LET'S TALK ABOUT . . .
"CALL OR RECALL?"
In recent days there have been numerous recalls issued in the marketplace, especially in relation to food and cars. This is usually done for the safety of the consumer. The recalls often occur only after deaths have occurred. It is good that recalls are issued but those affected are still sick or dead!
The irony is that in an attempt to save money it usually costs the manufacturer more money. In an attempt to substitute a cheaper part the quality of their entire product is then in question. Was it really worth it to attempt to cut corners, to surrender to the urgency of the shortcut? What happened to quality? I often hear people comment that quality is a thing of the past, not something to be expected in the marketplace, especially since mass production came into being.
People are raising more and more concerns about quality control in the marketplace, in education, in government, in ideologies, even in personal development (diet, fitness, character development, recovery, therapy, spiritual development, etc.). When we opt for shortcuts in the name of economics or pragmatism, we may be sliding down a slippery slope. We may miss our call only to find that we are in a position of "recall." Is that really where we want to find ourselves?
There are some things in life that just simply take time. I am humored by stories regarding shortcuts unto aging a product in order to increase the turn over time and the profit margin. That may be true in some cases but not all. We want instant everything! We do not want to wait or to do the hard work toward an intended goal. At what cost are we speeding toward instant everything?
I am especially concerned about this trend when it comes to human development. Do we really want our children to grow up faster? To face all the complexities of adolescent or adult life sooner or before they are really ready? At what cost? What will they have missed in their development if we encourage that? In an age of social media, children and adolescents are being subjected younger and younger to realities they may not be ready to handle on all levels. Is that really okay?
We are horrified when it comes to pornography, sexual abuse or the human trafficking of minors. That is good! We generally take that position because minors are under the age of consent. I have often wondered why consent implies we know what is really in our best interest. I am sure we can all think of instances where the ability to consent did not imply a healthy choice. We should be horrified at these at any age or on any level. They are attacks against our human dignity, whether we know that or not!
So when we as human beings end up living something less than that to which our human dignity calls us, we are in a position of needing "recall." That takes many forms in our world. I am convinced that while short-term therapy is a good fit for some presenting issues in therapy, the need to get back to long term therapies is on the rise. As our world becomes increasingly complex, convoluted and traumatic, we need to be recalled to long term therapies. If that to which we are called in our human dignity and development takes time, then recall and recovery may take time as well.
I also believe this is true when it comes to character development or spiritual development. These take time. They are the combination of events and processes in our lives. They occur both in moments and over periods of time. In an age of "instant-s" we are almost scandalized by needing to give ourselves permission to not be whole, healed, complete in an instance. We are impatient in the pursuit of good character--an oxymoron. We work at grace--another oxymoron.
Some things just simply take time! Sometimes entities possess the form but lack the real substance over time. Perhaps this speaks to whether we see life as a destination or a journey!
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Thursday, June 19, 2014
LET'S TALK ABOUT . . .
"THE MISUSE OF AGGRESSION"
I have been thinking a lot about aggression in our world. Our tendency is to see all aggression as destructive or undesirable. Is it? What about sports? We often vicariously discharge our aggression from spectator seats. Attendance at the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the World Cup in Soccer, etc. are all examples of our love of watching various forms of aggression. What about boxing, wrestling, martial arts or the many forms of organized fighting?
Webster defines both sides of aggression, both destructive and constructive. He defines the latter in terms of drive, initiative and enterprise. A lot will be accomplished in this world today through an appropriate use of aggression. Yet, we most often associate aggression with the ones we see in action movies, video games, bullying, war or examples reported daily on news programs. It is a challenge to sift and sort through the myriads of examples to affirm only those that are potentially healthy.
Anger is much the same way; we most readily identify the more explicit, aggressive forms of it than with its counterpart, passive-aggressive anger. The epitome of the latter is stubbornness and procrastination. How often do we stubbornly dig in our heels about something or stubbornly put off doing something because we are angry (annoyed, irritated, agitated, frustrated. . . enraged) about having to do it. Again, sifting and sorting through various expressions of emotionality and behavior is challenging.
