As a counsellor, I am fortunate (?) to experience a varied gamut of human relationships through the cases that come to me for therapy.
One such case was that of a young adolescent boy, who was referred to me for academics, as well as behavioural issues. On meeting the boy, he seemed compliant enough for the questions and answered them willingly, but I could sense intense rage within him. On probing, I found that his primary anger was directed against his mother. Reason? She insults him in front of his uncle and the servant! The mother looked surprised that this was a topic of dissent with the boy. Her logic was that if he is scolded in front of someone else, then he would learn to behave better. When I asked her what her expectations were she had only one thing to say: I want him to respect elders.
I found her need to be very amusing… considering she was using humiliation as a tool to discipline her son.
Everybody has this need in them to be respected, whether young or old. How could the mother expect the child to develop a sense of respect and reverence, when everytime she would deride and belittle him not only in the privacy of their home but also in public? It is, according to me, the lowest form of disciplining tactics, which would have the person at the receiving end seething inside with humiliation. I remember, when I was working in a publication firm, we would have this monthly meetings, which were called “Hall of Shame”. The names of all those editors who had not met their targets would be written on the board, and they would be asked for detailed feedbacks and explanations. This could also be done in the cabins of the senior professionals, but I think they all got a perverse pleasure, seeing them squirm in front of an audience. What irreparable damage was being done to the psyche of the person, I dread to think. A personal memo calling the person filthy names is so much better than this public flogging.
Coming back to the case, when I started handling the issues with the mother, I could understand where she was coming from. She was a perfectionist, and theirs was the most passive marriage I have ever seen! When asked if she expected others to respect her as a person and her opinions, she wanted to know what I was talking about! For the husband, she was just a wife; one who took care of his physical and biological needs. He could not describe the person that she was: her identity was that she was his wife. She was labelled a bad mother because her son did not behave ‘properly’. So to get social approval she was being punitive with the son. Her life revolved on social approvals. She could no longer establish her own identity, and establishing the importance of being herself became the focus of counselling. She was gradually able to understand that you do not demand respect; you command it. And you can only teach how to respect if you practise it. The point took a while to sink in; but when she was able to withdraw from the controlling relationship, and also refused to take responsibility for her son’s misbehaviour, and refuse to accept the label of being a ‘bad mother’ simply because he misbehaved, things started turning around. When people around realised that she was not accepting the blame for his behaviour, they started handling the boy differently; and he too, in subsequent sessions was able to understand the scenario.
Sessions are still on; the husband continues to be passive, though he is beginning to think there is more to a marriage than just staying together, and is slowly willing to enrich the relationship.
It is not ‘all is well’ as yet…. But I hope it would be.
Mohana Narayanan
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Do you have balance?
Do you have balance?
I overheard my daughter talking on the phone to her friend, asking her: “Do you have balance?” For a moment, technologically challenged that I am, I wondered whether she had lost it! I mean, imagine asking someone if the person had balance, casting aspertions on the person’s sanity! Of course, a moment later, I realised that the comment was actually meant as a concern for the friend’s account balance in her pre-paid mobile card.
My thoughts, as usual, went off on a tangent. I wish our human relationships also worked as effectively. I mean, there are so many situations created simply because things that should never be uttered are spoken in a fit of anger or in a hot temper, which result in a downward spiral of the relationship. I wish there was some method by which the ‘balance’ of words expire before things reach a cresendo, as there is more damage done sometimes, when one person claims he or she has ‘only been frank’!
When i handle conflicts, as a counsellor I see scope for a lot of situations where damage control could have been done, simply by silence. But then we do not have a built in cut-off mechanism, which could say, balance is over, please recharge! Yes, we could use our inner reserves of sanity and avoid unpleasantness when we find things getting out of hand, but then it is hardly to be expected of a spouse who has been harbouring a lot of unresolved issues, till the situation reaches a pressure cooker situation and the lid is blown off! When you have the other party also offering concern about the ‘balance’ (literally and figuratively!), then this too shows that the receiver is able to understand where the partner is coming from….
Maybe it is in such times, that you wish the battery is also low in the phone!!!
Mohana Narayanan
I overheard my daughter talking on the phone to her friend, asking her: “Do you have balance?” For a moment, technologically challenged that I am, I wondered whether she had lost it! I mean, imagine asking someone if the person had balance, casting aspertions on the person’s sanity! Of course, a moment later, I realised that the comment was actually meant as a concern for the friend’s account balance in her pre-paid mobile card.
My thoughts, as usual, went off on a tangent. I wish our human relationships also worked as effectively. I mean, there are so many situations created simply because things that should never be uttered are spoken in a fit of anger or in a hot temper, which result in a downward spiral of the relationship. I wish there was some method by which the ‘balance’ of words expire before things reach a cresendo, as there is more damage done sometimes, when one person claims he or she has ‘only been frank’!
When i handle conflicts, as a counsellor I see scope for a lot of situations where damage control could have been done, simply by silence. But then we do not have a built in cut-off mechanism, which could say, balance is over, please recharge! Yes, we could use our inner reserves of sanity and avoid unpleasantness when we find things getting out of hand, but then it is hardly to be expected of a spouse who has been harbouring a lot of unresolved issues, till the situation reaches a pressure cooker situation and the lid is blown off! When you have the other party also offering concern about the ‘balance’ (literally and figuratively!), then this too shows that the receiver is able to understand where the partner is coming from….
Maybe it is in such times, that you wish the battery is also low in the phone!!!
Mohana Narayanan
Killer instincts: Love thy neighbour?
We talk about green environment,and people growing practically the entire vegetable needs of their family on their terrace, and thus being environmental friendly. I too am an avid gardener, but time and space constraints do not permit me to indulge in the hobby for longer periods of time. However, I do have some crotons in the foyer of my apartment, with a terra cotta idol of Lord Krishna who acts as my security guard! All the visitors comment on the aesthetic look of the frontage of my apartment, and the greenery is certainly cooling to the eyes.
Nevertheless, there are some killjoys for every situation; I get a notice from the secretary of the society saying that the inmates are not allowed to keep plants in the ‘common area’. I know for a fact, and i have the people who are staying above my apartment vouch for it, that the plants are not at all in the way of their movement. What other reason could there be i wonder, to pronounce such a ‘law’ if it is not to make sure that i do not enjoy the sight of greenery when i open the front door of my flat? And neither do people who visit my apartment?
When i removed one of the pots on a ledge outside my balcony, which had been a hiding place for a pair of pigeons nesting, i discovered two eggs in the nest. I had in fact placed the pot on this ledge, only so that the pigeons could feel safe from the prying crows, waiting to grab the eggs. Many a times i have sat on the balcony, watching these pigeons look at me, wondering if i was a friend or foe. Just when he had his doubts cleared and confidently sat there even when i opened the window to water the plant, I betrayed his trust and removed the pot from there! By the time i returned after placing the pot, i found the crow and flown away with one of the eggs!
I wonder how the society would react, if i question the fact that the people staying on the ground floor have potted plants in the common area? Or that this very person, who has sent the notice, has plants belonging to his wife, on the terrace?
Here we are, talking about planting ten saplings for every tree felled, trying to make the world a greener place to live in, and making sure that the generations to come do not have to look at plants and animals only in picture books. Yet your very neighbour thwarts all your attempts to do your mite to make the world a better place to live in, simply because they have some personal grouse against you which they do not have the temerity to confront you with or talk it out. So they decide to attack the mute plants and the helpless birds which had found haven and a safe place with these plants. How self-centered, and how manipulative can a man get?
