Chapter
11: Changing the "Not Self"
Part 1
by
Steve Andreas
When people speak
of a "negative self-concept," what they usually mean is that
someone has a self-concept that is negatively-valued. When someone says,
"I'm clumsy," that is probably negatively-valued, since people
seldom value clumsiness. However, even if the person doesn't value being
clumsy, "clumsy" is a name for a set of behaviors that can
be represented positively, without any negation. That is, I can make
images of what it means to be clumsy--pictures of myself stumbling,
or spilling things, breaking things, etc.
Before learning how to transform a negatively-valued aspect of self-concept,
I want to explore a very different kind of negative self-concept, in
which the representation of self-concept is negated. Fairly often you
hear some people say, "I'm not the kind of person who--" or
"I'm not--" rather than "I am--" If clumsiness were
described as "not graceful," that would be an example of a
self-concept in which the representation is negated.
If you say to yourself, "I'm not graceful," that usually elicits
a very different set of representations than if you say to yourself,
"I'm clumsy." I can imagine some of you saying, "Well,
‘not graceful' means the same thing as ‘clumsy.' " Negation is
very difficult to talk about, and we have to make a very careful distinction
between the words that people use and the experiences that underlie
them. While those two sentences might mean the same thing in ordinary
language, the experiences underlying them are often very different,
and the consequences of defining the self by using a set of experiences
that are negated can be profound and far-reaching.
"Not self" (negatively-valued)
I want you to think of something that you're not, some quality that
you don't like. Because of the difficulty of talking about negations,
it is helpful to use a little bit of content, so I'm going to use "cruelty"
as an example, but you can use any other quality or attribute that you
don't like, if you prefer. If you say to yourself, "I'm not cruel,"
how do you represent this internally? Take a few minutes to experience
what it is like for you to define a quality in yourself by what you
are not.
It can help to contrast your experience of the same quality defined
positively and negatively. What is the difference between your experience
of "I'm not cruel" compared with "I'm kind"? What
is your database like for "not cruel"? How do you respond
to it, and what impact will this response tend to have on your behavior?.
. .
I'd like to gather several examples of how you experience a negatively
defined (and negatively-valued), quality. To preserve your privacy,
I suggest that whatever disliked quality you chose to experience, you
talk about it using the word "cruel," as a kind of code word
for it.
Bill: I felt awful. When I tried to think of "not cruel,"
all I could come up with was times when I was cruel. Then I had to push
that away and do the right thing.
Fred: I see the word "cruel" much more boldly and clearly
than the word "kind." The database of cruel is what you would
expect--lots of examples of people being mean, and enjoying someone
else's suffering. I don't like seeing all those images, and I want to
pull back from them.
Rene: I see images of other people being cruel, but I stay dissociated.
I usually step into my images, because even if I don't want to actually
do something, I want to have a sense of what it would be like. So I
begin to step in, and then a voice says, "No," and I back
away from it. Then I feel kind of apathetic and bored, because I don't
know what to do.
Lois: I do much the same as Rene, but when I step in, I feel scared,
and then I think, "Well, if I'm not that, what am I?"
Al: I see indistinct, almost stick figure images, of someone being cruel,
and then I have a feeling of recoiling, and curling up, wanting to defend
myself.
Although each of you has noticed somewhat different aspects of the experience,
those are all pretty similar. Words are clumsy things, and often people
find creative ways to understand them. Did any of you do something different?
Ann: I made images of a number of times when I could have been cruel,
but wasn't.
Sally: As soon as you said, "not cruel," I immediately went
to seeing the opposite--being kind.
OK, you each did something a little different, but you both saw the
opposite of being cruel. You did something that is different from what
most people do, and in this case it's a very good choice, for reasons
that will become clear as we explore this further.
However, right now I want you to make images of being cruel, and then
negate them in some way, so that you can experience what that is like.
