Normal is an illusion.
What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly
I used to come home from school, boil campbell’s chicken soup, get out the saltine crackers and butter, carry it all to the coffee table, sit cross-legged on the floor and watch a completely unhealthy amount of TV. I loved anything black and white in the era of technicolor. The Addams family was completely up my alley. Odd, quirky, certainly off base with the general character of my family… and I loved it. Morticia and Gomez, Wednesday and Pugsly, Lurch and Cousin It, Grandmama… the hand…. It was weird and funny, smarter than I realized at the time and totally nonconformist in the most palatable made for network TV kind of way. I loved the macabre “lite” and in a weird way I identified with them way more than I did with “real” people.
Several months ago I read an article written by Dr. Richard Boyatsiz “Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence” It was assigned during a MOOC course I was taking called Inspiring Leadership Through Emotional Intelligence. I was taking this course just after finishing a year long study in the science of wellness which culminated in a Certificate in Positive Psychology. During this CiPP program I had been introduced to the science behind many things I intuitively understood but could never really quantify in a meaningful way. Connections to behavior and belief clarified and solidified, ideas that were seeded years before began to germinate, and I finally had the evidence I needed to back up theories and concepts that were considered questionable to people who did not share my particular curiosity in psychology, behavior, neuro science and general possibility.
I guess you could say I have always been perhaps a bit out in left field, independent, optimistic, creative, thoughtful, observant, and inquisitive. I have also been a bit of a loner, not much of a collaborator, always a fabricator and non-conformist. People have tended to see me as cool, aloof, off-putting and confident. I am conservative in some ways and in other ways most certainly not. So within the Boyatzis article was new information I realized that I had been introduced to a kind of clarity around social and emotional intelligence that I had never quite clearly understood before. It was and is a kind of blue print for me. Like the witches brew, the detectives notebook, the prophet words.
To let the brain work without sufficient material is like racing an engine.
It racks itself to pieces.
I was having a unique conversation the other day , involving attachment theory and it’s possible relationship to personality typing… MBTI and the like. Someone asked me about why I wanted to make attachment corrolations to a not very robust or even particularly reliable personality assessment….. to which I responded:
attachment is how, in some relationship theories, we learn memetic behavior.. so early attachment influences all of the relationships we build throughout life. the brain is plastic which means we can in fact change our predispositions even to the genetic level… environment and how we choose or don’t choose behavior + genes = epigenetics. Who we are, we are discovering is both genetic and environmental and the impact is quite significant. I am also very interested in how we qualify ourselves… how we make meaning for ourselves in the world. We all ascribe to some labels, particularly when we find that we are some how connected to the descriptions, in those labels we feel both known to ourselves and to other people. And this is another area where attachment comes in, we are biologically predisposed to attachment…. being known is an important step on the path to living authentically…
I have spent the better part of my life trying to understand people, I want them to make sense to me. I want to know why people do what they do. I want to be able to make order out of my experiences… and yet I find myself perplexed… almost with the challenge of a great mystery to solve. Before being introduced to emotional and social intelligence I could never really locate my self in the world. I am always just a little out of sync with most people, and I am practicing being just that much more observant of my emotional awareness and regulation, I am practicing just that much more awareness of other people in a responsive vs reactive way….and that much more mindfulness of my place in it all. And as it turns out solving the mystery of understanding other people is inherently linked to knowing oneself… and part of that process can sometimes be finding where and how we fit.
I really like the BBC show Sherlock… I love the wacky, analytical, far fetched, cerebral and emotionally cool (yet somehow warm and vulnerable) distant character of Sherlock himself. In some very odd way I find that I identify with his character, his experience with people…. their apparent awe of him and also their palpable distaste for his type of know-it-all… ness. I think he is funny and apropos, honest and authentic, he is brilliant and lives in it. He observes people, their specifics and nuances, their presentation and interactions and he too is occupied by making meaning out of his experiences.
After having streamed an episode during an escape from an extended family weekend, I took the PBS “what Sherlock character are you” quiz…. “YES!…. I’m Sherlock…. hmmm I wonder what his personality type would be…… YES! we match….” and by having little concrete understandings, small connections and a theoretical peer… am I better known? Somehow convincingly I am to myself. Do I recognize self perception theory here? … Well when I see certain behaviors in others, I make assumptions about them and when I see those same behaviors within myself I make the same assumptions about my self. Do I aspire to be Sherlock Holmes?… is some strange way yes…mostly to be unabashedly authentic.
I would like to be known as an intelligent woman,
a courageous woman,
a loving woman,
a woman who teaches by being.
As I heard the news about her death and her life it occurred to me that though I knew of her I did not really know much about her, or her writing. As I learned more, read more, heard more I realized that if she had ascribed to the labels others would have chosen for her she would not be known today. If she had not self identified and worked and created herself as she saw herself to be, she would not have been known to herself or any of us . If she had ascribed too much to a group or person that she identified with or at least not made her affiliation her own she would not have been the Maya Angelou that is so revered for tenacity and authenticity and self efficacy, courage, brilliance and presence. She may have just been Black. Woman. Victim. Mute.
And it is with her death that I review my thoughts in the last few months… and forever. And as it turns out finding where you “fit” is perhaps a bit of an illusion, a bit of a facade, maybe even contrived. Finding ourselves in others certainly helps us to become more familiar with ourselves. It may help us feel less lonely in the world. But finding ourselves within ourselves, instead of ascribing too intensely to finding the “fit”, might just be exactly what we need to experience to become comfortable and self assured. Like Morticia, Sherlock and Maya, unless we are truly present, and courageous about being alone, singular and mindful of our unique and specific place in the world, we will never be able to completely embrace our own personal authenticity and integrity. We, each of us, has to embrace perhaps even make up our most personal, individual and most authentic identifiers, qualifiers, labels. We must each live out our integrity to the best of our ability… and when we live there, then we will have truly found our place in the world.