Let's imagine a relationship like this: One says, "When I tell you something, you put me off, and that makes me sad." The other says, "I listen to you over and over again, but once I get distracted, you get offended. The other says, "I listen to you over and over again, but once I get distracted, you get offended. That makes me sad."
Both sides have opened up, but do we like the result? Instead of the expected closeness, a small snag turned into a rift.
Then let's ask ourselves: Why is it sometimes not enough just to share our feelings? How can we weave the webs of true connection in a relationship?
We all have moments in our lives when we say "we talk the same thing but we don't get along". In this article, we will try to go beyond emotional openness and explore together how to build a shared world of meaning in relationships.
Philosophical and Scientific Background
Philosophical perspective:
Hans-Georg Gadamer - The Fusion of Horizons
(1*)
Gadamer, one of the most important German philosophers of the 20th century, based his philosophy on the "art of understanding". Gadamer, one of the most important German philosophers of the 20th century, is one of the most important representatives of the hermeneutic tradition.
He does not see meaning as something that exists in the mind of the individual alone; he claims that it emerges through the encounter of different perspectives.
When he refers to the fusion of horizons, what he means by "horizon" is the field of meaning that arises from one's own historical, cultural and personal background.
When two people meet, each brings his or her own horizon to the table. If each party is stuck with only their own horizons, they cannot truly understand the other.
But in mutual dialogue, these horizons begin to fuse...
I meet your horizon with my own background, experience and prejudices; you touch mine with your own knowledge. What emerges is a new meaning that neither of us has on our own.
If we apply this to relationships, we see that emotional openness is really only about expressing our own feelings. But what we call "shared meaning" is going beyond these feelings and bringing together my feelings and your feelings, my values and your values.
As Gadamer says, the real deal is not "you being right" or "me winning"; it is the expansion of both our horizons, the creation of a shared space of meaning.
Emmanuel Levinas - How accepting the existence of the other creates an ethical ground.
French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995) bases his philosophy entirely on the "other person". According to him, for centuries western philosophy has always focused on the "I."
"Who am I, how do I know, how can I be free?"
Levinas, on the other hand, turned the question upside down:
"What does my freedom become when I encounter the other?"
Levinas's famous concept is "face."
According to him, the face of the other makes a direct appeal to us: "Don't kill me, don't harm me, treat me responsibly." (2*)
This call precedes any law or rule. In other words, ethics is not a "moral code" written in a book, but a living relationship with the being of the other human being. (3*)
If we look at it in the context of relationships, it shows us that:
Openness to our feelings alone is not enough. Because it remains only "me" centered... I am sad, I am hurt, I am happy...
But the real connection starts with acknowledging the other's feelings, existence and vulnerability. When we recognize the other's existence, our openness is now on an ethical basis. In this way, we realize that it is not enough to just pour out our heart, we also realize the necessity of taking responsibility towards the other.
In an argument, simply saying "I am very hurt" is opening up our feelings. But to be able to say "I am offended, but I see that you are also under pressure" is the ethical encounter Levinas is referring to. There, the existence of the other is acknowledged.
In other words, Levinas is telling us that:
Common meaning in relationships arises not only from the sharing of mutual feelings, but also from recognizing the existence of the other as an ethical responsibility.
Paul Ricoeur - The power of narrative
The French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005) reminds us: The human being is made up not only of the events he or she experiences, but also of how he or she narrates those events. We all construct our identity by telling our own story.
According to Ricoeur, narrative is not just the transmission of the past; it is a way of making a whole of what we have experienced, of connecting the pieces, and of answering the question "who am I?". (4*)
What does this mean for relationships? At the beginning each has their own separate life story. But as the relationship progresses, shared memories, rituals, jokes, even pain, become a "shared story". This common narrative is not only the juxtaposition of two individuals, but also the foundation of what it means to be "us". (5*)
That is to say, "I open myself to you, my feelings, but what we call common meaning is the story we build with you."
