I've always thought of guilt and shame as two sides of the same coin. In theory, when you do something wrong you feel guilty; when people find out about it, you feel ashamed. Thus, one can feel guilty about something he's done even when no one else knows about it; he only feels ashamed, however, once his actions are discovered and his guilt is brought to light.
In my mind, shame was a mixture of embarrassment and guilt brought about by having one's misdeeds made public. I saw guilt, on the other hand, as a moral compass of sorts, one that alerts you when you've strayed too far off course. Apparently, though, I've had it all wrong. It turns out that people who study this type of thing think about guilt and shame quite differently. To feel guilty is to condemn specific actions, i.e., you feel guilty about something you've done. When, in contrast, a person feels shame he condemns himself. In other words, I feel guilty about what I've done; I feel ashamed of who I am.
I have no problem with this perspective; it makes a certain amount of sense. Who am I to argue with the experts? Moving on...
Guilt is often uncomfortable and unpleasant but it also serves an important social function in that in promotes cooperation and adherence to group norms. (Consider this: the inability to experience guilt and remorse is a characteristic of most psychopaths). Studies show that guilt tends to motivate conciliatory behaviors and efforts at restitution. Because it serves as an impetus for corrective action when social norms are violated, guilt facilitates the restoraction of peace and cooperation, thus enabling individuals to live and work together in communities.
Shame, on the other hand, yields very little in the way of benefits (at least according to the experts). Whereas guilt often motivates reparative actions, shame tends to induce behaviors that are self destructive. With guilt, the focus is on one's actions and their consequences to other people. Shame, however, is a self-focused emotion characterized by a a sense of unworthiness and self-directed contempt. Shame is associated with negative attributions towards oneself and is frequently accompanied by low self-esteem.
Over time, shame leads to self loathing. Pause for a moment: have you ever known someone who hated himself? Think about what this person was like...
Probably very sensitive to any negative feedback. People who carry a lot of shame tend to be very defensive. You see, the job of the human "ego" (or sense of self, subconscious, identity, self concept, or whatever you want to call it) is to protect itself and to maintain its integrity. Shame leads to self loathing; this poses a serious threat to the "ego." The "ego" of someone who hates himself is under constant attack from the inside; an attack from the outside would be crippling. So it builds up a network of defenses to protect it. Thus the shame filled individual blames others for his mistakes and refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. We think he's just being an asshole. The truth is, his fragile ego cannot withstand the blow of acknowledging he did something wrong; he can't even admit it to himself. And obviously if a person can't admit he did something wrong, he certainly can't come to forgive himself...
Which is what I plan to talk about next week - self-forgiveness.
Showing posts with label ego. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ego. Show all posts
Monday, January 28, 2013
Sunday, May 13, 2012
The Self in Western Psychology
There are too many theories of self within the tradition of Western psychology to count them all. To my knowledge, no one has ever attempted to cover them all in one place and at one time; the task would be enormous, not to mention time consuming. For these reasons, I do not endeavor to be the first to attempt this task. Instead, I will attempt to present an overall view of the self in Western psychology that incorporates the most prevalent and commonly used theories.
In general, the goal of Western psychotherapy (particularly when rooted in the psychodynamic tradition) is to strengthen the self in order to improve functioning, facilitate healthy regulation of emotions, and increase ability to cope with both internal and external stressors. Most Western theories of psychological development assert that "the self" develops through a series of hierarchical stages, with each new stage representing a higher level of self achievement than the one before it.
An infant begins its life with no sense of himself as an individual separate from his external environment. The infant embarks on his self-developmental journey in the context of his relationship with his mother (or primary caregiver). The infant is dependent on his mother for all of his basic needs. He has only to cry and his mother is there to provide what he lacks. For this reason, he comes to see his mother as an extension of himself; he perceives an entity he calls "me and mommy" that is separate and distinct from the rest of the world. As a young toddler, the child begins to recognize that he is his own entity, existing in his own body, separate from everything and everyone, including his mother. He begins to try to manipulate objects and interact with people in his environment. Eventually, as he becomes more confident, he begins to venture farther and farther away from his mother and for increasingly longer periods of time. As the child gains a growing sense of himself as an individual separate from other individuals, he gradually becomes aware that his actions affect others. He develops the ability to feel guilty when he does something that hurts another person.
