17: If This Perspective on Accountability is So Terrific, Wouldn’t it ALREADY Be a Thing?

Great question…Wow, you really get right to the point.

We know what some of you are thinking; if this whole Explicit-Nature, equality-based, relationship accountability stuff is actually so great and so essential for healthy, happy relationships, wouldn’t somebody have already thought of it a while ago?

This is a very valid point. It’s also the most efficient way to effortlessly kill others’ dreams under the pretext of just asking a perfectly reasonable question, but that’s a different blog post altogether; one about my father, aptly titled, “Lessons from the Woodshed.” Indeed, if relationship accountability were really an essential component of a healthy relationship, wouldn’t it already exist in our culture in one form or another?

The truth is, accountability does. Just in a rather lame and limited way, which could be so much better!

Relationships are all about accountability and always have been. Everyone longs for, expects, or demands accountability in all human relationships (and in virtually all human encounters, too, by the way) in one form or another. And truly happy, healthy, successful relationships already have accountability as a defining aspect to them.

The problem (as we’ve hopefully articulated already but it always bears repeating), is that we seem to have a very limited grasp of genuine accountability, and therefore no widely understood means of ensuring that- what we might call optimal accountability- is achieved in relationships. And therefore even less means of ensuring this optimal accountability happens in relationships in an truly healthy way. (Us folks here at the global headquarters of Explicit-Nature aren’t claiming to have invented relationship accountability- far from it- we’re just trying to bring attention to what we think are the benefits of a deeper understanding of it, thus ensuring healthier relationships for everyone.

So why hasn’t this particular “type” of relationship accountability (one with total equality, autonomy, and no control exerted over one’s partner) “gone mainstream”?

We think the answer has to do with the following dilemma;

Total equality, autonomy and a lack of control over one’s partner are essential for a truly healthy relationship, but equality, autonomy, and a lack of control over one’s partner are precisely that which enables one to act without accountability in their relationship (if they so choose).

This is a big contradiction, is it not?

Accountability is a lot like trust in this sense;

You have to have trust in order to have a truly healthy relationship, yet it is precisely trust which enables one to deceive their partner (if they so choose).

How can one’s personal wellbeing (emotional, psychological, etc.) be assured in a relationship where the only way to have a healthy relationship is to allow one’s partner to be truly free to do whatever they choose?! In most relationships, a significant degree of healthiness is sacrificed for the sake of knowing that one’s trust in their partner isn’t being violated.

..As far as we can tell, no one has solved this one yet.

The following are a several reasons why conventional accountability has failed to provide us with the optimal accountability we seek;

1) Culturally, our perception of accountability is that it is something done contextually and conditionally, not upheld as one would a code of conduct.

Let’s take a culture like…ohh, we don’t know, any culture, really…(spin a globe and throw a dart while blindfolded)…oh alrighty, the United States, for instance. (The only culture the authors of this blog know anything at all about.) In the US, our morality is largely informed by (rule number one in running a successful blog; never discuss religion or politics) the three Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as the basic principles of humanistic moral reasoning. And among the innumerable differences of this veritable spiritual smorgasbord of disagreement, all four of these moral philosophies have given rise to a refreshingly similar perspective on human conduct that is the basis for our expected conduct in our society; treat others the way you’d like to be treated. Or, that old adage, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s classic, reads like those rare moments in Shakespeare where you understand what they’re saying, and for the most part, everyone gets behind it.

In other words, a code.

A code of conduct. Which most people endorse. (Unfortunately, the problem with codes being that it’s not enough to just endorse a code, you have to live by it in order to actually endorse it. Kinda like claiming you endorse the teachings of Jesus by standing next to a picture of Jesus and smiling with both thumbs up.)

The problem with this particular code, of course, is that it’s actually a command. Meaning it’s devoid of real-life context, instruction, or application. Meaning it works great in theory, or initially, but only until someone “does unto us as we would not have done unto us,” in which case we promptly “do unto them as we would not have done unto us.”

In theory, it’s a terrific adage. One that, while not exactly bumper-sticker ready, looks terrific in a variety of classic fonts, and would solve every conceivable societal ill imaginable if everyone committed to doing it at all times. In practice, however, what we often- if not overwhelmingly- find is that high moral conduct or regard is granted only to those who are perceived to exhibit high moral conduct toward us (which, by definition, is precisely what a person feels they’re NOT getting enough of from their opponent during an argument or conflict). Meaning in practice it is typically only ever practiced fleetingly or not at all.

The problem, of course, is that the moment this perception of less than high moral conduct (or disrespect) occurs- which is of course how all interactions deteriorate into conflict, all adages are off. It’s go-time, brah. (Blog writer stops typing, rips off his shirt, and taunts computer screen repeatedly while screaming, “We doin’ this, brah?! We doin’ this?!”)

…How long have I been unconscious?

Typical, garden-variety, incomplete accountability (the kind most all of us practice) operates in the same manner; I will behave accountably to you because it is the “right” thing to do, provided you behave accountably to me. We’re not saying this is morally wrong or frankly even impractical; such an approach to human interaction makes overwhelming sense with regard to personal safety and survival. The problem where relationships are concerned is that whenever this kind of accountability is practiced, genuine accountability can never grow, thrive, spread, or catch-on, crushed as it is by even the perception of disrespect or a lack of consideration. (It doesn’t even have to be actually happening!) Hence, it can never go on to become a defining aspect of any relationship, and relationships can therefore never benefit from it. And even if it were to magically happen, there’s no way it could be sustained or upheld in the long term (where many of the enormous benefits of accountability reside).

