"Perfection" as Equilibrium

The intersection of equilibrium and self-esteem may be a convergence of nature AND nurture: how we are "wired" (e.g., temperament, Autonomic Nervous System, universal emotions, unconscious brain and body processes) AND the ways we learned how relationships work (i.e., how we learned to be in relationship). In short, to be safe we had to be “perfect” -- not cause anxiety or uncomfortable feelings for our primary caregiver(s). But, it is this false sense of “perfection” that we later confuse to be our true equilibrium state.

How did that happen? Consider the physical ways we unconsciously maintain equilibrium. We breathe to maintain the right amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in our blood stream. Our hearts beat in such a way as to ensure our brain, organs, muscles, and extremities are all nourished with this blood as much as they need. We have automatic temperature control that keeps us at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. When we are too cold we sneeze or chill to warm us up, and when we are too hot we sweat or chill to cool down. When we need food or water or sleep, our bodies tell us.

Now imagine an infant whose physical and emotional survival depends on her primary caregiver. That relationship literally becomes as important as air or food or water. If that relationship is threatened, then the child's very life is in jeopardy. It is in this context the child determines she has to be "perfect" to preserve this relationship, and this becomes the basis for all relationships. In this way, she unconsciously continues to ensure her "life" by enacting these early relational rules to some extent throughout her lifespan, even when literal survival no longer depends on preservation of any relationship. We unconsciously do this, just as our bodies maintain oxygen levels or body temperature throughout our lives.

“True” equilibrium then, instead of being dependent on the perceptions of an outside other, is rather based on an intrinsic sense of personal dignity and self-worth, a felt sense of internal and external wholeness that balances internal and external realities. It is rooted in valuing the simple fact of existence and therefore valuing everyone equally. In theory, if we functioned only from a “true” sense of self, we may never respond with shame reactions though we may feel shame or any other uncomfortable emotion. But, we don't function that way. In fact, we are wired to unconsciously detect danger and react. It is how we work with that reaction that determines the extent of our suffering.

The meaning of “perfection” may lie on a continuum ranging from not upsetting anyone, to dominion and purity, to absolute control. Anything associated with perfection in our minds means life and worthiness, and anything counter, like disrespect, subservience, incompetence, contamination, or weakness, means imperfection and death. 

When we react, we are doing so because something in our internal or external environment is perceived as dangerous and has pushed us beyond that tolerable range of “perfection” equilibrium (e.g., when someone "puts us down" or "disrespects" us). And, so we “flip” it to get ourselves to what we think is the surface, though it is a false one. It’s like we are all constantly playing the game King of the Mountain, but not only where the opponents are us and another person (attack other), but also us and ourselves (attack self, withdrawal, avoidance). There is a pressure or urge to “flip”, like a ball on a hill that “must” roll down to rest on the flat ground. Or, a metal spring that, once compressed, “has to” expand. Or, the flow of electricity across a battery. Or, a kickboard that is pushed under the water that “must” pop back up to the surface. We do this in big ways and small, all the time. We treat others and ourselves as objects to do this. It is ubiquitous in our worlds, especially in a society that places such emphasis on winning, status, strength, beauty, etc.

I think a helpful visual of "flipping" is the kick board in a pool:

In future posts I will expound on the various elements in this picture.

Voting for Trump and Obama

There is no difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump. To be more precise: there is no difference between our motivations for voting for Obama in 2008 and for Trump now.

It’s 2008. The Great Recession. Global financial system teetering. Al Qaeda. Wars. Katrina. Unemployment. Fear. Chronic struggle and feeling of mediocrity. A palpable sentiment that we need someone who can save us from the abyss -- we need Abraham Lincoln. Enter Barack Obama. “Save us!” we cry. “Use your Harvard Law degree and experience as a successful law partner to work your magic. Use your amazingly articulate and resonant oratory skills to inspire us like Martin Luther King, Jr. Use your superior intelligence to solve our problems. What? You’re also African American? We can realize MLK’s dream and the promise of America and our individual potential by voting for the first African American president? Perfect!”

