Waiting is an 'action' verb

As I wait for the time when I can see my partner again (a month or so... And then another month before I can move in with him) I have gone through many different stages... Mainly unpleasant, frustrating and conflictive ones.

I have always taken pride in the fact that I don't shy away from a challenge - in fact, I like complicated situations that push me to do more than I usually do - I am a hopeless workaholic and I always try to do the best that I can... But when it comes to 'waiting'... Ah, that's my weak spot.

I always thought that waiting was a passive state in which you were helpless, completely at the mercy of the universe without the possibility to actually do anything. I would feel frustrated and anxious, clenching my jaw constantly without realizing it, feeling all my muscles tense and my mind racing, obsessing with all the possible outcomes. No matter what I was doing and despite the fact that I work from dusk till dawn (and later), my hyperactive mind didn't seem to know how to stop.

Today I realized something. Waiting is not a passive thing. Waiting for something is fostering, or rather protecting the hope you harbor for something. Beyond what you do to achieve your goal, sometimes it's more important to keep that hope safe, like a little light inside you. Despair is a very powerful feeling when you let it in, and it will quickly tarnish your hope turning into premature grief. That is what makes waiting hard, the constant thought that your wish won't come true, that all your work will go to waste.

How about making sure it won't?

Even if, in the end, things don't turn out the way you wanted them to, it doesn't mean that you can just sit and watch your hope be swallowed by those dark feelings (frustration, fear, despair). There is something you can do while you wait. Something of utmost importance and that requires action. Keep that hope alive. It's not easy. It takes a lot of work. But it's worth it. And it can be done.

Commitment : What makes a long distance relationship work.

Why would you want to stay with one person when there are so many other choices? Why stay with someone despite all the trouble it causes and the effort it takes to make a relationship work?

I found a very interesting article that addresses these questions (and many others that most of us have) with a very simple concept: commitment.

The main statement of the article drew my attention instantly: "A study has suggested that Long Distance Relationships (LDR) are more stable than Geographically Close Relationships (GCR)."

Wouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, surely being close to someone makes the relationship grow stronger and makes it easier to stay together; and I'd think it quite obvious that those who spend lots of time separated tend to slowly grow apart. However, this study attests that the factors that we assume could break such a relationship aren't really intensified by the physical closeness or lack of it.

Commitment, they say, is influenced by three factors: a) satisfaction or happiness with the relationship; b) perceived alternatives (such as other attractive partners); and c) investments that would be lost if the relationship ended.

According to this research, there's not much difference between satisfaction in LDR's and GCR's, which is the main predictor of whether these relationships will last or not.

Now, the second predictor, alternatives or other possible partners, is one that drives someone like me completely crazy. I mean, why would two people choose to be in a relationship in which they can't see each other if they have plenty of other choices right around the corner, right? Well, according to this study, this isn't that much of an issue either. Evidently, people who go for LDR are normally those who have a hight work intensity and idealization; they tend to segment their life into work and relationships. This means that people in LDR's normally focus a lot of their time apart on their work. Oddly enough, high alternatives do predict lower commitment when talking about GCR's.

This actually makes sense. People who are actually happy with the relationship they have will hardly put some time aside to look for other alternatives. Also, focusing on their work keeps them occupied and allows for more experiences the couple can share when together; isn't it awful when you spend all day, every day with someone and, come nighttime, you have nothing to say to each other?

The third predictor, investments that would be lost, is a little colder but also easier to understand. People in LDR's invest money in communication and commuting (at least), all which would be lost if they broke up. Also, when both people are striving towards being together after whatever period of time, this is seen as an investment for the future... Which makes the relationship grow even stronger. Something that, by the way, is not as easy in GCR's, since most investments are limited to shared possessions (which they can just fight over in the end).

So far, the article seems to be quite cheery about LDR's and even appears to suggest they aren't that hard. However, there is one point yet to be discussed:

"Attachment and caregiving cognition, motivation, and behavior are aspects of evolutionary-based behavioral systems that produce strong emotion (Bowlby, 1988). In important romantic relationships, partners have attachment and caregiving bonds with each other. Theoretically (Bowlby, 1969), LDR separations activate the attachment system and lead to separation protest, even when separation is a choice. The protest is attachment behavior, action designed to gain or maintain a comfortable range of proximity to the partner. Protest is evident in LDR interviewee comments (e.g., "I grieve every Monday"; Magnuson & Norem, 1999, p. 131) and reports of loneliness, sadness, missing the partner, and dreading  separation (Guldner, 1996)."

