The Commodification of Connection
The idea of connection based primarily on doing things together is something beyond my comprehension.
The problem is that people who confuse seeking connection with doing things together, have a hard time understanding what this even means.
It's like we're speaking in 2 different languages.
For many relationships, the foundation is based on a checklist.
You have a list of things you want your partner to have.
As long as someone checks all the boxes, they're a good fit.
And that's fine. Everyone has standards.
The issue is when the entire idea of your partner becomes a list of objective criteria.
There's no unique subjective experience underneath it that you value, or even notice.
The problem with this model is that the other person can soon start to feel replaceable.
If the relationship is held together only by objective criteria, then the person on the other end becomes a commodity, like a phone or a computer with certain specifications.
And when other people can also fit that same spec sheet, this individual is just one of 100 million other units that could be swapped in.
They just happened to be the most conveniently available option.
Many people are okay fitting into a slot like that. Because they have the same checklist logic running in their own head.
“I have a list. You have a list. We tick off each other's boxes. We slot into each other's requirements. This is perfect.”
And it works. It just doesn't work for me.
Friendships run on the same logic a lot of the time.
“This person likes the same things as me. We eat the same foods. We enjoy the same activities. We hang out in the same circles. So we're friends.”
It's a commoditised way of connecting.
I want to be careful here. Because I don't think shared activities or interests are the problem.
Plenty of real, deep relationships are built on doing things together.
The difference is whether doing things together is the relationship. Or whether it's the vehicle for something else happening underneath.
Two people who go rock-climbing together every weekend might have an incredibly deep bond. Or they may have nothing but the climbing of rocks, and mistake that for the bond itself.
I'm unlikely to call a rock-climbing buddy my friend, unless there's a subjective connection underneath that I've grown to appreciate over time.
But for someone operating from the other perspective, the doing of the activity together is sufficient to be considered friends.
For many, it's the only criteria.
The next rock climbing buddy too is their friend, so is the person they vibed with at a party last week, and their colleague from work, and so on...encompassing many who are simply partners in their doings.
To someone else operating from the same perspective as theirs, it's a mutual feeling.
To others operating from my perspective, it may appear as though friends for them are placeholders that accomodate whoever happens to be convenient to fill that position, at any given point of time.
Martin Buber described the idea of I-It and I-Thou relationships.
An I-It orientation means that we unconsciously view others as objects who either help us realise what we want or hinder us from getting what we want.
Another’s value has to do with what he/she/they can or can not do for me.
An I-Thou orientation means that you engage with the other's whole being rather than just their function or utility.
It’s seeing the other as a subject rather than as an object, without judgement or qualification.
While I-It interactions are useful to navigate daily life and engage in transactions like the exchange of goods and services, it can alienate others when applied to close interpersonal connection.
It leads to dynamics like what Zygmunt Bauman called liquid love: relationships that are fleeting and superficial.
Just as a liquid shifts and takes the shape of whatever container holds it, modern love shifts and adapts to individual convenience.
This applies to platonic relationships as much as it does to romantic ones.
If you value the unique subjective experience of connection over anything else in your close relationships. And you end up with someone who considers relationships as placeholders with objective fulfillment criteria, both of you have 2 different theories of what the other person should be.
Neither outlook is good or bad.
They're just different operating systems for connection.
But when they clash with each other, it inevitably leads to alienation.
It's not a fight that can be won, because there's no shared vocabulary to fight in.
When you’re part of a mismatched dynamic, the asymmetry becomes palpable over time.
The other person cannot see what you're pointing at because in their framework there's nothing else to see.
That's the real source of the alienation.
One side wants to be irreplaceable and is seeking more. The other doesn't have a category for irreplaceable at all, and confuses that seeking for wanting more of the same doing.
That gap can’t be closed with better communication or more patience.
It's a mismatch to recognise early, not a problem to be solved.
To connect with me
DM on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ajiteshgogoi/
Subscribe to my YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ajiteshgogoi