I am sometimes puzzled by the question: how does a person ever see past their mental projections, to know things as they really are? The question is tricky, because perhaps all a person can ever see are illusions and mental projections of what is liked or disliked. James Hollis, in his book The Eden Project: In Search of the Magical Other, maintains that many people in relationships project their illusory image of ideal mother or father onto significant others, not realizing that what they are seeing is just their own desire for a longed-for parental figure. This explains why, at least according to psychoanalysis, people sometimes marry a person similar to a parental figure in their life. But it also sheds light on why people feel disappointed or disenchanted with their partner, as they begin to realize that the person they married isn't matching with their original thought of that person. Writes Hollis: "All relationships..begin in projection." (p.36). But Hollis goes on to suggest that people can start to become more conscious of others as they are, once they start to give to themselves what they are looking for others to give to them. Hence, he writes: "It takes great courage to ask this fundamental question: 'What am I asking of this Other that I ought to be doing for myself?' (p.57)
As I am reading Hollis' book, I begin to ask the question, what would truly motivate a person to take on the task of doing onto oneself what one expects of others? And, if it is unreasonable to demand others to be my benevolent, all-knowing parents, would it not also be unreasonable to demand it from 'myself'? Hollis operates from a kind of complementary notion of 'do unto yourself what you expect from others.' This may seem okay and making sense, but is it compassionate? I think that a more germane approach might be to challenge the content and nature of the projection itself, rather than trying to internalize the demands of the projected material. In other words, rather than demanding that I 'parent' myself in a perfect way that I would expect from an ideal parental figure, perhaps it is more useful to challenge the very notion of 'ideal' parent, or ideal provider. It might even be valuable to deconstruct the notion of what a provider is expected to provide, rather than giving myself the task of being such a provider. Otherwise, the failure of self to provide for itself might end up being 're-projected' onto the world and others, out of the despair of trying to attempt the impossible. Again, here is where I begin to wonder whether 'individuation' gets enmeshed with an untenable notion of personal autonomy that might not bear out in real situations.
I think a more manageable motivation in one's friendships and relationships would be to consider being with another as an utter mystery that is always beginning and unfolding. I write almost incessantly about mystery and 'beginning' mind, but my point is to unpack the assumptions about both self and other, not just the other. Accepting my own and others' mystery is to know that there is something that is not reducible to an idea, an archetype or a form. I don't even think that a person can presume to know how or why one evolves as one does. This relativism gives me some latitude to stop taking on what is not humanly reasonable to take on, as well as to relax the requirement that I fulfill emotional demands that date back to early childhood that relate to an 'essential' Self. But having a beginner's approach also adds a freshness and vitality to each moment that cannot be duplicated. It acknowledges that self and other are always co-created and constructed, in a shared mental/heart space that is always in flux. Does anyone have the answers? Not really, perhaps not even Jung himself. But it' the not knowing that makes relationships so fresh, so interesting, and so lively. Without the element of mystery, it is hard to see how any relationship, including friendships, could survive for very long without people typecasting each other.
I find peace of mind perhaps only when I can go beyond childhood conditioning. But trying to be one's own parent to one's child does prove to be a bit much. While Hollis' approach sounds pretty logical, I wonder how many people ever achieve 'individuation' by taking onto themselves all the things they expect from others? What would motivate anyone to perform such a torturous task of 'inverting' all the commandments or expectations one might have for others? Again, I think that one needs to be constantly on guard for untenable notions of care-giving, being mindful of what kinds of care are physically and emotionally within one's means, rather than transferring ideal care from others onto 'ideal self-care.
On the other hand, Hollis does a very good job of revealing the ways in which people create their own suffering, by projecting ideals onto the people around them, including loved ones. And he's a great writer with a wonderful taste for poetry. For this reason, I strongly recommend this book, even though I find the approach he takes toward personal responsibility and individuation to be a little problematic.
References
Hollis, James (1998), The Eden Project: In Search of the Magical Other. Toronto, ON: Inner City Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment