11-17-05

Boundaries - Protecting your Space

By Phyllis V. Du'Gas

Posted: Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Do we honestly teach people how to treat us?

Can we think about Boundaries?

Let me know if this sounds familiar to you:
As I grow, I find myself requiring more space. My emotional well-being has become very important to me. At home, at work, as a consumer, taxpayer, mother, mate and a friend. I'm learning that just as I have CHOICES, those choices require certain guidelines, that is, in order to remain sane, as well as remain true to who I am as a person. Those guidelines have become my boundaries in life. In other words, where I will or will not allow another person to take me. It's another CHOICE you can make in life.

In terms of relationships I must coined the favorite millennium Dr. Phil phrase, "We teach people how to treat us".

We have to be more up front and let people in on how we're feeling. We especially need to start being more honest with ourselves about what behavior we will accept from others, whose lives we share. If we don't, we're robbing ourselves and the person or persons we interact with on a daily basis.

We spend a great deal of time and energy discussing and worrying about everyone's business except our own. Our family, close friends. What they are doing, and what they are not doing, and the biggest of all...what they should be doing. The coworker and her personal problems...AGAIN! The company's lack of enthusiasm about money or procedure. Your girlfriend's "not good enough for my sista" man. Your brother's new wife. The neighbor's new car. Workplace favoritism. We all have issues. It's what makes the world go round. It's the real world that we live in.

We fail to realize that people are who they are, good or bad. All of us are at different stages and experiences. We need to honor that! (Cease all of the Control issues)

Most of our stress is self-induced because we've failed to set boundaries. If your friend or family member is continuing to borrow money from you and not paying it back, you really must consider not repeating that mistake again. Don't get mad and talk about it to everyone, except them. Let them know, "I'm sorry, but I can no longer loan money to you". Learn the lesson and move on. If you're in a dead-end relationship, stop and ask yourself what kind of boundaries did you set for your own happiness and self worth? Boundaries are really about self worth. (Typically, the more you allow someone to mistreat you, the lower your self-esteem). Something women and men alike have a hard time accepting.

If your relationship has split and gone back more than twice, boundaries is something you might want to look at. We are constantly (especially in new relationships) teaching our mates how to treat us. If you're hurt right now, dreading Valentine's Day, you may want to spend Valentine's Day thinking about boundaries not being set in your life. We really do have a say-so in our romantic/personal lives. Wake up! It's a new time.

We're not setting enough boundaries. We tip toe around the truth for various reasons, mainly out of fear. Fear of not being accepted, not being liked, and not being loved. "If I said what I was really feeling, that person might not like me". So we create illusions instead. We can't keep the illusion up for long because it turns into frustration. (Reality is what I call it) The next thing you know...we've burst. We turn into "Sybil" and our mate says we're crazy. Sounds like a boundary issue to me, what do you think? It's not entirely their fault...you allowed it to continue. (Illusion vs. Reality)

No one can do anything to you except that which you allow them to do. If you continue to allow people to violate your space; your boundaries, you're robbing one person...you! You don't have to be rude or hostile to have boundaries. You set them, practice them consciously, and not allow people to cross them. Let go of the fear! Stop saying yes, when you want to say "hell no"!

Maya Angelou said, "When you fail to place boundaries in your life, people inject themselves into places of your life where you don't want them, and where they have no business being".

Are you allowing people to "inject" themselves into your life where you don't want them?

Examine the boundaries in your life.

It's Just My Opinion!

Closing thought - Smile and say "NO" to one thing this upcoming week that you normally would say yes to. Talk to that person you've been avoiding. Express yourself. Let go of the fear and guilt!

**************************************************************
**************************************************************

11-18-05

"I'm sorry!" Blame game or accountability?
Sharon Ellison, MS

A powerful tool for health can be to focus on giving and/or receiving only real apologies when we want to heal a rift with a family member, friend or co-worker. We hear apologies all the time, but are they sincere? An apology has to be real to heal.

Shania spent the day helping Martha buy furniture and art for her remodeled living room, but Martha never even offered to buy Shania's lunch and so she felt unappreciated. Later when she told Martha she felt hurt, Martha said, "I'm sorry. I was just so excited about what I was buying that I didn't even think about it." Shania did not feel better. In fact, she felt worse.

What was wrong with Martha's apology?
Martha's apology came with a built-in excuse, implying that however she behaved was unintentional -- beyond her conscious control. Moreover, Martha has an expectation that Shania will accept the excuse. Thus, Martha perpetuates the original problem by continuing to be more focused on herself than on Shania. I call this kind of apology
"Sorry-Excuse."

Even Martha wasn't consciously manipulating, her goal was not to take responsibility but to find a way out of it. In most cases, if you don't accept other people's excuses when they apologize, they will quickly get irrupted at you, blaming you for not being understanding.

When we receive a counterfeit apology, we often sense it and so, rather than the hurt being healed, it is deepened -- as in the old saying, "adding insult to injury." I think almost all of us give such apologies, and we model it for our children.

Guidelines for making real apologies

One: Identify common formats for apology that are" counterfeit"

If you clearly recognize various types of bogus apologies, it will help you recognize when you give or receive an one. Here are some examples of common phrasing.

"Sorry -- Excuse"
Example: "I'm sorry I didn't call -- I've been really busy."

Translation: "Please be understanding about the fact that other things were more important than you."

"Sorry -- Denial of Intent"
Example: "I'm sorry you took it that way. It wasn't what I meant."

Translation: "I think it's too bad that you had difficulty understanding me correctly.

Example: "I'm sorry if I offended you."

Translation: "I can't think of anything I did wrong, but if you think so, I'd be happy to apologize so I can get back in your good graces."

"Sorry -- Blame"
Example: "I'm sorry I didn't call sooner. Have you been feeling Insecure about our relationship lately?"

Translation: "If you are upset about my not calling, the real cause is your own insecurity, not anything I did."

Two: Only say "I'm sorry," when you mean it and can specify exactly what you are apologizing for

When we give what I believe is a "healthy" or authentic apology, we can state clearly what we did that was disrespectful or inconsiderate without:

** immediately explaining why we did it

** telling the person that however it looked or sounded, it wasn't our real intention or

** bringing up some other issue that suggests that the other person contributed to or caused the problem.

For example, instead of focusing on why she didn't buy Shania's lunch -- her excuse -- Martha could have taken full responsibility, saying, "I'm so sorry I hurt you. There is no excuse for me to forget to buy your lunch. Even that would have been a small thank you for how much you helped me. And you spent your only day off doing it."

Here, Martha uses her apology to show her real appreciation as well as her sadness that she didn't do so earlier.

Three: Decline to accept an apology that is not given sincerely

When you accept an apology, and then walk away knowing it wasn't real, you enter a world of make-believe where you pretend an issue is resolved while harboring resentments. Gently, firmly, without anger, you can decline a hollow apology. For example:

** " If you believe that I simply misunderstood you, then I would rather not have an apology from you."

** "Only if you believe you did something hurtful would I want one."

When you refuse to accept an insincere apology, you refuse to surrender to being manipulated or pacified and you hold the other person more accountable -- without having to argue or try to force an apology. You are likely to feel greater confidence.

Real apologies build character and respect

If we can change how we give and receive apologies, we can become less defensive, gain insight, grow wiser, and strengthen all of our relationships. We can also, then, be a strong model for others, including our children, teaching them that real apologies show strength of character, gain the respect of others, and have great healing power.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-18-05

How Much Time Do You Invest in Relationship
Maintenance?

By Brian Maloney

When starting a new relationship, we usually adopt a subconscious idea as to how much maintenance this connection will need. Usually, if given some thought, we can throw a microscope over this concept while it is in its fledgling state.

However, time, no matter how you cut it, is a commodity and is as precious as a trillion dollars in your hot little hands. We attempt to save it, cut it, splice it among several tasks, take it for granted, and waste it. Although, most of us never consciously connect relationship maintenance with time.

In going back to a new relationship, it cannot be denied that in this most tender state, both parties look to each other for needs to be fulfilled. If enough maintenance is not given by one, the other will eventually pull back, unless an understanding is clearly stated from the outset.

For example, at this point in my life, with a young daughter, my time is squarely directed towards my family. This is especially true, considering I spend my mornings with her, and see her every night. In order for me to be able to give any other relationship the consideration it needs, I would have to scale back my time with my family, and at this point I am not willing to do this.

Being spread as thin as hot butter is a concept we can all relate to.

This is just my viewpoint on maintaining the integrity of my family relations. Moreover, it is not a reality for myself to hook up with my friends at the drop of a hat anymore, at least at this point in my life.

So how do we make this determination as to how much time we should designate to prospective relationships?

Well, it merely comes down to how solid a foundation you wish them to be on. For me personally, I want my family relationships to be on a rock-solid foundation. Sacrificing the maintenance of other relationships is how your value system should be designed.

Secondly, examining your friendships and their cost benefit ratio, not only for you, but for the friend, should definitely be indicated.

Are you going to be the type when life deals a bad hand to your friend, you abandon that particular person just because some gears inevitably switched for them? If you are that non-understanding of a person, you are not a true friend.

Then comes in the question of loyalty to that friend, if you struggle with spending less time with him/her due to their newfound change. Having a heart to heart discussion with that person to obtain his/her mindset and system of values, would always be the best route to take.

Respect!
From your viewpoint, do to your friend's life changes, you inevitably feel snubbed and hurt. It is hard for you to respect his/her wish to spend more time with a new friend, for example. This is true, even though you know that life keeps moving forward no matter what, change is always a huge part of life.

It is not about YOU all the time.

A more selfless mindset would guide you and you would be happier for your friend's newly found joy. Understanding that scaling back as life's changes come calling, gives you the expectation that this indeed will be an integral part of your relationship, rather than backing out completely.

An understanding among friends.
If you are an understanding friend, or wish your friends were more understanding, then laying this foundation down sooner than later in the relationship is best. When one party feels betrayed, this gives not only this relationship the respect it needs, but when your life change occurs, they won't feel slapped in the face.

If your friends won't be your friends because they don't have limitless access to you anymore, then you don't have to invest too much time into maintaining that relationship. This means they cannot appreciate your higher and lower values.

Invest into your family your time and love, and then have an understanding with your friends that being flexible rather than rigid, will strengthen your relationship with them.

Remember, a relationship is a two-way street that needs maintenance and time, so giving too much to a friendship will inevitably take away from your family.

Making this proper assessment is logical and practical and results as a template to follow from which you can issue time to your perspective relations.

--by Brian Maloney-ValuePrep.com

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How A Phony Persona Always Hurts You

By Brian Maloney

"Be yourself" isn't that what you've always heard? It certainly isn't ill advice considering what you are losing in the long run when you adopt one of these fraudulent lives.

You may ask, what's adding a little sizzle hurt any?

It's not the extra energy that you bring to the table as long as it's your true personality. It is the egregious transformation from you knowing who you are, to a personality that you may or may not realize is fraudulent.

Whether you call it fake, phony, fraudulent, multiple personalities or whatever, it pretty much adds up to the same thing. It is not who you are. I know, I, not unlike millions of others, had taken on the 'Mr. Hollywood' whenever a situation called for it and my color changed like a chameleon to suit my environment.

Adolescents are always trying to one up each other in order to cement themselves into an ever-changing social structure. You may see it at the mall when a pack of thirteen year old girls float through an area you are shopping and their volume is much more accentuated than that of 99% of everyone elses..

It is almost as though, since everyone else is always trying to put on their respective show to the world that if you don't, you're afraid you won't stand out; you'll be bland and boring. When you're not trying to impress the world with your made up personality, you're just that regular Joe that you or anyone else will see as unique.

That mindset couldn't be farther from the truth! In fact, when you change your fundamental persona to suit your environment, you not only hurt yourself with a lie, but you lie to everyone you put this on for. It may be your friends, it may be your family or both.

So what would happen if you didn't put on your plastic face everyday? Wouldn't you be letting everyone down who depends on that persona to entertain them, to make their existence better? Wouldn't you be lying again by being you because you've always been lying?

This could not only ruin your social life, but possibly get you fired because your boss may expect that outgoing salesperson he first hired. All of a sudden, you want to be you instead of the fantasy that'& magnetic, appealing and irresistible.

I say change to be the real you, even if it does a lot of damage. But what if you don't know who the real you is because you're so stuck in this vacuum that breeds and feeds fake? Then you need to do some serious 'soul searching'.

Ask yourself, what means most to you? Wasting precious time being someone your not, or living your life true and clean? To me, it's a no brainer, but to others who dislike themselves so much, this can be one of the most daunting tasks ever.

