The proliferation of alluring romantic options today can tempt people in a good relationship to go in search of an even “better” (or, at least, different) one—and the very fact of such a search can lead them to neglect and ruin their current relationship. You might believe that your partner is good, or at least good enough for you; but the presence of many seemingly attractive and feasible options can make you restless. In the words of Nat King Cole, “In a restless world like this is, love is ended before it’s begun.” And since Nat King Cole first sang this beautiful song, the romantic world has become much more restless. These days, romantic excitement often endures only until the morning after. As an older divorced woman said, “Men’s love for me lasts as long as my make-up does. Their intense romantic desire at night disappears in the morning when my make-up dissolves.”
Coping with the presence of available tempting alternatives is difficult, in part because of “choice fatigue” and the cost of pursuing these alternatives. Moreover, fast change is the hallmark of our throwaway and restless society, which is based on overconsumption and excessive production of short-lived or disposable items. We are addicted to rapid novelty that takes place in constant flux.3 For many people, remaining in one place is tantamount to treading water. There is no rest for lovers, and not because the road of love on which they are traveling is not good; it might be a bit boring, but it is still a valuable road—probably one of the best in the history of humanity. Yet the novel road not taken is seen to be more attractive, and there appear to be many roads from which to choose. Chasing after a short-term fantasy is often the problem, not the solution. Fantasies about what is or might be “out there” often prove to be a poor substitute for what we already have. We can become enslaved by our own fantasies about the possible; as the Eagles sing it in “Hotel California,” “We are all just prisoners here, of our own device.” A better understanding of the nature of romantic compromises might free us from this prison, or at least make life within the prison walls more enjoyable.
Romantic compromises are functional, and, in this sense, many of them are good; they mediate between romantic ideals and reality. Romantic ideals are important even if one cannot implement them, at least not fully; in such cases, they can still be a kind of beacon, guiding our way in an imperfect world. If this beacon is to be of any value, we must also be aware of actual reality, and this is precisely what romantic compromises enable us to do.
We base our commitment to a relationship more on our expected future satisfaction with the relationship than on our current satisfaction with that relationship.4 This can be one reason why people make romantic compromises—for example, why unhappy couples stay together despite feeling that they are compromising. Including the temporal dimension in our romantic decision-making process helps us consider the difference between short- and long-term considerations and decide on the best road to follow. A romantic compromise gives up a romantic value for a nonomantic value, as when people marry not for love but for a comfortable life. However, marrying someone who is highly attractive to you while ignoring the person’s equally high opinion of himself, say, might be considered a romantic decision in the short term but could prove to be a romantic compromise in the long run. Many romantic compromises involve a conflict between short- and long-term considerations.
Why Is It So Painful to Compromise in Love?
Don’t compromise yourself. You are all you’ve got.
JANIS JOPLIN
Love is full of compromises, as much of what we want we cannot get. We compromise on our love because of reality. Romantic ideology denies such complexity and hence opposes the need for compromises. Indeed, the very term “romantic compromise” appears to be a contradiction in terms—you cannot tell your partner: “I love you, darling, even though you are a compromise for me.” But we often feel this way.
Romantic compromises, like other types of compromises, have both positive and negative aspects. In making them, we give up some of our values, and we wind up feeling some degree of dissatisfaction. However, the idealistic and comprehensive nature of romantic love and the frequently reversible nature of romantic compromises mean that romantic compromises are particularly difficult to make.
Unlike financial compromises, which are made in response to a specific situation and have a finite impact, romantic compromises are ongoing experiences—you might live with this compromise all your life. Moreover, romantic compromises are usually reversible. This nagging notion that there are seemingly “better” options can prevent lovers from being satisfied with their own lot and can pose an ongoing threat to enduring love.
We live in a complex world that demands compromise. This calls for an order of priorities that can guide us when we must give up something of lower value for something of higher value. Hence, we need to compromise when applying our values to reality. In fact, the ability to seek compromise in a conflict and to understand the concern of the other is considered the height of reason. Relative to young and middle-aged people, older people make more use of higher-order reasoning schemes that emphasize the existence of multiple concerns, allow for compromise, and recognize our limitations.5
Romantic compromises involve a lack, or a lower degree, of at least one of the major basic evaluative aspects of the partner—namely, physical attractiveness or praiseworthiness of traits and achievements—in our attitude toward the partner. Some people compromise on physical attractiveness and base their choice more on praiseworthiness of traits and achievements, such as being a good provider or parent. Others may prioritize intense passion, while issues such as friendship, establishing a family, or supporting one’s personal development are compromised. Compromising on romantic passion is expressed, for instance, by women who say, “This is the man I want to be the father of my children.” These women do not necessarily consider this man as the most attractive but see him as a good friend and a trustworthy person with whom to raise a family. Conversely, a woman can consider a certain man to be a great sexual partner but not the finest friend and companion.
