Editorial updates Comments
|
|
Chapter Map
> Child To Adult Transition. >Relationship: Parent/Child >Education >School > "Post Angst" > Fixing The Damage > To Love Oneself <you are here> > Loving Others |
Words: a nebulous assumption
So often in our language words are brandished about who's meaning lies in a nebulous assumption of understanding: Love, in my opinion, is used in this manner. We assume that the meaning we want will be applied in the right context. In connection with this, I need to explain the view I have of the word Love. I have come from a Christian background so my use of the word love is defiantly coloured form that perspective. So if you have not already read the section "what is this thing called love" on the Home chapter one might like to take a look just now. this button will take you there: What Is This Thing Called Love
To Love Oneself
I When I talk about "damage" I am really meaning that some of the information, or learnt processes that we were acquired in child hood, was inaccurate, unhelpful, or crippling to our achieving our full potential. Of all such "damage" done the worst must be to the perception we have of ourselves. This Section looks at the notion of "Loving oneself"... why we don't and why we should.
Starts With Self Acceptance
In the section Child to Adult Transition, I stated that, what we were left with after the transition to adult life was a set three of attitudes, an attitude to; ourselves, other people and to the concept of life as a whole. Collectively these attitudes will govern our
motivations and responses to all the stimuli we will encounter in life. I further suggested that in spite of how and where we were brought up, the "best" most empowering principles that should be ascribed to these attitudes should be that of "LOVE" and that the most important of those is love of one's self but that might beg the question why would one not love/like ourselves?
What’s the problem? Why would someone not like themselves?
Well it's true a good set of data will produce a balanced, well adjusted individual that likes themselves; but to varying degrees and in certain situations this might not be the case.
The Fact is that man is a highly social animal: we have a need to be with others. When I say need, I see it as part of an instinctual animal motivation, Although we all sometimes like to be alone and have our own space, I would say that people who are very isolationist are suffering from server damage. As a highly social animal we have a need to interact with others, and more specifically we have a need to be accepted in to a social group, to be part of a troop. We all have this need of friendships both to enhance one's identity and no doubt partly as of a reproductive motivation.
When we approach an interaction with people we do so equipped with the image we have of ourselves and the learnt social behaviour mechanism set by the mores of the group or individual we interact with. The nature of that interaction will depend on the nature of the participants. When we first meet new people there is for many, if not most us, a feeling of insecurity; anxiety as to how one will be received and accepted and, at worst, the possibility of rejection, hostility or even ridicule. From this potential anxiety and a wish to be accepted, we sometimes feel compelled to project to others what we think is a more acceptable image of ourselves. We cover up the bits we think might be unacceptable and hide our real feelings behind a mask: we end up playing a "game" lest we should be hurt or rejected. Much of this "game playing" is done unconsciously. We take on what we think are other people's expectations of what we should be.
The more extrovert or confident amongst us "advertise" our projected image. We very often "ware badges" a physical projection of the tribe or group we would like to identify with. The more conscious examples of this is in ones dress or physical adornments: hairstyle, colour, tattoos and body piercings. We advertise our conformity or affiliation to a particular group in order to be accepted. Of course some will be more shy and recessive but they too, by virtue of not conforming to a fashion, will also, unconsciously advertise aspects of their psychic by either a bland conformity, to live in the background or by a dishevelled unkempt appearance. For our young people trying to sort out where and how they fit into society there is a potential conflict between the need to be apart of a troop, with all the projected conformity required and the reality of who they really are. And this is not just for the "fringed fashion" groups of our youth but ultimately the adult grouping of society as a hole, there is a need to conform to be accepted. Our needs of socialization force us to conform. We, in the west, live in a relative open liberal society where some self expression is acceptable, some more controlled societies particularly religious based ones are far more prescriptive in terms of acceptable self expression. That having been said a western culture, although giving an individual greater freedom of expression gives an individual less to "push against": it can be seen as being psychological less securing to have fewer rules.
But what has all this got to do with loving or likening ourselves? It is just to realise that there are some very strong motivational forces at work from within the socialization process for us to "be" something, the nature of which is dependant on what particular group or society we are trying to be apart of. We play the game of conformity. Some people can end up being so absorbed in the playing of this "game" that the game becomes the reality of who they are: they lose touch of there self-awareness to who they really are.
