Such an interesting post, as always! You made me realize that some of my favorite people remain resolutely faithful to their frames, whatever they may be. They do what they say they will and, for me, that is the very definition of "showing up" authentically. Thank you for this new framework for viewing... frames. Lol.
Great post! I found it more intuitive by swapping in "code" for "frame", in reference to code-switching and code of conduct. A marriage has a code, staying to one's code of board game etiquette, etc
I love this a lot and I find myself noticing "bits" as well -- I find that the best ways to express gratitude for someone is to notice and convey these bits, and I love when others say this about me as well.
The last line hits. It’s so easy, as someone who is observational and sensitive and empathetic (as most writers are), to see the behaviours of others and think that they are shallow, or easy to replicate. But they are not. Humans are so magnificent and complex and I work hard each day to not discount that. I’ll be thinking about your definition of framing today. Thank you for sharing.
I have a comment on the use of "relationship anarchy", which I've heard used to mean basically the opposite of how you refer to it here. It doesn't mean that relationships should just dynamically change without expectation.
As I've seen it, relationship anarchy still requires relationships (or frames) to be clearly understood and defined by the people involved. The anarchy just refers to allowing for relationships that fall outside of the bounds of what people usually consider normal. I think you could view the "typical" set of relationships that people are allowed to have as fairly narrow: coworker, friend, boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancee/spouse... each of those tends to carry a lot of assumptions and rules for what is or isn't acceptable in that frame. Instead, under RA, maybe you have a spouse that you are not physical with, or a boyfriend who isn't your go-to person for emotional support.
I don't know if I consider myself a relationship anarchist, but I definitely have found it freeing to allow relationships in my life to fall outside of those typical arrangements!
Beware as what you describe is a corrupt bargain. The most common form of despair is not being who you are. To wit: “The biggest obstacle to increasing your self-awareness is the tendency to avoid the discomfort that comes from seeing yourself as you really are.” —Travis Bradberry
Cool take, although I’d suggest you might trying to repurpose the word “frame” where there already exists a couple of words describing what you’re referring to - “interface” and “contract”. We have different interfaces for each of our relationships because each relationship has a unique contract. I think it’s still valuable to ruminate on it though!
Such an interesting post, as always! You made me realize that some of my favorite people remain resolutely faithful to their frames, whatever they may be. They do what they say they will and, for me, that is the very definition of "showing up" authentically. Thank you for this new framework for viewing... frames. Lol.
Great post! I found it more intuitive by swapping in "code" for "frame", in reference to code-switching and code of conduct. A marriage has a code, staying to one's code of board game etiquette, etc
I love this a lot and I find myself noticing "bits" as well -- I find that the best ways to express gratitude for someone is to notice and convey these bits, and I love when others say this about me as well.
The last line hits. It’s so easy, as someone who is observational and sensitive and empathetic (as most writers are), to see the behaviours of others and think that they are shallow, or easy to replicate. But they are not. Humans are so magnificent and complex and I work hard each day to not discount that. I’ll be thinking about your definition of framing today. Thank you for sharing.
I have a comment on the use of "relationship anarchy", which I've heard used to mean basically the opposite of how you refer to it here. It doesn't mean that relationships should just dynamically change without expectation.
As I've seen it, relationship anarchy still requires relationships (or frames) to be clearly understood and defined by the people involved. The anarchy just refers to allowing for relationships that fall outside of the bounds of what people usually consider normal. I think you could view the "typical" set of relationships that people are allowed to have as fairly narrow: coworker, friend, boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancee/spouse... each of those tends to carry a lot of assumptions and rules for what is or isn't acceptable in that frame. Instead, under RA, maybe you have a spouse that you are not physical with, or a boyfriend who isn't your go-to person for emotional support.
I don't know if I consider myself a relationship anarchist, but I definitely have found it freeing to allow relationships in my life to fall outside of those typical arrangements!
Beware as what you describe is a corrupt bargain. The most common form of despair is not being who you are. To wit: “The biggest obstacle to increasing your self-awareness is the tendency to avoid the discomfort that comes from seeing yourself as you really are.” —Travis Bradberry
Cool take, although I’d suggest you might trying to repurpose the word “frame” where there already exists a couple of words describing what you’re referring to - “interface” and “contract”. We have different interfaces for each of our relationships because each relationship has a unique contract. I think it’s still valuable to ruminate on it though!
Loved it that was an awesome essay.
Possibly of interest:
https://archive.org/details/frameanalysisess00goff_1
Excellent post. Love the use of “frame” to explain both someone’s character and their behaviour 🩵