As both physical attractiveness and praiseworthiness of the partner’s traits and achievements are essential to falling in love, and since neither tends to show up as an all-or-nothing proposition, romantic compromise is all about proper degree. When both of these aspects are weak, the feeling of romantic compromise can be strong. However, since it is impossible for both to be at maximum level, at least all of the time, each person needs to decide when these aspects drop to a level that feels like a romantic compromise. In our selection of a partner, we are initially less likely to compromise on the partner’s attractiveness, which has greater weight at the beginning. Later, considerations of shared activities, caring, and reciprocity, which are more relevant in the long term, become more central. Economic developments in modern society have reduced the need to choose “a good provider,” and this allows for greater freedom in our choice of a partner, which means that we can focus more on finding a partner with whom we are in love.
Does Love Involve Sacrifice or Compromise?
A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it.
OSCAR WILDE
When we sacrifice, we give up something meaningful to get something else. Romantic sacrifices involve giving up a significant nonromantic value for romantic reasons—for example, devoting less time to one’s work so as to engage in joint romantic activities with the beloved. Sacrifice is a personal, voluntary decision in which one goes “beyond the call of duty.” In compromises, one gets less than is normally expected.6
Close relationships are peppered with sacrifice and compromise, as people have many different desires and values. These conflicts can be minor, such as choosing which restaurant to eat at, or significant, such as having another child or choosing a new place to live. Two ways of dealing with such conflicts are sacrifices and compromises. Whereas many people consider sacrifice to express genuine love, romantic compromises are not perceived to be a part of genuine love.
In cl
ose relationships, a willingness to sacrifice is associated with greater relationship satisfaction and stability. People identify sacrifice with caring, trust, respect, and loyalty and hence with what they consider as love. Accordingly, sacrifice is a potent longitudinal feature of marital adjustment. The tendency to sacrifice expresses profound love and enhances a sense of security, which is central for marital success. Reciprocity is important in sacrifice, as it shows a basic balance, in the idea that one’s partner would make sacrifices if necessary. Despite the fact that sacrifices are intended to promote the other’s well-being and not that of the sacrificer’s, the latter can also benefit from the sacrifice, as it increases their self-esteem, others’ evaluations of them, and the likelihood that their partner will make sacrifices for them in return. Accordingly, they also could gain from their sacrifice. Generous giving is good for both our health and marital quality.7
Romantic compromises are closely related to romantic sacrifices. The two differ, though, in some important ways. Romantic compromises involve giving up a romantic value in favor of something that serves a person’s immediate self-interest, whereas romantic sacrifices involve giving up one’s immediate self-interest for romantic reasons: promoting the well-being of the partner or the relationship. Thus, we tend to hide our romantic compromises but are proud to broadcast our romantic sacrifices, as these seem closer to moral behavior than do romantic compromises.
Sacrifices are more voluntary than compromises; in the latter, external circumstances “force” (at least from one perspective) the partner to give something up. Sacrifices involve a personal, voluntary decision where one gives up more than is expected to promote the partner’s flourishing. In romantic compromise, one gets less than one expects to prevent worse circumstances. Although making compromises and sacrifices can be passive, active, or, as is frequently the case, both, romantic sacrifices are usually more active than romantic compromises. Since romantic compromises involve unfinished business, their negative impact can last for a long time and is expressed in a continuing yearning for the possible. As sacrifices are more isolated and concrete, their impact is usually more limited and focuses on the positive aspect of promoting the partner. Romantic compromise is generally accompanied by feelings of frustration, sadness, and hope; romantic sacrifice, for its part, by feelings of sympathy, compassion, and gratitude. We can feel regret about missing a valuable opportunity in compromise, but usually not in sacrifice; however, sometimes we resent the sacrifice we have made and its cost, although we might not regret having made it.
When making sacrifices, people might not even consider their behavior as a sacrifice. In romantic compromises, one still believes in the greater value of the possible alternative and hence does not fully accept the existing situation. Reflecting the frequent fact of unfinished business, it takes longer to adapt to romantic compromises. People continue to doubt the value of the compromise and yearn for the alternative, until they accommodate themselves to the new situation and no longer experience it as a compromise. Hence, compromises typically involve more emotional repercussions than do sacrifices.
Sacrifices can be harmful when they are extensive and are not reciprocal, such as when one partner carries the full burden of sacrifice for the sake of the other’s personal flourishing. In these circumstances, in which we generally find inequality between the partners, those who lack power in the relationship (often women) are more likely to engage in sacrifice. This is made even worse when those making the sacrifice “silence” their own opinions and desires in the relationship.
Good and Bad Compromises
If you can’t be with the one you love, Love the one you’re with.