Barack Obama was idealized in many ways, and when we identified with him we unconsciously idealized ourselves. Barack Obama won largely because of our self-worth.

Flash forward to today. Aftermath of the Great Recession. Zero accountability for credit crisis. 1% get richer. ISIS. Islamophobia. Fear. Congress clearly stuck and cannot work. A palpable helplessness to change the corrupt and broken systems. Struggle and mediocrity? Still there. It’s almost as if we need one of the super-rich on our side to move mountains -- a man of action: Superman. Enter Donald Trump. “Save us!” we cry. “Use your Wharton education and business expertise to negotiate us out of this. Use your apparent power and strength to vanquish, belittle, and fire the people who need to go. Use the language of winners and losers, us and them to simplify the game of leadership and speak truth. Use the absence of ulterior motives resulting from your incredible wealth to remain untouchable and impenetrable from those who would try to corrupt and influence you. Hold on. You’re also white? We can return home if we vote for you? Perfect!”

As with Barack Obama, Donald Trump embodies certain ideals. A part of us unconsciously wants to believe the myth and identify with him. Yes, there are policies, issues, and our general discernment that also motivate us on the conscious, rational end of the spectrum, and these conscious/unconscious motives may even conflict. Many factors determine which gets expressed, but often times our unconscious motives win out.

The mechanism driving our actions is the unconscious maintenance of our personal, life-sustaining equilibrium. The problem is that we [the ego minds] unconsciously confuse and conflate preserving our idealized self or sense of “perfection” [ego, or 100% form identity] with preserving safety and equilibrium. We do this largely because of how we learned, from birth, to be in relationship with self and others. 

So, when we experience “imperfection” or diminishment (of ego), our threat-conditioned tendency is to act by what I call “flipping” it, putting down others or ourselves so we, in whole or in part, are “perfect” again and a sense of equilibrium, even though false (i.e., supremacy), is restored temporarily. This process works together with neuro-biological factors (e.g., genes, autonomic nervous system, temperament, etc).

In other words, ego tries to sustain equilibrium. Ego just gets it wrong and confuses everything because it is a product of shame and shame evokes confusion -- it intercedes and creates what it thinks is an equilibrium state as defined by its own survival. Essence lets go and gradually takes ego to zero, thereby uncovering the unconditional equilibrium of natural life processes already present as a result of Earth's perfect proximity to the intense energy of the sun. This is the paradox of the false "perfection equilibrium" because it denies the natural equilibrium that already exists based on our perfect place in the solar system. So, when we are in a reactive state, we can see it as ego trying to get to its "perfection equilibrium" state, we can know the ego's equilibrium state is qualitatively different from that of essence, and we can choose which place we want to go: essence or ego "equilibrium."

The meaning of “perfection” may lie on a continuum ranging from pleasing or not upsetting anyone to dominion and purity to absolute control. Anything associated with perfection in our minds means worth and life -- anything counter, like disrespect, subservience, incompetence, contamination, or weakness, means imperfection and, ultimately, death. Paradoxically, “perfection” may seem human and have a real, concrete quality -- one can see how we could believe this myth. Themes of ascendency, unlimited possibility, freedom, safety, mastery, and independence in the American Dream echo elements of “perfection”. However, the chronic shame of not reaching these supposedly universally achievable goals inevitably leads to “flipping”. Our leaders or potential leaders may even use this connection to their advantage.

Hillary Clinton’s “make America whole again” directly, if unwittingly, speaks to the psychic dynamics here. It is precisely because our sense of self is fragmented that we use and put down others to attain “perfection” and false equilibrium. We do this with others because we learned to do it within ourselves. This is our understanding of what it means to be in relationship. We behave as if we are not one entity, a whole person. We behave as if we are not all inter-connected, a whole community.

“Flipping” happens universally, in small and large ways both subtle and obvious. So, it is an opportunity for compassion for self and others -- those who identify with Trump are operating in the same way as those who identified with Obama. We are all one, individually and collectively, and I hope understanding this will help us to make clearer choices.

Reactivity: The What

So, most people think of reactivity as yelling or some other angry expression. But, it is SO much more than that! In fact, it is often subtle to the point where you may not even realize you are reacting at all. That's because most people don't think about behavior in terms of shame.

