I heard once, ages and ages ago, that every relationship, and the type of relationship didn’t even matter, had two people in it: A reacher, and a settler. I might be screwing up the actual names of these two archetypes, but essentially, according to the edict, every grouping of two people had one person who “reached” or tried to live up to the affection/acceptance/appreciation/whatever of the other, and one person who “settled,” and was confident in their inherent superiority over the other. Whether or not this superiority was spoken, whether it was even ever highlighted by any behavior doesn’t matter, this person is “settling” even when happy, in that they had never needed to do the reaching for the other person, not ever at all.
This power dynamic, this ingrained discrepancy between the two parties would always lead to an imbalance. When I was much, much younger, I was a Sociology/Criminology/Psychology major in college, I stumbled deeper into this idea, this imbalance, and found it actually had a name. For years I called it the “principle of least involvement,” but I came to find that the true sociological phenomenon is called the “principle of least interest.” Personally, I like my name better. According to the experts, the principle of least interest is:
“the idea in sociology that the person or group that has the least amount of interest in continuing a relationship has the most power over it. In the context of relationship dynamics, it suggests towards which party the balance of power tilts. The principle applies to personal, business, and other types of relationships where more than one party is involved.”
As mentioned previously, this dynamic exists in any relationship in which more than one party is involved. This can be anything, and sorry all you polyamorous beauties, you’re not exempt either. In fact, I’d wager to guess the dynamics when multiple partners is involved become even more tricky to balance out. Actually, I know this to be true, as there’s a name for it too, the “three body problem,” but that’s another essay for another day.
I digress.
Today I just wanted to talk about this intrinsic imbalance, and offer my most humble opinion on the matter. I wanted to talk about the power structure, and explain why I will always be, absolutely always, the reacher, and how I am completely ok with that.
My name is Tyler Knott Gregson, and I am a reacher. No, not a Reacher, as in the 6’5” behemoth of a man on the Amazon Prime show, but a reacher in the sense that I will always feel like, be, and behave, as the one who reaches in a romantic relationship. I do not do this because of some strange form of desperation, I do not reach because I do not feel worthy, the hallmark of many principle of least interest/involvement relationships, and I do not reach because I believe I am in some way inferior. I reach because it’s how I love, it’s the language that my heart speaks when it speaks to someone I care for. I love in wholes, and I speak that love in complete sentences with no ambiguity. I love hard, I love completely, and I fight and fight for that which I love, they who I adore. I do not know another way.
The way I love Lady G has always been this. I reached with the years I waited for her to join me in a life together, I reached with the promises I made that I would spread my love over not only her, but her kids as well. I reach in how I try with every ounce of my (seemingly endless, to an annoying degree if you ask her sometimes) energy, I reach in that I always want to dote on her, even when I know she’s no need for it at all. I reach not because I feel inferior to her, but because I just want her to know how superior I find her to anything else on this planet. I reach because I don’t know another way, and I don’t want her to know another way either. I call Sarah the settler in our relationship, always in jest, but in full honesty and the spirit of total disclosure, I do believe it to be true.
This does not imply that she does not often ‘reach’ for me, as of course she does, it just means that if it is true that all relationships must have an imbalance in power, if all relationships do have an inborn difference that is measurable no matter how slightly, between the pair of us, she holds all the power. She is the settler, and I am the reacher, and I would have this be no other way.
I believe in other types of relationships in my life, I am sure that I am the settler, without realizing this often, as I do believe we oscillate from one to the other depending on the who on the other end. We can be a thousand things to a thousand people, all different levels of interest, of time available to be invested in those specific connections, and I believe this is ok. When it comes to romance, however, when it comes to the intimate and enduring type in which you carve little bits of your heart for the benefit of someone else, I know I will always be the one carving first, faster, and probably taking bigger chunks. As I’ve said, I know no other way.
Unfortunately, I know may who pride themselves on being the ‘settler’ in the group. I know many that withhold affection, interest, care, and intimacy in a dozen forms, because of a panoply of reasons that seem to shift depending on the circumstance. Some withhold out of fear, some out of pride, some ego, some ignorance. Some hold the power because a trauma sent them to that place, some always assume the love they’re giving is too much, and it’s quite possible that it’s only because they’ve never actually been given enough to understand what it looks like.
I am not here to say there’s a wrong way to love, to experience it, to give it, as I’ve said above, there are so many instances that our role in a relationship might depend entirely on who the relationship is with. What I am here to say, is if the principle of least interest is indeed a sound sociological theory, if it is indeed true that in all relationships one person gets more — whether that is financial, emotional, or sexual — I would so much rather always be the person who gives more than receives. I would so much rather live my life knowing I was always the person who gave every bit of “interest” that was at my disposal. Always.
My advice, in this strange and winding essay, is to always be the one who cares the most. In no way should you let this care cloud your judgement or lock you into situations that are unhealthy or dangerous, but instead it should guide you into knowing when a situation is worth that investment, and when it is not. I think so often we hold tightly onto situations and relationships that do nothing but damage our souls, because we fear the alternative loneliness so much more. I know why we do this, I understand the depth of isolation in a way that few I know do, and I still believe with all my silly heart, that it’s better to find those worth reaching for, and then to never stop that reach.
