The reason I brought up this idea in the first place was in response to CeMar’s question. I know everyone including myself has told CeMar what he needs to do to get desire but also why it is wrong for him to expect that desire. But then I think, what s really so wrong about wanting desire per se? Add to this the recent discussions about “No More Mr. Nice Guy” and I sense a certain “defensiveness” on the board toward the idea of enmeshment. But getting back to CeMar’s question, is wanting desire, validation or enmeshment bad?
In fact, exactly what is enmeshment? What is enmeshing to me may not be enmeshing to another. Or to put it another way, can anyone tell me exactly how and when they are able to put up the enmeshment flag and when they do not? To be honest, don’t we all soak up compliments? Our whole concern over enmeshment does not come into play over compliments, but only over non-validation, especially at stressful times. Enmeshment can be both positive and negative, so aren’t we using a double standard already?
It is our nature to like compliments and dislike non-validation. That makes us human, IMO. To deny that is to deny a lot of what makes up our passion, as Corri has discussed. Mojo’s struggle in trying to find herself has also helped to get me thinking about all this.
Martelo,
Perhaps this is all semantics like Burgbud says, but when I think of fusion, I think of two people who need reactivity from one another to reaffirm a connection in a dysfunctional and destructive manner - fighting, arguing, power plays, etc. that go on and on, not respecting boundaries or the viewpoints of others. You know the drill.
I think of differentiation in Schnarchian terms, and maybe this is where my semantics differ from others. I see Schnarch as emphasizing that each person worry ONLY about him/herself on the correct assumption that you can’t influence the other person anyway. Furthermore, to be happy you must be true to your own values, morals, goals, preferences, etc (sort of like the workshop Corri is conducting). But this seems to have two effects. One is to push your partner away by breaking the enmeshment and learning to hold on to yourself. After this, if both people are still willing to stay together, then great, but if not, c’est la vie.
It is this cavalier attitude that I get from Schnarch which bothers me and which goes to the heart of CeMar’s question. Should we be preaching such pure individuality (the emphasis on each individual’s differentiation) without higher consideration of the relationship and the other person? Should our quest for individual happiness override the happiness that can come from compromise for the benefit of the group? This “selfish” part of differentiation, where “Taking the detachment too far gets into the realm of isolation and repression,” as Martelo says, is what makes differentiation feel unemotional to me. That feeling can be destructive for troubled couples trying to move too fast.
My feeling is also that in order to truly maintain a differentiated state, many of us would have to maintain a certain level of detachment, which is what Mojo is trying to determine. That keeps a certain distance between the couple which may be good or may be bad.
The other effect from differentiation is positive in that a sufficiently healthy couple can get even closer due to the learned ability to tolerate greater intimacy. I like this part of differentiation. But it is not guaranteed.
When I start to think about positive enmeshment, or maybe let’s call it “differentiated enmeshment,” or interdependence, I think of a situation much like Fearless describes. A couple who can discuss openly and freely without fear of reprisal or non-validation, who can both be vulnerable without worry whether each is maintaining a minimum level of detachment as protection against non-validation. IMO, this is only possible when both people are tuned into each other and concerned about the validation the other receives. Maybe this is part of differentiation, but I did not get that from Schanrch. I understood his idea of holding onto oneself was his way of having each person deal with this. I know this can be a workable basis for a relationship but is it ideal?
One alternative is to place the happiness of the couple over the individual happiness of each person. Compromise. Going back to Fearless’ point of reliability, if we assume we do not want to be subject to the unreliability of our partner to validate us or compromise, then we should not consider the happiness of the group, instead focusing on our individual happiness and leaving it to our spouse to “deal with it.” Which is better? Should this reliability determine the type of happiness we settle on?
If not, can we let down our detachment guard and allow ourselves to feel our full emotions without concern of reliability, instead placing faith in each other to provide whatever validation our spouse can, focusing on the other person and not ourselves? By dropping this detachment guard and instead relying on faith in each other, can a couple rise to a higher state of connection that just differentiation?
Sure, this won’t work in a relationship where there is an imbalance, where one person might take advantage of the other or make a power play. It must be a healthy, balanced relationship.
Getting back to one of my earlier questions, how can we know exactly what is enmeshment? If there is a concern for one another, and each person knows that and expresses his/her concern to the other, then even if one fails to provide validation, is there really reason for disappointment and hurt feelings? Is there really a need to keep up the wall of detachment? Can a mutually empathic and compassionate couple ever fail to validate one another?
This seems to be a choice both people can make. A lot needs to be in place beforehand, but as dysfunctional as I am, it is hard for me to completely get my arms around the individual, detached idea of differentiation. I need some level of enmeshment, at least for now. Maybe someday I won’t but I have yet to meet the person who does not.
It also seems to me that this is really no more than the mutual practice of the Golden Rule. I think this idea should be the goal, not just the idea of pursuing differentiation.
P.S. I hope some of this made sense as it is getting almost too convoluted for me, LOL!!