Each stage of the developmental process must be navigated successfully in order for a child to eventually form an integrated personality and a healthy sense of self. The successful resolution of each stage endows the ego with a specific ability or "virtue" that contributes to healthy functioning. While development continues throughout the life span, the years from birth to adolescence have the most significant impact on personality development. If all goes well, an adolescent will enter young adulthood with the ego strengths of hope, willpower, purpose, competence, fidelity, and love.
The culmination of psychological development is a differentiated self. When a person is differentiated, he is able to function as an autonomous individual with his own ideas, opinions, goals, and pursuits. He is capable of maintaining healthy boundaries with his family and friends; he is neither controlled by nor enmeshed with others, nor is he emotionally cut off or disconnected from them. He has the capacity for emotional intimacy. A well differentiated individual can separate thoughts from feelings. He is able to regulate his emotions such that they do not overwhelm his ability to think rationally.
While the self gradually develops into a separate and independent entity, it does so only in the context of one's relationships with others. I am aware of no theory that conceives of the self as developing in a vacuum; there is widespread recognition that the self develops in (and is therefore influenced by) a broader cultural and interpersonal context. I am also unaware of any theories suggesting that the self emerges fully formed. Rather, the self is always seen as something that must be developed over time; it requires specific things in order to do this successfully.
In terms of how self is defined in Western psychology, most schools of thought recognize at least two "realms" of the self: the conscious and the unconscious. Not every school of Western psychological thought attends to the unconscious aspect. Behaviorism, for example, focuses on changing overt behaviors without addressing the possible unconscious factors that drive them. Other theoretical orientations address the unconscious factors in mental illness indirectly. For example, cognitive theory focuses on changing irrational automatic thoughts, rules/assumptions/schema, and core beliefs. Automatic thoughts tend to reside just below the surface of conscious awareness and can usually be accessed pretty easily. Schema, followed by core beliefs, occupy increasingly unconscious levels, which are less accessible to conscious awareness. For this reason, the presence of certain schema and core beliefs is typically inferred from associated automatic thoughts and emotional triggers.
While we are not, by definition, aware of the contents of the unconscious mind, the unconscious nevertheless has a significant influence on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
At the center of the conscious realm of the self lies the ego. The ego serves many purposes and is vital to healthy and adaptive functioning. Among other things, the ego acts as a gatekeeper between the conscious and the unconscious. The ego determines, based on a number of factors, what material is allowed into our conscious awareness and what material is to remain unconscious (and probably, to a lesser degree, what information is to be discarded completely). The ego is also responsible for organizing the personality so that it is coherent and consistent. It is essentially responsible for creating our "sense of self."
The true self consists of both the conscious and the unconscious. To experience the true self, a person must integrate his conscious and unconscious minds. This requires becoming aware of the material hidden in the unconscious mind. This material is often difficult, aversive, and anxiety provoking (which is why the ego has not allowed it into conscious awareness). Becoming aware of this material also means dealing with (and tolerating) the negative emotions associated with it. This is a difficult process, but one that promises very desirable payoffs. To experience the true self is to expand one's consciousness and to more fully know oneself. A perosn's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are controlled by unconscious material so long as that material remains unconscious. To become conscious of this material is to begin to gain control of it (and to therefore gain greater control of one's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors).
Despite its many necessary functions, the ego can hinder one's quest to experience his true self. Recall that one of the roles of the ego is to act as the gatekeeper between consciousness and unconsciousness. Thus the ego can, at times, interfere with efforts to know the true self by preventing unconscious material from entering conscious awareness.
Essentially, the basic premise of Western psychotherapy is that a fully developed "self" is necessary for healthy psychological and emotional functioning. The inability to regulate emotions, to cope with and tolerate distress, or to maintain intimate interpersonal relatinoships with appropriate boundaries are all recognized as symptoms of a poorly developed self. Perfectionism, anxiety, compulsiveness, self-destructive behaviors, or rigid beliefs are also manifestations of an underdeveloped self. Thus, the goal of Western psychotherapy is to build and strengthen the self, which in turn leads to an alleviation of symptoms and improved overall functioning.
It seems to me that modern Western psychology does not take an ontological stance in its conceptualizations of the self. In this context, I use the term ontological to refer to "the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality." (I'll admit it - I just quoted from Wikipedia). Ontology deals with such questions as "What does it mean to exist?" "When does something cease to exist as opposed to simply changing?" (What if a person sustains brain damage? His personality is not the same as it was before the damage occurred. Is he still the same person)? "What makes up the identity of a person or object?"
