Essentials of Intimacy
My interest in defining and exploring the dimensions of intimacy began while a graduate student with a paper I wrote entitled On Being Human published in the Journal of Existentialism in 1964. This was my first attempt to describe what it meant to be truly human...being a mensch. Over the course of the past several decades my interest has expanded to include the role of authenticity, self-disclosure and closeness in personal development and in interpersonal relationships.
Today I am going to discuss the experience and development of interpersonal intimacy. What constitutes intimacy? What are the variable that, when combined, creates a sense of intimacy between two people? Many people have asked me these questions in the context of working on their relationship with their significant others. People have indicated that they wished to have more intimate relationships and wished to deepen the level of intimacy that they experience. Some people have expressed it as "something missing" in their relationships but are unable to figure out what that something is that is missing.
It is necessary to distinguish between closeness and intimacy. Closeness is immediate; it is experienced viscerally. It is that sense of being connected with another person. When we think of another person toward whom we feel close, there as an immediate sense of well-being and a warm feeling toward that person. We say we feel connected. Intimacy goes beyond closeness. It is a sense of being known by and knowing another person. Not only do we feel connected to that person, but we feel a deep bond with that person. One can be close with another person, but not necessarily be intimate with that person. We can feel close to someone that we barely know; we can feel close to someone that seldom see. Closeness can be fleeting or permanent. Intimacy has depth. It is a sense of being truly known. We can have intimate moments with someone, but that does not constitute an intimate relationship. Closeness and intimacy are similar to a still photograph and a movie. The photo evokes feelings of closeness and perhaps memories of times past. The movie gives a sense of active participation in each other's life.
Let's say you have a relative or friend whom you like or even love. You rarely see that person and have limited contact generally with that person. Yet, you think of that person with a sense of appreciation; you feel comforted by knowing that person exists. When you do have contact with that individual, it is as though no time has passed; you immediately feel connected. I describe that as a close relationship, but it is not necessarily intimate. Another situation: you meet someone for the first time. There is an immediate attraction, a sense of commonality. You spend some time with that person and find out that you have much in common, share a common history and/or belief system. You may even share some private aspects of yourself not commonly shared with others. You experience an intimate moment, but it is not an intimate relationship. In other words, though you may feel close, you may not be intimate.
These distinctions are not merely semantic. Many people mistake a feeling of closeness for an intimate relationship. Similarly, many people mistake an intimate moment for an intimate relationship. They presume an intimate relationship where none exists; subsequently they may feel betrayed, hurt, or disappointed when they find out that the other person does not meet the implicit expectations of an intimate relationship.
Intimacy is comprised of six variables with the degree to which each of these variables are present determining the level of intimacy in the relationship. These variables are: disclosure, vulnerability, risk, trust, mutuality, and continuity.
• Disclosure refers to the willingness to reveal oneself, to be transparent and authentic. Disclosing individuals are willing to reveal their true self to another person. They share their thoughts, feelings, wishes, dream, hopes, fantasies, desires, as well as their history.
• Vulnerability refers to the willingness to open themselves up to another person, revealing their soft underbelly, in such a way that their inner being is visible.
• Risk is required for a truly intimate relationship to develop. Two strangers are seated next to one another on long plane trip. They chat. They each reveal themselves to the other saying things that they have not shared with anyone. Both are surprised with how vulnerable they have become with someone they do not know. Is this intimacy? No. These people will never see each other again. There was no risk of being hurt, ridiculed, laughed at, or betrayed. Without this risk, there can be no intimacy.
• Trust is essential for an intimate relationship to develop. And trust is not instant. It takes time to develop. In the airplane example above there is no need for trust. The parties had but a moment together where they shared themselves. Since they were never going to see one another again, there was no need to trust. There was no risk of humiliation or criticism, hence no need to trust.
