Parent-child relationships, repeated

As I interact with my new grandson I find my mind going to the natural process of bonding of a helpless little being, completely dependent on the goodwill of those around him. The dear babe must develop a sense of trust in his caregivers that allows him to be vulnerable, to demand that his needs be met so that he can survive and have new bold experiences.

I like to send him on a space ship, made of my protective folded arms, hurling through the air. He loves the sensation and although technically he can't smile at a month, he certainly seems to be smiling. In the same way, I play slightly roughly with him at nappy changes. I blow kisses on his tummy and I roll him to one side and say something like, 'Well T what happens now?' On cue, he rolls back onto his back and I tell him what a clever little boy he is to have moved. I offer him new experiences and he goes with the flow because he has developed trust in me.

Imagine now a small child who very quickly comes to see that his protector is actually a source of danger, physically or emotionally, or in both ways. What option is there but to navigate himself or herself to a sense a safety? It's far too dangerous to blame the protector and so who else is there to blame but himself or herself? In anxious obedience, he or she must attach once again to the frightening adult as a survival mechanism.

As an adult, people who behave in rather frightening ways are sort of the norm to that poor wee child, now grown. Frightening people are not foreign to people who have gone through such a situation repeatedly in their childhood. In fact, it feels kinda 'right' to their minds, kinda comfortable, normal, at least for a time.

Of course, there is the reasoning rational mind that tells someone that relationships are not meant to be about fright, about a sense of discomfort. But, versed in the habit of blaming oneself or someone else, certainly not the loved one behaving badly, the 'victim' instinctively blames himself or herself for the lack of the control of the partner. It worked to keep them safe as an infant and throughout childhood, why not now?

I think this may be why some people remain in romantic relationships when those friends and family members who care about them beg them to go.

Of course, other factors are at play: their financial situation, their lifestyle, their self esteem issues, their place in their society without the relationship, keeping the family going. They can't see their way out. They can't imagine a better future. They make a decision about whether to stay or go based on the position of least resistance emotionally.

For these reasons, they bargain with their fate and organize their lives around pleasing that person who behaves badly to them, as only they know how to do.

Manipulation

Gaslight has been in my consciousness for as long as I can remember. As a much younger person it was such dark material; a husband who appeared loving but was in fact using manipulation to make his wife wonder about her own sanity, all in the name of him getting what he wanted.

My young mind saw it as movie material. I realize now that I never took the notion of someone doing something like that seriously. As time went by I'd read of a marriage gone sour and one killing the other, and over time I came to appreciate the fact that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know than a stranger. But, manipulation tactics, tactics used to manipulate the person someone professed to love, passed me by.

Manipulation isn't like rape or assault or even stealing all the money from your joint account and taking off with a lover. It is subtle, a little bit here and a little bit there. The clever person gets under your skin; knows you so well that he or she gets to understand what makes you tick; how hard you're willing to work to make a relationship succeed; how entirely possible it is for you to question your own behavior; how often you are willing to turn the other cheek.

Those that have been subjected to manipulation by someone who supposedly loves them tend to all have the same question. 'How did he learn these tactics?' It's a fair question because a person whose default position when pushed is to manipulate another person doesn't look a particular way or even act in a particular way most of the time. Most of the time they can look exactly what you would expect an upstanding member of the community to look like, and most of the time they act the way you would expect a reasonably loving person to behave.

I do wonder if people who become adept at using manipulation in personal relationships did in fact learn some of these tactics in their childhood. Perhaps they did some shady things and when suspicion fell on them they needed to concoct stories. Or, perhaps they had an overbearing adult in their lives such that they needed to make use of deceit to protect themselves.

In the process of protecting themselves they came to see that the world was 'dog eat dog'. To survive, or just to get their way, there were things they could, must, say and do; certain types of people with whom they could build a life, such that the odds of being in control were more certain.

Some tactics of manipulation are so prevalent that any manipulative personality worth his salt is not going to miss them. Raising one's voice, be that in public or privately at home, is a well honed tactic. What does the other person, and at home the other person is likely to be a quiet living sort of person who hates disagreement and shouting, going to do once the tone has been elevated such that neighbors will almost certainly hear. But, of course, the other person leaves the space to enable the manipulator to settle down.

Did the other person think that the shouting person had erupted on purpose; that he or she got all riled up on purpose? Maybe. Or, maybe it is thought there is a lack of self-control. Either way, the conversation has come to an end. Whatever was being discussed, not to the liking of the person who has started to shout, is now unresolved, just as was intended.

I think frustration leads almost anybody to sometimes shout back, by the way, but again, where does that lead? It does not lead to a civil, sharing of thoughts in a rational conversation between two people who need to sort a matter out.

When the default becomes that one person of a couple has the God given right to raise his or her voice whenever they feel something uncomfortable, perhaps a doubt being raised, or having to explain something, it doesn't take long before people around that person begin to 'walk on eggshells'. Once everybody is walking on eggshells, well, that person has everyone right where he or she wants them; concerned to raise a matter, keeping as quiet as possible, being agreeable; keeping opinions to themselves. Control is theirs for the taking.

The drama stops by putting up limits. The offended party may say, 'I can't go on talking to you until you stop shouting', or they can remove themselves from the situation. This is what is recommended. But do note, there is still complete control assumed by one party. Nothing was resolved. The affection takes a heavy hit until a more reasonable dynamic has come into place. But, what are the odds of a new default behavior; 50:50 at best. Once the fog lifts and the behavior is seen for what it is, well, you can never go back to being in the fog.

Raising one's voice is merely one of a good dozen of strategies used by those for whom winning means everything; for whom keeping another in the bottom down position is important. I think it is important to call them for what they are - manipulation strategies. In the world going forward people will be more and more informed about this sort of thing; expectations for playing fair will mean that people are more awake. That's a good thing.