(This is Part 17 of a series. Go back to Part 16.)
Closely related to the cultivation of resentment in life is the cult of victimization.. This is where we keep repeating the storyline of our victimhood in our minds.
There is no doubt that the human experience sometimes includes privation, loss, tragedy and grievous actions. And sometimes a situation does need redress. However,
it does no good to continue rehearsing our victimhood in our mind(s) because it greatly increases the suffering of ourselves and others.
Sometimes we think we need to be angry to be effective. I've certainly known that thought and feeling. But after long observation, in myself and others, I've concluded that just the opposite is the case: We're most effective when we're simply present—not captured by our thoughts.
When we're not identified with our stories, we're free to be simply present, observant, compassionate-but-nobody's fool. And that, in my experience, has a strong tendency to be far more effective than being angry and discontented.
And there's something else: It's been my observation over the years that the best way to victimize others is to hold oneself out as a victim. When we conceive of ourselves as a victim, it becomes much easier to justify, in our own mind(s), carrying out harmful acts that we might be very reluctant to do otherwise.
Come to think of it, that's pretty much the formula for an action movie these days. First the bad guys do something terrible to the hero. The hero then spends the rest of the movie maiming, torturing, killing and so forth, all because he (or she) is now "justified".
The cult of victimization was a central technique used by Hitler. It's not well known, but Hitler continually referred to himself and Germany as "victims". In his speeches Hitler would at first give a lengthly and highly distorted view of the "outrages" commited against himself and Germany. Then, shouting and pounding the lectern with his fists, he would quickly pass on to the full thunders of moral indignation.
Finally, raising his hands to heaven, Hitler would call for the final "vindication" of Germany. Thus, in himself and in his listeners, he prepared the way for brutality, torture, murder, aggressive war and so on.
However, none of this means that mistakes shouldn't be recognised and corrected. For instance, it is perfectly appropriate that a schoolteacher correct the errors of her students. What's the difference, then, between "correcting mistakes" and "being in complaint mode"?
In my opinion, this: That teacher, for instance, corrects her students in a context of approval and appreciation. As studies have shown, if at least three-quarters of a teacher's comments to a student are appreciative and motivating, then up to one-quarter of the teacher's comments can be corrective—because then those corrective comments are taking place in a positive context.
In any situation, creating a positive context is important before any corrective comments are given. Then those corrective comments can be appropriate. However, this is far different from being in complaint mode, because in the latter we are creating and maintaining a negative, critical context instead of a positive, motivating one. And from a critical context—"complaint mode"—little good but much suffering can come.
It should also be said, though, that creating a positive context doesn't mean that we engage in "happy talk". In "happy talk" we ignore problems and suffering, whether in ourselves or the world, and put on a relentlessly happy face. But that doesn't really work because it's insincere. It's a shallow approach to a challenge that is not shallow.
This being so, if we find ourselves cultivating complaint and resentment—which can form a deep "groove" in the brain—how best to respond? If we do find ourselves in the grip of habitual complaint, resentment, irritation, fear or other stressful emotions, how can we respond in a way that is sincere, effective, deep and abiding?
(This is the end of Part 17. Go to Part 18.)
—jim sloman, 12.20.05
|
