Women’s growth in Connection:
self-based versus self-in-relation theories.
What
intrigues me most while reading “Women’s growth in connection” (from the
In a sense
this reminds me of Ken Wilber's "No boundaries", in which he
elaborates on the idea that we expand our consciousness in what he calls "holons"; levels of an hierarchic order. In one level
one perceives reality within certain boundaries to realize that from the next
level (which includes and integrates the old one), that perception was just a
limited version of the newly found reality.
Of course,
this process goes on and on.
Once we
understand our learning and growing “works” like this, we can adopt a more open
stance towards “knowing” and the models and theories resulting from it. We
realize that the way we perceive reality is per definition limited. As I see it
now, we would be better off with a more fluid, flexible way of looking at
things; staying open-minded enough not to be hypnotized by models and theories
that so obviously block our hearts and minds from seeing and feeling what is. I
suggest that instead of organizing our experience of reality in structured
theories, we adapt a stance in life, which allows us to use what we experience
to gain a growing understanding of who we are and to
uncover meaning in what is.
Back to
models of reality and their way of interacting with our reality itself.
The
classical psychological theories originated from a time where man tried to
explain his reality in terms of discrete, separate entities acting on each
other in measurable ways; in the "scientific
way". No wonder they came up with a model describing the self as a autonomous, separate self. Moreover, it was a time where
the freedom of the individual was highly valued; one needed to “grow"
towards being independent and self-sufficient; free and strong enough to protect
oneself from the assaults from both internal impulses and external demands.
The men
making the classical developmental models saw a self that evolves and matures
as it grows away from relationships, via self-other differentiation,
increasingly firm ego boundaries, and the capacity for separation. This was
their reality, the way they experienced growth towards maturity. Even when they
acknowledged the importance of relationships with others, they still saw the
other as an object of drives secondary to the drive for independence and
autonomy.
Then the
basic premises of these theories began to interact with reality itself.
As growth,
the positive direction, was defined in this model as
being a motion towards individuation, other patterns of growth became less
valued. The more masculine ways of maturing were taken
to be thè way, other ways were not even considered.
Especially
because we exist and grow within the context of relationships, the way in which
the people around us value behavior and qualities is so determinant for how we,
as children, make our choices and become how and not necessarily who we are.
The masculine perspective of the separate-self crept into our value system,
into our language and into the way we feel about
things.
Although the
patterns in which we form our thoughts are shaped by the
models of reality we live by and its subsequent language, relatively
small shifts in perspective can transform our view dramatically. One moment the
world is without any doubt flat, the next it is a globe and we can never
perceive it as flat again.
A more personal, day-to-day example: dependency.
Dependency is considered "not so
good" in the separate-self optic. To be dependent means to be helpless in
a way, needy even. It has a feminine ring to it and is seen
as a sign of weakness.
After my divorce I felt I needed to be free. In my
thinking that meant as independent from anyone (and especially from a man) as I
could possibly be. For me to become independent had the connotation of
growing stronger; strong enough to stand on my own.
But...
somehow the whole idea of independent-me as ultimate goal of my quest does not
fit my new-wonderful-me. Instead of living towards being less depend I
encounter life-situations that demand certain degrees of dependency, from me
and the people I live with, that seem to fit more into the picture of who I
want and need to be. I do not want to be
a separate person, an autonome identity
"free" from other people. On the contrary, especially in these
chaotic times it seems of enormous importance to feel connected and to create, also for my sons and mother, a sense of belonging.
Although I feel I am an unique human being and in that
sense free to be who I want to be, my need to be "free", independent
from people that is, was mainly reactive behavior. I see now that the need for
independence was more fueled by a fear of pain and
loss than by a need to be separate.
From the
self-in-relation perspective my feelings, even those
of grief after the "trauma" of separation and the loss of an intimate
relationship, are much more explainable.
Now I have
more peace with (the thought of) being dependent. With a shift in perspective,
the view transforms. Step by step I realize that I
feel better within relationships, and that inter-dependence is acceptable
(first step) and (then) valued as a source of empowerment. Now I can see that any
true connectedness implies a level of voluntary, mutual dependency, and the
construct "dependency" gets another ring to it. My negative
separate-self thought-patterns loose their grip and give way to
self-in-relation insights. I recognize that dependency in relationships gives a
nurturing sense of belonging. I acknowledge that the willingness to share and
the capacity to surrender are qualities in a relationship, not weaknesses.
But
it is a challenge to change perspectives. I saw a documentary lately of how
Apart from
the questions about right, wrong, or subject matter, this poses many questions:
when and in what way do people change their view and how do they adapt and
shape their experience of reality according to a new perspective?