Mohana Narayanan
Nevertheless, there are some killjoys for every situation; I get a notice from the secretary of the society saying that the inmates are not allowed to keep plants in the ‘common area’. I know for a fact, and i have the people who are staying above my apartment vouch for it, that the plants are not at all in the way of their movement. What other reason could there be i wonder, to pronounce such a ‘law’ if it is not to make sure that i do not enjoy the sight of greenery when i open the front door of my flat? And neither do people who visit my apartment?
When i removed one of the pots on a ledge outside my balcony, which had been a hiding place for a pair of pigeons nesting, i discovered two eggs in the nest. I had in fact placed the pot on this ledge, only so that the pigeons could feel safe from the prying crows, waiting to grab the eggs. Many a times i have sat on the balcony, watching these pigeons look at me, wondering if i was a friend or foe. Just when he had his doubts cleared and confidently sat there even when i opened the window to water the plant, I betrayed his trust and removed the pot from there! By the time i returned after placing the pot, i found the crow and flown away with one of the eggs!
I wonder how the society would react, if i question the fact that the people staying on the ground floor have potted plants in the common area? Or that this very person, who has sent the notice, has plants belonging to his wife, on the terrace?
Here we are, talking about planting ten saplings for every tree felled, trying to make the world a greener place to live in, and making sure that the generations to come do not have to look at plants and animals only in picture books. Yet your very neighbour thwarts all your attempts to do your mite to make the world a better place to live in, simply because they have some personal grouse against you which they do not have the temerity to confront you with or talk it out. So they decide to attack the mute plants and the helpless birds which had found haven and a safe place with these plants. How self-centered, and how manipulative can a man get?
Mohana Narayanan
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Power struggle!
Getting out from the departmental store with my shopping bag, i was loading them in my car when i noticed a motorbike parked nearby. A crow was sitting on the petrol tank of the bike, and with a surreptitious look around, he delved into a pouch that was fixed on the bike and pulled out a goodie; a pistachio shell!. He looked around again, noticed another crow nearby, and quickly put the nutshell back again and nonchalantly started to look elsewhere. I am almost sure he also caught my eye!. With another look at the other crow, he seemed to be debating what to do, and then decided to carry the war right into the enemy camp. He flew to the place the other crow was sitting, and chased it away. The poor chap did not know what was happening and with a furious caw, flew away, probably cursing the chaser but deciding to leave the battle scene!.
I did not stop to see whether the crow came back for the nut shell (ironic isn’t it, all this was for not even the nut, just the shell!), but was thinking about how we humans and crows are so similar in our interpersonal relationships. I have seen this happening so often in the corporate jungle. People vie with each other for positions and power, and very often than not, the rules of the game are not followed; if they at all are, they are conveniently bent to suit the needs of the few who know how to win. The winning is all that matters. So these games are played out, in board rooms, in conferences, at meetings, and in cabins behind closed doors. The chase is subtle but it is persuasive. The victim either decides, like the crow in our story, to leave the scene but carries with it anger and resentment and even feelings of being victimised and being a scapegoat. Or he decides to give it a fight, and then the real battle ensues.
These feelings, if not handled constructively, become the emotional baggage that the person carries; and this feeling of having lost out may permeate into his other areas of living, sometimes making relationships also very dysfunctional. See the whirlpool effect?
I think it all boils down to fighting right: even in personal relationships. Squirrels have to bury food: so they do. But it is not seen as ‘hiding’ it away. It is acting in character to its species. But on second thoughts, i think the crow also acted in its nature? Don’t they say crows are supposed to thieve?? But do we humans act in our true nature? Are we not essentially supposed to be ‘good’ ? Then why do we deliberately push down, degrade other fellow beings, all for money, power, position? If we let go of the need for greed for power and control, i think a lot of our interpersonal conflicts can also resolve itself. Most of them start with power struggle: If the need for being in control: of others, not of self, is examined, and saturated not by controlling another human being, but by renouncing the need by itself, then i am sure life would be so much more fulfilling.
Mohana Narayanan
I did not stop to see whether the crow came back for the nut shell (ironic isn’t it, all this was for not even the nut, just the shell!), but was thinking about how we humans and crows are so similar in our interpersonal relationships. I have seen this happening so often in the corporate jungle. People vie with each other for positions and power, and very often than not, the rules of the game are not followed; if they at all are, they are conveniently bent to suit the needs of the few who know how to win. The winning is all that matters. So these games are played out, in board rooms, in conferences, at meetings, and in cabins behind closed doors. The chase is subtle but it is persuasive. The victim either decides, like the crow in our story, to leave the scene but carries with it anger and resentment and even feelings of being victimised and being a scapegoat. Or he decides to give it a fight, and then the real battle ensues.
These feelings, if not handled constructively, become the emotional baggage that the person carries; and this feeling of having lost out may permeate into his other areas of living, sometimes making relationships also very dysfunctional. See the whirlpool effect?
I think it all boils down to fighting right: even in personal relationships. Squirrels have to bury food: so they do. But it is not seen as ‘hiding’ it away. It is acting in character to its species. But on second thoughts, i think the crow also acted in its nature? Don’t they say crows are supposed to thieve?? But do we humans act in our true nature? Are we not essentially supposed to be ‘good’ ? Then why do we deliberately push down, degrade other fellow beings, all for money, power, position? If we let go of the need for greed for power and control, i think a lot of our interpersonal conflicts can also resolve itself. Most of them start with power struggle: If the need for being in control: of others, not of self, is examined, and saturated not by controlling another human being, but by renouncing the need by itself, then i am sure life would be so much more fulfilling.
Mohana Narayanan
Changing tides
I had gone in for a book launch function, where parts of the book were read out by someone other than the author. After the reading was over and when the floor was thrown open for discussions, the lady who had done the reading had a question: Would the author consider writing a book on divorce? (The current book was on marriage) The question was fair enough: but what followed set me thinking…” It is not as if I do not believe in marriage; though I am a divorcee”, she declared.
Her question was perfectly acceptable; what stood out like a sore thumb was an unnecessary declaration of her marital status. I started wondering whether the fact that you are a divorcee today is a reflection of your mental strength! I mean, there was a time when there was stigma attached to you being a divorcee; it was a fate worse than being a widow! The social stigma was irreparable and a woman was scarred mentally and emotionally, for life. But today I think the scenario has changed. A woman is no longer blaming herself for a marriage gone wrong; she is willing to walk out on a relationship where she feels there is nothing coming for her, where there is nothing but compromises and where she does not feel respect and recognized. She has no qualms about declaring it in an open forum, even when the situation does not warrant it!
I have mixed messages regarding this stand. On one hand this apparent strength of a woman helps her cope with what probably would otherwise be a very traumatic event in her life. But when strength borders on defiance, I think it is time for a woman to do a reality check. Are we talking about the triumph of respect, dignity of a woman and her willingness to walk out of a failed relationship, or are we appreciating the defiant stand that she may be in danger of taking, simply because she is laying down terms in a relationship? There are no blanket rules, for the simple reason, each marriage is different. What concerns me though is the current trend of the issues over which divorce is being sought, which somehow makes me feel that the institution of marriage is being tossed around like a ship without a rudder. The casual nature of a marriage ending in a divorce is making me feel very uncomfortable.
Marriage needs to be worked at. A relationship that enters your life after almost one-third of it is over, definitely needs more care and nurturing. It is not a natural relationship: whether it be a love marriage, or an arranged one. The lessons need to be learnt what would otherwise come naturally with people you grow up with. One needs to learn how to play more roles, discharge more responsibilities. The bonding is to be brought about consciously and perhaps even very formally.
But I think the very fact that partners think things should fall in place right from day one of the marriage, lays weak foundations. This expectation escalates into strong opinions where unresolved conflicts assume gigantic proportions. It somehow becomes too much of an effort to accommodate someone else into your life; and it becomes too much of an effort to try and become someone you are not. When thus an option is available which is not very difficult to opt for, then why not take it? I think this also is a question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Is divorce as an option being considered because it is easier to obtain, and also the stigma is not so great today, or is it the other way around?
