Frigidity is sometimes as threatening to the woman's self-image as impotence is to the man's. The frigid woman is likely to consider herself incomplete or less than a woman for not being able to respond fully.
Both the impotent male and the frigid female are prone to attack themselves as being inadequate and inferior sexual specimens. They see this as a symptom they must try to overcome. Again, we would ask the person to first look at these symptoms as body signals. Knowing, for example, that some cases of impotence and frigidity are selective in that they are present with some partners and not with others, ask yourself first what message this symptom might be giving you regarding your feelings about your partner. Unless it's a chronic condition that is always present with every partner, the symptom may be an expression of some imexpressed aggression. For example, one young man in therapy with Dr. Goldberg for impotence after only three years of marriage discovered under hypnosis that he was very angry that his wife always demanded to be on top during intercourse. While he acquiesced in order to satisfy her, he was really very angry about this. Not being able to experience or express it openly, the feeling came through in the form of a limp penis, which was an expression of his body's refusal to go along.
The impotent or frigid partner should therefore ask themselves: First, am I really turned on sexually by my partner, or am I trying to fake it? Second, is there sonie-thing about the involvement that turns me off? Am I trying to be someone I'm not? For example, many women play very passive sexual roles because they don't want to seem aggressive, when they really don't feel passive and when they want to be sexually more active. They may become frigid as a hidden protest against this. Third, do I feel under a compxilsion to perform on schedule and inwardly resent it? Fourth, am I protesting against something regarding my partner's behavior or physical appear-
THE AGGRESSIVE BODY 201
ance, such as overweight, repulsive odors, or a lack of sensitivity?
We feel that impotence and frigidity are not always symptoms to be conquered. Rather, they may be messages to be read and seriously explored. Instead of feeling guilty, inadequate, or panicky, and rushing to overcome it, ask yourself what important infonnaticm regarding suppressed aggressive feelings the S3miptom may be trying to communicate.
, In a highly inteUectualized, aggression-repressive society your body signals are the finest paths back to a genuine emotional reality and the reclaiming of your aggressive self. The physical responses we discussed are only a small handful among many similar behavioral manifestations of repressed aggression. They are signals that should be respected and consulted as potential information gold mines, rather than as behaviors to suppress, deny, or apologize for. With your next blush, fart, yawn, itch, paling, or nonresponsive sexual organ, avoid self-recrimination and ask yourself instead what aggressive feeling your body might be trying to commimicate to you that you are not consciously admitting to yourself.
CHAPTER 14
Fusion: Aggression in the Service of Eros
A major benefit of mastering the art of an assertive lifestyle is the fulfilling and vital quality of such a person's love life. In titling this chapter we have specifically avoided the word "sex," which in our age of pornography and sex-technique manuals has acquired a mechanical and medical aura. Instead, we have chosen the Greek word eros to emphasize the fusion of sexual and aggressive energy resulting in total, authentic, and joyful erotic fulfillment.
It may at first seem surprising that sex with the deepest feelings of affection and love is less fulfilling than sex that is interwoven and intertwined with aggression. To many, the fusion of sex and aggression conjures up fantasies of sado-masochistic behavior or of a chauvinistic, destructive interaction that is characterized by hostile putdowns, hurt, and manipulation. This traditional perception has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bath water. That is, the vitalizing dimensions of aggression have been shunned because of the fear and inability to separate out its constructive from its destructive aspects. However, in the course of our work and our investigations into contemporary "liberated" sexual difficulties—which despite contem-« porary "liberated" sexual attitudes have by now taken on the dimensions of a modem-day plague—we have repeatedly seen the disastrous effects of striving for sexual competence and fulfillment through "understanding," "sensitivity,** and other exclusively "loving" but essentially passive orientations.
Lovers who exclude aggression from their bedroom cheat themselves of a total and exciting experience, and in fact will probably be imable to achieve genuine erotic fulfillment. Those who learn the fine art of utilizing aggression constructively in the service of eros, however, come closer
FUSION: AGGRESSION IN SERVICE OF EROS 203
to reaching their erotic potentials. Sexual functioning in our society is too often characterized by inhibited, "nice," relatively passive and guarded interactions in which aggression manifests itself mainly in hidden and indirect forms. Such conditioning in lovemaking has managed to help paralyze a natural, spontaneous, noncerebral, and pleasurable physical activity.
In this chapter we are not concerned with "sex problems" or symptom removal per se. Nor do we see ourselves in conflict with Masters and Johnson and other sex therapists, who have been quite successful in an approach that emphasizes sexual re-education; learning about one's body and the body of one's lover; and the desensitization of sexual anxieties, fears, and repressions. However, theirs is an approach that has not emphasized the integration of sex with aggression. Focusing on this kind of interaction can indeed be a frightening endeavor in a cultural atmosphere that has traditionally taught that the two experiences are incompatible. The fusion of sex and aggression is a new art that has still to be fully developed. Hurried and crude gropings in that direction may backfire, particularly if there has not been a proper prior separation of the hostile, alienating elements from the assertive bonding ones.
FIGHT FOR BETTER SEX
In our sex education and sex therapy work we have coached lovers in the constructive use of aggression toward the achievement of fusion. We encourage partners to fight for better sex and to separate out sex hindering or sadistic hurting from sexually stimulating, informative, aggressive, and assertive interactions. Toward this end we have developed aggressive play rituals that can be engaged in with good-willed mutual consent. Good-willed consent to behave aggressively allows the love fighting to become rather like a sport than a frightening attack. Aggressive eros is nothing like a street brawl where one person is jumped with the intent to hurt or demolish the other. Rather, it is in the manner of an Olympic event, with a respect for rules, establishment of beltlines, concern for timing, appropriate handicapping, and mutual involvement. Aggression in the service of eros, to achieve a fusion, is more than a
204 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
clinical form of therapy. It is the development of a total love approach.
Some sex manuals contain instruction, even when authored by highly reputable professional sex therapists and marriage counselors, that renders a disservice to its readers by the teaching of a love orientation that ignores the vital aspects of aggression. It is in fact a distinct possibility that the sex instructions have done more harm than good, by reinforcing sexual anxieties and self-consciousness and raising pseudoproblems and issues regarding orgastic responsiveness. The following is a quotation from an article published in a popularly circulated, reputable, medically edited magazine on sex behavior. This exemplifies the kind of well-intentioned though self-conscious, paralyzing advice regularly being offered to contemporary readers seeking information on how to better their sex lives. The author wrote, "The highly delicate art of lovemaking requires, among other things, sensitivity, skill, ingenuity, and sexual knowledge, as well as an appreciation and aware^ ness of the needs, desires and idiosyncrasies of one's mate. Since these are attributes which have to be learned and developed, and since educational institutions (including medical institutions) did not teach these attributes until recently, it is not surprising that as lovers many males (and females) in our American society leave much to be desired." i
Thus to perform the natural and spontaneous act of sex today it would appear from this advice that one would need the education of a Ph.D. physiologist, the emotional sensitivities of a clinical psychologist, the mechanical agility of a brain surgeon, and the gentleness of a newborn babe. With such advice it is not at aU surprising that statistics show that male impotence has reached epidemic proportions, afflicting close to 50 percent of married males who reportedly have a variation of this problem.
These very same so-called impotent married males we have found often have no problems getting turned on by a prostitute or in a casual love affair where they are not afraid to be themselves and to behave aggressively. Nor are they as concerned in these circumstances about being insensitive or harsh. Instead they feel comfortable in behaving assertively and spontaneously and making authentic demands for sexual satisfaction. They do not feel impelled to handle their lovers as if they were china dolls.
FUSION: AGGRESSION IN SERVICE OF EROS 205
THE INHIBITiNG SENSiTIViTY
A newly married couple, recently arrived from Dallas, Texas, with a IV^-year-old child, came to our Institute for help with their sexual difficulties. He was an attorney and she was working as a dental assistant. They had been living together for two years before they decided to marry. Both were "super-sensitive" and "very gentle" with each other. He couched everything he said in terms designed to avoid getting his "nice" wife upset. He described her as "very fragile." She was quiet and passive. She seemed to withdraw frequently during the therapy session to some secret place inside of herself. She claimed that she was terrified of making her husband angry. But she was most surprised when she heard him describe her as fragile. She told him that she had always thought of herself as a pretty strong person.
During their therapy hours both were soft-spoken, intel-lectualized, passive, gentle, and fearful of anger, confrontation, and assertiveness. Their sexual complaints were predictable and totally in keeping with their interaction in the therapy session. Both were sexually passive, and consequently they had just about stopped having sex altogether. He reported that at home he would get turned on but would soon give up trying to interest her because she was too "tight," both literally and figuratively. "She just lies there and lets me do it," he complained, "and it turns me offl" His wife admitted pretending to want and even enjoy sex when in reality she wasn't at all interested. Her vagina, which was "tight," was saying "No" for her while she was verbally saying "Yes." She complained that her husband made her feel too self-conscious and joyless with his endless analyzing, probing, and treating her with fear and delicacy.
Their breakthrough to change occurred after she felt sufficiently comfortable and safe to share her sexual fantasies openly. He couldn't believe it was his wife talking when he heard her report the fantasies she had whenever she masturbated, which was at least three times a week. They were peopled with various men she had met only briefly but whom she would imagine were "grabbing me and raping me."
She said she felt too inhibited with her husband because
206 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
she feared that he would become too "freaked out" by her desires to scream, claw, pound him on the back, lick his body from top to bottom, and in other ways be aggressive with him. Their sex life improved significantly when he was finally able to accept this aggressive side of her and encouraged her to act it out, and also when he was comfortable enough to accept his own aggressiveness with her and not treat her like a fragile flower.
This couple was not so much an example of sexual pathology as they were victims of a socio-sexual ethic that teaches that sex and aggression must be kept separate. Our work and discussion with many people in psychotherapy struggling for sexual satisfaction have revealed that those who keep aggression out of their sexual activity and behave in nicely controlled, "gentle" ways often have elaborate fantasies of what are commonly termed sado-masochistic activities. These fantasies, which we believe are a product of frustrated aggressiveness in sex, have as their repeated themes rape and beatings. In these hostile sex fantasies men see themselves seizing the woman, tying her down, beatiDg her, and then ravaging her sexually. Women, ia psychotherapy, typically imagiae themselves being held down and raped, often by several men at a time. These are the same people who in therapy also ask, "How come my orgasms with my spouse are not nearly as good as when I masturbate?" One of the pointers we give to clients is, "If you're too nicey-nice with each other in bed, don't be surprised if your sex life dies."
A recently published inquiry with a group of female nudists explored their opinions and attitudes regarding their sexual experiences with men. Typical complaints included:
**With sex I have to be the aggressor almost always, and I don't like it. I feel most men are not aggressive enough."
"Some men get hung up on being sure the woman is satisfied. I find this inhibiting at times. I think there is a point at which a man should let his own sensations take over; when this happens my own response can be freer."
"Unbelievably enough, tiie thing I dislike most is over-concern. *Did you have an orgasm, honey?' makes me furious—^mostly because it's such an unmale way to react So sort of weak-kneed." 2
The men have been victims of a social conditioning that has nurtured a schism in the perception of women; the
FUSION: AGGRESSION IN SERVICE OF EROS 207
now familiar "male chauvinist** stance. First, there's the woman you love or the woman who*s your wife. She's pure, fragile, docile, passive, and feminine. Sex with her must therefore be had accordingly. Aggressive abandon is only permissible with other women, prostitutes, pickups, casual affairs, or other men's wives.
THE nC'BOlVE: A RITUAL FOR ^NICE^^ COUPLES
We have developed a playful hostility ritual that we call the "pic-bone.** We teach it particularly to "nice" couples whose "lovey-dovey" interaction has ruined the challenge and excitement of their sex life. This ritual involves a form of sexual teasing by mutual consent. The partner who does the teasing tries to get the other partner angry and turned off and then accepts this resistance as a challenge to be overcome. In other words, the teaser commits himself or herself to courting and winning back the interest of the partner. This eventuates in a making-up process of sexual intercourse, during which both are aggressively aroused.
The "pic-bone'* ritual is therefore an intentional process of conflict creation, particularly useful for mellowed-out couples whose docility, passive comfort, security, and ready availabihty have reduced the sexual excitement. For example, the man says, "Boy, I really enjoyed dancing and talking with Jinuny's wife after dinner. She was so free and sensual looking—and what a pair of boobs!" At the point when his wife is really getting "turned off** by this comparison of her to their friend's wife, the husband shifts gears and works to overcome her resistance. In this ritualistic way a challenge has been created. Uncertainties and anxieties over rejection, and therefore some of the stimulation of early courtship days are again present. This "pic-bone" ritual is a profound act of love when it facilitates aggression release in a mellowed-out partner and is done with a commitment to overcoming the challenge of rejection.
A troubled portion of our sexually active population does not know how to make and develop intimate human contact except through sex. This brings them close physically but prevents intimacy psychologically. In relationships where sex is the main bond, other dimensions that are a critical part of authentic intimacy may be neglected. Some
208 HOW TO UVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
of the most active sex lives are lived by alienated lovers who use sex as their only holiday and relief from a world of isolation, sometimes splendid in its independence, sometimes despairing in its loneliness. For these individuals sex has also become a powerful tool of aggression avoidance. They are *iovers, not fighters"—so say the stickers on the bumpers of their cars. Outside of the bed they are emotionally inhibited, often detached, and socially incompetent. Our research on ^>ouse murderers, for example, has demonstrated to tis the not so surprising fact that the sex Hves of these Idllers is more often than not a very active one. They used sex as a way of avoiding conflict For them sexual intercourse provided a way of making up without changing or improving a chronic state of interpersonal conflict Sex was for them a temporary respite from the painful realities of the relationship.