Maybe it’s here I’ll offer my most controversial advice, maybe it’s here I’ll lose some of you and make your heads go from shaking up and down in agreement to shaking side to side in dismay, and that’s ok, it’s worth the truth I know:
Perhaps as we aim for simplification in our already too swollen and stuffed lives, as we aim to be a bit more minimalistic in our endeavors, we can also include relationships that no longer serve us in healthy, intimate, productive, and fulfilling ways. Maybe if the people we’re in a “relationship” with, no matter the type, are not those that we know with certainty are worth truly reaching for, they are not those we really need to invest ourselves into anyway. Maybe this is the barometer, maybe this is the metric.
For me, I will reach, and reach, and reach, for all those I love, for all those that made it beyond my strange hermit shield that grows around me, fueled by autism and social exhaustion and a protectiveness of my time and energy and life. I’ll be the reacher, and if that makes you the settler, know that it is ok, it is just not my way. It just won’t ever be my way.
I’ll always forget the power, I’ll always refuse to play those silly, silly games, I’ll always reach.
I will always care the most.
Forget the power,
and refuse to play the game.
Always care the most.
My son broke off a four -year relationship because he recognized that he wasn’t being the person she deserved; she was always the reacher and he the settler. As much as my husband and I loved her like a daughter and were sorry that she would no longer be in our lives, we knew it was the right thing to do and respected his honesty and courage to end it. He has recently met someone else with whom he wants to reach and is willing to give of himself more than I have seen before. There seems to be a balance between them of reaching and settling, giving and receiving, and this seems happier and healthier. I think finding this balance is essential and for this, both have to be willing reach and keep reaching.
Wow, what a tough thing to do, but what an amazing thing to believe in yourself and your needs that much. Balance is all things. All.
“Ok, I’ll see and raise your point with another”…. Oh dear, that is such a poorly placed pun, isn’t it? Well, you are correct about business implications. I negotiated many contracts in my working years, and found two primary negotiation styles… adversarial ("I'm in charge") and collaborative ("Together we will prosper"). Depending on the strength of my position. I would use both. However, in personal situations, I confess it was never that easy to separate emotions from intellect. Having an intellectually superior and more emotionally stable partner always put me in the defensive position that most men typically find themselves. But after she suffered a debilitating stroke, nearly all decisions fell on my shoulders. But that made me far from happy about my position in our relationship. And it took nearly four years of frustration for me to figure out that serving another person as a caregiver is not a sacrifice to your position in a relationship, but a privilege. I spent too much time in that initial period focused on what was lost, until I recognized that my inability to “fix the situation” or feed my need for validation, was something to be OK with — as a result found the power of self-compassion. I learned the hard way that generosity and true mindfulness emerges when we give without the need for our offering to be received or reciprocated in a certain way. That’s it comes from inner abundance, rather than from feeling deficient and hollow, starved for validation. And like every relationship, there is no end to internal and external challenges. But yes, if we can forget about the power struggle, and the gamesmanship, the love within a relationship can be even more empowering than before.
I absolutely love the nod to non-romantic relationships, and the truth behind them, too. Your closing statement is exactly, exactly it. Thank you for this gem.
I am a reacher even when I want to be a settler. I will always care too much and give too much. But nobody ever taught me to be discerning. And I will pay for that mistake the whole rest of my life. Now I will try to be a light for others lost in the ever reaching dark spaces of life and relationships. This is my new favorite haiku.
I love this distinction, the want for settling, but the inability to achieve it haha. You already ARE a light, and I don't see that changing.
I am a reacher in so many situations. I was often told that I was too caring and too kind. I could never understand how that was a bad thing. I desperately want people to know how special they are, so I reach. In the few relationships I’ve been the settler, I am in the relationship out of pity. My heart isn’t in it the same. So eventually those people fade from my life because I could never put my whole heart into it. I love to be the reacher. To feel my heart burst with so much love helps me know how alive I am.
Too caring, too kind, heard that my whole life. I don't feel like WE should have to change just cause others take advantage of it. That always confused me so deeply.
I love this! And agree entirely, especially that sometimes you switch roles when needed. Reminds me of Kacey Musgraves song Giver/Taker on new album- so good! Love the Haiku ❤️
I've not heard the new song! I gotta listen now.
I am going to need to digest this for a while. I know it to be true. I would like to evaluate my relationships and determine my “role”. Thank you.
You're absolutely welcome. Let me know what you find!
I absolutely adored this one. 🥹 This concept is part of why I love this space so much. We are a bunch of people who actively choose to care more.
Side note, a sociology/criminology/psychology major is incredible.
You'er SO VERY RIGHT! We are all a group that chooses to be MORE for all those who think Less is ok. YES!
I am actually both depending on the time and place. For instance, I am settled in my home as wife and mother. I used to be the reacher to my husband, but when he came out as gay/asexual, I found myself kind of thrust into settler mode. I've always been the settler for my daughter. At work I am a reacher, giving to my customers to help them feel beautiful and special, and with my manager, seeking acceptance and appreciation. So I throw myself into my work with an open heart so that each task and customer is loved. Generally, I love and love love, but I see the settler in me. I'm not sure I like it, in theory. Power is not my thing. But here we are.
i guess I do not like the description of a settler and don't entirely see how that fits. But I guess, yeah, it stands. Even in my relationship with my boyfriend. Huh. Learn something new every day ...
Ahh yes, the oscillation back and forth of both! I think this is so true, and so often what we all are depending on who the relationship might be with. I love the dissection of this, thank you!
Ooof. This essay just reached into my gut. "I reach because it’s how I love." That is absolutely me. I am like you. I was born a reacher. Everything you said rings so true. And I agree that even with the dynamic, a relationship can be beautiful with both parts. The same way you can't have darkness without light. Thank you for sharing this.