November 4, 2008
Dear Mr. Wolfboy,
Lately there has been a pileup of emails asking for ideas in dealing with abusive fathers, spouses, and other family members. Writers report stymied growth, inability to concentrate, trust and authority-figure issues, fear, depression, anger and other unpleasantries.
It seems this sort of thing rolls along in some families like a snowball. In talking to former victims, it also seems that forgiveness, together with the calculated act of leaving the abuser behind, can be a key to moving on. Frequently mentioned was the coming to terms, particularly in childhood, with the dual personas--the "bad" one as seen in the eye of the abuser, and the "beautiful" one they feel themselves to be. Interestingly, these transferred, beautiful people are often attracted to quiet, solitary work, the gentleness and nurture of nature, and the private joys of creativity. The "art persona" seems an appealing choice, perhaps because it's more closely attuned to the beautiful inner being.
Abused folks often report trust issues. Distrust of one person migrates to distrust of many. These distrusting folks need to feel a greater calling, and art fills the bill. But there's a catch. Art requires creative evolution, and an artist's self-esteem often depends on external evidence--improvement of work, cash flow, etc. Perceived progress generates self-worth. Without progress, creators wither and die, and they know it. Those without trust may not want to risk progress. Locked learning and the flat-lining of growth are common results. These artists need to be shaken up and reborn. This can be done by solitary self-will or together with a trusted friend or mentor. There's good news--many terrific artists rise and fly from the tangle of abuse.
Psychologists also talk about the "Stockholm Syndrome." The name is based on a situation where thieves broke into a bank in Stockholm and held four people hostage for 131 days. The hostages came to like their captors and tried to defend them when they were finally set free from them. One hostage even accepted a proposal of marriage from one of the thugs. The Stockholm Syndrome suggests a belief in and sympathy for the abuser/controller. Abused people need to understand this condition and the co-dependency that can go with it.
Best regards,
Robert
PS: "The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still small voice within me." (Mahatma Gandhi)
14 comments:
This is a strange one for Robert Genn and a little confusing. Usually his writings have focus and this one is all over the place, or at least that's my reading. Or maybe it's just vague. Or less about art.
What made you post this Wolfie?
I didn't see it as vague, and I think he is talking about at least one reason why people gravitate towards art...or perhaps more accurately the possibilities of art for the human condition.
I like it. interdisciplinary and relevant.
The "Stockholm Syndrome" seems to me to be exemplifying one of Anna Freud's ego defense mechanisms,"identification with the aggressor".
Freud said that when an individual is abused they either appropriate the abuse, develop characteristics of the abuser, or develop romantic feelings toward the abuser in order to protect their ego and to give themselves a sense of control.
Interdisciplinary?
And I too find it vague and confusing, and my gut response is to think it a bit of an excuse for something or another, although I'm not clear on that, and also a bit stereotyping, of artists and people who experience abuse.
That said, I think it touches on some good things:
- the private joys of creativity
- art requires creative evolution, and an artist's self-esteem often depends on external evidence--improvement of work, cash flow, etc
- perceived progress generates self-worth
- without progress, creators wither and die, and they know it
- this can be done by solitary self-will
oh sorry.
I guess i should have said phenomenological.
ha ha ha!
i find "ontologies" and "a priories" also a bit vague and confusing.
here, i think, he lays out several ideas, not conclusively, but just in discussion--that, more than anything, is his point with these writings... discussion, the raising and knocking around of ideas. not conclusions, or definitions, necessarily. (and remember, in addition to a full-time painting career, he writes and sends these newsletters out, twice a week, to thousands of people all over the world...)
--abuse damages people, and they find various ways to deal.
--art is one way they deal (stockholm syndrome is another).
--often, people who are wounded or damaged early in life find art and nature to be outlets that help fill or repair the "missing" part, or the part that is compromised by abuse.
--as i discussed with a friend recently, some people are abused and their development stops at that point and age.... it's quite common to see this in counselling-- 20 year olds who handle conflict like they're 4 or 5, but otherwise, in all other situations, function perfectly normally.
anyway, it's got us all talking...
The terms ontological and a priori should not be confusing, they have very clear meanings.
for the .001% of people who know those meanings and who deal in this kind of language on a regular basis, perhaps they are very clear.
for the rest of us, including me, they are vague and confusing.
interesting... I actually quite relate to (and understand) what he's saying about art and creativity. However, I don't believe I was ever abused (at least not that I remember - maybe I'm repressing something?). Maybe some of us have this kind of personality intrinsically without having any kind of split persona?
It's not hard to understand what he's saying, but if you have read his other stuff, this seems like an anamoly(sp?), and less focused. Interesting generalizations...
What I like better is our discussion!
huh. good questions, sky.
i think artists often have that "dual" thing going, regardless of where it might come from.
I prefer multiplicity over duality.
me too.
word verification: unbress
Whether you prefer multiplicity over duality speaks nothing to the nature of the world, which is a dual phenomenon at the very least, and a tripartite one if you believe certain strains of mathematics or theology.
At an extreme, it is none of these, namely it is multiple. Yet if you think about it this way, the world thus only becomes relational, and potentially cyclical.
And most relations, read cycles, are characterised by their dipolar character, which brings us back to duality.
Whether a characteristic of how we perceive the world, or the world itself, duality, dialogy, etc, there is no escape.
Post a Comment