Betty, age thirty-six, an intelligent, vibrant woman, described the role of fighting in the development of her authentic, growing relationship with her thirt>'-two-year-old boyfriend, Michael. She described the following as **our first sex-connected fighf:
*T was rattling on incessantly about my favorite subject: my past experiences with intelligent friends on the subject of ESP. I had been talking for about twenty-five minutes and a ^azed look apparently came over my eyes (I was told by him). Finally I noticed he was staring out the window. I asked what was wrong. He said, *You have been having a monologue by yourself. You don't need me. You could get anybody to listen to you. You are obviously not interested in relating to me*
*T became very defensive and began to yell and scream that I had a right to my ideas and a right to be me. 1 am sharing with you what I am interested in, and if you don't like it or me, get outlP
"He just sat there and said, *Gee, Annie used to throw her shoe at me when I made her angry, but you are really exdtrng and interesting to fight with.*
"Stunned, I sat there a while and thought . . . Then he went cm, 'I don't want to hear about ESP and other people, I want to hear about you and me and our relationship.* I tiiou^t, 'selfish, self-centered bastard!'
"Again silence. He looked at me softly now, and I melted. He wanted to see if I was still angry, but I wasn't
any longer as I realized that he needed me to be interested in him. *He really cares about me and us,' I thought,
"I came for him, touched his face. We got undressed and went to bed. The sex was pure affection—tender caring, passionate, and animal-like all at once. All present anger had been expressed, and it left an opening for love feelings, unadulterated by hostile feelings."
CHAPTER 15
Sexual Liberation Through Cotnpassionaie Aggression
It was Kinsey who first pointed out the striking similarities between the physiological responses during sex and the bodily reactions that accompany the experience of anger. These similarities, which are present and true for both men and women, include;
1. An increase in pulse rate.
2. An increase in blood pressure, both diastolic and systolic.
3. Vasodilation (sometimes).
4. An increase in the peripheral circulation of the blood.
5. A reduced rate of bleedmg; for example, bleeding from cut blood vessels during fighting as well as during sexual intercourse resulting from clawing, biting, and hitting is significantly reduced. Abrasions and cuts that are received are all remarkably free of extensive bleeding.
6. Hjrperventilation (an increase in breathing rate).
7. Anoxia; the facial expressions of the individuals, particularly at the time of orgasm, suggest a shortage of oxygen. This is comparable to the facial expression of tha athlete during the peak of his physical exertion. According to Kinsey, the woman's face as she approaches sexual climax bears a striking resemblance to that of a runner who is making an extreme effort to finish a race.
8. Diminution of sensory perception; the body of a sexually aroused person becomes increasingly insensitive to tactile stimulation and even to sharp blows and injuries. The recipient of such behavior may even be receiving considerable amoimts of physical punishment without being aware of being subjected to any more than the mildest of tactile stimulation.
SEXUAL LIBERATION 211
Other sensory awarenesses are also diminished. Individuals become decreasingly sensitive to temperature and to extraneous noises.
9. Adrenaline secretion.
10. Increase in muscular tension; there is an increased tension in the hands and fingers during both sex and anger, which may result in responses such as grabbing, clawing, and clenching fists.
11. Increased muscular capacity; individuals, under both the conditions of sexuality and anger, display a significantly greater than usual musciilar strength and dexterity. Sometimes this even reaches astounding levels.
12. Reduction of fatigue.
13. Inhibited gastro-intestinal activities.
14. Involuntary vocalizations, which may include groans, grunts, screams, and other noises.^
As part of our efforts to liberate the sexual response through constructive aggression, we teach and encourage people to convert their heavy breathing into clearly audible, loud sounds during intercourse. This has a tendency to facilitate the physiological response of aggressiveness.
The fear of making loud noises ("love soimds") is an illustration of how the aggression phobia of our culture has pervaded even the most private experiences. Individuals feel embarrassed and out of control if they emit loud sounds or are confronted with them by others. Pohte, weU-socialized people in our culture are taught not to raise their voices or to make loud noises of any kind. Consequently, most middle-class people in particular are unnaturally quiet during sex and consider vigorous soundmaking to be "animal-like" behavior.
The biological relationship between sex and aggression has been suggested by brain-mapping studies of animals such as male monkeys. These research studies conducted by physiologists have shown that neural systems for certain sexual and aggressive responses are in extremely close proximity to each other within the limbic system of the brain, llie limbic system is a complex set of structures extending downward from the cerebral cortex to portions of the midbrain. The neural systems for certain sexual and aggressive responses may in fact overlap or even be direcUy linked.2 One brain mapping study indicated that the neural structures that elicit immediate penile erections when stim-
212 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
ulated electrically are located within one millimeter from the point in the brain that elicits a response of extreme rage.3
Research ethics forbid the use of such techniques with human beings. Therefore, one can only conjecture about the existence of a similar physiological relationship between these two responses in the human being. However, there are additional kinds of evidence to support the belief in such a relationship between these two responses. For example, clinical case reports of some human beings who have brain damage that appears to have precipitated violent behavior also have this behavior correlated with a heightened sexual drive.^
Psychological research studies have pointed to the relationship between sexual and aggressive arousal. Noted research psychologist Dr. Seymour Feshbach of the University of California at Los Angeles has conducted several studies that have demonstrated that inhibition of the aggressive response results in the inhibition of the sexual response.
In 1970, Feshbach, along with researcher Y. Jaffe, conducted a study with a group of male undergraduates at UCLA. Utilizing an experimental design too complicated to describe here, these undergraduates were broken up into two groups. In one of the groups, angry responses of the males were blocked and prevented from being expressed, while in the other group, these responses where not inhibited. Feshbach and Jaffe found that the group who had their angry feelings and reactions inhibited became less sexually responsive and inhibited their feelings of sexuality more than those whose aggression was not inhibited.**
THE ^^GENDER CLJUB*^ HOSTILITY HITUAL
Realizing the critical intertwining between sex and aggression and the fact that a healthy erotic response is often blocked because of suppressed aggression, one of the very first aggression rituals we use with couples and imat-tached singles is the "gender club," a ritual designed to facilitate the unleashing and open sharing of underlying resentments that men in our society have toward women and women against men, but that remain largely unex-
SEXUAL LIBERATION 213
perienced and unexpressed because of taboos against sharing them.
The early socialization experiences of girls and boys in our culture results in the development of a powerful core of resentment and resistance toward the opposite sex. Giris see boys accorded special privileges of freedom, exploration, aggressiveness, and sexuality. Boys can fight, boys can be openly sexual, boys may roam aroimd the neighborhood, etc., etc., but girls typically may not. Female resentments are bound to build up because of these double standards. This is particularly true in the area of sex, where sexual exploration has generally been considered all right for boys but "bad" for girls. Girls are taught to be wary of the secret sexual designs and motivations of boys. They are also taught to beware of boys who are "only out for one thing." Then they are told about all of the molesters and rapists lurking everjrwhere. Children's stories are full of wolves in sheep's clothing who ravage girls, not to mention the brutal war stories on TV and in movies that depict the depraved brutality of men.
For the boys, resentment toward women originates in the early relationship to the mother. Typically, she is the one who sets the limits, says "No," makes demands, and does much of the punishing. The myths, fairy tales, Bible stories, and nursery rhymes he hears and reads are full of tales about the evil wiles and destructiveness of the female sex. It was Eve who seduced Adam into eating the apple, thus causing him and everyone after him to lose the Garden of Eden. Samson was brought from superstrength to helplessness by Delilah. Historical recountings are full of examples of kingdoms lost because of a femme fatale. There are also all of the witches in fairy tales such as "Hansel and Gretel" and "Sleeping Beauty" who are evil, destructive, and devouring female figures.
Authentic intimacy and genuine, nonmanipulative, and lasting erotic responsiveness, we believe, can only occur after the underiying hostilities, resentments, and stereotyped images of the opposite sex have been surfaced. The realistic beginning of any intersex relationship should involve an open display of the suspiciousness, resentment, rage, and negative stereotypes the sexes have about each other but tend to block out, particularly during the early courtship phase. These feelings must be shared regardless of how seemingly vicious or irrational they are. Indeed, it
214 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
is one of the cruel hypocrisies of our culture, destructive both to mental health and heterosexual relationships, that these intersex hostilities are forced by social taboos out of awareness. Much energy is wasted working at being nice to the opposite sex. Men and women alike torture themselves with feeUngs of unworthiness and inadequacy because they are imable to achieve the purity of love they feel they should be capable of. Relationships are instead launched behind phony smiles and unreal courtship manners. After the early excitement wears off, each spends months, years, or a lifetime struggling to overcome the boredom, anger, and alienation from their partner. The sexual relationships are severely impaired because of the hidden unexpressed aggression that continually contaminates the interaction.
Tom, age twenty-three, stood up to take his turn during a "gender club" hostility ritual, supervised by Dr. Goldberg. The males had first gathered together to discuss all of their stereotypes and resentments toward the women, and so had the women toward the men. Each person in turn stood up, faced the other sex group, and imleashed these feelings. Tom looked at the six women seated opposite him and began: "Women are users—two-faced bitches who'll tell you anything and be anything to get you to marry them—but then, and only then, do they show you their real selves. They're so damn jealous of men. TTiey can't stand to see a man having a good time, so they butt in on all his activities. They want to go everywhere with him, football games, fishing trips, even bars, everything! They want to eat him up aUve. Then they don't even enjoy themselves. They're materialistic! All they ever think about is shopping and owning things. They drive men to early graves with their demands and then live twenty years in style on the insurance money. They complain that men don't have feelings, but beware the man who cries or shows any fear. They'll humiliate the shit out of him! And they use their bodies and their sex to manipulate men because that's all they've really got to offer him. Then they complain about being treated like sex objects. And they go crazy when '*their" man looks at another woman. They prefer him to be a phony and pretend he doesn't notice aU the tits and ass being practically shoved into his face by seductive women everywhere. They can't stand a man who acts like a man, and to top it off, they want to be men
SEXUAL LIBERATION 215
too. You women want to be liberated. Zapl You're liberated. Now get off our backs.**
Tom's outburst was neither logical nor rational, but it was real. These were feelings that Tom himself hardly knew he had until they all came flooding out. And like most single people in our culture looking for a mate, he cherished the illusion of finding a girl who'd be "different'* and who he would only feel pure love for. When such a person is supposedly found, the aggression is repressed and replaced by the phoniness of collusion, false accommodation, and imaging. Inevitably, the relationship and the sex turn sour.
Elizabeth, divorced and the mother of three children, stood up to face the men in this "gender club'* ritual. Trembling somewhat with anxiety and then resentment, she launched into her attack. "Men are little babies—^whining, complaining, and always wanting to have something done for them. They've got to be constantly reassured that they are the boss—the big honcho, the king! They're secretly afraid of women and don't know how to handle them. Then they complain about how they're being manipulated by women. What a laugh! Just show them a little breast or a behind and they start to drool. Homy little toads! But once they've made their pathetic little conquest they run. They don't really know how to handle it. When it comes right down to it, most men stink when it comes to sex. They're only good the first few times. They meet an honest woman who says she wants sex just as much as they do, and they panic—^they call her a castrater and an aggressive bitch! Aiid all you men are so hung up on your pitiful little egos and your success trips. You don't know anything about getting close, being warm, sharing a real feeling or even what a relationship is all about**
SEX AS A WEAPON
When this aggression between the sexes is repressed, sexuality becomes just another weapon or tool to express it with. Aggression in these instances masquerades as sexual desire. The man who needs to seduce each woman he meets is not being sexual but rather expressing his underlying quest for power and control, and his basic contempt for women, whom he treats interchangeably as objects and with no concern at all for their needs or feel-
216 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
ings. Likewise, the man who becomes impotent or ejaculates prematurely may be expressing his resentment or refusal to give satisfaction, stemming from repressed, aggressive motivations.
The seductive woman who tries to turn every man on and becomes indignant or rejecting when she is approached is also expressing her contempt for the male. Just as with the impotent male, the frigid female may be seeking to humiliate her male partner, make him feel inadequate or simply hold herself back from giving him satisfaction.
In an aggression-phobic society, sex becomes a heavily contaminated experience. Sexual involvement becomes just another instrument for control, self-assertion, power strivings, the expression of hostility and contempt, and the desire to humiliate, enslave, or sadistically hurt. Surfacing as much of the underlying hostility as possible and getting people to frankly acknowledge these feelings are the critical first steps in the direction of a meaningful and vital sexual relationship. Though we seem to be in an era of sexual freedom and enlightenment, this liberation is in most cases a superficial one. It is a case of doing it more but enjoying it less. Most sex partners are still frozen by their attempt to live up to standards of sexual behavior that are basically unreal and impossible. Sexual experience is accompanied by an emotionally inauthentic motivation to be inordinately gentle, sensitive, "loving,"'understanding, and other similar states, which we've been taught are supposed to be part of a mature sexual involvement. Eventually each partner has to look elsewhere for real sexual satisfaction. It is only in the casual, spontaneous, outside relationship apparently, that most people will allow themselves to indulge in the aggressive abandon, grabbing, biting, scratching, screaming, and wrestling that is far more real but not usually indulged in in one's marital or other intimate relationships. Men act it out with prostitutes or "girlfriends"; women, with their lovers.
MNTERSEX FEARS
Fear between the sexes is another common unexpressed feeling that disturbs satisfying sexual involvement. Intersex fears include the fear of being rejected, of not performing adequately, of being hurt, exploited, controlled, becoming overly dependent, or being possessed and en-
SEXUAL LIBERATION 217
gulfed. Converting the fear response to a healthy aggressive one requires learning how to defend one's identity, how to tolerate and accept rejection and to persist in the face of it, how to say "No,** how to confront, and how to set one*s intimacy limits. Early in every sexual relationship authentic self-presentation is important. This involves leveling about and detailing one's real desires and feelings about sex. It includes the open sharing of experiences of past hurts with other partners ("Hurt Museum") and discussing "tum-oflfs" and "beltlines." Sex partners tend to keep the latter secret (their "tumoffs") and to use them ultimately as weapons against each other. Miriam never told her lover that she hated having oral sex and was particularly repelled by his making such a sexual request before he had bathed. These were sexual "don'ts" that she never shared openly and that caused her to feel repelled very early in their involvement and to react in a frigid manner. She told herself she didn't tell him of these feelings because she didn't want to hurt him.