What we can call "our story" when we remember it one day is what will sustain the relationship.
In relationships, identity emerges not only from individual selves, but from shared narratives.
Scientific Perspective
Shared Reality Theory in Social Psychology
I don't think it is enough to define a person only by their individual beliefs and feelings. We actually find ourselves in the realities we share with others as well as in our own reality.
Shared reality theory tells us that: The most powerful way to bond is to share the same world of meaning. (6*)
Let's think about everyday life...
When we laugh at something, we immediately feel a sense of "closeness" when the person next to us laughs at the same thing.
Or when we get angry about something in the same way, it makes us think that we have the same values. This is not just a pleasant coincidence; our brains form social bonds based on shared emotions and meanings.
Research shows that when people share a common belief or value, trust increases, communication becomes more fluid and relationships are more resilient. Conversely, when people interpret the same event in completely different ways, a feeling of "we are in different worlds" develops over time, which causes them to drift apart.
In the context of relationships, we see that:
Explaining our feelings is important, but it is incomplete if we do not establish a common reality. So it's not just "this is how I feel", but also "how do we understand this event, what is our common language".
Common reality is like a second pillar beyond emotional openness for the long-term stability of relationships.
Neuroscience: Mirror Neurons
In experiments conducted at the University of Parma in the 1990s, a group of neuroscientists witnessed an interesting phenomenon in the brains of monkeys.
The same neurons that fired when the monkey picked up a banana and ate it with its own hand also fired when the monkey simply watched someone else eating a banana. (7*)
In other words, the animal was "experiencing" someone else's action as if it were doing it itself. These cells were called "mirror neurons."
Human beings have a similar system.
When someone yawns, we yawn too; when we see someone crying, we get a lump in our throat; even when a soccer player breaks his leg, we feel the pain on the field as we watch... (8*)
All of these are the result of the work of mirror neurons.
This mechanism is of great importance in terms of relationships:
Thanks to mirror neurons, we do not only "observe" the behavior and emotion of another person; we also experience an echo of it in our own body and brain.
This is the biological basis for empathy. Both the joy and the sadness of the other person can "rub off" on us.
Thus, we connect not only with words but also with our nervous systems.
If we look at this in terms of relationships, we see the following:
Let's imagine a couple. One of the partners comes home with a lot of stress from work, and it is obvious from his face, his body, his tone of voice, that he is sullen, depressed, exhausted.
Even if his partner doesn't hear anything at that moment, he may feel uneasy inside himself. This is not only because of "emotional intuition", but also because, thanks to the mirror neurons of our brain, that stress has a physiological counterpart in us.
This shows us this: Even if we don't open our feelings, our bodies already read each other. A common bond is established not only through words, but also through the reflective capacity of our nerve cells.
In short, the search for shared meaning is not just a cultural or psychological issue; it is a phenomenon that extends to the most basic functioning of our brains and makes us "us".
In relationships, the phrase "I feel your pain" reflects not a metaphor, but a biological fact.
Toplumsal / Kültürel Perspektif
Balance Between "Me" and "Us" in the Age of Individualization
One of the most powerful values imposed on us by the modern age is individualism. Calls to "forge your own path", "seek your own happiness" or "be yourself" have become the motto of everyday life.
This is a liberating development, because one is free from the tight bonds of tradition and authority and can direct one's own life.
But individualization also has some side effects: When we constantly put the "I" at the center, we can neglect the "we". This tension also manifests itself in relationships.
On the one hand we want to be independent, free, self-determined individuals. On the other hand, we feel a deep need for connection, belonging and "togetherness".
This contradiction has become something we see everywhere we look today. It is no coincidence that while "self-expression" is at the forefront of social media culture, at the same time everyone is looking for deep connections.
While we are polishing our individual identities, we are also trying to build visible "we "s: couple poses, family stories, friend rituals...
The situation in relationships doesn't look much different.