Why is it so hard to be seen for who we really are?

When you're taking on this false persona, you feel more secure because your natural persona, as you see it, is not worthy. You've clipped its beautiful wings and kept it in a cage so if it wanted to fly, it couldn't, due to your own suppression.

The most painful thought imaginable is that of the time wasted. Most of the time, years can never be recouped. In addition, if change towards your natural personality is never achieved, your whole life just may be a lie.

Not only will you gain more respect from your family and peers, but more importantly, you will always respect yourself no matter where life may bring you. So make the change, and don't waste anymore life, it's definitely not worth it

How would this look on your headstone? He lived his life as a lie, but what a great guy.

Don't be that person. It's never to late to make changes, no matter how difficult change is. Because being true to yourself as who you really are instead of what you think everyone wants you to be, is absolutely the most self empowering life you could possibly lead.

Not only will you gain more respect from your family and peers, but more importantly, you will always respect yourself no matter where life may bring you. So make the change, and don't waste anymore life, it's definitely not worth it.

--by Brian Maloney-ValuePrep.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-18-05

Ridding Yourself of Being A Manipulator to Better Your
Relationships

By Brian Maloney

One of the oldest character flaws in humans is their ability to manipulate each other. Its insidious nature tilts our everyday playing field toward the manipulator. The manipulating person has a basic personality flaw that has a direct link to control, but primarily the ever-abundant insecurity issue.

So, how is it that we deal with these types of people to level the perverbial playing field?

Well, for a moment, lets just consider the problematic issues that these types of people have so as to better understand what approach to take.

In being manipulative, one would only need to look at the why and what, not the how, because the how is obvious. How do they do it? They use words as their arsenal for control.

One should understand that manipulative people are generally control freaks who need to have the people they attempt to control conform to their ideology. By leveraging control over a particular situation, they satisfy the craving to fill that void of not having personal control, therefore obtaining it from another person.

It is quite obvious that always trying to tilt the scales for yourself by being manipulative reflects a security problem in yourself. It's simple! If you do not feel secure with yourself, than you are insecure. Ah...but to what degree you may ask, do you have to be so insecure that you always attempt to obtain control and security elsewhere?

Insecurities are in us all. We all feel vulnerable at times in any given situation, but what would propel us to be so insecure that we need to control others in our environment?

This question could be answered differently for almost every manipulative person because what drives us to manipulate might be extremely deep-seated in one, where in another it is seated quite shallow.

Most people have heard in one place or another; you can only control certain things in life, and much of the other stuff you need to just let the chips fall where they may.

This is very true. Let's just look at one simple example to conceptualize. You have five one hundred dollar bills you have alloted yourself to use in attempts to make more money, so you head for the closest casino.

Now, blackjack is your game of choice, so let me illustrate your possible control. You could, when the dealer asks you to cut the cards, place the divider at the very end, thinking this will stack the hands in your favor. You could change tables because one dealer is what you would call bad luck. The fact is that once you put your money down, you lose control of the situation.

The dealer will deal you a winning or losing hand and you simply have no control over the situation, yet you might try to seize control by many illogical means in attempts to win.

By not attempting to control everyone else, you come to an understanding that letting people live their lives in peace without your controlling ways, is the healthiest way in going about your relationships.

Others will detect a distinct difference in your personality and certainly appreciate you, rather than resent your ill will.

This is, again, a change in approach and attitude towards others that will need to be worked on everyday. In addition, one should want and need to see progression everyday to confirm the diminishing of this toxic characteristic.

Let go of your need to always control and manipulate, it will definitely become a more harmonious existence, not only for others, but for yourself.

--by Brian Maloney-ValuePrep.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-18-05

Does Insecurity Halt Your Personal Growth?
By Brian Maloney

Everyone big or small, old or young would love to feel a sense of security and well being all of the time in such a seemingly short life.

However, through lifes trials of inevitable ups and downs, we sometimes believe that our self worth is supposed to be sub-par, as if the world saw that if we were strong inside, it wouldn't function properly. Earths axis would go into some unhealthy tilt and its rotation would cease.

We wouldn't be serving ourself or anyone else correctly if this were true, so why are we content to become less than what we can be and settle with our comfortable insecurities that we know so well?

Most people, if you were to strip them of everything they have inside, are merely searching for love and meaning in their lives; but to some, it is a never-ending, self-fulfilling prophecy of dead ends and wrong routes taken.

You are always going to be your worst enemy and suppresser in seeking your personal nirvana!

If you were your biggest fan, you would clone yourself and when you stepped up to bat, there would be 75,000 people screaming and cheering for your success. Insecure people take the pleasure in feeding a massive dose of negativity inwards and therefore would love to stay as a boo bird hoping for your own failure.

After all, isn't that what society would love to have happen to you? Stay down with the masses and wallow in the mire with them, because misery loves company.

You were probably taught by society or learned this yourself, but certainly, you were not born with this affliction.

Have you ever heard that it's all in your head? Ninety nine percent of your success whether professionally, personally, or athletically comes from inside you and your physical attributes are merely that, tangible aspects of you and that's all.

If you were given ninety health filled days to live, how would you live them? Would you throw everything at thewall, put the petal to the metal, dive the deepest blue sea,scale the highest peak?

Although, you could live truthfully, confident, secure inyourself, and show all the beautiful colors that you came into this world with, those colors that have been skewed and faded for such a long time.

This mindset of not taking today or tomorrow for granted and knowing that the end could happen at anytime; and therefore living this gift of life as honest, not only to yourself, but others, is extremely powerful.

The truth will set you free!

Insecurity cages you in a personal prison when you could be sailing behind warm winds towards a brighter and more gratifying future. It rents space in your mind and asks you to pay its bills. It impedes your personal progression and tells you that you can't, when you can.

Regretfully, this is an internal force, not something external that you can run far away from and never see again.

Looking back, do you see your past and at some points feeling so insecure in some situations that the required task couldn't be completed because you felt inept?

Were you so insecure within that you had to feel secure by controlling others? If you were secure, you would know that your security is about letting go and having faith in your abilities no matter what situation your in.

Being secure is not 'I'm better than you and I'm going to constantly show you;' to the contrary, it is an inner confidence that needn't be excluded, but known within, regardless of a checkered or questionable past.

Remember, you are not on earth a very long time in the whole scheme of things, so wouldn't it be better to get the best you can out of yourself instead of locking everything up in an internal safe of insecurities?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-18-05

"Are You EXPECTING?"


Dear Friend:

Don't let the title of this special report throw you off. This report is not about the subject of pregnancy!

Whether you're a male or a female, the question "Are You Expecting?" applies to everyone. As you may have already guessed, the answer is...

Yes, You Are!

We human beings are always "expecting." In other words, we are always having expectations. Lots of expectations. Some we are consciously aware of. Many others, we are not.

Expectations are always there, however, in the background of our daily experiences. Whether we are attuned to them or whether we are oblivious to them--which too often is the case--our expectations come into play in a multitude of subtle ways.

A Major Source Of Human Stress

Why focus on expectations? The main reason is that expectations are a common source of stress in our lives. They frequently create all sorts of mischief, including emotional distress, relationship conflicts, communication breakdowns, misunderstandings, distrust, and a wide range of other common problems.

Expectations produce stress in two main ways. One is that they are frequently untrue or unrealistic. The other is that most of the time, we are completely unaware of them. Individual expectations are not very complicated. They often consist of simple ideas such as "life should be fair," "people should be honest," etc. It's the fact they are hidden from our view that gives them so much power over us.

When we consciously or unconsciously harbor expectations that are much too high, we set ourselves up for failure. As a result, we end up feeling frustrated, angry, and personally demoralized.

On the other hand, when our expectations about ourselves, about life, or about others are too low, we experience decreased self-expression, underachievement, depression, resignation and diminished self-esteem.

When you become consciously aware of your hidden expectations, however, this can free you from being dominated by them. You can look at a specific expectation such as "Life should always be fair" and ask yourself "is this really true?" When you pause to think about this question for a moment, you will often see things in a much more accurate light.

Of course life isn't fair. Tornados aren't fair. Street muggings aren't fair. Death isn't fair. Betrayals aren't fair.

The point is, once you become aware of an untrue or unrealistic expectation, YOU gain the power to free yourself from it.

It's Really Just That Simple

It's really just that simple. But "simple" doesn't always mean "easy"--unless, that is, you have the expectation that it does! It's one thing to become aware of your unconscious expectations. It's quite another to know which ones are realistic and which ones aren't. This takes wisdom, yet most people have far more wisdom than they usually give themselves credit for.

Let's take a look at some common types of stress in our lives to see how frequently expectations are involved:

A. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Many of our moods and emotions are intimately tied to our expectations. If you frequently expect bad things will happen, you will probably feel demoralized or depressed. If you expect something horrible or dangerous to happen to you, you may feel frightened, anxious or worried. And when people fail to live up to your expectations about them, you can easily feel annoyed, disappointed, angry, or sad.

Positive, hopeful expectations can lead to positive emotions as well. Optimism, enthusiasm, confidence, and contentment are all maintained, in part, by persistent, positive expectations.

Love is a good example of positive, but sometimes unrealistic, expectations. When people fall in love, they are often temporarily overcome by positive, euphoric emotions. This intense positive emotional state often leads people to believe that all is fine and that their future is bright. When the realities of love, commitment, and relationships emerge, however, people are frequently caught off guard. As a result, they tend to suffer and their relationships sooner or later become strained.

B. RELATIONSHIP CONFLICTS

Expectations play other roles in relationship conflicts as well. Whenever we form a relationship with another person, we almost always have expectations about how both we and that person should think, feel, and behave. When these expectations are violated, stress can occur.

Friendships, for example, are based upon a mutually understood set of expectations. We expect our friends to be loyal, honest, and trustworthy. We expect they will never try to hurt us or harm us intentionally, and that they will always be responsive to us when we are in need.

When people who profess to be our friends don't behave in these ways, we feel angry and betrayed. Perhaps they were never our friends at all. Perhaps they were only out to use us. But our faulty expectations may have caused us to perceive them as being more committed to true friendship than they really were.

Marital Expectations

Marriage is another hotbed for hidden, unrealistic expectations. Most men and women have deep-seated ideas about how each sex should behave in a picture-perfect marriage. Often these expectations are not fully conscious, nor are they completely acknowledged and communicated between spouses. When one spouse begins violating the expectations of the other, however, an all too familiar negative spiral of disappointment, retaliation, and resentment can ensue.

C. JOB RELATED STRESS

Much job related stress comes from our lack of expertise in handling our emotions and from our general difficulties forming healthy, positive relationships. In addition, we also possess specific work-related expectations, such as those about our bosses, managers, co-workers, and employees.

We similarly have expectations about suppliers, vendors, and various service people we depend upon. Throw in expectations about our business partners, customers, the economy, local and national politicians, etc., and you see that the workplace is literally a bottom-less pit, teeming with all sorts of hidden expectations waiting to entrap us.

NOTE: One big unrealistic expectation being revealed in the workplace today is the myth of job security and/or corporate loyalty. Many people are finding out that the sting of losing their job is made worse by harboring old, outdated expectations that their length of service or their loyalty to one company would protect them from unfair treatment. As we have seen much too often in the corporate world of late, when money becomes tight, people are easily discarded.

D. PUBLIC SPEAKING STRESS

Much of the stress we experience when speaking in front of others comes from hidden expectations that most of us never recognize. For example, one good way to become anxious about giving a talk is to want everyone in the audience to like you and approve of what you say. Experienced public speakers know this is rarely an achievable goal. If you aren't very experienced, however, you can easily fall into this trap.

Perfectionistic Expectations

Perfectionism is another major cause of public speaking stress. Perfectionism is actually a group of related expectations. Primary among them is the goal of giving an absolutely perfect speech. By attempting to accomplish this goal, people will often worry themselves sick trying to practice and rehearse every minor detail of their presentation. Not only is this a colossal waste of time and emotional energy, but it actually hinders your preparation and makes you more likely to make a mistake. It also tends to deprive you of sleep, which further increases your error tendency and makes you more anxious, nervous, and high-strung overall.

I have learned over the years that being a successful public speaker is far more easy than I had imagined. Once I discovered some of my "crazy" expectations about public speaking that I had somehow acquired, it was fairly easy for me to recognize what was wrong with these and replace them with more realistic, appropriate ones.

E. THE STRESS OF RAISING CHILDREN

One of my favorite topics is how parents can reduce the stress of raising children. As the father of an 8 year old, I am happy to report that so far this process has not been terribly stressful for me. Part of the reason for this is that I am blessed with a talented wife who has done a very good job of mothering. But another part is that I've let go of many expectations I previously had about children in general and my child in particular!

