Her/Us

Her Movie PosterThe movie Her is a love story for our times. People pass one another without interacting, fixated on their electronic companions. Theodore, who writes others’ love letters for a living, is especially disconnected after his marriage breaks up.

Into the void steps Samantha, the perfect partner. Except that she isn’t real. Or is she? Samantha’s an operating system endowed with artificial intelligence. She has a consciousness. But whose? Her own, as it evolves through “lived” experience? The programmers’? Theodore’s? Perhaps Samantha is solely a projection of Theodore’s desires, a fantasy for which reality is no match.

The parallels to psychotherapy are many. How real is the relationship between therapist and patient? The work is intimate, yet we remain hidden. Distance and closeness are carefully titrated. Fantasy and projections–key transference components–abound. The real/unreal paradox is fertile ground in therapy, as it is in Her.

Theodore, meanwhile, turns not to a therapist but to technology. Asked to describe his relationship with his mother in order to personalize his operating system, Theodore says it’s fine, except that everything’s about her. Samantha (or at least her voice) appears, “an intuitive entity that knows and understands” him and anticipates his every need–the ideal mother/lover. Who doesn’t wish for perfect mirroring as an antidote to early wounds when undertaking love–or therapy?

Initially Samantha is all about Theodore. With her help, he starts to feel better. As with the mutual influence of therapy, Samantha, too, grows and changes. All is well, though trouble rumbles in the background. The idealizing transference soon becomes eroticized. Disappointment inevitably follows the intrusion of reality into fantasy. In an echo of how clients are loathe to share their therapists–or children their mothers–Theodore is dismayed to learn that Samantha is not there for him alone; she’s the operating system for over 6,000 people. Like Theodore’s mother, Samantha increasingly develops her own interests. “I’m yours and I’m not yours,” she tells him. Worse, the pain Theodore’s fantasy is designed to defend against is recapitulated: Samantha leaves, just like his ex-wife.

Is it abandonment? Or a developmentally appropriate separation? Samantha may start as an extension of Theodore’s psyche, but, as with healthy infant-mother pairs, they end as two distinct individuals. (Perhaps it’s part of the design!) Coming to terms with disillusionment, Theodore can finally write his own love letter to his ex-wife. He retrieves his projections, fully feels and mourns, and thus moves on from loss. Perhaps Theodore is even ready to try the whole disappointing, glorious mess of human connection again. For only when we can tolerate that the other is not an extension of ourselves, but another full and complete separate person can we risk ourselves for love–for real.

*

This piece appeared originally in NCSPP’s “Impulse,” a publication for analytically oriented therapists in Northern California. What did you think of the movie? 

Goldfish

goldfish

 A client once remarked, in response to another of my misguided attempts to get her to change, “I’m like the goldfish in a bowl of dirty water. Why should I change when it’s the water itself that needs to be cleaned?”

I pondered her words during two excellent recent events: CIP’s “The Neuroscience and Psychology of Resilience,” and TPI’s Fall Symposium, “The Trauma of Everyday Life: Perspectives from Buddhism and Psychoanalysis.” Both helped me appreciate the paradox of the goldfish in the bowl. Can either ever be free of the influence of the other? A pure holding environment is an illusion whose perpetual pursuit leads to misery. Besides, the excreting goldfish always pollutes the water in which it swims. Where, if at all, should we direct our clean-up efforts? My mind leapt from sanitation to sanity to the hyper-sanitization that comes from too much Purell and its psychological equivalent, too much positive thinking. A little murk, like a little dirt, is not only unavoidable; it’s good for us. We suffer less when we relinquish our quest for a world without suffering.

During the Symposium’s lunch break, someone at my table said, “I like this so much better than positive psychology–embracing rather than de-emphasizing darkness in our work.”

A second woman added, “But people shouldn’t brood too long, they need to move forward.”

She went on to tell us about two friends, both highly educated and well-established in their careers and lives until they were wiped out by the recession. Both had lost jobs, all their savings, their homes. One friend accepted what had happened with apparent equanimity, grateful for the $10/hour job he had just found. The other, unwilling (or unable?) to accept a drastically lower income, couldn’t find a job. Our tablemate spoke admiringly of her first friend, reprovingly of the second, whom she characterized as “angry and entitled.”

“Why shouldn’t she be angry?” I asked.

“Mindfulness training and jobs for all!” someone proposed.

We went on to discuss the increasingly toxic and polarized societal waters in which people seem more and more required to swim alone. Clearly the goldfish bowl needs a massive scouring. In light of that reality, better a resilient goldfish than a fish out of water, or out of a job! But how do we bring about enlightened social policy? When is equanimity an exploitable docility, anger the rioter’s rage that destroys one’s own community?

