yesterday i spent an hour with a colleague, discussing a coaching tool
created by ben dean of mentor coach.
the tool - the pillars of a balanced life - can be likened to a work-life
balance analysis, but multi-dimensional. there are 10 life domains the tool
assesses and it is interpretable, meaning, it can be modified or expanded to
suit specific situations or goals. at the end of our time together, he
concluded with saying that if there was one word he would put forth to capture
the essence of my life, it would be "purpose."
commenting on the previous post, friends have suggested that i explore
several threads, one of them being this: "i am compelled to
pay attention to the brilliance that occurs at that level of performance; it
utterly captures my attention!" the question to answer would be,
"why?"
i have to say that i do not think i am alone or unique in this position of
awe at superlative performance. i give credit to the human brain (and its
supporting characters) for selectively narrowing its focus to isolate
breathtaking performance from its fair-to-average counterpart.
why do performers go out on a limb, time after time after time? this is the
same question as "why do babies insist on walking after they've fallen and
gotten hurt countless times in one day?"
i remember my first ballet recital. i was required to perform two years
after i started taking lessons. i remember hating the costume, the role picked
out for me, the music, the almost-all of the performance. the only part i liked
were the pink satin toe shoes. the lights of the stage were so hot and bright,
the maw of the audience so close and hauntingly faded. two years to train
for a performance in a new field is not enough. still, i stayed in formation,
did my duty, and threw the costume away after the performance. my sister told
me afterward that she could hear my deep sighs of frustration - my left foot
skidded sharply at one point, breaking alignment with the other performers -
from the fifth row.
i loved ballet. i loved it from the first moment i put on the black leotard
and pink tights. i felt like a big girl when i graduated to pointe.
going to the dance store and being instructed on how to sow on the ribbons. the
shoes were so smooth and clean, the color such a mystical faded pink. and i loved
the culture. i loved the elegance of the body, the exhilaration of the corps
moving in rhythmic unison. it was, at times, absolute immersion. it was flow. at times.
it was grueling and painful work, but strangely, there was such a huge payoff after every
lesson no matter how many times the mistress - a diminutive german - pounded
her staff on the waxed and scarred hardwood floor during that lesson, or who
she yelled at and how many times.
i'm going to do an analogy here.
the baby falls as he tries to pull himself up to the table leg, to steady
his still-fat baby body so as to take a tentative step. head meets edge of
table leg, pain ensues. 40 minutes later, baby initiates the same sequence of
actions - maybe using a different piece of furniture for support. do we
consider this the neurosis of repeating the same behaviors while expecting
different/better results? no. we consider this perseverance in service of
manifesting the blueprint for striving, overcoming, and conquering.
the ballet mistress yells at me 7 times in one hour, punctuating her
displeasure, her offense at my imperfection, with a bang of her staff - as if
the yelling isn't enough. and the embarrassment of being less-than and that
being visible to my fellow dancers. (now, 30 years later, i know that in some
disciplines, those who are critiqued are considered higher-potential than those
who are not; twisted logic but it stands to reason.) why do i keep going to
classes? why do i keep getting up on stage, despite the slips and hot lights
(and odious costumes)?
because i have a blueprint for striving, overcoming, and conquering.
and this blueprint is built into every living organism.
true, every organism has different innate blueprints. broadly-stated, one of
two; think: easy, adaptive baby or colicky, sensitive baby. however, epigenetics shows us that these two
influencers are so intertwined that it’s not a proposition of one or the other, nature or nurture; when looking for
explanations of how the blueprint manifests itself, it is an admission of both.
bringing it back to the striving to achieve and conquer, this innate need –
let’s call it a metaphysical sense of purpose – manifesting in observable behaviors
is indeed different among people, but it is present in all people.
in the alchemy of hardwired and environmental, purpose,
to some, is the journey to excellence. to others, it may the journey to comfort.
or satisfaction. or safety. the beauty of differences, the glorious concert of human expression and desire. all are cherished. but take action toward a purpose, whatever it might be.
to me, it feels as though being captivated by excellence – and the striving toward –
speaks to the unquenchable desire to see magnificence, beauty, grace. transcendence of past
and present, in favor of timeless.
are you striving towards your purpose?
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Saturday, May 5, 2018
i'm on an arterial road
why not stay with therapy, carmen? why peak performance? are you saying that other levels of performance are (fill-in-the-blank with negative adjective of your choice)? no, that is not what i am saying. that is not why i am veering off the main road. i am compelled to pay attention to the brilliance that occurs at that level of performance; it utterly captures my attention!
but the inquiry needs to reach much further back.
we perform our best when we are at our best, holistically.
what does that really mean? does that mean that it is mostly the few, who were chosen by fate to have comfortable, safe childhoods, who can train to evolve to that level of performance? what about the (probably) 99.9% of the rest of us who were touched by some sort of uncomfortable experience or denigrating trauma in our childhoods? are we incapable of attaining peak levels of performance?
i found an answer today.
i realized that the reason for my interest in (high) performance is largely the same reason for my interest in psychology. i wanted to know what? why? and how? and then what?
what happened? what did that result in? how can the lived experience to date be changed and improved after that happened?