One good way for us parents to get stressed out is to have strong expectations about how our kids should think, feel, and behave. While each of us has ideas about how we would like our children to turn out, the little tykes almost never follow our game plans exactly. Hopefully we can instill healthy values, virtues, and morals into them, but beyond that--all bets are off. That's not to say we shouldn't have any expectations for our children at all. Just don't have the hope that most of your expectations will come true. Some, yes. But most, no.

Also watch out for hidden expectations you might have about yourself as a parent, your spouse as a parent, your parents or in-laws as grandparents, your child's teachers and school officials, and numerous other people connected with your child's growth and development. More often than not, these key people won't live up to our internal expectations. It may sometimes appear to us that these people are not truly committed to our child's welfare or to the welfare of children in general, but often they are. Only they do things differently than we might expect.

F. TRAVEL STRESS

Many people fail to realize how their travel expectations can lead to stress. From the very first moment we begin planning a trip, we envision the type of experiences we will have, and we almost always conjure up images of great joy and relaxation. Maybe a travel brochure caught our attention with vivid color pictures of the hotel or resort we've selected, a view of spectacular scenery, or a moonlight cruise to some romantic secluded site.

The Realities Of Travel

Unfortunately, the realities of travel often turn out to be much different than our idyllic preconceptions. From the traffic jam on the way to the airport, to the travel agency fouling up our reservations, to having our luggage lost by the airline--"travel reality" is often not quite the same as "traveling in our mind."

Don't forget, we also tend to have well-formed expectations about how our family members or other travel partners should think, feel, and behave while on vacation. These expectations are another hidden source of stress that can fuel both major and minor interpersonal conflicts.

NOTE: Also watch out for expectations about good weather, timely service, good accommodations, and the extremely dangerous idea that all will go well just because you want or need a peaceful vacation.

G. LITIGATION STRESS

Our legal system tends to create a tremendous amount of stress for many people. Whatever positive expectations you have about lawyers and the system, they're bound to be crushed when you lock horns in a legal battle. And if you are foolish enough to expect that the legal system will be fair to you, that lawyers have a sworn duty to always fight for justice and uphold the truth, or that the litigation process is designed to result in fair, honorable, and just settlements to most disputes, you're going to become angry and suffer major disappointments. Hopefully, the O.J. fiasco cured you of any such naive misconceptions about the legal system which you might have had.

H. PHYSICIAN STRESS

These are not the best of times for the 600,000 or so physicians in America today. While numerous forces are converging in our society to cause physicians increased levels of stress, not the least among these are our own outdated expectations.

Recently, while traveling to Durham, NC, I met up with my friend Dr. John-Henry Pfifferling, founder and director of the Society For Professional Well-Being, an organization that works with many physicians and other professionals who are undergoing stress. Dr. Pfifferling and I had a long discussion about this topic, and he shared with me a preliminary draft of an article he was preparing about the current revolution in health care and how it is changing and effecting the medical profession. The following is an excerpt from his opening paragraph, which I'd like to share with you:

"There are physicians who still have expectations of life-time job security, guaranteed income, autonomy, and physician-oriented work environments. When traditional expectations clash with changing reality, however, most people feel stressed. Physicians are no exception."

Dr. Pfifferling goes on to explain that the old medical paradigm, which granted physicians control, prestige, specialness, and professional autonomy, is now giving way to a new social and economic paradigm, in which physicians are becoming subordinate to the needs of patients, employers, and payers--losing their absolute autonomy and experiencing less and less direct personal control.

The reason I share Dr. Pfifferling's thoughts with you is because they again underscore the importance of expectations as subtle--but very real--causes of human stress and suffering. Of course there are many other ways in which expectations lead to stress in physicians and other professional groups, but we don't have space to enumerate them here.

I. HOLIDAY STRESS

Social and personal expectations are a major source of holiday stress. The holiday season is not a happy time for everyone. Yet we all tend to feel compelled to look and feel merry during this time.

The mass media and Madison Avenue fuel these expectations. If you are single, alone, or recently divorced or separated, the social pressures at this time of year can be quite stressful. Similarly, we all have expectations of how our friends and family members should behave during the holidays. When these expectations are not met, stress and interpersonal conflicts can easily arise.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

In summary, I have briefly tried to get across in this report that many different types of expectations, both individual and social, lead to stress in ordinary people.

These expectations are endless in number. The important things to know about them are: 1) they are usually unconscious and therefore hidden from our view; and 2) they are frequently untrue, unrealistic, or otherwise misleading.

Whenever you feel "stressed" in any way, think about your expectations and how they might be contributing to your problems.

Think about expectations you have about yourself.

Think about expectations you have about other people.

Think about expectations you might have about life itself, or about how some particular aspect of life is supposed to work.

And lastly, think about any other types of expectations that might be lurking inside you that pertain to the specific situation you are presently faced with.

The more you learn about your hidden expectations, the more power and control you will gain in relation to them. Always ask yourself if something might be wrong or incomplete with any specific expectations you discover. Just by asking yourself this very simple question, you can empower yourself to see things in new, and hopefully more accurate, ways. The more you are able to do this, the less stress and tension you will ultimately have.

Wishing you good health, happiness, and much success,

Mort Orman, M.D.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-19-05

Common Expectations, Patterns, and "Mistakes" in Relationships

Each person begins a relationship with his/her hopes, expectations, and ideals. Unfortunately, some of these are unrealistic, unfair, and even self-defeating. They may also doom the relationship to be unsatisfying and to eventually fail.

Among the more common expectations and patterns are:

* Expecting that he/she will change.

* Hoping that he/she will never change.

* Assuming that your partner thinks and reacts as you do.

* Assuming that your partner knows your wants and needs.

* Expecting that he/she has the same priorities, goals, and interests as you.

* Believing that the relationship will fulfill all of your social, intellectual, and personal needs.

* Giving up other interests, activities, and friends.

* Seeking improved self-esteem through the relationship.

* Feeling incomplete without a relationship.

* Expecting that each new relationship is "the one."

* Expecting that he/she will never make mistakes.

* Viewing conflict as a threat to the relationship and to be avoided at all costs.

* Working hard to get the relationship started, but exerting little effort to keep it going.

* Trying to be what he/she wants, rather than being yourself.

* Not understanding that feelings of love and passion change with time, as do your priorities and expectations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-19-05


Coping with Anger

Anger is probably the most poorly handled emotion in our society. From time to time we all experience this very powerful feeling. Some of the common causes of anger include frustration, hurt, annoyance, disappointment, harassment and threats. It is helpful to realize that anger can be our friend or foe, depending on how we express it. Knowing how to recognize and express it appropriately can help us to reach goals, handle emergencies, solve problems and even protect our health. However, failure to recognize and understand our anger may lead to a variety of problems.

Some experts believe that suppressed anger is an underlying cause of both anxiety and depression. Anger that is not expressed can disrupt relationships, affect thinking and behavior patterns, and create a variety of physical problems, such as high blood pressure, heart problems, headaches, skin disorders, and digestive problems. What's even worse is the correlation between the dangers of uncontrolled anger and crime, emotional and physical abuse, and other violent behavior. Redford Williams, an internist and behavioral specialist at Duke University Medical Center has developed a 12-step program that can help people learn to deal with their angry emotions:

1. Williams suggests monitoring your cynical thoughts by maintaining a "hostility log." This will teach you about the frequency and kinds of situations that provoke you.

2. Acknowledge any problems in coping with anger.

3. Seek the support of important people in your life in coping with your feelings and in changing your behavior patterns.

4. By keeping your hostility log you are able to realize when and where you are having aggressive thoughts, so that when you find yourself in these situations, you can utilize such techniques as deep breathing, positive self-talk, or thought stopping, which can help you interupt the anger cycle.

5. Put yourself in the other person's shoes. This will help you gain a different perspective. Keep in mind that we are all humans, subject to making mistakes.

6. Learn how to laugh at yourself and see humor in situations.

7. Learn how to relax. Although you may have heard that expressing anger is better than keeping it in, remember that frequent outbursts of anger are often counter-productive and may alienate others.

8. It is also important that you practice trusting other people. It's usually easier to be angry than to trust, so by learning how to trust others you are less likely to direct your anger at them.

9. Good listening skills improve communication and can facilitate trusting feelings between people. This trust can help you deal with potentially hostile emotions; reducing and possibly eliminating them.

10. Learn how to assert yourself. This is a constructive alternative to aggression. When you find yourself angry at another person, try to explain to them what is bothering you about their behavior and why. It takes more words and work to be assertive than it does to let your anger show, but the rewards are worth it.

11. If you live each day as if it were your last, you will realize that life is too short to get angry over everything.

12. The final step requires forgiving those who have angered you. By letting go of the resentment and relinquishing the goal of retribution, you'll find the weight of anger lifted from your shoulders.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-21-05

I've never been very good at relationships, of any kind. I don't even know how or where to begin.

Relationships begin with you, because you are half of any relationship you join. So start with yourself! Don't count on a relationship to "cure" a poor self-image. It won't work. But here are some measures that can:

* Make an inventory of your best, most attractive qualities and affirm them to yourself often.

* Avoid unrealistic standards and all-or-nothing thinking: "If I don't make an A on every test, I'm a total failure."

* Challenge yourself to accept and absorb compliments: a simple "thank you" raises self-esteem; negations, such as, "You like this outfit? I think it makes me look dumpy," lower self-esteem.

* Remember that there are no guarantees. Making gains requires taking risks. Seek out new experiences and people; then approach them with openness and curiosity. Each is an opportunity.

* Don't expect overnight success. Close friendships and intimate love relationships both take time to develop.

One thing that's difficult for me in relationships is "hanging on to myself." It seems that once I get close to someone -- roommate, friend, or lover -- I give in and accommodate so much that there's nothing left of me.

It's hard to experience fulfillment in a relationship which is not equal and reciprocal. The best way to avoid "giving yourself up" in a relationship is to develop some assertiveness skills. Learn how to express your feelings, beliefs, opinions, and needs openly and honestly. Here are some guidelines:

* When stating your feelings, use "I-statements." Avoid accusatory or blaming "you-statements." They usually only result in defensiveness and counterattacks.

* You have a right to have feelings and to make requests. State them directly and firmly and without apology.

* Acknowledge the other person's point of view, but repeat your request as many times as necessary.

* Learn to say "no" to unreasonable requests. Offer a reason -- not an excuse -- if you choose, but your feelings are reason enough. Trust them.

Won't I lose my friends and lover if I always insist on getting my own way?

Assertiveness is not about always getting your way. Nor is it about coercing or manipulating. Those are acts of aggression. An assertion does not violate another's rights, and it does not preclude compromise. But a compromise, by definition, meets the needs of both people as much as possible. If your friend or lover is unwilling to compromise or has no respect for your feelings, maybe there's not so much to lose.

I hear a lot about "co-dependency" in relationships. What exactly is that?

Co-dependency originally referred to the spouses or partners of alcoholics and the ways they attempt to control the effects of the other person's dependency on alcohol or drugs. More recently, the term has been used to refer to any relationship in which one person feels incomplete without the other and thus tries to control him/her. Some characteristics of co-dependency are:

* Fear of change or growth in the other person.

* Looking to the other person for affirmation and self-esteem.

* Feeling unsure where you end and the other person begins.

* Exaggerated fear of abandonment.

* Psychological games and manipulation.

A healthy relationship is one that allows for the individuality and growth of both persons, is open to change, and allows both individuals to express their feelings and needs.

Unfortunately, I neglected to copy the authors name :(
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-21-05

Letting Go of a Broken Relationship

Letting go of a broken relationship is the key to flowing with life and flowing with life is the key to being effective in relationships.

At any moment, your life is exactly the way that it is. You are the way you are and the people in your life are exactly the way that they are. This is true whether you like it or not.

When you fight and resist the way your life is, you create a state of fear and upset that destroys your effectiveness and almost always makes your situation worse.

You close down inside. You lose your ability to see clearly. You get tunnel vision, and you interact in a way that destroys love and creates opposition and resistance against yourself.

When we get upset, we think that the upset is caused by what happened, but this is never the case. Upsets are not caused by what happened. Upsets are caused by fighting and resisting what happened.

To see this in your life, select a recent upset. Now notice what would happen to the upset if you were at peace with what happened. There would be no upset.

There would be no upset because the upset wasn't caused by what happened. The upset was caused by your fighting and resisting what happened.

The moment you take away the fighting and resisting, the upset disappears.