The first thing to know about shame is that it works in the shadows and in plain sight. It is this paradox that often makes it so confusing and difficult to identify. In terms of affect theory, shame is the abrupt cessation or sudden absence of positive affect (enjoyment/joy, interest/excitement). It is, by nature, hard to know what's happening when it is "shaming."

It is very helpful to view behavior in terms of Donald Nathanson's Compass of Shame (from his book Shame and Pride), wherein he outlines four points of reactivity:

- Attack Other (aka "fight"): "turning the tables", lashing out verbally or physically, establishing self as powerful or competent while diminishing other, sadism
- Attack Self (aka "flight"): demeaning/belittling self while establishing other as powerful and valued, self-criticism and put-down, masochism
- Avoidance (aka "flight"): denial, passive-aggressive attack other, abusing drugs/alcohol, addictive/habitual behaviors, distraction through thrill-seeking, over-doing, over-striving, machismo, running and hiding
- Withdrawal (aka "freeze"/"flag"/"faint"): isolating oneself, shrinking, classic shame response (slumped shoulders, depressed, humiliated)

When you see a behavior in one of these quadrants, you can bet that it is probably a reaction to a perceived threat trigger! Awareness of this alone will set you on a different path, one of exploration and understanding. I will go into detail of how to identify these points in a later post.

Experience of Reactivity

Here's a way of thinking about the flow of reactivity:
Threat Trigger ----> Pre-, Sub-, or Unconscious Experience ----> Shame Reaction

We can break this down a little further:
--> Threat Trigger (neutral/lacking specific meaning)
     --> Implicit association w/ "Titanic" memory: gives trigger meaning: trauma/death (threat)
           --> Re-experience attachment trauma: past shame/physical pain (attack)*
                 --> Expectation of additional trauma: future shame/physical pain (attack)*
                       --> Self-worth schema: current shame/sense-making, emotions 
                               dangerous/not allowed, "happening b/c I am unworthy" (attack)
                             --> Increased likelihood of death (threat)
                                  --> Anxiety
                                       --> Reaction: "Perfection" --> Expedition/Salvage Mission; 
                                               Flight/Fight/Freeze (strategy)

*Note: we experience the attack of dying (and threat of death) when we remember trauma and feel/expect shame or physical pain -- direct and overwhelming threat and attack. Most if not all of this happens unconsciously.

The difference between this dying and the normal, moment-to-moment dying inherent to existence is that this dying suddenly exceeds a sort of tipping point of critical mass whereby mostly unconscious death cues exceed life cues. In the latter, life cues exceed death cues.

Reaction often occurs very quickly, sometimes within milliseconds. In our conscious experience, we may just see the trigger and reaction -- we are not fully aware of the feelings, thoughts, memories, and body sensations we experience. Nor are we aware of the function the trigger and reaction serve: to keep feeling out of conscious awareness. 

Often we will react (even if just reactive thoughts or impulses) because that is how our brains and bodies are wired. But, even after a reaction we can work with it and dramatically reduce the time it takes to recover our "upstairs" thinking brain and repair the relationship we may have just ruptured. This involves the absolutely essential practices of (self-) compassion and mindfulness, among others. Other aspects of Response include:

• Recognize expectation that past trauma WILL repeat in future
• Recognize thinking we have same agency to meet needs as we did as infants/children
• Recognize expectation that unmet past needs can be met in present
• Recognize perceived threat may be from the past
• Recognize there may be no real threat of death in present
• Recognize True Self and lost life are already gone forever

More in future posts. Hopefully, this gives you the basics of the different forms of relational reactivity and a framework for thinking about it.

Tragedy and Theory: Some Basic Why's and How's of Reactivity

“I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing -- his sense of personal dignity.”

                             -- Arthur Miller, Tragedy and The Common Man (from Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic by James Gilligan)

The tragedy in the above quote is the often unseen or unknown reality that every person possesses personal dignity and worth -- it's not something we can earn or lose, be given or have taken away. It is always there by virtue of our existence. But, many of us forget this (or never knew it in the first place). Instead, we pin our self-worth and value on external opinions or personal achievements or the temporary benefits we get from reacting, and we neglect to integrate ourselves internally or externally. It is this "dis-ease" of self that is at the core of reactivity.

