So in this example a husband and wife would make it their duty to make the other happy?
I cannot MAKE anyone, anything, without their permission.
I would like to be able to feed another's happiness. To make ME feel good about ME (as I have defined it). If I depend on the other to define when/how/how much I feel good about ME, I am now fused. If I do something I hope will make another feel good, and it does not, I am differentiated if I feel good about my effort, regardless of their reaction. I am fused if I allow another's reaction to my efforts negate the happiness I have regarding my initial action, or how I might view/define myself.
If I give someone a back rub (and I do this to feel good about me, and in hopes that it will feel good to the recipient), and say my nails hurt them... I can use their response to discern the information coming at me... so that I can make a choice on whether I should continue in a way that does not hurt them... or, I can choose to stop the back rub, because I like digging my claws into things, but perhaps you are not my best choice for claw digging.
If you say 'ouch!!" and because you said ouch, I decide I am a lousy backrubber because of your honest response... I am now fused. Especially if I say to you... "no, that shouldn't hurt you. I am trying to please you, and you are not letting me!!"
If I am giving a backrub, and the person says, "wow, that is a good backrub," what's wrong with that? But if I take that compliment to mean I am the best backrubber on the planet, and allow it to define me... I am still fused...
(Cobra) But my point is that other-validation per se is NOT bad. In fact, there should not be anything wrong with it if both people could be trusted to hold up their end of the validation duty.
I disagree with this though I think maybe the disagreement is only semantic.
Other-validation is bad per se because I can't be other-validated if I'm already self-validated. Also, I can't trust *anybody* to hold up their end of the validation duty except myself.
Let me give you an example of what I mean, which may illustrate why I say the difference may only be semantic. One of the things I've done to build a post-divorce life is take up swing dancing. Almost all the women I've run into at various dances have been very polite and the etiquette, at least in this area, is not to turn anybody down who asks you to dance. Some women I've danced with seem to enjoy my style and are complimentary. They seem enthusiastic when I ask them to dance and sometimes even seek me out. Other women are much less enthusiastic and I've gotten the vibe from them that they don't really enjoy how I dance. I can think of at least three women that I won't ask to dance again because while they're polite about it, they appear to regard it as chore (though they're enthusiastic about dancing with other people). One woman in particular seems to wish she was far, far away whenever I'm in her field of view.
None of these women validate me one way or the other. I know I'm a good dancer. I know I have a tremendous amount still to learn and a lot of potential for improvement. I'm not immune to the differences in how I feel when dancing with enthusiastic vs. non-enthusiastic women, though. It's a lot more fun dancing with someone who's enjoying themselves, so I make sure to pick out those ladies who seem to be having fun with me. If a song gets played that I particularly enjoy, I try to find one of those women. I'm not impervious and above it all, emotionally.
So maybe when you say that other-validation isn't bad per se, you're meaning it's okay to allow another's reaction to us to determine whether or not we enjoy being around them. I'm saying other-validation *is* bad per se because by definition it's allowing another's reaction to us to determine whether or not we enjoy being *us*.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
Cobra, If there was no risk of the other-validation not coming through whenever it was needed, would it make a difference if it were from people who admire you or just to make yourself feel good? If there were NO risk or consequence, what would be wrong with that?
?? What exactly are you asking?
Technically I see no problem with this, IF both people were truly able to hold up their end of the duty. But as your example of your sick mother shows, this is not realistic. Yet is the other-validation really the problem or is it the inability of us human to reliably provide it?
Yes I think relying on other-validation when you KNOW that people cannot reliably provide it IS the problem. Relying on the weather in Houston to always be sunny in order to be happy would also be a problem because we KNOW it will rain in Houston so the problem would be the belief of 100% sunshine and NOT the inability of Mother Nature to reliably provide the sunshine.
Maybe in a life or death situation, but in relationships I do not agree. The problems the triggers so many fights in marriages seem to have a common theme – that one person is not validating the other on one way or another. As in your example it may be more than humanly possible for a person to do.
Why not? If you can keep yourself taken care of, are you not in a BETTER position to take care of others? So being self-validated actually makes you MORE able to help others and not less able. because my XH had to focus on himself and getting his law degree during my mom's illness, he was better able to be there for me when I really needed it. Although he had a car, I took a bus to visit my mom every weekend because he needed to focus on his studies.
I don’t know that this is necessarily true. You may know your own wants and needs best, but if communication is open and you are willing to express yourself freely, then over time each partner can come to know one another intimately and quite thoroughly. Think of the old married couple who are as one unit, soul mates, in which one knows what the other thinks and what their likes and dislikes are. Is that such a scary model? Is that something to not strive for? I can see this may not be something for everyone. In fact, I think it would be tough to find the right match to make this work, but for me, it is an interesting idea and an objective that bridges a lot of what I would like in a relationship.
What about being self-validating and differentiated would prevent a couple from bonding emotionally as you describe? It's not a scary model at all because it is one I have seen from the POV where the spouses are not emotionally needy but rather emotionally strong AND that seems to have created a stronger bond and not a weaker one. I have to say that even with these close bond they are still NOT mind readers and that's the humor these couples have. They can LAUGH at their spouse not being able to know what they are thinking. ETA: At Thanksgiving last year my 84 year old Grandmother told her older sister that she didn't like mushrooms and my great-aunt was surprised after all the years together. My grandmother wasn't hurt at all and just laughed that she didn't like to make a big deal of it so it didn't surprise her at all that her sister had not noticed. A less self-validated person might have felt that her sister didn't care about her.)
