Situationships: An Emergent Political Phenomena?

“Situationships” are phenomena that abound in our generation. As I understand it, a situationship arises out of two conditions. Firstly, two parties must possess desire(s) that differ from each other. Secondly, they must refuse to reconcile these differing desire(s) while still acknowledging some relationship with each other. Thus, a situationship is no more than two parties agreeing to disagree, meaning that they recognize their own desires while also refusing to acknowledge or, at the very least, accept another’s desire. Evidently, then, “situationships” are the mutual but equally immutable recognition of non-recognition. Or, restated, a “situationship” is an agreement that two parties will refuse to define something.

This, however, is curious: What does it mean to agree to define something as non-definitive? What are the consequences of non-definition — of two parties, perhaps now willingly acknowledging their differing desires while also choosing to ignore their competing and conflicting interests when they arise? If we cannot share a common experience, we cannot have a shared reality. Without a shared reality, we cannot share objectivity — there can be no objectivity. What then? It seems that the idea and possibility of accountability, of mutual recognition, of right and wrong, good and bad, are not merely implausible but, in fact, impossible under such conditions. If neither party accepts, in principle, that such differences exist and that they may and, in fact, do conflict with each other, then is there any possibility of accountability? By “accountability,” I mean whether either party may attempt to assert their authority over another in order to reconcile their differences. Thus, restated, can justice — i.e., everyone receiving what they deserve — exist if neither party refuses to mutually acknowledge their own desires, and each other’s, as equal? Furthermore, can justice exist if neither party refuses to reconcile such differences when they arise or, conversely, completely accepts another’s desire(s)? Are situationships meaningless in themselves, or is their inherent meaninglessness still, paradoxically, meaningful?

I suppose, then, what I’m asking is what are — if there are any — cultural, social, and political implications of situationships? Does what appears to be a nominal and trivial phenomenon reflect broader social and cultural changes in society? If so, what may and what are their broader implications? Is meaning in and of itself under assault? Do we all agree on what is and is not? How might we come to such an agreement if only to create the possibility of accountability and, therefore, justice? I suppose this may reflect nothing more than a brief moment in time. Nonetheless, I wonder what will come next.