CROSBY, STILLS & NASH
I wanna be your vacuum cleaner, Breathing in your dust.
JOHN COOPER CLARKE
In a world without constraints, we would not need compromises, as we would get whatever we want. In a more realistic world, there are many constraints, and compromises are necessary. Take, for example, the issue of marital conflicts. Conflicts are inevitable in romantic relationships. However, conflicts are not necessarily bad, and in any case, the number of conflicts (up to a point) is not the most relevant factor with regard to the risk of divorce; rather it is how conflicts are managed. Although conflicts may provoke perturbation or even separation, they can also provide an opportunity to improve communication, and strengthen interconnections. Conflict management follows three major patterns: downplaying, integrative, and conflictive. The downplaying pattern puts great effort into minimizing the value of the disagreement. The integrative pattern involves acknowledging and negotiating the disagreement, while arriving at a fair and good compromise. The conflictive pattern leads to a further escalation of the dispute. While downplaying is beneficial mainly in the short term, the integrative compromise is the most valuable pattern for reducing risk of separation in the long term. The conflictive pattern, which in a sense denies any compromise, is the most harmful for a relationship.8
In characterizing good romantic compromises as opposed to bad ones, I would like to emphasize some of their similarities to (good) settlements. All compromises seem to be a sort of settlement (though not all settlements are compromises). I will describe their similarities in light of Robert Goodin’s analysis of “settling.” According to Goodin, (a) settling is a matter of setting one’s mind at rest; (b) settling is for a limited time, which can be long, but not momentary; (c) settling has value of its own, in addition to its value in preventing worse circumstances; (d) settling and striving, which seem to be opposed, are actually related to each other in the sense that the existence of the one presupposes that of the other.9 These characteristics all have a strong temporal element.
Setting one’s mind at rest. As in settling, in good romantic compromises one’s mind is set at rest for a while. When lovers adapt or accommodate to the values and desires of their beloved, they are not necessarily compromising their own values or desires but are sharing the other person’s values and desires and beginning to consider them as their own.10 Not every change in one’s values is a compromise. Only when someone continues to yearn for a better alternative can her situation be considered as such. In the romantic realm, good compromises provide the lover’s heart with a home in which to settle.
Limited in time, but not momentary. Good romantic compromises are ongoing experiences over time—they are not momentary but might also not last for a very long time. The lack of a constant, active search for an alternative in good romantic compromises does not mean that such an alternative cannot be considered when circumstances are suitable. In romantic life, there are many rocky points in which the continuation of the relationship is under consideration. After almost every fierce fight, the question of the relationship’s future is on the table. In a good romantic compromise, the temporal perspective of the couple is broader than that of the immediate difficult situation.
Intrinsic value. Good romantic compromises have their own intrinsic value. They are valuable not merely because they prevent futile, frustrating searches for the perfect prince or princess, but also because they promote the partners’ flourishing—typically, in nonromantic realms. Good romantic compromises are also valuable in the romantic realm when they promote long-term romantic considerations rather than merely satisfying short-term sexual needs. A common example of this is when, in choosing a spouse, people give greater weight to the partner’s capacity for caring than to that person’s attractiveness. Good romantic compromises include settling for a good-enough relationship, while continuing to try to improve it.
Striving. Although good compromises end futile and frustrating striving, they do not stop all forms of striving. The striving, however, is focused on improving the romantic relationship, rather than relentlessly seeking to replace it.
In bad romantic compromises, the above characteristics are absent, as people feel that in making compromises, they are actually compromising themselves. In such compromises, there is no setting one’s mind at r
est, and the person is actively searching for a better alternative. The value of bad romantic compromises is merely in preventing a bad situation, but the compromising situation is often worse than the previous situation. One significant difference between good and bad compromises is that in good compromises, the feeling of compromise vanishes when the relationship develops further, while in bad compromises, the relationship gets worse, and divorce is almost inevitable. Good compromises are those in which an initial conflict of values turns, in time, into a convergence of values.11
The only compromise that is acceptable in romantic ideology is temporal—lovers may postpone their romantic gratification by, for example, waiting for months or even years until the beloved is available. Thus, we are told in the Bible, “Jacob served seven years for Rachel, and they seemed to him but a few days because of the love he had for her.” According to this ideology, true love can wait and prevail, even when suitable circumstances are not present. Such waiting is not due to a need for maturation, but to the great value of the beloved and the refusal to compromise for less than the perfect partner. Expressions such as “I will patiently wait for you till the end of time” and “waited in the darkness patiently” are common among lovers and appear in many popular songs and other cultural works. In these circumstances, people compromise on the temporal aspect, which they consider to be less significant, so as to avoid compromising on the more significant aspect: the identity of the beloved. In romantic ideology, compromises function as a necessary means to an end; they have no value of their own.
The Arc of Love Page 16