You scratch my back, I scratch yours

Kanisa George

EVERYTHING we do, from planning our weekly tasks to finding time to unwind, requires a reasonable amount of give and take. It’s as if life necessitates, through a hidden bartering system, that we maintain a spirit of exchange.

We work to make money, we make money to live, and we live by experiencing life’s greatest treasures, the splendour of which is tied right back to how much we make. Life, in many ways, is arguably transactional.

The late 1990s single-handedly revolutionised networking. Accompanied by the invention of platforms such as MySpace, connection and accessibility became the most sought-after commodities.

Fast-forward to the current climate; spaces like LinkedIn and Facebook are engineered to highlight the hard skills used to determine one’s utility and worth. Even several inspirational quotes and notable memes on success provide a carefully curated approach to networking.

In today’s tech-driven climate, one can simply measure the value of a product (human beings) at the click of a mouse and easily determine whether it aligns with their pursuits.

So much of who we are is tied to what we have to offer (or bring to the table), almost like thoroughbreds at an auction. And this is what we sometimes base our interactions on.

This position has forced me to consider whether our interactions and relationships have become a transactional affair.

There is a lot of banter on social media about the “requirements” needed to sustain a relationship. In my estimation, this perspective seems to be based primarily on a quid pro quo exchange.

Many gravitate towards transactional relationships because they have become commonplace. By their nature, they are defined by mutual benefit and reciprocity.

We can all appreciate that for a relationship to exist, each person must invest time, effort and resources, which can, to some extent, be arguably transactional.

But when the give-and-take is the driving force behind everything, and one becomes attracted to goal-oriented pursuits, the focus leans more on tangible outcomes than companionship.

For some, this sort of interaction has been and always will be an essential part of human interaction, particularly in business and professional settings.

Relationships of this nature boast practicality and accountability, which are necessary for enhancing business relations.

"Transactional relationships are an inevitable and often necessary component of society," explains licensed psychologist Nicholas Forlenza, PhD.

“There is a directness to a transactional relationship and clear utility to engaging in such interactions, often with mutual benefit. However, there is little room for meaningful connection by the very definition of this kind of relationship.”

In romantic or platonic relationships, transactional elements such as commitment are expected in exchange for reciprocity and care. In fact, this level of exchange is almost welcomed.

But when the relationship involves doing things for the other person only if there is some exchange, trust and intimacy can be severely undermined, eroding the genuine connection and leaving behind what can only be described as a business relationship.

Author of Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence, Kristen Ghodsee, puts an interesting spin on transactional relationships from the female perspective – the impact of gender roles and the economy.

Ghodsee points out that when women have economic freedom and stability through paternity leave, equal access to the workforce, healthcare, child care, and other stability-enhancing services, they rarely seek transactional relationships.

Women who thrive socio-economically seldom pursue a partner solely and primarily for monetary security.

Interestingly, Ghodsee draws a link between capitalism and other systems on relationships.

She believes intimacy exists as nothing more than veils hiding the transactional nature of our relationships.

However, Ghodsee asserts that intimate relationships free from the transactional ethos of sexual economics theory are generally more honest, authentic, and built to last.

Healthy relationships focus on connection and intimacy, which are difficult to come by from a transactional perspective.

Transactional relationships often lack the social emotions – empathy, guilt and pride – vital for deep human connections.

When these vital social emotions are absent, the result can be existential isolation.

Isn’t it strange that we are the most connected we’ve ever been yet face the highest loneliness and depression rates of any generation?

This profound loneliness surfaces when individuals feel their experiences are uniquely misunderstood or unrecognisable by others.

When considered in the context of transactional relationships, one’s sense of connection can be eroded. As one writer puts it, we lose our inherent need for authentic human connections.

Of course, reciprocity exists, but because these relationships don’t require much more than superficial exchanges, an absence of deep emotional bonds persists. One study found that superficial connections, while seemingly harmless, can create a profound sense of solitude, causing individuals to feel alone even in the presence of others if they lack deep, meaningful relationships.

These superficial connections can lead to various forms of isolation, including existential, intrapersonal and interpersonal isolation, which can have significant psychological impacts on individuals.

In this fast-paced, constantly connected era, it’s far too easy to become sucked into the rinse-and-repeat relationship dynamic. But is that what we truly want?

The bottom line is that transactional expectations exist in most interactions, especially those defined by intimacy, connection and mutual respect. The struggle, it seems, is twofold: How do we navigate the complexities of the transactional era when desirous of genuine connections, and do we have the guts to accept that maybe a life of transactional relations is precisely the endeavour we wish to pursue?