Why can't we just get along?
All of us, at one time or another,
have been at odds
with a relationship. We say "I really don't like that person."
or "I can't even be in the same room with them." or "Just
not my kind of people." And then some seem to get along with everyone,
and push through life ostensibly unaffected by any negativity around them.
We all see and realize the
differences in others. Sometimes we can identify, and other times we become so
agitated we go into a rage, even attempting to harm the other by both word or
deed. It can be a subtle reaction easily forgotten, or gravitate to a point
where slander seems justified, or violence tenable. Depending on circumstance,
confrontation can escalate directly, toe to toe, or be fought behind the
scenes, where both lines and defenses are drawn by the attempt to find others
of like mind to both validate and help in the conflict.
According to Nina Brown, these quarrels are stimulated by
how we are taught at mother's knee as personal boundaries. These boundaries are
so hard-wired into our personality that even the realization of where it
originates may not be enough to rectify the conflict without professional help.
Personal boundaries have been
studied by many, from sociologists, psychologists, to social engineers like
Marx, and Freud. Boundaries are the guidelines that have been instilled in our
physic, and though little of it seems to be conscious choice, they are not
entirely set in stone. They can be controlled.
Boundaries are both the rules and
the limits in each of us that creates identity. It is what we consider
reasonable, permissible, safe and allowable when we deal with others. It is how
we are taught to respond to each other, by past experiences, instilled
attitudes, and a mixture of beliefs, opinions, and social learning that is the
veritable stimulus for a specific response. Some are immediate knee-jerk
reactions, and others are planned
to transcend generations by hate-filled writings or social prejudices.
Jacques Lacan goes a bit further saying that personal boundaries define
you as an individual, outlining your likes and dislikes, and setting the
distances you allow others to approach. They include physical, mental,
psychological and spiritual boundaries, involving beliefs, emotions, intuitions
and self-esteem. He considered them to be layered in a hierarchy, reflecting “all
the successive envelopes of the biological and social status of the person,”
from the most primitive to the most advanced.
Nina Brown, defined four major types
of psychological boundaries, they are:
Soft - A person with soft boundaries merges with other people's
boundaries. Someone with a soft boundary is easily manipulated.
Spongy - A person with spongy boundaries is like a combination of
having soft and rigid boundaries. They permit less emotional contagion than
soft boundaries but more than rigid. People with spongy boundaries are unsure
of what to let in and what to keep out.
Rigid - A person with rigid boundaries is closed or walled off so
nobody can get close to him/her either physically or emotionally. This is often
the case if someone has been physically, emotionally, psychologically or
sexually abused. Rigid boundaries can be selective which depend on time, place
or circumstances and are usually based on a bad previous experience in a
similar situation.
Flexible - This is the ideal. Similar to selective rigid boundaries
but the person has more control. The person decides what to let in and what to
keep out. -WIKIPEDIA
Understanding these four major types
seems a breakthrough, and Gestalt therapy has been used to both define our
personal boundaries, and to attempt to control them. The plan is to give an
individual the ability to move between what is termed "connection"
and "separation" that is jeopardized by either weak and
over-rigid boundaries, stimulating, in a variety of methods, "enforced
confluence" or "enforced withdrawal," depending on
what category or combination is ascertained by the therapist.
Understanding Narcissism seems very
important...
Hotchkiss
defined the word Narcissism as a person who does not recognize his boundaries,
or indeed that others are separated and not a virtual extensions of his. Their
reality and perceptions define the existence of others as a means to meet their
personal (selfish) needs, and if they cannot, are discarded as useless, and
emphatically ejected from their lives.
Those who cater to the needs of the
narcissist subject themselves to living up to their narcissist expectations,
and in that process there is no longer a definable boundary between their self
and the other.
If you displayed boundaries to a
narcissist, the relationship would possibly be in jeopardy.
Psychosis
The loss of personal boundaries and
the absorption of the self is one key feature associated with psychosis. Such a
boundary loss is sometimes described as, "I wasn't myself." or
"I was besides myself." Psychosis is the primary reason people
think they are going insane. The old adage that "No one can hurt you
unless you let them." seems applicable here, because it is not only a
lack of control, but that boundaries become diffused by the definition of
another's boundary that you let control you. The loss of "self", as
described by Carl Rogers,
is a dependency one has on another for self worth.
