I
am using this occasion to reflect upon an interesting interpretation
of love and relationships that I have been considering for
a while.
My
Economics professor at Sydney University described the Theory
of Decreasing Marginal Utility using what I thought to be
a peculiar example. The Theory of Decreasing Marginal Utility
as I remember it goes something like this:
"At
all instances of consumption where there is a net benefit
to be gained, one continues to consume. But the pleasure
of consumption gained per unit decreases with each additional
unit. When the pleasure gained from one more unit is equal
to the displeasure arising from the consumption of that
unit, consumption stops."
My
lecturer could have demonstrated this in simple terms by
using the example of a thirsty man and a glass of water.
Imagine it is a hot day and you are out in the sun. You
are thirsty, so you pour a glass of water. The first sip
is by far the most refreshing as the cool liquid moistens
your lips and tongue. The next taste is not quite as refreshing
as the first, but is still satisfying, drenching the inners
of your dry cheeks. The final gulp does not offer the same
relief as either the first or second, but you still feel
good. You pour another glass. Depending on your thirst and
need for more water you will drink more and more, each sip
gradually becoming less and less refreshing. Eventually
your thirst runs out, you have no need for more water and
you stop drinking.
Rather
than use a simple illustration like the one, the professor
used the example of love. I assume that he intended to catch
the audience's attention with a sexier example. Imagine
you are lonely and are looking for love. You start dating
somebody you are attracted to. Initially you discover new
things about one another, and life is wonderful. Each day
or week brings new pleasures and delights. But all the while
the pleasure you receive is surely diminishing, whether
you like it or not. For he who is in need of love, the initial
taste is the most refreshing, each taste afterwards is decreasingly
so.
At
some stage in the relationship you begin to have passing
thoughts about the things you dislike in your partner. They
will have some personality trait or quirk that is mildly
annoying, most people do, even if the annoyance is a lack
of annoying quirks, and will only become increasingly so.
Annoyances satisfy no needs and only serve to create a desire
for separation. The greater the annoyances, the greater
want for distance, and the need for a new love. When the
need for distance is equal to the satisfaction provided
by your partner, and the risk of finding someone new or
better suited is not so great as to be restrictive, you
will break up.
This
illustration is simple and excludes much of the nuance
in human relations. It treats intangible things like love
and annoyance in the same way as practicalities, like
partnership and separation, as opposites. As an analysis
of human action it has shortcomings, as there are more
variables at play in relationships aside from simply feeling
good or bad, and being together or apart. It neglects
to account for the masochists amongst us who need to be
tortured in love, or for whom love is founded upon submission,
self'denial and sacrifice. It also neglects to account
for those who use love to exercise unreasonable power
and influence over their partner. As you might well guess,
the dominant and submissive tend to work well together.
Aside
from these faults, I think the Theory of Decreasing Marginal
Utility is a reasonable assessment of how relationships
work, certainly when you consider the contemporary urban
type. This is not a healthy thing. We have been conditioned
by popular culture (Carrie Bradshaw et al) to think that
there is always someone out there superior to our current
partner. The problem for twenty'somethings is that the
perceived harm of breaking up with someone who we are
generally happy with is slight. Rather than work through
the annoyances and grievances, we choose the easy path
and separate. A generation ago the chance of finding someone
new and appropriate was far slighter, as it was undesirable
to publicly engage anyone with a sexual history, especially
for men in pursuit of nubile women; this was left to the
confines of clandestine extra'marital affairs. Consider
that Princess Diana was expected to be a virginal, innocent
and inexperienced bride a little more than 20 years ago.
Now consider how few comments have been made about the
past of Mary Donaldson, who approached the Danish throne
with a history, or much more recently, the vast approval
of the majority towards the imminent marriage of Charles
and Camilla. Times and expectations have changed.
I
do not long for a return to the antiquated values that
placed higher regard upon the upkeep of taboos than the
well being of citizens. Nor do I advocate partnerships
that do not act in the best interests of both parties
' just look what happened to Charles and Diana. But I
feel that many of us in our twenties are missing out when
we break up with someone for little more reason than because
it is too soon to commit to a serious relationship, or
that our partner might not be The One, or that there are
plenty more fish in the sea. But what if there aren't
any good one's? People should be conscious of cultural
constructions that suggest there are many opportunities
for love and more fulfilling relationships, and should
treat these half'truths with caution before they burn
bridges and discard what they might live to regret.
Have
a happy and uneconomical Valentine's Day!