I suppose in a "perfect world" the tail would not wag the dog: That is to say that external influences of conformity should not dictate or determine our sense of self value. To be really comfortable with who we are would mean that the degree to which we allow the out side world to influence our societorial conformity would be limited. We would not feel the sometimes excessive pressure to be something other than ourselves. For those that can and do love themselves, the need to project an image in order to be accepted simply isn't there, their self security is sufficient for their well being, where as for those that don't love (comparatively) themselves and need the reassurance of being accepted they may well project an image. A common example of what I mean is some one who projects a "harder" image of themselves as a protection against being hurt. This doesn't need to be physical but just in verbal terms: they can then keep people at arms length, not allowing people to see their vulnerability: the soft, gentile, easily hurt, sensitive person beneath the hard exterior. The degree to which one is aware of what one is doing will vary with each individual. The more self-aware: in touch with our feelings, the more we know what is going on. I'm not a sociologist but I would suspect that there is a sense of "collective damage" where the interaction of damaged people with damaged people both compounds and perpetuates the problems.
The effects of bad data/damage (not seeing our own worth) is not only that the lack of personal security makes us vulnerable to the pressures of societorial conformity but also that the data its self (unless corrected) compounds the problem: the realisation of not fitting in or having to lie either to ourselves or others as to who we really are. We may well end up disliking who we really are: scared, failure, ugly, stupid what ever the negative perception we may have about ourselves (derived from what we have been taught). Consequently such perceptions can be very debilitating: shyness, guilt, shame, anger can be the resultant feelings from our perceptions of ourselves and leave us unable to ever realize our full potential. There are most defiantly good reasons as to why people do not like themselves.
motivations and responses to all the stimuli we will encounter in life. I further suggested that in spite of how and where we were brought up, the "best" most empowering principles that should be ascribed to these attitudes should be that of "LOVE" and that the most important of those is love of one's self but that might beg the question why would one not love/like ourselves?
What’s the problem? Why would someone not like themselves?
Well it's true a good set of data will produce a balanced, well adjusted individual that likes themselves; but to varying degrees and in certain situations this might not be the case.
The Fact is that man is a highly social animal: we have a need to be with others. When I say need, I see it as part of an instinctual animal motivation, Although we all sometimes like to be alone and have our own space, I would say that people who are very isolationist are suffering from server damage. As a highly social animal we have a need to interact with others, and more specifically we have a need to be accepted in to a social group, to be part of a troop. We all have this need of friendships both to enhance one's identity and no doubt partly as of a reproductive motivation.
When we approach an interaction with people we do so equipped with the image we have of ourselves and the learnt social behaviour mechanism set by the mores of the group or individual we interact with. The nature of that interaction will depend on the nature of the participants. When we first meet new people there is for many, if not most us, a feeling of insecurity; anxiety as to how one will be received and accepted and, at worst, the possibility of rejection, hostility or even ridicule. From this potential anxiety and a wish to be accepted, we sometimes feel compelled to project to others what we think is a more acceptable image of ourselves. We cover up the bits we think might be unacceptable and hide our real feelings behind a mask: we end up playing a "game" lest we should be hurt or rejected. Much of this "game playing" is done unconsciously. We take on what we think are other people's expectations of what we should be.
The more extrovert or confident amongst us "advertise" our projected image. We very often "ware badges" a physical projection of the tribe or group we would like to identify with. The more conscious examples of this is in ones dress or physical adornments: hairstyle, colour, tattoos and body piercings. We advertise our conformity or affiliation to a particular group in order to be accepted. Of course some will be more shy and recessive but they too, by virtue of not conforming to a fashion, will also, unconsciously advertise aspects of their psychic by either a bland conformity, to live in the background or by a dishevelled unkempt appearance. For our young people trying to sort out where and how they fit into society there is a potential conflict between the need to be apart of a troop, with all the projected conformity required and the reality of who they really are. And this is not just for the "fringed fashion" groups of our youth but ultimately the adult grouping of society as a hole, there is a need to conform to be accepted. Our needs of socialization force us to conform. We, in the west, live in a relative open liberal society where some self expression is acceptable, some more controlled societies particularly religious based ones are far more prescriptive in terms of acceptable self expression. That having been said a western culture, although giving an individual greater freedom of expression gives an individual less to "push against": it can be seen as being psychological less securing to have fewer rules.
But what has all this got to do with loving or likening ourselves? It is just to realise that there are some very strong motivational forces at work from within the socialization process for us to "be" something, the nature of which is dependant on what particular group or society we are trying to be apart of. We play the game of conformity. Some people can end up being so absorbed in the playing of this "game" that the game becomes the reality of who they are: they lose touch of there self-awareness to who they really are.
