[My tears were] about my husband. I realized when you were talking about how these consequential strangers enrich our lives that my husband (a stay-at-home dad) hasn’t taken advantage of the consequential strangers he has access to, which has led to depression. I also realized that b/c my experiences are so rich and different from his (I get to meet people like you!) that he’s missing out and I just want him to be able to share experiences and “people” with me b/c it will enrich both of us, as a couple.

Sandy’s story brought to mind a point I often make about CS and marriage:  Outsiders can make a marriage stronger! 

Understandably, the academic literature on marriage typically stresses the importance of mutual values and interests–the couple that does things together stays together.  Still, that doesn’t preclude the fact that casual social ties outside a marriage (excluding sexual liaisons,  of course!) can also infuse a relationship with new life.  Nor does it address the reality that one person cannot be “all” to another.

Family historian Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, A History, explains: When women entered the workforce in the sixties, “overturning the cult of togetherness” that peaked in the 1950s, couples began to forge relationships outside the purview of marriage.  As she wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece, Too Close for Comfort:

Researchers soon found that men and women with confidants beyond the nuclear family were mentally and physically healthier than people who relied on just one other individual for emotional intimacy and support.

Rather than hunker down solely with our intimates, Coontz suggests, “we can strengthen our marriages the most by not expecting them to be our sole refuge.”

Similarly, psychologist Bella de Paulo, author of Singled Out questions the dominance of “intensive coupling” as the sole model for a good marriage.

No longer do Americans march in lockstep through a life path that begins in early adulthood with marriage, then continues through parenting and retirement and grandparenting. That path, even including an intensive version of the coupling, is still a possibility, but now it is only one of many options. In the 21st century, we have greater opportunities to create the interpersonal lives that best fit our unique sensibilities.

Sandy’s arrangement with her husband is a perfect example.  She’s the major breadwinner, and he’s Mr. Mom.   Ask any woman who stays at home with little kids–you need other people to get through the day!

More to the point, marriage (or cohabitation) and intimacy work best when both people are individuated–there’s no merging; each knows where he or she ends and the other begins. Each has his own set of resources.  Family therapist and passionate marriage advocate David Schnarch and is fond of using a “boat” metaphor in his couples workshops:  Rather than than imagining yourself going through life in the same boat, see yourselves in separate boats going down the same river.

In short, rather that expect your romantic partner to be your “everything,” as so many romantic songs suggest, take side trips with consequential strangers.  Talk to a variety of people, learn new things.  As a result, you become more interesting and more interested in others, including your partner! Then, when your boats come together, you are each stronger, more integrated, fuller.  Your side trips on the river bring novelty and new ideas into the marriage, and it stimulates the the relationship, which bodes well for your sex life, too.

I’m all in favor of intimacy and long-term relationships, but so many marriages end badly–the divorce rate still hovers around 50%.  So perhaps it’s time to rethink what kind of “togetherness” actually works.   For Sandy, a “light bulb went off” when she heard about consequential strangers.  See allowed me to reprint her email to “help others” who might be struggling with similar issues.  Most important, she was able to talk to her husband about it.

It was a healthy realization for me and is something I have talked about with him since. We’re on our way…

Note: This post, in slight different form, also appears on the Psychology Today website.

The piece is worth reading.  Professor de Paulo makes some fascinating points about what she calls “intensive coupling”–the traditional view that those in a committed relationship must “be all” to one another, rather than relying on friends and acquaintances to meet some of their needs.   Having written about the alternatives in her own book, Singled Out,  she embraces the central message of Consequential Strangers: to value the connections beyond family and close friends.

I was taken by the authors’ arguments for many reasons, but most of all, because these are the very points my colleagues and I have been developing–only with regard to friends rather than acquaintances.  So now I like Consequential Strangers for another reason. I think that in a big, broad sense, it is a sign of our times.

But later in the piece, de Paulo also expresses personal reservations against having too many consequential strangers:

Personally, I do not want so many of the people on the periphery of my life acting as if they are not actually strangers. Blau and Fingerman described approvingly the “5-10 rule” of check-ins at Westin hotels: “Spend at least five minutes and walk ten steps with each guest.” I read that and made a mental note to avoid Westin hotels. When I’ve finally arrived at a hotel, weary and hungry, after a cross-country flight, a delay at the baggage claim, and a van to the hotel, I really do not want my check-in extended to five minutes. (Now if you want to offer me a cookie, as some hotels now do, that’s a different story.)

Fair enough, I say.  I appreciate Professor de Paulo’s honesty.  In fact, I’ve heard it before.  Statements like,  “I don’t need any more people in my life” and “Who has the time?” often crop up in discussions about consequential strangers.  And my personal favorite:  “I don’t want to have conversations with strangers.”

My response is two-fold:  First, of all, no one says you have to have conversations with strangers–and it’s not “strangers” we’re talking about.  (See Getting Stuck on the Word Stranger? for more on this.) The idea is to become aware of the people who are already on the periphery of your social life.  If you’re like most Americans, they far outnumber your intimates.  We spend the bulk of our time with them, and so it makes sense to value them.

Second, and most important, we don’t need a lot of consequential strangers, just variety.   All you need is a sampling of the diverse types of people you naturally encounter as you make your way through the day–during your commute, when you are at school or work, wherever you pray or play, and when you need a repair or any kind of assistance.   Each of your connections is different from you and probably different from one another.  Their backgrounds, experiences, and personal qualities broaden your own repertoire and make you realize that there are other perspectives.  They’re likely to show you ways to think and approaches to problems that you might never have considered.

So don’t stay at the Westin if you don’t want.  And don’t worry about racking up huge numbers of consequential strangers.  Just make the best of the ones you already have.  You’ll be surprised at all the cookies you’ll collect.