We're all going to have many experiences, some of which will be very similar to others and some different. Relatability can be a great bonding agent, bringing people together over understanding and support. Unfortunately, as this piece that I found when searching for verification that yes, unbeknownst to my spell-check, it is a word, relatability can also be fertile ground for narcissism. For any of us that want to form more than ephemeral bonds, the extent to which our relationships can't stretch beyond present circumstances is a concern; especially, when these circumstances are ones we know that we wish to change.
I must confess to a bit of ironic self-indulgence in that I'm knocking our egocentric times while finding a good deal of value in Alexis' piece out of - you guessed it - relatability. I haven't found my economic niche yet, but don't want to be left on the other side of the "line" from those who are further along in their careers anymore than she wants her victory of "crossing over" from infertile to motherhood to separate her from her friends. Whether we wish them to or not, both motherhood and our professional status are not usually treated as mere attributes, but as defining qualities of our lives.
 |
| By Lionel Bartel* |
Indeed, that's why social groups tend to define themselves around them. I know that even among all who work, lines crop up. The Friends episode in which Dr. Ross Gellar doesn't want to sit with his friend Joey in the cafeteria comes to mind. Alexis has the refrain of a Québecois car bumper - "I remember" - that the basis of their bond, its root, is still there, even if their lives' branches aren't identical. It's important to keep that in mind, but I think it's also important to remember, even if our relatability diminishes, we are still the same person.
Growth is not the same as total change, and it's not as if the core of special people in our lives has no transcendental character! Or is that the problem? If I may veer off briefly into the metaphysical, when we let erstwhile cherished connections languish because the in-group dynamics have dissipated, are we not raising the experience above the soul?
The New Yorker article to which I linked above also distinguishes Identification from Relatability, which I found useful. Beyond the in-group distinctions made above, perhaps nowhere do we see the in-group|out-group division have as vehemently a limiting character as when the experience is fused with identity. Being a professional, and, sometimes, becoming a mother, are both at least malleble, the product of choices. So, too, is that the case with another fault line with which friendships must contend: married|single. What about race and gender, though?
Even if imperfectly, I would submit that these divisions can be bridged if the goal is to cross with empathy and (partial) understanding. I could definitely identify with a challenge that an article on LinkedIn was suggested is faced more by women interviewees: being able to bring more confidence to bear when discussing something external about which I am passionate versus being under the microscope myself. I'd much rather present on a researched topic to a small group, even knowing they're evaluating me, than I would sit across from 1-3 people directly scrutinizing me. Now you bring in all the baggage from the past, and my being a white male may seem an inescapable barrier, and it seems to me relatability - by demanding too proximate a positioning of the subjects on multiple planes of our experience - actually stands in the way of the beneficial goal of transcending those barriers and learning from one another.
If we can't even do it where we have choice, Lord help us!
* By Lionel Bartel (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Well said!
ReplyDelete