The Emotional Security Dilemma: What International Relations Theory Teaches Us About Love and Loss

As a student of international relations I keep looking to the security dilemma to ensure my emotional stability when it comes to my ex. The security dilemma is the inability to distinguish offensive from defensive military structures, forcing states to assume the worst and build up their defenses until it becomes too threatening to their rivals and they go to war. The security dilemma is a tragdey: the war is the result of misunderstanding the actions of the other side. Like states, we must also put our own emotional security first-- risk hurting someone else before being hurt--but we also operate in a world where guessing can result in destroying something or someone because of misunderstandings.

Throughout my relationships and listening to my friends' relationship troubles a trend reveals itself: we like to know why. A guy stops calling, sleeps with someone else, dumps you, leaves town-- while the action in itself screams "he's not that into you," that is just not enough. The why factor haunts us and then becomes the even more damaging what if factor which makes us reach for the Ben and Jerrys.

The struggle of whys and what ifs need never be approached alone: that is what our friends are for! In efforts to be supportive we come up with everything that could explain this behavior: he wants to make you jealous, he needed more attention, his cell phone was eaten by a dog, someone had to be hospitalized at the last minute, he was hit by a truck...There are a million reasons to explain the why. The problem is that in our efforts to pursue the why we abandon the facts for hope. This is where we get the emotional security dilemma: the facts are coupled with assumptions which lead to actions based on the assumptions rather than the facts.

International relations theory has some ideas on how to alleviate the security dilemma. The most preferred method is transparency. This is true for relationships as well. If both sides can trust one another and be open and honest then the emotional risk is minimal. Yet, as we know, with some relationships suspicions cannot be overcome, and there is rarely one hundred percent trust. How can there be? Like countries, there is no overarching government to force your significant other to be honest with you. There are no relationship police to arrest him for cheating and as a result trust can only go so far, especially when past experience or odd behavior triggers suspicions.

The other ideas the scholars of the security dilemma have come up with involve interventions, complex truth enhancing structures (think couples therapy) and separation. That is right, just keep them away from each other so that it is impossible for either party to hurt the other, because its not feasible anymore. This method can only work to an extent. With mutual friends, the internet, living in the same general area-- there is only so much one can do to eliminate someone from their mind and life.

The most practical solution, in relationships, is to operate without assumptions-- then make decisions. I will use an example based on my personal life to illustrate what I mean. My ex-boyfriend recently began advertising a new girlfriend. The fact he was dating someone was previously unknown to our mutual friends as well as myself (as I chose partition, shout out to Chaim Kaufmann for all you IR nerds out there)-- and the public venue he chose to inform the world would ensure that yours truly would become aware quickly. In efforts to cope with both the sadness of losing him even more and the anger resulting from the malicious desire to shove it in my face, I have started enhancing the security dilemma. In efforts to protect myself I have turned to friends, family and my own ideas for how to handle the situation. In conversations filled with suggestions on how to reciprocate in kind (dress like a slut and put pictures online), explanations (he misses you, wants to make you jealous, is playing a cruel joke) and of course comforts (she is an ugly bitch)-- I have learned that my emotional security is put at risk allowing myself to believe or act on any of these: what I know is that he has moved on and what that means is that my life goes on without him--as it has been.

The why factor is almost always a guessing game and the ability to rely on those guesses results in fears, questions, and often emotional hardship. While the struggle to understand why someone you love would hurt you, abandon you, forget you, etc. allowing yourself to search for reasons leaves you tragically emotionally screwed. The facts are hard to face in these cases but the facts are the best mechanism for understanding: if he cheated, if he has moved on, if he doesn't call, does it really matter why? Is it worth your emotional turmoil to understand 'why' when you could alternatively ask 'what now?' This way, you keep your actions restricted to what you know, and allowing your defenses to remain in tact. If you are in the relationship, you will hopefully have the transparency and trust to find out the way-- but those struggling with the why means that they are operating under the emotional security dilemma. It is tragic either way-- your significant other hurt you-- but by looking the 'what now' it makes your options much more clear and controlled. (Perhaps if some of these aggressor states were more introspective World War I would be a worst case scenario-- not a reality).

For me, it hurts me but it didn't change me. I alleviate the emotional security dilemma by facing the facts and operating under no assumptions about 'why?' So 'what now?' I have a date with my dissertation-- no one can take that from me (although if anyone wants to volunteer, Id trade for a lesser commitment-- I just got out of a relationship after all!).