Tragically, many men and women are so frightened of honest confrontation about their needs that they don't even tell themselves what they don't like. They feel embarrassed and ashamed to establish their limits and expectations because of social pressure and often repress these feelings and become consciously unaware of them. For example, many men have a diflBcult time stating directly or even knowing when they really don't feel like having sex. Their self-image of being sexual performers demands that they be always ready and eager. This may be equally true of women, particularly in the early stages of a relationship. They feel that they must or should acconmiodate and enjoy sex with their man frequently. Eventually, this fear of negative self-assertion, this inability to say "No" or to even be able to clearly recognize when one does or doesn't want sex, destroys the joys of sexual involvement. Eventually, individuals are no longer able to differentiate when they are or are not genuinely **tumed on.** Instead they begin to develop psychosomatic symptoms such as backaches, headaches, and fatigue as every evening becomes a source of anxiety and one partner strategically falls asleep very early or stays up very late "reading" or 'Vorking" before coming to bed.
"Beltline sharing" is an important form of assertive self-communication in the area of sexuality that needs to be
218 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
engaged in early in a relationship. People have personal sensitivities which when offended cause them to withdraw, rage, seek to retaliate, or turn off sexually completely. These may include ill-timed comments about weight, grooming, hair, body odors, comparisons with others, arguments over money, negative references to past relationships such as parents, family, etc. One man, a young married insurance salesman, discovered that his "beltline" was confiding a very personal feeling to his wife and then having her use it against him to behttle or degrade him sometime later. For example, he would confide happily how he had "pulled a deal off" by wining and dining and smooth-talking a customer at a special restaurant. He was at the same time a little embarrassed over his tactics; he had the feeling of having "conned" the customer, and he acknowledged this. Later in the evening his wife began attacking him for being a "con artist," after he himself had confessed his own discomfort over the experience. He saw "red" and wouldn't touch her for days. In another instance, a woman indicated that she discovered that her "beltline" involved any experience of being accused of having hidden motives. For example, she would prepare a special meal or buy a gift for her boyfriend. His joking comment that he won-dered what she was "really after," or trying to get out of him, caused her to pull away from him sexually for several days at a time.
Bataca fighting, described in the chapter "Aggression Rituals," involves the use of cloth bats and of handicapping to equalize strength differences to allow couples to safely fight with each other in a sexual relationship. Despite the fact that there are enormous reservoirs of hostility between the sexes, there are no safe, effective physical ways to release them. Traditionally, men overestimate the physical fragility of their women, and the women are afraid to show their real physical strength for fear of seeming to be too "masculine" or aggressive. The super-gentle way of relating, particularly in the area of sexuality, ultimately becomes paralyzing and eliminates much of the vitality in a relationship. Bataca fighting, when done constructively, can help to break the passive pattern of relating. It can also act as a sexual stimulus. In particular, it can help each sex partner experience the other more realistically as an aggressive being. Bataca fighting is particularly effective between couples who have gotten into
SEXUAL LIBERATION 219
patterns of relating to each other and handling all of their problems in a highly verbal way. One such couple, a forty-three-year-old attorney and his wife, had practically stopped having sex altogether when they joined a creative aggression group for married couples, conducted by Dr. Bach.
They would intellectualize endlessly. He was always trying to be so "understanding,** while she was "terribly sensitive" and "afraid to hurt his feelings." Behind their endless verbalizations and ruminations there was intense anger in themselves that neither of them could experience directly. When they were asked by Dr. Bach to engage in a bataca fight, they resisted strongly. They insisted that it was a stupid thing to do, and besides, "What does this have to do with our sex problem?" With the group's encouragement, they finally agreed to try it. After an initial round of holding back, she "accidentally** hit him in the groin area. Although it caused no real pain, he became livid. The fight isuddenly became blatantly vicious. Both began to scream at and insult each other. She called him "limp prick*' and he called her "ice cold," **uptight" and "dry pussy.*' Intense rage toward each other that neither had been able to feel previously came pouring out. Behind all of their endless "sensitive" verbalizations, their "fears,** and their psychologizing, was a vast reservoir of hidden anger. As this energy was finally released and the verbalizations were transformed into their real essence—^namely, aggressive feelings —genuine warmth and caring appeared, and sexual arousal returned.
^^COLn TURKEY^ SEX
As we became increasingly aware of the intimate interaction between sex and aggression, we recognized that most couples lose the vitality of their sexual involvement by having sex "cold turkey'*; that is, while each is feeling benign and passive. Married couples particularly tend to climb into bed in a passive, relaxed state and both begin to feel there's something wrong with them individually and/or as a couple because they don't become immediately aroused sexually. Then he becomes concerned because his erection doesn't appear instantly, and she thinks something is wrong because she feels "numbed" or anesthetized.
Sexual involvement early in a courtship is usually excnt-ing because aggression is mobilized by the rituals of the
220 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
chase. The male is trying to "conquer" the female. Her aggressivity is expressed through a certain amount of resistance to him. Most of the aggressive elements, however, are missing in the sexual involvement of long-standing relationships. When there is anger or fighting one or both usually withdraws, whereas in the early stages of the relationship, a fight often served as a stimulus to sexual excitement. Therefore, we now encourage couples to use any device that will mobilize their aggression, even bataca bat fighting. Couples who first use this technique find themselves going from embarrassed laughter to intense anger and often emerge in a sexually aroused state.
THE NEED FOR CANDOR
Most sexual involvements begin with the mutual expectations between the individuals being either vague or un-realistically romantic. The attitude is one of "Let it happen by itself 1" In the early stages the novelty, uncertainty, and lack of commitment provide sufficient spurs. Even relatively inept sex is experienced as exciting. Retaining this excitement, however, wiU require more active participation, such as assertive signaling, mutual critiquing, confrontation, reinforcement, coaching, and cuing one's partner, providing information about oneself and demanding feedback.
Collusion and divining are two of the major causes of unsatisfactory sexual experiences. Collusion is pretending to like something one actually disapproves of in the desire to please, because one believes the other person likes it. A recent example of the destructive effects of coUusion involved a couple that had been together for seven years. The woman, while pretending to be a very "sexual" person, was beginning to compile a catalogue of physiological symptoms that provided her with "legitimate** reasons for abstaining from sex. In the course of her sexual therapy she revealed that while she had always really preferred being on top and straddling her husband during sex because it allowed her to orgasm deeply and frequently, she had pretended to prefer being on the bottom because her husband preferred it. She was sure he would accuse her of wanting to play the "man's part*' if she told him the truth.
In addition to colluding with what she believed her husband preferred because of a comment he had made six
SEXUAL LIBERATION 221
years prior about **dikey broads," she was "divining** him. That is, she was reading his mind and assuming that he would strongly resent her being on top. When she was finally able to discuss this openly, she discovered that the few times when her husband had been on the bottom, he enjoyed it because he could lie back and let her "do the work.** He, too, however, was afraid that openly asking to be on the bottom would mean to her that he was "feminine'* or a latent homosexual.
Divining and collusion are particularly conmion in the process of trying to figure out whether the other person even wants to have sex. It seems to be a source of great difficulty and anxiety for many people to directly ask their partner if they want sex, and to answer such a question honestly when it is asked of them. Some feel that asking these kinds of questions will destroy the "magic** and spontaneity of the relationship. They claim that one shouldn't really have to ask; one should be able to **just know.*' Consequently, decisions over whether or not to have sex are rife with collusion and divining. Some examples: He decides she doesn't really want to, because earlier in the evening she had mentioned that she had a headache. Or he doesn't want to push himself on her or force her, so he waits for her to make the first move. She doesn't want to be the aggressor, so she waits for him to make the first move. She figures he must want to, because they haven't for four days. But he really doesn't want to. Then she pretends to enjoy it and so does he when neither of them really wanted to in the first place. A pathetic comedy of errors, sure to turn sex into a nightmare, results from this fear of honest communication about sex.
Until recently, women were afraid to teU men what they liked sexually because they weren't really even supposed to enjoy it Men were afraid to express their preferencs for fear of being seen as depraved or animal-like. Until very recently many men didn't know a woman had a clitoris or where it was. Couples must learn to cue each other assertively during sex, teaching each other about sensitive "turn-on" areas of their bodies. Phase synchronization feedback is also important; that is, a behavior that is exciting during an early stage of foreplay may be a "turn-off' when coitus actually begins. One thirty-three-year-old male loved having his girlfriend nibble him on the neck when
222 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
they first started kissing but hated her doing this while he was inside of her body.
POSTCOITAL DISCrSSIONS
Postcoital discussions in which there is absolute candor not tempered with tact is important. In the striving for sexual satisfaction, tact spells failure. An honest, leveling approach as to what was enjoyable and what wasn't is a critical dimension to keeping sexual excitement alive.
These are many areas of potential conflict that need to be conmiunicated about openly and assertively. These include:
1. Position: Who's going to be where and at what pomt?
2. Time: Will we have sex in the morning, afternoon, evening, or the middle of the night?
3. Frequency: How often?
4. Quantity and nature of foreplay: How much time for warming up and what kind?
In this latter dimension, prior assumptions and "shoulds" must be thoroughly examined and often discarded. For example, quick abrupt sex is potentially as satisfying and as delightful as prolonged lovemaking. Many couples, however, feel that they should stretch it out or they are not being "sensitive" and "thoughtful" of the other.
Regardless of how sexually compatible a couple is, there will always be some differences in preferences. Partners who deny their differences are in collusion with each other. Others who feel the "magic" will be lost by discussing their feelings openly will see their sexual relationship steadily deteriorate.
THE SEXUAL CRAZYMAKERS
We have found that two of the most prevalent and lethal forms of repressed aggression in the area of sexuality are playing "Red Cross nurse" and playing the "analyst."
The "Red Cross nurse" is the man who solicitously asks and worries about the woman's orgasm, or the woman who is trying to "help" her man overcome his fears or impotence. Each assumes a very "concerned" attitude, which, however.
SEXUAL LIBERATION 223
only serves to intensify the extreme self-consciousness and guilt; e.g., "He's so thoughtful, I must be really frigid and hostile not to come," or **This impotence has got to be my problem. She couldn't be more patient and kind."
The "Red Cross nurse" reaction is not an emotionally authentic one. By being solicitous and concerned, the "Red Cross nurse" is really saying, "I'm sexually healthy but you're not. As soon as you get better our sex will improve.'* This pose allows the person to hide from his or her part in the problem. The underlying hostility behind the "Red Cross nursing" is seen in its impact. Inevitably the other partner never totally overcomes the "problem," though he or she may "improve" temporarily. The "Red Cross nurse" will naturally assume the credit. However, this will prove to be an improvement of very limited duration, because the "Red Cross nurse" has a stake ia the continuation of the problem.
The other pattern of driving one's partner "up the wall** is playing "analyst." This typically upward-bound, middle-class form of reprised aggression involves "helping" the other person find out why he or she can't respond. The "analyst" crazymaker never really expresses emotion. Rather, he or she stands at a detached distance and keeps trying to figure things out and come up with answers. Invariably, this pose goes nowhere except to make the partner with the "problem" feel sicker and more self-conscious. It is a hidden hostile ploy that also allows one to lay the blame on the other.
The writers believe that many of the so-called sex problems of today are the result of the repression of aggression. Consequently, attempts at revitalizing one's sex life through experimentation with new positions, techniques, or mechanical devices are doomed to failure unless the repressed aggressive components are integrated and men and women treat each other fearlessly and assertively rather than through phony accommodations and collusion. Our approach to sex ties in with our ethic, which encourages people to find ways to express themselves aggressively in personal, immediate, direct and constructive ways within their closest relationships. The bedroom can become an erotic playground and a natural setting for the release of one's aggression in safe, nonhurtful, and creative ways.
CHAPTER 16
Intimacy Through Conflict
fight grow
To love, -kener- and obey
Betty and Michael were seen together for marital counseling by Dr. Goldberg. They were on the brink of separation ever since Betty found out that Michael was sleeping around. Even at the time therapy began, he was in the midst of an intense affair. Michael, who was a thirty-nine-year-old dentist, was extremely polite and deferent toward the therapist during the initial sessions and was also very apologetic to Betty. As she cried and screamed, he sat back passively, periodically reassuring her with a pat on the back. When she finally pleaded with him to break off with his girlfriend, he readily agreed to it. Betty said, "I'd like to believe that you really mean it, but I don't." To this Michael calmly replied, "WeU, what can I do if you don't want to believe me?" He showed no resentment over her distrust.
During one session when Dr. Goldberg asked Michael what he personally felt was missing for him in the relationship, he replied, "I really don't have any complaints. Betty's a wonderful girl. I'm just a fucked-up selfish bastard." Dr. Goldberg found himself reacting very skeptically to this comment because of the quiet, controlled way it was said. He mentioned this to Michael, but Michael had no response.
Within one month after the initial session, Michael had moved out of the house and was living with his girlfriend. He left Betty a note of apology in which he assured her that she would be much better off without him and that he was doing this for her good as well as for his own. He
INTIMACY THROUGH CONFLICT 225
Stated that he was taking full responsibility for the breakup and concluded the letter with, "and I know, sweet Betty, you'll have no trouble finding somebody else to love you," Betty's initial distrust of Michael's promise had been a healthy, intuitively accurate one. His complete lack of anger and resentment over her statement that she didn't believe him was a giveaway indication of his lack of genuine involvement.