To handle a situation, you need action, not resisting. Resisting only destroys love and keeps you from seeing the action that you need to take.

If you could somehow let go of your resisting, you would restore your peace of mind. You could then take the action you need to effectively handle your situation.

"Letting go" is the inner action that removes the resisting which in turn releases the fear and upset.

The moment you let go, everything seems to change. With the fear and upset gone, you become creative and able to discover solutions you could never have seen before.

To see this another way, let's look at the nature of fear.

Fear is created by the avoiding and resisting of some future possible event. For example, let's say that you are married and that you are resisting the possibility of your spouse leaving. The more you resist this future possible event, the greater your fear.

As your fear increases, so does the chance of your fear coming true. You become threatened and hang on even more. This in turn pushes your spouse further and further away.

By avoiding and resisting this future possible event, you create a state of fear and upset that tends to bring you the very event that you are avoiding.

To have a fear lose its power, you need to do the opposite of resisting. You need to be willing for the fear to happen. You don't have to like it, just be willing.

Keep in mind that letting go is a state of mind and is totally separate from your actions. Letting go is what removes the fear and upset so that you can see what action works.

For example, in your heart, be willing to lose your spouse, but in your actions, do everything you can to create an environment where he or she would never want to leave.

The moment you become willing to lose your spouse, the fear and upset lose power. The tunnel vision disappears and you become able to interact in a way that creates love and greatly increases the chances of the person staying.

***Be sure and read the example at the bottom of the page.

To let go of your resistance and to restore your peace of mind, you need to be willing for your life to be however it is and however it may become.

You do this by granting permission. "I give my spouse full permission to be exactly the way he or she is." "I am willing to lose my spouse." "I am willing to lose my job."

Let go of your demands and expectations for how your life should be and make peace with the way your life is. Set yourself free inside. Then take whatever action you need to have your life be great.

To make the process of letting go a little easier, there are two very important steps that you can take. The first step is trusting. Trust that no matter what happens, you will be okay.

Now this doesn't mean that life will turn out the way that you want it to. Life often doesn't. Trust is knowing that however life turns out, you will be fine.

When you know that you will be fine, letting go becomes relatively easy. You can then let go. You restore your effectiveness and life works out great. This then reinforces the trust.

When you don't trust, life becomes very difficult. You fight, resist and hang on. You then make everything worse, which reinforces "don't trust."

Trust is actually a choice. Trust is something you create. It's a declaration. "I will be okay no matter what happens. I trust, just because I say so."

Trust is also telling the truth. You really will be fine no matter what happens. Life is only threatening when you resist. So stop resisting and trust. Trust that no matter what happens, you will be fine.

The second and most important step in the process of letting go is to be willing to feel your hurt. Be willing to feel all the sadness and all the feelings of being "not okay" that your circumstances reactivate.

This is important because it's the avoidance of this hurt that causes us to resist. We resist the circumstances because the circumstances are triggering our hurt.

We think that we're resisting our circumstances but we're not. We are resisting all the feelings and emotion that are being reactivated by our circumstances. More accurately, we are resisting a very specific hurt from the past. We are resisting the hurt of feeling not good enough, worthless, not worth loving, or some other form of being not okay.

Once you find and heal this hurt, the need to resist or hang on disappears. You can then let go and take the action you need to effectively handle your situation.

Finding and healing this hurt is one of the most important things you can ever do.

This hurt is responsible for all your fear and all your upsets. It is responsible for all your self-sabotaging behavior patterns and ultimately, all of your suffering.

In relationships, the avoidance of this hurt destroys love, fuels conflict and pushes people away.

To heal this hurt and to be more able to flow with life, make sure you read the next two sections, Heal Your Hurt and Find And Heal The Inner Issues That Run Your Life.

***Example
Ginger was so afraid of losing Paul that she tried to control his every move. Whenever she felt threatened, she would get angry and upset. Without knowing, Ginger was pushing Paul further and further away.

She was afraid of losing Paul because if he left her, this would reactivate all her hurt of feeling not worth loving. To avoid this hurt, Ginger hung on.

Once she realized this, Ginger started working with her hurt. She allowed herself to feel all the hurt of being not worth loving. As she did this, the loss of Paul ceased to be a threat. She became willing to lose him. She didn't want to lose him, but she was willing.

The moment Ginger was willing to lose Paul, the fear and upset lost its power. She saw her situation clearly and saw what she needed to do.

She met with Paul and apologized for hanging on. She told him to do whatever he needed to be happy, even if this meant his leaving her. She told him that she loved him and that she wanted him to stay, but that she was willing to lose him.

Within a few days, Paul realized that it was safe to be around Ginger. He even enjoyed their time together. Soon, Paul felt so loved and able to be himself around Ginger that he didn't want to go anywhere.

By being willing to lose Paul, Ginger was able to keep him.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-26-05

Expectations In Romantic Relationships

Begin clearer and more honest romantic relationships by breaking the illusion and replacing your assumptions and projections with a truthful evaluation.

Expectations In Romantic Relationships
By Coleen Lawrence

I expect nothing.... I am free....
Nikos Kazantzakis

Would it surprise you to know that many times the expectations we have of others are born out of our own psyche, and have little to do with the person we have them about?

Expectations in relationships can begin when take our own ideals, standards, and views of things, and project them onto other people. We then anticipate that they will live in accordance with these standards.

Have you ever expected someone to be happy, sad, mad, afraid, or in some other emotional state, and have been surprised when they weren't? After all, that is how you would feel in the same situation. Or maybe you have been confused when you did something nice for someone that you expected them to like, but they weren't showing the enthusiasm about it that you thought they might? It was something you would have appreciated someone doing for you, so why didn't they like it, you'd wondered.

As we project our life view onto others, we are assuming that they think and feel in a similar way that we would in the same situation, and we expect them to behave accordingly.

So, when someone close to us eventually does something that appears in deep contrast with the standards we have associated with them, we often feel hurt, betrayed, angry and confused. Our disappointment gets expressed in the kinds phrases we've all heard, or have even spoken ourselves... "I expected more from you", "You are the last person I'd ever have expected to do that", "You really let me down", "This is not like you at all" etc.

We profess this, however, having turned a blind eye to blunt behavioral evidence to the contrary on numerous occasions. We cleverly develop a tunnel vision where we only allow through, information that supports the view we have of who we want that person to be.

The truth is that people show us exactly who they are through their everyday behaviors. We are aware of who they are at a deeper level within us. We need to stop fantasizing and pretending things are not as they are. To stop filtering and begin to pay attention to the reality of what others think and feel, and how they behave. We must acknowledge to ourselves, the truth of who they are as individuals. When we do this we let down the illusory veil we've kept around them, and can thereafter stop the futile behaviors of projecting and expecting.

Take a moment to think about someone for whom you have developed a set of expectations for. How accurate are the assumptions you have made about this person's feelings and behaviors? Can you see that many of your expectations of

them really revolve around you and your own feelings, beliefs, hopes, needs, and desires related to the relationship? That these things have been projected onto them?

Have you tuned out obvious clues to their authentic personality?

Of course, looking at relationships with others in a more truthful light might reveal a need for making some changes within them, and it can be in human nature to fear and resist change. It usually seems safer and easier to stay in the secure cocoon of our fantasies. But if we remain there we are guaranteeing ourselves more pain from the inevitable let downs of unmet expectations, as how could anyone ever live up to someone else's illusions of them?

When we choose to break the illusion and replace our assumptions and projections with a truthful evaluation, freedom from expectations is carried with it, and the opportunity to begin a more clear and honest romantic relationship is born.

On the flip side, we might sense that we are part of other's illusions at times, and that they have made assumptions, and projections, and have formed expectations of us. There is no way you can be true to yourself while trying to conform to someone else's agenda of course. What could be more of a waste of your authentic self expression than spending time acting out someone else's fantasy!

We hold some responsibility here, not to begin to conform to others manufactured images of ourselves. Sometimes we behave in ways that others think we should out of guilt, fear of not being liked, fear of abandonment(ie. the relationship ending)or uncertainty ourselves in who we really are.

Might you be contributing to the reinforcement of illusions and projections that others have related to you, that have led them to develop unrealistic expectations of you?

Be real with the people in your life. Let them know who you really are, and how you really feel. As you begin to see and accept them for who they authentically are, gently help them to see through to their own mistaken assumptions and illusory identities they have built around you, to the real you as well.

When we demonstrate the insight and courage to embrace the truth, along with finally putting an end to the pain of constantly being disappointed by unmet expectations of one another, our relationships have the opportunity to become rich in authenticity, trust, and deep emotional bonding.
----------------------------------------------------------

Coleen Lawrence is a self growth & relationships counselor, writer, & creator of Life Path, a web site dedicated to helping people develop self awareness, discover paths for relationship happiness, longevity, & general positive life transformation.

Take the Conscious Romantic Relationships eCourse & learn how to: Transform A Failing Relationship, Finally Heal Repetitive Struggles, Create A Powerful, Lasting Union, And So Much More... One free relationship guidance session (e-mail exchange) for course participants.

Life Path: http://www.colba.net/~lifepath/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

***********************************************************
11-26-05

How do you define the love you feel for a particular person? Have you even tried to understand the love you feel? PDPJ
***********************************************************

CHAPTER 4: Defining Love

What is this thing called love?

This magic thing called love?

I ask the Lord in heaven above

What is this thing called love?

(Pop song from the 40's).

Since love has been the topic of countless articles, books, discussions, and sleepless nights, I might as well explain how I got interested. I have long been addicted to popular songs, especially love songs. They play in my head, usually uninvited, and often at odd hours. Some of them show up from out of a dim past, so I am frequently searching for lyrics to fill gaps in my memory.

Several years ago in the course of looking for a lyric, perhaps the one quoted above, I happened upon an extraordinary website called Lyrics World (now defunct). What was unusual about this site was that it contained the Top Forty popular songs for the last 70 years (1930-2000), over ten thousand lyrics. As I began to read lyrics of love songs at random, it seemed to me that the majority of them fell into only three patterns: infatuation, requited love, and heartbreak. There were also romance lyrics which didn't fit, but in any given year, they were never in the majority.

The study I later did (Chapter 5) confirmed: about a quarter of all pop songs in the Top 40, year after year, are about heartbreak, about a tenth, about infatuation, and about a tenth, about requited love. Another fourth involves miscellaneous kinds of romance, and a little more than a fourth are not about love or romance.

But in reading these lyrics, a new question arose. It seemed to me that none of these three forms, often not even requited love, suggested genuine love. However, in order to state this idea with confidence, I would have to find out, at least to my own satisfaction, what I mean by genuine love. At least in English, the one word covers so many different things as to be almost meaningless. Of all the emotion words, I think that love may be the broadest and the most vague and pliable. The pliability of this word results in many problems, both in scholarship and in real life.

For this reason I propose a concept of love that is bio-social-psychological: genuine love, in its non-erotic form, has a physical basis in attachment, and a social psychological basis in attunement (shared awareness and identity). Romantic love involves a second physical basis: (sexual) attraction. Each of these forms in itself can involve very intense feelings. Combinations of two or three forms can lead to overwhelming feelings. Non-erotic love is intense because it conjoins attachment emotions and genuine pride. The added experience of sexual desire in erotic love means a powerful confluence of three feelings, each intense alone.

These three affects and their various combinations form different types of what is called 'love'. According to the new definition, only four of these are genuine love; mutual and one-way non-erotic love, and mutual and one-way erotic love. The other single affects and their combinations are look-alikes that would be better understood as different kinds of psuedo-love. One of the central themes of this book is the many kinds of psuedo-love may function to cover up the intense pain of separation in modern societies. This seems to be a new idea; I know of no earlier formulation of this proposal.

I begin with vernacular meanings of love. If love is defined so broadly in modern societies as to be virtually meaningless, how can we rescue its meaning? This book seeks a conceptual definition, one that ultimately might be helpful not only in scholarly research, but also in real life.

Investigating the emotional/relational world is a deeply subversive activity. As the study proceeds, it should be clear that it challenges many of the assumptions that are taken for granted in everyday life. As we go about our daily activities, we have neither the interest nor the resources to investigate the thousand of assumptions that we make, and to a large extent, share with other members of our society, about ourselves and the world. Just getting our activities completed is usually quite enough of a challenge.

Only eccentrics, artists or scientists have the time and inclination to challenge everyday assumptions. Erving Goffman's work seems to partake of all three of these worlds: eccentricity, art and science. One of the most common criticisms of his writing is that it is bitter, cynical, or sour. The charges, for the most part, arise out of his challenge to our taken-for-granted assumptions. Any objective investigation of the emotional/relational world is sure to challenge major institutions; not only the political and economic ones, but also those dealing with family, education, and religion. This book may pose such a challenge.

