image from http://farm1.static.flickr.com/58/220279254_17c20cbec5.jpg

Consider the contrast of the following two quotes:

“We do not believe in ourselves until someone reveals that deep inside us something is valuable, worth listening to, worthy of our trust, sacred to our touch. Once we believe in ourselves we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight or any experience that reveals the human spirit.” – e.e. cummings

* * *

“Call it what you will, incentives are what get people to work harder.” – nikita khrushchev

Two quotes, and two very different view on the role of incentives (rewards as conditional on who we are) and unfaltering support (rewards as unconditional on who we are or what we do) in shaping behavior. Let’s consider the difference with regards to one common and important human emotion and behavior… love.

The Khrushchev quote is what underlies much of our market economic system (pay for performance, etc), and also often underlies much of the way we interact with others. Speak all we want about the joy of unconditional love, we are highly conditional with how we interact with each other. We love our spouse… if they take out the trash. We trust our friends… to the extent that they prove trust worthy. We seek out the companionship… of those who seem interesting. We seek people conditionally. We stay with people conditionally.

E.E. Cumming’s quote displays a different logic. We cannot fully be ourselves until we feel something unconditional. Until we feel full support, the logic goes, we can never be true friends, real lovers, great parents. In this way, our behavior is not fundamentally moved by constraint (you do this because you fear what happens if you do not), rather it is enabled by the fact that we feel unconstrained, and more free to be ourselves. In other words, two lovers approach “curiosity, wonder, spontaneously delight, or any other experience which reveals the human spirit” not because they are afraid failing doing so will result in punishment, but rather because something relationally allows them to pursue the behavior. This is not to say that relationships don’t have incentives and punishment, but that there is also something deeper at work in such situations.

* * *

But how does this develop? Take a relationship. Two people go on a first date. They posture, they pose, they wear their best clothes. The other person likes them, in part, because of such moves. Charmers are more likely to get second dates, as well as those who are physically beautiful. In this way, liking and eventually loving grow out of a structure of conditionality. The relationship grows in trust as each person proves trustable. Love emerges in some pattern of exchange.

But life changes, doesn’t it? Fast forward 30 years and you now have two individuals, not 21 and fluttery with feeling, but 50+ with many things changed through the years. What sustains them now? There love is still in some way conditional (if you cheat on me, I will leave), but in other ways, it extends beyond conditionality. Consider North Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson and his decision to forgive and stay with his wife after her public extramarital affair.  His speech, viewable here, is not one of his love being a result of her good behavior (it obviously was not), but something at least approaching unconditional love (i love you because i love you, because you are worth loving despite your mistake). Or what about an even more common example– the fact that as everyone ages, they look different, and often less “attractive” by normal standards of youth-centric beauty. While some couples obviously split for this reason, many couples obviously stay together. Yet, had they met looking their worst, its very likely the relationship wouldn’t have developed.

Two questions:

  1. What is the process by which conditional liking changes to (more) unconditional love? Is there a clear tipping point? When does it tip back and why?
  2. In a relationship, what are the ways in which conditional liking (incentives) and unconditional love enable or constrain behavior, respectively? In other words, why is cummings right, and in what ways is khrushchev on the ball?