That is the point of my questioning… does it have to be unstable? Is there another way?
What do you think? I'll be honest that after the last 7 months on this forum I am more convinced that differentiation is helpful and not harmful. Again though I have to be clear that my definition of differentiation INCLUDES intense emotional connection.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
So maybe when you say that other-validation isn't bad per se, you're meaning it's okay to allow another's reaction to us to determine whether or not we enjoy being around them.
Sure, what's so wrong with that, if you're a confident enough person to accept it? If not, then the problem is with you and your confidence level, not with the other person's validation per se.
I'm saying other-validation *is* bad per se because by definition it's allowing another's reaction to us to determine whether or not we enjoy being *us*.
Only if you choose to be hurt by a negative reaction. If the reaction is positive, then why not suck it all up, as long as you can keep your ego under control! Again, is the problem the other-validation per se or your own level of self esteem?
But that is part of my criticism with Schnarch. He allows little room for other–validation for really dysfunctional couples. Look at Heywire’s H. There is absolutely now way he can come to hold onto himself. Now way. If Heywire tries this, he will feel completely abandoned and walk out of the marriage. Choc tried it too.
Schnarch never claims that saving the marriage is the goal of differentiation. The fact that you regard "saving a marriage where one partner is in your view 'too dysfunctional to hold onto him/herself" as a higher value than achieving differentiation probably means that you have FOO issues that are causing you to fear failure more than fusion. I am a long ways from being there myself but I am close enough to know that differentiation is the goal not the tool to reach the goal.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Yes I think relying on other-validation when you KNOW that people cannot reliably provide it IS the problem.
I disagree. See my response to Burgbud. What I hear you saying is that the fear you have of relying on other people makes that reliance bad. The reliance may not be bad at all to another person is that person never experiences fear. So where does the problem lie, with the other validation or with you?
Perhaps my point is getting lost. It is not that I am dismissing the idea of differentiation, rather I am trying to see that the idea of enmeshment may not be so bad, as long as it is controlled and managed. In this way, I can see a higher level of emotional connection than just differentiation alone. Differentiation must still be included, but by doing so, the negative aspects of enmeshment can be eliminated and the poo pooing that enmeshment receives on this board can be re-thought. I can see this as an answer to CeMar’s quest (though it doesn’t change the work he has to do).
The fact that you regard "saving a marriage where one partner is in your view 'too dysfunctional to hold onto him/herself" as a higher value than achieving differentiation probably means that you have FOO issues that are causing you to fear failure more than fusion.
Unless a person suffers from an untreatable medical/chemical/personality disorder, I do not believe there is such a thing as a person who cannot hold on to himself, nor a marriage that can’t be saved. It might be that one of the people is actively blocking recovery, whether conscious or unconscious, but I think all people can eventually learn to reprogram their perceptions and their reactivity to a point that the marriage can be sufficiently healthy. Maybe not perfect. IT might take a long time too, longer than one or the other is willing to wait.
My FOO issues do not come into play here as this is purely a value judgment to be made by each person. I do not consider my marriage to be in the camp of needing to be saved at the expense of my personal growth. Nor do I have an unlimited time horizon. I do have my parameters and at this point I am willing to let things play out in favor of the marriage. At a certain point in the future, this will all change.
Fearless - Yes I think relying on other-validation when you KNOW that people cannot reliably provide it IS the problem. Relying on the weather in Houston to always be sunny in order to be happy would also be a problem because we KNOW it will rain in Houston so the problem would be the belief of 100% sunshine and NOT the inability of Mother Nature to reliably provide the sunshine.
Cobra - What I hear you saying is that the fear you have of relying on other people makes that reliance bad. The reliance may not be bad at all to another person is that person never experiences fear. So where does the problem lie, with the other validation or with you?
This is why repeating back what you think someone is saying is so useful!!
NOPE. It's not fear that makes me want to be self-validated. My friend and I discussed something similar to this months ago. She would like to have someone close by to have a spare key. Unfortunately the woman she is best friends with in her town is also very ADD and while a very good person she is NOT reliable. We both discussed how unfair and wrong it would be to give her friend a spare key because it would just set her up to lose the key and therefore not help. It is not FEAR that keeps my friend from not relying on her other friend. It is knowledge. In that way she does not consider her friend any less of a friend. She's just a friend who cannot keep track of her OWN keys much less someone else's.
At the same time, I will agree that you cannot avoid fear in life. The fact is that at one point or another we will all have people leave us through death or otherwise and that is PAINFUL whether they other-validated or not. When my Grandpa died when I was 10 I mourned him for years. he lived next door to us and I spent so much time with him. I MISSED him because I loved him. i also have friends who I have drifted away from and that is sad too. Being connected to people does take the knowledge that eventually you may lose that connection and that does hurt. So people who cannot connect to others may be trying to protect themselves from that loss. But differentiation have nothing to do with preventing loss.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
Cobra could you give an examples of a situation involving positive enmeshment, differentiation and fusion from your point of view. Just try to see the differences any example would help. thanks.
Positive Enmeshment: A Three-Leg Race. A mountain climb. Team sports.
Differentiation: A Three-Leg Race. A mountain climb. Team sports.
Fusion: A Three-Leg Race. A mountain climb. Team sports.
My attitude, how the opinion of another will affect my ability to do my part, (and any said enjoyment I might get out of) any of those scenarios is what makes the descriptors different from one another.