It might seem creditable to mention
here that propaganda utilizes this concept in the control of others. A case in
point might be the growing dependency on government to be the wherewithal in a
growing socialistic state. When one relinquishes control to a dominating
government, individual boundaries no longer exist, and liberty withers.
Defining, discarding and rebuilding
boundaries
A relationship is complicated, some
work and others are at odds. It might be perceived that a healthy personal
relationship depends on an individual's perception of self-worth, and other
nebulous concepts like, joy, elation, and happiness, or motivators such as
responsibility, truthfulness, and many others that can be incorporated as a
primary axiom of what is termed by social scientist as "mental
health." A so called healthy relationship, as understood using this
method, sees the co-dependent personality to have difficulties in setting
limits, and the inability for both defining and protecting boundaries to be a
vital part of regaining mental health. Others say there are "innate"
boundary limitations we are born with as survival tools, and or as mating modus
operandi as well.
Therapists of many categories seem
convinced that an individual should develop clear boundaries. A family in
painful communicational distress have developed an unhealthy enmeshment that
overrides normal personal boundaries, and seems to this student very profound
in understanding both the problem, and finding a viable reconciliation.
However, the outcome, and this is primary, may not always be for the cohesion
of that particular relationship. The negative fall-out of past boundary
transgressions might be so pathological, the interdependence so central to the
relationship, no other viable connections exist. Unless these new boundaries
are understood and accepted by both parties, the particular association, for
all intent and purpose, is finished. To develop new boundaries is to develop a
new relationship, and something else must be found to stimulate that.
Love as a common denominator
In research, there seems little
regard for the use of "love" by the writings of most social
scientists, and that is not understood. Seems that love is indeed a powerful
universal denominator, and though it is not readily defined as such, it is a
commonalty that can hold a relationship together no matter what consequence or
significance social scientists put on individual boundaries. There are times,
no matter how narcissistic or co-dependent a patient is found to be in therapy,
the patient may deny it, even making up scenarios to justify the situation. Not
everything is what it seems to be, and this is the most difficult part of
making a prognosis. The patient must see the problem in order to control it.
Love is a common denominator.
On the surface, an individual
dealing with others might be perceived to be unhappy and despondent, their
relationship dysfunctional. They might be reluctant to admit a problem, and
invariably un-accepting that anything could or should change.
Indeed, change
takes effort, and the outcome from that endeavor might not seem worth the risk
or effort without an admission, or to set upon a perceptible plan of action. In
other words, some people are in denial that they could actually have inside of
them a flaw so profound it is inhibiting them from a fruitful and rewarding
life. It is like trying to describe color to a blind person. Denying that
anything at all is wrong, they might attempt to continue to the end of their
lives with unresolved issues that could have easily been addressed in therapy,
and the diminished quality of their lives will go unrealized.
In order to find the root cause of a
relationship problem, one must comprehend that the start of the process of both
healing and understanding begins inside of themselves. Also, and this might
seem basic, but it also takes two. It takes two to make a relationship, and
both must desire that.
Understanding the nature of True
Love
One cannot define love as selfish in
nature, as it seems evident that both narcissism and co- dependence live and is
nurtured by selfish desires. True love, Agape Love, is unselfish in nature, and
this is the cement that can keep a relationship intact beyond any other. When
you hold your significant other in high regard, above yourself, you will want
what is best for them. It is the volition for self reflection, the strength to
overcome both self doubt and denial, and the primary essence that stimulates
positive change. Without it, a relationship is BASE in nature. True Love
is selfless, and an individual must know self- love in order to love another
with any meaningful value. Ideas created and devised by man such as honor,
principle, ethics, value, significance, and many others, all get their origin
from ones original understanding of the concept of love, and this will
influence boundaries in powerful ways.
Though the Id, ego and super-ego are
also parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model
of the psyche; this concept is too complex for the confines of this paper.
Never-the-less, they are indeed a further description of mind and its perception
of reality, and worthy of further study.
This concept of boundaries can be
extended to most every conflict we find ourselves in this ever shrinking world.
It is the reason we can't get ice in our drinks in France, a straight answer in
India, or constant war from an out of control war machine. With approximately
6,912 languages sharing far more cultures, it is no reason we are having
problems with boundaries. It is the reason cultures want a secure border, to
save their culture, and why a central banking system doesn't. A OWO
relinquishes all boundaries. A disintegrating border is the destruction of
sovereignty and liberty, and what is left is collective dominion over all.
The readings below were suggested by
Wikipedia:
1. ^ Boundaries definition,
Outofthefog.net[unreliable source?]
2. ^ Vanessa Rogers, Working with Young Men (2010) p. 80
3. ^ G. B. and J. S. Lundberg, I Don't Have to Make Everything All Better (2000) p. 13. ISBN 978-0-670-88485-8
4. ^ Timothy Porter-O'Grady/Kathy Malloch, Quantum Leadership (2003) p. 135
5. ^ Jacques Lacan, Ecrits (1997) p. 16-7
6. ^ Brown, Nina W., Coping With Infuriating, Mean, Critical People - The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern 2006. ISBN 978-0-275-98984-2
7. ^ G. M. Yontef, Awareness, Dialogue and Process (1993) p. 375
8. ^ Hotchkiss, Sandy & Masterson, James F. Why Is It Always About You? : The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (2003)
9. ^ 'Claire', in Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 105. ISBN 978-0-00-724795-0
10. ^ Patrick Casement, Further Learning from the Patient (London 1990) p. 160
11. ^ Janae B. Weinhold et al, Breaking Free of the Co-Dependency Trap (2008) p. 198
12. ^ Robin Skinner/John Cleese, Families and How to Survive Them (London 1993) p. 93 and p. 213
13. ^ Weinhold, p. 192
14. ^ Weinhold, p. 198
15. ^ Richard G. Abell, Own Your Own Life (1977) p. 119-122
16. ^ Sigmund Freud, 'Le Bon's Description of the Group Mind', in Civilization, Society and Religion (PFL 12) p. 98-109
17. ^ Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought (2007) p. 403
18. ^ C. G. Jung ed., Man and his Symbols (1978) p. 123
19. ^ Carole Jones, Disappearing Men (2009) p. 176
20. ^ R. D. Laing, Self and Others (Penguin 1972) p. 36
21. ^ Carl R. Rogers, Becoming Partners (London 1973) p. 35
22. ^ Patricia Evans, Controlling People (Avon 2002) p. 33-7
23. ^ C. D. C. Reeve, Love's Confusions (2007) p. 168-171
24. ^ Gary Gutting ed., The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (2003) p. 22-4
2. ^ Vanessa Rogers, Working with Young Men (2010) p. 80
3. ^ G. B. and J. S. Lundberg, I Don't Have to Make Everything All Better (2000) p. 13. ISBN 978-0-670-88485-8
4. ^ Timothy Porter-O'Grady/Kathy Malloch, Quantum Leadership (2003) p. 135
5. ^ Jacques Lacan, Ecrits (1997) p. 16-7
6. ^ Brown, Nina W., Coping With Infuriating, Mean, Critical People - The Destructive Narcissistic Pattern 2006. ISBN 978-0-275-98984-2
7. ^ G. M. Yontef, Awareness, Dialogue and Process (1993) p. 375
8. ^ Hotchkiss, Sandy & Masterson, James F. Why Is It Always About You? : The Seven Deadly Sins of Narcissism (2003)
9. ^ 'Claire', in Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 105. ISBN 978-0-00-724795-0
10. ^ Patrick Casement, Further Learning from the Patient (London 1990) p. 160
11. ^ Janae B. Weinhold et al, Breaking Free of the Co-Dependency Trap (2008) p. 198
12. ^ Robin Skinner/John Cleese, Families and How to Survive Them (London 1993) p. 93 and p. 213
13. ^ Weinhold, p. 192
14. ^ Weinhold, p. 198
15. ^ Richard G. Abell, Own Your Own Life (1977) p. 119-122
16. ^ Sigmund Freud, 'Le Bon's Description of the Group Mind', in Civilization, Society and Religion (PFL 12) p. 98-109
17. ^ Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought (2007) p. 403
18. ^ C. G. Jung ed., Man and his Symbols (1978) p. 123
19. ^ Carole Jones, Disappearing Men (2009) p. 176
20. ^ R. D. Laing, Self and Others (Penguin 1972) p. 36
21. ^ Carl R. Rogers, Becoming Partners (London 1973) p. 35
22. ^ Patricia Evans, Controlling People (Avon 2002) p. 33-7
23. ^ C. D. C. Reeve, Love's Confusions (2007) p. 168-171
24. ^ Gary Gutting ed., The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (2003) p. 22-4
No comments:
Post a Comment