change.
but the approach to these questions - and to the change itself - differ markedly between the practice of therapy and coaching / consulting.
i now understand the psychology of behavior. and i understand how to influence change from this platform; or, at times, to recognize how much and what kind of change is possible (and why).
what emerged in my therapy work was the inevitable merging of an old love - high performance - and a new discovery - my attention was increasingly captivated by clients who were able to sustain the change process which occurs in therapy, thereby achieving personal evolution. i eventually became uncomfortable with clients who were unable to walk down this road. these latter clients knew they wanted to experience a different - better - life. but what kept showing up was their inability or unwillingness to engage in the process of change, to be comfortable with discomfort (for a little bit), to be honest about their defenses (which make sense, but still need to be looked at to see if or how they are useful/less), and to actually do the day-to-day work that change requires. basic work. basic, as in ... sleep well. eat nourishing food. stretch a little. literally. metaphorically. go inward and reflect. be honest with yourself. it became evident that their energy was invested in maintaining a particular narrative which not only wasn't serving them but it was stonewalling personal growth, unbeknownst to them.
show stopper for therapy. fertile soil for resentment and frustration to bloom, with a decisive, "therapy doesn't work" message added to the narrative.
my own narrative had a fundamental nuance. therapy works if you make it work (read: sweat, blood, tears). and those who make it work have something inside of them that enables them to make it work that the others do not. what is that something? and why am i so energized when i work with these clients? and why do i get impatient and mentally check out when i'm in conversation with the ones who don't (want to) make it work? "i better pay attention," says i to self.
and here's what i discovered. but first, a paraphrased quote from michael gervais: one commonality 80% of the world's top-performing ceos share is a childhood history of trauma.
wait! WHAT?!
and here's the discovery and the interpretation of the quote. people don't excel because they haven't experienced some form of trauma in childhood. they most likely excel because of it!
80% OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT IS MOST LIKELY A RESULT OF ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES.
so, if we were to generalize this figure to other performance areas, then we come to learn that most high performers perform at that level because they are overcoming something painful! and that is the answer i came to. and i tied the whole package with a nice, fat, red bow. so therapy and performance enhancement address the same issue, trauma, but possibly with different populations, definitely from a different platform.
therapy works (with people who want it to work) for people who have identified their own less-than-optimal childhood and work to surmount the trauma, psychologically.
performance enhancement is sought by people with the above two givens already processed and shelved as "part my my history" and "now i want to look at present and future, to continue the trajectory of [overcoming that past by] performing at a superlative level as much as i am capable of doing [with some mental skills work]."
you see, the issue is ... where does it all come from? where does psychological dysfunction come from? where does stellar performance come from? they're offshoots of the same root: a sub-par (possibly traumatizing) childhood. but where the twins depart from one another is what the individual does with this burden: one road leads toward dysfunction (mostly), the other leads toward overcoming.
resilience. intensity of purpose. reaching for achievement and excellence. pretty much always and in every sphere of activity.
let me explain. if i grow up with a parent for whom my efforts are never good enough, who expects excellence - be it subjective or objective, but mercilessly relentless - and constantly reminds me of this (not constructively, to say the least), then i have two options (for i must survive my childhood and am creating some sense of self as i go along, surviving). option 1: i learn that i am not good enough (subconsciously) and (unconsciously) stop there, meanwhile developing, first anxiety, then depression; later in life, my narrative says, "i'm not good enough; everyone else is better; i don't deserve to feel good about myself." option 2: i learn that i am not good enough (subconsciously) and furiously seek (unconsciously) (and probably create) opportunities for myself to disprove that uncomfortable "knowledge" (so as to gain my parent's approval).
sadly, this is not my discovery. harvard business review explored it here. but, it is an important link between points on the performance continuum.
performance is fundamentally approval-seeking behavior. however, it is an adaptive response to the long-standing, original-source disapproval.
i have wandered off the so-called main road because i am interested (and always have been) in how we - these complex organisms known as a humans - surmount difficulties. why and how we create constructive and purposeful meaning out of pain or discomfort or adversity.
and that is the reason i wanted to understand human psychology in the first place.
thanks, robert pirsig.
but the inquiry needs to reach much further back.
we perform our best when we are at our best, holistically.
what does that really mean? does that mean that it is mostly the few, who were chosen by fate to have comfortable, safe childhoods, who can train to evolve to that level of performance? what about the (probably) 99.9% of the rest of us who were touched by some sort of uncomfortable experience or denigrating trauma in our childhoods? are we incapable of attaining peak levels of performance?
i found an answer today.
i realized that the reason for my interest in (high) performance is largely the same reason for my interest in psychology. i wanted to know what? why? and how? and then what?
what happened? what did that result in? how can the lived experience to date be changed and improved after that happened?
change.
but the approach to these questions - and to the change itself - differ markedly between the practice of therapy and coaching / consulting.
i now understand the psychology of behavior. and i understand how to influence change from this platform; or, at times, to recognize how much and what kind of change is possible (and why).
what emerged in my therapy work was the inevitable merging of an old love - high performance - and a new discovery - my attention was increasingly captivated by clients who were able to sustain the change process which occurs in therapy, thereby achieving personal evolution. i eventually became uncomfortable with clients who were unable to walk down this road. these latter clients knew they wanted to experience a different - better - life. but what kept showing up was their inability or unwillingness to engage in the process of change, to be comfortable with discomfort (for a little bit), to be honest about their defenses (which make sense, but still need to be looked at to see if or how they are useful/less), and to actually do the day-to-day work that change requires. basic work. basic, as in ... sleep well. eat nourishing food. stretch a little. literally. metaphorically. go inward and reflect. be honest with yourself. it became evident that their energy was invested in maintaining a particular narrative which not only wasn't serving them but it was stonewalling personal growth, unbeknownst to them.
show stopper for therapy. fertile soil for resentment and frustration to bloom, with a decisive, "therapy doesn't work" message added to the narrative.
my own narrative had a fundamental nuance. therapy works if you make it work (read: sweat, blood, tears). and those who make it work have something inside of them that enables them to make it work that the others do not. what is that something? and why am i so energized when i work with these clients? and why do i get impatient and mentally check out when i'm in conversation with the ones who don't (want to) make it work? "i better pay attention," says i to self.
and here's what i discovered. but first, a paraphrased quote from michael gervais: one commonality 80% of the world's top-performing ceos share is a childhood history of trauma.
wait! WHAT?!
and here's the discovery and the interpretation of the quote. people don't excel because they haven't experienced some form of trauma in childhood. they most likely excel because of it!
80% OF HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT IS MOST LIKELY A RESULT OF ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES.
so, if we were to generalize this figure to other performance areas, then we come to learn that most high performers perform at that level because they are overcoming something painful! and that is the answer i came to. and i tied the whole package with a nice, fat, red bow. so therapy and performance enhancement address the same issue, trauma, but possibly with different populations, definitely from a different platform.
therapy works (with people who want it to work) for people who have identified their own less-than-optimal childhood and work to surmount the trauma, psychologically.
performance enhancement is sought by people with the above two givens already processed and shelved as "part my my history" and "now i want to look at present and future, to continue the trajectory of [overcoming that past by] performing at a superlative level as much as i am capable of doing [with some mental skills work]."
you see, the issue is ... where does it all come from? where does psychological dysfunction come from? where does stellar performance come from? they're offshoots of the same root: a sub-par (possibly traumatizing) childhood. but where the twins depart from one another is what the individual does with this burden: one road leads toward dysfunction (mostly), the other leads toward overcoming.
resilience. intensity of purpose. reaching for achievement and excellence. pretty much always and in every sphere of activity.
let me explain. if i grow up with a parent for whom my efforts are never good enough, who expects excellence - be it subjective or objective, but mercilessly relentless - and constantly reminds me of this (not constructively, to say the least), then i have two options (for i must survive my childhood and am creating some sense of self as i go along, surviving). option 1: i learn that i am not good enough (subconsciously) and (unconsciously) stop there, meanwhile developing, first anxiety, then depression; later in life, my narrative says, "i'm not good enough; everyone else is better; i don't deserve to feel good about myself." option 2: i learn that i am not good enough (subconsciously) and furiously seek (unconsciously) (and probably create) opportunities for myself to disprove that uncomfortable "knowledge" (so as to gain my parent's approval).
sadly, this is not my discovery. harvard business review explored it here. but, it is an important link between points on the performance continuum.
performance is fundamentally approval-seeking behavior. however, it is an adaptive response to the long-standing, original-source disapproval.
i have wandered off the so-called main road because i am interested (and always have been) in how we - these complex organisms known as a humans - surmount difficulties. why and how we create constructive and purposeful meaning out of pain or discomfort or adversity.
and that is the reason i wanted to understand human psychology in the first place.
thanks, robert pirsig.
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
“the paths of fate: a garlic clove is moved one millimeter and the world is utterly changed…”
“…the slightest shift disturbs the secret position of our
emotions and yet it transforms our lives forever.” – muriel barbery, the life of elves
i have missed this blog. i have missed the magic of words
conjuring dreams, fascinations, metamorphoses, tears, grief, solace,
inspiration, life, beauty, wonderment, exile, tranquility, reverberations.
i have missed writing.
what have i been doing all this time?
it is true that muses alight on shoulders. it is utterly and
unequivocally true. muriel barbery reminded me of this
long-forgotten truth. the woman is a word-magician. her themes, universal. her
themes are mine and yours; they’re the collective stone paths through the
thicket, out into the clearing. her clearings, much like mine, are swaths of
golden grain strewn with red poppies, bending to the symphony of wind,
bracketed by cool, sumptuous forest.
mayhaps – thanks, brian jacques – i’ve been meandering in
the forest and thickets. not lost, just meandering; rejuvenating on beds of
moss, ferns, and dew. the potions and incantations must have worked. i am
walking into the clearing once more. this dance of life, this path of stones leading
to poppies, secrets cobbled in tempered silence, murmurs of truths
almost-forgotten. i have remembered it all, i reclaim it all.
while reclined on mosses, fed by dew and roots and earth, i
have brought to the surface forgotten knowledge.
