|
Dynamic
Living™ |
|
|||||||
|
In this month's issue: We take a look at how to maximize your growth along every dimension of your self-potential. To explore it, I have (as far as I can find out) coined the terms: 'prorexia' and 'prorectic'. I want to make it clear that these terms' connection with anorexia and other so-called eating disorders is in no way a trivialization of the seriousness of those behaviors. Rather, it is a way to extend that serious awareness into other potentially life-threatening but often overlooked self-diminishing behaviors. Please forward 'Dynamic Living™' to your friends if you find it useful.
The Resident Quotation is repeated with each issue. It is chosen for its directness and clarity, and for its ability to combine thought and a basis for action in a way that is both reassuring and empowering. The current Resident, from the innovative, courageous and dynamic dancer and choreographer Martha Graham, exemplifies the essence and context of living dynamically: "There is a vitality, a life force, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and be lost. The world will not have it. "It is not your
business to determine how good it is, nor how valuable it is, nor
how it compares with other expressions. It is your business to keep
it yours clearly and directly, to keep the channel open. You do
not even have to believe in yourself or your work. You have to keep
yourself open and aware directly to the urges that motivate you.
Keep the channel open."
How to turn your frustration into harmonious co-existence I'm standing with the suction hose in my hand, tapping the vacuum cleaner on/off button with my foot . . . over and over again. Nothing happens. No sound. No suck. Then I grow angry - I didn't want to do this stupid job anyway - and I start stamping on the button. I wouldn't really mind if I broke the thing because then I wouldn't have to finish the cleaning and it would be 'its' fault. And then light dawns. When I'd changed sockets from one room to the next, I'd forgotten to switch on the power. (This'll sound odd to readers in those countries where wall sockets are perpetually on, but I'm sure you're smart enough to get the idea.) And then another realization dawns, this time rather painfully: I do the same thing with my wife. Instead of setting the expectations and checking assumptions when something goes wrong - turning the switch on - I sometimes launch straight into a frenzy of accusation and blame. I can't say I'm exactly proud of this. However, I do know that it is a common dynamic in human relations - particularly when under stress - so I'm not going to castigate myself too harshly for it. After all, how many times have you 'blamed' someone for losing something, only to find it's where you left it yourself? This is a common occurrence, both at work and at home. What's involved in turning on the switch? The key to turning on the switch is to express the feeling underlying the blaming condemnation. So, in the workplace, instead of demanding: "Where did you hide that blankity-blank report?", you might say, or even scream if you wish: "I'm in a panic and I can't find that report, have you put it somewhere?" Then, your colleague would be conscious of your agitation and, while not enjoying it, might be less hurt by it than by an accusation that they had lost the report. Perhaps at the root of this dynamic is the desirability of taking personal responsibility for everything in our lives. Then, as a trigger to turn the switch on, we simply need remind ourselves: "I am responsible for every facet of my life." Our resulting behavior is likely to be much more honoring of the other. It also reminds us that responsibility works both ways. A person being unfairly blamed doesn't have to respond from hurt with a blast of righteous indignation. They can also turn on the switch by saying: "It's not like you to be so upset," [even if it is!] adding with concern: "Is something wrong?". And harmony will quickly return . . .
