In certain cultures, "understanding" is considered unmanly. It is the province of weaklings and old men. Too much intelligence is unseemly in the young and is considered a sign of arrogance. These cultures admire action, skill and daring; even when the activity seems pointless or irrational to outside observers. Very often the underlying point is to overcompensate for feelings of inferiority and inadequacy by "proving" one's tolerance for pain or demonstrating one's physical abilities or courage. The thought of competing intellectually has not yet occurred to them. It wouldn't relieve their painful feelings that they're "not good enough," as they have defined "good enough."
In our culture, we value running and jumping, but we also value "understanding," not for its own sake, but for its usefulness as a problem solving tool. We do not value the wisdom of the old philosophies that teach us how to We sometimes folive the good life, but we value "cleverness," "insight," "instant answers," "street smarts" and "test wise."
Child Game
We sometimes focus on these attributes to an extreme degree. When, for instance, one child shows no aptitude for sports, hard labor or money making, we are pleased to discover an aptitude for understanding. In some cases, the aptitude really isn't there, but we pretend that it is. The child takes its cue from us, and accepts the family role as the Understanding Child
We do not encourage the child to be well-‘rounded and to find gratification in outside activities or non-mental pursuits. We tend to keep them on track in their specialty. We groom them for stardom, not as a college professor, high school teacher or author, but as a corporation lawyer or heart surgeon, where their cranial capacity has the greatest economic potential for them (and for ourselves in our Golden Years.)
This valuation of understanding isn't an appropriate, sensible one. It is superficial, well-intentioned, self-serving and often destructive. These children realize that they're not valued for being who they are and that they are being used as a means to someone else's end. Their worth as a person is contingent upon living up to externally imposed standards of performance. They may come to internalize these standards and define themselves in terms of test scores, but their standards are still superficial and their achievements can give them no lasting comfort. As much as they achieve, it is never enough.
"I'm Trying To Make You Understand"
Sally and Bill dated for two years. They spent most of that time arguing and screaming. Each was trying to make the other "understand." Sally was trying to make Bill understand her need money, sex, your mother-in-law), is the real issue. Most times, the real issues are buried below the surface. Such as, "I want my way and it is your responsibility to give it to me," "I am right and you are wrong," "Control or be controlled," "Prevent bad things from happening at all costs," "I am special," and so on. These subterranean issues are not understood by the sufferer, and they're certainly not understood by one's bartender, hairdresser or manicurist.
For instance, when Sally and Bill fight, she has a tendency to use "always" and "never" in her indictments against him. "You're always criticizing me." "You never say anything nice." These accusations make Bill super-angry. These are some of the components of his super-anger:
1. "I did say something nice, once. I just can't remember the exact date and, therefore, I can't refute her argument."
2. "How can I ever feel like saying something nice to her when she is discouraging me?"
3. "What she is saying is wrong. I have to make it right."
4. "She does not appreciate the good things I do for her. That is wrong, too."
5. "She is reminding me of my past sins of omission, over which I have no control in the present."
6. "I can't secure her cooperation in the present because of these ghosts from Warfares Past."
Should we tell Bill to say something nice to Sally when she does that? "Your hair looks nice tonight." It may take the sting out of Sally's barbs, or it might infuriate her, as if Bill were mocking or patronizing her. Besides, he couldn't take such advice. It would be inconsistent with his own negative, unhappy lifestyle. Compliments are not on his agenda. His agenda revolves around power; preventing the loss of power through weakness; using power to right wrongs; using power to prevent abandonment; using power to avenge unfairness; using power to prevent being victimized by the power of Bill sees nothing wrong in trying to inflict these positive goals on Sally. He means well. He has good intentions for her. He only wants to do the "right thing." He has his own definition of "right and wrong," which he acquired when he was four years old, before the age of reason. His adult understanding does not reach that far back. These attitudes affect his judgment and behavior in the present without ever passing through his adult intelligence. It isn't just that Bill does not understand; it is worse than that, as he is now, he cannot understand.
Bill hates to feel powerless in these confrontations. To relieve his powerlessness, he hits Sally with his fist. He does not say to himself, "I'm going to employ a little brutality now." His cover story to himself is something like, "I just want her to understand how unfair she is to me, after all I have done for her. I give her twelve dollars a week to do with as she pleases, and this is the way she thanks me. I think I'll teach her to be more appreciative." Wife beating is the outcome of Bill's "good intentions" for his insufficiently grateful wife. In his universe, this noble end justifies his brutal means. We can't argue with his non‑rational logic. We cannot advise him to be "more understanding." If we do, he will be sure to write us off as someone who does not "understand" how much he suffers at his wife's hands.
Case Study: "I'm Going To Straighten You Out"
Sally, also, has her good intentions. She has read articles about co-dependency and she is practicing "self affirmation," at her short-tempered husband's expense. The intention for herself is independence, but it does not seem to be working too well. Her intention for her husband is to straighten out his brains and make a civilized human being out of him. If she succeeds, she will have the dream husband she has wanted since she was six years old but has never seen in real life. Her good intentions for Bill, like his for her, are entirely self-‘serving, counter-productive and mutually destructive but she can't understand why she should give them up.
