Fundamental Relationships

It is a near-universally accepted fact that relationships are essential for the health and wellbeing of all humans. There are many resources on all types of them, from acquaintanceships to life partnerships. What about if these also were derivations or amalgamations of more simple relationships?

I propose three types of relationships on a very simple level, to meet regular life needs. These are: Task Relationships, Connection Relationships and Intellectual Relationships. Most people will have an element of all three needs in their relationships, although some may favour different aspects over others.

Task Relationships are those that centrally focus on the ability of the group formed to complete a specific task or activity. Think of a group of people performing creative hobbies, for instance. Membership requires capability to cooperate and compete. These are perhaps the most essential form of relationships, the other two types not having any grounding without this first being possible.

Connection Relationships focus on systems of people performing tasks, and importantly their ability to do so for the foreseeable future. They are more focused on the stability of the actors rather than the completion of the tasks themselves. Think of a family or friends message board. The purpose is that the wellbeing of those involved is taken into consideration, and necessitates empathy and constant contact.

Intellectual Relationships touch upon the broader implications of systems of people performing tasks. Think of professionals discussing the ramifications of a system operating the way it does. They are interested in the state of a certain thing being, whether it is good or bad overall as the totality of the thing is taken into account. The grounding of this relationship requires dissociation from mental processes regarding efficacy and more about an evaluation of its state of being.

We might also find these sorts of relationships anecdotally. Gaming, for example, would be a Task Relationship; tea-parties would be Connection Relationships; One-on-one chats about people’s or systems’ state of beings would be Intellectual Relationships. It might be seen as more common for men to cultivate what could be seen as Task Relationships, and women to cultivate what could be seen as Connection Relationships, while Intellectual Relationships are perhaps seen as androgynous and acceptably pursuable by any gender, if seen as more unusual and challenging.

These observations have implications about the division of labour within a society. Task Relationships are seen as more hands-on, and, while the task may or may not be easy, the type of relationship is easier to form as the basis is more concrete- tasks are to hand, they need to be completed, and a group will facilitate or make this possible.

Connection Relationships require a greater deal of arbitrary artifice. It is possible for a level of needs to be met without this type of relationship existing, and therefore requires more enthusiasm. It is almost the degree of difference between a worker to worker relationship, and a worker to union relationship. It is necessary that conditions and events are kept track of to consolidate the individuals’ need for security.

Intellectual Relationships are seen as the least attainable. They require a great degree of perceptual ability and eagerness to develop on a self-level, also requiring that the needs provided by the previous two relationships are already largely met. They are also the most dissociative relationship in that, once an individual has learned as much as they feel they need to to understand about something from another person (this relationship focusing on self-to-self contact), they may not stay in communication any longer, leaving this type strange to the other two since the others value security differently. A thing doesn’t need to exist for an individual given to Intellectual needs to be secure (as a lot of the time their ideations are perceived to be unfeasible), it only needs to be perceivable. They are less routine and more adventurous and sporadic.