Become prorectic: let all your appetites bear fruit I looked at the classic cashmere overcoat displayed in the expensive boutique and thought: "That's beautiful," before turning away with a sigh and a deep feeling of: "but it's not for me." Without dreaming, or planning, or calculating; without even acknowledging the true depth of my desire, I had denied myself the pleasure of owning and wearing that handsome garment. For that moment, I was manifesting coat-anorexia. What anorexias do you exhibit? Which self-denials, unnoticed and therefore unquestioned, actually define and dominate the shape and content of your life? I hope this article will help you find out in such a way that you may feel tempted to do something about them. A broad interpretation of anorexia The word 'anorexia' literally means "without appetite" or "without reaching out" so its application to food and the so-called eating disorder 'anorexia nervosa' is really a rather narrow usage. There are plenty of examples of non-food-related anorexia in all parts of society. Many of them are so embedded in and concealed by societal norms that the first challenge is to notice them at all. Once identified, the ultimate challenge is to do something about them. As we shall see, they are behaviors which apparently provide sufficient psychological comfort to justify the risk inherent in maintaining them. Consequently, the overall appeal of setting them aside is severely reduced by the potentially painful effort involved. Non-food examples can also be found of the other 'eating disorders', bulimia and compulsive overeating. We will look at these later. For the sake of simplicity, let's start by looking at the anorectic stereotype: You do her feelings for her - and you Food-related anorexia is a highly provocative condition. The sight of a severely underweight young woman teetering down the haute couture catwalk leaves hardly anyone unmoved. Yet the feelings it elicits vary enormously depending on the psychology - and the gender - of the observer. Even though we may be aware that that skinny human up there is slowly but surely killing herself, we do not rush to save her as we would if she were having a heart attack or some other life-threatening illness. Curiously, while some may feel compassion, the more common reactions are likely to be anger or even contempt. "She should be ashamed of herself!" is a cry of many onlookers. And not just from chronic diehards, either. There are plenty of mental health professionals who find their irritation with anorectic clients is so great they cannot work with them. So what's going on here? I suggest that the onlooker's own inner anorectic drive is being triggered by the model. This drive is too painful to acknowledge, so the onlooker has to reject it without becoming conscious of it. This can only be done by displacing his or her own feelings onto the model and then rejecting the model. The same displaced type of response can be seen when we condemn beggars (dominated by home-anorexia), drug addicts (dominated by reality-anorexia) and billionaires (dominated by pain-anorexia, of which more later). The intense self-rejection so visible on the catwalk communicates itself to us and resonates with that part of ourselves which is also self-rejecting. Our response to the model therefore tells us quite a lot about ourselves. Including the fact that each of us, in part and in our own way, is a closet anorectic. It's not about food The understanding that anorexia nervosa is not an eating disorder is pretty universal among those with it and those who work with them. It is actually a behavioral response to a complex and largely unconscious emotional tangle. Therefore, if we have to call it a disorder at all, it is an emotional disorder which makes itself manifest through the rejection of an appetite for food. If we turn that into a generic, not food-specific, definition, we get something like this:
At the root of any form of anorectic behavior is a deep, even cellular-level, conviction that one is worthless. This is taken to the point of being ashamed of consuming resources which would supposedly be better used by others. A very common example of this occurs with socially-conscious, self-impoverishing, naturally gifted people who are often heard to say: "I didn't work for this talent, so I don't really deserve to be paid for it." I have given the term 'Prorexia' to the complement of this condition, giving the following definition:
The adjective from 'prorexia' is 'prorectic'. Our goal is to move from an anorectic to a prorectic way of being. This means we must first identify our anorexias. What should you be? We can identify the different forms of anorexia which beset us through observation. We can then use that information as a guide to unearth and unravel our anorectic emotional knot(s), thus moving into a prorectic state. Our self-assessment begins by creating a meaningful standard against which to measure ourselves. This is relatively easy for food-anorexia: a doctor can look at a chart and say: "You should be 120 lbs. You are only 70 lbs. Therefore there is something seriously wrong." She or he will then do some more exploring as part of a diagnosis, much of which will center on how much food the patient 'should' eat to be healthy. There are many more categories for assessment, some of which are listed later on. In order to use them, however, it is necessary to have some sort of standard of measurement corresponding to the doctor's diagnostic criteria. Quite a useful rule of thumb is simply to ask yourself whether your appetite for these things is commensurate with your potential to digest them. For example, if you have an IQ of 130 your potential for digesting challenging reading matter is high. So how come your appetite is restricted to the comics page in the Sunday paper? It's like putting diesel sludge into a racing car's fuel tank: it destroys its performance and hastens the already inevitable degradation of the engine. In other words, it fits our generic definition of anorexia exactly. Now let's see how we might assess our behaviors in the light of the other 'eating disorders.' You can be bulimic, too One way in which we hide our anorexia is by being bulimic. Food-bulimia is the cycle of emotional management that entails