WHY WE RELATE:  A MODEL IN SEARCH OF DATA

It is the thesis of this book that all behavior (and hence all relationships) is hedonistic.  All behavior serves the most basic of human motives—to establish and maintain identity, to provide repeated and consistent validation of who we are and to what we aspire.  This is true even for the most seemingly selfless behavior and even for those who appear to harbor a low self-esteem.  Even the most self-debasing of us, the most severely depressed, the most guilt-ridden, and the most down-trodden cling to the belief and the hope that despite all outward appearances, the most self-defeating behaviors, the most extreme histories of rejection and defeat, despite all the humiliation and self-recrimination, we are basically innocent, well-intended, and worthwhile.  With this premise in mind we will examine how this most basic and pervasive of human motives, exclusive of physiologic al needs, influences our selection of companions, friends, and lovers, how it determines whom it is we admire,  how we relate to them, and our success as social animals.  We will examine how this need determines the parameters of what people define as personality and the manner in which it undercuts all contemporary theoretical models as well as strategies for self-improvement. 

Time Discrepancy:

            Separations among friends vary in length.  When there has been a disconnect  over any period of time there is also a discrepancy between the perceptions and experiences of separate individuals.   It is this discrepancy that provides the subject of conversation when friends re-establish contact.   Social networking using Facebook, Twitter and other media ameliorates some of this pressure but does not  replace the need for to face-to-face interactions.    When friends are able to resume close physical contact the need to bring each other up=to-date generates strong  pressure for revealing.  The intensity of such pressure is a function of the time of separation, the nature of intervening experiences and individual differences which may be gender related.  The verbal and nonverbal interactions serve the purpose of bringing the two friends from a condition of cognitive dissonance to one of   consonance.  Such harmony of knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes provides validation for bot individuals of their core beliefs, emotions and value judgments, confirming their sense of identity.  For very close friends, separated over a long of time, there is often a sense of comfort rapidly established that things remain as they always were in the relationship.  For some individuals even a brief separation can be upsetting.  Interactions between strangers are awkward for some people because of the lack of a common experiential core.  We search for similarities to establish a relationship base.  Shared friends, places of residence, experiences are explored.  When no common ground is uncovered the relationship is likely to fail.

Gender Differences:

            It is generally believed that males are less talkative and less likely to reveal their feelings than females.  Recent research with middle ands high school students  Wiseman, 2002 ;  2013)   seems to support this generalization but also indicates that boys are no less emotio0nally involved and often upset by relationships than girls.  They just don’t like to reveal these feelings.   My own experience providing counseling individually and in groups in the high school confirms this finding for me.  It is very difficult to persuade guys to agree to counseling,  especially in group.  When a boy does chance participating in a group he is less likely to be vocal.  Guys have their own rules about what they reveal to other guys but is more likely to be in the form of boasting about conquests than revealing true feelings.   Women, in my experience can spend hours on the telephone or in social situations describing feelings.

Men can spend several hours watching a football game with male

friends with little conversation except about specific plays on the field.

They experience a feeling of closeness and communication.     

Counseling and therapy:

           

While most schools of psychotherapy and counseling acknowledge the importance   of relationship between therapist and client, few delve deeply into thitopic, emphasizing technique and strategies of intervention.  Behavior therapy focuses upon the importance of reinforcement techniques to increase the strength of healthy responses.  Cognitive behavior therapy recognizes the significance of cognitions and employs interventions which challenge irrational thoughts and encourage rational thinking.   While irrational thoughts may lead to self-defeating behavior, they are not irrational to the client.  They serve a purpose or they would not be viable.  It is likely that even self-defeating thoughts may serve a higher purpose in preserving identity.   Therapists would be interested in why such thoughts persist.  Counselors have been strongly influenced by the Nondirective Therapy approach of Carl Rogers, which does stress the importance of the client counselor relationship.  Most critical to this approach is the success of the counselor in communicating his understanding of the client’s feelings.  It is essential, Rogers taught ,  that the client recognize he or she has been “received.” 

Without denigrating the effectiveness of behavioral approaches, it is Rogerian therapy that most clearly exemplifies the power of the validation that a therapist can impart to his client.  Recognizing that a therapist is aware and can experience and share one’s own perceptions and feelings feeds directly into the deepest core of the client’s psyche.  It is to acknowledge and validate identity.

Bullying:

            The bully enhances his own self-esteem by dominating and publically humiliating others.  He or she requires an audience for their acts.  Fran, a high school sophomore, had a history of scoliosis.  She wore a back brace for many years.  While the brace was now gone, she was vulnerable to abuse because of her own fragile ego.  Fran revealed to me that a girl was spreading lies about her. Her friends  told her  the perpetrator was telling people she was a “slut.”  This was far from the case.  The culprit was now dating a boy whom Fran had previously been “hooked up” with. She hadn’t reported the abuse because she didn’t want to get the girl in trouble. I encouraged Fran to report the incident, which she did, and worked with her on issues of self-esteem.  Fran thought of herself as damaged and seemed to believe she deserved the abuse.  The perpetrator needed  to devalue Fran because of concerns that her new boyfriend was still interested in Fran.       

                                   

                                    References    

Festinger, L. (1957).  A theory of cognitive dissonance.   Stanford, CA:  Stanford University Press.

Wiseman, R. (2002) Queen bees and wannwebes.  Harmony Books.

Wiseman, R. (2013).  Masterminds and wingmen. (20130.  Harmony Books.