I have been thinking about 'passion' lately; what makes one person so very passionate and another person hardly at all passionate. This led me to consider 'attachment styles ' and that led me to this statement:
"People with a preoccupied attachment style and anxious people tend to experience passion more often than other people."
According to Wiki "people with this style of attachment seek high levels of intimacy, approval and responsiveness from their partners. They sometimes value intimacy to such an extent that they become overly dependent on their partners..."
I am still chewing all that over in my mind so I won't go on and on about it now but I know that I am a very passionate person and my husband is a very passionate person. In fact, all my children are very passionate people. But, none more than my youngest son. His father just dropped him off at an art festival. He had made a costume for the event (everybody does) and his excitement was palpable. Don't tell anybody but we even let him miss school on Friday afternoon so that he could attend all three days.
My husband has been concerned about his interests. Will it all lead to a real job he wanted to know? Aware that there was no containing this passion I have encouraged it, supported it and applauded his successes. And just now my husband returned from taking him there and said, "Boy, he could hardly wait to get out of the car. He was biting at the bit to be there. I'm not going to kill that kind of passion. It is just amazing to see." And, it is. He is absorbed in a world of his creation; he adores expressing himself via numerous crafts but none more so than his drawing.
I think what really bothered me about the statement about passion that I quoted was that it implied that in some way passionate people were not as high functioning; not so securing attached as other people; less passionate people. And, maybe that's right. I see other people around me, happily married they say, who are not nearly as passionate as me; much more consistent really.
Yet, I adore passionate people; was attracted to my husband because he was so passionate about so many things; continues to be passionate every day in every way. Yes, those sorts of people can tire you but I know I couldn't be without them; thoroughly enjoy them.
I feel quite feisty about the statement, actually; as if passion was a dirty word. That just can't be right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes, this is very chewy. May I ask for clarification? What do you mean by "passion"?
ReplyDeletePL
ps quick note re your son: if he's happy, bright and good at something like Chinese (everyone "knows" Chinese is "really hard"), he'll be fine. Worrying about employability can lead to poor educational choices; better to be guided by what is difficult (intellectually challenging) and enjoyable, err on the side of /irr/elevance.
ReplyDeleteI pray that my own children find something they feel passionately about. I think some people have a quiet passion about some things. Perhaps not demonstrative, but lots of deep feeling.
ReplyDeleteI guess it really takes both kinds of people to make the world work. But to somewhat hint that there is something wrong with being a passionate type, well I'm sure a very dull, non passionate person wrote that. Although I can see the point about us being overly dependent.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to agree with you about passion.
ReplyDeleteI think it's an important ingredient to life. Without passion humans tend to slide into a monotone state of existence. Being passionate is what keeps relationships thriving, prompts us to stand up for our beliefs, makes a kid thrilled to finally figure out that math problem, etc.
imho, passion brings a much needed spark to existence and makes life a far more interesting experience.
PL: That is a good question, really. Definition wise, passion is an intense emotion compelling feeling, enthusiasm or desire for a thing. I think passion is sometimes viewed as an emotion that needs to be quelled. This is what I have been thinking about along with the notion that we think of being passionate about something, highly enthusiastic about something, as good. Thanks for your thoughts re my son. When people do what they love to do, things have a way of falling into place.
ReplyDeleteMick: I think that is quite right. Their passion for things is not overtly expressed. If you get a chance to do what you really love to do, happiness just stems from that, I think. It can be a very quiet thing.
Serenity: Well, passion suggests 'out of control' in some instances, something overly dependent types are inclined to. People with certain attachment styles tend to get locked into certain patterns of behaviour that don't work in their favour necessarily. I tend to think of passionate people as people who feel deeply and think of that as a good thing, whereas passion can also be seen negatively as causing difficulties. Being a somewhat passionate person, I enjoy the company of other passionate people.
lil: Well said. Where would we be without passion? I'd rather passion to monotony any day.
Perhaps your sources are using a definition closer to the one in the dictionary (OED has suffering, passivity, affection from without, etc;): the emphasis being that there is an external cause. Opposite of passion thus is action.
ReplyDeletePL
PL: Have a read of this: http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/05/passion-vs-self-discipline/
ReplyDeleteThis man, who I read from time to time, sees passion as non-essential and would rather we use self-discipline to motivate us and get things done. I see the point but don't we tend to do those things that we want to do/are passionate about? It just seems rather dull the way this is presented. It may work in theory (heck, he is using calculations!) but as people, I think we need more.
Thanks Vesta, I'll read it and report back. In the meantime here's something I wrote a while back about passion:
ReplyDeleteThe action of love and nostalgia for passion
PL
Dear Vesta
ReplyDeletePavlina and your initial quotation are using the term passion quite differently, so I'll comment on them separately.
Pavlina's argument has a hidden assumption, i.e., that what he calls "passion" and what he calls "self-discipline" are mutually incompatible. To use his notation, he assumes something like [1] and [2] below:
[1] P causes not S
[2] S causes not P
I think these assumptions are unfounded. I would argue that, far from being incompatible, P and S are at their best when working together as a team. The "results" are better, and the feeling/thinking/doing subject is happier and healthier.
Note that "self-discipline" (or "reason" perhaps) can never cause anyone to do anything. All it can do is infer from premisses to conclusions. Premisses, ultimately, are extra-rational. Reason can help our emotions and our body know itself, and I think arbitrary barriers to reason are unhealthy, but reason alone can only be destructive (alone, reason can only take things apart --- analyse). Reason is rapacious and will even turn on itself.
In D/s terms, I should argue that reason/self-discipline/whatever can never be the Dom (although I should argue that a D/s relationship between reason and the emotions would be bad news anyway).
Going beyond Pavlina, the questions to ask might be along the lines: how can reason and the emotions work together in harmony? what gift can each bring the other? how would the subject benefit?
More next time on your attachment style and passion quote :)
PL