I spent some time thinking about this short article that explores "the difference between good relationships and good transactions" where a 'good relationship' is "unique, organic, and empathetic, helping us understand when to invest in building relationships versus when a transaction suffices." What made me think wasn't the distinction itself, which seems straightforward, but the terminology used. The way 'relationship' is defined blends elements of different constructs - we have 'unique' and 'sustained', which to me describes a 'connection', but in addition there is the presumption that relationships are embodied, as evidenced by 'organic' and 'empathetic'. The connection describes the relationship itself, while the embodied element describes the thing that is related. The transaction side, meanwhile, describes the exchange that happens between two entities, as opposed to the connections between them. The world view of this article doesn't grant (or doesn't require?) embodiment for transactions to occur. I would ask whether the author intended to distinguish between embodied and non?-embodied entities here, or whether it's just phrasing.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
