Reciprocal Obligation

There are important relationships in your life.

My life feels like an accumulation of people.

When I wrote this line in my book, I was talking about the people who fall into my circles of whānau, family, friends, work, sports and other connections. I was reflecting on that accumulation today while listening to a podcast interview between Dr. Vivek Murthy and David French today.

It’s all about connection and ‘crossing the bridge’ in our relationships to meet the person on the other side. More specifically, it was talking about how that seems to be getting harder as issues like politics feel more tribal.

Murthy and French described how sometimes conflicting views get turned into a estimation of someone’s character. This effectively aligns disagreement with an ethical judgement. Unfortunately many political issues can become these flashpoints.

You know that feeling of deliberately not talking about something because you are worried about how the other person might respond? Or perhaps you’ve already had an experience that scars you from going back there again. These kinds of situations can feel like battles. We rationally know that just because someone disagrees with us on something, it doesn’t make them a bad person. I think the damage may be more significant than we realise.

Let’s unpick this.

I think relationships are built brick-by-brick. This is where the idea of reciprocal obligation comes in as a foundational element. The reciprocity part talks to the fact that relationships have both give and take in them. A healthy relationship involves an exchange. By doing something for someone, you are likely to receive something back. This is psychological and ingrained in us social humans. And the magnitude of the give and take almost doesn’t matter.

We see this in good friendships. We can trust that people will be there for us when we need them, and vice versa. We know that a simple thank you or phonecall can make someone’s day, even to a stranger. Our spirits lift when we receive one of those things back.

The obligation part refers to the social contract that happens when we demonstrate reciprocity. It is a commitment. We feel that we need to effectively ‘return the favour’, no matter what.

Well we should.

Being mindful about this is the foundation of a good connection with another human.

Avoiding difficult or hard conversations is effectively skipping bits. Instead of knowing and trusting that things are ok, we are now deliberately or consciously picking the areas where trust is mutual and unconditional, and fencing off areas where we play by different rules.

This starts to feel like dangerous territory. For example, it may feel all logical and rational in our minds, but what are we conveying to the other person? Do they note avoidance? Do they wonder what else may be going on? Put simply, when something is off the table, what is allowed on the table?

The podcast discussion talked about a mutual friendship that David French had in the military. The man who welcomed him on day one and despite being opposite in many ways, stuck with him through thick and thin. Where difference of opinion were debated with good humour. The conversations that Adam Grant refers to as a ‘dance’.

The thing that stuck out for me was that it was unconditional. Skipping or avoiding things is not unconditional.

So we know that we grow through exploring different things. Hard things where we are challenged in a safe way. The key is that we don’t always have to agree, but we should always respect. I called these Thinking Relationships in my book and advocated for them within our circles of relationships.

Where you stand depends on where you sit. - Rufus E. Miles Jr.

Miles’s Law was coined to describe the perspective of people in organisations, however it applies to all of us. Our perspectives and opinions are shaped by where we come from, including our experiences, our learning and our relationships. We are shaped by what is around us on our life journey. We come to every conversation and position we hold with baggage.

What happens when what we are surrounded by gets more and more homogenised? There has been much written about things like the influence of social media where algorithms surround us with more of the same stuff we show we like.

And we know that things like reading and conversation are in a decline. When you open a book or a conversation, you enter a journey of discovery and you might bump into things you disagree with.

This is healthy.

Hard conversations are good conversations.

Good conversations are good for relationships and ourselves.

Respect is recognising that both people come to a conversation with baggage.

When we bring respect, we encourage the other person to do that same.

Reciprocal obligation is what we owe to each other.

Our relationships are built on it.

Perhaps we need more practice?

Share