“Excessive familiarity is the bane of social happiness,” wrote William Godwin in his book, The Enquirer, in 1797 (page 86). He was making the argument that there is a tendency, when individuals live together, for them to begin to fail to treat each other with respect and kindness, and that this incivility is pernicious. He was advocating retaining in close relationships a certain respectful distance.

One of the dangers of excessive familiarity he pointed to, I think cannot be over-emphasised, particularly to men who are in Taken In Hand relationships. Whilst some women no doubt take masochistic pleasure in being harshly judged, severely chastised, shouted at, or glared at, most would probably hate that. For many of us, angry outbursts, bitter tones, resentful silences, spiteful words, and withering looks are painful and likely to be harmful.

If you are a man in a male-led relationship then unless you are quite sure that the woman you love and lead enjoys being on the sharp end of this sort of negativity, it would be wise to strive to make your control positive, kind and respectful instead. Or at least to enquire what you amour's preferences are in this.

Those men in charge to whom I myself have felt drawn (for example, my grandfather, a teacher at school, a rabbi) did not command obedience by raising their voices, impugning motives, or by casting threatening frowns at those under their authority; they led with quiet confidence and understated, subtle control that built up rather than tore down, that drew others in rather than alienating them. Here is what William Godwin had to say on this:

The passionate man, who feels himself continually prompted to knock everyone down that seems to him pertinacious and perverse, never fails to expatiate upon the efficacy of this mode of correcting error, and to satirise with great vehemence the Utopian absurdity of him who would set them right by ways of mildness and expostulation.

The dogmatist, who, satisfied of the truth of his own opinions, treats all other modes of thinking as absurd, and can practise no forbearance for the prejudices of his neighbours, can readily inform you of the benefit which the mind receives from a rude shock, and the unceasing duration of errors which are only encountered with kindness and reason.

The man who lives in a state of continual waspishness and bickering, easily alleges in his favour the salutary effects which arise from giving pain, and that men are not to be cured of their follies but by making them fervently feel the ill consequences that attend on them.

(William Godwin: William Godwin: The Enquirer, 1797, page 86-7, Essay X: Of Cohabitation)

Worse – and it really is worse if the research of John Gottman is to be believed – is a lack of graciousness when the other person tries to repair the damage. “In the education of youth,” wrote Godwin, “no resource is more frequent than to a harsh tone and a peremptory manner. The child does amiss, and he is rebuked. If he overlook this treatment and make overtures of kindness, the answer is, No, indeed, I shall take no notice of you, for you have done wrong.” (The Enquirer, 1797, page 87-8, Essay X: Of Cohabitation) John Gottman contends that one of the most important predictors of divorce is whether, when one spouse makes a “positive bid” – reaching out to the other in some way – the other fails to react positively. As William Godwin wrote:

All this is the excess of familiarity.

The tyrant... practises this, and applauds himself for his virtue. He reviews his conduct with self-complacence; he sees in fancy the admirable consequences that will result from it; and, if it fails, he congratulates himself at least that he has proceeded with the most exemplary virtue.

He does not know that, through the whole scene, he has been only indulging the most shameful vices. He had merely been accumulating a certain portion of black bile, and in this proceeding he has found a vent for it. There was no atom of virtue or benevolence in his conduct. He was exercising his despotism in security, because its object was unable to resist. He was giving scope to the overflowings of his spite, and the [person] under his direction, was the unfortunate victim.

(William Godwin: The Enquirer, 1797, page 88, Essay X: Of Cohabitation)

If you are in control in your relationship, do not forget the importance of self-control, gentleness, civility. The master should be a man, not a monster; a protector, not a bully. He should take care to remain respectful, and perhaps, as Godwin suggests, it might not be a bad idea sometimes to be just a little less familiar:

The most fundamental of all the principles of morality is the consideration and deference that man owes to man. [...]

[A]nger and ill-humour have very little tendency to impress upon a prejudiced spectator an opinion of the justice of your cause. The direct result of your proceeding, is to fill him with indignation against your despotism, to inspire him with a deep sense of the indignity to which he is subjected, and to perpetuate in his mind a detestation of the lesson that occasioned his pain.

If we would ascertain the true means of conviction, we have only to substitute in our minds, instead of [our spouse], a [person] with whom we have slight acquaintance, and no vicious habits of familiarity. I will suppose that we have no prejudice against this [person] but every disposition to benefit him. I would then ask any man of urbane manners and a kind temper, whether he would endeavour to correct the error [...] of this stranger [...] by forbidding looks, harsh tones and severe language?

No, he would [...] know that to inspire hatred to himself and distaste to his lessons was not the most promising road to instruction. He would endeavour to do justice to his views of the subject in discussion; he would communicate his ideas with all practicable perspicuity; but he would communicate them with every mark of conciliation and friendly attention. He would not mix them with tones of acrimony, and airs of lofty command. [...] But [...] when upon a footing of undue familiarity, [we treat] our wife [...] in great degree as we do children. We lay aside the arts of ingenious persuasion; we forsake the mildness of expostulation; and we expect them to bow to the despotism of command or the impatience of anger.

The ill-humour which is so prevalent through all the different walks of life, is the result of familiarity... If we did not see each other too frequently, we should accustom ourselves to act reasonably and with urbanity. But, according to a well-known maxim, familiarity breeds contempt. The first and most fundamental principle in the intercourse of man and man, is reverence... Reverence is a certain collectedness of the mind, a pause during which we involuntarily impress ourselves with the importance of circumstances and the dignity of persons. [...] It is true that genuine virtue requires of us a certain frankness and unreserve. But it is not less true that it requires of us a quality in some degree contrasted with this, that we set a guard upon the door of our lips, that we carefully watch over our passions, that we never forget what we owe to ourselves, and that we maintain a vigilant consciousness strictly animadverting and commenting upon the whole series of our actions.

(William Godwin: The Enquirer, 1797, page 89-92, Essay X: Of Cohabitation)

No doubt the exaggerated politeness of formal English etiquette is not to everyone's taste, and it is important for those in a relationship to feel comfortable with one another, but I can't help thinking that we can learn something from William Godwin's argument. As he concluded: “It is a vulgar task to destroy; the difficulty is to build.” (page 92, ibid.)

the boss

Taken In Hand Tour start | next