The phone call was made after a lot of deliberation, and after a lot of time lapse. Simply because she wanted matters to die down, for emotions to settle down and for her to reflect on whether she was kicking off without thought. (Maybe also somewhere she was waiting for the phone call to be made from the other side, to acknowledge her hurt, the amending call). But the hurt still was as fresh as ever, and no wonder; because how do hurts heal? Not when you ignore them, but when you acknowledge their existence and you feel that the hurt has been given a balm, when it is spoken about and an attempt is made to at least make you feel that the matter is understood, and that corrective steps would be taken. She continued to hurt still, even after the phone call, simply because she realised that what she said was not even comprehended or her hurt acknowledged.
She came from a family where the siblings vied with each other for the attention of the parents. The parents did parenting the best they knew: instinctive parenting comes naturally. But in the process, technical difficulties like handling complexes of the children, whether real or imagined, sibling rivalry, competition, and underlying resentments went unattended. So did blows to self-esteem when one of them would be forced to buy peace at the cost of offending her sense of being and of self-worth. They grew up and grew away. They lived their own lives, coming together now and again and then growing apart. The eldest of them all totally broke away, perhaps comfortable being geographically away. The middle one, perhaps the one who bore the brunt of the sibling issues, though in close proximity, felt emotionally weaned away, growing both in terms of developing external relationships and also thus more adept at managing them better. The youngest remained with the family the longest, and thus continued to be in some ways the baby of the family.
Shouldn’t life have settled down then? Old issues forgotten and the siblings coming together? Well, it did not happen. The situation of the first child continued to be the same: detached, and thus convenient. She would make an appearance now and then, upsetting the equilibrium of the family.
The second one would be around to pick up the pieces of any major storms, and then later be blamed for doing so! The third daughter continued to be the martyr, ‘forced to take on the responsibility of the aged parents’, simply because she happened to be in the same city.
I guess this garb of the most important person gave this child the liberty to unofficially take on the role of the mascot in the family. She would go into fits of moody disposition, making people wish they had never gone to their place. She would throw her weight around, make sure everyone would be very uncomfortable around her, simply because she was the source of immediate comfort to her parents, and they felt that she was doing a lot for them, so they had to be obligated to her. In the process, any action of hers which would naturally generate hurt in someone would be overlooked, by simply stating that the person was being ‘misunderstood’.
Her demeanour was simply what it is: and anybody getting hurt was simply being ‘oversensitive’. No amends would be made to repair any hurts, and just a time lag was sufficient enough for her between her erratic behaviour and her next conversation. Any attempts at trying to talk out issues with her, would be like talking to an autistic child: she simply would not listen! The sheer defensive attitude would make one wonder why make the attempt at all! Games being played over and over again, till the payoffs were no longer necessary. Then once the game changed, the payoffs stopped coming; and then the games stopped.
I guess the game here was: come on hurt me: and once the need for hurt (the payoff) was not needed, the game was changed: and thus the whole process of gaming stopped. What was lost in the bargain remains to be seen; maybe yet another relationship; maybe the closure of yet another chapter. But she was much more at peace, for she had decided to live life by her terms now. It was not arrogance: simply compliance to her inner need to be herself and stem this dichotomy within her.
Mohana Narayanan
December 8,2009
No comments:
Post a Comment