The prelude to relationship breakups is often characterized by a similar kind of politeness, passivity, and detachment on the part of at least one of the individuals. That is, breakups are invariably accompanied by a strong resistance on the part of at least one of the partners to "hassling" and "fighting." On the other hand, couples who arrive for therapy in open warfare with each other have, as a rule, a good chance to improve their relationship. Their intense, angry interchanges are a strong indication of genuine involvement and caring.
We think of cocktail party chatter as being polite, superficial, and boring. It evidences a lack of real involvement The following is a cocktail conversation between a polite, nonconfronting married couple upon the husband's arrival after a day at work:
he: Hi honey! Any mail?
she: Mainly junk stuff and some magazines,
he: Did the Atlantic Monthly arrive?
she: Yes! Would you like to see it? I was reading it in the bathroom. Ill go get it.
he: Please. Is there any coffee?
she: Sure. (She gets his magazine and coffee.)
she: Anything interestiug happen today?
he: Just the same old stuff. How about you?
she: Nothing here either, except that I bought a new outfit at Ohrbach's department store. I hope you're not angry.
he: Why should I be angry? I'm glad you found something you like.
she: Do you want to see it?
he: Maybe after dinner.
she: Do you want dinner now?
he: Right after I watch the six o'clock news.
In this fairly typical kind of exchange between a polite
226 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
and cordial couple, a crisis of alienation is inevitable. Both are hiding their boredom. They are probably preoccupied with private thoughts and fantasies and resistant to aggressively engaging each other. The "politeness" and "mutuality" are coverups for detachment and the fear of leveling. Individuals in a relationship are, as a rule, very rational and detached when their emotional investment is minimal.
Authentic intimacy is rarely polite or mutual. Genuine involvement means that there are two people openly expressing their unique needs. Because they impact and impinge on each other, they are also bound to frustrate, anger, disappoint, and disillusion each other. Spouses or any couples who rarely clash are probably relating to each other defensively and superficially. They are either afraid of or unable to reveal their real needs.
These polite couples will accommodate each other in phony ways for long periods of time. At some moment of crisis, however, the buried resentments and frustrations will burst forth. At this point, the hidden hostilities may be too overwhelming to cope with. Breaking up at this point is far less threatening than participating in healing confrontations.
The traditional marriage vows "to love, honor, and obey" are in many ways cruelly imrealistic. They set a tone and standard that in an authentic relationship will be impossible to achieve. If taken seriously they will induce feelings of inadequacy in couples who care about each other but who find themselves unable to achieve this model of harmony and togetherness they've been taught is possible. They view their conflicts and struggles as indications of personal failure and as reflections of a profound emotional deficiency in themselves. Their anxieties are intensified by the illusion, "Everybody else gets along, so why can't we?"
Areas of inevitable conflict in marriage have been previously discussed in the book Intimate Enemy (Bach and Wyden). The following discussion of some of these dimensions will strive to further develop some of these ideas.
OrriMAL mSTANCE — ^^HOW MUCH CLOSENESS?^^
Difference in intimacy tolerance is perhaps the core conflict in contemporary marriages. These differences are, however, inevitable because males and females have signif-
INTIMACY THROUGH CONFLICT 227
icantly different early socialization experiences, which help to create these differing intimacy tolerances and the inevitable clashes.
The eariy male experiences and emotional conditioning in the areas of sexuality, physical and emotional expressiveness (touching, crying), dependency needs, and achievement pressures tend to create in him a tendency to hold back and overcontrol himself. Touching and emotional display may be seen as being unmasculine, and sexuality may be approached in terms of challenge and conquest. The female, however, is socialized to be more comfortable with her emotionality and her dependency needs. She is not taught to be as competitive or achievement-oriented as the man, which allows her to be more relaxed and open in her relationships. As for sexuality, she is taught to view this experience more as a part of intimacy and a total relationship rather than in the segmentalized terms of challenge and conquest.
In the early stages of marriage or living together, there is a strong tendency for couples to falsely acconmiodate each other. The husband may spend great amounts of time with his wife when, in reality, he*d rather be off on his own or with friends. Vice versa, a wife might even encourage her husband to do things on his own to show him that he's really "free,** but in reality she would prefer him to stay around. When husband and wife stop playing these games and begin to experience and share their real needs, he may begin to feel engulfed and suffocated, while she may feel deprived and abandoned.
The preponderance of intense, destructive marital fights takes place on weekends and during vacations, when the seeds of phony accommodations come into destructive bloom. Quarrels and even violent altercations will be unconsciously precipitated to give one or the other spouse a rationale for expressing resentment or escaping. Disputes of the pettiest nature become the instruments intimates will use to give each other "legitimate" reasons to establish a comfortable optimal distance or to express resentment over feelings of deprivation. Here is a typical Saturday morning dispute:
he: Where*s my toothbrush? she: It was on the sink.
228 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
he: Well, it's not there now. (Angrily) Who the fuck walked off with it?
she: I don't know. Maybe one of the kids took it, and please don't curse at me. I am not one of your office buddies.
he: Well, the damned kids are into everything. Can't you even control them?
she: It's Saturday and we're off to the races again.
he: Races, bullshit I When are you ever going to learn what it means to be a wife and mother?
she: Hopefully neverl And if you don't like it, leave!
he: Thanks for the suggestion, I think I wilL
The hidden messages in this fight centered around distancing and testing. He unconsciously precipitated a fight to give him an excuse to get away. She unconsciously challenged him to test his desire and capacity to be around her. Had they been able to level about their respective intimacy tolerances earlier, this "petty" argument, which was a mask for the real conflict over distance, could have been avoided.
Intimates trying to get a sense of their differing intimacy needs should ask themselves the following questions: First, when do most of our fights arise? Second, what are these fights telling us about our needs for greater freedom or more closeness? Third, do either of us feel suffocated or deprived in the relationship? Fourth, how often do I enjoy touching or being touched by my partner? Fifth, approximately how many hours can I spend with my partner before I become bored, restless, and easily annoyed? Sixth, do I allow myself the outside friendships and involvements, sexual and nonsexual, that I inwardly know I want?
Couples often feel that they are supposed to enjoy being with each other most or all of the time. Prior to marriage or living together, it was all right and even fun to have many friends and sexual partners. Once the marriage contract is signed, however, couples feel they must satisfy all of their needs within the relationship. This attitude isolates the couple and eventually makes the marriage a nightmare. When each partner depends on the other for the satisfaction of all their primary emotional needs, they set each other impossible tasks and insure failure and frustration. The tragic consequence of this attitude of exclusivity and possessiveness is tiiat the lovers destroy the very thing they
BVnMACY THROUGH CONFLICT 229
so jealously guard. It is no wonder then that many spouses break up their marriage hating each other and exulting in their newly found freedom.
CENTRICiTY STRUGGLES ^^WHO^S
THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN YOUR LIFE?'^
The dimension of centricity refers to the need to establish one's place of pre-eminence in the life of the other person. Invariably in relationships there wiU be differences in inner feelings of security resulting in statements and demands such as the following: "If you really cared about me you'd give up those group therapy sessions and be at home with us. Aren't we more important to you than that group of strangers?" Or, "You leave for work every morning at 8:00 A.M. Lately you haven't been coming home from the office until seven-thirty. You could certainly leave a little earlier to have dinner with me and the kids. We don't need the money that much."
Centricity struggles are designed to discover the extent of the other person's commitment to the relationship. The questions underlying these conflicts are usually: (1) How secure do I really feel in this relationship? (2) Am I the most important person in his/her life? (3) Am I jealous of his/her activities or friends? (4) If it came down to a choice, what activity or person, if any, would he/she choose above me?
The ideal of a mutual autonomy in which neither spouse experiences a threat to his or her importance as a result of the outside relationships or activities of the other, is a romantic illusion that can rarely if ever be lived up to in an authentic relationship.
POWER STRUGGLES ""^WBO'S ON
This dimension concerns itself with the issue of who will dominate the relationship or lifestyle. This struggle is one of the more complex and elusive ones because of the many faces the process of striving for power can take. The following messages, for example, have the same effect, though their content is dissimilar.
230 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
she: I'd like you to come home tonight right after work and make dinner for the kids. I don't feel like doing it tonight.
OR
she: Honey, I'm having cramps and feeling really headachy. Would you be a dear and come home right after work and help me out with dinner?
In the first instance, a direct demand was made. In the second, the same demand was made, but indirectly, and softened with a plea for help. A spouse may grab for control and make demands directly through an assertive or dominating style. On the other hand, similar results can be achieved indirectly through chronic illness, emotional symptoms, and manipulativeness.
The power dimension is rife with potential conflicts between any two normally assertive individuals. In an authentic intimate relationship during which each partner expresses these needs to control and dominate openly, overt conflict will therefore be inevitable. In relationships where one of the partners assumes a passive deferent role, there may be few overt conflicts; however, the same need to control will emerge in indirect ways. Concerning this dimension, intimates need to ask themselves: First, am I aware of my need to control? Second, do I express this need directly or indirectly? Third, how do I express my resentment over being dominated? Do I express it through physical illness, emotional symptoms such as depression or chronic fatigue, or in passive aggressive ways, such as forgetting, withdrawing, or misunderstanding? Fourth, how can I translate my indirect or passive strategies into direct and openly assertive ones?
TRtfST FORMATION — ^^HOW CAN I BE SURE?*^
Conflicts over trust are often the deepest in a relationship. Men and women alike have socially conditioned fears and distrust regarding the motives of the opposite sex. Therefore, trust testing will be a powerful facet in the process of building a relationship, particularly in its early stages.
In their early social conditioning, girls are admonished that "Men are only out for one thing," or "You can't trust
ESmViACY THROUGH CONFLICT 231
a man.'* Likewise, men are taught to be wary of women, their wiles, hidden motives, and manipulativeness. The seductive female who has the power to destroy a kingdom is an archetypal fantasy.
Alongside these socially conditioned areas of sexually-oriented mistrust are those that emerge as a part of personal emotional traumas early in life, such as abandonment via parental divorce or death of a parent, harsh rejection experiences, parental inconsistencies, broken promises, or the disinterest of detached or busy parents.
Finally, there are the sources of distrust that are culturally conditioned as a result of one being raised in a competitive culture in which individuals are indirectly taught to be suspect of each other's motives.
Trust formation will therefore develop slowly and with innumerable clashes in the following three areas:
THE REVELATION OF "BELTLINES" This refers to the gradual sharing of critical areas of emotional vulnerability. These may include personal revelations about one's past; sensitivities over one's physical appearance; inadequacy feelings regarding education, achievement, or sexual prowess; and the open discussion of emotional conflicts.
Joan Gibbs had many "beltline" areas. She told her fiance Richard of only a few. She was particularly sensitive about the heaviness of her thighs and the smallness of her breasts, she said.
Two months later she and Richard had a figiht over her refusal to spend Thanksgiving eve with Richard's parents. Richard began mocking her. He said that from the waist up she'd make a fantastic scarecrow, and that the Kentucky colonel could sure make a lot of money frying her thighs.
Joan clammed up and became very withdrawn. She went on like this for several days and never again revealed other "beltline" areas about which she felt even more sensitive. She felt that Richard couldn't be trusted, for example, knowing that she had had an abortion at age sKteen. She just couldn't be sure anymore when that kind of information might be used against her.
The least sensitive "beltline" areas are typically revealed first. If the information is abused by the partner, resulting in embarrassment or humiliation, trust formation will be slowed or sometimes permanently destroyed.
232 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
BEHAVIOR MANIFESTED DURING A CRISIS This facet of trust testing may be reflected in questions of the following type: How did she react when I lost my job? How did he react when I became very sick for a month and couldn't take care of his needs? How did she react when I had a fight with her father over my "irresponsible" ways? How did he react during my pregnancy when I was feeling confused, anxious, and unsure? How did she react when I became impotent for several weeks?
Craig Mitchell came home upset and told his wife of two months that he might be getting fired. He had just had a heated argument with his employer over the fact that he had been asked to work overtime four nights in a row without getting paid for it He was visibly shaken and scared.
His wife Jeannie looked at him coldly and remarked, "That wasn't very good judgment on your part, was it? We've only been married two months, and how do you suppose we're going to eat and pay the rent? All you think about is yourself."
At first Craig felt embarrassed, then guilty. But the more he thought about it, the angrier he got He thought to himself, "That bitch only likes me when I'm playing the strong man!" It was an emotional turning point in their relationship. Shortly thereafter he told her he didn't want to have any children. The marriage broke up two years later.
IMBALANCES EST PHYSICAL STRENGTH, E^TEL-LECTUAL ABILITY, OR SOCIAL FACILITY The
way a man uses his physical advantage or the way a woman relates to her man in social situations where she may be more facile and smooth; and the way either takes advantage of the fact that he or she is better educated or intellectually gifted are all aspects of this facet of trust formation.
The very thing that Sherry loved most about her college professor husband was the fact that though she knew nothing about his field of specialization, which was experimental psychology, he would always take the time to explain the research studies he was involved in. He would even ask her opinion of them. Though she knew she couldn't give him meaningful advice, she experienced this as a demonstration of her husband's love and involvement with her and it made her feel very close to him.
INTIMACY THROUGH CONFUCT 233
PRESERVATION OF SELF —**rVE GOT TO BE MEr^
The Gestalt prayer, authored by Dr. Fritz Perls, says in part, "You do your thing and I'll do mine." It has become one of the cultural bywords on how intimate relationships should ideally be. Contemporary spouses are very much preoccupied with the struggle to defend their identities within the relationship against engulfment. Their imique needs, however, will inevitably produce conflict. The dream of a totally nonintnisive, *'You do your thing and 111 do mine" lifestyle is, we believe, psychologically impossible to live up to in an involved relationship. Relationships that begin very harmoniously and within which each spouse or lover just happens to like and want what the other one likes and wants, more often than not turn out to be rife with collusion, accommodation, and phoniness. Each person's real needs are being rei^essed.
