Closeness and autonomy. How do you find balance in a relationship?

Autonomy and closeness: what do they mean in a relationship?

In relationships, autonomy refers to independence and self-determination, allowing each partner the right to make their own decisions. On the other hand, closeness – also referred to as intimacy – is a state of deep emotional understanding between two people, where each person’s personal space can be crossed by the other without causing discomfort. Intimacy is a hallmark of close, affectionate, and loving personal relationships, requiring partners to understand and empathize with each other. In a romantic relationship, individuals constantly balance the need for closeness with the desire for autonomy, striving to build a relationship that embraces both connection and independence.

Five personality traits and our needs

Each of us is unique. Beyond the basic needs essential for survival – which are universal – we also have a set of specific needs shaped by our personality and life experiences. This stems from our individual differences – including varying temperaments, character traits, and personal histories – which determine both our desires and aversions. This applies to every aspect of our lives, including romantic relationships.

Our needs can be closely linked to personality traits. In psychology, one of the foundational theories of personality traits is the Five-Factor Model (FFM), also known as the ‘Big Five’, developed by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae. This model encompasses five fundamental traits that everyone possesses, though some individuals may exhibit certain traits more prominently than others.

Big Five of personality traits

1. Extraversion – defines our need for the presence of others in our lives and how we interact with our environment.
2. Openness to experience – refers to the need to seek out new experiences.
3. Neuroticism – reflects our emotional reactions to various situations.
4. Conscientiousness – involves the ability to be goal-oriented and exercise self-control.
5. Agreeableness – reflects the inclination toward pro-social behavior and a cooperative attitude.

The intensity of each personality trait can influence an individual’s approach to intimacy and autonomy in a relationship. Here are some examples:

1. A person with high extroversion and openness to experience is likely to need more autonomy, which may involve seeking stimulation outside the relationship, such as frequently going out with friends or pursuing new passions.
2. Conversely, someone with low extraversion and low openness to experience may favor a familiar, secure environment, preferring to spend time at home and engage in activities with their partner without involving others (friends or acquaintances). Such a person may need more closeness than autonomy.

Analyzing the above example, it becomes clear that if individuals with differing approaches to intimacy and autonomy form a relationship, conflicts may arise until they learn to respect each other’s needs. Let’s consider a different distribution of traits:

1. A person with high agreeableness and low neuroticism may prioritize their partner’s needs and adapt more easily to their rules, including those related to autonomy and intimacy. While such an individual may crave closeness, they might also have a tendency to put the needs of a more dominant partner before their own.
2. A person with low agreeableness and high neuroticism may not shy away from conflicts, and may even provoke them. Thus, they may struggle to maintain closeness with their partner and feel a strong need for autonomy, which they will vigorously defend by any means.

The relationship of such a couple can be challenging, as one partner may easily dominate its dynamics. Over time, this can lead to neglecting the needs of the partner with high agreeableness and low neuroticism.

What else can make us different?

Besides personality traits that influence people’s needs for autonomy and closeness, several other factors may also play a significant role.

1. Attachment style shaped in childhood – individuals who experienced secure bonds with their parents during childhood are more likely to form close and trusting relationships with their partners later in life. In contrast, childhood insecurity can lead to a fear of closeness
2. Past experiences – individuals who have previously been in a relationship where both partners’ needs were overlooked in favor of excessive intimacy may become more focused on asserting their need for autonomy in subsequent relationships to avoid repeating similar issues.
3. Cultural and social context – factors like cultural values, socioeconomic background, and upbringing shape how individuals communicate. Couples that recognize these influences and adjust their approaches accordingly can navigate challenges more effectively, building stronger and more resilient relationships.

Finding balance through differentiation

So, how do you balance understanding your own needs with considering your partner’s needs? Useful advice comes from psychologist Dr. David Schnarch, who offers the concept of ‘differentiation’ to address the challenge of maintaining self-esteem and individuality while staying in a relationship with a partner. Schnarch claims that preserving autonomy in a relationship enables partners to grow as individuals without becoming overly dependent on each other. In differentiated relationships, partners can maintain their own beliefs, values, and goals while respecting their partner’s individuality. This approach reinforces the balance between closeness and autonomy. Differentiation does not equate to emotional detachment. Instead, it refers to the ability to maintain your own thoughts, values, and emotions, even when facing differences or external pressure from your partner.

Key elements of differentiation according to David Schnarch

1. Quiet mind-calm heart – differentiation in a relationship requires the ability to manage your own emotions independently, rather than relying on a partner to regulate them. Schnarch emphasizes that individuals in diverse relationships can manage their fears and frustrations independently, easing the emotional burden on their partner.
2. Grounded responding – differentiation involves being aware of your own values and boundaries while respecting those of the other person. This approach allows both partners to remain authentic and avoid excessive entanglement, where individual identities can become blurred.
3. Development of ‘solid flexible self’ – the concept refers to the ability to support each other’s growth while maintaining a stable and secure sense of self. Schnarch asserts that ‘solid flexibility’ enables partners to openly express their authentic selves during conflicts without feeling threatened or compromising their values.
4. Meaningful endurance – differentiation requires the ability to tolerate emotional discomfort, especially during conflict or disagreement. Schnarch emphasizes that the ability to tolerate discomfort – rather than avoiding it through distance or excessive closeness – enables partners to handle conflicts more effectively and build intimacy based on authenticity and honesty.

Reviewing the above points, it’s clear how much self-awareness this approach requires. Once you see this correlation, it will come as no surprise that Schnarch recommends practices such as self-reflection and the pursuit of self-discovery to foster healthy differentiation in a relationship. Over time, this contributes to building a sense of self-esteem and individuality that supports both intimacy and autonomy, allowing the relationship to grow.

Conclusions

Every romantic relationship is unique, shaped by individual differences in personality, values, attachment styles, and life experiences. This means there is no universal formula for success in relationships. Psychological research indicates that while principles like effective communication can support healthy relationships, flexibility and self-reflection are essential to accommodate the unique dynamics of each relationship. A healthy relationship is built on meeting the needs of both partners. However, we determine the type and intensity of these needs ourselves by working on a deep understanding of who we are.

^References:

1. ^{American Psychological Association. (2015) APA Dictionary of Psychology (2nd ed.).}
2. ^{Costa P.T. Jr., McCrae R.R. (1989). The NEO – PI/NEO-FFI Manual Supplement}
3. ^{Odessa. FL.: Psychological Assessment Resources.}
4. ^{Schnarch, D. (2009). Intimacy and Desire: Awaken the Passion in Your Relationship. New York: Beaufort Books.}
5. ^{Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York: Guilford Press.}
6. ^{Holland AS, Roisman GI (October 2008). Big five personality traits and relationship quality: Self-reported, observational, and physiological evidence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 25 (5): 811–29. doi:10.1177/0265407508096697. S2CID 28388979}
7. ^{Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1983). The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles across Cultures. Human Communication Research, 9(3), 259–265.}