1. the problem :
many a times, we get stuck in the trap of ‘life-lies’ in this game of contribution. the central them of adler’s philosophy is one needs to reach out to the other to contribute to them, and in turn that process of contribution creates a self worth, and courage that fuels the process. this helps them to belong to the other, and the community. thereby finding happiness.
before even contributing to the other, one needs to take few steps backward, and retrospect whether they have actually followed the pre-requisites of contribution. as adler puts forth in his framework, the steps towards belonging to community are as follows –
- self acceptance.
- confidence in other.
- contributing to the other.
- finding refuge in the other.
what about when the other person does not need our contribution? or for that matter, the other person is ‘ok’ without the us, trying to connect. or for that matter what-if the we do not actually need to connect to the other in any way, as the communities we actually belong are already starkly diverse, and any connection does not account for anything productive?
these are the few considerations that are important to conceive, retrospect, weigh out, before actually jumping on contributing. and excessive strong skew towards unwanted contributions go a long way to shred the entire fabric of what adler speaks about ‘harmony of life’. there is a balance that is needed. contribution and being contributed by the nourishment of belonging and creation of that feeling, ‘i am ok’ belonging to the community, has to go hand in hand.
a quick litmus test for escaping from the trap of the lie, in my opinion is to check whether one can publicly proclaim their contribution and intentions and at the same time, get a truthfully and concretely in reality vouch whether they are really in any way actually contributing, or rather creating further distress in the life of the other. for example, a non receptive parent can always keep shouting and scolding to the child thinking they are contributing. but actually then end up systematically devastating the child’s psyche in the long run. or for that matter, in a case of one sided relationships, one person can continue to stalk another person and be all along righteous of doing a “contribution” and relating to the person. but that is a big ‘life-lie’. actually they are just being parasitic, and trying to snatch out some self worth that they badly need, having bereft of it in entirety. such stalking mentality people are loners, who are outcasts already, and have not been able to belong to a larger community anyways. so, they look out for easy targets and try to impose themselves. similar examples can be seen with bosses who act as buddies with their teams. in name of contributing to the team, they make rules too lenient, and is unable to effectively and systematically challenge the team to go out of their comfort zone. contributions does not always take the same of creating a cozy and safe environment. contributions can take many shapes and shades, based on the situation.
in most of these slippery and illusive cases, the litmus test helps – check whether one can publicly proclaim their contributions and intentions, and have then really weighed out and neutrally seen how valuable is their contribution after all.
another point that is worth repeating is whether a relationship, or connection even is warranted or not. the entire world need not to belong to one team. all of the citizens of the country need not to work for the same organization. there would be differences in opinions, values, visions, and competitions between rival groups. forcibly trying to build bridges between incompatible and remote personalities and groups might be simply a drain of effort and time.
adler’s ‘separation of action’ comes handy here to reinforce that lie time and again. one might be prompted to continue to go in the wrong way, and continue to stalk the other person, or for that matter be offensive to the child, discounting all the cues the other are sending back in distress. ignoring or discarding the feedback and the action of the other, is aligned with the principle of ‘separation of action’. but in this case it defeats the purpose. instead of building bridges, it burns them between people. the situation becomes psychotic, and totally abnormal. it breeds animosity and toxicity and destroys the fabric of community, instead of building it.
2. the cause :
having understood the problem. let us explore on why such situations even come in the first place. why such logically simple things appear so difficult to judge at times. when such situations arise when we get overboard with trying to reach out to help others by forcing our un-solicited help? it is a common problem when we are so steeped in the ‘praise and rebuke’ education, that we look out for praise outside ourselves, by others to be able to realize our own worth. in short term, we are giving the name of ‘separation of action’, and lying ourselves that we do not need acceptance of the other, or a unfazed by their rebuke. we are so called discarding their action. but it is very easy to notice the deep melancholy that slowly creeps up on us, in such situations, not able to get a positive feedback. either say the parent repeatedly offending the child, or for that matter, the stalker trying to impose himself on the other.
not having enough outlet around, or any avenues to connect, and receive that much needed praise from others, we go the easiest target – this might be a modest person or a helpless child. affinity for praise and repulsion from rebuke becomes a compulsive disorder.