Today more than ever, conflicts over the preservation of one's identity are surfacing in the man-woman relationship. Women who have a consciousness of themselves as people with unique needs and rights are increasingly protesting against many of the traditional roles and duties that have typically been assigned to them. Household and child-rearing chores are particularly xmder attack. While most men until now have tended to be reticent about the ways in which they feel their identities are being violated, we might expect that they will also become more active on their own behalf as women become more liberated.
Conflicts in the area of preservation of self and identity will continue throughout a vital relationship as the individuals develop and change. In a relationship in which these conflicts are not overtly experienced and struggled with, stagnaticm and repressed resentment will build up.
SOCIAL BOUNDARIES — ^WH03M SHOULD ^VE INVITE?^^
There are many sources of conflict in this dimension as intimates are in the process of deciding on the following: Whom will we seek out and accept as friends? How often will we go out? Where will we go, and when? How much involvement will we have with in-laws and other family?
234 HOW TO LIVE CONSTTRUCTIVELY
Will there be opposite-sex friendships, and will these be of a physical or platonic nature? May people be brought into the home without notice?
False accommodations are common in the making of these decisions. Individuals give up critical needs, even deny that they have them "for the sake of the relationships. In particular, spouses often suppress their desires to do things on their own, such as taking weekend trips alone with friends, bringing people home on impulse, or going to certain concerts, sporting events, etc., that they feel their spouses won't like. Even the simple, pleasurable act of talking to strangers or making new acquaintances casually is usually given up because it threatens one's partner.
The conflicts in this area, which are avoided by denying one's real needs, set the groundwork for the downfall of the relationship. This downfall usually begins with feelings of boredom, deadness, and frustration. Standing up for one's real social needs is often fraught with anxiety and conflict because it cuts across the normal possessive and ownership orientation in intimate relationships. However, the price of denial is the devitalization and slow decay of the relationship.
ROMANTIC ILLUSIONS — ""^ARE YOU THE PERSON I MARRIED?'^
She thought he was so thoughtful and sensitive and is hurt and disillusioned to find him forgetting birthdays and anniversaries. She is also dismayed when she sees her strong, "take charge" husband behave like a frightened pussycat in front of his boss. He, on the other hand, thought she was so gentle and fragile. He is shaken when he hears her screaming and cursing at the driver blocking her car. And he can't believe his eyes when he notices his "pure and faithful" wife flirting and dancing seductively with other men at a friend's party.
In intimate interactions conflict is bound to arise as the partners begin to see each other as they really are rather than as they believed them to be. Spouses often repress the truths they see and remain stubbornly fixated on their fantasy because of their fear of conflict. In the process, however, a reservoir of hidden resentment is built up, which may eventually result in a sudden, violent blowup,
Disillusionments about the other person are an inevita-
INTIMACY THROUGH CONFLICT 235
ble consequence of the phony courtship rituals most people engage in. Recognizing "dream spoiler" resentments when they arise and discussing them openly are sources of potential conflict that are, however, necessary for the maintenance of a real relationship.
The ideals of peace and harmony in a marriage or any equivalently close relationship are cruel and unrealistic. The attempt to live up to these myths is at the price of repressing conflicts, hostilities, and resentments as they arise, thereby paving the way for an increasingly fragile involvement.
Vital relationships grow in the soil of the conflict-laden dimensions discussed in this chapter. Avoidance and suppression of the conflicts ultimately result in feelings of alienation, boredom, and finally animosity. Some married couples choose to live like this rather than risk the alternatives. For others, however, the relationship simply decays and collapses under its own weight. The tendency to jump in again to find a new and fresh relationship avoidance, wUl simply begin the frustrating, destructive, and alienating cycle again.
CHAPTER 17
Stop! You Are Driving Me Crazym
Crazymakmg is a form of interpersonal interaction that results from the repression of intense aggression and whiich seriously impairs its victim's capacity to recognize and deal with interpersonal reality. We tend to think of the word "crazy" as describing the behavior of a small group of very disturbed individuals. And yet the very same kinds of emotional experiences and interactions that have succeeded in largely destroying the reality grasp of these people are prevalent in milder forms in the lives of all people in our culture. Though the dosage of it in most people's lives is not sufficient to drive them completely crazy, its impact is still sufficiently disturbing to severely harm relationships and to produce emotional symptoms such as detachment and withdrawal, vulnerability to sudden mood swings, violent outbursts, depression and feelings of alienation and isolation.
THE DOUBLE BIND
The "double bind" has become one of the most widely recognized forms of these crazymaking interactions. In essence it involves the coromunication of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" emotional messages. The victim is doomed to rejection no matter which way he responds. This process was originally observed and described by the late psychiatrist Dr. Donald Jackson and noted anthropologist Dr. Gregory Bateson.
The double-binding crazymaking mother notices her child Kathy, age seven, sitting alone quietly, perhaps reading or coloring. The dialogue begins:
mother: "Kathy, you look so sad! Are you sad?"
SrOPI YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYIH 237
kathy: "No!'*
mother: (out of guilt) "Don't you want to come over here and give Mommy a hug? Show Mommy you love her."
kathy: "Well, okay." (goes over and hugs mother)
mother: (her body tightening up) "You only did that because I asked you. You really didn't mean it. Did you?"
kathy: (quiet and confused)
mother: "Okay, go back to your coloring book—^I'm really disappointed."
Kathy^s mother was a "good" mother from all surface appearances. However, she had a lot of hidden resentment toward Kathy, who was an unexpected pregnancy and forced the marriage prematurely. When Kathy's mother saw her sitting in the comer looking sad, she felt compelled to be "nice." The "niceness," however, was motivated by guilt over the underlying, repressed resentment toward Kathy and not out of a genuine desire for physical contact with her. Either response Kathy would have made, "No, I don't want to hug you," or "Yes, I do want to hug you," would have met with a rejection response stenmiing from the underlying, repressed resentment.
Crazymaking messages are never clearly rejecting ones. They are invariably interspersed with "loving" looks or words that seduce the victim into a closeness and then leave him feeling guilty and confused (he sees himself as responsible) when the rejection comes. Kathy will experience herself as "bad" if she believes her mother's message of "You really didn't mean it." The conclusion Kathy will then draw about herself is, "My mother really loves me, and I'm a bad girl because I always disappoint her."
The crazymaking mixture between "loving" and rejecting messages, in no-win combinations, was graphically portrayed in this dinner conversation between father and sixteen-year-old daughter Ellen:
father: EUen dear, you know your face is getting all broken out from that garbage you eat after school. At this rate boys will never call you.
ELLEN: I bought a cream that Patty told me about. It's supposed to be really good for blemishes.
father: I'm glad you're doing something for yourself, but why don't you ask me before you spend my money on stuff Uke that?
238 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
ELLEN: I thought you'd want me to.
father: I want you to look good, but we have more important things to do with our money than buy cosmetics.
ELLEisTt There's a boy in my chemistry class. I think he's going to ask me out, and I was embarrassed about my face.
father: Is that the most important thing to you? Looking good for boys? And do you think beauty is skin deep? It's the person inside that counts, Ellen dear, not the surface stuff.
ELLEN: I really think he likes me as a person, and I wanted to look good.
father: You sound all ga-ga-eyed. I hope you remember you've got school to finish first. If I ever hear that you're pregnant . . .
ELLEN: I promise that won't happen!
father: And I don't want you on the pilll
ELLEN: I thought you wanted me to look good! (almost in tears by now)
father: I do, but that doesn't mean getting all hung up over a boy. Can't you ever worry about anything but how you look and what boys think of you?
ELLEN: (in tears) I don't.
father: I know you don't. You can do anything you want. But keep your schoolwork up.
Beneath father's "concern" and "helpfulness" is a need to totally dominate and control his daughter and keep her a Uttle girl. However, he does not recognize these motives at all. He thinks of himself as a loving person. That is, his conscious self-image is of a well-intentioned father with his daughter's best interests in mind. Because he is not consciously aware of his domination and controlling needs, they seep through indirectly and contaminate each "loving" message with a controlling, inhibiting one. On the one hand, father was encouraging Ellen to look good. On the other hand, he was angry because she was doing something on her own to look good. So long as Ellen looked pathetic, which mobilized father's guilt, he was "helpful" and "loving." As soon as Ellen indicated that she might not be all that pathetic, dependent, and lonesome, he started attacking her mterest in boys. Father's crazymaking messages to Ellen were good illustrations of that mixture of "love" and rejection that characterizes
STOPI YOU AKE DRIVING ME CRAZYIII 239
double-binding. Consequently, anything Ellen does will bring rejection and the feeling that she has failed to live up to her father's expectations.
Sonny and Maxine had been married for 6 years. Sonny, though a rugged, physically impressive, 6 feet, 3 inches and 210 pounds, was still a mother's boy. He married Maxine largely because his mother had told him what a great wife she would make. Basically, though. Sonny was still a boy who wanted to play and be free and was unconsciously resentful and jealous of single friends who went out every night, could go to evening basketball games, "screw around," and get drunk. He was also inwardly jealous of his married friends who left their wives at home alone in the evenings, which Sonny felt too guilty to do. His resentment came through in exhausting and confusing double-bind messages that brought Maxine to the verge of a breakdown.
sonny: What was your day like, darling? Anything exciting happen?
maxine: Nothing sensational. I did teach Timmy how to hold a fork and spoon. Then we went to the park and played catch. I think he's going to be another Roman Gabriel.
sonny: It's great that you're so into bringing up Timmy, but lately that's all you can talk about. You used to be so much fun to talk with, but now you've gotten to be a big bore—and I hope that doesn't hurt your feelings. But you really used to be an exciting person, and I loved you for that.
maxine: (raising her voice) I wanted to take a job, and you said you wanted me home with the kids. You said I was being selfish and hostile. Now you say I'm a bore.
sonny: I didn't mean you were really a bore. But gad, that baby talk is driving me up a wall. There's got to be other things you can do.
maxine: Like what?
sonny: Don't you have any imagination? Then I really pity youl Just forget it. I'm going to watch TV.
Sonny, who really resented being father and husband but could not acknowledge these feelings to himself openly, became a bona fide crazymaker. Everything he said, although loving in intent, was eventually contaminated by the under-
24# HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
lying core of iinfelt anger. Maxine could never do anything that would please. She became increasingly anxious and withdrawn until she finally had a breakdown and went into therapy with Dr. Bach. During her therapy she discovered that she was actually a willing victim of Sonny's crazy-making. Her self-image was one of helplessness and of being unable to survive without someone like Sonny to lean on. However, she mistook his demanding, controlling manner for strength 1
Just as in family interactions, the relationships in most work situations, particularly between employer and employee, contain the basic emotional ingredients for crazy-making double binders. In these crazymaking interactions, the employer becomes a substitute father or mother figure and the employees find themselves behaving like children, eagerly and anxiously searching for approval and reward. The more insecure and frightened the employee, the greater are the chances that he will become the victim of a double binder.
The crazymaking vice president of the sales department of a large garment corporation employing forty-five people became increasingly aware of commimication problems in his department, which were being reflected in decreasing sales. He tried firing some salesmen and hiring new ones, but that didn't seem to help the problem. After an initial sales spurt, things would begin to bog down again.
He began reading books and articles on psychological approaches to employment problems. After finishing several of them, he came upon what he felt would be a solution to the morale problems. He had signs placed all over the oflSce and sent out memos to each employee announcing that henceforth he would be available every Wednesday afternoon for private, confidential conferences to discuss any complaints or gripes, no matter how minor. All discussions, he asserted, would be treated as completely oflE the record.
There was some initial enthusiasm among the employees, although a number of the older ones reacted with skepticism. They remarked c3TiicaUy that this was probably a trap of some kind. However, some employees began to make appointments. One came in and complained about a lack of adequate secretarial help. Still another complained that the marketing people weren't holding up their end of the business. A few had grievances about lesser issues, such
STOPI YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYIII 241
as the length of coffee breaks, the need for more window space, and noise problems.
Initially, they were listened to with great patience, but eventually the vice president would always have a comeback to negate or belittle the complaint. If the employee persisted, invariably the vice president would imply that they were crybabies and perhaps not of sufficient caliber to work for the company. They left feeling insecure and angry that they had taken the bait.
Other employees, less trusting and more cynical, never came in. They would be stopped in the hallways by the vice president and asked why they showed such little concern for improving company morale. He implied that they lacked the necessary company spirit. They too wound up feeling insecure and wondering if perhaps they should contrive a safe but phony complaint to satisfy their boss. Clearly, the employees were being placed in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" double bind. If they presented a complaint, they were liable to being called crybabies. If they didn't, they would be accused of lacking company spirit,
COPING WITH THE DOUBLE BINDER
Double binders feed on dependency and feelings of inadequacy. The double binder is applying torture treatment to an unconsciously willing victim who does not feel capable and/or worthy of an openly assertive, autonomous style of life.
In some instances, however, particularly that of parent-child, the child victim is trapped if there is no liberatiag outside intervention. The double-binding parent overcon-trols, blocks out other influences and projects the image of a caring parent, which makes him that much more difficult to confront. The child will begin to signal for help, perhaps by becoming increasingly withdrawn, or going into periodic, sudden, explosive tantrums. Through all this he will remain dependent and childlike, significantly below his age level expectancy. All of these will be indirect pleas for help. A school environment that promotes assertiveness and acceptance of aggressive feelings can have an ameliorating effect. Otherwise, the child may have to enter adolescence and begin to make life sufficiently unbearable for the parents, usually passively, by functioning in a dependent.
242 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCnVELY
withdrawn, and noncommunicative manner until the parents are literally forced to recognize that their child is disturbed. The double-binded child is one of the genuine emotional victims with no overt recourses in our society.