Theory
So, how is this tragedy related to reactivity? The answer lies in our early development, as understood through empirically supported theories such as Object Relations, Self Psychology, and Attachment. For example, the mother-infant microanalysis research by Beebe and others supports a focus on bi-directional impacts of early relationships throughout the lifespan (i.e., how caregiver and infant mutually influence each other).

This mutuality cannot be understated. Though the caregiver has a special responsibility to "hold" both the child's and the caregiver's experiences and initiate repair of any ruptures in the relationship, early developmental processes may be derailed just as easily by the child as by the caregiver. For instance, a child may have a temperament or personality or biology that inhibits attunement with and by a capable caregiver. Or, the same may be true of a caregiver with a capable child. Or, there could be varying degrees of inhibitory traits in both people.

However it happens, the important point is that this disruption is a critical part of early (object) relational processes (i.e., evolving notions of self and other) whereby connection is thwarted. When connection is thwarted, shame gets evoked and associated with perceived threat (from the disconnection) and, by extension, biological fight/flight/freeze/feint reactions to perceived threat. These associations between (dis)connection, shame, perceived threat, and threat reactions continue to operate unconsciously throughout our lives and subsequent relationships.

***These moments of disconnection are critical for and contribute to healthy development if and only if the caregiver repairs the ruptures (because the child can't do it yet) by empathically joining the child's mental state and then shifting them both to a more tolerable state. This repair process continues the critical (object-) relational processes. That is how the child develops a healthy sense of self and other (i.e., boundaries of internal vs external reality), learns to tolerate or "hold" experience, and learns that feelings, needs, relationships, and people are not dangerous. This is how the child learns how to repair and thus be in relationship.

Everyone experiences absence of repair to some degree. If lack of repair occurs on a consistent basis, these moments of disconnection may chronically destabilize a child's sense of self, agency, and corresponding equilibrium, thus unconsciously perpetuating fear, fear reactions and, by association, shame. Moreover, this may interrupt what Winnicott called the Transitional Process whereby we learn to see others primarily as they objectively are (warts and all), not primarily as our subjective, idealized projections. This process of building the ability to objectively see and know others is the developmental basis for attunement.***

Universality of the Theory
I think of disconnection as momentary impairments in the capacity to attune to others and ourselves: to see and know and therefore be able to predict the behavior of others and ourselves. I call this capacity our 7th sense. The loss of this sense makes us relationally deaf, dumb, and blind and therefore may be terrifying. In any case, loss of this 7th sense unconsciously activates implicit memories of fear/shame states from early development.

In my view, since no parent/child dyad perfectly attune and repair all the time (caregivers of securely attached children attune ~ 30% of the time), everyone is confronted with mis-attunement and lack of repair to some degree and so as infants and children must derive alternative strategies to maintain connection with the caregiver. Therefore, there exists a continuum of attachment trauma, depending on the quality and consistency of repair and the frequency and severity of the mis-attunement.

Reactive Relational Rules
These strategies included various ways to ignore or dismiss our own feelings and needs so as not to threaten this vital connection. We may have learned that:

• *our feelings and needs are dangerous and are therefore not allowed
• *we have to be different from how we are
• we have to be "perfect" (from the caregiver's perspective)
• people are objects to be used to manage self-esteem, as we were ourselves objects used to manage our caregiver's self-esteem

We bring these unconscious rules into every subsequent relationship. [*from Co-Creating Change by Jon Frederickson]

Connection to Shame
Which brings us to shame. Shame is the relational “water” in which we swim: shame can be understood socially as inequality in relationships, one person "up" or idealized (e.g., caregiver) while the other is "down" or devalued (e.g., child). This false idealization or devaluation literally diminishes our sense of self on the level of form (i.e., ego) no matter which side we are on, thereby representing a threat and unconsciously evoking those reactive relational rules.