Ouch, right? So, how does one deactivate this natural reflex? This 'separation protest'? Well, here's where it gets interesting.

In GCR's, the satisfaction of each other's attachment and caregiving needs depends exclusively on their ability to do so; conversely, in LDR's this means little, since neither can do much while being apart. No matter how 'functional' their relationship may be, the apart-together cycles  they go through naturally inflict stress in the relationship.The article here relies on a theory of separation anxiety which I am not going to describe in much detail here; I will only say that most people deal with separation either by being anxious to be with the other person (and thus needing the closeness) or by avoiding contact so as to minimize the effects of said separation.

Happily, the authors of the article has some suggestions for both:

For the first kind of people, research indicates, there are many ways to reduce this anxiety as long as they can perceive the partner as available. This can be done by having pictures of the partner or frequent e-mails or phone calls.

The second group has it a little easier, since avoidant attachment makes distance work as a motivating factor for commitment. Still, this isn't always a good thing. Since this kind of partner doesn't feel as much anxiety from the separation right away, they might feel their commitment is weakening... But with time they realize it is not so.

The one thing that is definitely compromised in LDR's is caregiving. The couple may feel disappointed that they can't be there for the other person and thus 'fail' in being a safe 'haven' for them. Still, this is normally compensated through finding ways to actively demonstrate their love for the other person and substituting physical caregiving with verbal communication. Actually, this also makes for the development of better communication with each other.

In the end, the research goes on to show that what most people believe makes LDR's break up (anxiety, avoidance, fear of losing the other person, etc.) is significant only when ignoring the three factors which influence commitment. In other words, commitment in GCR's and LDR's is quite similar, except the former rely more on satisfaction and the latter on the investments made in the relationship; this since LDR partners are more likely to rule out any other alternatives before beginning said relationship. 

Once I read that "some men seem larger at a distance"; I found it funny that, in this research, people in GCR's are more likely to compare their partner's flaws with other possible alternatives, while people in LDR's tend to be in their best behaviour and appearence in the little time they see each other and, thus, increasing the satisfaction factor. Still, this also means that they see each other in situations of high anxiety and stress due to separation, which keep them from idealizing each other.

Muegano - Bearing the distance.

So, this is a typical Mexican candy (muégano). It's little flour squares dipped in caramel and stuck together. It is also what a typical Mexican family looks like; so much, in fact, that we would call them a "Muégano family". This means that it is a family whose members are ALWAYS together and do EVERYTHING together... Of course, this also applies to friends... And couples.

Trying to read more books related to my real profession (Psychology) I happened to come across Bowlby's theory of  "Optimum Distance" - and while this may not have been a new concept for me, I saw it in a new way.

So, this theory explains that a child will always venture to walk some distance away from his or her mother up to a point. Children experiment to see how far they can go without feeling separation anxiety and, when reaching that limit, they go back to their mother to get their sense of security back (kind of like recharging it) before giving it another go. "Optimum Distance" refers to how far a child can go from their mother without feeling said anxiety. This happens as long as the child can be sure that the mother will always return (or will be easily found) after being apart from a certain amount of time. This allows the child to develop a basic security that, despite not being there, the mother will not disappear and will return when needed.

While I do not really believe in determinism in terms of how one cannot escape the consequences of our childhood, I think this can be applied quite easily to how we relate to a romantic interest...

Some couples develop a specific dependence on each other because they are afraid that distance will mean that the other person will disappear... Or at least whatever feelings they have might.

This may sound insane but it really isn't. It depends on how much they can trust that the other person will be there when they come back. Someone who is always threatening with "if you do that again, I will leave you", or disappears without warning at random intervals, fosters an insecurity in the other person that they might go away at any time. The frequency of the meetings is not what is important, but rather the security that they will meet again and all the things they share will be there when they do.

I have found that, in Mexico, it is very common for this 'Optimum Distance' to be very short... And, considering how most people grow in a household where all members of the family seem to be stuck together by some apparently sweet but incarcerating caramel layer, it really isn't much of a wonder.

As much as you love someone, you cannot (and should not) be together 24/7, we all need our space and, without such, there wouldn't be much to share with your partner either. It's all about being able to trust that the other person will be there and learning to negotiate that Optimum Distance at which both can feel free to continue with their lives without feeling like the other person is so far that they cannot see them anymore.

It is awesome when you get to a point in a relationship when either can ask for some space without feeling guilty or anxious... It gives the couple a sense of freedom and independence which, far from creating a gap between them, strengthens their bond since their relationship does not depend only on being together, but on something beyond that. Being able to have their separate lives and share them to create something new.