These questions have been contemplated by countless Western psychologists and psychiatrists over the years. Some have taken a philosophical approach and have generated theories based upon ideas emerging from their own intellectual thought. Others have formed theories generated from their observations of and interactions with patients. Still others have taken a more spiritual approach, drawing from the teachings of various religious and spiritual traditions and combining them with traditional psychological theories.
Western psychology has always struggled to be taken seriously as a "hard" scientific discipline. In order to assert its legitimacy as more than just a pseudo-science, it has adopted increasingly rigorous standards for ideas, information, and practices it is willing to accept as valid. As a whole, psychology and psychiatry are no longer willing to accept or endorse anything that has not been studied empirically via controlled scientific studies. (There is, of course, significant variation among individual practitioners in their willingness to engage in psychotherapy practices that have not been empirically validated).
Because of this, the field appears to be moving towards an embrace of an almost reductionist coneption of the self. This is increasingly the case as new technologies are developed that enable researchers to study directly the activities of the brain. The neurological underpinnings of phenomena that have traditionally been ascribed to the self (e.g., thoughts, feelings, perceptions) are being identified and explored by researchers via sophisticated brain imaging techniques. Because these phenomena can be observed on a neurological level, there is a broad assumption that all human experience is simply a result of the various physiological functions of our brains and bodies. To me, this conclusion seems to ignore one of the basic principles of the scientific method: correlation does not equal causation. It also assumes that everything that exists can be observed directly and demonstrated objectively. There are, of course, other ways of knowing; its just that Western society as a whole tends to reject anything they cannot prove.
In general, the goal of Western psychotherapy (particularly when rooted in the psychodynamic tradition) is to strengthen the self in order to improve functioning, facilitate healthy regulation of emotions, and increase ability to cope with both internal and external stressors. Most Western theories of psychological development assert that "the self" develops through a series of hierarchical stages, with each new stage representing a higher level of self achievement than the one before it.
An infant begins its life with no sense of himself as an individual separate from his external environment. The infant embarks on his self-developmental journey in the context of his relationship with his mother (or primary caregiver). The infant is dependent on his mother for all of his basic needs. He has only to cry and his mother is there to provide what he lacks. For this reason, he comes to see his mother as an extension of himself; he perceives an entity he calls "me and mommy" that is separate and distinct from the rest of the world. As a young toddler, the child begins to recognize that he is his own entity, existing in his own body, separate from everything and everyone, including his mother. He begins to try to manipulate objects and interact with people in his environment. Eventually, as he becomes more confident, he begins to venture farther and farther away from his mother and for increasingly longer periods of time. As the child gains a growing sense of himself as an individual separate from other individuals, he gradually becomes aware that his actions affect others. He develops the ability to feel guilty when he does something that hurts another person.
Each stage of the developmental process must be navigated successfully in order for a child to eventually form an integrated personality and a healthy sense of self. The successful resolution of each stage endows the ego with a specific ability or "virtue" that contributes to healthy functioning. While development continues throughout the life span, the years from birth to adolescence have the most significant impact on personality development. If all goes well, an adolescent will enter young adulthood with the ego strengths of hope, willpower, purpose, competence, fidelity, and love.
The culmination of psychological development is a differentiated self. When a person is differentiated, he is able to function as an autonomous individual with his own ideas, opinions, goals, and pursuits. He is capable of maintaining healthy boundaries with his family and friends; he is neither controlled by nor enmeshed with others, nor is he emotionally cut off or disconnected from them. He has the capacity for emotional intimacy. A well differentiated individual can separate thoughts from feelings. He is able to regulate his emotions such that they do not overwhelm his ability to think rationally.
While the self gradually develops into a separate and independent entity, it does so only in the context of one's relationships with others. I am aware of no theory that conceives of the self as developing in a vacuum; there is widespread recognition that the self develops in (and is therefore influenced by) a broader cultural and interpersonal context. I am also unaware of any theories suggesting that the self emerges fully formed. Rather, the self is always seen as something that must be developed over time; it requires specific things in order to do this successfully.
In terms of how self is defined in Western psychology, most schools of thought recognize at least two "realms" of the self: the conscious and the unconscious. Not every school of Western psychological thought attends to the unconscious aspect. Behaviorism, for example, focuses on changing overt behaviors without addressing the possible unconscious factors that drive them. Other theoretical orientations address the unconscious factors in mental illness indirectly. For example, cognitive theory focuses on changing irrational automatic thoughts, rules/assumptions/schema, and core beliefs. Automatic thoughts tend to reside just below the surface of conscious awareness and can usually be accessed pretty easily. Schema, followed by core beliefs, occupy increasingly unconscious levels, which are less accessible to conscious awareness. For this reason, the presence of certain schema and core beliefs is typically inferred from associated automatic thoughts and emotional triggers.