eating and then vomiting up one's food. Translated literally, 'bulimia' means "appetite of a bull" and refers to the fact that the behavior can lead to taking in huge quantities of food but without gaining weight. Its practitioners do, of course, end up malnourished because essential nutrients don't stay in the system long enough to be beneficial. However, the huge consumption of food can be very deceptive, hiding the underlying distress. This is even more so for non-food bulimias. For example, I am a moderate financial bulimic. I always seem to make enough money to live on but not enough to save and build wealth. Or, rather, I don't allow my otherwise adequate income to build wealth. I tend to expend it and my revenue-creation potential on supporting myself and others in our growth-oriented endeavors. This combination of self-sacrifice and apparent generosity is classically typical of the eating-disordered community, many of whom have a highly developed social consciousness. My money-bulimia also makes many of my acquaintances really angry with me, saying: "You should be doing a lot better than that!" There is thus an obvious parallel with those who are angered by the runway model. To the onlooker, I might appear to be in good financial health, or even successful. It's only when the Money Doctor checks my net worth that my bulimic behavior is exposed. (I'm working on it. I promise.) Another form of bulimia is sexual. Promiscuity is a classic response to being unable to absorb the nutrients deliverable only through true intimacy. What about over-eating then? On the face of it, the excessive intake of anything looks like an over- rather than an under-appetite. However, I think that compulsive over-eating demonstrates a lack of appetite for pain. I'm not talking here about masochistic behaviors, but about the unpleasurable stress we feel when in contact with reality. This is especially so if we are stretching ourselves to attain something that forces us out of our comfort zone. In reality, however, everything has pain potential. It is the obese - the fat cats - who attempt to shelter from some aspect of reality by insulating themselves with layers of food or money or intellectualization. We can even cloak ourselves in emotional wounds. It can be far easier to go round wrapped in wounds than to do the work necessary to heal them. Such healing is painful in itself and costs us the rewards of victimhood, which include great dollops of sympathy. Pleasure and Pain: The Scylla and Charybdis of existence As the Australian band, the Divinyls, sings: "there's a fine line between pleasure and pain". That line is life itself. It's as if each of us is an orange pip being squeezed between the index finger of pleasure and the thumb of pain, or unpleasure. The forces drive us forward, and if they are evenly balanced we develop and 'live' in a consistent direction. If one is stronger than the other, we get forced to one side or the other. The force with which we do life, if that's the right phrase, depends on the pressure being applied. Sometimes, the pain will be as small as not liking the view out of the window. Other times it is the deepest grief of mourning. We must reach out for - develop an appetite for - the fullest range of both pain and pleasure in order to live the fullest life. Which leaves us with the ABC of life-appetite disorders:
Societal confusion Once we start to think about our behaviors this way, social convention adds to our confusion. For example, I had to invent a new word - 'prorexia' - to give focus to this article. Inventing new words is fun but it's not really good writing practice. The fact that I felt compelled to create one does highlight the way in which morality is embedded in cultural mechanisms. If 'society' thought the condition desirable, we would have a non-judgmental word to describe the state in which we healthily embrace our natural and appropriate appetites. A number of double standards surround different appetites, and this is nowhere more obvious than with regard to the notion of a healthy material appetite. At least in the West, it is not generally recognized that compulsive wealth-gain (unless it's gained illegally) can be every bit as disordered as compulsive weight-gain. Yet given that anyone can live extremely comfortably on, say $250,000 a year, what is the root of an individual's need for $1 million a week? We must assume that compulsive over-earners are dominated by the same deeply held belief in their own worthlessness as are compulsive over- and under-eaters. Interestingly, society at large doesn't feel much compassion for this 'rich' group, either. Maybe it's not just coincidence that the over-moneyed and the under-bodied are often to be seen at the same social gatherings; nor that these gatherings are often bulimic displays of excessive nutrient investment (money, creativity, passion, canapes) for minimal nutritional return (a pretty dress, a photograph in a magazine). Conflictingly, society not only honors the wealth-obese, but simultaneously encourages us to hold an anorectic belief in our own second-bestness. From our youth we are brought up to believe it is good to deny ourselves, to put others first, to offer the best cake to the guest. Go tell that to a hyena or a redwood tree and see what kind of look you get in return. Religions, too, perpetuate the anorectic path. Many of the saints were ascetic in demeanor, embracing of pain and dying in lengthy agony. Celibacy, silence and material dispossession are the hallmarks of religious communities of all kinds. There's only the occasional libidinous Saint Augustine to balance that picture, though the tubby friar is too popular a figure in literature for there not to be some truth in the depiction. There is thus a societal force of one kind or another to support both the fat and the lean in terms of material wealth. The same applies to many other kinds of potentially anorectic behavior. Let your right to freedom guide you Societal approval of any form of 'eating' disorder is not a reasonable indicator of its desirability in the context of a full life. In order to cut through society's confusion, it is necessary to turn to a more potent judge: our true selves. Here's how I understand the situation:
