Note: This is a rough draft of my proposed article. I apologize for the rough form, but it is very much in flux at this moment and I see no value in polishing it at this point.
I am working on several appendixes to explain more in detail terms and concepts I have introduced in the article.
INTRO:
This is about
a new paradigm. Fortunately, I don’t have to explain what a paradigm is; it has
become a standard part of our vocabulary. The “Old” paradigm is based on a
man/woman, masculine/feminine dichotomy.
The
popularity of books like "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus," based on the
earlier works of Deborah Tannen, is not surprising. in a society in which men
and women are interacting in more and more varied ways, the topic itself is of
great interest and importance.
However,
I am mystified that the basic “sexism” assumed in those books continues
unquestioned. By “sexism” I mean not only the practice of discrimination against women. the practice of sexism is based upon a deeper prejudice: a way of
thinking, a shortcut – that presumes
that all males can easily be lumped together in one category, and females in
another.
As I will
mention in an appendix, what I call “prejudice” is a common and even necessary
mental process which in itself is not evil; It is a shortcut around a difficult and lengthy
reasoning and judging process. Without prejudice, we would be hopelessly bogged
down in endless thought and reflection,
and civilized life as we know it would atrophy.
However,
a shortcut, in thought as it often does in travel, sometimes gets us lost. Most
of us are aware of the limitations of stereotyping all women, and all men; but
how to find the language and concepts needed to get around this? This is my
proposal.
1.
The terms are culturally
conditioned; there are no universal definitions
2.
No one individual
person is 100% “feminine” or “masculine”; we are all blends
3.
Someone who is successful at blending these qualities
is often not looked on positively, as an
“integrated” person; a male who is able
to access qualities usually labeled as “feminine” can often be called a “sissy”
(or worse) , a female who has integrated “masculine” qualities can be labeled a
“bitch.” (or worse).
4.
Most important of all: universal human
qualities -- anger, sadness, joy,
grief, compassion, bravery -- can be exhibited
in very different ways by men and women.
So it is a gross distortion to confuse
the quality itself with the manner in which it is manifested. The stereotypical
adjectives are not helpful in doing this.
5.
On the flip side,
behavior which is labeled in one way when performed by a male is often labeled
quite differently when done by a female; this makes it particularly difficult
to discuss qualities as “human” rather than as “masculine” or “feminine.”
1.
It is very common teaching technique to
present qualities or attributes along a straight line, with a “continuum”
bridging one extreme with the other. While this is useful in math or in hard sciences,
I find it very unsatisfying to describe most human behavior.
The
“Myers-Briggs” approach to describing personality uses four different measures,
each one
rated on a continuum scale. While this certainly introduces a more subtle
description, it retains the linear approach; the four scales do not interact
with each other. In addition, it does not make much of an impact on this
discussion; since none of the qualities are related to masculine or feminine,
it
2.
I
propose a multi-dimensional model, which
seems to reflect the reality of the world in which we live. We live in a
three-dimensional physical world; why should not our psychic world also be
multi-dimensional?
3.
I propose that we
perceive and exercise energy in a three-dimensional psychic world, but with
certain individual preferences for one direction or the other. By using a
three-dimensional model, and by seeing differences as “preferences” rather than
definite “qualities”, introduces a flexibility
which reflects real life.
4.
I reject a
deterministic attitude which claims that since there are two physical sexes,
all of our thinking has to be dualistic, creating opposition where the
relationship is much more complex than that.
5.
I propose a Trinitarian
model, rather than a dualistic model, for honoring diversity within an overall
unity. (see note on dualism).
Where does this idea come from?
In the
first place, it comes from my dissatisfaction with dualistic thinking.
It has
been often noted that “dualistic thinking” is both the backbone and the bane of
modern Western society. By distinguishing concepts like “material” and
“spiritual”, modern science and technology has worked wonders. Dualistic
thinking is so natural to us Westerners that most of the time we do not notice
we are doing it, like the proverbial fish who does not even notice the water in
which it swims.
