremely dependent attachment to a specific party, as opposed to our contextual social dependence, is neither mutually, nor recognizably, transactional.
In our declaration that all socially cognizable, interactive relationships are transactional, we do not ignore or minimize the significant elements of emotion or sentiment; but have simply focused, contextually, on the dynamic epoxy of reliable (contractually understood) mutual sympathies or experiences as implicitly existential to such relationships.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 