Concerning appreciation
After more than 12 years of exploring the world of ethical non-monogamy for myself, after countless insights gained from online forums and even more articles on the subject, along with numerous conversations with those directly involved, I would say, as things stand today, that the most common source of conflict I have encountered throughout all these experiences stems from issues of interpersonal appreciation.
This is certainly not unique to multiple relationships only; I believe this challenge exists in all close human relationships, and it seems to me that especially those of a romantic and long-term nature are particularly susceptible to it – and it is my topic this time because, in my view, the dynamics tend to intensify the more people are involved in such relationships.
Vocabulary resources such as the Oxford Dictionary define “appreciation” in a somewhat dry and rather abstract way as “as the feeling of being grateful or the recognition and enjoyment of good qualities in someone or something”.
That’s all well and good, but we’d have guessed as much ourselves…
It is only upon looking at the more carefully crafted entry in the (German) Wikipedia om the subject that it becomes clearer that the interpersonal connotations of this term must be more significant:
“Appreciation refers to the positive regard one has for another person. It is based on an inner, general attitude towards others. Appreciation concerns a person as a whole, their very being. It is largely independent of performance or achievements, even though these do influence one’s subjective assessment of a person and, consequently, one’s appreciation of them.
Appreciation is linked to respect and goodwill, and is expressed through attentiveness, interest, attention and kindnessv”, the corresponding website explains.
I see: so it’s about both (personal) evaluation, in other words subjectivity, – as well as an independent, overarching perspective. When we reflect on this sentence for a moment, a contradiction seems to appear.
However, when we take a closer look at the humble details of our everyday lives, we can quite easily recognise ourselves in this contradiction. After all, issues of appreciation usually stem from a discrepancy in our perceptions: whilst we can, of course, almost always assess our own contribution to a relationship fairly accurately – and, in doing so, tend to place a particularly high value on those contributions that I have previously described here on this bLog as “walking the extra mile” (aptly, in my Entry on loyalty, number 66, by the way!): All those situations where we practise pushing our comfort zone in order to accommodate others, where we demonstrate tolerance for ambiguity (i.e. putting up with ambiguous situations and contradictory behaviour), and, in a sense, move away from the “comfortable middle lane” of our lives simply because there are other people to consider.
Our ability, on the other hand, to assess these contributions just as accurately in the people with whom we share our lives is, by its very nature, usually not as well developed – and this applies above all to our assessment of “how much” we perceive others to be willing – or unwilling – to push their comfort zones or to get off their beaten track, compared to ourselves…
As such, the discrepancy in such a subjective assessment often need only exceed a certain range – and conflict seems inevitable. We all know, moreover, that particularly ugly conflicts tend to escalate at such moments to an especially high degree when two (or more!) sides finally find themselves face to face, each hurling at the other the accumulated observations and imbalances regarding their own personal commitment and the alleged complacency of the other parties…
Often, the intensity of the energy released in the process can far exceed that of the trigger or precipitating event – which, at the point of the incident, is almost always a dramatic experience for everyone involved and an unpleasant situation to endure on top of that; at the same time, it is precisely here that the clue lies as to the deeper level from which the underlying problem originates – and where steps can be taken to resolve it.
In 1981, it was the “father of Nonviolent Communication”, Marshall Rosenberg (about whom I have written on this blog on several occasions), who specified the concept of interpersonal appreciation by introducing the term “mattering” instead¹ (roughly meaning “to be of significance”). In the course of his research into interpersonal conflict, Rosenberg had regularly observed the same pattern I described above – and, drawing on the principles of his needs-based “Nonviolent Communication”, had reflected on what personal factors might contribute to a conflict rooted in a perceived imbalance of appreciation.
[At this point, I would like to briefly mention the connection to ethical non-monogamous relationships, such as Poly- and Oligoamory in particular: I have already explained on this bLog on several occasions that Marshall Rosenberg was a student of the humanistic psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow’s psychological lectures – in particular his emphasis on “self-actualization” – were closely followed at the time (1943 and especially from 1954 onwards), among others, by the young Timothy (Oberon) Zell (-Ravenheart), who made this aspect one of the cornerstones of his neo-pagan group “Church of All Worlds”– from which, in 1990, the outline of “Polyamory” was ultimately formulated through his partner Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart (see Entry 49).