Mohana Narayanan
June 15,2010
Her question was perfectly acceptable; what stood out like a sore thumb was an unnecessary declaration of her marital status. I started wondering whether the fact that you are a divorcee today is a reflection of your mental strength! I mean, there was a time when there was stigma attached to you being a divorcee; it was a fate worse than being a widow! The social stigma was irreparable and a woman was scarred mentally and emotionally, for life. But today I think the scenario has changed. A woman is no longer blaming herself for a marriage gone wrong; she is willing to walk out on a relationship where she feels there is nothing coming for her, where there is nothing but compromises and where she does not feel respect and recognized. She has no qualms about declaring it in an open forum, even when the situation does not warrant it!
I have mixed messages regarding this stand. On one hand this apparent strength of a woman helps her cope with what probably would otherwise be a very traumatic event in her life. But when strength borders on defiance, I think it is time for a woman to do a reality check. Are we talking about the triumph of respect, dignity of a woman and her willingness to walk out of a failed relationship, or are we appreciating the defiant stand that she may be in danger of taking, simply because she is laying down terms in a relationship? There are no blanket rules, for the simple reason, each marriage is different. What concerns me though is the current trend of the issues over which divorce is being sought, which somehow makes me feel that the institution of marriage is being tossed around like a ship without a rudder. The casual nature of a marriage ending in a divorce is making me feel very uncomfortable.
Marriage needs to be worked at. A relationship that enters your life after almost one-third of it is over, definitely needs more care and nurturing. It is not a natural relationship: whether it be a love marriage, or an arranged one. The lessons need to be learnt what would otherwise come naturally with people you grow up with. One needs to learn how to play more roles, discharge more responsibilities. The bonding is to be brought about consciously and perhaps even very formally.
But I think the very fact that partners think things should fall in place right from day one of the marriage, lays weak foundations. This expectation escalates into strong opinions where unresolved conflicts assume gigantic proportions. It somehow becomes too much of an effort to accommodate someone else into your life; and it becomes too much of an effort to try and become someone you are not. When thus an option is available which is not very difficult to opt for, then why not take it? I think this also is a question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Is divorce as an option being considered because it is easier to obtain, and also the stigma is not so great today, or is it the other way around?
Mohana Narayanan
June 15,2010
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
I heard you!!!
I HEARD YOU!
The other day, I went with my family for a music concert. The hall was not very big, and we had reached pretty much in time. We went in and found one row of empty seats, starting from the aisle. As I was about to sit down on the aisle seat, someone sitting behind pointed out that the seat was broken. Thanking him, I moved further and we settled down.
During the first half of the concert, I diligently took over the duty of the person who had warned me of the broken seat, and everytime someone would start to lower himself or herself on the seat, I would repeat the refrain: “excuse me, the seat is broken”. They would thank me and move on. One gentleman however, took objection to my telling him not to take the seat, presuming that I had reserved the place for someone and glaring at me said: “But there are seats further down the row right? Why can’t you ask them to sit there?” Before I could explain further, he walked away, muttering to himself about uncivilized audience! For a minute I was affronted, then humor took over and I could not help being amused! Well, he actually did not even listen to what I was saying right? He was somehow preprogrammed to the fact that I did not want him to sit there, as I had ‘reserved the seats’.
How often we tend to do this in various other situations too. We foresee an answer to some situation from someone, and we are already framing our response to the situation, without giving a thought to what is being actually being said… In other words, we are not listening; we are only busy preparing our counter to the response. And then it goes on... and the miscommunication then assumes gigantic proportions.
There is this game that I am reminded of, wherein you are supposed to give answer to a series of questions. What makes the game a test on your listening skills is, your answer should be not to the current question, but to the one asked just before. So, you need to listen to this question carefully, in addition to remembering the earlier one, and continue remembering the current one, to which you need to supply the answer once the next question is asked. Try it: it is tough! Simply because our listening skills are poor!
We tend to believe that what we say is what is understood; more often than not, what is understood is not what is conveyed, but what the other person infers the meaning as! If only all of us are able to understand this core message in the art of communication, life would be practically devoid of misunderstandings!
The other day, I went with my family for a music concert. The hall was not very big, and we had reached pretty much in time. We went in and found one row of empty seats, starting from the aisle. As I was about to sit down on the aisle seat, someone sitting behind pointed out that the seat was broken. Thanking him, I moved further and we settled down.
During the first half of the concert, I diligently took over the duty of the person who had warned me of the broken seat, and everytime someone would start to lower himself or herself on the seat, I would repeat the refrain: “excuse me, the seat is broken”. They would thank me and move on. One gentleman however, took objection to my telling him not to take the seat, presuming that I had reserved the place for someone and glaring at me said: “But there are seats further down the row right? Why can’t you ask them to sit there?” Before I could explain further, he walked away, muttering to himself about uncivilized audience! For a minute I was affronted, then humor took over and I could not help being amused! Well, he actually did not even listen to what I was saying right? He was somehow preprogrammed to the fact that I did not want him to sit there, as I had ‘reserved the seats’.
How often we tend to do this in various other situations too. We foresee an answer to some situation from someone, and we are already framing our response to the situation, without giving a thought to what is being actually being said… In other words, we are not listening; we are only busy preparing our counter to the response. And then it goes on... and the miscommunication then assumes gigantic proportions.
There is this game that I am reminded of, wherein you are supposed to give answer to a series of questions. What makes the game a test on your listening skills is, your answer should be not to the current question, but to the one asked just before. So, you need to listen to this question carefully, in addition to remembering the earlier one, and continue remembering the current one, to which you need to supply the answer once the next question is asked. Try it: it is tough! Simply because our listening skills are poor!
We tend to believe that what we say is what is understood; more often than not, what is understood is not what is conveyed, but what the other person infers the meaning as! If only all of us are able to understand this core message in the art of communication, life would be practically devoid of misunderstandings!
Pain bodies!
Pain bodies!
It is said that pain is the symptom that something is not right with your body; a signal that you need to attend to the cause of the malady. It may be caused by a ruptured appendicitis or plain simple indigestion, but unless you take care of the cause it would recur, and in the case of the former, it may even be fatal, if you ignore it.
How simple the diagnosis is, if it is seen on the physical level! But we do not understand that our emotional body also undergoes pain. And it tells us in the form of our emotions: of anger, sadness, depression or plain helplessness. But how many of us really understand that what needs to be attended to is the cause of this pain; these symptoms are only the superficial signs of a corrosion happening underneath. We need to sit down and listen; listen to the need of the emotional body, and find out what is causing us so much pain. Is it a failed, or a failing relationship? Is it an unmet need from somebody? Is it something that someone has said, or more important, something someone has not said?
A client who had come to me for a session shared a story with me, wherein the case was of pure unmet expectations. But the hurt was festering for such a long time, that when she came in for the first session, I realised that it was not an isolated incident and the probing revealed the source of the hurt going as far as her childhood. She was the second of three siblings and her parents had always favoured her elder sibling, simply because the latter had been suffering from some deep complex born of her own thinking and inadequacies. Though she resented this favouritism, she was willing to live with it, because she had found succour for her emotional needs outside and maybe she did not have the courage to either fight, or even voice her resentment then. . Things settled down after both of them got married, and since they all got busy with their now extended families, this rivalry took a back seat.
Unfortunately, it surfaced again with the younger sibling now, who was living with her parents in the same city, and who somehow felt victimised by circumstances to take care of the parents. (It may not be out of place to say here that the parents had a fallout with the eldest sibling and are barely on talking terms now; somehow she kept insisting, ironically that she was always put down upon!). Anyway, to cut to the presenting problem, my client called up her mother to share some discord that she had had with the younger sibling, but the mother jumped to her defense, saying that she was never able to understand her younger sibling, and not to bother her with undue conflicts between both of them. Now this was ironical, and the only message my client could get was that she was not given a hearing, (it was very reminiscient of her childhood) and that her sibling was!