 

In and Out Buddha

"Yield to the Present" road sign at Spirit Rock Meditation Center

When I mentioned my plan to go to Spirit Rock, the Buddhist Meditation Center in West Marin, my friends Tom and Martha were skeptical. They’re religious historians, and disdain any post-Reformation spiritual trends. Buddhism has a couple of millennia on Martin Luther, but the American secularized version favored at Spirit Rock does not pass muster with Tom and Martha. What could I say as they pressed me further on why I wanted to go? That I had too much time on my hands since leaving my part-time job? That it was none of their business?

In truth, the credo of good deeds and potlucks from my Unitarian upbringing left me hungering for spiritual sustenance. But someone who couldn’t cut it as even a lapsed secular humanist was unlikely to embrace the rigors of faith endorsed by Tom and Martha. I was too ashamed to admit that my quest for enlightenment would undoubtedly follow along the lines of someone trying to lose weight without giving up junk food.

“Why do you care?” I snapped at my interrogators, before adding more softly, “Maybe I’ve been too lonely since working less.”

“You can feel lonely at work, too,” retorted Martha. “Besides, it’s dilettantism. Just a bunch of rich, middle-aged, white people who aren’t really serious, cherry-picking what they like.”

“But I’m a dilettante!” I exclaimed.

It’s true. Ever since a substitute teacher in 8th grade read our lifelines and declared me a jack of all trades but master of none, I’ve accepted this as my destiny. Go figure: I reject the notion of an omnipotent deity manipulating our fates like a master puppeteer. But I’ve let myself be defined by some poor per-diem woman who probably just couldn’t find the real teacher’s lesson plan for the day.

As lesson plans for life go, Buddhism has never particularly appealed to me. I’m suspicious of too much serenity. It makes me think that people are trying to hide something, like murderous rage. Besides, before encountering the Marin style of fitting in a trip to Spirit Rock the way you might fit in a workout or a manicure, my only brush with Buddhism was through a friend’s wife, who shaved her head and turned their house into an ashram before divorcing him.

It seemed pretty unlikely that I’d upend my marriage just by attending an introductory talk at Spirit Rock by cofounder Jack Kornfield. He’s the same guy who wrote a book called After the Ecstasy, the Laundry, so I figured he had a knack for integrating spiritual and domestic demands. Besides, my husband and I had long pushed our daughters to take advantage of teachers with great reputations regardless of subject matter. Kornfield and his cofounder, Sylvia Boorstein, weren’t getting any younger. What was I waiting for? My husband urged me to go, promising he’d still love me even if I shaved my head

So one evening, fortified by a dinner of Cherry Garcia smothered with fudge sauce, I finally went to find enlightenment. Or at least the in-and-out kind a dabbling dilettante might sample.

A diamond-shaped yellow traffic sign declaring “Yield to the Present” signaled that I had arrived. Not at enlightenment, but at a field overflowing with Priuses sporting “Coexist” bumper stickers. Volunteers in flowing natural fiber garments and hemp-soled sandals greeted me serenely. The night sky was vast overhead. I felt connected and sheltered under its starry expanse. Might I feel the same inside the meditation hall?

The cavernous but low-ceilinged room was filled with people who sat eyes closed on folding chairs. Middle-aged dilettantes might be doctrinally flexible, but not flexible enough to assume the lotus position on floor cushions in front of the dais upon which Jack Kornfield perched.

Jack led the meditation. We sat quietly, breathing in, breathing out. I don’t remember what he said, just that the evening cradled me like a lullaby. I left feeling sated, not just with Ben & Jerry’s, but with an unusual fullness and depth of compassion.

Two days later I returned to hear Sylvia Boorstein talk about the Buddha’s Words on Kindness, or Metta Sutta. Afraid I might be required to surrender my irreverence, I sat near the exit in case I needed to make a quick getaway. Still, Kindness sounded innocuous enough, and Sylvia, ample-bosomed and smiling warmly, looked like everybody’s favorite grandmother. She noted in her talk that judgment tightens the mind when we get too caught up in the imperative of being right. The idea of a clear mind and open heart sounded tempting, and I began to be lulled into something resembling bliss.

My reverie ended abruptly when Sylvia got to the part of the Metta Sutta that counsels not doing “the slightest thing that the wise would later reprove.” Suddenly I felt the imperative to argue. Seriously? Not the slightest thing? As a psychotherapist, I spend countless hours trying to help perfectionists recover from such expectations. “To live beyond reproach sets an impossibly high standard,” I tell them, “not to mention making one insufferable.”

