Prominence & Agility
Three ways to hold each other
Primary group: personal relations that are direct, face-to-face, relatively permanent, and intimate, such as the relations in a family, a group of close friends, and the like.
Secondary group: all other person-to-person relations but especially to those groups or associations, such as work groups, in which the individual is related to others through formal, often legalistic or contractual ties.
"Social group." Encyclopædia Britannica, 6 Aug. 2026, www.britannica.com/topic/social-group
Before discussing specific terms and labels for relationships, I find it helpful to start by naming a more general dimension of connection: prominence. In topographical terms, physical prominence is a measure of how elevated a mountain summit is relative to the other summits around it. While several peaks might be objectively far above sea level, reaching high above what surrounds them, they may be of similar prominence if their vertical reach is comparable. This image permits a hierarchy of sorts, as a peak with primary prominence implies membership in a group that is elevated above others. But contrast this against the popular use of the word “primary partner,” a hierarchical term which conventionally indicates one person as the exclusive, single pinnacle of your relational life. To expand this use of primary to capture the idea of prominence, consider the terms “primary” and “secondary” in the sociological senses given at the top of the page. These definitions establish hierarchy of groups rather than individuals, allowing you to visualize primary prominence as more of a plateau of average height than a peak of absolute and exclusive value. From this starting point we can describe prominence as a sweeping relational dimension, but one that still meaningfully captures and differentiates all of your connections.
Using these terms to denote hierarchical groups enables greater descriptive power in their use with little compromise to their broadly conventional meanings. Primary prominence (close connections) may still be described as a single peak for individuals who hold a single deep connection, while secondary prominence (useful connections) is revealed to be insistent in depicting a broad and populous plateau of functional relationships. The two also imply an even vaster plateau of tertiary prominence: connections of happenstance, lacking any consistent use and carrying the least innate significance. With these distinctions in mind then, the primary prominence plateau holds the relationships whose value to you is inherent: they are primary people simply because they are important to you. This category includes close friends, dear family, partners, and the like. Contrast this against secondary prominence, whose members occupy your life because of the activities, agreements, expectations, or formalities that you carry out together. Athletics teammates, early dating companions, or more casual friends are described here. And in the final plateau, furthest from the highest peaks, are your tertiary connections: colleagues in other departments, regulars at your favourite haunts, or distant blood relatives. These are the faces you might recognize but the names you have little occasion to remember.
Determining the prominence someone has in your life then becomes a simple matter of asking yourself why you keep holding space for them. Do you care for this relationship because of who they are to you (primary)? Is it more about your commitment to the endeavours you share (secondary)? Are you simply held together by a coincidental and fleeting alignment of circumstances (tertiary)? Notice that in each of these questions, a relationship’s prominence is determined by how this person fits into your life; understanding where you fit in theirs is their business to attend to. Prominence asks only that you consider your feelings to the extent that you can communicate them honestly and transparently. For with only three types of prominence, there is already considerable room for conflict and heartache. Being treated as a tertiary encounter by someone for whom you share a primary affection can be a significant source of frustration and grief. But the situation can become further complicated by anger and betrayal if you believe they feigned deeper feelings towards you. The reverse is true as well: being ambiguous in how you hold someone might set them up for a similar kind of pain down the road, so do not communicate their importance lightly.
But there can be times when honesty can be hard to find in this regard, as connections may change in different directions over their lifetimes. Relationships continue to develop as people and their circumstances develop, and the friendly face on your morning bus route can become a trusted confidante in the future if communication and intentions align. Conversely, the person you wake up to each morning today might become someone you scarcely hear from in years the years ahead. Inspired by Susan David’s concept of emotional agility, which is our ability to be flexible with our emotions, I’ve coined the term relational agility to describe our flexibility with the prominence of our relationships:
Relationally Agile: holds the connection firmly and the form loosely. Continuing the relationship is more important than keeping it in any particular shape. Relationships are allowed to undergo changes within and across prominence plateaus.
Relationally Rigid: hold the form firmly and the connection loosely. Keeping the relationship’s shape is more important than keeping the relationship itself. If the connection requires too great a change in nature or in prominence, it is abandoned.
Prominence and relational agility are concepts that helped me navigate, understand, and mourn many tense developments in my own relationships. In the decades before I had this language, I lost partners who did not want to be friends and friends who did not want to be partners; needful family who could no longer use me, and collaborative colleagues I could no longer work with; and meta connections (friends of friends, family of family, etc.) whose mutual connection I've been disconnected from. I can now describe the first group as straining under primary development; the second straining under the move from secondary to tertiary; and the third being lost in the transition from tertiary prominence to having no prominence at all. But now, for the relationships I wish to preserve, the plateaus of prominence provide a common ground for sensitively navigating the turmoil that occurs as relational specifics change. Knowing that two individuals wish to be primary members of each others' lives can go a long way in sustaining them towards the specific labels and understandings that they will eventually settle on. The security of this broad mutuality has helped myself and others to keep relationally agile bearings towards our connections as adults.