Tag Archives: control

Priset av att vara aktivt nyfiken på dig själv och den andre / The price of being actively curious about yourself and the other

(sv.)

“Viljan att ändra och styra sin partner är en vanlig konfliktkälla. Men den maktkampen leder sällan till utveckling för någon. Psykologen Tor Wennerberg förklarar varför lösningen i stället är att satsa på att bekräfta sig själv.”

Utveckla dig själv för relationens skull

I artikeln från Svenska Dagbladet berättar Tor Wennerberg om vad det är att ta ansvar för sina behov och visa det för den andre i stället för att driva maktkamp. Det kostar att vara intim, i vår sekulära tid vet de flesta om att vi en dag kommer att förlora den andre. Där med minskas en eventuell ångest inför döden. En konstruktiv väg blir omöjlig att bereda om kampen inte förs med ansvar och utifrån en själv.

“Det kostar att vara aktivt nyfiken på vad som finns i någon annans inre värld. Hjärnan väljer ofta minsta motståndets lag, det är energibesparande. Relationer kräver tid.”

(eng.)

“The desire to change and control one’s partner is a common source of conflict. But that power struggle rarely leads to development for anyone. Psychologist Tor Wennerberg explains why the solution is instead to invest in confirming himself.”

Develop yourself for the sake of the relationship

In the article from Svenska Dagbladet, Tor Wennerberg talks about what it is to take responsibility for ones needs and show it to the other instead of fighting a power struggle. It costs to be intimate, because in our secular time most people know that one day we will lose the other. This reduces any anxiety before death. But a constructive path becomes impossible to prepare if the struggle is not carried out with responsibility and on the basis of one’s self.

“It costs to be actively curious about what’s in someone else’s inner world. The brain often chooses the least resistance team, it’s energy-saving. Relationships require time.”

När relationer drivs av omsorg och dialog i stället för kontroll / When relationships are driven by care and dialogue instead of control  

En vanlig medveten eller omedveten reaktion ur osäkerhet gentemot sig själv och den andre är projicering och perfektionism. Här förklarar Mikulincer och Shaver sina tankar kring dessa med avslutning av ett citat av James Hollis. Vissa begrepp är här inte definierade men jag har ändå valt att posta det.

Secure people can perceive and treat others as “whole objects” rather than imaginary “part objects” who exist solely to satisfy their own needs. In this way, secure people are better equipped to form mature I-Thou relationships. 

Such relationships allow us to see that our relationship partners are more complicated and more valuable than our projections, which means we can expand and extend ourselves by engaging in authentic dialogue with them. Hollis provided a good description of the self-expansion that occurs in this kind of dialogical relationship:

“When relationship are not driven by need, but by caring for the other as other, then we are free to experience him or her. When we let go of our projections… we are free to love. When we are free to love, we are present to the mystery embodied by the other. Without such mystery we are prisoners of childhood, trapped in the trivial. Blake said he could see eternity in the gram of sand; so we lesser mortals may glimpse the eternal in and through our beloved. This other, paradoxically, is a sacred vehicle toward ourselves, not because we use the other to serve our own narcissistic ends, but because he or she serves our deepest end by remaining wholly other. (p64)”

(eng.)

One common conscious or unconscious reaction out of uncertainty towards oneself and the other is projection and perfectionism. Here Mikulincer and Shaver explain their thoughts on these with the conclusion of a quote by James Hollis. Some concepts are not defined here, but I have chosen to post it.

Secure people can perceive and treat others as “whole objects” rather than imaginary “part objects” who exist solely to satisfy their own needs. In this way, secure people are better equipped to form mature I-Thou relationships. 

Such relationships allow us to see that our relationship partners are more complicated and more valuable than our projections, which means we can expand and extend ourselves by engaging in authentic dialogue with them. Hollis provided a good description of the self-expansion that occurs in this kind of dialogical relationship:

“When relationship are not driven by need, but by caring for the other as other, then we are free to experience him or her. When we let go of our projections… we are free to love. When we are free to love, we are present to the mystery embodied by the other. Without such mystery we are prisoners of childhood, trapped in the trivial. Blake said he could see eternity in the gram of sand; so we lesser mortals may glimpse the eternal in and through our beloved. This other, paradoxically, is a sacred vehicle toward ourselves, not because we use the other to serve our own narcissistic ends, but because he or she serves our deepest end by remaining wholly other. (p64)”