Manipulators and inconsistency part 3Here is at last (and after a long and painful "illness"!) the post dedicated to Gruppio!Introduction
There was once a distinguished lady who claimed to be such an ecologist, that, when her children had a waste paper in their hand, she forced them to hold it until the little family found a paper-bin ... Too bad that she was the first insisting, when they were in the car together, so that the children would throw the waste-paper out of the window!
Another anecdote. A housewife had a guest, an old lady, who rinsed pans before using them, though, of course, they were clean, out of the fear that a few grains of dust had stayed in them. The housewife, who claimed to be very careful as well, said immediately that she always did it! And since that day. she began to wash the pots before putting them on the fire. But, as her family knew, unlike what she claimed, she had never done it before ....
Here we are for the third part on "manipulators and inconsistency", thanks to the invitation expressed by some of my students: in fact, I thought I had concluded the subject with the episode number 2, but my Gruppio, of 4O, liked it so much that he explicitly requested an episode number 3. And, since the material on the subject abounds (!), I am to acquiesce to his request: with pleasure. So, this third part (it's becoming a soap opera!) is dedicated (affectionately) to our Gruppio.
My introduction shows two examples that can clarify what is meant by inconsistency: here we have a form of inconsistency between action and professed values and a "chronological" one (see post 2). A sane person does not act so: and inconsistency is one of the most significant warning signs that something is wrong in the behavior. In manipulative and pathological personalities, in my view, it never lacks. But this time, I would ponder, so to speak, more in depth on the subject, going beyond my examples.
When we need to understand others ...
When I started my volunteer work on death row and in prison, I realized immediately that appropriate tools were necessary to assess people of that environment objectively. In prison, you have to learn to watch your back and not only against certain detainees (there are also good people in there, I assure you): sometimes you need to pay attention to those who circulate around the prison. I learned that you should not let yourself talk too much, for example, in waiting rooms or in the courtyard of access to a penitentiary: visitors are sometimes less reliable (much less) than prisoners. Moreover, when sometimes I had to admit I was doing this kind of volunteer job, even "good" people from the "outside" turned away from me: as if I were ill with some kind of plague.
In short, the description of manipulators turned out to be a boon for me: nobody is going to judge others, but, simply, we need sound criteria to see if we can trust another person or not. Judging means to penetrate illegally in the interiority of a person and decide in advance whether she is good or evil; instead, with the description of manipulators at hand, we do not ask if they are good or bad (sometimes they are evil, but never mind), the more so as they do not often seem so aware of what they do: you simply assess their actions and, on that basis, you establish, with caution, if people are trustworthy or not, without the trial of intentions and with more objective results .
Inconsistency, from this point of view, is one of the strongest signs. A penpal of mine, sentenced to death innocent, harbored esteem for fellow prisoners who remained "like themselves": he is consistent, which made our friendship extraordinarily long. As the Gospel says (Matthew 15:20): By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bears good fruit and every bad tree bears bad fruit; 18 A good tree can not bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 By their fruits ye shall know them. A good person persists in producing good fruit; and those who are not so good .... bear inconsistent fruit. Not infrequently rotten ones.
A facade of kindness
Another concept that I'd like to emphasize is that a facade of kindness is not enough, given that it can hide anything. Think of the typical "good" families, unreprochable outside, with children who, in single file and so obediently, walk in front of their parents and everything seems smiling, perfect, flawless: well, behind this facade the worst disasters are often hidden. In normal families there's arguing, discussing, then peace is made: here never. Flat calm. And then, perhaps, under the flat surface, abuses and insults are hidden.
People have often a superficial perception of these facades. At least were they able to admit that they hadn't a very thorough knowledge of the situation! NO! Even a few days ago, when the alleged murderer of student Lidia Macchi, raped and killed in 1987, was arrested, some of his neighboors responded with the inevitable: "But he was so kind." And, indeed, he could be kind: he was well educated and religious. Now, we'll need a trial to determine if he is really guilty: however, the evidence gathered so far points to a disturbed personality, one who lived in a morbid religion (how many times religion is used for manipulative aims! ... It would take another post on the subject. Knowing the story, I had assumed myself that the murderer was a guy like that, suffering from religious delusions, and I was amazed when I realized that I had guessed right in).
