on cocreation: what i know about longterm intimate relationship

I've been with a partner for 11 years. I say of our love that within it, we have each been many different people over the years. I therefore feel like i’ve been in many different relationships within this singular context. The strength and ability of our relationship to continue is only possible thru the continual allowance of these changes and adapting of our relationship unit to support us: finding a shared space for our overlap that is distinct from our experience of ourselves, yet grows in harmony. The relationship is not the same as the individual (like singing in unison) – but complimentary/harmonic – highlighting and supporting eachother. 

Longterm cycle of intimate relationship thru growth :

cocreation > rupture > adaptive cocreation > …
or in microscale : contact > cocreation > tension/friction/intention > adaptive cocreation 

A cocreation is some type of shared form, agreement, or commitment. It can be explicit/spoken or implied/felt. Cocreation is the foundation for interdependent, securely-attached relationships. 

It enables autonomy and mutual exchange of the interdependent, symbiotic parts. Any monolateral imposed structure that does not invite collaboration or feedback is disempowering to the individual imposed-upon and ultimately disempowering to the relationship. It creates stagnation in part of the field of the relationship and doesn’t allow for adaptive or supportive change. A rupture is a dematerialization of the shared structure or cocreation.. The surrounding sentiment can be positive (like an expressed desire or intention), neutral (trying something new for the sake of newness) or negative (like an altercation or disagreement). The sentiment does not correlate to goodness or badness of the friction – it just necessitates a response – even if the response is de-entangling the relationship. (We never fully disentangle from relationships even if we disengage; rather the nature and intensity of the entanglement shifts). Adaptive cocreation necessitates embodied response to the new circumstances from each willing/desirous part of the relationship. 

There is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. Those are false moral hierarchies that suppose constants and ignore the limitless entanglements that factor into each individual experience. There are patterns of energy, existing structures and forces, and personal preferences at play in each relational interaction. The goal is not to find the ‘right’ or ‘best’ way to relate, but rather the unique formula of needs, desires, boundaries, shared pleasure, support, and reciprocity for each relationship. This may seem like a lot but it does not have to be such a cerebral task. We navigate with our felt sense and notice when something is unfulfilled or needs to shift. Often change is made possible with awareness. Some combinations of relations have a higher probability of being able to meet each other’s needs, desires and levels of reciprocity. This is just a map to finding the greatest possible ease within a relationship. Sometimes there are fundamental differences at the level of basic needs and it’s a scant overlap of communication or understanding. These relationships present more challenges or friction. More ruptures are also more places to know and learn, as long as both of the parties are willing, and separately decide that the benefits outweigh the strain of engaging. When the friction outweighs the ease (or potential for growth and delight), the relationship feels detrimental. When mulling this relational equation for myself, i often think of the Prentis Hemphill quote on boundaries: “Boundaries are the distance at which i can love you and me simultaneously.” Boundaries are not only an act of love, but a zone of space, a buffer for this relational equation to unfold.  

I believe it takes a community to meet an individual’s needs. As interdependent communal creatures, it seems ludicrous the extent to which hyper individuality (including nuclear family model) have pervaded the society i’m within. This is, of course, a purposeful divergence from our nature by and in service to white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, which demands hierarchy and disembodiment to function. Trying to force a small circle (nuclear fam) or a single other person to meet all our varied needs is a recipe for relational failure. The new equation becomes a vision of projected need and visible shortcomings – disempowering us from engaging our wider community to meet our needs and disempowering others’ autonomy in the relationship. I feel so much more ease and space in relating when i’m empowered to negotiate my proximity and engagement with others in relationship to our separate needs, desires, and boundaries. 

The more i remember that each relationship is a gift to know and be known in a completely different way, the less i seek a single solution of how to relate. I’m able to show up with presence, desire, and intrigue, to find what new parts of me i can know in the light of others. I remember to revel in our everchangingness, and take the deaths, large and small, with reverie as they come. 

Some tools and others that have helped me thru massive relational transformations:

- Mia Birdsong & her book How We Show Up: Reclaiming Family, Friendship, and Community b

- Accountability Mapping (sliding scale, self-paced, body-centered accountability course)  

- Polysecure: Attachment, Trauma, and Consensual Nonmonogamy by Jessica Fern ( i rccd this book to everyone regardless of relationship orientation !)

- Breakthrough - a modality that uses our reactions in conflict to navigate personal/internal healing

-  Prentis Hemphill podcast : Finding Our Way (every episode !)