Back to aggression. It can be both explicit and implicit in nature. How much of our natural tendencies to express our aggression is biogenetic, personality-based, conditioned, substance-provoked, etc. As well, there is often a difference between common expressions of aggression in men and women. Each have different tendencies in the expression of their aggression that parallels their natural power bases. It is important to note that this is not categorically true, just tendencies.
Men often express aggression through the power of their voices, physically, or vocationally. They are often in positions of power that allow for some expression or discharge of aggression regularly. It is easier to identify these explicit expressions of aggression. They are right out there. Boys, from a very young age, will tussle or fight to try to resolve some difference or conflict. If men go implicit they may withdraw, refuse to engage, retreat into silence.
Women tend to gossip, isolate or exclude in order to express aggression. Girls may be more inclined to form cliques, not include another girl or blatantly exclude one (i.e. "you can't come to my birthday party!") in an act of aggressive disapproval. These expressions are far more implicit and at times highly sophisticated; they are, however, no less aggressive. Do not be fooled, however, into thinking that women cannot be as explicit as men. In recent years these expressions have often shocked the public when stories surface in the news.
I am convinced that we need more teaching and instruction about emotionality. We need more about what it means to emotionally nurture our children in healthy ways. It is not a simple linear formula. Each of us are different and what we need at any given moment may be different. We have a tendency to want "formula living." I have often wondered if we realize how that is more about our existential need to know the right answers than to really learn what it means to be responsible for our own selves and interact respectfully.
We do not live in simple times. Living well does not just happen; it is a conscious, intentional decision. It is replete with moral and ethical questions. Yet, it is what is so indicated in these often complex and turbulent times. Do we know ourselves well enough to know when we are being angry or aggressive? Do we know when it is happening to us? These are not easily discerned on an individual basis. We need to work at it.
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
"THE MISUSE OF AGGRESSION"
I have been thinking a lot about aggression in our world. Our tendency is to see all aggression as destructive or undesirable. Is it? What about sports? We often vicariously discharge our aggression from spectator seats. Attendance at the Super Bowl, the Stanley Cup, the World Cup in Soccer, etc. are all examples of our love of watching various forms of aggression. What about boxing, wrestling, martial arts or the many forms of organized fighting?
Webster defines both sides of aggression, both destructive and constructive. He defines the latter in terms of drive, initiative and enterprise. A lot will be accomplished in this world today through an appropriate use of aggression. Yet, we most often associate aggression with the ones we see in action movies, video games, bullying, war or examples reported daily on news programs. It is a challenge to sift and sort through the myriads of examples to affirm only those that are potentially healthy.
Anger is much the same way; we most readily identify the more explicit, aggressive forms of it than with its counterpart, passive-aggressive anger. The epitome of the latter is stubbornness and procrastination. How often do we stubbornly dig in our heels about something or stubbornly put off doing something because we are angry (annoyed, irritated, agitated, frustrated. . . enraged) about having to do it. Again, sifting and sorting through various expressions of emotionality and behavior is challenging.
Back to aggression. It can be both explicit and implicit in nature. How much of our natural tendencies to express our aggression is biogenetic, personality-based, conditioned, substance-provoked, etc. As well, there is often a difference between common expressions of aggression in men and women. Each have different tendencies in the expression of their aggression that parallels their natural power bases. It is important to note that this is not categorically true, just tendencies.
Men often express aggression through the power of their voices, physically, or vocationally. They are often in positions of power that allow for some expression or discharge of aggression regularly. It is easier to identify these explicit expressions of aggression. They are right out there. Boys, from a very young age, will tussle or fight to try to resolve some difference or conflict. If men go implicit they may withdraw, refuse to engage, retreat into silence.