Too much "me" focus makes it difficult to create shared meaning, because both parties are centered on their own needs.
Too much "we" focus stifles individuality and destroys personal space.
The way to establish a healthy bond is to balance these two poles.
Without giving up our own "I", but without getting lost in the "we", we can create a common space of meaning.
In short, the dilemma of modern society is this: We want to be a unique individual, but we also want to belong to a "we". The effort to create common meaning in relationships is an attempt to bring this dilemma into balance.
Word Abundance in Digital Communication, Decreasing Depth of Meaning
Today we have unlimited communication tools at our disposal. Messages, tweets, comments, WhatsApp groups...
Words are more abundant than ever. Sometimes we even find ourselves in several different conversations at the same time.
But here's the irony: As the words increase, the meaning seems to decrease. (9*)
Sentences written quickly in the digital environment are often superficial. Emojis, abbreviations, ready-made phrases look like "communication" but they do not replace the real emotion, a deeper meaning, on the contrary, they increase misunderstandings and can undermine communication.
Therefore, although we use the same word over and over again, we cannot convey what we "really" mean to the other person.
This situation also manifests itself in relationships.
If saying "I love you" to someone becomes an automatic message written ten times a day, it loses its old effect over time. Even if we share the same words, the emotional intensity of the words is drained. (10*)
This is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to connect in the digital age. We talk a lot, but we understand less. There is an abundance of words, but the lack of common meaning deepens.
This is why words alone are not enough in relationships; face-to-face contact, common rituals, even shared silences can carry more meaning than digital communication.
Real Problems and Solutions
Problems:
Misunderstanding Emotional Openness: Spilling your guts doesn't always mean building shared meaning.
For most of us, what comes to mind when we think of "emotional openness" is spilling our guts. Saying what's on our minds, sharing what we feel out of the blue... And most of the time we think: "If I share my feelings openly, the problem will be solved, the bond between us will be strengthened."
But this is not always the case. Because emotional openness is not the same as common sense.
Expression is individual. When we open up, what we say to the other person is nothing more than: "This is how I feel."
Common sense making is a relational process. When we and the person with whom we share our emotion look at the emotion that has opened up together and come to a common understanding of "How do we understand this emotion, what does it mean in our relationship?"
We can think of the difference as follows:
Disclosure is a monologue. I tell, you listen. Creating shared meaning is a dialog. I express my emotion, you respond to it in your own world and together we create a new meaning.
For example, when one partner says "You don't care about me as much as you used to", this is an emotional openness. But if the other partner hears this as an accusation and becomes defensive, there is no new shared meaning.
On the contrary, this kind of emotional openness can increase the conflict.
Common meaning only emerges when we ask questions such as: "What does it mean to be cared for? How can I make you feel better? What need did you have to say that?"
In short, openness alone is not enough.
Disclosure is only the first step; the challenge is to turn this openness into a common language that grows the relationship.
Without a Common Value Language "Thinking We Talk About the Same Things"
One of the biggest misconceptions in relationships, When we use the same words, we assume that we mean the same things. Each word comes with its own value and experience.
Let's take the word "loyalty" as an example.
For one person in a relationship, loyalty may mean never having an emotional connection with another person, while for the other it may be limited to not physically cheating.
The same word is spoken, but the content is different. Unless the question "What does fidelity mean to you?" is asked, the two parties are actually talking about different things but don't realize it.
Or let's take the word "love".
For one person, saying "I love you" often may be enough to show love. For the other, showing love may mean being supportive, making small gestures.
Both talk about love, but they don't speak the same language.
In this example, even if they are both showing love, they will both think that the other is not showing love.
This is why it is so critical to establish a common value language. Without clarifying the meanings behind the words, conversations look the same on the surface but miss each other deep down. And it is precisely because of this "seeming agreement, meaning different things in reality" that most conflicts grow.
In short: Using the same words does not mean we share the same world.