I suppose in a "perfect world" the tail would not wag the dog: That is to say that external influences of conformity should not dictate or determine our sense of self value. To be really comfortable with who we are would mean that the degree to which we allow the out side world to influence our societorial conformity would be limited. We would not feel the sometimes excessive pressure to be something other than ourselves. For those that can and do love themselves, the need to project an image in order to be accepted simply isn't there, their self security is sufficient for their well being, where as for those that don't love (comparatively) themselves and need the reassurance of being accepted they may well project an image. A common example of what I mean is some one who projects a "harder" image of themselves as a protection against being hurt. This doesn't need to be physical but just in verbal terms: they can then keep people at arms length, not allowing people to see their vulnerability: the soft, gentile, easily hurt, sensitive person beneath the hard exterior. The degree to which one is aware of what one is doing will vary with each individual. The more self-aware: in touch with our feelings, the more we know what is going on. I'm not a sociologist but I would suspect that there is a sense of "collective damage" where the interaction of damaged people with damaged people both compounds and perpetuates the problems.
The effects of bad data/damage (not seeing our own worth) is not only that the lack of personal security makes us vulnerable to the pressures of societorial conformity but also that the data its self (unless corrected) compounds the problem: the realisation of not fitting in or having to lie either to ourselves or others as to who we really are. We may well end up disliking who we really are: scared, failure, ugly, stupid what ever the negative perception we may have about ourselves (derived from what we have been taught). Consequently such perceptions can be very debilitating: shyness, guilt, shame, anger can be the resultant feelings from our perceptions of ourselves and leave us unable to ever realize our full potential. There are most defiantly good reasons as to why people do not like themselves.
An Attitude: what more can one say?
...... why love?
Love is just a word that I have used to define the nature of what I think should be the attitude we have towards ourselves, but perhaps what I should be looking at the mechanism its-self before describing the nature of the context that one allocates to the mechanism:
We have an attitude towards ourselves. The attitude is based on the information gain from our interaction with living. From the nature of that attitude we interpret and respond to stimuli. The attitude to wards ourselves can be positive or negative. Intellectually the attitude is part of the mechanism of survival. we learn responses in childhood relevant to a specific environment and use that knowledge in adult life.
Clearly what we think about ourselves is highly influential to all that we do, and collectively our interaction with each other must be total influenced by such, indeed sets the nature of all interaction. That being the case any degree of control that we can impose on this mechanism must be highly influential and the potential to be very positive. Intellectually/philosophically the attitude sets the nature of our being. The substance of this line of thinking is in fact part of an other chapter: The Human Condition and I am not wanting to pre-empt that writing but not with standing that it will be sufficient to say that with in the context of this mechanism: what we ascribe to this attitude (and consequently to the other two: other people and life as a whole) will have extraordinary repercussions both to the individual and to society as a whole. To take the allocation of attitudes out of the vagaries of our instinctual nature and ascribe to it a specific set of attitudes represents an extraordinary degree of control over our existence. For me this reality is the reason for my obsession with child to adult transition: that if every child could see its own worth the world would be transformed. No I do not believe this to be a utopic dream although I would concede it to be easier said than done. What ever word we use to describe the nature of the attitudes is immaterial, a rose would smell as sweet...I will continue to describe it as love.
Love is just a word that I have used to define the nature of what I think should be the attitude we have towards ourselves, but perhaps what I should be looking at the mechanism its-self before describing the nature of the context that one allocates to the mechanism:
We have an attitude towards ourselves. The attitude is based on the information gain from our interaction with living. From the nature of that attitude we interpret and respond to stimuli. The attitude to wards ourselves can be positive or negative. Intellectually the attitude is part of the mechanism of survival. we learn responses in childhood relevant to a specific environment and use that knowledge in adult life.
Clearly what we think about ourselves is highly influential to all that we do, and collectively our interaction with each other must be total influenced by such, indeed sets the nature of all interaction. That being the case any degree of control that we can impose on this mechanism must be highly influential and the potential to be very positive. Intellectually/philosophically the attitude sets the nature of our being. The substance of this line of thinking is in fact part of an other chapter: The Human Condition and I am not wanting to pre-empt that writing but not with standing that it will be sufficient to say that with in the context of this mechanism: what we ascribe to this attitude (and consequently to the other two: other people and life as a whole) will have extraordinary repercussions both to the individual and to society as a whole. To take the allocation of attitudes out of the vagaries of our instinctual nature and ascribe to it a specific set of attitudes represents an extraordinary degree of control over our existence. For me this reality is the reason for my obsession with child to adult transition: that if every child could see its own worth the world would be transformed. No I do not believe this to be a utopic dream although I would concede it to be easier said than done. What ever word we use to describe the nature of the attitudes is immaterial, a rose would smell as sweet...I will continue to describe it as love.