But now I
take the big step away from Hegel (and all of his disciples, including
Marxists). As a believer, I reject the
implication that history is an endless sequence of theses - antithesis - synthesis. I believe that there is a goal to history
(however the goal itself is outside history, so none of us can visualize that
goal. So now I reach into my bag and pull out one of the greatest technological
advances in the world of theology – the Trinity.
We say,
naively, that the doctrine of the Trinity is a “mystery”. The negative side of
this is that “we cannot understand it.”
But what is the positive side? It
is a force of incomprehensible power. We deal with mystery all the time.
Quantum mechanics is a mystery; no one understands it. But without it, cell
phones and the internet would not exist. We can put something to good use
without really “understanding” it.
Believe
it or not, the doctrine of the Trinity is a human production. It was not
divinely revealed. It was developed, over a period of 400 years, as the
solution to a problem: how to express in human terms the inexpressible: God
became a Man?
Unlike
Hegel, who saw history as an infinitely branching series of conflicts, the
doctrine of the Trinity presents a schema in which the One becomes Two, and the
Two becomes Three, but at the same time the Three become One. It is circular,
not progressive. There is a goal to history, but the goal is contained already
within history; it is not yet perceived. As Einstein said, “a problem cannot be
solved within the … in which it is perceived.”
So the
two realities called male and female are destined, as is all of creation, to
both separate and become distinct, and to be united and reconciled. This jis mystery.
but while
here on either, we have to talk about something.
Advice to
the reader:
we all
have biases, and preferred points of view, and I am no exception. While I
reject a non- critical use of a scientific, mathematical model, I am a science
and mathematics, and I have a keen spatial imagination, so imagining things in
space comes naturally to me.
Chapter 1 – horizontal and vertical
“Energy”
– (note: this is the most neutral word I
can imagine to describe the way human beings interact.) Besides physical needs such as food, water,
air, and shelter, a person needs psychic energy in order to survive and grow in
society. I choose a general term like “energy” rather than such value-laden
words as love, acceptance, self-esteem, etc.
apologize
for not giving a definition at this point; I hope that the idea will become
clearer as we move on.
In the
real, social, psychic world, more complex; without any
I will
just use a three-dimensional model to illustrate. In the appendix, I will
illustrate how it is possible to see a connection between physical energy and
movement, and psychic energy, based upon the way babies mature.
A.
Vertical dimension of
energy: Those qualities I would label as
“vertical” are ascending, or striving against gravity. In the psychological world, it means that
one’s quest for energy, for more life, is based on a need to move away from a
firm base on the ground, and to rise against gravity to reach a higher position.
I will label this tendency “rising.”
In the external world, this shows itself as building,
not only physical structures, but also social
structures (hierarchies) by which one can reach higher in a psychic sense and
draw energy from on high.
B.
Horizontal dimension
of energy: Those qualities I label “horizontal” are flowing out, extending
one’s reach. In the inner world,
this means one’s quest for energy, for more life, is based on a need to reach
out and to draw in. In the social sense, this consists in forming
circles, in which one’s reach extends far beyond the reach of one’s individual hands
and arms. I will label this tendency “reaching.:
Although
everyone is born with a capacity to receive and share energy in all its directions,
by a certain age, most persons have established a preference for one of these directions;
like being right-handed or left-handed, it can be a very strong preference, a
weak one, or a near equilibrium between them. It is ONLY a preference, not a fixed
element. I will give some personal observations on this in appendix three.
In
addition, it is important to note that these dimensions are not exclusive; they
are always found together in different proportions
A.
Communication. Tannen
talked about “report” and “rapport.” I would state it as “statement” and
“Story.”
1)
A vertical striver tends to make and to
request statements. A statement is a
simple sentence: A did B to/with/for C.
The middle term defines the relationship; is A above or below C? That is the
most important question When one striver
asks another, “How are you doing?” The response usually requires a vertical
response: how high am I on the ladder? How are my projects doing? Am I
successful or a failing?
