Agreement and security in relationships
Recently, an incidence happened in which I agreed to lend something to a friend and later I showed weakness in my own agreement when another of my friend advised against it. I flipped to deny lending to him, and then conceded again and offered to lend to him. The ground that I was standing upon appeared shaky to him. I felt ashamed of this incidence as it conflicted with my self-conception, because I see myself as someone who does not over-commit.
Did I really violate an agreement ? Why wasn't I strong in my position ? I introspected and was reminded of the concept of agreement and consent that I read in the book More Than Two by Franklin Veaux and Eve Rickert. An agreement is a pact, between two or more parties, reached upon through a discussion that involves the say of all the people who ought to be affected by the agreement, without disempowering anyone. In a discussion before an agreement, different people may have different levels of power and influence over the discussion, and equality may not always be possible. But, what's essential is that no person shall be disempowered, meaning that their needs and concerns should be considered and shouldn't be evaluated as less important or subordinate to the needs of anyone else. Powerful person in the discussion should exercise his/her power with empathy and without coercion, and allow everyone to be heard and acknowledged. An agreement becomes self-sustaining, and enjoys higher probability of success, if its foundations are crafted with love, care, and most importantly, with consent.
I have observed that even though I value the ideals of discussion, negotiation, and consensual agreement, the extent to which I involve my attachment figures in decisions that impact them depends significantly on the internal sense of security I feel in my relationship with them. Security, here, doesn't refer to 'structural security' that comes from having legal obligations and financial entanglements, but refers to the sense of freedom to be one's true self that one experiences because of the attunement and responsiveness one observes towards their needs from their attachment figures. If my attachment with someone is insecure in some area, and I fear that the exercise of my freedom to ask for my needs may be met with dismissal or inconsideration, I tend to not tell them my need altogether and proceed on a path alone with decisions that nevertheless impact them. I do this when I fear that too much consideration of others would inhibit my pace and exploration of life; or when I fear confrontation or consider it futile. I take quick decisions and move ahead, to look back only when I've reached to a secure place from where I can't be pulled back. This trend is a sign of the insecurities that exist, and which I cultivate, in my relationship with myself and others.
I'm inclined to think that, just as I view many other concepts through the lens of noun vs. verb, agreement too can be seen in terms of verb - Not in binary terms of 'whether agreement is there or not', but in a graded sense 'to what extent does one practice agreement'. Agreement is not something that there is, it's something that one does. Agreeability can be seen as a quality which signifies how reliably do you practice agreement, and consult with others before taking decisions that will impact them, and how this adds to strength of your commitments which find support of those who agreed to it.
The first person we should consult before making a commitment is ourselves. If the commitment doesn't adequately align with our own needs, values and vision, we will not have the energy and motivation that are needed to fulfil the commitment. Then, we should consider the needs and say of our other attachment figures- close ones and family. Then comes the community, society, then the country, global collective. Such a nested model of attachment is demonstrated in the book Polysecure by Jessica Fern. Attachment ruptures are more traumatic and disruptive when they happen deeper inside the nest. Hence, attachment with self is most important.
The extent to which we practice agreement in our relationships has a direct correlation with relational security. It's important to work upon nurturing security in interpersonal relationships in order to improve upon the extent of agreeability in the relationship, so that agreements enjoy greater external support and lesser chances of being disrupted by unmet needs of a attachment figure we ignored earlier. It's also important to allow, those who aren't adequately secure in their relationship with us, to have their space wherein they can do things we wouldn't wholly approve of, and thereby build the security and confidence they need to be able to communicate their needs with us, without fear of confrontation, and with optimism and hope for freedom of expression and mutual capacity to reach a common ground.
This perspective of looking at agreements in interpersonal relationships functions to reduce the extent of attachment rupture that is created when our attachment figures behave in ways that go against their obligations towards us. It also serves to limit the liability of people who break an agreement, on the ground that it wasn't an agreement in the full sense of term if the person agreeing had not considered adequately all facets of their choice which makes their choice an inadequately informed choice. Moreover, even if their choice was well informed, the agreement is not something that is established as soon we said yes. When we see agreement as a verb, and not as a noun, we focus not on checkpoints but on atomic principles cultivated, i.e., regular communication, transparency, along with the right to have our own space in matters where we feel insecure - habits which lead to development of emotional attunement and responsiveness, which contribute to deeper security in our relationships, and greater acceptance to weaker parts of ourselves and others.