In his book the Road Less Travelled, M. Scott argues that couples cannot resolve fundamental issues such as dependency vs independency, dominance, and submission in a healthy way without the security of knowing that the process of struggling over these issues will not destroy the relationship.
Committed relationships are not static destinations but dynamic engagements that require constant calibration. At the heart of this complexity lies the idea that healthy partnerships don’t resolve tensions between opposing needs—they learn to hold them simultaneously. Understanding and managing these polarities, rather than trying to eliminate them, is essential for relationship longevity and satisfaction.
The Polarity Principle
A polarity is not a problem to be solved but a paradox to be managed. Each pole represents a valid human need, and the challenge lies not in choosing one over the other, but in honouring both. When couples rigidly cling to one end of a polarity, they inevitably experience the downsides of that extreme whilst missing the benefits of its opposite.
Five Critical Polarities
Dependence-Independence: Every individual in a relationship needs both connection and autonomy. Too much dependence creates enmeshment, eroding individual identity and breeding resentment. Too much independence produces isolation and emotional distance. Healthy couples oscillate between “we” and “me”, creating space for both interdependence and self-sufficiency.
Submission-Dominance: Whilst these terms might sound uncomfortable, all relationships navigate questions of influence and decision-making. Complete submission breeds powerlessness and loss of self; constant dominance creates inequality and stifles the partner’s voice. Mature relationships allow for fluid exchanges of leadership depending on context, expertise, and needs—sometimes one partner leads, sometimes the other, sometimes decisions are genuinely collaborative.
Fidelity-Freedom: Committed relationships require devotion and reliability, yet humans also need a sense of agency and choice. Excessive restriction creates rebellion or suffocation; too much freedom can erode trust and security. This polarity isn’t about negotiating physical boundaries alone—it encompasses emotional autonomy, the freedom to maintain separate friendships, interests, and aspects of identity whilst remaining faithful to shared commitments.
Exclusion-Belonging: Couples must balance the intimacy of their private bond with openness to the wider world. A relationship that excludes all others becomes insular and potentially toxic, cutting partners off from essential support systems and perspectives. Conversely, insufficient boundaries around the relationship—allowing excessive interference from family, friends, or competing priorities—weakens the partnership’s foundation. The couple must be a sanctuary without becoming a prison.
Attachment-Exploration: Security and novelty are both fundamental human needs. Too much attachment without exploration leads to stagnation, boredom, and the death of curiosity. Too much exploration without secure attachment creates anxiety and instability. Thriving relationships provide a secure base from which both partners can venture into new experiences, interests, and personal growth, knowing they have a safe harbour to return to.
The Practice of Polarity Management
Managing these polarities requires ongoing awareness, conversations, and adjustment. Partners must recognise when they’ve drifted too far toward one pole and consciously correct course. This isn’t failure—it’s the natural rhythm of intimate partnership. The goal is not perfect balance at every moment but rather a dynamic equilibrium over time, with both individuals feeling that their needs across all polarities are generally met.
Relationships that embrace this complexity, rather than seeking simplistic solutions, develop the resilience and depth that sustain love across decades.