• Mutuality refers to the development of a symmetrical, give and take, sharing, where both parties are disclosing, vulnerable, risking, and trusting. Without mutuality, intimacy is limited or absent. A parent-child relationship is by its very nature asymmetrical. Parents do not disclose to their young children. Shared vulnerability is inappropriate. There is little risk on the part of the parent for being hurt by the child. The parent-child relationship is one-way. There is no mutuality. Similarly, between a patient and psychotherapist, there is limited mutuality. And so it should be. The therapist is the healer ministering to the need of the patient.
• Continuity is similarly essential for a truly intimate relationship. Without regular contact by whatever means, intimacy will be diminished. One can have a long standing friendship going back years. The parties may live in separate parts of the country. They have limited contact. They feel close to one another despite the distance. However, without continuity in one another's life, intimacy is at best limited. Much of the friendship is based on history rather than a sense of immediacy, freshness, and an on-going participation in one another's life. It is in this context that the concept of photograph and movie referred to previously comes into play. The long standing friendship without continuity evokes the memory of a previous time when perhaps there was intimacy. However, it is not current. Without continuity we are not part of the film of each other's life; hence, there is limited or no intimacy.
Many people may be quite content with a low level of intimacy in their relationships. As they examine these variables they recognize that they do not wish to disclose nor to be vulnerable. If their partner has a similar level of comfort with lower levels of these two variables, they can be quite content in their relationship. If, however, one person requires a higher level of disclosure and vulnerability, the degree of mutuality will also suffer, thereby making the relationship difficult. Some relationships may not have consistency; they are more like snapshot relationships. There is closeness, but there is limited participation in or knowledge of the daily flow of their respective lives. If both parties are OK with that, accepting that intimacy is not possible or desired, then the close relationship continues; it is mutual. Sometimes one person may state a desire for intimacy when what they really want is closeness and vice versa.
None of what I have said should be construed as suggesting that all relationships should reach the same level of intimacy. I suggest this analysis as a way to conceptualize intimacy and perhaps to serve as a model for helping individuals understand their relationships. As the levels in each of the six variables are examined people can develop a greater understanding of what might be missing in their relationship. It is my hope that it will serve as an assist to folks as they negotiate the complex and often messy waters of an intimate relationship.
Today I am going to discuss the experience and development of interpersonal intimacy. What constitutes intimacy? What are the variable that, when combined, creates a sense of intimacy between two people? Many people have asked me these questions in the context of working on their relationship with their significant others. People have indicated that they wished to have more intimate relationships and wished to deepen the level of intimacy that they experience. Some people have expressed it as "something missing" in their relationships but are unable to figure out what that something is that is missing.
It is necessary to distinguish between closeness and intimacy. Closeness is immediate; it is experienced viscerally. It is that sense of being connected with another person. When we think of another person toward whom we feel close, there as an immediate sense of well-being and a warm feeling toward that person. We say we feel connected. Intimacy goes beyond closeness. It is a sense of being known by and knowing another person. Not only do we feel connected to that person, but we feel a deep bond with that person. One can be close with another person, but not necessarily be intimate with that person. We can feel close to someone that we barely know; we can feel close to someone that seldom see. Closeness can be fleeting or permanent. Intimacy has depth. It is a sense of being truly known. We can have intimate moments with someone, but that does not constitute an intimate relationship. Closeness and intimacy are similar to a still photograph and a movie. The photo evokes feelings of closeness and perhaps memories of times past. The movie gives a sense of active participation in each other's life.
Let's say you have a relative or friend whom you like or even love. You rarely see that person and have limited contact generally with that person. Yet, you think of that person with a sense of appreciation; you feel comforted by knowing that person exists. When you do have contact with that individual, it is as though no time has passed; you immediately feel connected. I describe that as a close relationship, but it is not necessarily intimate. Another situation: you meet someone for the first time. There is an immediate attraction, a sense of commonality. You spend some time with that person and find out that you have much in common, share a common history and/or belief system. You may even share some private aspects of yourself not commonly shared with others. You experience an intimate moment, but it is not an intimate relationship. In other words, though you may feel close, you may not be intimate.