How do we
learn? How can we avoid that, once we adopt a certain way of looking at
something, we limit ourselves to that view?
It is no
wonder that, in a time when we discover that science does not have all the
answers and that autonomy does not always work, we are looking for new models
of reality and of developmental psychology. We even try to do this in new ways,
more aware of the interaction of model and reality, more open to what is.
Naturally,
our new models reflect values and principles that our new perspective creates.
It is likewise understandable that we have difficulty expressing these because
of the limitations the language born out of the older perspectives pose.
In their
book, the women of the
They feel
the need for a new sense of self that takes into account what is happening
between people. This self is experienced as inseparable from the dynamic
interaction that results from attending to and responding to others and their
feelings.
The
self-in-relation theory of the
Comparing the transpersonal psychology and the self-in-relation
theory.
I appreciate
the way the
In doing so
they honor the growth and development of human psychology and philosophy and
realize their new model for reality is just a next step, a next
In several
instances these writers admit to the fact that even in the few years they have
been working on this project, their views have shifted and that the language
they use to describe their ideas needed and needs fine-tuning and maturation.
The thinkers
in the field of the transpersonal perspective, with their various different
approaches and syntheses, see their efforts to articulate their model as “a
work in process” as well. These scholars emphasize the importance of seeing the
way in which we organize our experience of reality as a stance in life, a
perspective rather than a static or separate theory.
This of
course is in itself is a “new” way, a more intuitive and feminine way, of
coming to knowledge and, as I suggested before, more appropriate now than
casting reality into structured theories.
Transpersonal
psychology is non-gendered and although the self-in-relation theory is put
forward by the
In the
self-in-relation theory
all growth occurs within emotional connections, not separate from
them. In that this model approaches the transpersonal
view in their recognition that all living systems are inseparably
interconnected.
Being in
connection, in relationship with oneself, others and nature is seen as a
motivation in and of life. It is felt to be our natural way of being and acting. To feel
more related to another person means to feel one’s self enchanted and not
threatened (as was the perspective of the classical views). To feel more
related to another person brings us pleasure and effectiveness and is a source
of our sense of self-esteem.
The
realization that contacting others is a fundamental way of coming to know one-self
and is thus essential for our growth towards authenticity makes for another
similarity with transpersonal psychology. Here the search for wholeness, seen
as increasing levels of self-discovery, actualization and seeking for
transcendence[2],
is also viewed as an essential aspect of human motivation and as such a
prerequisite for health and happiness. The term trans-personal literally means
beyond the personal, beyond the confines of the self.
Whereas the
self-in–relation model emphasizes our connectedness to others beyond our
personal realm as a source of meaning, defining humans as relational beings,
the transpersonal perspective focuses on our connectedness, as spiritual
beings, to the larger framework of a deeper spiritual reality.
Both
perspectives recognize the importance of contacting, especially in its capacity
of enhancing compassion, empathy and other heart-centered qualities. The
process of relating is seen as having intrinsic value.
Judith Jordan writes about empathy: “When empathy and concern flow both ways,
there is an intense affirmation of the self, and paradoxically, a transcendence
of the self, a sense of self as a part of a larger relational unit. The
interaction allows for a relaxation of the sense of separateness; the other’s
well-being becomes as important as one’s own.”[3] Or
put in another way: “Empathy is central to an understanding of that aspect of
the self which involves we-ness, transcendence of the separate, disconnected
self. It is the process through which one’s experienced sense of basic
connection and similarity to other humans is established.”[4]
In our quest
for wholeness and authenticity compassion and empathy are
felt to be doorways to a deepening personal and relational awareness. As
we humans exist and grow in the context of relationships, a stance of
compassion allows us to sense a mutuality, a common
ground with others not unlike the more transpersonal “ground in being”, which
can be a fundamental source of validation, support and fulfillment. We are not alone in this; we are together. We
share responsibility for ourselves, others and how we live
together on this planet.
These two
perspectives view reality from a larger viewpoint, discovering underlying principles
inherent in what is. Both try to clarify the implications of their approach for
psychotherapy and the evaluation of the human experience in general. Instead of “imposing” a new theory on reality
these perspectives try to give us a means of looking differently at what we
experience to be reality, inviting us to look further than the limited
perspective older theories engrained in our ways of thinking, feeling and
expressing ourselves. The basic premise of both the self-in–relation and the
transpersonal perspective is that separation is an illusion and that growth and
development evolves through stages of ever-increasing levels of awareness and
consciousness of the underlying connection, and ultimately the unity of all.