Manipulation

My most recent essay considered, once again, the observation that being an ‘actor’ in the drama of life is superior to being an object ‘acted upon.’  I feel constrained to treat one or two more aspects of this subject and then try to let it go—at least for a while. 

 

First, be aware there is a danger either way: by being a tyrant or a manipulator as an ‘actor,’ or allowing oneself to be manipulated and used unjustly by or at the convenience of others.

Taking the first position—being an actor—consider the following:

If, in common human interactions, you, by age, strength, power, position, title, authority, reputation or resources enforce your desires on others by domineering, coercion, intimidation, physical or verbal abuse, or resource manipulation you are in the wrong.  In my Church we call these behaviors unrighteous dominion.  Examples of this would be oppressing, afflicting, or enslaving a person, bullying them, withholding rights, love, or courtesy or deserved privilege.

 

This is most often done by the more powerful of the two or more people in conflict, but it can be done by someone as young as a child. Parents and other caregivers have often been manipulated by an uncooperative, insubordinate, or demanding (of time, attention, or resources) child.  Caregivers often and unfortunately give in, bribe and thus enable undesirable behavior and perpetuate the manipulation.

 

One can be an actor in righteousness but to do that he/she must act by the rules of decent, kind, and moral human engagement.

Concerning the second position—being one who is acted upon—consider the following as a way to get out of that position:

 
         You can and should stand up for your rights, but never demand a privilege; that,    in fairness to all must be earned. Many people have ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’                 confused.  One should not be afraid to push back in kindness—not in kind--against        being manipulated by any confused person.
       

All must come to realize that the notions of maturity, qualification, earned reward, experience, privilege, competition, are always in play in an open society—whether that be between two individuals, between one person and his environment, or in the home, the marketplace, in school or entertainment, or in many other venues where people compete for position. Positive position comes with time, effort, work, and accomplishment of skills.

 

One who is not willing to act—to work, to obtain the qualifications, to adapt, to follow the rules (written and unwritten), to put oneself in the right place at the right time and making the right presentation of personal assets and qualifications is likely to remain acted upon.  It may indeed be justice that it is so.  He or she in effect chooses to be a resource rather than the other way around.  Not that anyone should be merely a ‘resource,’ but understand that there is a give and take in the commerce of human engagement, and one should not feel it is a right to ‘take’ when he is unwilling to give.

 In either case let fairness and consideration of others be your guide for the knife cuts both ways.   

Informed Judgment

There are two classes of physical entities: things that act, and things that are acted upon.  Human beings, generally, have the capacity for action and those who do act, as contrasted to those who are more passive or who are reactive, fare better in most of life’s arenas. 

 

The passive, or unprepared, or reactive are those who are frequently abused, unfulfilled, or find themselves playing catchup by their more forceful and successful contemporaries.  In these situations the passive are not usually happy people.

 

The more forceful ‘actor’ by contrast, however, is generally one of two classes of people: (1) forceful by bullying or physical strength or greater resources (often unearned resources) or of domineering personality; or (2) those who confidently act out of wisdom, love, or informed judgment. 

 

Since wisdom is usually acquired by time and experience, a younger or more disadvantaged person would do well to act out of love and informed judgment.  Love comes with involvement with and service to others and having a clear view of the supernal value of life—one’s own and that of he or she who the ‘actor’ serves.  Love grows and does not diminish unless his/her focus turns inward. 

 

This leaves us with informed judgment as a guide, a safety shield, a starter and a motive power.  Where does one get that?

 

The easiest way, I think, for a young person (but probably the least pursued) is to align himself with a mentor—formerly called a ‘master’—one who has the qualities, skills, values and knowledge the fledgling actor needs or desires.  Then the person—the ‘actor’—needs to become an apprentice, an intern, a trainee, to listen, watch, learn, and willingly practice under guidance of the ‘master.’  The ‘intern’ thus uses the informed judgment of the ‘master’ to inform his own. The trainee will be tempered, of course, by his own unique talents or proclivities but he must be willing to be taught, first, without any resistance to the experience of the teacher. As a former coach I was well-aware of those who were ‘coachable’ and those who were not, and many were the un-coachable who had the tools, the native talent and potential but who never amounted to much, at least in athletics, because they did not learn this critical point.