The issue of discord is irrelevant here; what hurt was the fact that my client was straight away brushed aside, with a blanket pronouncement. What came to my mind was what a famous psychologist, Adler had written about the profound effect birth order had on the personality of a person. This client of mine had projected to be a strong, mature and rational individual and had been a source of support for the family throughout her life. When she did manifest her emotional needs, I guess the family was unable to understand it and handle the situation. It made them uncomfortable whenever she buckled, even for a while under a crisis. And all along, to live up to her image, she continued to reinforce the behaviour of being a strong, rational person.
She had not understood her deep underlying resentment she bore against her parents for compromising her position every time in a sibling fight. She had been given love: but conditional love. And when the conditions were not being met now, the family was unable to accept her.
How is someone to cope with an unfulfilled need? It was not easy… The level of acceptance had to be very high in her, to surpass this need of being accepted unconditionally by her parents, and she had to work on years of rejection and the silent resentment she had borne.
I had lot of raw emotions to handle; and it was not easy. She was speaking from hurt, not from reasoning. I had to give her time, before I could make her understand where her mother and her sibling were coming from. She had to deal with unmet expectations, and to use a Transactional analysis viewpoint, she was the rebellious child, talking to a critical parent. No wonder there was a cross transaction!
It is said that pain is the symptom that something is not right with your body; a signal that you need to attend to the cause of the malady. It may be caused by a ruptured appendicitis or plain simple indigestion, but unless you take care of the cause it would recur, and in the case of the former, it may even be fatal, if you ignore it.
How simple the diagnosis is, if it is seen on the physical level! But we do not understand that our emotional body also undergoes pain. And it tells us in the form of our emotions: of anger, sadness, depression or plain helplessness. But how many of us really understand that what needs to be attended to is the cause of this pain; these symptoms are only the superficial signs of a corrosion happening underneath. We need to sit down and listen; listen to the need of the emotional body, and find out what is causing us so much pain. Is it a failed, or a failing relationship? Is it an unmet need from somebody? Is it something that someone has said, or more important, something someone has not said?
A client who had come to me for a session shared a story with me, wherein the case was of pure unmet expectations. But the hurt was festering for such a long time, that when she came in for the first session, I realised that it was not an isolated incident and the probing revealed the source of the hurt going as far as her childhood. She was the second of three siblings and her parents had always favoured her elder sibling, simply because the latter had been suffering from some deep complex born of her own thinking and inadequacies. Though she resented this favouritism, she was willing to live with it, because she had found succour for her emotional needs outside and maybe she did not have the courage to either fight, or even voice her resentment then. . Things settled down after both of them got married, and since they all got busy with their now extended families, this rivalry took a back seat.
Unfortunately, it surfaced again with the younger sibling now, who was living with her parents in the same city, and who somehow felt victimised by circumstances to take care of the parents. (It may not be out of place to say here that the parents had a fallout with the eldest sibling and are barely on talking terms now; somehow she kept insisting, ironically that she was always put down upon!). Anyway, to cut to the presenting problem, my client called up her mother to share some discord that she had had with the younger sibling, but the mother jumped to her defense, saying that she was never able to understand her younger sibling, and not to bother her with undue conflicts between both of them. Now this was ironical, and the only message my client could get was that she was not given a hearing, (it was very reminiscient of her childhood) and that her sibling was!
The issue of discord is irrelevant here; what hurt was the fact that my client was straight away brushed aside, with a blanket pronouncement. What came to my mind was what a famous psychologist, Adler had written about the profound effect birth order had on the personality of a person. This client of mine had projected to be a strong, mature and rational individual and had been a source of support for the family throughout her life. When she did manifest her emotional needs, I guess the family was unable to understand it and handle the situation. It made them uncomfortable whenever she buckled, even for a while under a crisis. And all along, to live up to her image, she continued to reinforce the behaviour of being a strong, rational person.
She had not understood her deep underlying resentment she bore against her parents for compromising her position every time in a sibling fight. She had been given love: but conditional love. And when the conditions were not being met now, the family was unable to accept her.
How is someone to cope with an unfulfilled need? It was not easy… The level of acceptance had to be very high in her, to surpass this need of being accepted unconditionally by her parents, and she had to work on years of rejection and the silent resentment she had borne.
I had lot of raw emotions to handle; and it was not easy. She was speaking from hurt, not from reasoning. I had to give her time, before I could make her understand where her mother and her sibling were coming from. She had to deal with unmet expectations, and to use a Transactional analysis viewpoint, she was the rebellious child, talking to a critical parent. No wonder there was a cross transaction!
Friday, June 04, 2010
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Roles and role plays in life
When you are playing multiple roles in life, as you usually are, the tasks that you need to fulfil for each of the roles seem to overlap at times. I am a counsellor by profession, and this role seems to sometimes pervade the roles that i play of a wife, a mother, a friend, a daughter... and so many other parts. It is so easy to demarcate the roles in other professions; but when it comes to being a counsellor, you are dealing with the fragile human mind, and emotions of a vulnerable human being. It becomes impossible at times to draw the lines as to when you stop being a counsellor and don the garb of a mother or a wife!
I have this strange issue of continuing being treated as a counsellor, even when i am not playing the role of one! Let me explain... I had gone on a trip with a family friend, and during the entire journey in the car, i was given the case of the man’s niece who was having a serious problem in her life. Her behaviour had turned bizarre and she had subsequently become moody and withdrawn, and also seemed to hate men in her life. This gentleman wanted to know how i could help this child...long-distance, second-hand counselling i call it!
Now the point is, i do not mind discussing people’s problems and giving my so-called expert advice. (though counselling is anything but giving advice but that is another story, and people seem to press a play button the moment they know i am a counsellor!) My contention is, if i continue being a counsellor 24x7, when do i be myself? The person who can be allowed to give vent to her feelings, her moods, even her tantrums at times, or just relax and enjoy life’s small pleasures? When can i be a mother to my children, an uncritical wife to my husband, without reading meaning to each and every sentence they speak or view every action of theirs in a psychological perspective? The irony is, even when i do try to do so, the opinion is that i am speaking from my experience as a counsellor, and not as a role that i am supposed to be in at that time!
There is also another angle to this whole thing. Other than my interpersonal relations being viewed only from the standpoint of me being a counsellor, even my normal, human emotions would be denied, deriding them as ‘not being professional’! Do you continue to be professional in all spheres of your life, all the time, and experience ‘professional’ feelings? When i give in to a natural emotion and consequently snap at somebody because the question warranted maybe just a flippant retort, i am immediately labelled the ‘counsellor’! And with this label comes the one of being ‘professional’, so i should be able to handle relations deftly, be just right, say just the right things and do the right things! The load sometimes becomes so heavy that there have been days when i have withdrawn completely, cancelled all appointments, cut off all communication, and hibernated, and only then managed to get in touch with my inner self, which would have been very confused, and maybe manifested as a personality issue! I guess this is the vagary of being in this profession, where unlike any other vocation, you are handling feelings, which never cease to exist... so consequently, one will not be able to see a counsellor as an individual who also is as human as the client she is handling. The only difference would be that she maybe has the tool to reason out a situation, by means of the numerous theories and therapies that she has knowledge of, and then realise and discount people’s reactions!
Not that it really helps to handle the omnipresent feelings though!
