I received a book I ordered yesterday in the mail which I paid about $60.00 for. Expecting it to be like a textbook material kinda book, I was surprised when the parcel came in and it was only just under 1cm thick. Nonetheless, I have been waiting for this particular book eargerly and stayed up till 4.15am last night reading this book.
So, yes, the title is Being & Loving by Althea J Horner. Anyway, the author basically said that often people do one of these 3 things:
1. They find themselves loving and working hard at keeping their relationships that they lose their own identity in the whole process.
2. They find themselves at risk of losing their own identity when trying to love others that they eventually resent the partner for being over-controlling (eventhough that's only their perception) and they find themselves trapped.
3. They find themselves in a state of ambivalent that they cannot go either way - that is, to have their own identity or to love freely that they find themselves utterly disappointed with the partner and trapped in their own ambivalence.
All three states are no good. (Horner, page 3)
Horner said the reason for such inner turmoil and conflicts are due to the first three years of a child's development and this point was substantiated by the attachment, separation and individuation theory of development of which she quoted a few. In the first 5-6months, the baby has to learn attachment to a primary giver to learn basic trust. Then from 6-16months, they learn separation and individuation. If all this process and stages takes place successfully, the child will have intrinsic basic trust in loving people and also a strong sense of self.
Without that taking place, the child will find themselves in one of the above situation when they become an adult.
So what do you think about that?
I've yet to finish the book and might do another follow-up post on it but I'll stop here since I think this is enough for a start.
8 comments:
I don't know, I haven't read the book.
A few things I do believe: (1) people are very pattern oriented and like to try and fit things into convenient patterns and packages. There are many "official" pronouncements on the importance of the first 3 years, the first 5 years, etc ...
(2) early formation and experiences are important - but so are later ones.
I do not belive that ones personality and behaviour is set in stone by age 3 or 5 or whatever.
I think children (and all people) need to be loved and respected. Supported and encouraged. We have to find some balance between always protecting them and giving them some.
This past weekend, while we went to see a movie, Jason and Tania needed to go to the bathroom. So we went. When later on they wanted to go again, I sent them on their own. They appreciated the trust in letting them go on their own.
But, development does not stop at 3 or 5. It continues. How we interact, what we like, what we don't like continues throughout our lives.
For instance, I do not drink (consume any alcohol). Why? I never was interested in drinking and I never learned. So when people talk about having a refreshing cold beer - I just think "Ick!". The learning, the reinforcement simply was not part of my adolescence. If nobody tried alcohol until they were 30, would it be as popular? Actually I don't know - I find people are always looking for means of intoxicating themselves.
Sure, the younger years are important, but I would not be so conclusive in saying that they firmly set your future.
Richard, appreciate your comment as always. Yes, I agree that development does not stop at 3 or 5 but stretches a lifespan. What Horner is alluding to is that there are different stages of development in a person's lifespan and the early years can make big difference and important contribution to a person's adulthood. I think you agree with that.
I don't think a person's behaviour outcome is set in stone but I do belief that a persoanlity is pretty much of set in stone. And the outcome is worse if the negative experiences of a person and the destructive choices of a person is compounded over their developmental years.
Genetic endowment of our personality is already set in stone so what can be changed is only that which is formed through nurture.
Yes, psychodynamic theory (the one Horner is prescribing to) is not necessarily the answer to all pathological adult behaviour but I believe it does offer some useful insights into the causes of destructive behaviours in adulthood.
I also believe we can deviate from our predominant personality from time to time over our lifespan. However we are predisposed to those traits and characteristics unless we make a counscious choice to behave differently. (Like your example of not having a penchant for drinking. That's a predisposed personality of yours.)
I think psychodynamic theory looks at the major events of a person's lifespan and identify the missing processes of the person's developmental stages.
A psychodynamic therapist will therefore aim to build that attachment and bond with his client if he identifies trust issues in the client. Trust as in an inability to trust other people so as to allow themselves to depend on another for love and support. Having achieve that, he will then encourage the development of self individuation and separation. The process then allows the person to have a healthy sense of self who can live inter-dependently on others, as opposed to either totally dependent or independent of others.
BTW, ever met people who just simply find life hard and difficult to cope with and yet others with same parents and family even finds life a lot breezier? I believe that's personality set in stone and it's set in the early onset of one's development. Of course, other experiences in life will significantly affect the child's outcome as adults too but perhaps not as crucially as the first 3 years.
Ever met people who just don't know what's wrong with them. They seem to have it altogether but when you talk to them, they have a very low self-esteem? Can that be the cause of what Horner is alluding to?
Searching for meaning is something all humans seem to do. Some do is fairly actively and continuously, others seem to do it in times of distress (I tend to be on the continuous spectrum of truth searching).
Yes, people from the same environment can have totally different experiences - my sister and I are good examples. She had a difficult life, on the other hand, my life has always been relatively good and easy. I think it also has to do with how we "plug" into the world. I, generally, I not very aware of what is going on around me. As I grow older, I realize that there are lots of subcurrents in social settings that I Am simply not in tune with. I noticed these things when I was younger, but assumed it was aberrations in the behaviour of people around me (for instance, obsession with sports, the latest fads, pop culture - which I always assumed was just marketing. For example, I remember a tlevised Elton John concert in the 70s. I knew he was popular, so I sat down to watch and was immediately disappointed. I could not understand why someone would enjoy his music. The only explanation I could come up with was that since this was the 70s, people's judgement was impaired by the use of drugs.)
Of course, as I get older, I realize that I cannot simply explain away people's behaviour as being the result of peer pressure and the desire to fit in.