Should we advise these two unhappy creatures to "communicate?" They are already communicating too much, but it is all negative. Maybe we should advise them to communicate less. How does Sally feel when Bill does not understand her "needs" for frequent validation as a woman and as a person? She feels angry, powerless and desperate. How does Bill feel when Sally does not understand his "need" for appreciation and gratitude? He feels like a victim of her lack of appreciation; he feels good for nothing, worthless. Each of them has needs, yet each makes it hard for the other to meet those needs. Each complains that the other does not understand and they're both right.
It is easy to say that these two are co-dependent. Each is dependent on the other to meet needs that they do not understand themselves. They do not understand how these needs originated in childhood and they do not understand how these needs can and should be relieved. Should we advise them to kiss and make-up? To tell each other what they need? Some couples can do that, with a little help. But Bill can't tell Sally what he needs. It would be revealing a humiliating weakness and she might scorn him. So he solves his "need" by demonstrating how "unweak" he is; he beats her up. This is called "counter-dependency," the "proving" that one is not weak and dependent. What kind of people have to prove that they're not weak? Those who are afraid that they are. As much as he dislikes causing his wife pain, Bill prefers this abuse to the even worse alternative of exposing his shameful weakness for everyone to see. His abuse has several components, none of which ever reach the level of conscious awareness. He demands "understanding" from Sally. He isn't in the least interested in understanding her.
A Semi-Pro Advice Giver would be chomping at the bit with all kinds of deeply superficial recommendations for these two such as, "Go on a honeymoon. get to know each other." The issue isn't knowing each other, it is anger. These two are angry at each other for their respective failures to understand, as each would like to be understood. Each feels powerless to get through to the other. Any advice that fails to recognize and quench the fires of this mutual fury will just be another counter-productive, destructive good intention.
One way to quench the fire is to write one's partner an anger letter. Some people find this hard to do, while others find it impossible. Their inability to cope with their raging anger will cost them a lifetime of happiness. They can't be happy and angry at the same time.
Sally was able to write Bill an anger letter. It was difficult, but not nearly as difficult as having Bill screaming back in her face when she is trying to express her grievances. She was able to see her specific grievances before her in black and white. She was able to process her grievances using her adult judgment. She understood that she had been following her mother's example of anger management from twenty years ago. It did not work for her mother and it wasn't working for her. She couldn't have attained that insight if she had not taken "time out" and written her feelings down, at a time and place of her own choosing.
After writing her anger letter, Sally also had a feeling of relief from her pent up angers, a relief that screaming and criticizing had never given her. She felt that she was no longer the unhappy child of an unhappy mother. She had feelings of identity, maturity, accomplishment and competence that she wouldn't have had otherwise. She also experienced feelings of security, equality, liberation and independence. Looking back at the old Sally, she could see how dependent she must have been on Bill, and how inadequate he must have felt in coping with her. He wasn't even able to meet his own needs, let alone hers.
Bill wasn't able to write his anger letter. He continued to feel misunderstood and put upon. He continued to feel like the powerless "victim" of his wife's "abuse." He continued to feel "entitled" to abuse her as she abused him. He couldn't see anything wrong with his definition of fairness, or with his "entitlement" to act like an overgrown playground bully.
The relationship ended. Sally stopped trying to meet the challenge of making Bill understand her. It was an exciting challenge in the beginning, but the excitement had evolved into horror. She had even stopped trying to understand Bill. She realized that she had no training or competence to understand Bill's attitudes from childhood, his parental values or his private logic. She declared her independence from him long before the divorce became final.
Bill is still a dependent looking for another dependent. He still does not understand himself. He still does not think he has to. His parents did not think they had to, so why should he? He isn't even going to try. It would be inconsistent with his upbringing.
Should we advise him to get help? We can, but he won't listen. He will say, "I know what my problems are. I don't need anyone to tell me what to do." This is his over-compensatory, "self‑reliant" posture. He imagines that "knowing" what his problems are, which he really does not, puts him ahead of the game. What he does not know is what to do about his problems. He does not want to find out and we cannot make him want to. To admit these truths to himself would be to lose the game; the everlasting game of proving that abandonment does not terrify him because he does not "need" anybody in the first place. He might even have to consider the possibility that he isn't always right and that others are not always wrong. That would be too scary. He does not understand that there is a middle ground between right and wrong, in which he can live a normal life as an imperfect human being.
Bill may go through life pretending to be "strong" and "independent." He will be the prisoner of these misperceptions until he can't stand the pain anymore. When he has suffered enough from his own misunderstandings and misperceptions, he may, out of desperation, reach out for the help he can't accept now. We cannot have the good intention to make him understand. He must have real intentions for himself.
Make Sure They Are UnderstandSexion D'Assaut - Ma direction Video Clips. Duration : 4.45 Mins.Music video by Sexion D'Assaut performing Ma direction. (C) 2012 Wati-B under exclusive licence to Sony Music Entertainment France
Tags: Sexion, D'Assaut, Ma, direction, Jive, Epic, Hip-Hop/Rap
Visit : Need Cash Now เล่นเกม รถมือสอง
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น