PSYCHOLOGICAL GENEROSITY

From my first moments in this world there could have been many contingencies impeding my full human development: a faulty gene, sickness, neurotic parents, poverty, being born into a criminal or undeveloped society – any of these misfortunes could have inhibited my growth.  One can adapt and survive almost any kind of ill fortune and, although diminished, still remain fundamentally the same person.

But there was one circumstance I could not survive, although I lived through it – a circumstance where adapting could not work, where no adaptive response of mine was acceptable to those around me on whom I depended as a child, where nothing I could say or do rendered me acceptable to my caregivers. There was no violence – indeed, there was every outward sign that I was being cared for. I simply could not seem to be what they wanted. It was a hidden kind of rejection with every appearance of care.

When they rejected me as such, then changing a response here and there altered nothing. It was no use trying to improve. I couldn’t modify myself because it was me that was the fault. It wasn’t what I did, although they made it sound like it. No was me that was at fault. My fault was that I existed.

In such a dire situation all I could do was kill me - and be someone else: a virtual suicide. Kill the one who is me and be someone I was supposed to be. It’s a radical solution any young child is capable of. Of course, to be brought to this point I had to learn my lesson thoroughly. There had been many times when I screamed for what I wanted. I created merry hell, balling out in all kinds of ways: I want, I want, I want, without really knowing what it was I wanted. All it did was get me into more trouble. Finally, I murdered the one who wanted.

The consequences were grim. The one who wanted became the ‘dead’ enemy within and I had to constantly guard against any sign of it coming to life again. The things I once seemed to crave I no longer wanted; not only did I not want them, I actively resisted them. Intimacy I pushed away, closeness I couldn’t tolerate, the expression of emotion I squashed in myself and in others; I subtly disapproved of physical displays pleasure; kissing did not appeal to me; and I had the tendency to be mean spirited and dominating, denying others what I denied myself. Sex was an anxiety rather a pleasure.

After I killed my child-self I could manipulate people and gain sympathy by pretending to be a child – although I was a child. I had to pretend because the real child was missing. All my life since I have pretended to be a person, knowing all the while I was a fake.

After my suicide I was born again alright, but the person I became I did not like. Recently I have begun to feel a bit better about myself because I realise that what I did to myself back there, I did in order to survive. There were no other options.

There’s nothing like a personal story to whet the appetite – fortunately, the above story is not quite my biography, or anyone’s in particular, it’s a composite portrait you might say. Using the first person singular is a literary device to tell a fictional story. It captures the attention.

But now for the bigger picture behind the story.

*

In my last blog I spoke of what it means to grant being to another. It is what I would call psychological generosity. For short, just let’s call it ‘generosity’. It is exactly the reverse of psychological domination; here let’s just call this the ‘domination’ model. These two models are opposed styles of psychological relating. Generosity is characterised by a granting of being, tolerance of differences, a sense of partnership and equality, minimal power structure and control and, not merely a tolerance of individual deviation, but the encouragement of it. The domination model is characterised by rigid hierarchical patterns, authoritarian control, inequality and intolerance of differences.

However, we must never confused material generosity with psychological generosity. In families there can be material generosity whilst at the same time severe domination. This can be confusing.

These factors vary from culture to culture and between families within a culture. The higher primates also differ in this respect: chimpanzees have a domination style. The alpha male dominates all the members of the community, male and female. He attains his high-ranking position through intimidation, strength, and intelligence.  The bonobos – a distinct species within the same genus as the chimpanzee – have a generous culture. It is female centred and egalitarian, where sex is allowed in every kind of partner combination, facilitating conflict resolution and social bonding. They actually practice ‘make love not war’.

 It is worthwhile recalling that we share 98% of our genetic makeup with both species; so it would seem that both generosity and domination are not determined by genetics, but by culture. It’s what you happen to be born into that counts.

You might think, at first glance that these two opposed qualities are easily recognisable. Not so. Generosity often passes unnoticed because it is unstructured and unclassifiable. You can’t show a certificate or degree in generosity. It cannot be taught. It is a quality of soul that that does not even notice itself. It has no ego pushiness and nothing to prove. A floor cleaner going her rounds in mental hospital, chatting to patients as she goes, can do more good than all the hospital clinicians put together, simply because she has a generosity of  soul – she brings just a little bit of sanity and sunshine simply because of who she is – and other people catch it. Few really notice the profound effect she has.

And domination, although palpable, is not always easily recognisable either. Domination can easily disguise itself as ‘help’: telling what you should do, how you get it wrong, how to put it right; demonstrating as well which category of deficiency you suffer from. Not necessarily saying these things explicitly, but implicitly by a shake of the head, a facial expression. Then there are the confidence tricks of language, the disingenuous bull-shit that passes for intelligence and worldly wisdom, demonstrating nothing, except how to sound impressive, and how to play one-upmanship games to intimidate.

Whole social systems can be in the domination mode although claiming otherwise, institutional and cult religions are prime examples. The so-called ‘helping professions’ are riddled with dominating individuals. It seems to attract them; as a consequence there are terrible dissonances between the dominators, usually those in control, and the generous people, who do the work.

In families where domination is hidden but severe, it leads to actual or virtual suicide, as in the story we began with.

Generous people don’t advertise themselves, but there are plenty of them around. Even without the more obvious signs, you can easily tell when you have parted company with someone who is generous. Even without them giving you anything, you come away feeling better, affirmed, feeling that you are at least a viable person. Invisibly, they have granted you yourself.

I believe that there is a slow evolution of cultures towards a more generous style of society. The fact that we all know that this is preferable is something new in our values.

 The picture at the head of this article is of Claudine Andre

(with a little friend). Claudine founded a sanctuary for bonobos in
 the  Republic of Congo.

See: Friends of Bonobos.
  http://www.friendsofbonobos.org/index.htm

*

contact: stanrich@vodafone.co.nz

(03) 981 2264