While we are not, by definition, aware of the contents of the unconscious mind, the unconscious nevertheless has a significant influence on our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
At the center of the conscious realm of the self lies the ego. The ego serves many purposes and is vital to healthy and adaptive functioning. Among other things, the ego acts as a gatekeeper between the conscious and the unconscious. The ego determines, based on a number of factors, what material is allowed into our conscious awareness and what material is to remain unconscious (and probably, to a lesser degree, what information is to be discarded completely). The ego is also responsible for organizing the personality so that it is coherent and consistent. It is essentially responsible for creating our "sense of self."
The true self consists of both the conscious and the unconscious. To experience the true self, a person must integrate his conscious and unconscious minds. This requires becoming aware of the material hidden in the unconscious mind. This material is often difficult, aversive, and anxiety provoking (which is why the ego has not allowed it into conscious awareness). Becoming aware of this material also means dealing with (and tolerating) the negative emotions associated with it. This is a difficult process, but one that promises very desirable payoffs. To experience the true self is to expand one's consciousness and to more fully know oneself. A perosn's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are controlled by unconscious material so long as that material remains unconscious. To become conscious of this material is to begin to gain control of it (and to therefore gain greater control of one's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors).
Despite its many necessary functions, the ego can hinder one's quest to experience his true self. Recall that one of the roles of the ego is to act as the gatekeeper between consciousness and unconsciousness. Thus the ego can, at times, interfere with efforts to know the true self by preventing unconscious material from entering conscious awareness.
Essentially, the basic premise of Western psychotherapy is that a fully developed "self" is necessary for healthy psychological and emotional functioning. The inability to regulate emotions, to cope with and tolerate distress, or to maintain intimate interpersonal relatinoships with appropriate boundaries are all recognized as symptoms of a poorly developed self. Perfectionism, anxiety, compulsiveness, self-destructive behaviors, or rigid beliefs are also manifestations of an underdeveloped self. Thus, the goal of Western psychotherapy is to build and strengthen the self, which in turn leads to an alleviation of symptoms and improved overall functioning.
It seems to me that modern Western psychology does not take an ontological stance in its conceptualizations of the self. In this context, I use the term ontological to refer to "the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence, or reality." (I'll admit it - I just quoted from Wikipedia). Ontology deals with such questions as "What does it mean to exist?" "When does something cease to exist as opposed to simply changing?" (What if a person sustains brain damage? His personality is not the same as it was before the damage occurred. Is he still the same person)? "What makes up the identity of a person or object?"
These questions have been contemplated by countless Western psychologists and psychiatrists over the years. Some have taken a philosophical approach and have generated theories based upon ideas emerging from their own intellectual thought. Others have formed theories generated from their observations of and interactions with patients. Still others have taken a more spiritual approach, drawing from the teachings of various religious and spiritual traditions and combining them with traditional psychological theories.
Western psychology has always struggled to be taken seriously as a "hard" scientific discipline. In order to assert its legitimacy as more than just a pseudo-science, it has adopted increasingly rigorous standards for ideas, information, and practices it is willing to accept as valid. As a whole, psychology and psychiatry are no longer willing to accept or endorse anything that has not been studied empirically via controlled scientific studies. (There is, of course, significant variation among individual practitioners in their willingness to engage in psychotherapy practices that have not been empirically validated).
Because of this, the field appears to be moving towards an embrace of an almost reductionist coneption of the self. This is increasingly the case as new technologies are developed that enable researchers to study directly the activities of the brain. The neurological underpinnings of phenomena that have traditionally been ascribed to the self (e.g., thoughts, feelings, perceptions) are being identified and explored by researchers via sophisticated brain imaging techniques. Because these phenomena can be observed on a neurological level, there is a broad assumption that all human experience is simply a result of the various physiological functions of our brains and bodies. To me, this conclusion seems to ignore one of the basic principles of the scientific method: correlation does not equal causation. It also assumes that everything that exists can be observed directly and demonstrated objectively. There are, of course, other ways of knowing; its just that Western society as a whole tends to reject anything they cannot prove.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Self and No Self: Psychology and Buddhism
I was asked by a fellow blogger to write about Buddhist views on the self. Since my interest in Buddhist teachings originated in my desire to integrate these ideas into my psychotherapy practice, I decided to compare and constrast how the self is conceptualized in Western psychology and in the Buddhist tradition. This is a rather big undertaking, and one that I will not attempt to complete in one blog post. "Self and No Self: Psychology and Buddhism" will therefore be my first "series" of posts on a single subject.