This chapter spells out a concept of love that distinguishes between genuine love and its look-alikes. For example, pop songs that are about heartbreak virtually always suggest lost attachment. Many, however, in attempting to explain the break-up, also suggest lack of attunement. Lyrics that center on infatuation, on the other hand, usually suggest either attachment or sexual attraction, or both, but rarely refer to attunement in any way. Pop songs about romance always invoke at least one of the three . Some invoke two, but rarely all three. Genuine love, in the sense it is defined here, is seldom found in pop love lyrics. Like current usage, these songs define love only vaguely, and very broadly.

One of the central ideas in this book is the massive individualism that is taken for granted in Western societies. Our 'commonsense' the shared understandings we have in these societies, tells us that individuals are good, they are connected to freedom, and relationships are bad, they are associated with restraint. A less celebrated set of assumptions concerns which emotions are good and which are bad.

In this chapter, I suggest that the emotion of love is seen as good, and is used, therefore, as often as possible. This assumption is groundless, of course, since love in itself is neither good nor bad, or better yet, both good and bad. Love can be experienced in different modes, some very painful. Increasing our understanding of love, step by step, challenges the major institutions in our society.

Current Usage
One obvious cause for confusion is the many ways this word is used in Western societies. According to Harold Bloom (1998 p. 549), Aldous Huxley suggested 'we use the word love for the most amazing variety of relationships, ranging from what we feel for our mothers to what we feel for someone we beat up in a bordello, or its many equivalents.[1]"

The comment about beating someone up because we love them is probably not an exaggeration. A recent set of experiments suggests that subjects condemnation of murder is softened if they are told that it was committed out of jealousy (Peunte and Cohen 2003). These subjects seem to entertain the idea that one can love someone so much that one murders them.

Solomon (1981, pp. 3-4) elaborates on the vagueness and broadness of the vernacular word:

Consider- the wealth of meticulous and fine distinctions we make in describing our feelings of hostil­ity: hatred, loathing, scorn, anger, revulsion, resentment, envy, abhorrence, malice, aversion, vexation, irritation, annoyance, disgust, spite and contempt, or worse, "beneath" contempt. And yet we sort out our positive affections for the most part between the two limp categories, "liking" and "loving." We distinguish our friends from mere acquaintances and make a ready distinction between lovers and friends whom we love "but not that way." Still, one and the same word serves to describe our enthusiasm for apple strudel, respect for a dis­tant father, the anguish of an uncertain romantic affair and nostalgic affection for an old pair of slippers"

Solomon (1981, p. 7) goes on to quote Voltaire: -'There are so many sorts of love that one does not know where to seek a definition of it'. In modern societies, the careless use of the word love tends to defend us against the primitive pain of separation and alienation. The broad use of the word love may defend against the excruciatingly painful loss of true intimacy and community in modern societies.

What does Love Mean?
One place to seek definitions is the dictionary. In the English language unabridged dictionaries provide some two dozen meanings for love, most of them applicable to romantic or close relationships. These are the first two meanings in the American Heritage Dictionary (1992):

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

These two definitions are of great interest, because they touch upon several complexities. Particularly daunting is the idea that love is ineffable (indescribable). I can sympathize with this idea because genuine love seems to be quite complex. Both popular and scholarly accounts flirt with the idea that one of the crowning qualities of love is that it is mysterious and therefore indescribable. Nevertheless, in this chapter I will proceed along the lines that 'love' as it is often perceived, may feel like a mystery, especially to the person obsessed with it, but it can be described. I propose a concept of love to reduce the extraordinary ambiguity of the meaning of what may be the most important of the emotions.

The first dictionary definition (above) is very broad, covering both romantic and other kinds of love, such as love of kin. The second is narrower, involving only romantic love, and emphasizing sexual attraction. Of the twenty or so remaining definitions, a few are unrelated to interpersonal relationships (such as the use of the word love in scoring a tennis match.) Most of them, however, involve various shadings and gradations of love, and especially, of romantic love. Given the many possible meanings of the word, it is no wonder that scholars and, more recently, social scientists, seem so divided on its significance.

Of all the basic emotions, love is the least clearly defined. Our conceptions of anger, fear, shame, grief, contempt, disgust, and joy may be fuzzy around the edges, but they are clear enough so that we can communicate about them. At the most elementary level, we feel we are able at least to distinguish between painful emotions, such as fear, grief and shame, and pleasurable ones, like interest, excitement, and joy.

But about love, particularly romantic love, there is nothing but disagreement. Even on so basic an issue about whether love is painful or pleasurable, experts are divided. Indeed, reading the scholarly literature, it often seems that they are not talking about the same emotion. Some experts, both classical and modern, consider love not only pleasurable, but in many ways the most important thing in life. Nevertheless, this view represents only a minority. The dominant view has long been that love, especially romantic love, is a painful affliction or madness, a view widely held by the ancient Greeks (De Rougement 1940). Over 2500 years ago, Sappho described the pain and impairment of love:

For should I see thee a little moment,

Straight my voice is hushed;

Yea, my tongue is broken, and

Through me

'Neath the flesh, impalpable fire

Runs tingling;

Nothing sees mine eyes, and a

Voice of roaring

Waves in my ear sounds;

Sweat runs down in rivers, a

Tremor sizes

All my limbs, and paler than

Grass in autumn,

Caught by pains of menacing

Death, I falter,

Lost in the love-trance.

Certainly in the teachings of the Church Fathers, beginning with St. Augustine, romantic love has been viewed as a disorder because of the sinfulness of sexuality. The 11th century scholar Andreas Capellanas (The Art of Courtly Love 1969), after an extended indictment of romantic love, concluded that it was the work of the Devil.

The majority of secular scholars have also taken the position that romantic love is an affliction or madness. The most elaborate description of romantic love is found in Stendhal's Love (1975). Although he denies that passionate love is pathological, he inconsistently acknowledges that it is a disease. Certainly his description emphasizes the painful rather than the pleasurable aspects. At the beginning, one is lost in obsession:

The most surprising thing of all about love is the first step, the violence of the change that takes place in the mind - A person in love in unremittingly and uninterruptedly occupied with the image of the beloved.

In the later stages, Stendahl notes, many other surprises await, most of them unpleasant: "Then you reach the final torment: utter despair poisoned still further by a shred of hope"

Although Stendahl included positive aspects of love, the philosopher Ortega y Gasset saw only the negative (On Love 1957), calling romantic love an abnormality. This passage suggests the flavor of his critique:

The soul of a man in love smells of the closed-up room of a sick man--its confined atmosphere is filled with stale breath.

Even Freud, a champion of sexuality, saw romantic love negatively. He commented that falling in love was a kind of "sickness and craziness, an illusion, a blindness to what the loved person is really like" (Freud 1915). Here he seems to equate love with infatuation, a topic I will take up below.

On the other hand, to give Freud credit, he also saw the positive side of love, at least of non-erotic love. When Jung challenged him to name the curative aspect of psychoanalysis, Freud answered very simply 'Love'. This answer is very much in harmony with the definition of love that will be offered in this chapter.

Modern scholarship is more evenly divided between positive and negative views than classical discussions. Hatfield and Rapson (1993) distinguish between passionate love (infatuation) and companionate love (fondness). Both Solomon (1992) and Sternberg (1988) distinguish between love and infatuation. They note that both involve intense desire, but that love also involves intimacy and commitment. Kemper and Reid (1997) also distinguish between what they call 'adulation' and what they see as later stages, ideal and romantic love. Like Persons (1988), they seem to assume that beginning with infatuation is likely to lead on to love.

In my experience, infatuation mostly leads to more infatuation, either with the same or different persons. For Solomon and for Sternberg, love is highly positive and complex; it is infatuation that is simple and negative. As we shall see, this distinction may be too crude. But, if refined, it could be a step toward the development of a workable concept of love.

A very detailed and precise analysis of the meaning of the word love in English is provided by Johnson (2001). He shows that the vernacular word implies three different kinds of love: care, desire for union, or appreciation. These three forms, he argues, may exist independently or in combination. One limitation of his approach is that it does not include the physical component of love, attachment. Another is that it is atheoretical, in that it is based entirely on vernacular usage in the English language. Although it is useful to have such a detailed treatment, it still leaves the analysis of the meaning of love located completely in only one culture.

Kemper (1978) analyzed the way in which social relationships generate love as well as other emotions, in terms of status and power. The awarding of status, which is crucial in Kemper's theory, will be important here also, since it is an aspect of shared identity. Power, however, does not seem to be involved in love as defined here, since shared identity means its absence. Although I agree that most emotions arise out of relationship dynamics, Kemper's theory seems to deal only partially with shared identity, and not at all with attachment, attraction, and empathic resonance (attunement).

Perhaps the best empirical study of romantic love, and certainly the most detailed, is by Tennov (1979), who interviewed hundreds of persons about their romantic life. She found that the great majority of her subjects had frequently experienced the trance of love, like the one in Sappho's poem. However, Tennov does not call this state love or even infatuation. Instead she used the word 'limerance', which refers to a trance-like state. Perhaps aware of the many ambiguities in the way the word love is used, Tennov seems to have wanted a neutral term, rather than the usual one.

The conflict between the different points of view described above is the result, for the most part, of the broad sweep covered by the word love. The argument is a confusion of meanings, since the various sides are referring to different affects. Those who see romantic love as pathological are considering the affect that I prefer to call infatuation and/or the sex drive, without considering other aspects of what is called love. This usage is perfectly proper in English and French (but not in Spanish). Most references to 'falling in love' or 'love at first sight' concern infatuation. And with regard to lust, recall that one of the dictionary definitions of love is 'A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance,' which is entirely about sexual desire.

On the other hand, those authors that stress the positive aspects of love focus on the emotional and relational aspects, companionship and caring. I will consider these aspects under the heading of 'attunement', the sharing of identity and awareness between persons in love. As should become clear in this essay, this is only one part of love, even non-erotic love. Perhaps there will be less conflict and confusion if we can agree on a definition of love that is less vague and broad than vernacular usage.

Two Components of Love
The social science literature on love is divided into two separate schools of thought. The first school focuses on biology. This school holds that attachment, a genetically endowed physical phenomenon is the basis for non-erotic love, and that sexual attraction, together with attachment, are the twin bases of erotic love. The idea that the dominant force in love is attachment and/or sexual attraction is stated explicitly by Shaver (1994), Shackleford (1998), Fisher (1992), and many others. This idea has strong connections with evolutionary theory, proposing that love is a mammalian drive, like hunger and thirst.

A further frisson for this school of thought has been provided by recent discussions of limbic communication (Lewis, et al 2000). According to this work, persons in physically close quarters develop physiologically based resonance, body to body. One striking example they cite concerns women roommates whose menstrual cycles gradually move to the same date. Lewis and his colleagues urge bodily resonance as the dominant component in love. They also explicitly link it to attachment theory (idem, pp. 69-76). From this point of view, love is a constant and a universal, from individual to individual, in all cultures and historical times.

Various studies both of humans and animals have suggested that attachment is primarily based on the close relationship of infants to their caretakers. In close quarters, usually with their parents, the infant seems to imprint on those two persons, and anyone else in close and continued proximity. Although not all of the causes of imprinting have been established, touch, body warmth, and especially the sense of smell are prime candidates. Several studies suggest that an infant will select its own mother's milk over the milk produced by other mothers, probably based on smell rather than on other senses. This sense of smell may be carried with us as long as we live, even if only far below the level of conscious awareness. As adults, we may still become attached to others because of their smell, even if we don't realize it. But there are undoubtedly other roads to attachment as well, as will be discussed below.

There is a second major school of thought, however, that gives little or no attention to a physical basis for love. This school proposes that love is largely a psychological/ emotional/cultural phenomenon. In this perspective, love is seen as extremely variable and changeable, by individuals, social classes, and/or cultures and historical epochs.

Most of this chapter will be devoted to this second idea. Not because the first idea is unimportant. In the scheme of things, the physical basis of love is just as important as the cultural/cognitive/emotional one. My attention will focus mainly on the latter idea because it is much more subtle, complex, and counter-intuitive than the first. It is also a component which is more susceptible to intentional change than attachment and attraction.

Attachment and sexual attraction are relatively simple, constant and universal in all cultures and historical periods. They are built into the human body, as they are built into the bodies of other animals. They can vary in intensity, and in the degree to which they are expressed or inhibited, but they are basically one-dimensional. Not so with the cultural/cognitive/emotional basis for love, which has many dimensions, ramifications, and contradictions.