Common meaning is only built when we clarify our values and redefine them together.
How Silent Assumptions Generate Conflict Over Time
In relationships, we often don't feel the need to say things. We make silent assumptions such as "he already understands", "why talk about it", "shouldn't it already be like this?". At first they seem small and insignificant.
But as long as these assumptions remain unspoken, different expectations grow in secret. What is "normal" for me may not be for you. But because neither of us speaks, the difference goes unnoticed. Over time, this leads to frustration.
I may think "this is what he/she should have done", while you may believe something else. In the end, the conflict of "you don't understand me at all" becomes inevitable.
Let's take another example.
For one party, visiting family on holidays is essential; for the other, spending special occasions alone may be more valuable.
Such issues are not discussed at first, because everyone accepts their own assumptions as natural and correct. But over the years this difference can turn into a growing resentment and conflict.
Or for one person, "love" may be measured by frequent texting, while for another it may be "giving privacy". Unless assumptions are voiced, both parties feel that "he/she doesn't love me."
Silent assumptions are the invisible landmines of relationships. They don't cause problems at first, but when they build up, they are ready to explode.
The solution is something that seems simple but is difficult: expectations made explicit.
In short: Unspoken expectations are the seeds of future conflict.
Solution Suggestions
Creating Common Rituals and Symbols
The most powerful carriers of shared meaning in relationships are small but recurring rituals. Sometimes these are very simple things,
looking at each other and smiling over coffee every morning,
making a special greeting when you come home,
declaring one day of the week "our day",
or simply listening to a particular song together...
These may seem insignificant from the outside. But they are actually symbols that keep the "we" of the relationship alive. Because every ritual is a part of "our story".
Psychological research supports this.
When couples or families have their own little rituals, these relationships are more durable. This is because rituals are not only a habit, but also a carrier of identity: "This is who we are, these are the signs of our bond."
Philosophically, this meets Paul Ricoeur's concept of the "common story". Common rituals are living parts of a common narrative. In a way, they are tiny bridges that give continuity to the relationship.
A special joke that no one outside understands, but that we make with our spouse / loved one / sibling, makes us smile even years later.
When a couple chooses to celebrate the day they met, rather than their own birthday, it becomes a symbol of their bond.
A small habit that is maintained even in difficult times (for example, always shaking hands or hugging after an argument) increases the "reconnection" power of the relationship.
In short, common rituals are the invisible threads in relationships. When words fail, it is these small symbols that bind the parties back together.
John Gottman's "Love Maps" and Small Rituals
(11*)
John Gottman, known for his marriage and relationship research, He spent many years observing couples in the laboratory. One of his most striking findings was that it's not the grand romantic gestures that sustain a relationship, but the small but regular rituals.
He refers to what he calls "love maps": How well do you know your partner, how much do you know their little habits, their fears, their likes and dislikes? The more detailed this map is, the stronger the bond. And this bond is often strengthened by small shared rituals: a short chat before dinner, a kiss in the morning, periodic "we" conversations...
Gottman's research found that couples who maintained these small rituals were more resilient, even in times of crisis. This is because shared rituals serve as a "safe harbor" that reminds us of the relationship even in times of conflict or distance. (12*)
In other words, both daily life practices and scientific findings reveal the same truth: Common rituals and symbols are the invisible carriers of shared meaning in relationships.
Sharing Personal Values and Creating a "Map of Meaning"
In relationships, we often talk about everyday issues. Work, plans, bills, shopping... But what really keeps us together in the long run are the values we share. Because values are the invisible compass of our decisions.
For one person, "freedom" may be the highest value, while for another it may be "security". While "success" is very important for one person, "peace" may be more valuable for another. When these differences are left unspoken, they become tensions that silently exhaust the relationship.
This is where the "meaning map" comes in. When a couple knows each other's core values and makes visible the areas where these values intersect, it becomes easier to find common ground.
Let's take an example.