Over the past twenty years, Western psychology has become increasingly interested in ancient Eastern practices and traditions. Among the first to advocate the usefulness of Eastern precepts to Western mental health practice was Dr. Marsha Linehan, the well known pioneer of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). DBT is built around the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. Since the original publication of Linehan's DBT treatment manuals in 1993, mindfulness and other Eastern ideas and practices have gained widespread use among Western mental health practitioners.
Since the days when Freud fathered psychoanlysis -- the first form of modern psychotherapy -- the self has been among the primary foci of psychotherapy practice. As the number of psychological theories have grown, so have the ways in which the self is conceptualized. Almost every psychological theory has its own unique conception of the self. Thus, it is impossible to make any overarching statement to summarize how the self is perceived in the field of psychology. What can be said is that virtually every school of psychology has some conception of the self that influences its ideas about the causes and treatment of mental illness.
This seems to be completely at odds with Buddhist teachings. Fundamental to the Buddhist worldview is the concept of anatman (roughly translated as "no soul," "no self," or "egolessness"), which asserts that there is no such thing as an immortal soul or core self. The Buddha taught that nothing exists that is permanent. Things come into being and things disintegrate. Humans, like everything else in existence, are made of impermanent substances. Human beings have no separate soul or self that exists apart from our material bodies.
Buddhism asserts that the self, which is of central importance to the field of psychology, does not exist. Just as the concept of self is integral to the understanding and practice of psychology the idea of "no self" is fundamental to the understanding and practice of Buddhism. How is it, then, that psychology has embraced Buddhist teachings when the two fields are built around opposing fundamental tenets?
Despite differences in their basic beliefs, Buddhism and Western psychology share a common goal: they both seek to alleviate suffering. Each field approaches this goal in a manner consistent with its own belief system. The Buddha taught that "the self" is an illusion and that this illusion is the source of all suffering. Consequently, Buddhism asserts that the way to relieve suffering is by seeing through the illusion of self, thereby bringing the self to an end. In contrast, Western psychology tends to view the absence of a stable, integrated sense of self as among the most significant causes of suffering. Thus, many psychotherapists believe that building or restoring a strong sense of self is an important part of the treatment process (the primary goal of which is to alleviate suffering). In short, Buddhist practice aims to alleviate suffering through losing the self; psychotherapy seeks to alleviate suffering by helping to build, rebuild, find, strengthen, or define the self.
These are the ideas I will be exploring over the next few weeks. Next week, I will explore in more detail Buddhist views of the self (or no self). The following week, I will try to provide an overview of the major theories about the self in Western psychology. Finally, I will attempt to tie it all together by addressing questions like, "Are the ideas of Buddhist and Western psychotherapy practitioners about the self fundamentally at odds with one another?" "Is there any overlap betwen how Buddhists and Western psychotherapists think about the self?" and "What aspects of Buddhist practice have Western mental health practitioners embraced and what, if any, impact does this have on their ideas about the self?" This is an ambitious undertaking on my part so I ask that you please bear with me. I am also open to feedback throughout this process.
Over the past twenty years, Western psychology has become increasingly interested in ancient Eastern practices and traditions. Among the first to advocate the usefulness of Eastern precepts to Western mental health practice was Dr. Marsha Linehan, the well known pioneer of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT). DBT is built around the Buddhist practice of mindfulness. Since the original publication of Linehan's DBT treatment manuals in 1993, mindfulness and other Eastern ideas and practices have gained widespread use among Western mental health practitioners.
Since the days when Freud fathered psychoanlysis -- the first form of modern psychotherapy -- the self has been among the primary foci of psychotherapy practice. As the number of psychological theories have grown, so have the ways in which the self is conceptualized. Almost every psychological theory has its own unique conception of the self. Thus, it is impossible to make any overarching statement to summarize how the self is perceived in the field of psychology. What can be said is that virtually every school of psychology has some conception of the self that influences its ideas about the causes and treatment of mental illness.