The “polyamorous toolkit” therefore largely comprises a range of strategies I will outline below for addressing issues of appreciation; indeed, these strategies were already available here before they were later applied to monogamous relationships as well.]
Because, building on the theory of needs put forward by Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow (see Entry 118), Rosenberg highlighted the fundamental social human need for belonging. This social need would, in turn, give rise as well to the desire to “matter” and to “be noticed”. Rosenberg concluded that a person would therefore feel important or significant not only because they were contributing to others, but rather because they were valued and appreciated while contributing. By this approach, he linked Maslow’s concept of one’s personal self-image, self-efficacy and self-esteem with one’s personal needs: feeling valued and appreciated would positively enhance one’s psychological resilience – whereas the psychological well-being of people who felt they were only fulfilling a subordinate or minor function would suffer.
At this point, I realise that some readers might raise an eyebrow and think: “That all sounds rather needy…”
And indeed it is – but in a fundamental way that cannot be rationally compensated for or bypassed otherwise.
Abraham Maslow, for his part, had borrowed the social needs for belonging and appreciation from his colleague Carl Rogers, who had previously formulated the core attitude of “unconditional positive regard” in his conception of the person-centred psychotherapy.
Within humanistic psychology, to which Rogers and Maslow were committed, there are thus two important, interrelated basic impulses: one in the form of the aforementioned “self-actualization” (incidentally, the original concept did not derive from Maslow himself, but from the neurologist Kurt Goldstein). According to this view, “self-actualization” is the constant human aspiration to maintain, develop and realise one’s potential for personal growth, as well as to achieve independence and self-determination. However, in order to pursue this impulse within a social group in the best possible way, enabling the greatest possible development of one’s true self, we need the other impulse, the “unconditional positive regard” – a concept which, in my view, the American psychologist David Guy Myers has best described by saying: »This is an attitude of grace, an attitude that values us even knowing our failings. It is a profound relief to drop our pretences, confess our worst feelings, and discover that we are still accepted.«²
To those who still consider this to appear desperately needy, I would suggest going back to a time long ago in their lives. Way back! After all, the previous descriptions—which may occasionally have seemed a little cumbersome—are not based on some nebulous theory concocted by eccentric adults.
Rather, if we go back to the beginning of each of our lives, we have all found ourselves at precisely the point described: There was a time, first as babies, then as toddlers, and finally as children and teenagers, when we all wanted to unfold our growing autonomy as freely as possible, in line with our personal preferences and aptitudes. For the vast majority of this period, however, we were also completely dependent on a caring social environment – without which we would have perished sooner rather than later. From an evolutionary perspective, this dependence would most likely have persisted throughout our entire lives, particularly in an environment that was not particularly hospitable (at least from the perspective of Homo sapiens): without our social group, we would have been lost.
The fact that, even today in the 21st century, we still experience this dependence through our need for belonging is thus not a trivial attachment to be overcome, but a survival mechanism hard-wired into us from the outset, which we cannot deny as part of our human nature.
Therefore, let us continue to focus on impulse two: For our optimal personal development, we would have needed a pronounced degree of “unconditional positive regard” whilst growing up, in order to become “ourselves” undiminished. For example, in terms of support, guidance and help from those caregivers who would have equipped us with the famous „roots and wings“. Caregivers who would have accepted us just as readily in the face of our failures in certain endeavours – and to recall once more the Wikipedia definition of appreciation from the beginning of this Entry: with an inner, general attitude that is independent of performance or achievements.
Is it dawning on you? Let’s work toward the finish line…
For, however, the vast majority of us know that our own upbringing did not always unfold in such undisturbed, supported and unconditionally valued circumstances. Many of us have had to cope, to a greater or lesser extent, with conditions that Carl Rogers described as follows: »Under unfavourable circumstances, a person has many ways and mechanisms at their disposal in a given situation to preserve their existence, including their self-respect. This can lead to psychological blockages, mental disorders and inhibitions, or to destructive, irrational and antisocial behaviour.« (This sounds rather gloomy towards the end, but please bear in mind that the speaker was a clinical psychologist and had therefore witnessed some truly harrowing incident reports in his career…).
