With Whom Do You 'Hang"?

Trying to understand why people do what they do has fascinated me clear back to my undergraduate college days.  But because of the nature of the psychology profession--general psych., counseling, educational or social psychology—their methods and the reality of their rather passive professional job environments, i.e., sitting as a counselor, therapist or advisor, constructing and evaluating tests and interpreting data from studies, experiments and statistics-- I chose rather to professionally go into classroom social science and physical education teaching and coaching.  There I could be on my feet moving, demonstrating, talking, being more actively involved with the people I wanted to work with and try to influence for the good. 

 

And so I had a career in teaching; but I continued to maintain an interest in psychology.

In recent years the unsuspected relationship between psychological findings in two areas of particular interest to me have been independently published by well-known Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D. (The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil ) and Harvard researchers Nicolas Christakis, Md., Ph.D., and James Fowler, Ph.D. (Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives). Let me give a very brief synopsis of their findings pertaining to the connection between evil and the etiology of obesity.   A surprising relationship between these seemingly disparate individual and social problems, and the influence of social networks was found (see ‘Bad Seeds and Everyday Gluttony’ in Psychology Today, Hero, Sept 15, 2009).

From Zimbardo’s piece in Psychology Today:

Obesity is not evil, but both share a common yet long undetected feature.  Social science, like history, has demonstrated that the most powerful causal forces behind everything from prisoner abuse to ‘supersizing' are located less in conscious individual choices and more in the situational and systemic factors that envelop individuals at given times and places.
The prevailing notion that personal, inner dispositions are the primary causal factors involved in bad behavior or obesity needs to be reexamined.

And from Christakis’ and Fowler’s article in The New England Journal of Medicine (July 2007):

"Network phenomena appear to be relevant to the biologic and behavioral trait of obesity, and obesity appears to spread through social ties.... The spread of obesity in social networks appears to be a factor in the obesity epidemic."

The study showed that these effects were the product, not of behavioral imitation, but of perceived social norms. Having a close friend or family member who is obese made obesity more socially acceptable -- rather than stigmatized.

These authors conclude here is a power of social interaction that goes a long way in explaining why people do what they do and become what they become.  Social network ties can be beneficial or they can drag one into behaviors or lifestyles that are deleterious and counterproductive.

   

I remember telling my children, ‘You can’t hang around a campfire without starting to smell like smoke—whether you want to or not’ and even included it in my list of life maxims.  With the advent of the worldwide computer web and social media we are influenced more than we know by what we see, hear, and spend time with.  Much of it (especially that found on the Facebook genre) is ‘smoke,’ or at least has the psychological effect of it if we spend much time around it, and it can affect people in negative ways. 

In short, on the negative or positive side, who and what you spend your time with will give you a perceived norm (as inaccurate as that may be) and will tend to validate your immersion in or continuance in what could be a very counterproductive (which is the warning of this posting) or life-affirming (if you find a successful and positive) life-style.  

I end with the old story (told more fully in an early weblog posting of mine) of the baby eagle who was found and put into a pen with the chickens and in seeing them imitated their behavior and became as a chicken.  Later, a naturalist saw the eagle and knew of its potential and with patience and perseverance persuaded the eagle to assume its true nature and leave the barnyard and soar with the other eagles. 

Be careful of who you ‘hang’ with. 

The Enduring Questions

I have on my bookshelves an old philosophy book titled The Enduring Questions. It contains over 800 pages of the thoughts of men (no women, interestingly) from Socrates to the 20th Century behaviorists who have grappled with the issue of man-- who he is, why he is here on this Earth, and what he should be doing with his time. In short, these authors were trying to get a handle on the meaning of life so we can live with meaning.

I suspect we all have given these enduring questions some thought. Or at least we should. They are of deep concern to every thoughtful individual. We should not just leave it to the philosophers and poets to worry about these things. Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy that attempts to do that and true religion absolutely should do that. I testify that the answers are ‘out there.’

Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Well, I disagree; it is worth living but it doesn’t amount to much until it is examined and measured against the standard of conscience and revealed truth and then set on a direction that satisfies that conscience with which we were programmed from our beginnings. Disregarding our conscience (that ‘ought to’ or ‘ought not to’ feeling) and not trying to educate it beyond what we came with by simply ‘going with the flow’ or even just sticking with cultural norms is not good enough. Doing so is an abdication of the highest in us that needs to be tapped.

I feel that each of us should periodically take some time to stand alone without distraction under the stars and contemplate the enduring questions and the answers we have come up with. If we don’t “stand all amazed” we are avoiding the issues that make up the very purpose for which we were born. Or maybe we have not looked hard enough for answers and direction. You can tell if you are on the right track by having a reverence for all life and a deep feeling of gratitude for your own life—regardless of its circumstances.

I end with a statement from the celebrated thinker Blaise Pascal: “Know then, proud man, what a paradox you are to yourself. Humble yourself, weak reason; be silent, foolish nature; learn that man infinitely transcends man, and learn from your Master your true condition, of which you are ignorant. Hear God.”

The Demise (?) of Marriage

It is not my habit to read ‘advice’ columns in our local newspaper.  Neither is it my habit to listen to the ‘bleeding heart’ advice dished up by ‘Deliliah’ and her ‘cheer me up with a love song’ syndicated radio program.  But I did recently read a ‘Ask Amy’ column written by Amy Dickinson titled “Woman stays with abusive partner"; and I did listen to about a half-hour of ‘Deliliah’s commiserating  on my car radio.  Both the advice column and the sad women who called the radio host addressed what has devolved into a chronic and serious social problem—one that is badly hurting our nation.  Marriage is misunderstood—and mislived by many.