This seems to be completely at odds with Buddhist teachings. Fundamental to the Buddhist worldview is the concept of anatman (roughly translated as "no soul," "no self," or "egolessness"), which asserts that there is no such thing as an immortal soul or core self. The Buddha taught that nothing exists that is permanent. Things come into being and things disintegrate. Humans, like everything else in existence, are made of impermanent substances. Human beings have no separate soul or self that exists apart from our material bodies.
Buddhism asserts that the self, which is of central importance to the field of psychology, does not exist. Just as the concept of self is integral to the understanding and practice of psychology the idea of "no self" is fundamental to the understanding and practice of Buddhism. How is it, then, that psychology has embraced Buddhist teachings when the two fields are built around opposing fundamental tenets?
Despite differences in their basic beliefs, Buddhism and Western psychology share a common goal: they both seek to alleviate suffering. Each field approaches this goal in a manner consistent with its own belief system. The Buddha taught that "the self" is an illusion and that this illusion is the source of all suffering. Consequently, Buddhism asserts that the way to relieve suffering is by seeing through the illusion of self, thereby bringing the self to an end. In contrast, Western psychology tends to view the absence of a stable, integrated sense of self as among the most significant causes of suffering. Thus, many psychotherapists believe that building or restoring a strong sense of self is an important part of the treatment process (the primary goal of which is to alleviate suffering). In short, Buddhist practice aims to alleviate suffering through losing the self; psychotherapy seeks to alleviate suffering by helping to build, rebuild, find, strengthen, or define the self.
These are the ideas I will be exploring over the next few weeks. Next week, I will explore in more detail Buddhist views of the self (or no self). The following week, I will try to provide an overview of the major theories about the self in Western psychology. Finally, I will attempt to tie it all together by addressing questions like, "Are the ideas of Buddhist and Western psychotherapy practitioners about the self fundamentally at odds with one another?" "Is there any overlap betwen how Buddhists and Western psychotherapists think about the self?" and "What aspects of Buddhist practice have Western mental health practitioners embraced and what, if any, impact does this have on their ideas about the self?" This is an ambitious undertaking on my part so I ask that you please bear with me. I am also open to feedback throughout this process.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Ego and Core Fears
I used to think I was unlovable. It was one of those core beliefs that impacted my thoughts and feelings on a daily basis, even though it remained just outside of my conscious awareness. I was full of self doubt and was severely lacking in confidence. I was extremely sensitive to any perceived sign of rejection. I frequently felt depressed and I found it difficult to like myself. One of the reasons I wanted to go into the mental health profession (but certainly not the only reason -- there were many) was to better understand myself. Actually, maybe that's not entirely accurate. I think I wanted to figure out what was "wrong" with me so I could "fix" it. That was my mindset at the age of 18 when I started college.
Anyway, I spent years working to change my belief that I was unlovable. Today, I am absolutely certain I am lovable. In fact, I believe that every human being is innately lovable, although many of us erect barriers that make it difficult for others to get close enough to love us. I discovered over time that being lovable has nothing to do with having another person love me. To be lovable I had to learn to love myself. (I know that sounds cliche and trust me, it's easier to say than it was to do).
Last week, I wrote about "core fears." Core fears are those that threaten our "ego," or our sense of self. Core fears revolve around losing those things we believe are central to our identities; to lose them (or so we believe) is to lose our very selves. When someone triggers a core fear our egos feel threatened; whenever the ego feels threatened it immediately acts to defend itself. You can tell a core fear has been triggered by how upset you become. Often you will find that the intensity of your emotion is disproportional to the event that triggered it (i.e., you get extremely upset when someone says or does something to you that doesn't seem to be quite as terrible as you are making it out to be). When a core fear has been triggered we typically react by blaming the other person involved. It's not that we are simply blaming the other person to avoid accepting responsibility for our own misdeeds; rather, we truly believe that the other person has wronged us. This, however, is just our ego deceiving us in an effort to protect us from facing whatever fear has been activated.
Ironically, as I was typing last week's post on my blog (I'd written it earlier that week) my husband and I got into an argument. We started out with the best of intentions. We were doing a communication exercise to address something I'd done that upset him. We reached a point in the exercise where he was prompted to request that I make a specific change in my behavior. I was expecting him to ask me to stop doing the thing that I'd done that upset him in the first place (and I was prepared to make this change). Instead, he asked me to change something else entirely. He thought the behavior he'd asked me to change was the underlying problem. I thought he was asking me to change something that is fundamental to who I am. Sense of self threatened; activate ego defenses.
