It is generally believed that once upon a time humans lived in tribes small enough that everybody knew everybody else personally. That was a long time ago; for thousands of years, most of us have lived in societies large enough that it is no longer possible to know everyone we interact with individually. One of the strategies we use for coping with this otherwise unmanageable complexity is to generalize the roles which people are playing in our interactions with them. Once we have identified the role someone is performing - and there are far fewer different roles than there are different people - we know how to interact with them even if we know little about them. It is likely that I can interact perfectly well with all the store clerks, bus drivers, and bank tellers I encounter today even if I know nothing about them. It's possible that I can even do the same with all my own customers and employees. This state of affairs is sometimes criticized as "dehumanizing", but it is better than the most likely alternative, a complete breakdown of society stemming from an inability to conduct any transactions without exchanging life stories first. It may be unsatisfying at times, but interacting in known roles is a great boon for getting things done, and getting them done efficiently.
The playing of roles, historically, has extended into our most intimate interactions - we might interact with our Husband or Wife (chosen by our Parents for economic or political reasons), our Daughters, and Sons in the context of these named roles. Recently, in the industrialized first world, there has been a trend away from this, towards individual choices in our personal lives. For at least the last two generations, it has been seen as normal to make our own choices for Husband or Wife - although we're still generally stuck with what we get for Parents and Children.
Almost everyone still thinks in terms of roles when dealing with employment or business, but the same is not true for intimate or personal interactions. As ongoing economic trends favoring nontraditional families and fewer children have diminished the significance of the original objectives, we have seen not only increased choice in filling the roles but changes to the roles themselves. Absent any particular objectives, some people are doing away with roles entirely in their personal lives - instead of writing the script first and then casting for it, they run their personal lives like an improvisation, first assembling a cast they like and then deciding the plot based on these people's interests and abilities. We now find significant variation in emphasis between the What and the Whom, with some people primarily focused on one, some on the other, and others somewhere in the middle.
Each of these strategies have strengths and weaknesses, and neither is dominated by the other in all situations. Problems seem to occur not as an inherent property of either strategy, but in interactions between two or more people who have dissimilar views. As long as the people and the roles they're playing are well aligned, things go smoothly. Almost nobody is completely perfect for the role in which they were cast, however - even if the role was originally written for them, they're sure to change and diverge in some ways over the years, and this is when the problems start. The more role-oriented person (we'll call him or her Robin) will find that the more personality- oriented person (called Pat) is underperforming and needs to improve. Pat will find this unwarranted, or perhaps even absurd, and assert that if Robin wants different functions performed, Robin should get them from somebody else who actually wants to perform them.
The situation will look very different depending on which side one is on, so I'd like to talk a bit about the two of them separately. I'll focus on intimate relations, such as with a prospective spouse or dating partner, since this is one of the areas in which differences seem to manifest themselves as problems the most often. Suppose that you're Pat, focused more on individual personalities and the particular people you want in your life, and less on what roles they're going to play. Robin will probably seem, when you first meet, somewhat rigid and traditional. Robin will talk about interacting with people in a certain way "because" of their roles or relationships, perhaps using phrases such as "well, I have to do that, because she's my [mother/wife/daughter/etc.]" You may feel like Robin is trying to force you into something you don't fit, like a square peg into a round hole, pushing harder and harder and genuinely wondering why the peg doesn't want to go. If you persist in not wanting to play the role, Robin may dismiss you entirely and search for someone else more willing, instead of modifying the role to suit your needs and desires.
If the two of you are already involved, you may find that Robin is critical of you when you gain or lose interests. If you find that you have less in common than you used to, and are thinking about moving on or looking for other people whose personalities match yours better, Robin is likely to tell you that you have a moral obligation to stick with it and find a way to make it work out, perhaps using phrases like "commitment" and "for the sake of the relationship." Robin may speak of the relationship itself as an entity, whose needs may be more important than those of the individuals.
Now, suppose you're Robin, focused on the roles people play in your life and your relationship to them. Pat, upon first meeting, will probably seem vague about desires and goals. You may be concerned about how Pat treats family and perhaps intimate partners, failing to give them the respect and priority which is due to them; conversely, Pat may seem inappropriately intimate with mere friends or acquaintances. You'll probably find that Pat initially seems interested in being part of your life, but then becomes unwilling to commit for no apparent reason. Pat may say something about liking you but not wanting to have the relationship you want to have. Overall, Pat might seem immature and not yet ready to settle down, regardless of actual age.
If you're already involved, and beginning to have problems, you'll probably find that Pat is not willing to try very hard to resolve those problems. You may feel like Pat is not being serious about being committed to the relationship and lacks coping strategies other than giving up and moving on. You're likely believe that you tried much harder for Pat than Pat is willing to try for you, and perhaps resent this or think that you're a better person than Pat is.
It may help to see that there is some value in the other point of view. Those who are against roles should note that they give us a starting point and a language in which to discuss our interactions and expectations. Those who are in favor should note that they have not remained constant over time or across societies, and each change and adaptation started with somebody who didn't agree to follow the existing roles. As far as your personal situation goes, it is probably best to recognize that there is a limit to the size of the gap that can be spanned. If you want to be with someone whose view differs slightly from yours, it can be seen as a frustrating idiosyncracy to be worked around. Trying to be with someone all the way at the other end of the spectrum, though, might just be a bad plan.
Once you've decided to try to make it work, recognize that compromise will be required, and figure out in which direction, which depends on your partner's tendencies relative to your own. Robin will have to accept a weaker and less specific commitment than he or she would like to have, and Pat will have to give a stronger and more specific one than he or she would like to make. Hopefully it will be possible to find some middle ground which, while ideal for neither, is acceptable to both.
Robin, the more role-oriented person of the two, should try to identify a minimal set of properites that the role has, assuring its fundamental function while leaving as much flexibility as possible. Pat needs to decide whether making a commitment to this minimum set is possible. Some back and forth negotiation may be involved. I recommend including in the discussion what circumstances would be considered sufficient to justify substantial changes to, or dissolution of, the relationship. The more role-oriented person may think that these things are never justified at all, but I advise against trying to extract such a commitment - even if made, it represents such a sacrifice that it probably will not be kept. Instead, seek a commitment to follow a certain compromise procedure, perhaps involving a certain amount of effort or time trying to make things work, prior to any dissolution or major restructuring. Also keep in mind that, even if you were motivated exclusively by self interest, it would be unwise to push your partner too far - doing so would be likely to result in insincere agreement which would not be honored subsequently, a lose-lose situation that won't work well for anyone.
An awareness of the variability in people's preferences for individual personality or prescribed roles may help explain some behaviors you previously found puzzling, and a willingness to work with it can provide options for creating a win-win situation, which is, after all, what a relationship ought to be.
You can now return to the consistent.org main page or look at my personal web page.