2)
A horizontal “bonder”,
on the other hand, tends to tell stories.
A story has a dramatic structure: beginning, a middle, and an end. The
beginning introduces the characters, their relationships, and gives the
situation they are in; the middle presents a crisis, either a decision that
needs to be made, or an action that needs to be done. The ending describes how
it turns out, how the characters have changed, and what their new relationship
is.
When one bonder asks another,
“How are you doing?” the answer is in the form of a story, however brief (a
skilled person can tell a compact story to a good friend in very few words,
since they both can fill in the blanks).
3)
However, when a
striver and a bonder meet, the question “How are you?” immediately poses a
cultural and linguistic problem. One sees it in a vertical mode, asking for a simple statement of vertical position: where is my standing right now,
especially in relationship to you; the bonder
sees it in a horizontal mode, asking
for a description of a circle of
relationships involved at that moment.
In a
simplistic sense, a striver hears “How are you?” as a request for distinctness,
for comparison; “How close can I get to you without harm?” On the other hand, a
bonder hears it as a request for togetherness; “What do we have in common?”
4)
There are several ways in which this can
turn out; in one, a strong ascender and a strong bonder, the two can easily
pass by each other without making any real contact between their different
worlds.
5)
However, most often
there is a certain amount of overlap. In the following chapters I will begin to
described the different ways in which these interactions can develop, with both
positive and negative results.
Ch 2 Balancing energy: away from opposition to
complimentarity.
No matter
in what direction one reaches, the goal is to achieve more life, more energy.
However, there are limits to how far one
can extend in the search.
Vertically, in the physical world, there is a limit as to how high
one can build a tower without strong cross-bracing; in the social world,
communication up and down through all the levels of a hierarchy becomes slow,
inefficient, and error-prone.
Horizontally, there is a limit to how large a circle can be; it becomes
unstable. Socially speaking, there is a
limit of how much time and energy one has to feel a connection with all the others
in the circle, so that all are included.
To mature
and grow further, both the vertical strivers and the horizontal bonders need to
compliment the preferred direction by extending in the other direction; but the
second direction remains subordinate to, and is conditioned by, the need of the
main direction.
For
example, a person with a fairly strong preference for vertical striving will
expend great energy to rise; socially speaking, this person will climb up and
over others to reach a high point on the hierarchy. However, a high position is
unstable and precarious; if the person is aware and discerning, s/he will
realize the need for stability. So s/he
will reach out sideways, forming relationships and partnerships for support and
stability; but at the same time keeping the vertical height as a priority.
A person
with a preference for horizontal bonding will strive to extend, embrace others
and invite others to join hands and form a larger and larger circle; this
circle, however, will become unwieldy and begin to overlap other circles, at which
point a choice must be made; join circles or separate? An aware and discerning
person will realize that s/he must rise, find a superior position, in order to
survey a larger area and notice patterns that can be used in order to form
better networks. But the rising element is temporary and is always subordinated
to the desire to improve the networks. In this way, a person can participate in
multiple networks.
So, it is
clear that almost everyone has some elements of both directions; but it makes a
huge difference whether the less-preferred position is used in a positive, complimentary
way or in a negative, abusive way.
Ch 3 how one finds power energy – no matter where one is in the social structures
To a vertical striver, one finds increased
energy in the feeling of rising. The energy expended in climbing – whether
steps on a hierarchy, or simply the pursuit of excellence – is well worth the
reward gained by being on top. On the contrary, the feeling of being passed up
by others, of being pressed down, of feeling the weight of more and more layers
forming on top, limiting one’s freedom to strive, is painful; it is always good
to rise, and very painful to descend.
However,
no matter how painful holding one’s position is, it is preferable to the supreme
danger of falling completely out of the system; losing not only one’s place in
the hierarchy, but also one’s identity as well. So not many voluntarily leave
the hierarchy, even though it is quite painful.