When you know how others experience this, then when someone describes
themselves with negation, it will be a lot easier for you to get rapport,
and help them learn how to do something more useful.
Bill: I sort of flipped the words in my mind, and made images of all
the things that don't fit the definition of being cruel--which is a
lot of different things! My mind got pretty crowded with all that stuff.
"Not cruel" can mean very different things to different people.
It can either mean "kindness," or it can mean all the things
in the world that aren't cruel. It's easy to fall into thinking in digital
"either/or" categories, completely ignoring the fact that
there are a lot of things or events in the world that are neither kind
nor cruel--the carpet on the floor, for instance.
Whenever you hear someone say or presuppose an either/or category like,
"You're either with us or against us," or "either I have
to do everything my wife wants, or get a divorce," that is an indication
of a very limited world view that could use some finer discrimination,
and exploration of all the possibilities in the middle zone between
the two extremes of the "either/or."
Now I want you all to take this negation to the extreme. What would
your life be like if not just one of your qualities, but all your qualities
were described as negations? Take a minute or two to experience what
it is like for you to imagine that whenever you think of yourself, it
is always in terms of what you're not. All your qualities are experienced
in this way. What is that like? . . .
Sam: It's very dark; I feel very alone and scared, separate and powerless,
hemmed in by all these things that I don't like.
Ann: I have a tendency to feel like doing what is in all those images,
and then I pull back from doing it. I feel as if I am all those awful
things, but at the same time I wouldn't want to think that.
Alice: I'm very aware of seeing all these things around me that I don't
like, and I'm pulling back from all of it. All my attention is directed
to all this unpleasant stuff around me.
Yes, it's definitely an experience of going away from unpleasantness,
with no possibility to go toward anything. With no positive options
to go toward, you naturally feel very limited and stuck.
Imagine that your home was entirely decorated with images of things
that you don't like--and that you never left home--and you will have
an idea of what this is like. Some people collect unpleasant experiences--grievances,
guilts, regrets, disasters, ugliness of all kinds, and then live surrounded
by them in their minds. Most people who come for therapy do much the
same, at least with a problem situation. They are so aware of what they
don't want, that they don't have much attention left for what they do
want.
Lois: I can't see any distinctions. I have this sense of emptiness in
my belly and chest, of not knowing anything about who I am, only who
I'm not.
Yes, by focusing on the negation, there is no way to think about who
you are, and there are no positive criteria for making distinctions.
You can even take negation a step further and say, "I'm not the
kind of person who--" The phrase "kind of person" describes
a category of people, which separates the person even further from the
negated behavior.
Or someone could say, "I'm not dishonest." Since "dishonest"
is already a negation, they are negating a negation! In Spanish, that's
easy to process, because multiple negations always produce a negation.
But in English, each negation flips the one before it, so you have to
go through some mental gymnastics to figure out whether the meaning
is positive or negative. There may be some interesting and useful consequences
of these variations, but the main point I want to make is that when
someone defines themselves by negation, that gives them nothing positive
to identify with.
Since the kinds of images that we make in regard to ourselves will tend
to generate the behavior that is in the images, what kinds of responses
would likely be generated by negated images?
Fred: I'd tend to notice cruelty, and all these other things everywhere
in the world, and probably miss all the positive stuff. I'd also feel
superior to all those people around me who are doing all these terrible
things.
Yes, there is an implicit comparison between myself and others. Other
people do these awful things, and I don't, so I can feel superior to
them. And that comparison and superiority will also result in my feeling
very separate from them, different and alone.
Rich: Since I feel an awful emptiness inside because I don't know who
I am, I'm preoccupied with what others think of me, as a way of having
some sense of who I am.
If you lived your whole life like this, what would a psychiatrist call
it? Fred: "Paranoid" is the word that comes to my mind. Imagining
and noticing bad things all around you, being scared and vigilant, ideas
of self-importance and superiority, feeling alone and threatened, and
fighting back.
