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 02:34 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-21 05:22 pm (UTC)