I want to talk about marriage—damaged marriages in particular; and lastly I want to contrast them to the ideal. 

   

To the contrary of the constructs of social theorists and many newlyweds, marriage is a divine institution, not just a social convenience or arrangement. In its finest expression it is a sacred covenant, not just a loose contract.  Thinking otherwise is the beginning of the problem of weakened, damaged, or destroyed marriages. The vision of an ideal marriage—a union of hearts, minds, bodies, and goals must be always kept before the partners.  A marriage is not just a flashy wedding; many never learn that. 

 

Marriage and the having and nurturance of families was addressed by deity Himself in the earliest of the documents of Christianity—the first four chapters of the book of Genesis of the Bible. There we learn that marriage and family is among the most important purposes of our mortality—and our immortality.  Treating or valuing marriage and family as less than paramount importance, even if one has not been or cannot currently be party to the ideal, is the cause of much of the unhappiness among people.

I would like to posit five classes or types of marriage we find in our society.  Except for those who are born out-of-wedlock (which is more and more becoming the case) most people have direct personal experience with one of these types.  I will call them Class A (the finest marriages—the ideal); Class B—good marriages; Class C; Class D; and Class E.

Taking Class D marriages (the all-to-common ‘Modern Marriage’ or long-term non-marriage or ‘relationship’) first, these are characterized by the following approaches, attitudes and behaviors:

·        The couple emphasize the virtual equality, or autonomy, of the sexes.  It is thought of as a ‘partnership,’ a convenient contractual or assumed agreement between consenting adults. An emphasis on unity, even at the beginning, is rarely made.  The line between a ‘male’ role and a ‘female’ role is also blurred and even erased. The outcome in such relationships is that over time the woman, all too frequently, is left with ashes instead of roses—she gets far less than the 50% she thought she was going to get.   A sense of incompleteness  and dissatisfaction is  inevitable. Abandonment of the woman is all too common.

·        Initially it is encouraged by modern contraceptive methods which virtually frees the female member from unwanted pregnancy.  The accepted availability of abortion is an additional ‘equalizing’ factor between the man and the woman.  She can now sow without the necessity of reaping.  But reaping—reaping something good-- is the all-too-infrequent outcome of such ‘arrangements.’ They are hollow and incomplete.

Class E marriages (authoritarian, once called ‘Victorian’ marriages) may start out with typical hopes or expectations but quickly devolve into authoritarian autocracies.  The male dominates the woman who becomes a virtual slave to her husband—to his wishes and desires.  Abuse—verbal, emotional, and physical—typify this charade.  It is a trap and is perpetuated only out of a need for some security or out of fear if entrenchment is begun but compliance (by her) is not forthcoming.  The woman is expected to ‘stand by her man,’ even if he is inebriated, rarely around, or worse. 

 

A step up from the Class D and Class E marriages is the Class C or Self-indulgent or natural-man type marriage.  Professed love for their mate is usually peripheral to their own fulfillment; at their basis they need a mate to do something for them.  More often than not it is not so much a genuine love attraction to the other person and a desire to be ‘at one’ with them as it is for some self-serving or manipulative motive or other reason: money, a ‘trophy’ spouse, career advantages, social status, relief from boredom, ready access to sex, or escape from an unhappy home or work situation.  These marriages are shallow and have in them a built-in obsolescence.  Children are paradoxically either an unwanted by-product (especially so for the male) or the real focus of the union (more often for the woman).  They are often godless for both companions or almost always godless for one of the partners.  They have no depth or real foundation. 

 

A Class B marriage would be considered a good marriage by most standards.  The spouses are honorable people and they genuinely love each other.  Loyalty and fidelity to their mate is the rule.  There are meaningful interdependencies and commonalities, genuine compatibility, and very similar if not the same values and goals.  Where interests differ they are respected and supported by the other spouse.    In these marriages children are cherished and welcomed into the home.  Family is important, and time with the family and spouse is a very high priority.  A strong religious faith is often, but not always, important to these marriages.  A desire for and quest of affluence is of markedly lesser importance than the other values indicated above.

 

Class A marriages.  These are marriages that have the true potential to endure—not just ‘till death do us part.’  They have all the ingredients of the Class B marriage plus more.   God must be a party to this association—indeed to any association, hope, or expectation—if it is to endure into the eternities.  God makes it possible—not just wishful thinking, notwithstanding the myriad love-songs to the contrary.  Ordinance administered by God-given authority is required.  That means that pride must be surrendered and obedience to eternal law submitted to.  How could it be otherwise?  But the two marriage partners—man and woman—must also be holy people for there to be ‘holy matrimony’ for them in heaven.  The couple must be pure and must be ‘one.’  They must be spiritually based.  Moreover, the couple’s hearts must not be mindless.  God requires the heart and a willing mind. Those who desire the best must be the best.  For our highest desire (eternal life in the marriage and family unit) to be granted to us, we must give our highest allegiance to God and then to each other.

 A ‘Class A’ or celestial marriage  requires our ultimate act of mutual consecration.  It is possible, satisfying and enriching, and I believe highly desirable.