I stormed off and went back to my computer to finish typing my blog post. Oh the irony; I was writing about the very thing that was happening at that moment. I told myself to pay attention to the words as I was writing. I told myself to sit with my feelings, to observe them and to observe the suffering caused by my ego's insistence on blaming my husband. I told myself a lot of things but I was too upset to take my own advice.
Against my better judgment (which had taken a leave of absence at that point), I tried to talk to my husband. It wasn't the best idea but in doing so, my core fear was exposed. "I don't think you love me," I accused him. "I don't think you care about me at all!" There it was: my core fear of being unlovable.
Fortunately, we resolved the issue. In fact, I think seeing my vulnerability exposed softened my husband and allowed him to see the hurt underneath my anger.
I want to end with a message to my core fear. Here it is:
So we meet again, Ms. "I'm Unlovable." I thought I was done with you. Haven't you realized that I don't believe your lies anymore? I AM LOVABLE! Why are you still here, lurking in the shadows? Well you're not in the shadows anymore! You've shown yourself. Maybe I was naive to think I'd gotten rid of you completely. From now on I will be more vigilant. You will never occupy the place in my life you once held and never again will I allow you to control me. You caught me off guard once but it won't happen again. Now I know you're here and I'll be watching your every move.
Anyway, I spent years working to change my belief that I was unlovable. Today, I am absolutely certain I am lovable. In fact, I believe that every human being is innately lovable, although many of us erect barriers that make it difficult for others to get close enough to love us. I discovered over time that being lovable has nothing to do with having another person love me. To be lovable I had to learn to love myself. (I know that sounds cliche and trust me, it's easier to say than it was to do).
Last week, I wrote about "core fears." Core fears are those that threaten our "ego," or our sense of self. Core fears revolve around losing those things we believe are central to our identities; to lose them (or so we believe) is to lose our very selves. When someone triggers a core fear our egos feel threatened; whenever the ego feels threatened it immediately acts to defend itself. You can tell a core fear has been triggered by how upset you become. Often you will find that the intensity of your emotion is disproportional to the event that triggered it (i.e., you get extremely upset when someone says or does something to you that doesn't seem to be quite as terrible as you are making it out to be). When a core fear has been triggered we typically react by blaming the other person involved. It's not that we are simply blaming the other person to avoid accepting responsibility for our own misdeeds; rather, we truly believe that the other person has wronged us. This, however, is just our ego deceiving us in an effort to protect us from facing whatever fear has been activated.
Ironically, as I was typing last week's post on my blog (I'd written it earlier that week) my husband and I got into an argument. We started out with the best of intentions. We were doing a communication exercise to address something I'd done that upset him. We reached a point in the exercise where he was prompted to request that I make a specific change in my behavior. I was expecting him to ask me to stop doing the thing that I'd done that upset him in the first place (and I was prepared to make this change). Instead, he asked me to change something else entirely. He thought the behavior he'd asked me to change was the underlying problem. I thought he was asking me to change something that is fundamental to who I am. Sense of self threatened; activate ego defenses.
I stormed off and went back to my computer to finish typing my blog post. Oh the irony; I was writing about the very thing that was happening at that moment. I told myself to pay attention to the words as I was writing. I told myself to sit with my feelings, to observe them and to observe the suffering caused by my ego's insistence on blaming my husband. I told myself a lot of things but I was too upset to take my own advice.
Against my better judgment (which had taken a leave of absence at that point), I tried to talk to my husband. It wasn't the best idea but in doing so, my core fear was exposed. "I don't think you love me," I accused him. "I don't think you care about me at all!" There it was: my core fear of being unlovable.
Fortunately, we resolved the issue. In fact, I think seeing my vulnerability exposed softened my husband and allowed him to see the hurt underneath my anger.
I want to end with a message to my core fear. Here it is:
So we meet again, Ms. "I'm Unlovable." I thought I was done with you. Haven't you realized that I don't believe your lies anymore? I AM LOVABLE! Why are you still here, lurking in the shadows? Well you're not in the shadows anymore! You've shown yourself. Maybe I was naive to think I'd gotten rid of you completely. From now on I will be more vigilant. You will never occupy the place in my life you once held and never again will I allow you to control me. You caught me off guard once but it won't happen again. Now I know you're here and I'll be watching your every move.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)