we are whole. every single one of us. whatever our
diminutions, whatever our circumstance, or fate, or blueprint. we need not seek
elsewhere other than within. illness is a gift. health, equally so, though more
audacious. or, more soporific of the two. surely when we are full of health, we
are also blissfully unaware of its transience and its polar coexistence with
illness.
truth: we are all whole, no matter the present
circumstances.
truth: the cacophony of life as we know it steadily distances us from our Truths.
truth: wholeness resides in blood, guts, heart, brain, mind,
eye, toes, lips, ligaments, nerve fibers, interstitial fluid. the all of each
one of us is encoded with wholeness and health.
i have been thinking and espousing the three pillars of
mental health. sleep, food, exercise. but so much more than that. a fourth
pillar is added. relaxation. i’ve worn my facial muscles into permanent
expressions iterating these facts. sleep, food, exercise, relaxation. breathe. repeat.
there are no secrets. all is open and free. search for your Truths and for our
Truths. and remember wholeness.
and walk that well-known path pulling you into the clearing.
what do you see?
the song, the poem, the connecting line…
while on hiatus from this blog, i have lived much and
richly. i have learned painful lessons. i have slumbered and awoken to bounteous gratitude. i have been fed and i have fed. i have writhed with anguish and
exploded with cathartic joy. for myself, for my son, for my clients-fellow-journeymen,
for faceless humans the world over, mostly encountered in the in-between pages
of stories. i have been fed
by writers, artists, courageous actors who wrote or painted or acted their
story or their life so as to speak to my experience of being human.
i have worked at healing, surely. what has been healing me these many moons have been the
poet-artists – whom I’ve never met in real life; or, some of whom i have met,
whether in my practice or in elevators, or in airport waiting lounges, or on
stone steps outside of museums – who touched my shoulder ever so slightly, whispering,
“look. just, look and be. it is well. and it is whole. and, so, it is
beautiful. all is to be accepted and taken in. it is your endowment and your
legacy and your library. bind it all in leather, gilt the edges, and shelve it
where you can see and touch it.”
while on hiatus from this blog, i have spoken with courage
and hope and blunders and fear. i have met perpetual hope. these have led me
back to the original source. all we do is in the service of love. all we do, we
do to reach and connect. that is all that matters. perhaps one more thing
matters; but which comes first? vulnerability. the remembrance of safety in
vulnerability. this is the apogee of love – I love (and seek shelter) when i am
vulnerable and i am loved because i (trust and) am vulnerable.
while on hiatus from this blog, i have been nurtured by, among scores of others, kelly brogan, george vaillant, gordon neufeld, gabor mate, muriel barbery,
neil stephenson, andrew wyeth, tango and flamenco, georgia o’keeffe, earth and ceremony, the emdr community, michael gervais, my alma mater, human
potential and vulnerability, the seattle thunderbirds and the hockey community,
old recipes, nourishing traditions, memories of ancestors.
being human – so so much, this invective, this Truth.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
a gift
yesterday, my soon-to-be 80-year-old client summed up our session with this thought:
"i think the most important job of adulthood is to deal with your family-of-origin stuff, something which can't really be undertaken until one is at least 40 years of age."
i have shared this gift with others since then.
why 40? perhaps arbitrary. but, for example, in the olden days, folks who were younger than 40 were not allowed to apply to doctoral programs because they had not yet inherited and assimilated enough life experience to merit the title of "doctor."
why family-of-origin? because the business of human connection, learned at our parents' knees (or not), is the sine qua non of being human and under girds all of our transactions. whether we (take the time to) acknowledge this or not.
and so i am regifting a gift, this insight, this simple musing about our ancestors, us, relationship, and the beneficent passing of time.
know thyself.
"i think the most important job of adulthood is to deal with your family-of-origin stuff, something which can't really be undertaken until one is at least 40 years of age."
i have shared this gift with others since then.
why 40? perhaps arbitrary. but, for example, in the olden days, folks who were younger than 40 were not allowed to apply to doctoral programs because they had not yet inherited and assimilated enough life experience to merit the title of "doctor."
why family-of-origin? because the business of human connection, learned at our parents' knees (or not), is the sine qua non of being human and under girds all of our transactions. whether we (take the time to) acknowledge this or not.
and so i am regifting a gift, this insight, this simple musing about our ancestors, us, relationship, and the beneficent passing of time.
know thyself.
Friday, August 2, 2013
delicious confession
day in, day out.
cover the same terrain: sleep, diet, exercise, brain chemistry, relationships, feelings, thoughts, actions, plans, planning, relaxation, organization, micronutrients, family of origin, dreams, journaling, reading. stay on track. lean into the feeling, as much as you can.
but the bottom line, i think, is this: what does it mean to live? what is life? what does a life well-lived look like? feel like? is it documentable? does it have to be? how will i know that it's all right? do i have a right to make these choices, these decisions, in my life? will i be judged? is it big things only or is it daily things as well?
we're approaching an interdisciplinary intersection, a place i love and trust. i love this place in the therapy dialogue, the deep, meaning-making place. it might seem strange, but then again it might not. unless you're an academic in the humanities or a novelist, when and where do you have time to think and articulate a coherent proposition for your meaning of life? so, in my office, after we review the oft-covered terrain of sleep, diet, and exercise, we dust off overwhelming emotions about a spouse, a neighbor, oneself, we sometimes are blessed to veer into meaningfulness and "meaning of life" suppositions.
