"During
courtship," I noted, "two individuals should be taking a look at the degree of
conformational compatibility of the entire range of their respective packages of primary
and tertiary structures involving their preference hierarchies.
Usually,
however, many people get caught up with just a few points of attraction, such as, say,
sexuality and family, while overlooking much of the rest of the dynamics of the way two
preference hierarchy sequences operate, not only within themselves, but in relation to the
other person's primary and tertiary structures, as well.
"Even
if we were to limit attention to just the small set of themes that form the primary sites
of relational activity of two people's folded preference sequences, most people don't look
at the dynamics of the situation very closely. I'll give an example of what I mean here.
"Let's
assume that person 'A' has a primary activity site consisting of themes such as family,
security, sexuality, commitment and spirituality. Let's further assume that person 'B' has
a primary activity site consisting of independence, sexuality, commitment, security and
family.
"On the
surface, there would seem to be quite a bit of compatibility between these two people.
Four out of five of the indicated themes match- namely, family, security, sexuality and
commitment."
"In
reality, however, there may be very different kinds of dynamics and interpretive processes
going on within each person in relation to the themes which form their respective active
relational sites. To begin with, we don't know the precise sequence of the preference
hierarchy rankings for either of these people.
"In
addition, we don't know how the attractive and repulsive tendencies in their different
preference orderings cause the respective sequences to fold in order to form the active
sites in question. Moreover, we don't even know what each of the people means by the
themes that are thought to be held in common.
"Each
of the two, for example, has the themes of sexuality and family as part of their active
site. But, do they necessarily value them or think about them in the same way?
"For
one person, sexuality may be a means to having a family. For the other person, family may
be considered to be an incidental outcome of sexuality.
"One
individual may look at family purely in terms of the notion of a nuclear family and
considers the notion of an extended family to be both intrusive as well as problem-laden.
The other person may believe that an extended family enriches and supports the nuclear
family and is, therefore, something which is very fundamental and necessary.
"One
person may look for security through relationships. The other individual may feel security
is rooted in money and property.
"Person
'A' believes commitment is something the other person needs to provide. Person 'B' feels
the same way.
"The
independence of person 'B' and the spirituality of person 'A' may or may not find a way to
coexist. A lot depends on the kind of independence and spirituality one is talking about,
and a lot depends on how independence and spirituality fit into their respective
preference sequences.
"Presumably,
of course there would be very few, if any, instances in which the primary and tertiary
structures of both individuals would be perfectly compatible. Consequently, the problem is
one of trying to assess the relative degrees of compatibility and incompatibility that are
present.
"To
complicate matters, the preference hierarchy sequences of many people often do not remain
the same over the course of a lifetime. Sometimes these alterations are relatively minor,
and sometimes the transformations in the hierarchy are considerable.
"When
one looks at the incredible complexity of the problems involved in matching up the primary
and tertiary structures of two people, one is struck by a number of considerations.
Firstly, one should not be surprised by the high incidence of divorce, separation and
general unhappiness in most marriages. Secondly, one should be surprised by the existence
of relationships which are characterized by any degree of long-term stability, happiness
and fulfilment.
"Thirdly,
in light of all the domestic and social problems that arise out of couples with
non-matching preference hierarchies, one can't help but be surprised that so few, if any,
of our primary and secondary schools devote time to helping students learn about the ways
in which the ranking, interpreting and dynamics of the twenty-plus themes mentioned
earlier has both short-term and long-term consequences for the health and success of one's
relationships with other people."
Jennifer
said: "At the risk of inviting the wrath of the powers that be, I'm still waiting for
some kind of clarification on the significance of secondary structure in both proteins as
well as preference hierarchies. If you delay much more in providing an explanation for
what you claim is a matter of family values, I'm going to begin to suspect you're really a
politician running for office who's trying to dodge the tough issues."
"Those
are potentially slanderous sentiments, young lady, especially the politician angle,"
I charged. "I find them most offensive and foul.
"However,"
I offered, in a more conciliatory tone, "since you have, once again, persisted in
raising this matter, I feel the time has come for me speak on this matter of secondary
structure. I'm sure, after hearing my explanation, you will see I have been neither hiding
nor dodging anything. Hopefully, these vicious innuendoes concerning my integrity will be
laid to rest once and for all."
Sniffing
away the last of my pseudo-indignation, I said: "Although there are exceptions to the
rule, nonetheless, the conformational shapes of the vast majority of proteins fall into
two broad categories of classification. One category of proteins is known as fibrous, and
the other conformational type is referred to as globular.
"Globular
proteins are relatively tightly coiled structures, assuming, as their name indicates, a
globular or spherical form. Most of the, roughly, two thousand enzymes about which
biologists know are examples of globular proteins. In addition, there are a number of
proteins with transport or hormonal functions, that also are globular in nature.
Furthermore, all of the antibodies fall under the globular category of proteins.
"Much,
but not all, of the protein theory of relationships is built around the properties and
qualities of globular proteins. Nonetheless, there still is room in the theory to
accommodate some of the characteristics of fibrous proteins as well.
"Generally
speaking, fibrous proteins are made up of chains of polypeptides that run in parallel with
one another along a given axis. This category of protein constitutes the essential
material that forms, among other things, connective tissue in more complex animals. Such
fibrous proteins are found in bones, tendons and elastic connective tissue.
"The,
now infamous, secondary structure of proteins refers to the repetitive arrangement of
polypeptides that extends longitudinally along one dimension. The backbone of these kinds
of polypeptide chain often are either helically coiled or run in a zig-zag fashion down
the length of the chain.
"Sometimes,
a number of individual helical coils wind themselves around one another in the same manner
in which strands of hemp are intertwined to form a length of rope. This is referred to as
supercoiling.
"If we
substitute, once again, the notion of a preference hierarchy sequence for a polypeptide
chain, then one has little difficulty in applying the idea of secondary structure to human
relations. For example, the recurring arrangement of polypeptide chains that is
characteristic of secondary structure can be likened to the members of a family.
"Taken
collectively, relationships among the members of the family constitute the connective
tissue that binds the family together. This is especially clear in the case of supercoiled
helical structures whose individual strands or 'lives' become intertwined over time.
"Just
as the functional effectiveness of a given kind of connective tissue will depend on both
the quality of its individual polypeptide chains as well as on the way these chains of
polypeptides interact with one another, so, too, is this the case with respect to the
character and dynamics of the preference hierarchy sequences of the members of a family.
In both polypeptide chains and preference sequences, defective features in either of the
foregoing two aspects of the secondary structure of connective tissue could lead to
problematic functioning in such tissue.
"Dysfunctional
families arise out of the way the preference hierarchies of the individual members of the
family play off against, and affect, one another. Any one, or combination, of the
twenty-plus themes I mentioned earlier could be the source of difficulties in a family.
Differences among family members in ranking hierarchies, or differences of interpretation
concerning the meaning and significance of many themes, or pathological dynamics involving
the interaction of the preference hierarchies of family members, can all contribute to the
manner in which a family is dysfunctional."