Paranoia
Yes, exactly. Paranoia is the extreme of a process that nearly everyone
does to some extent, and that was described over a hundred years ago
as "projection." I "project" my unpleasant thoughts
into the world, and see them all around me, rather than in myself. But
although projection was described in some detail long ago, no one has
ever proposed a mechanism for how it actually works, or how to change
it. It was always just, "This is what happens, and everyone does
at least a little of it, and paranoids do a lot of it, and this is how
to recognize it."
Paranoids are usually thought to be very angry people who repress it,
so it can only be expressed in retaliation against their persecutors,
but I am not at all sure this is true. When I was in high school, living
in a very small community on a ranch, I knew a truly sweet and gentle
man, from a Quaker background, who cared a lot for other people. He
repaired cars, but then found it very difficult to sell them. When someone
would be interested in a car, he would ask them what they would use
the car for. Then he'd usually tell them, "You don't want this
car," and then tell them what kind of car would serve them better.
Even after fifty years, I can recall his face, and hear his voice clearly.
When talking about himself, he nearly always said, "I'm not the
kind of person who--" When I last saw him about fifteen years ago,
he had gone all the way to full-blown paranoia--he knew that the FBI,
the CIA, and the Mafia were all out after him. Perhaps psychiatrists
are correct that paranoia begins with angry impulses that are denied.
Since my friend came from a Quaker background, he may have suppressed
times when he was angry because he internalized the peaceful ideals
of that religion. Or paranoia may be simply the result of a self-concept
that uses negation, and the natural consequences of doing that a lot.
I think it traps a lot of very sweet and gentle people in a really cruel
dead end.
Here's another example of the same process, though not quite so extreme.
Recently I was driving four 9th graders on a field trip. Two of them
were in the "cool" group, and talked almost non-stop on the
one-hour trip. Much of their talk was reenactment of some bits of TV
programs and movies, some was about the field trip and other current
events. I gradually realized that what was common to all their comments
was their attitude of scorn, derision, and disgust. All their conversation
revolved around what they weren't, and their laughter expressed their
superiority to the objects of their scorn. In short, they considered
themselves "cool" because they scorned nearly everything.
There was nothing in their statements about who they were, only about
who they weren't. That has got to result in their feeling empty inside,
and being with the "cool" group is a temporary refuge that
provides at least a little bit of identity and connection with others.
Since they were so focused on what they weren't, they had very little
awareness of who they were.
Another way of describing your response to a "not self" representation
is that it acts in much the same way as a negative command. "Don't
think of purple bunnies. Especially not dancing. And certainly not turning
somersaults." Anything stated in the negative makes us think of
exactly what we don't want to think of. Thinking of yourself as "not
cruel" results in your thinking of being cruel, just as many well-meaning
parents trap themselves and their children with negative commands like,
"Don't spill the milk," or "Don't worry about how things
will turn out," not realizing how that programs their kids to do
exactly what the parents want to protect them from.
A very simple example of this is those "no right turn" signs--a
bent arrow with the superimposed red circle with a slash across it.
First your mind makes a representation of what a right turn is, which
prepares you to do it, and then you have to stop it, and do something
else. I'd like to talk to the person who invented that system! It would
work a lot better if the arrow told you what to do, instead of what
not to do. Under stress, I'll bet quite a few people do exactly the
wrong thing, because their unconscious response is faster.
Since the unconscious doesn't respond to negation, it will respond to
whatever is negated. Meanwhile the conscious mind will identify with
its opposite, creating an inherent conflict between the conscious and
unconscious. Consciously someone could feel good about thinking of themselves
as "not cruel," while unconsciously they will identify with
being cruel, creating a deep and serious ambiguity.
This disparity between conscious and unconscious response will have
a lot of unfortunate consequences. Since the conscious mind identifies
with one side of the ambiguity, while the unconscious mind identifies
with the other, the person will often find themselves acting in ways
that are inconsistent with their conscious identity. When the unconscious
side is expressed, the person's conscious mind will usually ignore it
or rationalize it.
