How is one to go about writing about something that he doesn't understand? Something that he hasn't experienced? Further, how is he to go about teaching it, living it, creating it, instilling it - in himself and, to the degree that they are receptive and interested and willing and committed - others?
The more I taste, however faintly, however discreetly, however fleetingly, Bruce's view of the world, the more I realize how completely foreign it is to me. And, I presume, to much of, the vast majority of, our culture.
When I taste it, I like the flavor. But then I spit it out. If I swallow it, it only seems to be in small amounts; amounts that are then fully absorbed by the normal, habitual, familiar processes of my mental and emotional tract.
Words can be written so simply, so effortlessly, and then go off utterly uncomprehended but nonetheless loudly wielded by those who come across them. I know, because I am one of the word-sword bearers.
There are fundamentally distinct ways of being in this world. There are ways of operating so outside of an individual's purview that they cannot be experientially grasped, even if they can be half-heartedly intellectualized. Maybe "cannot" is too strong a word. It probably is. I merely mean to call attention to the mistaken notion that one has truly grasped something when, in fact, they have merely heard words and nodded their head. And then repeated those words.
"To be the location of one's own well-being and one's own disturbance..."
See what I mean? I wrote that clause with ease. So effortlessly, in fact, that I almost convinced myself that I understood it. But I didn't. Because my sense is that it actually points to something so completely foreign, so genuinely radical, that to fully "get it" would be to turn my world upside down and shake it free of its contents.
"To be the location of one's own well-being..."
You, over there, have a head full of thoughts and opinions and ideas about me, who is over here. You come at me with all of those things inside of your head. You tell me about them, you cast them upon me, you portend to hold the truth of who I am in your hands. Well, if I am the location of my own well-being, then all that you think and feel and say about me is sort of... at the end of the day... irrelevant.
If you are the location of my well-being, then what is inside of your head takes on a significant deal of importance to me.
Let's explore this idea through analyzing a hypothetical couple.
When S needs an apology from B in order to feel better about herself, the same child-like style of relating is in play. She is recreating a child-parent relationship, where she pretends to need external approval/words of affirmation in order to secure her own sense of self.
(As a child, this would have been the case. She couldn't very well have felt positive about her burgeoning self when her parents were critical of her or actively belittling her. She needed their positive reassurance. As an adult, she may learn that she can have/is entitled to/has the right to/is responsible for generating a sense of self that isn't dependent on the approval/rejection of others.)
Her well-being becomes inappropriately dependent on the words, behaviors, and actions of somebody outside of her, of somebody else. In this case, of her partner. So, it is nice if B apologizes, but as long as S feels that she requires an apology in order to move on, her well-being is in his hands. And that, fundamentally, may be the root of her ongoing distress.
She feels that she needs his approval, so any hint that he doesn't approve of her has an inappropriate impact on her sense of well-being, okay-ness, enough-ness, wholeness. And she feels herself to be in a one-down position to B, which would likely take a toll on most people (always feeling the pressure to live up to their partner's expectations, living in some sort of worry about upsetting their partner, trying to ensure that they are doing what they can to ensure that their partner is happy, etc.).
Much better to take back the power that she has placed in his hands, and that he has agreed to hold. "I felt some hurt when you said that. If you're up for it, I think I could benefit from a sincere apology. I don't need it, but it would probably help me feel interested in being close to you again. And I'd like you to keep those sorts of thoughts to yourself in the future."
As long as S operates from the worldview that an apology is needed in order to feel ok about herself, she is in a disempowered position. She is operating from an external locus of control. If she feels that she needs an apology to feel safe, she might first investigate if she truly is "unsafe," or if she is merely distressed and disturbed. She might explore whether feeling disturbed is synonymous with being unsafe or harmed. If she discovers that she doesn't need an apology to feel safe (maybe because she doesn't need to feel safe, and maybe because she can feel increasingly "safe" as she is the location of her own well-being), she might still choose to ask for one (she might still want one), but nothing so important as her safety, survival, or sense of well-being will be attached to it...