Two is not company
Today was a very disturbing day. As a practising counsellor, i normally feel that listening to emotional baggage is part of my job, and my training has helped me deal with avoidance of transference. However, i was not prepared for today’s onslaught of cases. All the three cases in a row, one after the other, involved the disturbing behaviour of very young children in school, also resulting in failing academics. Per force, i was forced to call for the parents; for the home environment contributes a lot to the way a child behaves in school. We adults are forced by systems and rules not to carry our emotional baggage to our place of work; however, children displace their emotions in schools!
Anyway, the first set of parents walked in, but when they sat down, they left a vacant chair in between them. I sensed that something was not working here, and when i placed the issue of the disturbing behaving of their toddler in school, they looked at each other. As they were answering my questions in monosyllables, i suggested that i talk to them separately. They could not be more relieved! The mother had an earful of complaints against the husband, and she emphatically stated that the marriage was not working from day one! She has managed to move out after 5 years of living together, and the son was with her during the week, and the husband took the child to his place of living on week-ends (well, i could hardly term it home could i?) At the end of the tirade, almost as an afterthought, she wanted to know what was wrong with her son! I chose to reserve my comments, and then had a session with the father. He had exactly the same kind of complaints that his wife had registered, which would have been amusing, if it had not been such a serious situation! I mean, here they were claiming they could not get along and did not see eye to eye even on a single topic; yet, they were totally in agreement in their view of each other! They were not even willing to work on the relationship, and though they had taken no legal steps as yet, both of them were sure that it will not be long before they do the rounds of the lawyers, family courts and mediation counselling.
In all this, i think they did not even pause to think what damage they were doing to the child. As an example of the trauma that the child was going through, he told me, when i was talking to him, that he hates it when someone talks loudly to him, he hates noises, for his home was full of noise: his parents were always quarrelling, hurling abuses and accusations at each other. I could imagine this child sitting in the middle of the room, with the parents throwing barbs at each other, and this child ducking every time!
There was no big resolution to this case; at least the first session was largely history taking. But the session left me feeling drained; and with so many unanswered questions. Like, why do couples decide to sustain a relationship they know would never last a lifetime? Why do they get into a relationship because it would require too much effort to ‘cancel a wedding’ as this particular mother stated? And the most vital question, why go ahead and decide to have a child and the additional and awesome responsibility of being parents when you have not yet learnt to be partners?
I am not advocating easy dissolution of relationships; in fact i work with lawyers who try their utmost to help the couples who approach them for the first hearing, to try and help them make the relationship work, not because of social pressure, but because the cause for the conflict may be something that can be worked on. But what i mean is, when you are so sure that the partnership is doomed right from day one, is there any sense in putting another human being through the trauma?
Mohana Narayanan
I have learned after existing in this world for almost half a century that the best way to be at peace here is to pretend that you are the sole survivor of a holocaust, and that you are alone in your existence. I am not advocating the life of Robinson Crusoe, who yearned for human company on a desolate island. I am talking about the solitude and the complete self-sufficiency that Thoreau spoke about when he wrote Walden Pond. I am talking about the attitude of being self-reliant that Emerson wrote about. We all need to realise that somewhere in our lifetimes, we need to take responsibility for our own choices, for our own decisions. We all also need to understand that if we have helping hands, then they are there not to make us dependent on them, but to simply accept the help offered gracefully, as a bonus, and not to set store any expectations by them. At any point and at any time, the withdrawal can occur; and then we may be left floundering, helpless, wondering how we would ever manage.
I think this policy would also help us handle our relationships better. Strangely, i have always handled crisis in my life on my own; not to say that i do not have friends or people who would support me in times of need. But by some strange quirk of fate, more often than not, i have found that these people have not been immediately around to help me ground myself; and for that i am grateful to them. Their unavailability, because of their other commitments, or because of them unable to explain my need to their significant others, has made me so much more capable of handling life on my own, and made me so much stronger. I am able to connect deeply with my inner strength and able to face crisis without buckling under. To an extent, i think this strength is also resented by them a little; i mean, how can i not ask for help?!
I realised how long a way i have come, when my maid today announced that she would not be able to come to work for me. I did not bat an eyelid, just told her to go ahead and suit herself. I know it is going to be tough but i refused to let that perturb me, i decided to handle things as they came along.
I also realised that i no longer needed to talk things out to people who i thought understood me; I am able to sort out issues on my own, with my inner dialogue and arrive at an equilibrium. This could have been also because in a lot of situations, i was unable to talk when i needed to: what is it that they say about necessity being the mother of invention? I found i had handled this need in me successfully, and today the lack of the shoulder to cry on no longer bothered me.
Do i sound anti-social? I assure you, i am not so. It is just that i have realised that there is so much more comfort and peace when you are able to do things on your own, without waiting for it to be done for you. There is so much less hassle if you are not waiting for the phone call that never comes, for the mail that never arrives and for the words that are suppose to erase hurts... when you do not spend your life waiting, there is more living happening.....
Mohana Narayanan
December 9,2009
Games of Life
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
Feet on ground reality
The child told me that as you grow older, your attention span would decrease, and that is the reason that he is not able to study well! Wondering from where he got this theory, i looked questioningly at the mother. She told me wryly that it was a line from Garfield, the comic cat, who was her son’s favourite cartoon character.
Though i was very amused at the whole thing, it set me thinking. We have so many profound statements being made by cartoon characters, and if a child is going to imbibe them as life-truths, then we would indeed have a tough time! What we would need to instil in the child here is the quality of discerning what truth is, and what fiction is. Fantasy world is something that all of us escape to, at some time or the other in our lives. I guess it would be called some form of escapism, but then if we do not attempt to get back to reality, then it would become a problem, not otherwise. Going into the fantasy world gives us a break from the harsh realities of life, but we need to walk into the garden of fantasy as in Alice in Wonderland, equipped with the key to come back through the door, and not lose the key. I guess we are also programmed to dream for the same reason. But what happens when we do go into this world and adapt it to be our real existence? Then it becomes a pathology. In this world, we are at liberty to frame our own laws, live life the way we want, and have complete control over the entire universe. It is such a wonderful feeling, of being in control!
We are able to become super beings that have super powers; we have the supremacy over all that we behold, be it money, relationships, power... we call the shots. This euphoric feeling would be the like of being God: (Remember Bruce Almighty?)! However, even he was God only for ten days!
The crash of coming back to reality is softened, if we are emotionally healthy, and equipped with coping skills to deal with the real environment. We then understand that what happens in the world of comic characters and the dream world looks and sounds good: but maybe too good to be true, and the real world with its share of miseries, misfortunes, missed opportunities and disappointments is still worth living in. For it is definitely much more concrete and less ethereal than the world of magic and fairyland and glib one-liners. So whether it is the wisdom of Garfield, or the precocious philosophy of Calvin, give me the real-world caricatured human beings anytime: I can take them head-on!
Mohana Narayanan
Curtains of deception
The day of prevention of child sexual abuse came and went. We had lectures, demonstrations, and awareness programmes, which hopefully will help public to prevent child abuse.
Just two days after ‘celebrating’ this day, i had to handle a child who has had a very complicated parenting, and is undergoing a lot of emotional issues. The child was brought up by surrogate parents, and she was the daughter of the father’s sister. This fact was revealed to her when she was around ten years of age, and she was just assimilating this fact, when this surrogate mother conceived, and delivered a child. Meanwhile, on the pretext that this girl was not behaving properly and also that the mother had her hands full with the second child, she was packed off to be with her aunt in the city. This aunt, though very affectionate, was not able to emotionally support the child.
The final straw came when the husband of this aunt tried to paw the child and hounded her with his unwanted attentions. This 13-year-old adolescent had her cup of trauma full. She was not performing well academically, and on this issue, the aunt came to see me with the child. The child kept insisting that she wanted to go back to her parents, but the aunt managed to convince her to stay on and study in the city. When the child walked into my consultation room, she seemed full of woe. The aunt gave me the background, omitting the vital facts of the unwanted attention that was being paid to the girl by her husband (Yes, she was aware of the fact! The girl had told her and apparently, since he denied the whole thing, it suited her to believe his version). She wanted me to convince the girl to study well, give her study skills, and make sure that the girl settles down. According to her, all that was wrong was that her husband was a person who was very strict since he was in the police force.
The child was broken, traumatised and urging to go back to her hometown. I sent for the parents. I called the child in, and made her tell her mother what was happening. The mother looked suitably shocked, but then tells me, that she suspected it all along; he had tried this tactic even with her!
How i handled the case is not of great relevance here, though for purposes of completing the narration, i called the aunt and the mother for sessions, and convinced the mother to take the child back with her.
What kind of a parent knowingly allows her child to be in the vicinity of a man who is programmed to abuse women? Was it because this child was not hers biologically? Or is this a basic helplessness of women in our society, who are scared of voicing their protest for fear of social disapproval?
As long as we continue subjecting ourselves and our loved ones to such behind-the-screen acts, such abuses will continue. As long as we do not internalise the sheer anger and disgust at the emotional and sexual abuse that children are being subjected to, and externalise our protests vociferously, this malaise will continue to fester in our society. Can we please stop hiding behind fake walls of family honour and decency, and give children what they long for? Security?
MOHANA NARAYANAN
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Failed relationships and boomerangs!
Today was a very disturbing day. As a practising counsellor, i accept that listening to emotional baggage is part of my job, and my training has helped me deal with avoidance of transference. However, i was not prepared for today’s onslaught of cases. All the three cases in a row, one after the other, involved the disturbing behaviour of very young children in school, also resulting in failing academics. Per force, i was forced to call for the parents; for the home environment contributes a lot to the way a child behaves in school. We adults are forced by systems and rules not to carry our emotional baggage to our place of work; however, children displace their emotions in schools!
Anyway, the first set of parents walked in, but when they sat down, they left a vacant chair in between them. I sensed that something was not working here, and when i placed the issue of the disturbing behaving of their toddler in school, they looked at each other. As they were answering my questions in monosyllables, i suggested that i talk to them separately. They could not be more relieved! The mother had an earful of complaints against the husband, and she emphatically stated that the marriage was not working from day one! She has managed to move out after 5 years of living together, and the son was with her during the week, and the husband took the child to his place of living on week-ends (well, i could hardly term it home could i?) At the end of the tirade, almost as an afterthought, she wanted to know what was wrong with her son! I chose to reserve my comments, and then had a session with the father. He had exactly the same kind of complaints that his wife had registered, which would have been amusing, if it had not been such a serious situation! I mean, here they were claiming they could not get along and did not see eye to eye even on a single topic; yet, they were totally in agreement in their view of each other! They were not even willing to work on the relationship, and though they had taken no legal steps as yet, both of them were sure that it will not be long before they do the rounds of the lawyers, family courts and mediation counselling.
In all this, i think they did not even pause to think what damage they were doing to the child. As an example of the trauma that the child was going through, he told me, when i was talking to him, that he hates it when someone talks loudly to him, he hates noises, for his home was full of noise: his parents were always quarrelling, hurling abuses and accusations at each other. I could imagine this child sitting in the middle of the room, with the parents throwing barbs at each other, and this child ducking every time!
There was no big resolution to this case; at least the first session was largely history taking. But the session left me feeling drained; and with so many unanswered questions. Like, why do couples decide to sustain a relationship they know would never last a lifetime? Why do they get into a relationship because it would require too much effort to ‘cancel a wedding’ as this particular mother stated? And the most vital question, why go ahead and decide to have a child and the additional and awesome responsibility of being parents when you have not yet learnt to be partners?
I am not advocating easy dissolution of relationships; in fact i work with lawyers who try their utmost to help the couples who approach them for the first hearing, to try and help them make the relationship work, not because of social pressure, but because the cause for the conflict may be something that can be worked on. But what i mean is, when you are so sure that the partnership is doomed right from day one, is there any sense in putting another human being through the trauma?
Mohana Narayanan
Anyway, the first set of parents walked in, but when they sat down, they left a vacant chair in between them. I sensed that something was not working here, and when i placed the issue of the disturbing behaving of their toddler in school, they looked at each other. As they were answering my questions in monosyllables, i suggested that i talk to them separately. They could not be more relieved! The mother had an earful of complaints against the husband, and she emphatically stated that the marriage was not working from day one! She has managed to move out after 5 years of living together, and the son was with her during the week, and the husband took the child to his place of living on week-ends (well, i could hardly term it home could i?) At the end of the tirade, almost as an afterthought, she wanted to know what was wrong with her son! I chose to reserve my comments, and then had a session with the father. He had exactly the same kind of complaints that his wife had registered, which would have been amusing, if it had not been such a serious situation! I mean, here they were claiming they could not get along and did not see eye to eye even on a single topic; yet, they were totally in agreement in their view of each other! They were not even willing to work on the relationship, and though they had taken no legal steps as yet, both of them were sure that it will not be long before they do the rounds of the lawyers, family courts and mediation counselling.
In all this, i think they did not even pause to think what damage they were doing to the child. As an example of the trauma that the child was going through, he told me, when i was talking to him, that he hates it when someone talks loudly to him, he hates noises, for his home was full of noise: his parents were always quarrelling, hurling abuses and accusations at each other. I could imagine this child sitting in the middle of the room, with the parents throwing barbs at each other, and this child ducking every time!
There was no big resolution to this case; at least the first session was largely history taking. But the session left me feeling drained; and with so many unanswered questions. Like, why do couples decide to sustain a relationship they know would never last a lifetime? Why do they get into a relationship because it would require too much effort to ‘cancel a wedding’ as this particular mother stated? And the most vital question, why go ahead and decide to have a child and the additional and awesome responsibility of being parents when you have not yet learnt to be partners?
I am not advocating easy dissolution of relationships; in fact i work with lawyers who try their utmost to help the couples who approach them for the first hearing, to try and help them make the relationship work, not because of social pressure, but because the cause for the conflict may be something that can be worked on. But what i mean is, when you are so sure that the partnership is doomed right from day one, is there any sense in putting another human being through the trauma?
Mohana Narayanan
Monday, October 19, 2009
LAW FOR LOVE
A recent bill in the parliament spoke about a law where it was mandatory for children to take care of their aged parents. No doubt, a very commendable step by the government to make sure the senior citizens do not spend their twilight years at the mercy of their children. However, how much can a law instill those feelings of love and care in the children towards their parents, I wonder. Of course, it might force them to make sure that the senior citizens do not lack the bottom-most rung of the Need Pyramid of Maslow.
A son climbing up the corporate ladder may make sure that his parents have a roof over their heads, and two square meals a day. The higher-up corporates might even set them up in a separate apartment, so that ‘their lifestyles do not rub into each other”. They might make sure they have a daily maid so that the women-folk are done with the drudgery of the kitchen. So you have both of them, in an empty apartment, with all the amenities no doubt, but just sitting and staring at each other the whole day. If they are TV addicts, then to a certain extent their boredom is taken care of !
Can the government make a law however, where it is compulsory for the son and his wife to spend some time with these aged souls?
Can the government make sure the grandchildren are not on hello and bye terms with these grandparents, who are just kissed on the grandparents’ day, once a year?
Can the government make a law wherein it is mandatory for the family to have at least one meal together everyday where the meal is not so important, as the togetherness?