In adult relationships a person can sense if he is in the grip of a double binder if he is in a frequent state of anxiety and oscillates constantly between feelings of euphoria ("He loves me.") and depression ("No, I think hell reject me."). Where one finds oneself always dependent, constantly seeking approval and in general walking on egg shells, one is likely to be interacting with a double binder. The double binder is alternately perceived as benevolent and cruel by the victim, and through all of this, the latter is afraid of talking spontaneously and directly to the double binder for fear of rejection. In general, crazymakers produce confused reactions in their victims, a mixture of wanting to run away and a fear of doing so.
Rooting out and blocking the double binder first requires the awareness that he is feeding on vulnerability and inadequacy. The first major step then is the awakening to one's own capacity to survive independently. The rest is relatively simple, for the crazymaker really needs his victim as much as his victim needs him. He too is afraid of overt aggressiveness. The double binder's helpful and seductive facade needs to be recognized as such with the following awareness. "Nothing I will ever do will really please you. I am not going to let myself be trapped any longer by the fantasy that there is a magic button which, if I press it, wiU release your love and allow me to feel secure."
Guilt and "shoulds" ("I should enjoy being with him/ her.") that heavily color the socialization process for all people in the roles they play in this culture—parent, spouse, teacher, employer, friend, worker, etc.—make potential crazymakers of everyone. That is, as people live up to role expectations that run counter to their real feelings, a core of repressed resentment will form that will cause them to send out double-binding messages. One can however perform in a role while at the same time allowing oneself to experience the resentment and anger one may feel about it. At least with these feelings out in the open, a person can decide whether he really wants to be living as he is living and avoid engaging in the crazymaking dance called double-binding.
STOP! YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYIII 243
THE MIND RAPE
All the forms of crazymaking have their most lethal effects within the parent-child relationship. Identity denial is a common occurrence between parent and child. Colloquially termed the "mind rape" or "mind fucking," it involves informing another person what they really think or feel because it serves the convenience or need of the crazymaker. In the process, the victim's real feelings are denied validity.
TOMMY (seven years old): I don't want to go to the dentist—I'm scared.
father: You're not really scared. Only little babies are afraid of dentists. You want to be like the big boys, don't you? Big boys like going to the dentist. Isn't that right?
tommy: (quietly and uncomfortably does not reply and goes passively along)
father: See, I knew you were a big boy I
For seven-year-old Tommy to defend his feelings was too much to ask. On the one hand, it would mean displeasing Daddy, and on the other, it would mean experiencing his feelings of fear without support. Therefore, Tommy represses his own emotional reactions and accepts his father's interpretation. He has been "mind raped." This begins a process of splitting the child's personality between what he feels and what others inform him he should feel. Adults who have been "mind raped" extensively as children, and many have, experience a sense of confusion and uncertainty over what they feel and experience. For self-defense, they might develop intellectual defenses and deal with everything in a detached, cerebral way. This eventually leads to a state of emotional numbness. Spontaneous feelings have been replaced by "should feels" and intellectual izations.
Among adults, mind raping is often done in the name of helping and understanding.
Jonathan: My job is really getting me down, and I think I'm going to quit.
mark; How can you say that? You work in a beauti-
244 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
ful building, you've got great insurance coverage and lots of security. How could you not like it?
JONATHAN: I feel like I'm wasting my abilities.
mark: Why? It can be very challengLug. A job is anything you make it!
JONATHAN: I know, but I've been there for a year now and it's not getting any better.
mark: You just enjoy bitching. That's your style. You know you really like your job.
The relationship between Mark and Jonathan was basically a friendly one. However, Mark's contention that he really "knew" what Jonathan was feeling, although consciously well-intentioned, was destructive in its impact by creating guilt feelings and confusion in Jonathan regarding his own reactions. On an underlying level, Mark really felt competitive with Jonathan, and did not want him to risk and possibly gain more than he (Mark) was wiUiug to risk and gain. Because the overt acknowledgment of competitive feelings and power struggles are considered taboo between friends, these crazymaking messages ensue.
COMBATiNG THE MEND RAPEH
Mind raping is a seductive form of crazymaking. The victim hears that the other person is really trying to be "helpful," and it is a comforting fantasy to beheve that somebody else knows us better than we know ourselves. Modem-day "pop psychology" has made mind raping under the guise of "analyzing" and "tuning in" a favorite sport. People supposedly read each other's "hidden meanings" and "help" each other recognize "real" feelings without even exchanging a word.
To combat mind rapers, you must always begin with the assumption that a person who tells you what you "really" think or feel is wrong. If he is correct it is probably more by accident than by wisdom. Invariably, the mind raper, who may be partially correct, is oversimplifying a complicated emotional experience. Very rarely, in fact, is there one clear-cut feeling or reason for anything. It is emotionally insulting to be mind read without one's permission, under any circumstance.
In our work in aggression training we conduct an exercise called "mind reading checkout" We train individuals
CTOPI YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY!II 245
to ask permission of the other whenever they wish to surmise what the other person is feeling or thinking. Individuals quickly leam how often they are sure they know, but are really way off target This is a very sobering revelation. Some grandiose mind rapers may even insist they know you better than you know yourself. This kind of person is toxic to be with and whenever possible should be excluded from one's intimate circle because of their powerfully seductive, destructive crazymaking tendency.
Once one is sensitized to mind raping, one of the most seductive forms of crazymaking, it is fairly simple to recognize. It is frequently accompanied by the word "reaUy."
"I think you really feel , . .*•
*'What you're really saying . . .**
**I don't believe you really want . . ."
All such messages, as a general rule, should be aborted, even if they might be accurate, and especially if they've been received without your permission. They should be considered to be as insulting as direct slaps in the face. In fact, they are. A polite counter would be, 'Thank you for your help, but your reading of my mind only confuses me more."
THE GUiLTMAKERS
Within the context of a parent-child relationship, the guiltmaker parent creates in the child an exaggerated and destructive sense of his impact, generating in the child the fear of self-expression, particularly in the area of aggressive impact.
*'Because you don't mind, Mommy gets a headache and feels sick."
"Grandma's old and isn't going to be aroimd that much longer. She counts on you, and if you're not nice to her, something very bad could happen to her."
"You hurt your sister's feelings and ruined her whole weekend."
In each instance the child is receiving a grossly distorted picture of his power and an exaggerated, imreal picture of the fragility of the other person. It may be true that Jimmy aggravated Mother, that Grandma needs positive feedback, or that his sister felt hurt. However, the implication in all of these messages is that the other person
246 HOW TO LIVE CONCTRUCTIVELY
is helpless and readily demolished by an aggressive communication. In an aggression-healthy environment we would rebuke the sister for not asserting herself in return; we would chide Mother for allowing herself to be given a headache, and would encourage Grandma to actively pursue positive feedback on her own.
Guiltmakers are passively attempting to stifle the other person's aggressive potential for their own controlling needs. The guiltmaker is an aggression castrater who often compounds insult with injury by a "consoling" message after he has guilt-made. "But I know you really didn't mean it!" is the double dose of crazymaking.
Intimate adult relationships of all kinds are rife with guUt-making. In each instance this represents a form of manipulation of the other person's aggression phobia. This can be done with words ("Because of you . . ."), with hurt looks, silence, or intentional bungling of something one is doing at the other's request ("I did what you said, and now look at the mess we're in.") Often the guiltmaking is done subtly, in the form of an interpretation such as, "You need to control everything" or "You're always so hungry for attention." Basic, healthy, assertive impulses suddenly become heinous crimes.
DEFENSE AGAINST GUILTMAKERS
Guiltmakers use others as scapegoats in order to avoid assuming personal responsibility for the things that happen to them. Again, when these occur in the content of a parent-child relationship (i.e., the mother who blames her deteriorating marriage on her child's behavior), they can be particularly damaging. The child accepts these statements as truth and may be frightened and scared by them to the point of extreme passivity and fear of self-assertion.
It is safe to say that within close relationships it is the great exception when one person can truly be held responsible for the life consequences of another. Contemporary psychological-clinical data and thought are increasingly demonstrating the great extent to which people bring unto themselves the things that happen to them. They often, in fact, seek out friends, lovers, employers, and situations that can provide them with comfortable rationalizations for their inadequacies and failures.
The ultimate retort to guiltmakers, therefore, one that
STOP! YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY!!! 247
will undoubtedly surface their core of underlying hostility is, "I'm not guilty. You got what you wanted, or you wouldn't have gotten involved with me." The extent of the guiltmaker's rage at such a response will serve as a good indicator of his defensiveness and unwillingness to assume responsibility for the things that happen to him. Guiltmak-ing, even when there is some truth in the accusation, is always counterproductive. As a rule, therefore, guiltmakers must always be resisted and their bullying outbursts viewed as a part of their aggression-castrating repertoire!
NONENGAGEMENT: CRAZYMAKING BY EMOTIONAL WITHDRAWAL
Few can crazymake by generating insecurity and self-doubt better than the nonengager. The nonengager causes the other person to feel hke the heavy, the ogre, the fight starter. It will be recalled that in the chapter "The Myth of the 'Nice* Guy," we described the " *nice' guy daddy" who never took responsibility for disciplining the children and thereby passively forced mother to become the punitive, disliked figure.
In our aggression-phobic culture, quietness, self-control, and refusal to fight have traditionally been viewed as positive, mature qualities. However, in a relationship of interdependence, these behaviors can create intense frustration. The nonengager gives little feedback or structure, and one is left trying to read the mind of this self-contained person in an attempt to ascertain what they are thinking.
Children of nonengaging, crazymaking parents find themselves forever searching for an ounce of approval. After a certain point they may lose their motivation to be
[productive or to excel in any way because no matter how
j well they perform, they get a sindlarly detached response. Likewise in the marital relationship, the victim spouse
I eventually gives up in exasperation, laiowing that it doesn't
f really matter what he or she does.
Nonengagement can have a powerful, anxiety-producing effect in the work situation, particularly for the insecure
i employee seeking to gain some assurance that he is performing adequately. He will begin to interpret the lack of response as an indication that he is doing poorly but that his boss doesn't want to tell him and thus lives in chronic
248 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
fear that he will receive a tennination notice with his next paycheck.
During the workday he may even begin to avoid direct contact with his boss in the magical belief that "If he doesn't see me or talk to me it's another day without facing the bad news." The employee finds himself hanging on for dear life, and this greatly impairs his personal, creative potential. His energy is being drained just trying to maintain himself rather than going toward improvement and greater achievement.
Behind the nonengagement is repressed aggression emerging passively. The underlying message is, "You're not worth the energy," "I don't care enough to get involved," "My head's somewhere else," or "Don't bug me!" The victim of this crazymaker may expend considerable energy trying to elicit a response and may be unconsciously forced to extreme, provocative, even rageful behavior in an attempt to get a reaction. Invariably, traditional aggression-fearful onlookers will view this victim as disturbed or hostile and sympathize with the quiet nonengager. Thus the victim gets a double dose of crazymaking, one from the nonengager and the second from outsiders who will side with the "nice" quiet nonengager.
CONFRONTING THE NONENGAGER
Victims of these crazymakers must leam to resist the temptation to label themselves as trouble starters. In general, traditional perceptions of nonengagement as being a desirable quality indicative of depth, maturity, self-control, and peacefulness needs to be altered. Nonengagers must be seen within the context of the relationship in which they hold back and the impact it is having on the other person. In some instances, this form of behavior may be relatively harmless if the interdependent party has a similar style. However, in the instance where the nonengager starves out and drives the victim up the wall, it needs to be seen for the hostile, depriving response it is.
Individuals involved with nonengagers must ask themselves several questions:
1. What am I getting out of this relationship?
STOP! YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYIII 249
3. Are my real needs somehow being satisfied by my partner's detachment?
4. Is there something in my behavior that has shut my partner down.
5. Why do I persist in trying to get blood from a stone when I could be turning somewhere else for emotional nourishment?
One important crazymaking feature of being involved with a nonengager is that the victim's behavior may become more extreme and bizarre in the desperate attempt to get a response. This behavior may be interpreted as neurotic or psychotic by others.
Nonengagers are extremely difficult to impact. They have learned to become comfortable in their detachment Threats of leaving or ending the relationship may not make a dent. The nonengager is frightened of his aggression, has learned to encapsulate it, and receives relief from anxiety through withdrawal.
Victims of nonengagers therefore need to explore whether they are actually comfortable within the nonin-volvement. If they can truly say "No," then demands for engagement need to be made or the possibility of leaving the relationship explored. If one isn't being fed, one must for survival's sake go where food is available.
A common crazymaking phenomenon in this aggression-phobic, alienated culture is that of relating to others in the segmentahzed way we term "thinging." This dehumanized interpersonal interaction is characterized by the treatment of others as if they were objects to fulfill a specific need or limited set of needs. The person's emotional totality is ignored and even considered a bothersome interference. A man may be seen as a business contact, golf buddy, or car mechanic, or a woman might be viewed by the "thinging" crazymaker as a good lay, a fine mother, or a secretary. In each of these instances, the victim is related to strictly in terms of the specific function he or she performs. In "thinging," the other person's feelings, if not related to the specific function desired of him, are reacted to as intrusions.
For example, the "thinger" takes his nonfunctioning
25» HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
automobile to a car mechanic. The mechanic becomes, in the "thinger's" eyes, an automobile fixing machine. If the mechanic attempts to relate in terms of his needs or feelings, the "thinger" becomes impatient. "I don't care about you. I need my car fixed," is the essential message. When this orientation is carried over into close, ongoing relationships at home, in the office, or in school, relationships become cold, mechanical, and dehumanized.
Certain common forms of "thinging" are prevalent in most work situations. Women who assert themselves openly and directly are immediately vulnerable to being labeled "ballbreakers." If a man were to act similariy he would be viewed as showing healthy assertiveness. If a black employee comes to work late, he is immediately vulnerable to being limiped in with a stereotype of blacks that says they are unreliable. A younger male employee who chooses to wear long hair or a beard will almost certainly be labeled a hippie, and it will be taken for granted that he is a political radical and smokes pot.