This
feeling of being pressed down is balanced by the stability of knowing there are others
below; as long as one feels that they are still superior to those on lower
levels, and feel supported, the weight becomes bearable. However, any shifting or moving of those
below, not to mention the threat that they will rise up, causes extreme
uneasiness.
For some
reason which seems counterintuitive, when one gains energy from rising, the security
of being closer to the ground is valued less than the joy of being higher up,
further away from the ground. Power seems to come from the sky, flowing
down. Security is valued less than the
power and energy gained from reaching a height.
To one
who prefers to flow horizontally and reach out, on the other hand, the experience of
energy flow is not vertical, but horizontal and mutual; in contrast to the
vertical dimension, the energy which is given away comes back around the circle
in a much stronger, richer form. The goal is to form a complete circle, which
magnifies the energy.
Danger
is felt when the circle is broken and interrupted. The circle must be closed
for energy to flow again. The worst
possibility, of course, is to be alone and isolated, out of touch with the
energy. In this way, a “bonder” often chooses to remain in a very painful
relationship, because the threat of being cut off and alone feels even worse.
Ch 4 blessing and curse
*** Until this point, I have been descriptive,
substituting one set of labels (vertical and horizontal) for behavior usually
described in another way (masculine and feminine.) That is simplistic and not
very interesting. However, making this distinction enables us to address a much
more significant issue: how does it
actually WORK? How does looking at these
styles from a three-dimensional perspective give us more richness than a simple
straight line “male/ female” continuum?
There are
several dynamics which are coming into
play. The first question is: how does a person deal with, and hopefully
integrate, the two varying styles within oneself? A second is the question of
communication styles – how to translate from one preference to the other? And
the third is a question of behavior.
Everyone is seeking more life, more energy, but in different ways. How
can people learn to work together? One
can perceive another’s different preference as a threat, which needs to be
minimized, or as an opportunity to grow.
As I said
at the outset, while some people have achieved a high degree of balance, most people
tend to prefer on mode over the other. Let’s call them the Primary and secondary
preference.
A person’s relationship wit their OWN secondary
preference is key. Blessing comes from
(below)
Blessing
comes to a person when s/he reaches out in integrity from their primary
direction and complements it with the secondary. An enlightened “ascender” allows others to reach the
same level, so there is shared support, even at the top. An enlightened “embracer” however, is most fulfilled by climbing up for a better
perspective and strengthening the circle, bring in more members, and link the
circle with more circles.
Abuse and
dysfunction comes when one misuses the secondary quality. How can this happen?
An abusive
“ascender” will gather more people
around, prevent them from ascending, and use them as a foundation upon which to
build higher and higher. Superficially, this looks like gathering in more
people, but the gathering is totally subordinated to the benefit of others, the
climbers.
An abusive
“bonder” will climb up, apparently
to help in the formation of circles, but actually to disrupt circles, prevent
circles from forming, to maximize the inward flow of energy and share nothing. Those who arise in this way may form elite
circles among themselves, sharing energy with only a select few.
Abusive
risers and embracers can work together in a negative way to increase the amount
of energy they receive.
Ch 5
suffering
Suffering
results when the ascender realizes s/he
is actually sinking lower and lower, losing energy, and doubts the strength of
those below. S/he could step out of the
tower of power, but that means falling down even lower and losing the place
s/he had before. It seems best to hold one’s place.
Suffering
results for an embracer when the
circle shrinks and loses energy. The
worst case, of course, is when the circle disappears and one is left
alone. An embracer loses a sense of self
when alone, and will reach out, even to unsatisfactory people, because
belonging to a bad circle feels better than being alone.
An
embracer can also feel depleted when there is an abuser in the circle, drawing
out energy but not giving. This also reduces the amount of energy in the
circle. One could step out of the circle, but would then be alone and belong to
no one. It seems best to hold the place
and hope for the best.
No comments:
Post a Comment