Good points about how change doesn't have to be hard. A lot is context dependent. I hear this refrain frequently from former academics who felt like they were grinding, grinding, and making less progress than others. Then when they found a role better suited to them in industry, they accomplished more with less effort. The hard part there was embracing risk.
I sometimes wonder about people who develop self-fulfilling prophecies of rejection and thus consign themselves to nothing but change. Learning how to stay put is another skill, and not one that the American myth teaches very well! Scott Russell Sanders is perhaps the best champion of rootedness -- Wendell Berry, too. Terry Tempest Williams. And many others.
Josh — Thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comments as always. I'd love a dose of your intellectual genes.
Great point about context. Although I know that saying this probably puts me at risk of being seen as lazy, I'm not that into trying to do things that feel like beating my head against the wall or focusing my energy on things that I'm not all that good at. I don't have the reference, but I know there's a general lesson there about doing more of what we're good at vs trying to improve—or change—everything.
Your second point about staying put is a deep one. Learning to give some things up, and to stay put has been my most powerful lesson, one that runs counter to—and also hand-in-hand with—the perpetual explorer / adventurer. They can co-exist, even at extremes, like Kim Stanley Robinson writing sci-fi while spending fifty (!) summers tramping around the high Sierra! It also brings to mind one of my axioms (axia?) long ago as a technologist, which is that the often the best 'technical' solution is not to build anything at all—just re-evaluate what the requirements or goals, and use what you have at hand—definitely a form of "staying put." Sometimes it's best to do less—or nothing. I'll be writing more on this in part 2 & 3 of what I think will become a persona series on "growth."
Interesting that you worked with a Freudian initially (without knowing!). Looking back, can you decipher where the Freudian approach was brought in? I'm very curious :)
I wish I could say that it came in some weird sort of Freudian transference! I think really it was just the lack of attention to symbolism and the unconscious, and—this is probably not so much "Freudian" as older-school—a less interactive, less direct style. I remember her just sitting there, waiting for me, for so much of the time. I know, that was part of the process, and it did eventually force me to just fucking SAY MORE, but jesus, c'mon, that's not the only approach. There was another guy that I'd considered working with, back then when I started, that I have the feeling would have been more interactive, but the fact is that I was basically afraid to get in a room with man. I just didn't know how—which is all the more reason why that would have been good for me. I didn't really learn how to relate with men until much later, after I started doing some group work.
I do think it is more typical of the traditional psychodynamic schools to be less interactive and direct. I would find it frustrating as well. Silence and space can be really useful, but it wouldn't be my preferred style either!
While my interest and intention is to study and utilize a psychodynamic approach, I’ll be more interactive and collaborative. Great essay and thank you both for sharing and discussing this topic.
As another perspective, all of the Jungian/psychodynamic therapists I have worked with the last few years do not appear to utilize silence in any obvious way. If it happens, it has always felt natural to our exploration. I do think it can be a useful tool for giving space to the unconscious. Sometimes my current analysis and I begin our sessions in a type of quiet meditation, so I can tune into the body and spontaneous images/thoughts that come up.
Definitely resonate with that and likely my approach as well. I’ve discovered quite a lot when I slow down, check in with somatic sensations, and notice my automatic thoughts or images. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Bowen, I love this whole essay, thank you! THE SKILL OF CHANGE/GROWTH IS WORTH ACQUIRING! This is so good I had to put it in shouty words. The introspection required to break down your ability and willingness to shift is incredible and it's great that you are sharing this. Your insight around truth telling in groups is big and it's hard to grasp if you've never been there.
Thank you Donna, for the prompts which led me to revisit this always-fruitful topic! Looking forward to seeing more of your series on change, and to our conversation...
Good points about how change doesn't have to be hard. A lot is context dependent. I hear this refrain frequently from former academics who felt like they were grinding, grinding, and making less progress than others. Then when they found a role better suited to them in industry, they accomplished more with less effort. The hard part there was embracing risk.
I sometimes wonder about people who develop self-fulfilling prophecies of rejection and thus consign themselves to nothing but change. Learning how to stay put is another skill, and not one that the American myth teaches very well! Scott Russell Sanders is perhaps the best champion of rootedness -- Wendell Berry, too. Terry Tempest Williams. And many others.
https://www.scottrussellsanders.com/book_pages/staying_put.html
Josh — Thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comments as always. I'd love a dose of your intellectual genes.
Great point about context. Although I know that saying this probably puts me at risk of being seen as lazy, I'm not that into trying to do things that feel like beating my head against the wall or focusing my energy on things that I'm not all that good at. I don't have the reference, but I know there's a general lesson there about doing more of what we're good at vs trying to improve—or change—everything.
Your second point about staying put is a deep one. Learning to give some things up, and to stay put has been my most powerful lesson, one that runs counter to—and also hand-in-hand with—the perpetual explorer / adventurer. They can co-exist, even at extremes, like Kim Stanley Robinson writing sci-fi while spending fifty (!) summers tramping around the high Sierra! It also brings to mind one of my axioms (axia?) long ago as a technologist, which is that the often the best 'technical' solution is not to build anything at all—just re-evaluate what the requirements or goals, and use what you have at hand—definitely a form of "staying put." Sometimes it's best to do less—or nothing. I'll be writing more on this in part 2 & 3 of what I think will become a persona series on "growth."
Interesting that you worked with a Freudian initially (without knowing!). Looking back, can you decipher where the Freudian approach was brought in? I'm very curious :)
I wish I could say that it came in some weird sort of Freudian transference! I think really it was just the lack of attention to symbolism and the unconscious, and—this is probably not so much "Freudian" as older-school—a less interactive, less direct style. I remember her just sitting there, waiting for me, for so much of the time. I know, that was part of the process, and it did eventually force me to just fucking SAY MORE, but jesus, c'mon, that's not the only approach. There was another guy that I'd considered working with, back then when I started, that I have the feeling would have been more interactive, but the fact is that I was basically afraid to get in a room with man. I just didn't know how—which is all the more reason why that would have been good for me. I didn't really learn how to relate with men until much later, after I started doing some group work.
I do think it is more typical of the traditional psychodynamic schools to be less interactive and direct. I would find it frustrating as well. Silence and space can be really useful, but it wouldn't be my preferred style either!
While my interest and intention is to study and utilize a psychodynamic approach, I’ll be more interactive and collaborative. Great essay and thank you both for sharing and discussing this topic.
As another perspective, all of the Jungian/psychodynamic therapists I have worked with the last few years do not appear to utilize silence in any obvious way. If it happens, it has always felt natural to our exploration. I do think it can be a useful tool for giving space to the unconscious. Sometimes my current analysis and I begin our sessions in a type of quiet meditation, so I can tune into the body and spontaneous images/thoughts that come up.
Definitely resonate with that and likely my approach as well. I’ve discovered quite a lot when I slow down, check in with somatic sensations, and notice my automatic thoughts or images. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Bowen, I love this whole essay, thank you! THE SKILL OF CHANGE/GROWTH IS WORTH ACQUIRING! This is so good I had to put it in shouty words. The introspection required to break down your ability and willingness to shift is incredible and it's great that you are sharing this. Your insight around truth telling in groups is big and it's hard to grasp if you've never been there.
Thank you Donna, for the prompts which led me to revisit this always-fruitful topic! Looking forward to seeing more of your series on change, and to our conversation...
Yes, I am looking forward to your part 2 and our convo!