Consider the following scenario;

Two people (who endorse conventional accountability and “Do unto others") drive up to a parking space simultaneously and both feel that the space is rightfully theirs. (And just to ramp up the drama, both are frustrated, inconsequential men in their late 40’s who drive minivans they are embarrassed by, watch too much MMA in their fb streams, are self-taught in Ninja weaponry, and who could really use a masculinity-validating experience right about now in the parking lot of Costco.)

Person 1 is annoyed, but believes he has an obligation to be at least civil to the other driver. So he very politely (in his estimation) informs the other driver that he has actually been waiting longer for the space.

Person 2 is also annoyed, and also believes he has an obligation to be reasonable and measured in his conduct toward Person 1. However, he detects just the teensiest little bit of “attitude” from Person 1. Not much, but it’s definitely there. Naturally, he will of course remain civil (what with the kids in the back watching everything), but will now lower his accountability toward Person 1 by a few perceptible degrees. Person 2 thus informs Person 1 they’re a complete idiot.

Person 1, who still believes theirs is the cause of righteousness, doesn’t much appreciate the way he’s being notified he’s mistaken and subsequently dials down his accountability toward Person 2, thus freeing himself to address Person 2 as “Hey, fuckface,” and inquire if he in fact learned to drive at a school for the blind.

This lively and expletive-laden descent into total accountability anarchy continues, until both minivans ram into one another and both men are soon rolling around in the dusty parking lot like two adrenalized harbor seals competing for a mate.

Such is the nature of contextual, reciprocal accountability; all it takes is for the perception of disrespect or a lack of consideration for it to dissolve.

Is it any wonder it doesn’t work in intimate-partner relationships?

Whether between strangers or long-term partners, whenever conflict is present, conventional accountability can only lower as conflict progresses; At some point conflict creates the perception of disrespect, the perception of disrespect lowers one’s sense of having an obligation to act accountably toward the other, which is perceived as disrespect, which lowers the other person’s sense of having an obligation to act accountably toward the other, and so on.

Accountability, if it is regarded as contextual and conditional upon another’s conduct- particularly in the midst of conflict- can only diminish.

So what can be done?

Or maybe a better question (and an easier one) would be, “Where does one start?”
Well, if you don’t mind us throwing in our two cents, we think a good place to start trying to promote real accountability is where it’s likeliest to actually work; in personal relationships where there is a mutual endorsement of total equality, and where accountability can be regarded as a form of personal conduct and not merely contextual and only extended provided it is fully reciprocated. (All of which is maintained through Explicit Contracts.)

2) Contextul accountability (where it isn’t practiced as a code) allows for the justification of non-accountability toward another at any time and for numerous reasons. The mere perception of non-accountability or a lack of it in another person toward oneself permits people to lower their own accountability toward that other person whenever they so desire. Overwhelmingly, people do not feel they have any obligation to be accountable to someone whom they perceive as lacking accountability, needs to take accountability themselves for a particular thing, is less than perfect where accountability is concerned, or whom they’ve simply made no commitment to be accountable toward. (Meaning we all, at one time or another, find any reason whatsoever to justify non-accountability, because where contextual accountability is concerned, we always CAN.) And the way in which we justify such behavior to ourselves is because it’s how most everyone else behaves as well!

3) Accountability, unfortunately, is something a person can be manipulated, compelled or forced to do. Laws, rules, police, surveillance. Courts, incarceration, punishment. Workplace expectations, suspension, demotion, firing. Credit scores, fines, tradition, religion, unwritten social norms, and on and on. Humans have mastered an infinite variety of ingenious ways of making others conform to their will. In relationships this is no different. Whether it is through force, coercion, manipulation, expectations, tactics, guilt, shame (heck, you name it), people can be made to act with accountability by other people. And because power and control is so easy to establish in relationships (as well as difficult to refrain from in many cases), only in relationships of total equality, and where equality can be upheld and maintained, is healthy accountability possible.

Again, “Where does one start?”
Only in relationships where equality is both mutually endorsed and mutually assured can power and control (and therefore forced accountability) be said to have the highest likelihood of being prevented. And if power and control aren’t prevented, they at least have the highest likelihood of being exposed.

(The approach we’ve personally come to regard as highly reliable is the Explicit Contract.)

4) Just because mutual accountability is present in a relationship, that doesn’t mean that accountability is assured to continue, or in a manner that is mutually healthy or beneficial, if there are no established clear guidelines for it. Which means the day is going to come when accountability starts to wane. (Just like eating with their mouth open, leaving hair on every imaginable surface, farting indiscriminately, or their strange predilection for pooping with the bathroom door open while doing a handstand, the accountability honeymoon is going to end, sunshine.)

5) Genuine accountability cannot be established in a relationship without clear guidelines. And clear guidelines in a relationship cannot be established without mutual endorsement. And mutual endorsement in a relationship cannot be established without equality. And without equality, one cannot ensure healthiness in the long-term.

That’s a bit of a mouthful, ain’t it? But it’s true. All of the above aspects must work in conjunction with the others in order to create a healthy relationship of genuine accountability.
It’s the only way. (Until someone comes up with something better, that is. In which case we’ll happily pack up our white board and dry erase markers and pack up the ol’ station wagon. We’re sure we can always get work somewhere as carnies or catching chickens or something. Don’t you worry about us…)