And if someone else draws attention to their unconscious responses,
this will be incomprehensible and puzzling to them. Because it is exactly
the opposite of how they think of themselves, they are likely to interpret
the comment as completely unfounded, or perhaps even malicious.
This opposition between conscious negation and unconscious affirmation
is a major process that creates a division between a conscious false
self and an unconscious "shadow" self. The shadow self is
not simply a response to uncertainty or ambiguity, because someone can
be acutely aware of both sides of an ambiguity. It is only when one
side of the ambiguity is negated, judged and rejected that the shadow
self is created.
This happened in the US on a national scale during the cold war. Our
government became so focused on anti-communism, that we allied ourselves
with many very corrupt, tyrannical and undemocratic governments as long
as they were "anti-communist." We didn't notice what they
were, because we were only interested in what they were not, and we
had only one negative criterion for defining that. When some people
tried to point out the horrors that some of these governments were committing,
often with our money and support, they were dismissed as disloyal troublemakers
or communists. That's an example of denial and the "shadow"
self at a national level, and although the content has changed, the
same process is still very evident today.
This shadow self may become very powerful, and relatively independent
of the person's conscious control, and express itself independently.
A classic extreme example of this is a "fire and brimstone"
TV preacher who is caught repeatedly with prostitutes. Here in Colorado
about ten years ago a radical right, anti-gay, congressional candidate
turned up a couple of years later on a videotape having sex with an
underage male! You can probably think of many other examples of that
kind of puzzling situation. Embracing the shadow side is a good start
toward becoming more whole, but only if it includes transforming it--by
eliminating the negation, and then integrating that side to resolve
the ambiguity.
Multiple Personalities
Doris: The shadow self sounds quite a lot like multiple personality,
where there is another identity that is unknown to the conscious self
which emerges from time to time, and where there seem to be two distinct
personalities in one body. That seems like the "mother of all ambiguities."
I think there may well be a connection between the two, and that multiple
personality is another extreme form of a self-concept that is based
largely on negation. However, multiple personality is very different
than paranoia, so how could the two result from the same process? There
is one clear difference that might explain this. While a paranoid perceives
the shadow self in the outside world, a multiple keeps it inside their
body, and it is possible that this difference alone causes one rather
than the other.
In most multiples, the main personality has completely internalized
social values and is hardworking, churchgoing, polite, etc., while the
other personality values the opposite, and is lazy, rebellious, coarse,
etc. Over 90% of multiples are women, and women tend to internalize
social values more readily than men do. Although a paranoid also internalizes
social values, apparently they do it in a very different way. Although
I haven't been able to find very good statistics, most sources state
that over two-thirds of paranoids are male. That is an additional suggestion
that in some way paranoia and multiples are very similar, yet somehow
also mirror-image opposites. Is a multiple simply a case of denying
normal healthy impulses that don't fit with a rigid and perfectionistic
social ideal, or does a multiple think of these forbidden impulses in
the form of "not self' representations? It should be fairly easy
to determine this.
I have never worked with a multiple, so you should receive anything
I say about multiples with great caution and skepticism. To simplify
our thinking on a very puzzling topic, let's restrict ourselves to dual
personality. The first multiples to be described only had two personalities.
In recent years both the number of multiples reported, and the number
of personalities per multiple has exploded. It's unclear whether this
is a process of discovery, or creation, or overenthusiastic diagnosis.
I have some very strong doubts about those who report more than two,
and even experts in the field say that most of the additional personalities
are "fragmentary," so most of them are probably more like
what we would call parts of the person related to different outcomes,
rather than full personalities.
Continue to Part 2 of Chapter 11
This is an excerpt from Real People Press' new title "Transforming
Your Self: becoming who you want to be."
©2002 Steve Andreas
