Uncategorized

An issue that continues to arise in my work with patients is this idea that in order to be likable one has to have interesting facts, stories, and adventures with which to regale others.

But the true foundation of an intimate and lasting connection has less to do with flashy stories and more to do with an earnest curiosity in the other person…a reality that has been largely overlooked in our society.

This curiosity applies to friendships as well as romantic relationships. We are drawn to people who take an honest interest in us and our experience. And in a healthy dynamic, we then reciprocate that curiosity and take an interest in their experience.

With this approach, we may end up sharing many exciting stories, but the intention is very different. When we are related in this way, the stories follow an organic path that is more interpersonally connected as opposed to singularly geared towards showmanship.

And the unfortunate outcome that I see with showmen is that they end up feeling more alienated, when their original intention was to feel connected.

So the best advice I can give is take an honest interest in the ones you are looking to get closer to, ask them about their experience, and listen to their answers.

And if they don’t reciprocate the same interest in you, then perhaps it isn’t a good match.

I was recently asked to speak at an MCC Theater ‘talk back’ about Neil LaBute’s new play, Reasons to Be Happy. After the event, the theater suggested that I write a blog post for their website discussing the character’s emotional worlds and whether or not I thought they would be successful in their pursuit of happiness. Here’s a copy of the post originally published on the MCC blog.

In Neil Labute’s Reasons to be Happy, the main characters grapple with a pervasive sense of dissatisfaction as they painfully try to make their way towards happiness. Although each character is ostensibly on his or her own journey, one common thread for them all is their attraction to the protagonist, Greg. Therefore, for the purposes of this post, I’d like to highlight Greg’s misguided search for happiness and the damage he causes to the people in his orbit.

Although at first glance we may find Greg to be the tepid, non-threatening, nice guy next door, he is actually a man consumed and driven by his own professional ambition. Lacking in native empathy, Greg doesn’t seem to understand what it means to invest in relationships. Instead, he lives in an Odyssean fantasy, disconnected from the people around him, with only the façade of true connection.

He doesn’t realize that his suffering is in large part due to his inability to connect in a meaningful way to others.

Greg is interested in others only in as much as they supply him the admiration and validation  that he craves. We can assume that this is why he continues to lead them on, allowing each one to believe whatever fantasy they have about their relationship to him. He labels his approach “non-confrontational”, but he is actually behaving in a way that I would call a ‘good boy’ narcissist. He lacks empathy for other people’s subjectivity, but he also desperately wants to be the good and special one. Therefore, he avoids defining his experience in a way that might alienate the people who supply him validation. He doesn’t seem to understand that his passivity is in fact hurting the people in his life.

Both Steph and Carly doggedly look to find their happiness through an intimate relationship with Greg. The women subjugate their needs and wants on many levels in an effort to attach themselves to him. Perhaps they do this in the hopes that he will offer them a way out of their average lives. Maybe it is easier for these women to live vicariously through Greg’s ownership of his ambition than it is for them to wrestle with the conflict of their own desires. The women may also be drawn to Greg because he willingly becomes a vessel for their fantasies. Carly says that she finds him “safe” because he doesn’t lust after her or treat her like an object. What she fails to realize is that his desire is not directed toward her, which is why she doesn’t experience him as predatory. In reality, he’s safe because he’s not treating her as anything. He doesn’t have any true regard or investment in her as a person.

The one character that has some understanding of the extent to which Greg is disconnected from other people is Kent. He sees the way Greg is self-involved, self-indulgent and lacking in empathy. Although Kent doesn’t have the book smarts to articulate himself eloquently, he does seem to have a sense of clarity around Greg’s underlying selfish nature.

There is something deeply moving and sad about the three characters that orbit around Greg. They perpetually look for meaning and connection with a man who has neither the capacity nor the interest in forging intimate relationships. On some level it would stand to reason that all three have a sense of Greg’s limitations, and yet on another level they continue to hope that Greg will surprise them and behave differently. Meanwhile, Greg has little understanding of the pain his behavior is causing the people around him, or how this alienation from others contributes to his unhappiness.

In the end, I am not confident that these characters have learned enough about themselves to create lasting change. They seem reactionary, not thoughtful, and I don’t know that they will necessarily do things differently in the future. If not, then it stands to reason that these characters will continue on an unsuccessful quest for happiness for a very long time.

Sheryl Sandberg’s book titled Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead has prompted a lot of discussion about career oriented women and the challenges they face.

Although Lean In primarily relates to women in the workplace, I have noticed in my work with women that there is a global struggle around women’s comfort level when identifying and articulating needs and wants. Too often, women follow up their request with an apology, a hedge, or an undoing of whatever it was they mustered up the courage to ask for. Some women fear being labeled a bitch, while others worry that they are going to seem burdensome or greedy. Ultimately, many women end up couching their requests in a way that belies their true desires. When that happens long enough in a person’s life, it can be difficult to even know what one wants or needs.

Unfortunately, so many women have been programmed to be givers/accommodaters that they have stopped feeling empowered to ask for anything in return. They have associated needing, wanting, and assertiveness with being unkind–which is not the case. Being assertive and being kind are not mutually exclusive. The same thing goes for being assertive and likable. Too many women have difficulty imagining a scenario where they can be both assertive and likable. There is room to be both.

I realize that this may sound simple to say and difficult to accomplish, but it is an actionable and achievable goal in the therapy room. We can work to understand how the negative self-talk began, why it persists, and how to make changes in a global way.

Perhaps it is time for a redefining of what it means to be an assertive woman that strips off the pejorative connotation and allows for a more flexible and positive outlook.