Can the government also make a law, wherein the extended family, and not only the progeny, are compulsorily made to provide succor for their parents? I think what is lacking today, more than the physical needs, are the emotional needs. This cannot be always filled in by just the sons and the daughters. Lifestyle has changed today. Senior citizens have reached this age, after living in a joint family, or at least having strong family ties. That is what they need. Today’s nuclear families and values leave them shaken. What is popularly known today as ‘extended’ families, need to contribute to provide emotional support to the senior generation. Not just the son, the daughter-in-law and the grandchildren. Of course, the moral responsibility is theirs, but can the others in the family be a little more affectionate towards them? And not wait till the person passes away and then show their ‘affection’ ?
I know of this senior gentleman, who was very independent by nature and by a stroke of luck, had to spend his last years in his son’s house, something that he never wanted to. So the son took up another flat in the same apartment, and provided him whatever spartan needs the gentleman had. He was very happy, and the family would have their meals together; the daughter-in-law would insist on that. He had become a recluse and none in the family understood his pain – his pain of one of his son leaving him, his brother not willing to have him even as a visitor for a few days, and in the end, his failing health, a last blow. Depression had set in, but the younger generation was too busy to recognize the signs. Nobody from the extended family visited him, as he had become just a part of their past, though they claimed they had tremendous respect and admiration for him! His withdrawal was put to aging; the daughter-in-law’s pleas to the family, to try and convince him to get medical check-ups done, to have him over for a change, proved futile. He won’t listen, they would say. And they could do nothing further.
The son and his wife watched helplessly as he slowly sunk into oblivion. They managed to save him from going blind just in the nick of time, after the daughter-in-law literally dragged him to the doctor.
After he finally decided to give up living , the recriminations came – and they came hard and fast. Judgments on how the son had failed the father, etc. etc. Are senior citizens only your father and mother? The other elders in the family, whom you claim you respect and admire, do not merit your time and attention? More so, when, as an extended family, you claim that you were very fond of this person. Not that it ever showed. They would fly in and out of the city, never once visiting this man. And when they did, it was too late. They could see the shell that was left of this man. Maybe it was this guilt, that they were not around sooner, that made them throw back brickbats at the son about the way the father was handled.
In such a situation, how does one expect a law to instill care and concern in children’s hearts? Senior citizens are the roots one survives on; and they are not only your parents, but also all the others who have made you what you are today. No government decree can make one understand this fact; this has to be felt from within. How many of us are willing to face truth?
A son climbing up the corporate ladder may make sure that his parents have a roof over their heads, and two square meals a day. The higher-up corporates might even set them up in a separate apartment, so that ‘their lifestyles do not rub into each other”. They might make sure they have a daily maid so that the women-folk are done with the drudgery of the kitchen. So you have both of them, in an empty apartment, with all the amenities no doubt, but just sitting and staring at each other the whole day. If they are TV addicts, then to a certain extent their boredom is taken care of !
Can the government make a law however, where it is compulsory for the son and his wife to spend some time with these aged souls?
Can the government make sure the grandchildren are not on hello and bye terms with these grandparents, who are just kissed on the grandparents’ day, once a year?
Can the government make a law wherein it is mandatory for the family to have at least one meal together everyday where the meal is not so important, as the togetherness?
Can the government also make a law, wherein the extended family, and not only the progeny, are compulsorily made to provide succor for their parents? I think what is lacking today, more than the physical needs, are the emotional needs. This cannot be always filled in by just the sons and the daughters. Lifestyle has changed today. Senior citizens have reached this age, after living in a joint family, or at least having strong family ties. That is what they need. Today’s nuclear families and values leave them shaken. What is popularly known today as ‘extended’ families, need to contribute to provide emotional support to the senior generation. Not just the son, the daughter-in-law and the grandchildren. Of course, the moral responsibility is theirs, but can the others in the family be a little more affectionate towards them? And not wait till the person passes away and then show their ‘affection’ ?
I know of this senior gentleman, who was very independent by nature and by a stroke of luck, had to spend his last years in his son’s house, something that he never wanted to. So the son took up another flat in the same apartment, and provided him whatever spartan needs the gentleman had. He was very happy, and the family would have their meals together; the daughter-in-law would insist on that. He had become a recluse and none in the family understood his pain – his pain of one of his son leaving him, his brother not willing to have him even as a visitor for a few days, and in the end, his failing health, a last blow. Depression had set in, but the younger generation was too busy to recognize the signs. Nobody from the extended family visited him, as he had become just a part of their past, though they claimed they had tremendous respect and admiration for him! His withdrawal was put to aging; the daughter-in-law’s pleas to the family, to try and convince him to get medical check-ups done, to have him over for a change, proved futile. He won’t listen, they would say. And they could do nothing further.
The son and his wife watched helplessly as he slowly sunk into oblivion. They managed to save him from going blind just in the nick of time, after the daughter-in-law literally dragged him to the doctor.
After he finally decided to give up living , the recriminations came – and they came hard and fast. Judgments on how the son had failed the father, etc. etc. Are senior citizens only your father and mother? The other elders in the family, whom you claim you respect and admire, do not merit your time and attention? More so, when, as an extended family, you claim that you were very fond of this person. Not that it ever showed. They would fly in and out of the city, never once visiting this man. And when they did, it was too late. They could see the shell that was left of this man. Maybe it was this guilt, that they were not around sooner, that made them throw back brickbats at the son about the way the father was handled.
In such a situation, how does one expect a law to instill care and concern in children’s hearts? Senior citizens are the roots one survives on; and they are not only your parents, but also all the others who have made you what you are today. No government decree can make one understand this fact; this has to be felt from within. How many of us are willing to face truth?
Survivors' tool kit
You have agencies with a 24-hour hotline number, which you can call when you feel suicidal. They talk to you and bring you out of your desperation, and then maybe take you on for further counselling. No layman is qualified to know whether the person sitting next to him is feeling suicidal or not, and the same applies to a member of his or her family. The person who takes his life is does so in momentary madness; and if courage accompanies the momentary madness, the suicide attempt is successful (other things being conducive). He is no longer in a position to think in a sane manner, either about the repercussions the others would face, or the way the family would handle the issue. So he cannot be blamed, unless it is for lack of courage to live. But once he is away and gone, and then the blame game starts.
The immediate family starts questioning – why ? where did we go wrong ?
The extended family dons the mantle of a moral judge – You are to blame. The closer you are to the deceased, the better the chances that you are made responsible for the act.
What prompts them I wonder, to take this stance of passing judgments, without knowing what had happened? This gentleman decides to die, and his family is shell-shocked. They are running around, hoping that they would not have ugly scenes, and so avoid talking about it totally. The immediate family wanted him to at least have the dignity of his going not being ripped threadbare. He had decided to go, so he went. But the ones left behind decided to do a postmortem – of the man’s life, of his relationships, and of his motives. So they decided to make him the subject of dinner table conversations, and family meetings were arranged to discuss the issue threadbare — discuss without having any facts on hand. They decided that because they were not included into the dastardly secret of his death, they were ‘terribly hurt’. And so they decided that they would no longer be available as a family to the trauma-ridden son.
Their hurt of being kept out of the secret was apparently more than that the utter horror and trauma of the daughter-in-law, who was the sole witness to the act. They decided that they did not want to have anything to do with this family, where the father goes ahead and ends his life, without a thought about what would follow. They did not want to think that they could have, in any way contributed to the depression that may have set off this man to do what he did. When he had, in one of his weaker moments confessed to his son, how disappointed he was in the extended family – in his brother who refused to have him at his place for a couple of weeks; in his nephews who had become so busy in their lives they had no time for an old man like him; in his elder son, who had, without so much a thought, left him to fend for himself; the son never thought of passing the buck and letting them stew in the regret and in the aftermath of having failed to meet expectations of an aging man, whom they had respected – or so they claimed. The son only defended them saying they all had their own problems and their own lives. His failing health had been the last straw on the camel’s back; and he chose to go.