Women tend to gossip, isolate or exclude in order to express aggression. Girls may be more inclined to form cliques, not include another girl or blatantly exclude one (i.e. "you can't come to my birthday party!") in an act of aggressive disapproval. These expressions are far more implicit and at times highly sophisticated; they are, however, no less aggressive. Do not be fooled, however, into thinking that women cannot be as explicit as men. In recent years these expressions have often shocked the public when stories surface in the news.
I am convinced that we need more teaching and instruction about emotionality. We need more about what it means to emotionally nurture our children in healthy ways. It is not a simple linear formula. Each of us are different and what we need at any given moment may be different. We have a tendency to want "formula living." I have often wondered if we realize how that is more about our existential need to know the right answers than to really learn what it means to be responsible for our own selves and interact respectfully.
We do not live in simple times. Living well does not just happen; it is a conscious, intentional decision. It is replete with moral and ethical questions. Yet, it is what is so indicated in these often complex and turbulent times. Do we know ourselves well enough to know when we are being angry or aggressive? Do we know when it is happening to us? These are not easily discerned on an individual basis. We need to work at it.
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
Thursday, June 12, 2014
LET'S TALK ABOUT . . .
"WHAT'S PRIMARILY OUR'S"
When I was young one of my family's nicknames for me was "Chatty Cathy." It concerned my mother that I always wanted to talk to people. The more "interesting" they appeared, the more I wanted to talk to them, to know their story. At nine I announced to her that I thought people were like biographies I wanted to read and one day write my own story.
Shortly after that announcement, multiple events in my life took me from being "Chatty Cathy" to "The Silent Observer" in my family. Even now in my sixties, if you put me in a family setting I will probably become the latter for the purpose of absorbing and learning from all that is going on around me. I am fascinated by who we are as human beings; our capacities for that which is glorious, inglorious and everything in between.
The events that took place during those years resulted in my determination to process my own "stuff" in life first, if at all possible and to whatever degree I had an awareness of the same. I believe now that was the result of an incredibly painful childhood that more often than not was caused by the "transference of stuff" in the lives of those around me. When communities are powerfully invested in "the blame game," the fallout both individually and systemically, are somewhat predictable. It is a painful experience for all.
I would far rather talk about responsibility for self than play the blame game. I would rather embrace the existential hope within than look for circumstantial hope in the externals of life. I would rather know the reality of what I call resurrection power than just rely on my natural resilience to make it through whatever life presents. I would rather work at choosing to respond than simply allowing my reaction formation to win another day.
At the best of times control is illusive and limited. Sometimes the only control we may have is in how we will choose to live the next moment, hour, day or month. We long to believe we are more in control than we are; we buy into a kind of deception that ends up being a kind of set up for whatever fallout will inevitably follow.
We are not naturally drawn to living a conscious and intentional lifestyle. That sounds "heavy" and threatens to take all the fun out of "just living" or "going with the flow." Unfortunately, that takes us down the road of living more at the expense of others than we realize. If only we would, first and foremost, process ourselves primarily and others only after we are aware of and embrace our own "stuff," our propensities and vulnerabilities to behave less than gloriously intended might be held in check.
If we embrace responsibility primarily for ourselves, I believe we would be more compassionate dealing with the shortcomings and vulnerabilities of others. We would be far more effective whenever and wherever we need to bring self to bear on another's behavior or life. We may be less inclined toward being or coming across as critical and judgmental. That demands we reflect on that which is primarily ours first. This is something we will work at over our lifetime; it will never be a one-time fix.
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
"WHAT'S PRIMARILY OUR'S"
When I was young one of my family's nicknames for me was "Chatty Cathy." It concerned my mother that I always wanted to talk to people. The more "interesting" they appeared, the more I wanted to talk to them, to know their story. At nine I announced to her that I thought people were like biographies I wanted to read and one day write my own story.