Another form of "thinging" involves the "disposable*' style of relating that is so rampant in our culture. An illusion of love and concern is projected as a form of manipulation to get something out of someone else. These crazy-making "thingers" develop a facile, surface charm and a great sensitivity to the needs and vulnerabilities of others, which disguises their basic underlying attitude of contempt and their motivation to use the other person temporarily in order to satisfy a need. An effective "thinger" out to sell a product, seduce the opposite sex, or get something he needs may receive an unusually positive response:
"I feel like I've known him all my life.**
"We really clicked. He's so real."
"He really made me feel special."
When the aim is achieved and the need is satisfied, the "thinger" loses interest, and the victim may be abandoned or discarded. The "disposable" style of relating is prevalent in our culture, in love relationships, between parents and children, in work environments, and in educational settings, among others.
Many an adolescent, brought up in a "nice" middle- or upper-middle-class home, who is now drug addicted, nonfunctional, or coldly cynical, we believe is the product of a "thinging" relationship with his or her parents. These teen-
STOPI YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYIII 251
agers or young adults were brought up as commodities, status symbols used by their parents to project their own image as heads of a good family. Within that environment there was an absence of sensitivity or awareness of the child's total and individual needs.
*Thinging*' parents characteristically relate to their children on a materialistic level. They give them the best money can buy in the anxious pursuit of shaping their child into an image to fit the parents' needs. These are motions of involvement and love, while in actuality the interaction is mechanical, cold, and driven. These parents are too busy with their own amibitions to involve themselves emotionally with their children. They buy their way through relationships instead. Behind the trappings of good parenthood is an absence of involvement. Beneath the "love" is a message of rejection.
PREVENTION OF ^^THINGING"^^
A major clue to the presence of "thinging" is the smoothness and facileness of this kind of involvement. So long as the "objects" being "thlnged" perform their functions well, there is no conflict, and everything seems comfortable. Only where the "objects" attempt to project their human-ness does conflict ensue.
The human "objects" used by "thingers" are themselves often asking for it. Allowing oneself to be used in machinelike ways is for some people apparently more comfortable than getting emotionally close. In general, victims of "thingers" are individuals who themselves are fearful of the totality of relationships, the aggressive give-and-take, confrontation, "hassle," and involvement of them. To the aggression-phobic victim, the aggression-"thinger" allows him to have an illusion of involvement without the anxiety of real involvement.
"Thinging," when it emerges in the form of stereotyping in the office or work environment, is among the easiest forms of crazymaking to block or prevent. Persons likely to be stereotyped, such as women, minority groups, longhaired males, etc., need only raise their awareness to the point where they can anticipate what stereotypes they are likely to come up against. At the first indication that they are being "thinged," they need to confront it with a statement such as, "I know that because I'm a woman,
252 HOW TO LIVE CONSTTRUCTIVELY
you*re going to think I'm some kind of castrater or *ball-breaker.* Actually, I'm really only trying to do an effective job. And just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I want to be catered to or treated any differently than anybody else. If I feel you're doing that, then 1*11 object."
Relationships easily won, without conflict or hassle, must always be suspect. Since "thingers" are usually effective manipulators, frightened of aggressive involvement, they tend to be difficult to impact or change. Their stock in trade is conflict avoidance. They run away at its first signs.
*Thingers** can be blocked from their manipulations by the recognition of their unreal niceness and smoothness, thereby either avoiding "hooking in'* or directly confronting them. The ultimate defense against a "thinger" is through the acceptance and expression of the realities of conflict and aggression m oneself. To the person who is unafraid of these realities in himself and accepting of them in others, the slickness and superficiality of the "thinger" will be seen for what it is; a cold, rejecting, and dehumanized way of relating.
3MYSTIFICATION
The crazymaking mystifier relies heavily on the dependency and ignorance of the victim. The message he communicates is, "If I weren't around to fulfill your needs, you couldn't survive."
The mystifying parent has a particularly cruel effect. Feeding on the helplessness and vulnerability of the child, this crazymaking parent paints images of the world as being a place that is unfathomable, rejecting, and full of pitfalls and dangers. The basic motivation is to retain control and power over the child. After instilling feelings of confusion and helplessness, the parent in effect says, "As long as you're with me, however, everjrthing will be all right!"
Variations on this theme are commonly seen in many different kinds of interactions: husbands or wives who are sure they could not live without the other, employees who become convinced that no other job is as good and no one else would want them, and individuals who are convinced that any style of life except the one that they are leading would have disastrous consequences. All have been
STOP! YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYII! 253
mystified either by parents, spouses, or other important figures.
Mystification in the work situation may be an unconscious protective device used by employees who fear a competitive threat from other employees, particularly newer ones. In discussing a project or exploring a particular task, they will present their ideas in such a complicated or obscure way that the other person is overwhelmed by its complexity but too afraid to ask questions for fear of appearing to be stupid. The crazymaking employee thereby succeeds in befuddling his victim, at the same time reducing any competitive threat.
Another prevalent variation of the mystification process was recently noted among a group of aides working in the office of a major political figure. The top aide, who had acquired a particularly favored relationship with this politician, would regularly warn the other aides that the "boss" was temperamental, impatient, critical, and unpredictable. If they wanted to get something done, he informed them, they should communicate through him. By generating this fearsome picture of the politician, the aide was assuring himself that his favored position would not be threatened.
DEMYSTIFYING THE 3IYSTIFIER
Only healthy outside forces such as schools or neighbors can offset the cruel impact of the mystification of children. Without positive influences that help these children to see and experience their own strengths and inherent wisdom and capacity to survive, it may take years or a lifetime to overcome the fear and trembling attitude toward life that results from constant mystification.
A sign that one is the victim of mystification is the feeling that "Without him or her I probably couldn't survive, or wouldn't want to live." Invariably, these kinds of feelings contain underlays of hostile dependency and feelings of personal helplessness. In fact, there is seldom another human being so vital that one would fall apart without him. Whenever one has these feelings, one can be sure that one is involved in a mystifying relationship. Aggressively healthy relationships are ones in which each person has a sense of personal strength, autonomous capacity to survive, and the freedom to explore.
254 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
In examining the possibility of being in a mystifying relationship, appropriate questions to be asked are:
1. Do I really experience love toward the other person, or am I hiding from the world behind him or her?
2. Do I really experience love from the other person, or does he or she have a stake in controlling me?
3. What do I really resent about the other person? If I can't think of anything, I know that I'm blocking out a major portion of my feelings in this relationship, the aggressive ones. Why am I afraid to experience my anger and resentment toward him or her?
Mystifying relationships are particularly damaging because in those instances when the mystijBer leaves his victim through abandonment or death, the victim often sinks into a depression, develops a deep sense of helplessness or futility, and in some cases develops serious illnesses or becomes suicidal as an expression of his helplessness and hopelessness. Therefore, any relationship based on the feeling, "Without him/her I couldn't survive,** are basically destructive and hostile ones, and these imderlying feelings must first be uprooted in the process of demystifying the mystifier.
CRISMSMAKING
Crisismaking crazymakers abort communication and instill frustration, fear, and confusion by strategically dropping in threats of abandonment, suicide, divorce, illness, emotional breakdowns, or firing (in an employer-employee relationship) whenever the victim attempts to come to grips with an issue that threatens this crazymaker.
A recent instance of this interaction was observed between Mrs. Esther Grant, age sixty-eight, and her thirty-five-year-old bachelor son, Sam, who was still living with her. One day, Sam announced that he had met a girl and was seriously thinking of becoming engaged. In the middle of a heated conversation in which Mrs. Grant accused her son of abandoning her, she developed acute chest pains and exclaimed that she thought she was having a heart attack, and how could Sam think of leaving her when she was on the verge of death. (In fact, such mothers some-
STOPI YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZYI!! 255
times outlive their children, whose growth and development they stifle with their crisismaking behavior.)
Victims involved with crisismakers are invariably very guilt-prone and therefore stifle their own needs in order to placate. The crisismaker's typical threats include:
"I'll leave you.'*
"I want a divorce."
"I'll kill myself."
"I'm going to crack up again."
*'rm going home to Momma."
To the victim the choice seems to be "stifle my needs or face disaster.'* Either way, the consequences seem to be frightening.
The crisismaking employer creates a work atmosphere that instills in the employee the fear that almost any demand, request, or other form of self-assertion will have dire consequences or may even result in the loss of his job. Increasingly, these employees will tend to avoid any confrontation with their employer because a crisis always ensues. Frustration and resentment will build up within the employees, who will then be prone to seizing on any indirect or hidden way to sabotage their employer.
In a small shoe factory in Virginia, a number of employees had at one time or another requested a raise or a change in working conditions or in the work shifts to which they were assigned. They were immediately called troublemakers and told that there were other jobs around if they were unsatisfied. The enraged employees began to demonstrate their anger by stealing merchandise, neglecting the maintenance of machines, taking long breaks when the boss was absent, and passing the word in their communities that people shouldn't buy the products the factory was making.
CONTROLLING THE CRMSMSMAKER
Victims of crisismakers need to see the crisismaking aa a form of emotional extortion that is designed to abort attempts at self-assertion. Just as when one allows oneself to be bribed once by an extortionist, the grip begins to tighten, and this powerful tool, once used by the crazy-maker successfully, will tend to be used with increasing frequency.
256 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
There are two principal approaches to a crisismaking crazymaker. The first involves risking the crisis.
**Go ahead and kill yourself."
**Leave me if you wish," or
"I*m not responsible for your physical well-being," would be appropriate retorts. One may then discover that the threat was, in fact, a hollow blujff. When Sam Grant finally decided to many and leave his mother, she became quite docile and asked if there were any ways she could help out, by teaching his wife cooking or by helping with the baby they were soon expecting. She never got her heart attack. One approach then is to risk the crisis.
The crisismaking employer feeds on the insecurity and lack of feelings of self-worth in the employee. In actual fact, replacing employees and training new ones is often as traumatic for the employer as being fired is for the employee. In most cases, employees will discover that they do not get the dire response they anticipate when they make legitimate demands and express their needs. If a legitimate demand, however, does always precipitate a crisis, the employee needs to seriously question if the security of his job is worth the price of his self-respect and mental health.
The other alternative to seriously consider then is whether remaining involved with a crisismaker is really worth it. Crisismaking is an extremely controlling, hostile form of crazymaking. Victims, once they begin to experience their own strengths and aggressiveness, may decide to precipitate their own realistic crisis and leave the crisis-maker for good.
CLOSURE BLOCK OR DERAILING
The seemingly universal human need to bring an encounter, experience, or conmiunication to completion is aborted in this form of crazymaking. It involves shifting the contest or focus in the middle of an aggressive confrontation to prevent the resolution of a conflict. It is also designed to throw the victim off guard, moving him from the offensive to the defensive with the use of either counter-accusations or an irrelevant flattery, which derails him.
Mr. Simpson comes into his employer's office to talk with him regarding the raise they had agreed to discuss several months before. Within ten minutes, Mr. Evans, the employer, starts talking about the troubles he's been having
STOPI YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY!!! 257
with other employees, his conflicts with his wife, concern over the "poor taste" in clothing Mr. Simpson allegedly has and finally stands up saying, "I'm really sorry, Simpson. I can't spend all morning on this. Let's talk about it when I come back from my trip to New York next month."
Closure block or derailing is a fairly common form of crazymaking between intimates. Colloquially, we call it "sidetracking." In essence, it results in preventing the victim from ever getting satisfaction of his needs, which the crazymaker pretends not to be aware of. As a result, nothing is ever settled, the same issues come up over and over again. Withdrawal and emotional insulation by the victim may become the self-protective responses because of an underlying feeling of "What's the use? I can't make myself heard." Occasionally closure block even takes the form of irrelevant flattery. "I love your face when you're angry," is one such example of derailing with flattery.
BLOCKING THE CLOSURE BLOCK
This form of crazymaking is among the simplest to counter. Once one is aware of an issue one wishes to resolve, state the issue and then steadfastly avoid being sidetracked by seductive or guilt-making responses. If one avoids "hooking in," the derailer must eventually return to the issue or break off communication entirely. Any victim of this form of crazymaking who decides that "We resolve this issue or we talk about nothing else until . . ." can effectively counter this crazymaker.
THE OCCASIONAL REINFORCER
The crazymaking, "occasional reinforcer" keeps others tied into destructive relationships with occasional crumbs of love, affection, flattery, or material reward. He provides enough to keep hope alive but never in a consistent or predictable enough pattern to facilitate in the victim a sense of security.
This pattern of crazymaking is an indirect form of sadistic behavior that increases in intensity in direct relationship to the dependency of the victim. The victim tells himself that the crazymaker "really is" a "nice" guy, "caring," "loving," etc., in spite of his "faults." These so-called "faults" are actually the many cruel, insulting, and
258 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
destructive things he does in between occasional positive reinforcements he throws out. This crazymaker obviously needs his victim as an outlet for his sadism.
OBSTRUCTING THE OCCASIONAL REINFORCER
It is indeed humiliating to be caught in the ping-pong, excite-ignore, tum-on-decimate pattern of the "occasional reinforcer.*' He feeds on the vulnerability, feelings of inadequacy, and fantasies of "hope*' of his victims. ("She really does care. She just doesn't know how to show it.")
The basic requisite to obstructing the "occasional rein-forcer" is to give up the illusion of hope and the belief that under the humiliating messages there beats a heart of gold. Furthermore, one needs also to become aware that only a person of extreme feelings of unworthiness would subject himself to such ping-ponging.
In some instances of an involvement with an "occasional reinforcer" confrontation may help, with a concomitant demand for rewards to be given out more consistently. However, in general, the extreme manipulativeness of this crazymaker makes it an extremely dubious proposition that one will succeed in changing him. The energy spent might best be directed at altering the negative self-image of the victim that allows him to be prey to this kind of crazymaker.
