Bureaucracy exists in relationships
Feb. 21st, 2005 02:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaSo, 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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-21 12:14 pm (UTC)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.