Shortly after that announcement, multiple events in my life took me from being "Chatty Cathy" to "The Silent Observer" in my family. Even now in my sixties, if you put me in a family setting I will probably become the latter for the purpose of absorbing and learning from all that is going on around me. I am fascinated by who we are as human beings; our capacities for that which is glorious, inglorious and everything in between.
The events that took place during those years resulted in my determination to process my own "stuff" in life first, if at all possible and to whatever degree I had an awareness of the same. I believe now that was the result of an incredibly painful childhood that more often than not was caused by the "transference of stuff" in the lives of those around me. When communities are powerfully invested in "the blame game," the fallout both individually and systemically, are somewhat predictable. It is a painful experience for all.
I would far rather talk about responsibility for self than play the blame game. I would rather embrace the existential hope within than look for circumstantial hope in the externals of life. I would rather know the reality of what I call resurrection power than just rely on my natural resilience to make it through whatever life presents. I would rather work at choosing to respond than simply allowing my reaction formation to win another day.
At the best of times control is illusive and limited. Sometimes the only control we may have is in how we will choose to live the next moment, hour, day or month. We long to believe we are more in control than we are; we buy into a kind of deception that ends up being a kind of set up for whatever fallout will inevitably follow.
We are not naturally drawn to living a conscious and intentional lifestyle. That sounds "heavy" and threatens to take all the fun out of "just living" or "going with the flow." Unfortunately, that takes us down the road of living more at the expense of others than we realize. If only we would, first and foremost, process ourselves primarily and others only after we are aware of and embrace our own "stuff," our propensities and vulnerabilities to behave less than gloriously intended might be held in check.
If we embrace responsibility primarily for ourselves, I believe we would be more compassionate dealing with the shortcomings and vulnerabilities of others. We would be far more effective whenever and wherever we need to bring self to bear on another's behavior or life. We may be less inclined toward being or coming across as critical and judgmental. That demands we reflect on that which is primarily ours first. This is something we will work at over our lifetime; it will never be a one-time fix.
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
LET'S TALK ABOUT . . .
"ASPIRING TO LEADERSHIP"
Recently I have been following the mayoral race in our city. I am amazed at how many aspire to fill those shoes. It is especially interesting to me in light of all issues facing our city. It is an onerous job at the best of times, especially in a pluralistic society where there are so many opposing forces vying for control, or at least a voice. We truly live in a mosaic.
I grew up during an era when leaders were supported by more of a majority than is afforded today. Many of them are still venerated by history's interpretation and the legacies we enjoy as a result of their leadership. I have often wondered if we have a deficit in great leadership, a more fragmented society or both. It probably isn't even that simple!
My favorite paradigm of leadership is "servant leadership;" leaders who aspire to leadership in order to serve. Such a style begs two questions. Who is it they really seek to serve? Or, even more telling, who is it they follow? I think those two questions are integrally linked: perhaps if we know who they are really following, we will know who it is they really seek to serve. Those answers are more revealing than one might imagine!
One of the most controversial leaders of our time is a man who is breaking rank with much that would be considered proper for anyone in his position. Whether we agree with his ideology or the execution of the same, Pope Francis has stepped onto the world stage and is leading. I think we could ask just about anyone who they perceive he is following and who he is attempting to serve and millions would be clear and decisive in their responses, even in controversial interpretations. He is modeling a kind of servant leadership.
It was interesting to me that Prince Charles broke rank on a recent visit to Canada by offering an opinion far too politicized for a member of royalty. The media were all over his statement. Why do we love such incidents? I think we long to know what people really think, especially people in the public spotlight. It reveals a lot about them and helps us sift and sort ourselves out in relation to them and their ideologies. It can be a messy process at he best of times.
Having someone to "bump into" is part of the process of knowing and defining ourselves. Watch children bump into their parents, teachers, coaches, etc. and how it is a shaping force in their lives. Watch teenagers who are desperately trying to differentiate and individuate. They often define themselves first by who they aren't: "I am not you Dad and/or Mom." They roam the options around themselves bumping into peers, authority figures, etc. trying to individuate: "Am I like you?" It often happens simultaneously like the process of disengaging the clutch and engaging the accelerator in a standard transmission.