If she feels that an apology is necessary for her to want to be close to B again, or to want to remain in the relationship, that is an empowered position. That would be an indication of her taking good care of herself - requesting an apology so that she can feel interested in continuing the relationship. In the latter instance, the apology isn't attached to her self-worth/sense of self. In the former, her self-worth is inappropriately linked to somebody/something outside of herself, which is fundamentally disempowering, as she has very little control and influence over that external actor.
....
When vulnerable, our impulse is to escape from that vulnerability by the surest, quickest means available. To those ends, we all set out - quite impulsively and rapidly - on familiar paths.
As far as S is concerned, her impulse is to "erase herself." When disturbance gets too intense, she will pin the blame on herself (especially when her partner is also actively pinning the blame on her). This has the effect of generating a more tolerable version of disturbance for her; one that is historically familiar. Tried and true. It was either encouraged by childhood caregivers, implicitly taught, or passively allowed to continue (i.e., not intervened upon, be it due to ignorance, absentmindedness, coldness, a form of punishment, lesson-teaching, or something else).
S's self-critique is a form of self-absorption, which is a primitive form of self-protection, which is a type of boundary. Self-protection is always going to entail a boundary of some sort. When S beats herself up, she is unconsciously hoping to minimize the external attack (soften the blows), distance herself from the relational disturbance (if I call myself ugly, you'll probably stop doing it), and distance herself from the activation of her vulnerabilities.
So, the self-attack acts as an out-of-date boundary between her and her partner (to the extent that it serves as a buffer to the attack, or even a solvent), as well as between her and her vulnerabilities. An up-to-date boundary would take place on the interpersonal field between her and her partner, who is triggering the disturbance. "Please keep those thoughts to yourself... I would rather you not make comments about my weight, my appearance, or my relationship with food... My diet is my diet, not yours. I would prefer you stay out of it... Please don't pin your dietary shortcomings on me. I'm here to support you, not do it for you, or anticipate your needs for you. If you have a clean, clear request of some sort, I'm happy to hear it... Please ask me if I would be interested in your opinion about something regarding me before giving it... Thanks, but I'm no longer interested in pretending to be the location of your disturbances... It sounds like you have some issues coming up. Let me know if I can do anything specific and concrete to help out."
Further, S and B have co-created a relational dynamic with B in the one-up position, and S in the one-down position. This isn't fundamentally true. They are two people who have agreed to be close to one another. There is no inherent superiority or inferiority. They have had to ("had to" because it wasn't existing by itself, and wouldn't have appeared if they hadn't given rise to it) generate a relational field that gives rise to the appearance of one-up/one-down. One-up/one-down is an unconscious agreement that allows them to regulate the degree of intimacy between the two of them (and within either one of them).
Because B is playing the one-up position, he won't have much motivation to change. Things are kind of okay for him as they stand. The problems are outside of himself. When disturbed, he attacks S. And she allows for this attack to continue (as evidenced by it's repetition). So the agreement in play is that B avoids the full force of his vulnerabilities by focusing his attention on S and her various "short-comings," and S, while certainly not avoiding disturbance, does avoid the vulnerabilities that would surface were she to engage in an equal, adult relationship.
Because B isn't going to create the conditions for that, it is up to S to do it, if she decides that she would like to. And the path to equality is to behave like an equally valid, equally worthy, equally respectable partner. That will entail a strong boundary function, where she makes her requests clearly, and takes appropriate care of herself when and where they are not met. As she does this, she will likely begin to feel an increasing degree of empowerment. This will come with its own flavor of disturbance for her ("Am I asking too much? Am I being annoying? What if B is right and I really am the one with the problems? Is B going to leave me?"). It will also be disturbing for B, who will no longer be getting S's implicit agreement that it is ok to make her the location of his disturbance. In other words, when she has boundaries, she is communicating that she will no longer go along with the unconscious dynamic that has her as the partner in need of change. As S refuses to be B's projection screen, he will either project more in desperation, leave the relationship, or, maybe, decide to investigate what vulnerabilities are there for him when he isn't playing from the position of power.
Comments
Post a Comment