The Wisdom of Solomon
By far the most sophisticated version of this second perspective is proposed by Solomon (1976, 1981, 1994). There are many features of Solomon's treatment of love that distinguish it from other writings. First, his analysis of love is conceptual and comparative: in his treatments, he examines love in the context of a similar examination of other emotions. The way in which he compared the broadness of the meaning of love with the narrowness of other emotions, quoted above, is illustrative of his approach. Indeed, his first analysis of love occurred in a volume in which he gave more or less equal space to the other major emotions (The Passions 1976). Locating love with respect to other emotions is extremely important, since many of the classical and modern discussions get lost in the uniqueness, and therefore the ineffability of love.

A second feature of his approach is that he provides a broad picture of the effects of emotion on the person undergoing them, in addition to the central feeling. He calls this broad summary 'the emotionworld'. For example, he compares the 'loveworld' to the 'angerworld'. The loveworld (Solomon 1981, p. 126) is 'woven around a single relationship, with everything else pushed to the periphery'... By contrast, he states, in the angerworld 'one defines oneself in the role the 'the offended' and someone else as 'the offender'. [It] is very much a courtroom world, a world filled with blame and emotional litigation...- Solomon uses the skills of a novelist to try to convey the experience of emotion, including cognition and perception, not just the sensation or the outward appearance.

From my point of view, however, Solomon's most significant stroke involves his definition of the central feature of love as shared identity (Solomon 1981, p.xxx; 1994, p.235): 'love [is] shared identity, a redefinition of self which no amount of sex or fun or time together will add up to'.Two people in a society with an extraordinary sense of individual identity mutually fantasize, verbalize and act their way into a relationship that can no longer be understood as a mere conjunction of the two but only as a complex ONE.'

By locating love in the larger perceptual/behavioral framework, and by comparing love with other emotions, Solomon manages both to evoke love as an emotion, and develop a concrete description of its causes, appearance and effects, a significant achievement. His work suggests that the reason scholars decide that love is ineffable is because they treat it that way, a self-fulfilling prophecy that Solomon avoids.

At first sight, Solomon's deconstruction of the concept of love may appear to be Grinch-like. Why remove the aura of ineffability, of sacred mystery by means of comparison with other emotions, by locating feelings within a larger framework of perceptions and behavior, and by invoking a general concept like shared identity? Perhaps this attempt is only one more example of what Max Weber called the progressive disenchantment of the world.

This is an important issue; we cannot afford just to shrug it off. Perhaps it is the price one has to pay for the advancement of understanding. But there us a further reason that is less obvious. One implication of Chapter 2 is that the broad use of the word love is a defense against painful feelings of separation and alienation. It is possible that the way that the idea of love evokes positive feelings of awe and mystery is also a defense against painful feelings of separation and alienation.

In any event, this chapter seeks to extend Solomon's conceptualization of love as an emotion like other emotions. Solomon's idea that genuine love involves a union between the lovers is not new. It is found, as he suggests, in Plato and Aristotle. It also appears in one of Shakespeare's riddling poems about love, The Phoenix and the Turtle, as in this stanza:

Property was thus appall'd,

That the self was not the same;

Single nature's double name

Neither two nor one was call'd.

The idea of unity is also alluded to in the first dictionary definition, quoted above, as 'a sense of oneness', and in many other conceptions of the nature of love. In current discussion, the idea of unity is referred to as connectedness, shared awareness, intersubjectivity, or attunement.

In order to develop a usable definition of love, I will draw upon both literatures, the one on attachment, the other on attunement. For romantic love, a third is needed, (sexual) attraction.

Love and Solidarity
Any theory of social integration, like attachment theory, assumes that humanness requires being connected to others. There is a vast literature supporting the idea that all humans have a need to belong (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Love is one form of belonging, friendship and community are two other forms. But in modern societies these kinds of needs are difficult to fulfil. Infatuation, heartbreak, and on a larger scale, blind patriotism offer a substitute: imagining and longing for an ideal person or group instead of connecting with a real one.

One complication involved with the idea of the need for connectedness is that humans, unlike other mammals, also have a strong need for individual and group autonomy. These two needs are equal and opposite. The clash between needs for both connection and autonomy form the backdrop for cooperation and conflict between individuals and groups. I will return to the issue of autonomy in the discussion of micro-solidarity and micro-alienation below.

The idea of a connection between two persons is difficult to make explicit in Western societies because of the strong focus on individuals, rather than relationships. It implies that humans, unlike other creatures, can share the experience of another. That is, that a part of individual consciousness is not only subjective, but also intersubjective.

The idea of an intersubjective component in consciousness has been mentioned many times in the history of philosophy, but the implications are seldom explored. As indicated in Chapter 2, Cooley argued that intersubjectivity is so much a part of the humanness of human nature that most of us take it completely for granted, to the point of invisibility:

The idea that we '[live} in the minds of others without knowing it' is profoundly significant for understanding the cognitive component of love. Intersubjectivity is so built into our humanness that it will usually be virtually invisible. It follows that we should expect that not only laypersons but most social scientists avoid explicit consideration of intersubjectivity.

This element is what Stern (1977) has called attunement (mutual understanding). John Dewey proposed that attunement formed the core of communication:

Shared experience is the greatest of human goods. In communication, such conjunction and contact as is characteristic of animals become endearments capable of infinite idealization; they become symbols of the very culmination of nature (Dewey 1925, p.202)

In ordinary language, attunement involves connectedness between people, deep and seemingly effortless understanding, and understanding that one is understood. As already indicated, this idea is hinted at in that part of the dictionary definition about "a sense of oneness."

In order to visualize intersubjectivity, it may be necessary to take this idea a step further than Cooley did, by thinking of it more concretely. How does it actually work in dialogue? One recent suggestion that may be helpful is the idea of 'pendulation'that interacting with others, we swing back and forth between our own point of view, and that of the other (Levine 1997). It is this back and forth movement between subjective and intersubjective consciousness that allows mutual understanding.

The infinite ambiguity of ordinary human language makes intersubjectivity (shared consciousness) a necessity for communication. The signs and gestures used by non-human creatures are virtually without ambiguity. In the world of bees, the smell of bees from outside the nest is clearly different than the smell of one's own nest: it signals enemy. But humans can easily hide their feelings and intentions under deceitful or ambiguous messages. Even with the best intentions, communications in ordinary language are inherently ambiguous, because all ordinary words are allowed many meanings, depending on the context. Understanding even fairly simple messages requires mutual role-taking (attunement) because the meaning of messages is dependent on the context.

As suggested in Chapter 2, any context can easily change the meaning of any message. To understand the meaning of messages in context, we have all become adroit at pendulation: seeing the message from the point of view of the other as well as our own.

Independently of meanings, winging back and forth between self and other viewpoint also has a great advantage in the realm of emotions. In this process, one is able to access otherwise occluded emotions. One can experience one's feeling from the point of view of the other, which may be less painful than feeling them as one's self. The state of balance, which I referred to in an earlier work (1979) as 'optimal distance', suggests how solidarity and love benefit close relationships whether in families or psychotherapy.

Mutual understanding often fails to occur, of course. But if a society is to survive it must occur most of the time. When we find that our friend with whom we made a dinner date shows up at the right time and place, we realize that he was not joking or lying. Driving an automobile safely requires taking the role of other drivers. In making a loan, a bank must usually accurately understand the intention of the customer to repay. In fact, our whole civilization is possible only to the extent that mutual understanding usually occurs.

It may help to understand this process by also considering contexts where mutual understanding breaks down. There is a debating tactic that is sometimes used in conversation such that one or both of the speakers doesn't actually hear the other person out. In the quarrel mode, this practice takes the form of interrupting the other person mid-sentence. But there is also a more subtle mode, where one party listens to only the beginning of the other's comments. Instead of continuing to listen until the other is finished, the 'listener' instead begins to construct his own retort, based only on the first few sentences that the other has uttered. This practice is difficult to detect, and has probably never been studied empirically. But it represents one source for the breakdown of pendulation, and therefore of mutual understanding.

Certain types of personality also tend toward lack of mutual understanding. Narcissism, for example, is a tendency to see the world only from one's own viewpoint. This idea is played out in detail in the film As Good as it Gets. The character played by Jack Nicholson falls far the character played by Helen Hunt. But he has great difficulty in relating to her because he must struggle to get outside his own point of view. The last scene, in particular, portrays the agony he suffers in trying to take her point of view as well as his own.

There may also be a personality type with the opposite difficulty, balancing one's own point of view against the others. Perhaps there is a passive or dependent personality type who penchant is to stay in the other person’s viewpoint, rather than balancing it against one's own. I have known professional actors and politicians who had no secure bond because they seemed not to have a point of view of their own.

A relationship may be relatively stable when the personality styles of the two persons are opposite. A person with a narcissistic or isolated style might fit with a person with a dependent or engulfed style. The first person would expect the second to take his point of view, and the second person would expect the other person not to. But in As Good as it Gets, the Helen Hunt character would not put up with the male character's lack of empathy: she clearly showed that he would have to change his ways. Undoubtedly there are many other sources of lack of mutual understanding that require investigation.

In struggling to define what is meant by a sexual perversion, the philosopher Thomas Nagel (1978) came very near to defining genuine sexual congress in terms of attunement[2]. Although he doesn't use that term, or any of the others I have used, such as intersubjectivity, his description of genuineness in terms of each knowing that the other knows they desire and are desired certainly implies it:

These [sexual] reactions are perceived, and the perception of them is perceived; at each step the domination of the person by his body's ( arousal} is reinforced, and the sexual partner becomes more possessible by physical contact, penetration, and envelopment. (p. 48).

In another passage, he invokes the idea of unity and oneness. He goes on to propose that sex between two persons is perverse if it lacks this kind of self and mutual awareness. He points out that this definition inevitably broadens the definition of perversion; ordinarily one doesn't consider it perverse if one or both of the partners is imagining being with someone else other than the person they are having sex with. The idea of attunement is closely linked to a theory of social solidarity, to be discussed next.

Solidarity and Alienation
In the framework proposed here, the non-genetic component of love would be one type of solidarity, a secure bond (Bowlby 1969), involving shared awareness between lovers. As Solomon has suggested, the love bond also means sharing of identity.

There are many passages in literature that imply the idea of shared identity between lovers. Here is an example from Wuthering Heights, in which Kathy, the heroine, exclaims that she IS her lover:

I cannot express it; but surely you and everybody have a notion that there is or should be an existence of yours beyond you. What were the use of my creation, if I were entirely contained here? My great miseries in this world have been Heathcliff's miseries, and I watched and felt each from the beginning: my great thought in living is himself. If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger: I should not seem a part of it.... Love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I AM Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being.

However, the passage 'He's always, always in my mind' suggests a lack of balance, at least on the heroine's part. Rather than loving Heathcliff, from the point of view of the definition offered here, she seems to be engulfed and obsessed with him.

The amount of sharing of identity is crucial for a secure bond. Each lover needs to treat the other as of equal value as self, neither more nor less. The idea of equality of valuing self and other equally means that the loving person can see both persons' needs objectively, without overvaluing self or other. This idea is represented in the airline instructions that the parent place the oxygen mask first on her/his face first, not on the dependent child.

The idea of love involving equality of self and other has been touched on by many earlier discussions. Sullivan (1945, p. 20) states the idea exactly: 'When the satisfaction or the security of the other person becomes as significant to one as is one's own satisfaction or security, then the state of love exists.' Note that he doesn't say that the other is more significant, only as significant. But like most of the other discussions of this point, Sullivan doesn't dwell upon it or provide examples. It is mentioned casually, and in passing.

This idea can be linked to the more general framework of social integration (alienation/solidarity). True love involves being neither dependent (engulfed) nor independent (isolated), but interdependent, to use Elias' terms (1972). It is particularly important to distinguish between a secure and an engulfed bond, since most social science confounds these two types.

In an engulfed bond, one or both partners give up basic aspects of self in order to be loyal to the other. In a traditional marriage, for example, the wife often suppressed anger and resentment to the point that it seemed to disappear, in order to be loyal to her husband. Perhaps this is the major source of emotional estrangement in long-term relationships.

Those who are infatuated or heartbroken with ''love' do not have a secure bond. In cases of infatuation at a distance, the contact that is necessary for the development of attunement is missing; there goes 'love at first sight'. Even where there is contact, the infatuated or heartbroken one may be so self-absorbed (isolated) or engulfed to the point that attunement cannot occur. As will be considered in the next chapter, these two states are consistently presented in popular song lyrics as if they were genuine love.

