Bureaucracy exists in relationships

[greybeta]

So, I made one of those real life blunders that I must attribute to my straightforwardness. I apologize, I'm given to fits of antagonizing behavior.

But this blunder did make me think a little about the bureaucracy of our foreign relations (aw snap, I'm in an American foreign diplomacy class right now). The President always has to get the Senate's approval to ratify treaties and ambassadorial appointments. Such is the heritage that we inherit from the ancient Roman Republic, whose Senate commanded the traditional authority in political life. It sets up this bureaucratic chain of command, where the President may deal directly with other foreign leaders but the constitutional red tape prevents things from happening too quickly.

And so it happened that while I was doing the reading for my foreign diplomacy class, two good friends of mine put forth pretty much the same theory on relationships. Say Partner A has a problem with Partner B's friend. Due to my straightforward nature, I'd think that Partner A should take up the matter directly with Partner B's friend. But what actually happens most of the time is that Partner A takes up the issue with Partner B, who must dutifully relay this problem to his or her friend. Bureaucracy, it exists even on the smaller cases.

So I'd like to ask my fine friends, is bureaucracy the way to go in relationships? I mean, should Partner A always confer with Partner B, or does it depend on the gravity of the situation?

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

If A doesn't deal through B it's likely to damage their relationship.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I'm beginning to understand this.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

I agree with poliphilo with the clear qualification that it depends on the relationship.

Many people in B's position would resent it if A handled the situation on their own.

Much to my delight, I am not in that sort of relationship.

If my wife has a problem with the actions of one of my friends or family members and the problem does not directly involve me, I expect her to address it to them directly. If I try to pass on her position on the issue, I am likely to distort it, and potentially cause more problems. Similarly, if I had a problem with one of her friends, I would go directly to them. We've seldom experienced anything like that, though. The time that springs to mind, I was the offending party, and the offended person addressed me directly. It worked out better for everyone, I think. I generally like her friends and she generally likes mine. If one of us finds someone problematic, the other usually does as well.

The only time I've had a problem with one of her friends, it involved how the friend was treating her, which is clearly something she needs to address on her own if it bothers her. It isn't my job to dictate the terms of her friendships, and it isn't her job to ensure that I approve of the terms of her friendships. If she is willing to tolerate treatment that I am unhappy with, the problem is mine, not hers or her friend's.

[visgoth.livejournal.com]

She just called me. :)

My wife and I just discussed this a little bit, and she pointed out that it also depends a lot on how long the relationship has existed. By the time you've been in a relationship for six months or a year, most if not all friends who have significant conflict with your partner have mostly or completely moved out of your life. At some point you make a (probably subconscious) choice between the partner and the friend(s), and somebody moves on.

(Sorry my replies aren't more concise, but these things get wordy when I include qualifiers in an attempt to avoid a bunch of people hopping in with "Well, *my* SO and best friend fight like cats and dogs," which, of course is followed up with "Well, *my* three cats and two dogs *never* fight," and so on, until eventually someone calls someone else a Nazi.)

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I see, it seems nice to have our better half set ourselves straight.

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

Depends on the issue. If A doesn't like something about B prime that A just has and any other person might have, for example, the fact that B prime insists that they sit in the smoking section of restaurants, or the fact that B prime always forgets A's name, then probably A should address B prime directly, to get things done.

However, let's say that B prime is a prickly SOB and the issue is about something that A has insight into. Then you have to work through B, 'cause B prime's gonna take offense. Let's say that one of my wife's friends thinks, um...I am rude to my wife in public. I can see nothing good coming from her talking directly to me about it.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Leave it to the lawyer to come up with the concrete examples (no really, those examples cleared it up for me). ;D

[miripanda.livejournal.com]

Well, for me it's more about dealing with Jesse's brother and other family members. When one of them says something that hurts my feelings (which is all it ever is) I don't bring it up with them because I'm uncertain whether they'd care. So I talk to Jesse about it and ask him to just let them know it bothered me.

When I have a problem with a friend's SO, I'd only talk to them directly about it online - ah anonymity - but usually the trouble is such that it's none of my business - unless I talk to my friend first. It's not really about beauracracy, I think it's just a matter of it being "your business" or "their business" that determines who should talk to whom about it.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

I suppose I like overstating the case. But you're right, it's being able to differentiate between "your business" and "their business".