here's the delicious confession.
when i was about 6, during summer vacations, i used to cut up my godmother's older, sleeveless, floral nightgowns and fashion them into dresses for myself. i'd use the cut remnants as belts. i would put on her high heels and clomp around the front yard, admiring my creation while considering further alterations.
when i was about 14, i'd use my babysitting money to buy long, dangly brass earrings that i would have to hide from my strict father. i would put on these earrings when i turned the corner away from the house and take them off before coming home. in the winter months, i would wait until my father's car could no longer be seen in the distance, i would go around the back of the school, remove the pants he made me wear under the plaid uniform skirt, and go merrily into the school, my fashion sense intact.
when i was about 16, i thwarted my then-recently-deceased father's plans for my future attendance at medical school by developing a very rebellious depression, flunking out of physics and pre-calculus, and hiding in the school's art studio. i started drawing again.
between the ages of 7 and 16, i did not draw. except in art class. and that didn't really count. elementary art seems to be more crafting than art, something i've never cared for.
i had a teacher. her name was susan. she used to wear hot pink tights underneath black dresses. she gave me a pin, during my teenage rebellion. it said, quite simply, "problem child." she never said anything about it, i never said anything about it. no one ever said anything about it. it just was. she was right.
i trusted her.
she saw me. she let me be. she encouraged me. steadily. quietly. i made art. she took photos. i entered contests. she photographed my university admissions portfolio. she gave me new tools. she gave me her time.
i have been somewhat postponing the confession, which is this, dear, educated, serious, adult reader: i love fashion. almost all of my drawings during that time were about fashion. i studied fashion magazines to read about cloth, texture, cut, weave, fabric. i replicated, minutiously, interesting images from the magazines. i studied light to see how it affects fabric. i drew. a lot. all the time. i avoided thinking about my authoritarian father's death by drawing. i escaped, dear reader. there was no other help for me. except this. and this had been around ... for a long time. since that summer vacation where i improved my godmother's wardrobe with a pair of scissors.
i went to school for fashion design. a good school that opened my eyes to other media. i got embroiled in that horrid red herring of an argument: "fashion design is not fine art. it is craft." i veered away from fashion design because i wanted to "be taken seriously." i revolted against a shirt costing 4,000.00USD. i revisited "serious" academic pursuits and became a psychotherapist.
and so. how now?
i love being a therapist! i love talking about important and not-so-important things. but i love having a keen eye for fashion. this will be forever with me. for me, fashion is conceptual, emotive, a possibility, expression, creativity, a sense of self. for me, fashion is important to my mental well-being. for me, a life without good fashion design is a much poorer visual and conceptual life. if i am unable to have a few minutes a day to admire wrinkles in heavy linen or the texture of worsted wool or the frayed ends of a deconstructed skirt, that day will have been a mass-produced, bland and flavorless day. for me, the linen or the wool, the silk, is more than fabric; it is the plant, the animal, the creatures cultivated to produce these materials. the silk worm's cocoon, its caterpillar feeding on mulberry leaves. the dyed wool thread, after it's been spun, dyed in large vats in a pakistani village courtyard. the personality of the fabric, the process it's undergone to become the fabric or the grament, each person who's manipulated that fabric since it was seed. the story of the thing. i love it. it pleases all of my senses. only a good designer knows what to do with each piece of fabric. this is the life essence, i say to myself, this rendition of this fabric as birthed by rei kawakubo of comme de garcons or issey myiake or ivan grundhal. so many artists. strong lines, opinions, innate knowledge.
in therapy sessions, i shape and organize thoughts and feelings, building scaffolding, holding the entire structure of mental health and well-being in mind for this particular person, this particular client. intrinsic to the structure are beauty and those elements which are essential to optimal health: joy, authenticity, personal satisfaction, connection with like-minded others, the ability and the freedom to express oneself. intrinsic. these re built-in, not add-ons. they are required for a good, meaningful life.
"what did you like to do when you were little?"
yes, i validate fruitless, frivolous pursuits! sitting in the backyard, chewing a gatorade popsicle, wiping off the excess with the back of your hand. cutting up favorite images and taping them to the walls of your house and replacing them once a week. going to that hill in the park and rolling yourself down on its slope along with the neighborhood children. model airplanes. kicking the soccer ball every day after work, putting together a league. groove to that beat that always makes you move your head. this are life's inextricable little joys. or big joys. but they are must-haves.
if i do this for others - give them permission to be "frivolous" - it stands to reason that i while away my free time admiring that beautiful piece of lightweight, gauzy black linen as it hangs from the curtain rod, the late-summer sunshine shimmering playfully in and out of its elongated folds.
and this is my frivolous, delicious confession. and i feel free now. judge me if you will!
cover the same terrain: sleep, diet, exercise, brain chemistry, relationships, feelings, thoughts, actions, plans, planning, relaxation, organization, micronutrients, family of origin, dreams, journaling, reading. stay on track. lean into the feeling, as much as you can.