SOME GENERAL GriDELINES
1. Crazymaking is a potential in every relationship in which there is an extreme differential in the power balance, dependency, and vulnerability. To offset this, strive to reduce these disparities by equalizing power, nurturing interdependence, and exposing the anxieties that produce vulnerability.
2. Crazymaking is a potential in relationships where the power balances are hidden and disguised behind facades of equality. To offset this, try to become aware of and then openly define the exact nature of the power structure of the relationship. Do not be ashamed to glory in your dominance or your submissiveness if you are aware of and enjoy it.
STOP! YOU ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY!!! 259
where there is a fear of cx>nfrontation. To offset this, demand recognition and openly assert your needs.
4. Crazymaking is a potential whenever either party assumes he really understands and can read the mind of the other person. To offset this, never assume you know what the other is thinking without at least checking it out, and never accept another person's interpretation of you as necessarily being valid.
5. Crazymaking is a potential in relationships encumbered in "shoulds,*' e.g., "I'm his mother, I'm supposed to love everything he does." To offset this, examine all your "shoulds" and recognize that they do not necessarily have to be held to.
In general, the characteristics of a crazymaking relationship that gives one a clue that one is a victim of a crazymaker are as follows:
1. The relationship oscillates between feelings of euphoria ("He really loves me.") and despair ("He really hates me."). It is a relationship of emotional extremes.
2. The victim is invariably feeling grateful for the benevolence of the crazymaker or feeling unworthy because he "upsets" the crazymaker.
3. Victims invariably have the fantasy that the crazymaker is "special" and that they would not be able to survive without him.
4. Victims find themselves walking on eggshells. They do not feel free to express themselves spontaneously. Rather, they feel the need to choose their words very pre* cisely. They become very anxious if they suspect something they said might be misunderstood.
5. Crazymaking relationships don't grow. The victim continues to hungrily seek approval and security after years of involvement, just as he did on first meeting. Crazy-makers never facilitate feelings of security in their victims.
6. Victims of crazymakers often find themselves clinging to their crazymaker in a cloying type of involvement in which the victim is endlessly proving his or her devotion, adequacy, and trustworthiness.
7. Victims of crazymakers are prone to quick exhaustion and "butterflies" after being with the crazymaker for relatively short periods of time.
26» HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCnVELY
"damned if I do, damned if I don't" binds. They want to leave but are afraid to. Stay or go are equally negative choices.
9. Victims of crazymakers find themselves fearful of making demands or confronting the crazymaker.
10. Victims of crazymakers tend to feel that even their due is a gift. They are pathetically grateful for that which they have worked for and is legitimately theirs.
CHAPTER 18
The Family Poivwow: An Aggression Festival
The standard and traditional model of family life is a contractual one in which each family member is supposed to play a defined role, with the ideal goal being a harmonious, cocdict-free atmosphere of peace, love, and quiet. Just as in a Norman Rockwell portrait, everyone will then feel safe and warm within the bosom of the family.
Even though it has become increasingly clear that this is an antiquarian model no longer suitable for today, if in fact it was ever realistic, there is still a tendency for families to remain fixated on this model. Parents in particular tend to feel intensely frustrated over not being able to achieve it. Many feel cheated and disillusioned as the promise of the marriage vows and the fantasies of how family life "should be" fall apart. Much of the contemporary family scene is like a tragicomedy, with its succession of painful emotional disappointments, misunderstandings, and breakups. Consequently, many now are speaking of the demise of family life in America. The overpopulation problems are providing an ideal rationalization for those who are too wary and frightened of family life.
We feel, however, that the traditional family is still a potentially vital, life-sustaining and growth-producing force. Rather, it is the haunting and misleading model of how it "should be," that model that is still being perpetuated on TV commercials, in religious sermons, and in some books on family care and child rearing, which must be discarded. These fantasy images need to be replaced by a real portrayal of family life based on the known psychological realities that nesting, mating, and rearing activities are never harmonious, peaceful, contractable, nor even necessarily hierarchical.
The model that we will be proposing to replace the
262 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
standard one we term the "family powwow." It is based on a psychologically open foundation that facilitates the expression of the total person, no matter what age, in a climate of candidness and authentic sharing of real feeling. This is suggested in full knowledge that such an approach wiU more often fan conflict than soothe troubled souls. Peace and quiet are not our goals. In fact, when they seem to reign, we feel, they are usually coverups for noninvolve-ment, fear of confrontation, or a repressive and authoritarian atmosphere.
Conflict within the authentic family is constant and inevitable. That is to say, each person within a family has differing needs and life rhythms. Therefore, clashes are automatically built in. Father may be tired when seven-year-old Sean wants to play. Julie, who is fourteen and "turned on," wants to blast her cassette player at the same time that mother wants some quiet time. Thirteen-year-old Timothy wants to watch a documentary on space; his sister, who is sixteen, wants to watch "All in the Family," while dad wants to watch the news. In addition, each person has his own privacy needs, social preferences, unique rhythms of energy and fatigue, and resistances against certain responsibilities. Only in the aggression-phobic family will conflict not appear to exist. There it is being hidden behind a fagade of rationality and mutuality.
Specifically, some of the major areas of inevitable conflict in the family indude power struggles, such as who has the final say and who will make the decisions. Struggles over responsibility constitute another area of clashing recently intensified by the female demand for Uberation. Now more than ever, the whole matter of who is responsible for what has become hazy. Then there are the territorial struggles regarding needs for private areas within the home, use of space and objects such as the bathroom, televisions, telephone, and other mutually owned things.
Struggles over social boundaries constitute still another rife source of conflict, though one that may not be readily observable. Father may stay glued to the television rather than asserting his needs by going out with his buddies or inviting them over to the house. He probably reads Penthouse or Playboy rather than having a sex adventure or going to see a pornographic movie, as he may really want to do. Similarly, mother may fill her schedule with responsi-biUties so that she doesn't have to face the fact that she is
THE FAMILY POWWOW 263
basically friendless or that her "friends" are all neighborhood mothers who talk babies, prices, and school, and bore her to death. In general, the desire to invite people over spontaneously or to go out alone often remains unexpressed to avoid overt conflict.
Typically, in struggles for attention, mother wants to talk about her day, while father wants to withdraw behind the newspaper and mail, or father is distressed because he is being ignored in favor of the baby. One child may complain because the other is getting help with homework while he or she is being ignored.
In segmentalized families and authoritarian ones, these kinds of conflict may appear to be absent. In the segmentalized family, which is the one most commonly seen today, the family members "play alone together." Much as in the social style of httle toddlers, they share a physical space, but emotional and interactional contacts are minimal or absent. Children who come from this environment of "strangers," in which everybody goes his own way and "does his own thing," often emerge aimless and unmotivated. They had neither resistance to grow against nor support to grow from.
In the authoritarian home, on the other hand, there is peace out of fear. Confrontation is met with threats of pimishment and retaliation. The quietness, docility, and passivity of the children are not indicative of harmony or peace but of control by dictatorship.
The family is a model for the child in the development of his deepest attitudes toward the management of aggression. Whether he will dread it or see it as a normal form of vitalizing communication will depend on how the family conflicts are handled. He will learn by watching what happens when individual family members assert themselves or confront each other. Where each confrontation escalates into a destructive outpouring of hate, despair, withdrawal, and alienation, the child learns that it is safest to keep aggressive feelings hidden.
THE PRMCE OF SUPPRESSING OPEN AGGRESSION
Parents who obstruct the child's aggressive self-expression with admonitions such as "Don't talk back!," "Show some respect!," "Go to your room!," or "Don't raise your
264 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
voice or you'll be sorry!," are teaching them that self-assertion and feelings of anger are a part of "being bad" and that these feelings must be hidden or at least denied. The price for this is that such open aggressive expression is driven vmderground and will re-emerge in indirect, unmanageable, and unrecognizable ways. Both parents and children lose contact with the original feelings and conflicts, resulting in a complicated and chronic situation that may only be unraveled at an expensive price in long-drawn-out psychotherapy.
As an example of this, Tommy was seven years old and an only child when his sister Cindy was bom. Tommy was enraged. He had become very comfortable as king of the household, being adored and catered to. His parents reacted very negatively to his resentment toward his baby sister. They called him "selfish" and "spoiled" and told him he "should feel ashamed." "Besides, we know that you're not like that deep inside. You really love her!," his parents would tell him. On several occasions within the first few months after the baby's birth they punished him, something they had never done before. Tommy finally got the message! He began behaving "sweetly" to his baby sister. His rage was now repressed. His parents were pleased at this change and very proud about Tommy's new helpfulness.
However, unexpected problems began to emerge. Tommy became a bedwetter. He also began to have nightmares. One of his parents would be forced to sit with him for at least an hour every evening while he was trying to fall asleep. More than once, while helping his mother with the baby, he dropped her. Indeed, all of Tommy's conscious expressions of rage and resentment were gone. He was now a "good" boy. His parents, however, were suffering with a host of problems that were draining their energies and driving them up the wall in frustration.
There is always a heavy price to be paid by a family that suppresses open aggression. The children may appear to be "good," but their repressed aggression will manifest itself as they become underachievers in school, behave in passive, surly, and withdrawn ways, or develop psychosomatic symptoms such as allergies and gastro-intestinal problems. Or they may displace their repressed feelings against targets outside the home. They will behave cruelly to smaller children or animals. In extreme instances they
THE FAMILY POWWOW 265
may become philosophically and morbidly preoccupied with death, sickness, or evil and begin to behave in bizarre or self-destructive ways.
The "family powwow," which takes a positive approach to family conflict, is based on a number of premises. The one that underlies all others, and is the major thread already mentioned in this chapter, is that conflict within the vital, interactive family is an inevitable reality and that there is no such thing as resolving conflict permanently and emerging into the dream state of constant family peace.
The second premise is that aggressive self-expression in the family is just as natural and healthy as are expressions of warmth and affection. In fact, the aggressive feelings, if repressed and therefore not openly expressed, will contaminate and eventually make the experience of genuine love and caring impossible. On the other hand, the scream of frustration and outrage, if accepted and given full play, will facilitate a deeper, more authentic love.
Third, we beheve that parents are equally as entitled to the free and open expression of their anger and frustration both between each other and toward their children. In the aggression-phobic model under which most people have been brou^t up, it is immediately assumed that families are in serious trouble and the marriage is on the rocks when there is fighting and yelling. Therefore, too many parents out of shame and fear unnaturally force themselves to be models of peace and self-control for the sake of their children. However, clinical evidence suggests that parents who repress their anger and resentment toward each other will be more prone to use their children as targets for hostility and blame. That is, they will tend to overreact to their children's behavior with inappropriately harsh pimish-ment and unrealistic demands and expectations for good behavior. The "family powwow'* model sees it as the parents* role to be models for constructive, open conflict-resolution with unashamed, unembarrassed sharing of anger, resentment, and frustration.
Because it is within the family matrix that a child learns how to live with and handle aggressive interaction, it is the family's obligation to help children learn how to stay with their aggressive feelings and see them through to a positive conclusion. The child who is taught to confine his aggressive feelings to people and situations he doesn't like outside
266 HOW TO LIVE CONSTRUCTIVELY
the home is also being taught that intimacy and aggressive self-expression are incompatible.
The ultimate modeling a parent can do for his child is to become an intrinsic authority figure rather than controlling by dint of role authority. TTiat is, parents need gain their children's respect not by demanding but rather by developing an orientation toward aggression that is compatible with and emerges directly from the reality, confidence, and strength of their own being.
THE FAMILY POWWOW
The "family powwow," constructive family fight training, was originally developed by Dr. George Bach within the context of family therapy, marathon therapy, and weekend training programs in aggression management.
The family fight techniques taught at these festivals are learned in the presence of other families t^o join together to coach each other and provide each other with mutual support. A professionally trained fight trainer in fair fight techniques is also present in the early training stages to help families avoid collusion, premature giving up, and the trauma and confusion that result from using these techniques inappropriately.
Learning to fight in the presence of other families is also useful for the purpose of desensitizing family members from feelings of guilt, embarrassment, shame, and the sense of being "different" (i.e., "How come all other families seem to get along so well except us?"). The presence of other families allows the participants to see how common most family battles are. Sharing these experiences with other families turns the "family powwow*' into a genuine festival, filled with laughter and fun as well as constructive conflict resolution.
The exercises and techniques we will be describing are designed to provide a holiday from the usual hierarchy, status, and power definitions that govern the everyday interactions in family life. They also provide opportunities for the traditionally rigid lines of authority to be dropped. Children, for example, are allowed for a given period of time and under specific conditions to openly command, insult, and even reject their parents or other key relatives. At the same time, parents too are freed from tbeir usual re-
THE FAMILY POWWOW 267
sponsibility of playing the strong, commanding, take-charge roles.
In other cultm^es, in fact, days have traditionally been set aside each year for leveUng festivities, during which time people in the streets can openly make fun of and insult their leaders and authority figures. All over India, for example, during the festival of Holi, which occurs during the spring saturnalia (between March and April), traditional lines of authority are broken down. People spray public figures, ministers, bankers, the police chiefs, even the maharaja, with colored water or colored powders. These public figures, who of course can counter with insults, can be openly insulted and called names such as "ass'* or "son of a bitch."
On the occasion of the Fasching, a spring festival held in the Rhineland in Germany for centuries, people have been allowed to display hostility openly toward each other. Leaders and other persons of importance can be teased and made fun of in pubhc.
In America, our holiday of Halloween perhaps comes closest to being such a leveling festival. Children can "trick or treat" the homes of neighboring adults. Basically, however, America is ritual poor, particularly in terms of rituals through which aggressive feelings can be safely expressed. During the "family powwow," which we are proposing in this chapter, the weak are given a chance against the strong as roles are reversed and power is equalized.