"Making time for family" may be a very important value for one party, while "personal development" may be more important for the other.
When meaning mapping is done, these two values can be made complementary instead of conflicting: "Let's spend one weekend with family and one with personal pursuits."
Or one may value "adventure" while the other values "stability". Recognizing different values makes it possible to find a middle ground.
John Gottman's research (also in the context of "love maps") has shown that recognizing each other's values increases relationship resilience. When values are not spoken, they generate conflict; when they are spoken, they become a map for shared meaning.
In short, common meaning in relationships begins with the sharing of personal values. Without asking the question "What is precious to you?", it is not possible to establish a true "we" language.
Effective Listening + Reframing: Developing a Common Language by Confirming What the Other Person is Saying
Most of the time when someone is speaking, we are not really listening; we are either preparing an answer in our heads or filtering it through our own perspective. This creates a distance between what is said and what is understood. This is where the importance of effective listening comes into play.
Effective listening is not just being silent; it means really hearing, understanding and reflecting back what you hear. So when the other person says:
"You don't care about me at all."
Instead of getting defensive or blaming the other person, it is important to be able to say:
"Do you feel left alone because you think I don't care? Is that why you think I don't care about you?"
With this kind of confirmation, the other person feels truly heard, which reduces the chances of misunderstanding.
But there is one more step here.
Reframing. That is, rephrasing what the other person has said, taking into account both our own perspective and his/her needs.
Say the other person says to us:
"You are always late, you don't value me."
With reframing, we could say:
"You say that when I am late, you feel like a second priority. Is my being on time for you an indication that I value you?"
Even this small difference takes the conversation out of the blame/defense cycle and allows for the establishment of a common language.
In psychology, the contribution of this method to relationships has been found to be very powerful. Because active listening and reframing is not only about "keeping the conversation going" but also about commonizing meaning.
I would say that common meaning is not found in the words themselves, but in how the words are heard and reflected back.
I said so many relationships, now I can give a small example from my own relationship.
My wife and I have been married for 13 years now. Thank God we have a sweet relationship. In these 13 years, maybe we haven't gone through dark paths, maybe we haven't drunk poisonous water, but I think we have created a lot of common meaning together.
My husband is more interested in subjects that are scientifically proven, and although I am the same way, unlike my husband, I am a person who likes to research mysterious, mystical subjects and talk about them.
In the beginning, this situation caused my husband to react in a way that was not scientific, and me to be sensitive and defensive, and to think that I was not understood.
Then we realized that this was not going to go on like this, so I said, okay, even if it is not scientific, let's talk as if we are talking about a fiction written in a book so that I can make my point.
This way, we were able to talk about both scientific subjects and mystical, fictional areas in a 'common language'.
Conclusion and Message to the Reader
While opening up our feelings may seem sufficient for the beginning, it must be supported by common meaning for a lasting bond.
You might ask yourself:
"In what ways do you build shared meaning with your loved ones?"
Creating shared meaning in relationships is possible not only by sharing feelings but also by making expectations visible.
Because most conflicts arise from unspoken or misunderstood expectations. In the next post, I will discuss how expectations, the invisible scripts of our minds, turn into disappointments, affecting both our relationships and our inner world.
Till then, stay in love.
Sources:
- Hans-Georg Gadamer. Truth and Method (1960).
- Emmanuel Levinas. Totality and Infinity (1961).
- Emmanuel Levinas. Ethics and Infinity (1985).
- Paul Ricoeur. Time and Narrative (1984-88).
- Paul Ricoeur. Oneself as Another (1990).
- Echterhoff, E., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others' inner states about the world. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5).
- Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119(2).
- Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27.
- Sherry Turkle. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (2015).
- Nancy Baym. Personal Connections in the Digital Age (2015, 2nd ed.).
- John M. Gottman & Nan Silver. The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work (1999).
- John M. Gottman. What Predicts Divorce (1994).