but the bottom line, i think, is this: what does it mean to live? what is life? what does a life well-lived look like? feel like? is it documentable? does it have to be? how will i know that it's all right? do i have a right to make these choices, these decisions, in my life? will i be judged? is it big things only or is it daily things as well?
we're approaching an interdisciplinary intersection, a place i love and trust. i love this place in the therapy dialogue, the deep, meaning-making place. it might seem strange, but then again it might not. unless you're an academic in the humanities or a novelist, when and where do you have time to think and articulate a coherent proposition for your meaning of life? so, in my office, after we review the oft-covered terrain of sleep, diet, and exercise, we dust off overwhelming emotions about a spouse, a neighbor, oneself, we sometimes are blessed to veer into meaningfulness and "meaning of life" suppositions.
here's the delicious confession.
when i was about 6, during summer vacations, i used to cut up my godmother's older, sleeveless, floral nightgowns and fashion them into dresses for myself. i'd use the cut remnants as belts. i would put on her high heels and clomp around the front yard, admiring my creation while considering further alterations.
when i was about 14, i'd use my babysitting money to buy long, dangly brass earrings that i would have to hide from my strict father. i would put on these earrings when i turned the corner away from the house and take them off before coming home. in the winter months, i would wait until my father's car could no longer be seen in the distance, i would go around the back of the school, remove the pants he made me wear under the plaid uniform skirt, and go merrily into the school, my fashion sense intact.
when i was about 16, i thwarted my then-recently-deceased father's plans for my future attendance at medical school by developing a very rebellious depression, flunking out of physics and pre-calculus, and hiding in the school's art studio. i started drawing again.
between the ages of 7 and 16, i did not draw. except in art class. and that didn't really count. elementary art seems to be more crafting than art, something i've never cared for.
i had a teacher. her name was susan. she used to wear hot pink tights underneath black dresses. she gave me a pin, during my teenage rebellion. it said, quite simply, "problem child." she never said anything about it, i never said anything about it. no one ever said anything about it. it just was. she was right.
i trusted her.
she saw me. she let me be. she encouraged me. steadily. quietly. i made art. she took photos. i entered contests. she photographed my university admissions portfolio. she gave me new tools. she gave me her time.
i have been somewhat postponing the confession, which is this, dear, educated, serious, adult reader: i love fashion. almost all of my drawings during that time were about fashion. i studied fashion magazines to read about cloth, texture, cut, weave, fabric. i replicated, minutiously, interesting images from the magazines. i studied light to see how it affects fabric. i drew. a lot. all the time. i avoided thinking about my authoritarian father's death by drawing. i escaped, dear reader. there was no other help for me. except this. and this had been around ... for a long time. since that summer vacation where i improved my godmother's wardrobe with a pair of scissors.
i went to school for fashion design. a good school that opened my eyes to other media. i got embroiled in that horrid red herring of an argument: "fashion design is not fine art. it is craft." i veered away from fashion design because i wanted to "be taken seriously." i revolted against a shirt costing 4,000.00USD. i revisited "serious" academic pursuits and became a psychotherapist.
and so. how now?
i love being a therapist! i love talking about important and not-so-important things. but i love having a keen eye for fashion. this will be forever with me. for me, fashion is conceptual, emotive, a possibility, expression, creativity, a sense of self. for me, fashion is important to my mental well-being. for me, a life without good fashion design is a much poorer visual and conceptual life. if i am unable to have a few minutes a day to admire wrinkles in heavy linen or the texture of worsted wool or the frayed ends of a deconstructed skirt, that day will have been a mass-produced, bland and flavorless day. for me, the linen or the wool, the silk, is more than fabric; it is the plant, the animal, the creatures cultivated to produce these materials. the silk worm's cocoon, its caterpillar feeding on mulberry leaves. the dyed wool thread, after it's been spun, dyed in large vats in a pakistani village courtyard. the personality of the fabric, the process it's undergone to become the fabric or the grament, each person who's manipulated that fabric since it was seed. the story of the thing. i love it. it pleases all of my senses. only a good designer knows what to do with each piece of fabric. this is the life essence, i say to myself, this rendition of this fabric as birthed by rei kawakubo of comme de garcons or issey myiake or ivan grundhal. so many artists. strong lines, opinions, innate knowledge.
in therapy sessions, i shape and organize thoughts and feelings, building scaffolding, holding the entire structure of mental health and well-being in mind for this particular person, this particular client. intrinsic to the structure are beauty and those elements which are essential to optimal health: joy, authenticity, personal satisfaction, connection with like-minded others, the ability and the freedom to express oneself. intrinsic. these re built-in, not add-ons. they are required for a good, meaningful life.
"what did you like to do when you were little?"
yes, i validate fruitless, frivolous pursuits! sitting in the backyard, chewing a gatorade popsicle, wiping off the excess with the back of your hand. cutting up favorite images and taping them to the walls of your house and replacing them once a week. going to that hill in the park and rolling yourself down on its slope along with the neighborhood children. model airplanes. kicking the soccer ball every day after work, putting together a league. groove to that beat that always makes you move your head. this are life's inextricable little joys. or big joys. but they are must-haves.
if i do this for others - give them permission to be "frivolous" - it stands to reason that i while away my free time admiring that beautiful piece of lightweight, gauzy black linen as it hangs from the curtain rod, the late-summer sunshine shimmering playfully in and out of its elongated folds.
and this is my frivolous, delicious confession. and i feel free now. judge me if you will!