3. the solution :
desire to belong, and to be loved is a primal instinct of being a human. this deep need in us, at times forces us out to the above anomaly we discussed. now what can be the solution to it? we all know that do’s and don’t most of the time does not work. this is because it is a slippery ground of the heart and soul, and not a left brain oriented analytical problem to solve.
i think, before the first step – self acceptance is the most difficult part. here we are all alone. we have not reached out to the other. here it is very difficult with an unrest, unrequited mind to think clearly what reality is about one’s own self. in the absence of any belonging here in this nuclear mode, one is already parched out with the need to feel whole and complete by being able to belong to something or someone. in that hurry, and desperateness, it is easy for someone to mistake their own identify, and not able to see who they are in reality. the conditioned mind takes over, and a trajectory starts getting built in an incorrect direction.
so, in my opinion, the first step might be creating a belonging within the self, before even venturing out. can we belong to something or someone deep within, and say, ‘i am ok’, being alone. and i am whole and complete being alone? can some contribution be done without even reaching out to the world, with this entity? for simplicity, let us name this as ‘self’. so, the point is we need to belong to the self. and to belong to the self, as per adler, we need to contribute to the self. now the question is what and how to contribute to the self.
i feel following actions might help to build this relationship and contribution to the self –
- meditation – listening to the self. not visualizing. not feeling. not imagining. but just listening. in meditation. just be. this can be made a daily practice in which we just acknowledge that there is some being who we call ‘self’ with whom we need to establish a friendship. we start seeing the ‘self’ as our ‘comrade’. since we cannot see this comrade, cannot hear this comrade, we cannot touch this comrade, the only avenue for us is to enter into a deep meditation and listen in surrender who his self is.
- hatha yoga – when we engage in hatha yoga, we do these extremely difficult asanas (poses), and maintain our breath in a proper rhythm and force (pranayama). in this entire process, we experience our ‘self’ from both and external bodily perspective and also from an internal mind perspective. this practice not only corrects the physiological abnormalities that might be a barrier to see our ‘self’, but also helps us reflect on the nature of our thoughts and emotions that hides that ‘self’. like for example, a reflection on the emotional landscape before practicing hatha yoga and after, would give some interesting insights on the nature of reality of our thoughts and emotions.
also the practice of hatha yoga is like a play we engage with our body. as humans we have evolved to like games and playtime. hatha yoga is a daily playful ritual, where we actually engage a playful communion with our own body and its parts in entirety.
this engagement with the body, helps reduce our dependence on looking out for another person out there in the community to play with.
- building emotional connect – bhakti yoga – establishing a relationship with the self. creating a deep emotional connect with the self. we need to appreciate that fact that we are emotional beings, and connecting to an entity would require more of a faith, belief, love, sentimentalities, rather than analytical facts.
one can easily superimpose that self to someone ideal that one is inspired with, in imagination. there is a rich source of deities that come handy in any tradition. visiting temples, pilgrimages, doing personal prayer rituals, etc are some physical activities that one can engage to forge this bonding with the self even stronger.
- gaining more knowledge of the self – gnana yoga – one can go deeper into the literature that is already there in every tradition, to know the nature of the self, as per their own inclinations and beliefs. a headway into the world of psychology and philosophy also is very helpful for scientific minded people. these helps us to further understand and engage with the self.
i think these 4 hacks can help us to establish that belonging with our own selves, and contribute to that, in our own way. Once this is established, that primal craving is dealt with to connect and bond, before even reaching out to the external world. this would go a long way to handle the first step of adler’s framework – self acceptance. we would know enough about our real self, and we would have accepted ourselves fully, before even venturing out to select which person and which community we need to connect.this makes the entire process more from a standpoint of freedom and choice, rather than a compulsive obsessive disorder.
PS – 1st part of the article, which gives an overview of the philosophy of alfred adler – https://karconversations.wordpress.com/2023/04/26/adlerian-individual-pscyhology/