Solidarity and alienation are usually discussed as if they were macro phenomena, occurring only in large groups or even whole societies. But these concepts are also useful at the level of interpersonal relations, both over long spans of time and also moment by moment.

Love is usually thought of as long term, involving commitment to the relationship. But love can also be seen as occurring or not, moment by moment. In fact, the moment by moment occurrence of love and other emotions may point toward an important issue in defining attunement in genuine love.

Marshall Rosenberg (1999), defining what he calls 'non-violent communication', has suggested that in close relationships, maintaining empathic connectedness (what I have been referring to as attunement) must be treated as more important than any particular topic being discussed. This idea seems to go to the very heart of genuine love, since it brings up the issue of impediments to love and resulting lapses.

In Rosenberg's workshops, this question often arises in parent-child relationships, when a mother or father complains about a child' behavior. For example, a mother may repeat dialogue between her and her son about getting his homework done before watching TV or playing electronic games. Rosenberg begins by explaining that the child has a need for autonomy, for being his own persons, as well as a need for remaining connected with the parent.

This idea seems to be lost on the parent. She will ask: 'So how do I get him to do the homework?'. The parent seems to have the idea that what is involved is a test of wills, and that the way to go is to have a stronger will than the child. Rosenberg then goes on to explain that the parent needs to show that empathic connectedness is more important to her than getting the homework done. That is, that she respects the child's need for autonomy.

In terms of love, Rosenberg's idea seems to be that in genuine love, the lovers show that maintaining attunement is usually more important than anything else. That is, nothing outside of the relationship (work, children, household tasks, and so on) is more important than the relationship itself.

One implication is that any kind of ultimatum, no matter how subtle, violates the love contract. One of the ways this issue comes up is in discussions of commitment between men and women. Because of differences in upbringing, often it is the woman in a relationship who confronts the man about his commitment. Typically, both sides behave badly in this confrontation. Here is a dialogue between students in one my classes that illustrates the problem.

Janey and Charlie have been dating for two months, seeing each other every day. But one day Charlie doesn't call or show up.

Janey phones: What's going on, Charley, are you still interested in me?

Charlie: I don't know.

Janey: You don't know?

Charlie: Well, I just heed some time and space right now.

Confronted by Janey, Charlie appears to feel cornered. It doesn't matter whether he actually doesn't know, or if he is just stalling. He has disconnected. Whatever love the two have for each other is not happening in this particular episode, because there is no attunement.

Although lovers often confront each other with direct questions about degree of commitment, a more diplomatic approach would probably work to maintain the bond, or at least settling the issue more quickly and with less pain. For example, if Janey had opened the discussion by leaving off 'are you still interested in me?' (What's going on Charley?), Charlie may have entered into the dialogue instead of disconnecting from it. Rosenberg's idea of maintaining empathic connectedness (attunement) seems to have many implications for understanding the meaning of love, and love's maneuvers.

The idea of attunement also may help to understand the intensity of the feeling of love. Balanced attunement is a way of describing a secure bond; the corresponding emotion is genuine (authentic) pride. Just as shame/embarrassment are the emotions of lack of attunement, so pride is generated by attunement (Chapter 3). Even for non-erotic love, the conjunction of feelings of attachment and genuine pride, the absence of sadness and shame, presumably can give rise to powerful sensations of wellbeing. In erotic love, when further conjoined with sexual arousal, these three different rivers of sensation may be the most intense pleasurable experience of which humans are capable.

To understand the emotional components of love, it is necessary to consider both the presence and the absence of emotions. First consider the emotions connected with attachment and separation. Sadness (grief) is the crucial indicator of attachment: we miss the loved one when she or he is away, and we are struck down with grief at their loss. But what is the motion connected with the presence of the loved one? Joy is too strong a word for this feeling. I suppose one might say that rather than feeling a particular feeling, one merely feels normal, or the absence of pain.

But the situation maybe a bit more complex than it seems. Suppose that in modern industrial/urban societies, one experiences a sense of separation from others early on in childhood. There is such intense pressure for individuation and individual achievement and recognition that we are practically forced to separate ourselves from others. Not just our parents, but from all others, even, to some extent, from those closest to us.

Supposing, for the sake of discussion, that modern societies give rise to this kind of extreme separation in virtually every one, what would be the consequences? There are two that I think are relevant to understanding the emotion of love. First, we all learn to defend against feelings of loneliness and isolation. That is to say, we learn to suppress and/or ignore these painful feelings. Secondly, however, this kind of maneuver is usually only partially successful. Most of us go through most of our life bearing at least a hint of sadness as background to our activities.

But genuine love silences this background noise, at least temporarily. When one is connected with the loved one, one feels normal in the sense of sadness being absent. The attachment emotion may be the absence of sadness, as if a heavy weight has been lifted.

The same reasoning applies to the presence of pride that accompanies the shared identity and awareness during moments of genuine love. The feeling of authentic pride that is registered is not only that of the emotion itself, but also, and probably much more intensely, the absence of the background noise of humiliation, shame and embarrassment.

Not only sadness, but shame and embarrassment, real or anticipated, are a continuing presence in the life of denizens of modern societies. Goffman's first and best known book, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) made this point in many different ways. His Everyperson is constantly aware of her or his standing the eyes of the others, but helpless to do anything about it, and is usually anticipating, or often, actually experiencing shame or embarrassment. Perhaps the most powerful feelings connected with love concern not only the presence of pleasurable emotions, but the absence of painful ones.
Defining Love

Formulating a concept of love would seem to be a fool's errand. Not only must one refute a vast number of scholarly definitions, but much worse, try to overturn the vernacular, commonsense meanings. Might as well stop the wind, or repel the ocean tide. Nevertheless, it may be worth the effort if we are to understand ourselves and our relationships,

I define non-erotic love as having two main components, attachment, on the one hand, and attunement, on the other. Romantic love also has these two components, as well as third, sexual attraction. Attachment is a physical bond, attunement, in the sense of a balanced sense of shared identity and awareness, a psychological and emotional bond. The two together can provide a definition of non-erotic love much less ambiguous than the vernacular ones..

Attachment gives a physical sense of a connection to the other. The most obvious cue to attachment is sadness when the other is absent or lost, and the sense of normality and fulfillment when the other returns. Another, less frequent cue, is the sense of having always known a person whom we have just met. This feeling may be extremely intense when it occurs, but it also may be completely absent.

Feelings of loss are not continuous, but they are much more stable than attunement, which varies from moment to moment. The attachment component accounts for an otherwise puzzling aspect of 'love' in its vernacular sense: how one can 'love' someone that one doesn't even like? One is attached, despite one's negative cognitive/emotional reaction to the other, and despite the other's behavior, no matter how rejecting. A popular song from the 40's evokes this kind of'love':

I don't know why I love you like I do,

I don't know why, I just do.

I don't know why you thrill me like you do.

I don't know why, you just do.

You never seem to want my romancing.

The only time you hold me

Is when we're dancing.

I don't know why I love you like I do.

I don't know why, I just do.

Physical attachment gives the lover a sense of urgency, even desperation. Furthermore, attachment is like imprinting in other creatures; it occurs very early in infancy, and may last a lifetime. It is attachment that makes loss of a love one profoundly and unavoidably painful. After such a loss, one may suffer grief for many months or years. Grief is the price that our bodies exact for lost attachment.

When we lose a loved one, we may be in great pain, off and on, for a long period of time. This process is biologically based on genetic inheritance. It cannot be completely avoided. But it can be very long, months or years, or shorter, depending upon the completeness of mourning. If one does what Freud called 'the grief work', the work of mourning, the amount and duration of pain may be lessened.

However, modern societies have difficulty recognizing the necessity of mourning. Our individualistic ethos maintains that we are all self-contained, not recognizing how dependent we are on others, especially those we are attached to. After a loss, a person who cries for more than a month or so may be told get a grip, or see a psychiatrist, or take a tranquilizer. Such attitudes interfere with mourning, which is always necessary because attachment is genetically based.

However, there is probably a link between the attachment system and the attunement system. Attachment can find new objects based on clear or obscure similarities with an early attachment figure. This process has been described in psychoanalysis, under the name of 'transference'.

Transference produces a link between the attachment and the attunement systems. Most people become deeply attached to their country of birth. Patriotic feelings seemed be based in part, on attachment. Since the smell of one's native land is probably not a primary source of attachment, it may be that it arises from transference of the feelings one has an infant and small child for one's parents to one's country. Most citizens more or less blindly admired and obeyed their parents as children, and as adults more or less blindly admire and obey their government.

States of attunement, unlike attachment, vary from moment to moment. There is a dialectic of closeness and distance, reaffirming not only the union, but also the individuality of the lovers. The idea of the love bond as involving both continuous attachment and a balance between self and other solves a critical problem in the meaning of love. The bestseller Women Who Love Too Much (1985) describes continuing relationships with husbands who are abusive of wife or children, or both.

The women profess that they can't leave these men because they love them too much. Since the word love is used so broadly in vernacular English, this usage is perfectly proper. But these kinds of relationships fail the test in terms of the way love is being defined here, because they lack balance between self and other. The husband is overvalued; the wife undervalues herself and/or the children. The wives are engulfed with their husbands. In these cases, the word love serves as denial of pathological dependency and/or passivity.

In terms of the idea presented here, these wives are at least highly attached to their husbands, and may or may not be also sexually attracted to them. But it is clear that they are not attuned, in the sense of equally representing self and husband in their thinking and feeling. The husband counts too much, the wife too little. If, as proposed here, genuine romantic love involves a combination of attachment, sexual attraction, and equality of mutual identification, a relationship in which the wife is dependent on the husband in this way clearly fails the test.

Combinations of attachment, attraction, and the three levels of attunement result in 24 possible kinds of 'love' (see Chapter 6 for a graphic representation). But only four represent LOVE as it is defined here: non-erotic mutual and one-way love, and romantic mutual and one-way love. The other twenty combinations represent affects that are often confused with love. This confusion, as mentioned above, may help to hide the painful separation that is characteristic of our society.

To the extent that the definition of love proposed here is found to be useful, what practical application might it have? One implication concerns the possibility of change in each of the three underlying dimensions. The first two dimensions, attachment and attraction, are largely physical and constant. These two dimensions are more or less given and fixed. But the third parameter, degree of shared identity and awareness, may be open to change through effective communication practices.

One goal of communication between persons in love relationship would be to balance the level of shared identity so that it is roughly equal on both sides, over the long run. That is, although one partner might be valuing the other's experience more than her own in a particular situation, momentary isolation or engulfment could be managed over the long term so that the experience of each partner, on the average, is equally valued in the relationships. This issue comes up continually, especially in marriage: the dialectic between being two independent persons and being a we: 'I-ness' and 'We-ness'.

A second issue that is dependent on effective communication is shared awareness. Frequent and effective communication can lead to revealing the self to the other, and understanding the other. This issue is particularly crucial in the area of needs, desires, and emotions. By the time we are adults, most of us have learned to hide our needs, desires, and feelings from others, and to some extent, perhaps, even from ourselves. Long-term love relationships seem to require that these practices be unlearned, so that we become transparent to our partner and to ourselves. Unlike the extent of attachment and attraction, effective and frequent communication can improve the balance in shared identity, and increase shared awareness. In this way, love, which is usually thought of as given, may be increased intentionally.

One final issue concerning the degree of attunement needs further discussion. The definition of love offered to this point hasn't specified one issue that is extremely important for practical reasons. How near to exact equality must the empathy of each partner for the other must be to qualify as love? All that has been said so far is that the amount should average out, over the long term, to near equality. But how near?

Exact equality of empathy between partners might exist in a few moments, but even there it would be rare. Usually one partner is more empathic than the other, in most of these moments, and over the long haul as well. In terms of my definition, does this mean that the more empathic partner loves more? Yes, the definition requires that. But it doesn' eliminate the possibility of other kinds of equality in the relationship.

One possibility involves what might call secondary attunement. If the less empathic partner becomes aware that he is understood better by his partner than he understands her, he can compensate in other ways. For example, by listening longer to her than she does to him. Direct attunement is important in a relationship, but it is by no means the whole story, just as neither attachment and attraction are not the whole story either.

Discussion
Before ending this chapter, a few examples of various types of 'love' will be offered to help flesh out the abstract ideas discussed above. Further examples will be offered in the chapters that follow. One example is the feeling of a mother for her new born infant. Is this feeling genuine love in the sense it is being defined here?