By taking prorectic action you will deliver into the universe the full benefit to be derived from your unique energy. Any loss or reduction of your unique contribution is the true cost of any form of anorexia and is greater than any of us can afford. Where do you lack appetite? So, with that as the setting, it's time to review some of the possible areas where you may be exhibiting anorectic behavior. I suppose the list could cover every aspect of existence, but here are some headings to get you started. They might well trigger your awareness of some of your own. Given the tendency we all have to being self-condemning, I would stress that these are designed to promote self-examination, not self-punishment. I certainly fall short of many of them. It's worth remembering that each moment is a new starting point and none of us has the means to do everything at once. Here's the list: Physical anorexia might show itself through behaviors relating to:
Intellectual anorexia might show itself through behaviors relating to:
Emotional anorexia might show itself through behaviors relating to:
Spiritual anorexia might show itself through behaviors relating to:
With some sense of where you are self-restricting, it's now time to see how to to move into a state of prorexia. How can you be free? The average person with food-related anorexia undergoes two forms of therapy. One is behavioral, so as to regain a healthy bodyweight and learn to eat again. The other is psychological or psychospiritual, so that the root emotional/soulful distress can be dissipated. The overall success of the combined approach is dependent on the psychological distress being ameliorated, or regression occurs. (Interestingly, there is today a growing tendency for eating disorders to recur in midlife, presumably because the psychological issues that gave rise to them in adolescence were not fully addressed. This is further proof that the disorder is not about food.) The twin-therapy response is demanding of resources, both in terms of the supporting therapists and of the client's time and money. It is also not a lot of fun and can include periods of great unpleasure. The same considerations apply to all other anorexias, which is why we tend to ignore them as long as possible. Another reason we avoid expanding our appetites is because we fear the consequential risks associated with being properly 'fed'. Reconstitution brings risk For example, if we have an IQ of 120 and intellectual anorexia, we may not have opened a serious book in 20 years. It might seem as if the investment in recovery was minimal: $25.00 and three hours reading energy - four if the book is by a 'good' writer. However, our organism is also aware on some level that opening that book is the thin end of the wedge. Once we've read that one we'll have our appetite whetted for another, and then another, until we need to build a bookshelf to hold them all. Next, our convictions start to develop and this leads to differences with our old non-intellectual couch-potato friends. It becomes less tolerable to spend an evening listening to Fred's immature views on politics or Emma's bitter condemnation of all men. The impact of our 'new' self spreads. Suddenly, we're on the wrong side of the boss at work and - before we've said: "What Color Is Your Parachute?" - we're out looking for a new job. More riskily, we now find we want more than before, not just a job but an occupation with true meaning to it. In the midst of writing our 400th job application we might well say: "I wish I'd never picked up that darned book in the first place." Time goes by. Belts get taken in another notch. But we're gloomily committed to self-development and audit a course or two at the local college. And then? The company which fired us is acquired by Friendly Monster Corp. FMC hires us at a consultant's massive day rate to go in and manage the human partnership side of the transition. Thank goodness for that book! More money and more fulfilled, too! The self-protective developmental cycle will continue in this way until we die. Lots of discomfort balancing lots of joyful growth. You may read this and think: "There's no way I'm going to get into all that". You may be right, but watch out: this stuff has a sneaky way of creeping up on you. Once you start thinking, you may already be on a path of change . . . . Follow this method Assuming that you do want to do something about your anorexia(s), here's how to proceed:
There isn't time here to go into each of these four steps. Discovering what form(s) your 'appetite disorder' takes is probably the most important step, so I offer this sequence as a starting point:
Remind yourself: all anorexias are life-reducing, life-inhibiting, soul-destroying. And you deserve better than that. The Ultimate Kindness The ultimate kindness to yourself is to grant yourself the gift of courageous vision to review your appetites, both diminished and excessive. Then, support that courage with the resources to make the necessary changes, alone or with a committed ally. When choosing that ally, I urge you to move with care or you may find yourself subtly sidetracked by their agenda. This is particularly likely if the ally is also your spouse. The influence is not intentional but it's bound to be there. It's really only a third-party coach, counselor or psychotherapist who can be expected to be reasonably objective, and even then you should spend some considerable time researching the best one for you. Here's why:
So, tread with care but tread: you will move yourself into a state of greater freedom and growth. Good luck to you. Good growth to you. You are entitled to every cubic millimeter of the space the universe made for you. § Oh, and if that overcoat is still on display in the Atrium Mall, Newton, MA, please tell the shop to hold it: I'm on my way . . . cjc
"Integrity
is the unwillingness to violate one's own identity." -
Erich Fromm, psychiatrist and author.
It's
now possible to take a look through the back issues of Dynamic Living.
Just visit: http://www.santafecoach.com/dl/dlintro.htm.
Copyright ©2003 by Christopher J. Coulson. All rights reserved. Contact Christopher at: 4, Eaton Manor, The Drive, Hove, East Sussex BN3 3PT, UK Telephone: 01273 749636; or toll-free from the USA:1-866-761-1392. Christopher
J. Coulson |
|||||||