When I was younger, I observered that people seem to flit from one stage or mental framework to another. Generally it fits into decades: teenagers will be inherently narcissistic, anarchic and pleasure driven, only in their 20s to laugh off such reckless behaviour and look for more structured hedonistic behaviour. Then in their 30s they look for even greater stability - settling down as it were. In their 40s they become unhinged and seek to break free of the mold they have set themselves in. And so it goes.
You can read some of my earlier posts on potentially related topics here and counter post here.
Yes, I find myself continuously looking for truth and the meaning of life. In some ways I've found it in the Triune God but in other ways, I'm far from knowing truth since I will never have the knowledge that God has in its totality.
I read your previous posts on Independent and being a non-conformist.
In relation to my topic, independence means to not need others in anyway at all. To survive in this world alone and to not trust others or to not want to rely on others for any of their needs at all.
God did not intend for us to live like that for He said in the bible, two is better than one and there is an emphasis on relationships. Even God does not exist alone - He exists as a Trinity (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the three are in constant unity and does not act independently).
I think God created us to be in a relationship with him and we are relational beings. So if we try to live independently all the time, we will suffer pain from the lack of relational needs being met.
But we must also have a healthy sense of self so that we don't become too dependent people that the purpose of our existence becomes entwined with that of the people you are in relationship with so much so there is no personal expressions. Thus INTERDEPENDENCE, rather than independence or dependence on people is healthier. Afterall, the bible said to bear each other's burden and also that each one carry their own load (Galations 6)and somewhere else, it said to submit to one another.
Is conformity part of the problem of a lack in self identity? Possibly so, I think. I don't know, I somehow cannot relate your post on conformity to what I'm trying to say. Maybe it's off the tangent I'm in. Maybe you're relating self-identity to independence while I'm relating self-identity to assertiveness and a respect and love for one's own identity. Are we talking abt the same thing?
It's late and I'm rushing so if I sound terribly uncomprehensible, keep bearing with me!
I agree that we need to live together and that isolation is a bad thing. I prefer the term COMPANIONSHIP to INTERDEPENDENCE.
I do not live my life, nor have I ever lived it in a manner that seeks to exclude me from other people. In fact, quite the opposite I strongly desire to be with others like me. The problem is that I don't find them. At first and for a very, very long time, I believed it was because people were not being true to themselves, giving in to peer pressure, the seduction of acceptance through conformity. The second post I wrote, looked at it from the point of view that everyone else is normal - their speech, manner of dress, conduct, behaviour and interests - my failure to "get with it" springs not so much from genuine independence so much as my being defective and unable to conform.
I desire to be with others. I always felt that as I grew older that people would become more like me, not me less like them. Of course, the desire for companionship runs deep in people and there is a lot written by people on how they feel disconnected from the world around them. Yet, I look at them and I see people who behave like everyone else. While they may be crying tears of feeling lonely and disconnected, I also see them dancing a dance of conformity.
People are very puzzling to me - ha ha, as no doubt, I am to them.
Maybe I am now no more clear than you. There never seems to be enough time to properly compose a comment or entry.
Yes, I think the need to be in relationships is innate in all of us and if we are not in relationships then it will remain a desire that is not fulfilled. The bible says in Proverbs somewhere that hope deferred makes the heart sick.
So the point is not so much what we desire but are we able to live with the two ends of the continum - to be in relationship and to still maintain our self-identity. Like you said, many lose their self identity and conform in order to be in relationships rather than have both-which is possible but needs to be worked at consciously.
A lot of peole exist in codependent relationship where their purpose of life is hinged on the other person's existence. For example a mother having no other activity or likes for things other than those of her children's. Or a wife who gives up her interests and takes on the husbands interest without allocating time for herself. I think it is okay to compromise and at times give up your rights to spend some time doing what the other person likes (part of living interdependently) but it should not be to the extent where your one's self interest is negated totally. And that is hard for a lot of people and I wonder why. That's why my interest in the book Horner wrote.
To those has who are driven by the need for acceptance, the fear of losing out on acceptance and therefore conforming is definitely greater than the fear of losing one's identity. That's what Horner is inferring to: by not having acceptance in the 0-6mths of their lives it leads to lack of self-identity.
As a mum with a young child, I find those sort of info invaluable because I need to know what I'm giving up for when I choose to stay home instead of go and make lots of money working full-time and getting a carer in instead.
Being a parent is, I think, the most important thing. Unfortunately, we (me included) to often abandon the kids in order to pursue a better career so we can give our kids a better quality of life.
What they really need is just the security of knowing that there is someone there for them.
A book you might like to read is Leisure: The Basis of Culture
I haven't finished it (mostly because it got misplaced), it is also fairly difficult reading (I found) - maybe I am reading too fast.
Basically, he argues that we have abandonned leisure (not as laziness and indolence, but as quiet relfective contemplation) for a hectic non-stop intoxication. Even our vacations and amusements are not periods of recovery, but simply wind us up more.
Pieper maintains that our bourgeois world of total labor has vanquished leisure, and issues a startling warning: Unless we regain the art of silence and insight, the ability for nonactivity, unless we substitute true leisure for our hectic amusements, we will destroy our culture and ourselves. These astonishing essays contradict all our pragmatic and puritanical conceptions about labor and leisure as Pieper demolishes the twentieth century cult of "work" and predicts its destructive consequences.
Richard, I started writing another long reply and I had an idea, why not make it a post instead... so the next post is in response to your comment. Writing it helped me to listen to my heart! Thanks!
Post a Comment