Shame is attack on self. The unconscious innate and learned reaction to shame is to “flip” the “up/down” positions, thus avoiding “dangerous” feeling, temporarily gaining pride, safety, or other positive benefits, and preserving relationship (in our minds). Our natural tendency is to "flip" when our ego self has been diminished (i.e., attacked) in some way.

This is the go-to psychological defense that characterizes those people who may struggle with the aforementioned "dis-ease" of self. However, it may also be unconsciously employed by anyone encountering a threat trigger they unconsciously associate with shame. Our different tendencies to employ reactive behaviors (as opposed to responsive ones) are mitigated by our unique environments, temperaments, relational/developmental histories, and our individual abilities to cope with stress in any given moment.

Another way to understand this is through affect theory. Shame affect is defined as the sudden interruption of positive affect, or disconnection. The times our caregiver(s) mis-attuned to us or failed to mirror us and repair relational ruptures over hundreds of thousands of interactions (i.e., attachment trauma) evoked the shame affect (and threat perception) in us each time (as it did in them when we did not attune). Eventually, we learned to make sense of this and insure our survival by splitting (i.e., keeping the caregiver "good" and devaluing ourselves) or employing some other defense strategy.

In other words, we (our feelings and needs, our very Self) were what was "wrong" with the relationship and what threatened it. We learned to perceive reality through our caregiver's eyes and change ourselves so as not to evoke their anxieties and thus threaten the connection, a state of "perfection" that was unconsciously encoded into our relational rules. As a result, we associate threat triggers today -- the sudden halt to our own internal sense of safety or "perfection" -- with those early shame experiences and tend to react by "flipping", as we did as infants and children.

Summary
So, very early on, we may have learned that to be in relationship means one person is valued while the other is devalued. Now that we know this on a conscious level, we can have "equal" relationships and talk about our painful feelings (shame, anger, sadness, fear), right? Not so fast. It’s hard! It’s hard to create the space to do this, especially if we or others around us have never done it and don't know how to do it.

And, if we don't create the space to hold these feelings and process experience, then it’s hard not to take things personally, react, and trigger people. And, then it’s just this never-ending cycle of chain reactions, constantly putting each other (or ourselves) down to reap temporary gains, and never getting to what’s really going on (i.e., our feelings and needs). How can trust survive in that environment? I believe this is the tragedy of American family life and relationships in general, as depicted in heartbreaking plays such as A Long Day's Journey Into Night and Death of a Salesman.

But, there is a way to live life without suffering, which I will talk about in future posts.

Here are some visuals that illustrate how I think about reactivity:

Introduction

Agency := The capacity of an individual to act in any given environment; the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own free choices.

This blog is intended to provide a framework for understanding and working with reactivity. It will teach you how to identify and respond to internal or external triggers and deepen connection with yourself and others.

I called it "Agency" because it will enable you to act in situations marked by confusion, anger, and shame; to respond where the current situation and way forward are often very difficult to perceive and patterns of habitual backsliding are all too easy to enact.

Through real-life anecdotes, psychological theory, and observations of fictional and nonfictional accounts, I will provide a way for you to learn how to participate in life without causing yourself or others needless suffering.

So, let's dive in! First, STOP!! AND, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FOR YOURSELF:

- Are you interested in reducing your own reactivity? For example, do you want alternatives to attacking yourself or others? Do you want to limit “filling” emotional space with food, shopping, tv/internet/movies, PDA, alcohol/drugs, or sex? Do you want to extinguish patterns of depression, hiding, and isolation?

- Are you interested in learning how to deal with others’ reactivity? Do you want to participate in life and relationships without cowing to debilitating fear and suffering?

- Do you want relationships based on empathy, trust, and honesty rather than coercion, control, and habitual tendencies?

- Do you want to cultivate self-connection and intrinsic self-worth?

- Do you want to improve your performance and ability to learn?

- Do you want to understand the biological, psychological, and relational dynamics of reactivity?

If the answer is YES to any of these questions, then keep reading this blog.

If the answer is NO, then please stop here and go no further. If the answer ever changes, then this will be available to you at that time. Thank you!