Monday, July 8, 2013
girls rule and boys drool
as the mother of a 7-year-old boy and a woman who counsels kids and teens,
in my spare time i keep my eyes open for social trends and hypothesize
underpinnings of these trends. anecdotally, i am seeing uber-confident girls
and bumbling, defeated boys. i am bereft and a bit heart-heavy about my son's
future - psychologically, socially, economically - when i see the robust
presentation of his female peers. found a book that validates and quantifies
what i'm seeing: dan kindlon's alpha girls: understanding the new american girl
and how she is changing the world. kindlon has an earlier work published,
raising cain: protecting the emotional life of boys. it's in my amazon shopping
cart.
title of post is direct quote from alpha girls. this witty little ditty has tentacled itself in my mind. can't get rid of it. i hate it, clever as it is. here's what kindlon says to explain aphorism:
"researchers have observed that young female chimps ... are smarter than young male chimps, at least when it comes to learning how to fish for termites. young female chimps watch their mothers select the right size stick to dip into the termite mound and quickly learn to imitate them. the young males, on the other hand, pay their mothers no mind. they are inattentive, rolling around in the dirt and generally slacking off. the young females start fishing for termites on their own at a much earlier age than the males - on average over two years earlier - and they remain more proficient fishers as adults....this picture of young female chimps as focused, receptive learners fits well with our portrait of academically accomplished girls....as girls move in positions of power and prominence, what will happen to boys? will their penchant for figuratively horsing around while their female peers master important life skills mean that they are going to become increasingly irrelevant?"
later in his text, kindlon begins to identify boys as perpetually "rolling around on the termite mound."
in conversations with folks - especially moms - tentative mentions of anecdotal observations are vigorously defended against. i am politically incorrect to affirm that the three waves of feminism have really been advantageous for girls, yet have left boys far far behind. i am anti-girl-power if i say such things. listening shuts down, mothers self-righteously label me conservative (!), and stomp off, muttering to their daughters, "she's jealous because you're __________ than her son!"
i respectfully beg to differ. my son has a higher emotional IQ than some of his girl peers at an enlightened montessori. many an afternoon's drive home was spent validating anger and sadness when nicholas reported yet another variation of, "sophia says girls are better than boys. mommy, is that true?" mommy CBT shrink carefully listens, validates, challenges irrational belief, installs rational cognition, and ... prays for a different outcome tomorrow. tomorrow usually brought more of the same. said girl, sophia, oldest of two sisters, daughter of loud, vociferous, know-it-all mother, usually found myriad ways in the span of eight and a half months to impress upon my son that she has it as fact that girls are just so much more than boys.
in thinking (a lot) about these subjective affirmations in which she is the winner, i wondered if this is not some kind of psychological bullying. here i am, teaching my son that we are all different and different is wonderful (!), and there is her mother, teaching her, "you are the best because you are a girl." i began to tell my son that those kinds of statements - totalitarian, subjective, us vs. them - are hurtful, untrue, and indicative of bullying behaviors. he rallied around this heartily! i won. this time. i buffered his flagging self-esteem. but i know my son. he is kind and sniffs out injustice a mile away. is crushed when he perceives unkindness. it renders his tools null and void.
so i revisit this girls-vs-boys thing with my son pretty often. to make sure he GETS it. to make sure he recognizes that girls who affirm, as one of kindlon's subjects does, "i will get what i want because i am aggressive," are bullysih, the statements offensive and unilaterally competitive, whether they come out of a girl's or boy's mouth. beliefs such as this preclude understanding, cooperation, kindness, definitely room for error.
kindlon's - indeed, america's - alpha girls score high on masculine traits. these traits are measured by items such as, "when i play games i like to win." or, "i would rather do things on my own than ask for help."
is this what hundreds of years of feminism has gotten us? girls who score high on masculine traits? it seems that mostly it has. in my practice, i see teenage boys, young men, and older men, all with myriad psychological symptoms, but most of them with the underlying theme of what it means to be a man. i salute the freedoms feminism has gained for women. but even twenty years ago, besotted with it after my first philosophy course in feminism, i had an inkling about the lopsidedness of the argument. i did not identify as a man-hater; i wanted an inclusive world. i wanted a kind and just and fair world. of course this was idealistic utopian wishful thinking; of course it can't come to be as such. however, the empowerment of women (alone) has left a huge gap in its wake whose effects we are starting to see now. no revolution of maleness as a gendered construct has been suggested. shoddy efforts were made to redefine masculinity, but these efforts came from “woodsmen” who called on men (and boys) to take up their axes and tromp out to the woods while beating their chests. far from imbuing maleness with flexibility (as feminism did for girls), these bearded 20th-century tarzans advocated for the continued inculcation of uber-masculine traits in boys.
and where are we now?
