ABSTRACT
This contribution contains some brief remarks on the chapters by Maccoby, Parke, and O’Neil, and Hetherington, and some comments on the present state of our knowledge about relationships. Eleanor Maccoby refers to three labels applied to categories of relationships in the past-Exchange, Communal, and Coercive-and points out that none of them seems really to fit the parent-child relationship. It is too one-sided to be described as Communal, and both partners exercise coercion. Maccoby has tried to find interpretations of the parent-child relationship that would fit Exchange (or rather Equity) theory, but concludes they will not work with young children: for one thing, the parent seems to incur more costs than the child. An interdependence theorist might argue that this is a case of transformation of the matrix: by virtue of his or her nature or of cultural norms, or because he or she sees the parentchild relationship as a long-term investment, the parent may see the parenting role as self-reinforcing. Such a proposal, however, makes the interdependence model almost irrefutable.