To come to the beginning of this piece, are there agencies that counsel families that indulge in this blame game, families that believe that the immediate family is guilty and responsible for the act, and to tell the extended families, how wrong they are when they feel that they have to don the mantle of a judge ?
I wonder how the moral judges would have reacted, if they only knew how much they too were responsible? They proclaimed that they were ‘very hurt because they were not let in on the details of the death, and held both the sons responsible for their father’s death.’ They also did not ‘want any explanations’. How presumptious to think that they would get one! I read somewhere, that there are no real targets in an emotional attack; it is usually a way for the attacker to redirect their uncomfortable feelings away from themselves. So, after a lot of self-talk and self-counselling, the son and his wife decided not to take this attack personally, and to be large-hearted enough to give the accusers the comfort that they had had an opportunity to shift their blame and ease their conscience…..
The immediate family starts questioning – why ? where did we go wrong ?
The extended family dons the mantle of a moral judge – You are to blame. The closer you are to the deceased, the better the chances that you are made responsible for the act.
What prompts them I wonder, to take this stance of passing judgments, without knowing what had happened? This gentleman decides to die, and his family is shell-shocked. They are running around, hoping that they would not have ugly scenes, and so avoid talking about it totally. The immediate family wanted him to at least have the dignity of his going not being ripped threadbare. He had decided to go, so he went. But the ones left behind decided to do a postmortem – of the man’s life, of his relationships, and of his motives. So they decided to make him the subject of dinner table conversations, and family meetings were arranged to discuss the issue threadbare — discuss without having any facts on hand. They decided that because they were not included into the dastardly secret of his death, they were ‘terribly hurt’. And so they decided that they would no longer be available as a family to the trauma-ridden son.
Their hurt of being kept out of the secret was apparently more than that the utter horror and trauma of the daughter-in-law, who was the sole witness to the act. They decided that they did not want to have anything to do with this family, where the father goes ahead and ends his life, without a thought about what would follow. They did not want to think that they could have, in any way contributed to the depression that may have set off this man to do what he did. When he had, in one of his weaker moments confessed to his son, how disappointed he was in the extended family – in his brother who refused to have him at his place for a couple of weeks; in his nephews who had become so busy in their lives they had no time for an old man like him; in his elder son, who had, without so much a thought, left him to fend for himself; the son never thought of passing the buck and letting them stew in the regret and in the aftermath of having failed to meet expectations of an aging man, whom they had respected – or so they claimed. The son only defended them saying they all had their own problems and their own lives. His failing health had been the last straw on the camel’s back; and he chose to go.
To come to the beginning of this piece, are there agencies that counsel families that indulge in this blame game, families that believe that the immediate family is guilty and responsible for the act, and to tell the extended families, how wrong they are when they feel that they have to don the mantle of a judge ?
I wonder how the moral judges would have reacted, if they only knew how much they too were responsible? They proclaimed that they were ‘very hurt because they were not let in on the details of the death, and held both the sons responsible for their father’s death.’ They also did not ‘want any explanations’. How presumptious to think that they would get one! I read somewhere, that there are no real targets in an emotional attack; it is usually a way for the attacker to redirect their uncomfortable feelings away from themselves. So, after a lot of self-talk and self-counselling, the son and his wife decided not to take this attack personally, and to be large-hearted enough to give the accusers the comfort that they had had an opportunity to shift their blame and ease their conscience…..
THE LACK OF SUPPORT SERVICES
I recently read a book, in which the author writes about supporting the dying. The ones who are transgressing to the other world are losing a whole world together; their life, their job, their loved ones, their very existence… so, they need all the support they can get. What a profound statement, and how revealing. Here, we are not able to cope with a simple, single, materialistic loss. More important, others do not know how to cope with your loss! Of course the platitudes come in, comforting words are rendered at the right moment, in the right tone, but that is just about it. Afterwards, when the person really is down and out, no one is around to hold a hand. After all, how long can one cope with another’s loss right?
Wrong. A cousin of mine lost his job a few months back. It was unexpected, sudden and mind-boggling. They did not know what hit them, and both he and his wife went on auto-pilot. They accepted phone-calls, assurances which came in during the first few days of the blow, when they did not even know what was happening. When the fact finally hit them, and they were coming to terms with it, and learnt to live with it, they found they had other crosses to bear. They had people falling out of their lives. They all trickled away, one by one, maybe not knowing what to talk to the “losers”. Maybe they felt uncomfortable, calling up talking about inconsequential things, when they could not offer any solution to the major problem this couple had on hand.
But I ask, is it really necessary to call only if you have a job to offer this person? Couldn’t one just call and find out how they were doing? After all, day in and day out, they were immersed only in this problem; they would have welcomed a diversion. Lest you think otherwise, they are not the whining kind: they have been coping with the issue on their own, never asked for favours, never borrowed money (which all might be reasons for people hesitating to call!) But yes, they have missed people; people who they thought would be around to just offer moral support. Just a phone call once in a while would have definitely helped the other to know he or she is still wanted, is still cared for and loved, irrespective of the fact that he does not hold a lucrative job, or a visiting card.
There is another angle to the issue. You also have another set of people, the close, family people, who get the impression that he is whiling away his time, just because he listens to music, or gets ‘side-tracked’ by other issues (which keeps him sane in moments of desperation). Why does he not apply for jobs, instead of….they query. How intensely comforting! They safely conclude that he is not trying hard enough! Or… How come he has not got a job till now? They wonder... Well, jobs are not exactly the Indian population you know, they don’t multiply like rabbits. To such people yes, they would be grateful if they don’t call and enquire; for they do more harm than good!
Offer support when it is needed and the way it is needed: sometime, simply by being there is enough. Let us not do the disappearing act, just because we cannot give the person what he has lost; sometimes, they are not even looking for that; they are simply looking for comfort, assurance, that it is not the end of the world. And if our presence can give one this feeling, is it too much to ask?
Wrong. A cousin of mine lost his job a few months back. It was unexpected, sudden and mind-boggling. They did not know what hit them, and both he and his wife went on auto-pilot. They accepted phone-calls, assurances which came in during the first few days of the blow, when they did not even know what was happening. When the fact finally hit them, and they were coming to terms with it, and learnt to live with it, they found they had other crosses to bear. They had people falling out of their lives. They all trickled away, one by one, maybe not knowing what to talk to the “losers”. Maybe they felt uncomfortable, calling up talking about inconsequential things, when they could not offer any solution to the major problem this couple had on hand.
But I ask, is it really necessary to call only if you have a job to offer this person? Couldn’t one just call and find out how they were doing? After all, day in and day out, they were immersed only in this problem; they would have welcomed a diversion. Lest you think otherwise, they are not the whining kind: they have been coping with the issue on their own, never asked for favours, never borrowed money (which all might be reasons for people hesitating to call!) But yes, they have missed people; people who they thought would be around to just offer moral support. Just a phone call once in a while would have definitely helped the other to know he or she is still wanted, is still cared for and loved, irrespective of the fact that he does not hold a lucrative job, or a visiting card.
There is another angle to the issue. You also have another set of people, the close, family people, who get the impression that he is whiling away his time, just because he listens to music, or gets ‘side-tracked’ by other issues (which keeps him sane in moments of desperation). Why does he not apply for jobs, instead of….they query. How intensely comforting! They safely conclude that he is not trying hard enough! Or… How come he has not got a job till now? They wonder... Well, jobs are not exactly the Indian population you know, they don’t multiply like rabbits. To such people yes, they would be grateful if they don’t call and enquire; for they do more harm than good!
Offer support when it is needed and the way it is needed: sometime, simply by being there is enough. Let us not do the disappearing act, just because we cannot give the person what he has lost; sometimes, they are not even looking for that; they are simply looking for comfort, assurance, that it is not the end of the world. And if our presence can give one this feeling, is it too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)