well. i, for one, am angry at the reality of alpha girls, contemplative about the male gender role – let’s be clear about this, it IS a socially-prescribed role - and compassionate about my son's fervent tears and disarmament in the face of sophie's bold statements.
one day at a time. one fallacious statement at a time. if we truly want a just society, we would do well to start empowering our boys to cry, to hug and kiss more, to talk about their hurts and fears, to draw and dance and sing and build and cook and cry in the face of injustice and unfairness and to take up "arms" against these injustices. including the discipline to stop rolling around on the termite mound, for God's sake!
title of post is direct quote from alpha girls. this witty little ditty has tentacled itself in my mind. can't get rid of it. i hate it, clever as it is. here's what kindlon says to explain aphorism:
"researchers have observed that young female chimps ... are smarter than young male chimps, at least when it comes to learning how to fish for termites. young female chimps watch their mothers select the right size stick to dip into the termite mound and quickly learn to imitate them. the young males, on the other hand, pay their mothers no mind. they are inattentive, rolling around in the dirt and generally slacking off. the young females start fishing for termites on their own at a much earlier age than the males - on average over two years earlier - and they remain more proficient fishers as adults....this picture of young female chimps as focused, receptive learners fits well with our portrait of academically accomplished girls....as girls move in positions of power and prominence, what will happen to boys? will their penchant for figuratively horsing around while their female peers master important life skills mean that they are going to become increasingly irrelevant?"
later in his text, kindlon begins to identify boys as perpetually "rolling around on the termite mound."
in conversations with folks - especially moms - tentative mentions of anecdotal observations are vigorously defended against. i am politically incorrect to affirm that the three waves of feminism have really been advantageous for girls, yet have left boys far far behind. i am anti-girl-power if i say such things. listening shuts down, mothers self-righteously label me conservative (!), and stomp off, muttering to their daughters, "she's jealous because you're __________ than her son!"
i respectfully beg to differ. my son has a higher emotional IQ than some of his girl peers at an enlightened montessori. many an afternoon's drive home was spent validating anger and sadness when nicholas reported yet another variation of, "sophia says girls are better than boys. mommy, is that true?" mommy CBT shrink carefully listens, validates, challenges irrational belief, installs rational cognition, and ... prays for a different outcome tomorrow. tomorrow usually brought more of the same. said girl, sophia, oldest of two sisters, daughter of loud, vociferous, know-it-all mother, usually found myriad ways in the span of eight and a half months to impress upon my son that she has it as fact that girls are just so much more than boys.
in thinking (a lot) about these subjective affirmations in which she is the winner, i wondered if this is not some kind of psychological bullying. here i am, teaching my son that we are all different and different is wonderful (!), and there is her mother, teaching her, "you are the best because you are a girl." i began to tell my son that those kinds of statements - totalitarian, subjective, us vs. them - are hurtful, untrue, and indicative of bullying behaviors. he rallied around this heartily! i won. this time. i buffered his flagging self-esteem. but i know my son. he is kind and sniffs out injustice a mile away. is crushed when he perceives unkindness. it renders his tools null and void.
so i revisit this girls-vs-boys thing with my son pretty often. to make sure he GETS it. to make sure he recognizes that girls who affirm, as one of kindlon's subjects does, "i will get what i want because i am aggressive," are bullysih, the statements offensive and unilaterally competitive, whether they come out of a girl's or boy's mouth. beliefs such as this preclude understanding, cooperation, kindness, definitely room for error.
kindlon's - indeed, america's - alpha girls score high on masculine traits. these traits are measured by items such as, "when i play games i like to win." or, "i would rather do things on my own than ask for help."
is this what hundreds of years of feminism has gotten us? girls who score high on masculine traits? it seems that mostly it has. in my practice, i see teenage boys, young men, and older men, all with myriad psychological symptoms, but most of them with the underlying theme of what it means to be a man. i salute the freedoms feminism has gained for women. but even twenty years ago, besotted with it after my first philosophy course in feminism, i had an inkling about the lopsidedness of the argument. i did not identify as a man-hater; i wanted an inclusive world. i wanted a kind and just and fair world. of course this was idealistic utopian wishful thinking; of course it can't come to be as such. however, the empowerment of women (alone) has left a huge gap in its wake whose effects we are starting to see now. no revolution of maleness as a gendered construct has been suggested. shoddy efforts were made to redefine masculinity, but these efforts came from “woodsmen” who called on men (and boys) to take up their axes and tromp out to the woods while beating their chests. far from imbuing maleness with flexibility (as feminism did for girls), these bearded 20th-century tarzans advocated for the continued inculcation of uber-masculine traits in boys.
and where are we now?
well. i, for one, am angry at the reality of alpha girls, contemplative about the male gender role – let’s be clear about this, it IS a socially-prescribed role - and compassionate about my son's fervent tears and disarmament in the face of sophie's bold statements.
one day at a time. one fallacious statement at a time. if we truly want a just society, we would do well to start empowering our boys to cry, to hug and kiss more, to talk about their hurts and fears, to draw and dance and sing and build and cook and cry in the face of injustice and unfairness and to take up "arms" against these injustices. including the discipline to stop rolling around on the termite mound, for God's sake!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)