Strong, definitive personhood is important; we are all following and we are all leading, whether we realize it or not. It is, as I said earlier, an onerous responsibility to integrally and vulnerably define and put ourselves out there for others to "bump into;" sympathetically or antithetically. Such has shaped societies; it has shaped world history. It will continue to do so. Our responsibility is to respectfully wrestle with the options presented to us and make our own definitive decisions.
The process of defining oneself is a life-long process for those who are willing to admit they are living growing beings. We do not need to have it all figured out; no one does except the deceived! Every season of life brings new challenges against which we define ourselves and to which we bring ourselves. This is part of life.
The questions for all of us echo those required of leaders: who are we following and whom do we serve? I trust as we continue to define who we are and what we believe, we will be gracious, wherever and whenever possible, to others on the journey!
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
"ASPIRING TO LEADERSHIP"
Recently I have been following the mayoral race in our city. I am amazed at how many aspire to fill those shoes. It is especially interesting to me in light of all issues facing our city. It is an onerous job at the best of times, especially in a pluralistic society where there are so many opposing forces vying for control, or at least a voice. We truly live in a mosaic.
I grew up during an era when leaders were supported by more of a majority than is afforded today. Many of them are still venerated by history's interpretation and the legacies we enjoy as a result of their leadership. I have often wondered if we have a deficit in great leadership, a more fragmented society or both. It probably isn't even that simple!
My favorite paradigm of leadership is "servant leadership;" leaders who aspire to leadership in order to serve. Such a style begs two questions. Who is it they really seek to serve? Or, even more telling, who is it they follow? I think those two questions are integrally linked: perhaps if we know who they are really following, we will know who it is they really seek to serve. Those answers are more revealing than one might imagine!
One of the most controversial leaders of our time is a man who is breaking rank with much that would be considered proper for anyone in his position. Whether we agree with his ideology or the execution of the same, Pope Francis has stepped onto the world stage and is leading. I think we could ask just about anyone who they perceive he is following and who he is attempting to serve and millions would be clear and decisive in their responses, even in controversial interpretations. He is modeling a kind of servant leadership.
It was interesting to me that Prince Charles broke rank on a recent visit to Canada by offering an opinion far too politicized for a member of royalty. The media were all over his statement. Why do we love such incidents? I think we long to know what people really think, especially people in the public spotlight. It reveals a lot about them and helps us sift and sort ourselves out in relation to them and their ideologies. It can be a messy process at he best of times.
Having someone to "bump into" is part of the process of knowing and defining ourselves. Watch children bump into their parents, teachers, coaches, etc. and how it is a shaping force in their lives. Watch teenagers who are desperately trying to differentiate and individuate. They often define themselves first by who they aren't: "I am not you Dad and/or Mom." They roam the options around themselves bumping into peers, authority figures, etc. trying to individuate: "Am I like you?" It often happens simultaneously like the process of disengaging the clutch and engaging the accelerator in a standard transmission.
Strong, definitive personhood is important; we are all following and we are all leading, whether we realize it or not. It is, as I said earlier, an onerous responsibility to integrally and vulnerably define and put ourselves out there for others to "bump into;" sympathetically or antithetically. Such has shaped societies; it has shaped world history. It will continue to do so. Our responsibility is to respectfully wrestle with the options presented to us and make our own definitive decisions.
The process of defining oneself is a life-long process for those who are willing to admit they are living growing beings. We do not need to have it all figured out; no one does except the deceived! Every season of life brings new challenges against which we define ourselves and to which we bring ourselves. This is part of life.
The questions for all of us echo those required of leaders: who are we following and whom do we serve? I trust as we continue to define who we are and what we believe, we will be gracious, wherever and whenever possible, to others on the journey!
Until next time . . . this is, Just Janice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)