Moreover, it is precisely in the most "unexpected" environments where manipulators, like vampires, operate the most: hospitals, churches, schools, educational establishments, barracks, places of worship, health services and so on. It isn't the fault of such environments: the fact is that manipulators love beautiful facades and boast high values, those who, at the same time, may confer a form of "moral authority", "power" over others. And it's power what they dream: and what better way to get a suit or play a role such as to look well in the eyes of others? Then, if the substance does not fit, no problem...I remember the case of a girl, victim of her partner, who worked .... on ambulances. He looked so good with others.... Some of you will remember that, recently, they sentenced for the murder of Elena Ceste her husband, a firefighter, who boasted to be such. I am not able to say with confidence that he is guilty, but (even if I know someone of his defense team), I would be inclined to this view. I'm afraid he was a manipulator tending to control, the worst kind. Poor Elena could not live: as a prisoner in her own house, in a small country villa, segregated to serve only as a mother and model housewife, without the slightest possibility of outdoor activities, in desperate search of contacts and friends who could "save" her: eventually, they portraited her as a "bad woman" in search of extra-marital adventures. No, I'm afraid she was just desperate and in a severe state of depression, looking, perhaps unwisely, for someone helping her, as it often happens to those who are married with an M and do not know what to do or how to save themselves. According to me, the husband can stay quietly in prison, it's his place.
But is this love?
About couples and manipulation: I would go on another concept that I would like very much to underline. People have often a naive idea of love: all-encompassing, so all-encompassing as to be stifling, so they no longer view the distinction between a passion and a pathological situation. The fault, in my opinion, belongs also to certain cultural currents, like Romanticism, which did inenarrable damage.The romantic idea of love is devastating: first, it is false that love is just a "feeling": love is also action, intelligence, will. And moreover, since Romanticism onwards (remember the suicide of Young Werther!) literature spread the image of a love made of excesses, exaggerations, melodramatic and bombastic statements, when true love, however, is quite different. Many dream of an "all-encompassing" love and will also include in it melodramatic sentences ("No one will ever love you as much as me" or "I can not live without you"), but, above all, screaming, pathological jealousy, and outright violence or moral blackmail ("If you leave me, I'll kill you" or similar). This is not love, this is hysteria. Love is not an obsessive phenomenon, but you can see it in facts: here great statements are not consistent with actions and the respect indispensable in love. If you love, prove it by doing something good for your beloved.
I remind St.Paul:
Love is patient, love is kind;l
ove does not envy,
it does not boast,
it is not inflated,
it is not disrespectful, it does not seek its own interests,
is not angry,
does not keep track of evil received,
but rejoices with the truth (see ICorinthians 13).
Two ways to manipulate
The same may apply to the bonds between parents and children: how many times have I heard of mothers (manipulative ones!) boasting of their love towards their children! Who, meanwhile, were literally choked. Beware those who boast too much their love: it could be a trap. As for inconsistency and manipulation in education, I wish to draw the attention of my readers to a basic concept. There are two basic forms of manipulation at this level, forms that can be replicated in large political systems, states, ideologies etc. and that exhibit a strong inconsistency: one is authoritarianism, the other laxity, usually intented to flatter. Manipulative parents act as well with their children: one is ill-treated, the other coaxed unreasonably. Think of the witch of Hansel and Gretel (an image of the evil mother: and it is no coincidence that, upon returning home, the two children discover that their mother is dead!): Gretel is mistreated, fed with loaves of bread, forced to work as a slave; Hansel, however, is gorged with sweets and delicacies, but closed in a coop. But the common feature is that, in either case, the witch does not think of the children, but only of her own selfish interest. It may seem that Hansel is treated well, but he is only fattened for slaughter. So it is with manipulative parents: generally they do not care for their children; both if they educate them too rigidly, either they are permissive and hyper-indulgent, they do not put in the first place the child, but their own interest. And think of some current parents who, while not being manipulative, are too lax: why do they act like that? Often, they are so insecure that their indulgence is intended not so much to the good of the child, but motivated by the desire to ingratiate themselves with him, even ruining him. These parents want only to build a pleasant and false image of themselves; but it is a common temptation among many of us adults.
Authoritarianism and laxism alternate also in systems of government and societies throughout history. Think of totalitarianism in the first case; right now, we are in the midst of a seemingly lax society, but where few maneuver to ensure power and influence at the expense of others, with high risk for democracy; the laissez faire! is only apparent. But on this, we'll see another post (perhaps with Mario!). But one thing is certain: children are usually honest and capable of identifying these behaviors in adults around them; there is still much room for hope.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento