The Normal Neurosis

So.

I thought I'd start a blog today. I sent Google out looking for a host to use and, good and faithful servant, it came trotting back with an old one in its mouth that I had begun using years before. I read its single post with grave misgivings. What kind of person suggests they have insight into a happy life? It is incredibly hubristic to think one has cornered the contentment market. That's the kind of lightening rod which storms compete to hover over. And have I been so very happy in the years since I claimed the insight?

Not especially, no.

But must a plumber have no dripping taps? Need a mechanic never break down late at night in a thunderstorm? You get the gist, I'm sure. And yeah, it is a very thin argument, I grant you.

By the way, this isn't one of those 'The Secret' blogs which channel the spirit of Napoleon Hill. Pity, since those ones do seem to make a lot of money. I'm not a big wrap for the suggestion that all you need to do is think positively and the world will jump through hoops for you. The assumption we can be effortlessly content if only we know the secret is, frankly, silly. My own personal experience over decades suggests to me that contentment is elusive, and not simple to get.

Instead of suggesting it is easy to be content, a lot of seemingly sensible people tend to argue that happiness depends upon some level of material success (being able to afford food, at least) and the adjustment of expectations to match that level of attainment. You know, the old standard of 'either earn more, or expect less'. It has another variant: if you want to be wealthy, increase your income or reduce your spending.

Even as I typed that I was anticipating the many hundreds of thousands of people (well, maybe five) who will read this blog exploding angrily and crying out "What about spiritual contentment Jim? What about non-material wealth? What about people who understand the illusion of material wealth and are able to obtain other-worldly, spiritual contentment?"

Best I 'fess up that it was me who thought that. Well, ok: so that is easy to come by, is it, Jim? You meditate diligently for hours and chew ascetically through your meagre bowl of brown rice at the end of a reflective maya-denying day, and a sense of divine well-being just drops into your lap? If it did, don't you think more people would tumble to it? It'd be more popular than any given drug of dependence, surely? C'mon Jim, could Meditation really be such a successful solution? Rewarding, cheap and legal... well, apparently not. Isn't the belief meditation heals all woes just another version of 'it's simple, just do this...'?

I often think of people who fervently recommend meditation as a solution as the modern-day equivalent of my Grandfather's mates who would recommend him to 'just have a drink mate, and forget about it...'

And, frankly, even when I have earned money and am happy to earn as much as I do, it isn't a recipe for contentment so much as an invitation to wonder whether I have sold out...

So contentment is hard to get.

Yeah, I know. Self evident. No need to even think about it, really - except: why? If we've evolved over millions of years into some sort of magnificant specimens of genetic self-promulgation, you'd at least think we'd feel good about it by now. What's the point of most of us feeling like crap, most of the time? We don't all vote Liberal. We don't all barrack for Collingwood. Not all of us bought The Sims. Hmmm. But then I guess we all have our equivalent guilty failings.

And there's the point.

We all want to be cool, don't we? Even those of us who have decided to renounce clique-ish fetishism. The outcasts want to be cool outcasts. (Did I just nail the tragedy of Goth-dom?). Whatever way we structure the challenge, success is measured by climbing to the top of a particular social construction: hermit, sex-god, fashionista or parent, we all have a particular way we would like others to see us. If only they saw us like we want to be seen, broke and starving as we might yet still be, we'd be content.

Contentment is being seen by others as we want to be seen.

Go ahead. Argue against it. Think through your various circular arguments about why I don't get your particular take on what would really, truly make you happy. God knows I have. Even those who just want to be alone don't want to be regarded at all by others. A big hole in their reflected rejection.

Please forgive me my presumptions, but I honestly believe our biology is against us. Assuming you're human, you're part of what would broadly be described as a gregarious species. We flock to flocks. We live in society. We all, in some sence, belong. And there's a lot of pressure in the world to fit in. We're all looking for a simple solution, we all want to find the magic bullet, we all want to have others validate us as successful. Contentment is dependent upon the perceptions others have of us.

In 1964 Putney and Putney published 'The Normal Neurosis'. Their thesis was that we all want others to regard us as part of the flock, there is pressure to conform so we can stay part of the group and not be expelled. Lone examples of our species easily fall prey to hunting tigers, speaking from an evolutionary perspective. There is pressure to conform. We mostly all stop at stop signs. We feel anxious when others don't see us as acceptable. We use phrases like "Can't you see what you're doing to me?" and "Don't you know who I am?"

Putney and Putney weren't original, by the way. Start with Fairbairn and ignore his Freudian origins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Fairbairn For a Freudian he got good - really, really good.

Look at the British Object Relations school. Go on. Use Wikipedia. You know you want to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_relations_theory Klein. Bowlby. Winnicot. Look at Bowen's Family Systems Theory.

Differentiation is a revelation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Bowen

Then consider Schnarch's sex and marital therapy. You feel you want to. http://passionatemarriage.com/

Ok so you can't be bothered. I'll sum it up for you: Life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I respond.

The standout example of this approach is usually Viktor Frankl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl .

Inadequate summary: man finds meaning in oppressive scenario (he was a holocaust survivor, his wife died in the women's camp in Auschwitz while he was in the mens' camp). Frankl credited his ability to survive to his ability to find meaning in his life despite its awful circumstances.

What mattered was not what happened but how he responded. He was building a cathedral and not breaking rocks.

He wrote "Man's search for meaning".http://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-Meaning-Viktor-Frankl/dp/0671023373 Please read this book. It will make you a better person.

All of which brings me to this single, hubristic point: if I am to be content, it all comes down to how I respond to what happens to me, and so if I am to enjoy a happy life, I must find the best way to respond to what occurs.

Implicit in this argument is the idea of developing a tolerance for what happens, the idea of not needing to respond to particular stimuli in particular ways. Harden up, stop automatically giving predictable knee-jerk reactions. Stop being a prisoner of other's deterministic behaviour...

Contentment is being seen by myself the way I want to be seen, and being transparent with it.

Contentment is based on self respect. Always and only as long as I respect myself for how I respond to the world.

So what is the best way to respond?

In terms of your own life, I could well ask you the same question.