Finally, of course, the ‘actor’ must read, read, read about and be around, if possible, others who have achieved what he wants to achieve and be thankful to acquire in part the master’s ‘informed judgment.’

Marry Young

I know this goes counter to every warning and most advice you will hear, especially in today’s culture of uncertainty, but let me make my case.

 

First let me acknowledge the reality.  Young adults, if they marry at all, do so at a much later age than has ever been the norm in America. Why?  Because they are afraid.  They look at the statistics—of the divorces, of their resources, of the prospects, and they freeze up. 

 

Formerly, at least in the first six decades of 20^th Century America, a young couple looked forward to making a life together— having a courtship, being in love, marrying, getting a job, working together, expecting a time of penny-pinching, having children, establishing a starter home of their own, and assuming there would be stability, fidelity, teamwork and commitment . . . and happiness.

 

All of this did not start after the person was ‘established.’  It came through the process.

The McGuire Sisters’ song, “Love and Marriage” (or almost any Doris Day song) sums it up nicely (or idealistically):

“Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage.  This I tell you brother, you can’t have one without the other.

It’s an institute you can’t disparage

Ask the local gentry, they will say it’s elementary.

Dad was told by mother; you can’t have one without the other.” 

As I see it—and have experienced it—marriage can be ‘an institut[ion] you can’t disparage’ if you just do it right.  It is a wonderful God-ordained institution that satisfies not only a person’s natural instincts, but builds the participants and creates and lends stability to any society that encourages and protects it. 

 

But here’s what has damaged it so badly in the last half-century:

·                  The ‘pill.’  Curtailing the birth of children has left the marriage with two legs of a three-legged stool.  It is unnatural and unstable.  The focus for happiness of the couple (alone) has been turned inward (to self) rather than outward (to spouse) and what they through their love-union can create (family).  Selfishness (childlessness) always erodes happiness as the honeymoon ends or the blush fades from the rose petal. 

·                     Materialism.  When people want ‘things’ more than they want to make another person happy and secure then they find it necessary to go out of the home (women in particular) to pay for these things.  Temptations in the marketplace (things or other people) always exist.  Once a material focus develops there is no end to it.  The ‘family’ is relegated to second-fiddle.

·                     Loosened moral standards and pornography.  If the safety mechanisms of conscience and time-honored standards of morality and decency as taught by true religion are disregarded then the satisfying marriage or hoped-for marriage has little chance of survival or even establishment.  If a young man or older man gets caught in the web of pornography (and it is nearly instantaneous if/when he opens or goes to the book, magazine, or website or business) it is a sure forecast of proximate or ultimate ruination.  It may be the fastest addiction.  Then the addict quickly learns that this object of his focus becomes his master (or mistress)—a fantasy or even physiological substitution for the real thing.  A sound marriage and an addiction cannot exist together.
 

·                    So-called No-fault divorce.  Of course someone is at fault-- that’s the problem. At least one of the couple has not learned, has forgotten, disregarded, or devalued the initial marriage expectation.  Unless a standard of commitment and responsibility and unity of values is acknowledged and committed to, the resultant pseudo- marriage or ‘relationship’ has a built-in easy escape clause. Hearts are broken and people are damaged.

 

So why marry young?  Marry while adjustment is easier—before your life becomes inflexible.  Marry so you can protect each other.  Marry so you can build a great thing together.  Marry so you are out of the temptations of the world that beguile and afflict and capture the vulnerable.  Marry so you can find and give happiness with/to another person and in the process gain the greatest satisfactions of life.   

The longer one waits, the more negative things (selfishness, materialism, sublimating addictions, attitudes of non-commitment—divorce, bankruptcy, etc.) have time to become established.

This is the old-school view.  And do you know what?  In most cases it worked!