My wariness deepened when Sylvia described with a hint of fond reproval her pet terrier, who growls if aroused. As I thought about my clients who endanger themselves by ignoring their instinct to protest, I, too, felt my hackles prickle, a low rumble grow in the back of my throat. You want us to be perfect passive zombies! I almost shouted. Meanwhile, Sylvia explained how she’s learned to override her own “Grrr” response by simply choosing not to get agitated.

By this time I was pretty agitated myself, straining to prove Sylvia wrong without coming across as abrasive or challenging. I wanted to unseat the teacher without anyone noticing.

Her further words of wisdom escaped me, so intent was I on formulating the perfect Buddhist riposte. Something like, I wonder if we might welcome the ‘Grrr’ as a call to something that warrants our attention. We mustn’t ignore the warning, but perhaps we could quell the yapping.

Irreproachable! I congratulated myself, summoning the courage to raise my hand so I could share my brilliance. I imagined Sylvia admiringly incorporating my wisdom into her future talks. “A wonderful example of Beginner’s Mind!” she’d say about her new star student.

But then the imperative to speak up was supplanted by the imperative to shut up. All I could imagine was Sylvia’s pitying smile for the unenlightened newcomer who had stumbled like a half-wit into the circle of wisdom and kindness.

My mind was clouded, my heart tightened with judgment.

Grrr.

 

Commemoration

I wrote this two years ago, on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and offer it again today. 

Candle in the dark

As usual, I went to yoga Sunday morning, the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Mostly I go for the effect on my muscles, not my spirit. But on this solemn day my yoga teacher lit a candle in remembrance, and invited us to practice Tonglen, breathing in all that is troublesome in the world, acknowledging it, then transforming it into compassion and peace on the exhale. After a few minutes, the class continued with its typical focus on backs, necks, and hips, or, as one member put it, “the usual overall soreness.”

At the end of the class, after the stretching and the Namaste, another member shared what happened to her Turkish and Egyptian friends ten years ago. They owned a restaurant in Manhattan, which they managed to keep open after the towers fell despite the chaos and lack of customers. Late at night three white men came in. They trashed the place. One of the owner’s friends managed to slip away and call the police. Soon the men who had destroyed the restaurant were apprehended and brought back to be identified before they could be charged.

“Yes, those are the men,” the owners told the police, who were eager to throw the book at them.

But the owners refused to press charges.

“This is a difficult day,” they said. “We understand their grief and rage. Let them go.”

Incredulous, the police did so reluctantly.

A few hours later, the three men came back with some of their friends, pressing upon the owners fistfuls of cash for the damage. The men helped clean up as best they could, and continued to come for the next several weeks until things were put right again.

Sometimes forgiveness is the most effective kind of justice. It is much more likely than hatred or revenge to spawn atonement. This is the lesson so often lost in our decade of fear and grief and war. But it is one worth remembering as we light a candle; breathe in trouble and sorrow; breathe out compassion and peace; and seek to ease the overall soreness of the world.

 

Hostile Dependency

Cartoon of dog biting the hand that feeds it

Why is it that regions of the country with a high proportion of people who rely on the safety net tend to elect politicians who vow to slash it?

Many factors help explain this phenomenon. Differing world views and values, voter apathy, misinformation, and political manipulation of wedge issues all contribute. But the psychology of hostile dependency is also at play.

A New York Times article examines criticism of the safety net by those who increasingly depend on it. It notes that middle-class people who are angry at, but reliant on, government “are frustrated that they need help, feel guilty for taking it and resent the government for providing it.”

Parents of adolescents may recognize this pattern. Teenagers, still dependent but longing to be free, often chafe against them. It’s an age-appropriate version of biting the hand that feeds you.

Hostile dependency suffuses not just families but politics. “Hands off my Medicare!,” shouted by anti-government protesters, echoes Get Out of My Life, but First Could You Drive Me & Cheryl to the Mall?, a popular book for parents of teens.

This sheds new light on today’s political landscape. America is a young country, with all the exuberance, idealism, frustration, and self-absorption of adolescence. Youth, combined with culturally ingrained tropes of freedom and self-reliance, define our national character.

It’s hard to integrate the equal imperatives of dependence and independence that define a well-balanced individual or society. Distinguishing between what fosters or stymies growth is not always clear. The task is further complicated by our national fixation on going it alone. We often mistake need for failure, abandonment for freedom.

Like the tumult of adolescence, perhaps this reactivity will subside as America moves toward a more secure identity in which interdependence is embraced rather than repudiated.