These distinctions are not merely semantic. Many people mistake a feeling of closeness for an intimate relationship. Similarly, many people mistake an intimate moment for an intimate relationship. They presume an intimate relationship where none exists; subsequently they may feel betrayed, hurt, or disappointed when they find out that the other person does not meet the implicit expectations of an intimate relationship.
Intimacy is comprised of six variables with the degree to which each of these variables are present determining the level of intimacy in the relationship. These variables are: disclosure, vulnerability, risk, trust, mutuality, and continuity.
• Disclosure refers to the willingness to reveal oneself, to be transparent and authentic. Disclosing individuals are willing to reveal their true self to another person. They share their thoughts, feelings, wishes, dream, hopes, fantasies, desires, as well as their history.
• Vulnerability refers to the willingness to open themselves up to another person, revealing their soft underbelly, in such a way that their inner being is visible.
• Risk is required for a truly intimate relationship to develop. Two strangers are seated next to one another on long plane trip. They chat. They each reveal themselves to the other saying things that they have not shared with anyone. Both are surprised with how vulnerable they have become with someone they do not know. Is this intimacy? No. These people will never see each other again. There was no risk of being hurt, ridiculed, laughed at, or betrayed. Without this risk, there can be no intimacy.
• Trust is essential for an intimate relationship to develop. And trust is not instant. It takes time to develop. In the airplane example above there is no need for trust. The parties had but a moment together where they shared themselves. Since they were never going to see one another again, there was no need to trust. There was no risk of humiliation or criticism, hence no need to trust.
• Mutuality refers to the development of a symmetrical, give and take, sharing, where both parties are disclosing, vulnerable, risking, and trusting. Without mutuality, intimacy is limited or absent. A parent-child relationship is by its very nature asymmetrical. Parents do not disclose to their young children. Shared vulnerability is inappropriate. There is little risk on the part of the parent for being hurt by the child. The parent-child relationship is one-way. There is no mutuality. Similarly, between a patient and psychotherapist, there is limited mutuality. And so it should be. The therapist is the healer ministering to the need of the patient.
• Continuity is similarly essential for a truly intimate relationship. Without regular contact by whatever means, intimacy will be diminished. One can have a long standing friendship going back years. The parties may live in separate parts of the country. They have limited contact. They feel close to one another despite the distance. However, without continuity in one another's life, intimacy is at best limited. Much of the friendship is based on history rather than a sense of immediacy, freshness, and an on-going participation in one another's life. It is in this context that the concept of photograph and movie referred to previously comes into play. The long standing friendship without continuity evokes the memory of a previous time when perhaps there was intimacy. However, it is not current. Without continuity we are not part of the film of each other's life; hence, there is limited or no intimacy.
Many people may be quite content with a low level of intimacy in their relationships. As they examine these variables they recognize that they do not wish to disclose nor to be vulnerable. If their partner has a similar level of comfort with lower levels of these two variables, they can be quite content in their relationship. If, however, one person requires a higher level of disclosure and vulnerability, the degree of mutuality will also suffer, thereby making the relationship difficult. Some relationships may not have consistency; they are more like snapshot relationships. There is closeness, but there is limited participation in or knowledge of the daily flow of their respective lives. If both parties are OK with that, accepting that intimacy is not possible or desired, then the close relationship continues; it is mutual. Sometimes one person may state a desire for intimacy when what they really want is closeness and vice versa.
None of what I have said should be construed as suggesting that all relationships should reach the same level of intimacy. I suggest this analysis as a way to conceptualize intimacy and perhaps to serve as a model for helping individuals understand their relationships. As the levels in each of the six variables are examined people can develop a greater understanding of what might be missing in their relationship. It is my hope that it will serve as an assist to folks as they negotiate the complex and often messy waters of an intimate relationship.
posted by DocDreyfus | 3:53 PM
|
8 comments