Granting that strong attachment between infant and parent begins at birth, the newborn infant cannot return the love of the parent because it is unable to become cognitively and emotionally attuned to the parent. The parent and other caretakers have to teach the infant how. Until the infant is capable of at least a modicum of sharing awareness with the mother, the feeling between them is not mutual love, but strong mutual attachment.

Very early in the infant's life, however, the caretaker can learn to understand aspects of the infant's experience, by accurately interpreting body language and cries (Stern 1977). Perhaps during the first weeks, the caretaker is able to experience one-way non-erotic love toward the infant.

The beginnings of mutual attunement seem to occur long before the development of language. Tronic et al (1982) have documented the exchange of smiles between infant and caretaker after only several months. Quite properly, according to the definition of love offered here, they refer to this process as 'falling in love'. From the moment of birth, the infant and the mother are intensely attached. Exchanging of mutual glances and smiles begins the other component of non-erotic mutual love, attunement.

As indicated in Chapter 2, the process of teaching the baby cognitive attunement has been described by Bruner (1983). He shows how the parent, in seeking only to teach the child names of objects, also, inadvertently teaches attunement. The child sees that the parent is looking at the object and referring to it, so the child understands that the object is not only in its own mind, its also in the mom's mind. Completing this process takes many years. Until this happens, the child is unable to take the role of the parent to the point that it becomes interdependent, rather than dependent.

Another similar combination, but between adults, is unrequited romantic love. This kind of affect is one-way romantic love. Perhaps the love of the Helen Hunt character toward the Nicholson character in As Good as it Gets, already mentioned above, is of this type. She is evidently attracted and attached to him, and is able to share his point of view. But since he is unable to do the latter, her love for him is not returned. Like an infant, he cannot partake of and value her point of view as much as his own. The affect he holds for her might be called obsessive desire. He is apparently attached and attracted to her, but tends toward self-focus, rather than balance between self and other. This cell also characterizes most cases of intense jealousy, which is also a psuedo-love.

A further combination that psuedo-love can be visualized in terms of the relationship between Kathy and Heathcliff, already mentioned above. Judging from the portrayal of them in the novel, they are obsessively and erotically engulfed with each other. This idea of requited 'love' can also be found in many other novels and in the lyrics of popular songs. Similarly, one-way obsessive, erotic infatuation is often called love in novels and popular songs.

This chapter has suggested that the mindlessly broad definition of love in modern societies is a defense against feeling the painful emotions generated in the emotional/relational world. In particular, the notion that love is sacred, and/or indescribable can function to defend ourselves against the pain of loss, separation, or alienation.

Perhaps any kind of relationship that contains attachment, attunement, or attraction to any degree, no matter how much hostility or withdrawal are involved, is seen in an alienated society as preferable to no relationship at all. But this chapter provides a definition of love that is narrow and precise, one that might help discover the emotions disguised by vernacular usage, and the kinds of dysfunctional relationships that are hidden under the many meanings of love.

The next chapter, on the portrayal of love in popular songs, provides examples of how the broad definition is played out in mass discourse.
http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/29.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-26-05

Would You Rather Be

Right or Be Loved?

When handled effectively, conflict and difficulties can bring two people closer together. The real problem is something else.

by Jonathan Robinson

I've got good news, and I've got bad news.

The bad news is, if you want a happy and loving relationship, you're going to have to give something up: your insistence on being right. When you insist on being right, what you indirectly communicate to your partner is that she is wrong.

You simply can't insist on being right (a form of blame) and have intimacy. Believe me, I've tried. It's like trying to have complete darkness and light in the same room.

The good news is, if you're willing to let go of being right, you can easily experience plenty of love, harmony, and fulfillment in your relationship.

Conflict is inevitable
Conflict is inevitable between people. There is no getting around it. But conflict is not the problem. When handled effectively, difficulties can bring two people closer together. In fact, it would be nearly impossible for deeper intimacy to develop between partners without the aid of an occasional conflict.

Blame...is like a slow-acting poison
What really tears couples apart is blame. Blame, or the insistence on being right and making one's partner wrong, is like a slow-acting poison. It can gradually creep into the entire way couples talk to each other -- until all the love once shared becomes completely polluted.

Since couples' problems stem largely from their need to be right, let's look at this phenomenon more closely.

When in a blame mode, all you know is that you are being more than fair, while your partner is being totally unreasonable. In desperation, you present clear-cut evidence to show him just how wrong he really is.

I guess we all secretly hope that one day, after stating our case, our mate will say something like the following: "Gee, I finally see what you've been trying to tell me! I've been totally wrong, and you've been right all along! I am so sorry I've hurt you. Could you please forgive me for the errors of my ways?"

Have you ever had someone sincerely say that to you? Nor have I. Clearly, the blame game does not ultimately get us what we want.

There are many ways to have a good relationship, but there's only one thing going on in bad relationships -- blame. Unfortunately, when we insist on being right, everything we say will come out wrong. Since blame never works, when you strongly feel you're right, the first thing you need to do is dramatically change your attitude.

If you don't, your partner's blame detector will soon be triggered, and then you'll have a real mess on your hands.

How to get out of the blame mode
What can we do to communicate effectively when we're upset, frustrated, and certain we're right? Over the years, I've experimented with ways I can quickly get myself out of the blame mode and into a state of mind conducive to loving communication.

After much trial and error, I finally came up with something that works for me and the many people I've taught it to. It's a series of three simple questions I ask myself when I think my partner is primarily to blame for whatever is going on in our relationship:

1. What is likely to happen if I insist on being right (and blaming my partner)?

2. Would I like to feel loved or be right?

3. What is something I especially like about my partner?

For small- and even medium-sized upsets, these questions are very effective for changing how you feel. Once you feel differently, you can much more easily communicate in a way that leads back to intimacy. Let's look at each of these questions more closely.

When you ask, "What is likely to happen if I insist on being right?" your mind should turn to think of the pain and failure you'll experience from being in the blaming mode. Depending on how you and your partner tend to handle such situations, you'll likely end up arguing with each other or giving each other the dreaded silent treatment. Neither feels very good.

Question number two asks, "Would I like to feel loved or be right?" This is not a trick question.

In that moment, you may well prefer to be right. If that's the case, I would suggest you avoid saying anything -- until you no longer feel that way. If you say anything, it will almost surely lead to an argument.

Of course, it's okay to insist on being right and speak your mind. I still do that on occasion. But when I do, I'm not surprised by the miserable results I invariably have to endure.

If and when you're too angry to let go of being right, and just being silent with your anger doesn't feel like an option, there are a couple of things you can do. First, you can do what infants do -- go have a temper tantrum.

I'm serious. Young kids yell and beat the floor when they're really upset, and then after a couple of minutes of a tantrum, they're fine again. Once all the anger has been expressed, they feel good.

Adults can achieve the same results by going into a separate room and beating the pillows on their bed for a couple of minutes. It feels good to let loose one's anger in a safe environment. By the time you're done, you'll feel more relaxed again and be able to communicate appropriately with your partner.

The one thing you must avoid is the one thing most couples do: They express anger and blame directly toward their partner. Admittedly, about one in a hundred people doesn't mind being yelled at. But the rest of us don't like it at all. It almost always leads to resentment, defensiveness, hurt, an escalation of the immediate problem you're dealing with, and a buildup of bad feelings that will create even more problems later on.

I've seen couples who spend their entire relationship reacting to and recovering from their partner's anger. Like a bad Three Stooges movie, they spend most of their time trying to inflict pain upon their mate -- as a way of getting back at their partner for something she did to them. It's a sad sight to behold, and definitely a situation you want to avoid.

Ready for the third question?
If you use the three questions before things get out of hand, you can tame the "blame monster" when it's small. If your feelings aren't so intense that you need to tantrum, and you realize you'd rather feel loved than be right, you're ready for the third question: "What is something I especially like about my partner?"

Why ask such a question? Because your ability to communicate effectively with your partner is dependent on how you feel toward him or her. Even if you say the right words -- but you're secretly blaming her, her blame detector will still be triggered (they can be darn sensitive), and her ears will completely turn off.

On the other hand, if you dredge up some semblance of caring for your mate, she'll pick up on it, even if your words aren't just right. The easiest way to get back to feeling connected with your partner is to ask, and then do your best to answer the question, "What is something I especially like about my partner?"

Extracted with permission from the book Communication Miracles for Couples, Conari Press. © 1997 by Jonathan Robinson.

Jonathan Robinson, M.A., M.F.C.C., is a psychotherapist, author, and professional speaker. In the last five years, Jonathan has reached over 300 million people around the world with his practical methods, and his work has been translated into 47 languages. Of the eight books he’s written, Jonathan has authored two New York Times bestsellers: The Little Book of Big Questions and Communication Miracles. He offers a powerful range of self-improvement tools at http://www.howtotools.com.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

11-28-05

Personal Boundaries

by Tony Schirtzinger; ACSW, CICSW

WHAT THEY ARE
The concept of "boundaries" relates to our sense of self.

At birth and for a long while after, a baby has no real sense of who they are.

When we see a baby in their mother's arms, we see two people - the child and the mother. But the baby notices no difference, no division, no boundary between themselves and their mother.

A newborn is "one" with their mother.

As life goes on, the child notices where their skin ends and their mother's skin begins. This is our first "boundary," and the beginning of our "sense of self."

When our boundaries are crossed we are naturally furious at the invasion because we know we could lose our sense of who we are.

WHAT GOES WRONG
Obviously, if a mother doesn't hold her child enough and is unable to bond with them, boundary problems and problems related to sense of self will abound.

But things can go wrong in later childhood and in adult life too.

When they do, it is usually either because someone treats us like they OWN us or, paradoxically, like they DISOWN us.

BEING "OWNED"
The worst example of being owned is physical or sexual abuse. People who treat us in these ways are insisting that they own our very bodies.

We can also lose our sense of self in less severe but more constant ways. Some people never hear anything from their parents or partners except orders and complaints. "Do this!" "Do that!" "You didn't do that well enough!"

Constant exposure to such treatment can shatter boundaries and the sense of self.

BEING "DISOWNED"
Paradoxically, being treated like we are not there can also cause boundary and self problems.

Beware of anyone who is so preoccupied with their own ego and their own life that you sometimes wonder if they even know you are there. This can kill your sense of self too.

ABOUT FEELING CONNECTED
The saddest thing about boundary problems is that the people who have them can feel "too close" (afraid they'll lose themselves), and "too far" (very lonely), but they can seldom feel safely in between or "connected" with others.

THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF BOUNDARY PROBLEMS
People whose boundaries are weak also tend to violate the boundaries of others.

If you don't know that you have boundaries that must be respected, then you also don't know that other people have boundaries you must respect.

THE WAY OUT
First of all, people with these problems should get therapy. This is too difficult for you to do completely on your own.

THERAPY CAN SUPPORT YOU WHILE YOU LEARN WHAT YOU NEED TO DO FOR YOURSELF:

1. Learn to identify even the most subtle ways you violate the boundaries of others. Become excellent at noticing when people "back away," emotionally and physically. When they do, you can be pretty sure you have just crossed their boundaries.

2. Once you become accustomed to noticing the boundaries of others, begin to notice that you have many of the same boundaries yourself!

3. Learn how to object whenever any of your boundaries are crossed, even in the smallest ways and even by people with the kindest intentions.

4. Test various ways to of telling people when they cross your boundaries. Allow yourself to make mistakes while you learn (by sounding either too angry or too nice). Experiment. Notice what works and what doesn't. With close friends who might understand, you might even tell them that you are learning about protecting yourself (so they can understand why you are acting differently toward them).

5. Keep reminding yourself: "People need my permission before they cross my boundaries!"

6. Remind yourself also: "Nobody should ever help me unless I ask them to!"

If people have constantly crossed your boundaries, it may seem unfair to say that you have to stop crossing their boundaries first. It IS unfair!

But if you've been taking such treatment for many years the sad truth is you may not even know what boundaries you are entitled to have! And the best way to learn this is to focus on the boundaries of the people around you.

As you catch yourself violating the boundaries of others, don't pick on yourself. Remember, you are just now beginning to learn about all of this.

About the Author:
Tony Schirtzinger, ACSW is a licensed therapist in Milwaukee. He works with a wide variety of people dealing with any topic, rather than specialize in any one field. He offers e-mail advice and telephone counseling as well as in-person therapy in his Milwaukee clinic. For more information please visit Tony's website at http://helpyourselftherapy.com, where you can find articles on a remarkably wide variety of topics related to personal growth, as well as contact information.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You are listening to Cristofori's Dream by David Lanz

Amazon Coupons