I'm close to very few people, and by close I mean relationships where the parties involved feel connected by an inseperable attachment or bond.  This could involve a lot of things - friendship, kinship, or even a professional partnership.  People who feel this attachment usually don't question it, don't analyze or break it down; they just accept it as such.  And then something happens in the relationship that strains the bond between them, perhaps even breaks it, and the parties part ways over it.  We've all seen it happen, even in close relationships like with brothers or sisters.

As of late I've come to recognize a zone that exists in relationships - one that separates the parties involved due to certain dissimilarities.  This gray zone is what keeps a relationship an insecure thing, which most of them indeed are, and it usually has to do with philosophical differences.  In other words, it's a zone for the things we don't share in common, don't see eye to eye, and it is ever present in all relationships.  It might not be apparent . . . but it's there.  And here's the peculiar thing about it:  this same gray zone is where we find the philosophical similarities that help hold the relationship together. 

These zones that separate us, hold us apart or bring us together, in relationships is always a potential battlefield.  But even if a war over philosophies never breaks out, it's still there, still working it's magic on the relationship.  All married people must deal with this gray zone, if they have hopes of making the marriage work.  And the same is true of other family dealings, and with friendships. 

So . . . how important are these philosophical differences?  I'm sure that depends on the particular relationship in question, but the gray zone differences can be more than just a  little problematic.  I have friendships, for instance, that could be close indeed were it not for the political differences between us.  And I love some of these people despite our differences of opinion on social and political and religious matters.  I'm just not close to them . . . not close in a way you can share some of your innermost feelings on certain matters.  I don't share that kind of closeness with any family member, perhaps with the exception of my wife.  I do share that closeness with some friends.

I grew up in a home with parents who didn't agree on political matters.  My mother was conservative, my dad was liberal . . . but they still had a coming together of viewpoints on certain issues.  I wasn't privy to their discussions, so I don't know how they worked it out.  Maybe I should have paid more attention.  Since I'm a professionally trained political scientist, I have an advantage over most people when it comes to politics.  I enjoy a lively discussion (even an agrument) over politics . . . if it's with someone who knows enough to argue.  Most of my family and friends don't, so that's a topic of discussion best left alone.  That keeps down the arguments, the disagreements, but it also keeps down a closeness that good relationships deserve.

And the sad thing is that I have absolutely no idea how to work the gray zone.  It's there, as just what it is - a barrier . . . and I can't do a damn thing about it.  And I guess that's OK because I don't have to be close to people to love them.  I worry about a lot of things, but I never worry over whether or not someone agrees with me.

PMC, 4/19/08