In other words, self-development and appreciation / mattering form a feedback loop that has been in effect since our birth, so to speak.
If, as attentive observers on the research on multiple relationships, we also take Bowlby’s attachment theory into account (which Jessica Fern draws upon in her recent books “Polysecure” and “Polywise” for example ³), it soon becomes thus clear to us that behind the explosive energy of conflicts concerning appreciation, there is often a biographical emergency response stemming from deficiency and counterproductive compensation strategies.
Nevertheless, conflicts regarding appreciation cannot be solely explained by shortcomings we have experienced in the past. As “lifelong learning beings” with the plasticity of our fascinating brains, the potential for our self-fulfilment is also active“for life”.
And therefore, if the impulse for self-realisation or self-actualisation persists, we all remain, to a significant extent, dependent on the continual appreciation of our social environment, ideally expressed as unconditionally and positively as possible.
The good news is that, in this sense, “the train hasn’t left the station yet”. What we may not have experienced earlier in life, we can still experience – and provide – in our relationships today!
Care for a few simple, practical examples?
- Listen actively without immediately correcting the other person. Let them finish speaking, ask questions, and demonstrate: “I’m taking you seriously.”
- Acknowledge their feelings, even if you don’t agree with them. For example: “I understand that this has hurt you.”
- Express gratitude for the person, not just for their achievements. For example: “It’s great to have you here” or “I’m glad we know each other.”
- Use respectful language and a respectful tone of voice. This shows that the person is valuable to you, regardless of their current behaviour.
- Accept boundaries. If someone doesn’t want a hug, a chat or to share their opinion right now, this shouldn’t be taken personally.
- Don’t belittle others in challenging moments. Instead of “You’re being difficult again”, try: “This is tough right now, but I’m still here for you.”
- Highlight strengths without attaching conditions to them. For example: “I appreciate your sense of humour” or “You’re easy to talk to”.
With their concept of unconditional positive regard, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow planted a seed in the 1960s that later blossomed into a green shoot in Morning Glory Raven-Zell’s idea of “Polyamory” – without which, in my view, a relationship between several romantically attached partners cannot be sustainable, if at all, possible.
After all, unconditional appreciation is usually reflected in the fact that people feel secure, accepted and not constantly under evaluation. And this is particularly evident when someone is allowed to make mistakes without losing love, respect or their sense of belonging. So, if in our relationships with one another we can express sentiments such as “I like you not only when everything is going smoothly”, “You matter to me, even when we have a difference of opinion right now”, “I can see that you are having a difficult time at the moment”, “I want to understand you, not judge you”, and also “Thank you for simply being you”, then we are conveying a general attitude: For us, first and foremost it is the relationship that matters, and our subjective assessment is secondary and subordinate to that – and thus the apparent contradiction I mentioned at the start of this Entry becomes also resolved.
And when relationships are prioritised in this way, before any pre-emptive assessments comes into play, intimacy can grow without sacrificing individual freedom. This means that appreciation becomes not just a pleasant feeling, but a solid foundation for love, trust and mutual growth.
Perhaps this is precisely the unspoken promise of successful (multiple) relationships: being able to recognise one another without the urge for suppositions and prerequisites.
¹ M. Rosenberg, B. C. McCullough: “Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health” in: “Research in Community and Mental Health”, Band 2, 1981, S. 163–182 (Quelle nur englisch)
² Myers, David G. “Worth” (2007), from Psychology (8th ed.), New York
³ Fern, Jessica: “Polysecure -Attachment, Trauma and Consensual Non-monogamy“, Thornapple Press 2020; “Polywise – A Deeper Dive into Navigating Open Relationships” (with David Cooley), Thornapple Press 2023
Thanks to Count Chris on Unsplash for the photo!