inducing and being induced: how to recognize dysfunctional relationship dynamics
DESCRIPTION
As a species, we are socialized from birth to compromise various aspects of one’s true identity in order to appeal to the primary caregiver. Consequently, we learn how to play roles in relationships very early in development. Yet, role-playing continues into adulthood and even across the lifespan. Every human interaction may be conceptualized from the vantage point of roles, as roles organize emotional experience, the hierarchy of power between individual s and groups, and the execution of tasks. Human relationships, therefore, revolve around inhibitions and resistances to authentic intimacy given that roles provide an architecture of human relatedness and fend off psychological fears and anxieties about closeness. In no other aspect of human life is this most apparent than in romantic relationships. We unconsciously coerce or “induce” others to act in accordance with our role preference, and in turn we are coerced or induced to act in accordance with the role preferences of others. These induced roles quickly set into motion a sequence of interactions that constricts a person’s relational freedom, thus straight jacketing the person into a role that, over time, becomes quite rigid and constraining. Understanding these induction processes, as well as the unconscious longings that generate them, are perhaps the most important keys to having fulfilling, surprising, and viable relationships. In this presentation, I will discuss these induction processes, explain why they are so prevalent, and offer my thoughts on how they may be avoided and/or dissolved.TRANSCRIPT
Inducing and Being Induced: How to Recognize Dysfunctional Relationship Dynamics
March 15, 2014
James Tobin, Ph.D.Licensed Psychologist, PSY 22074220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1Newport Beach, CA 92660949-338-4388www.jamestobinphd.com
2
Interpersonal Patterns
• Scientists now argue that natural events do not evolve spontaneously and without constriction: there seems to always be a pattern (chaos theory).
• So too in interpersonal relationships: there are no chance occurrences; all is pre-determined.
3
The Contribution of Evolutionary Psychology
• We are programmed to assign and play roles in all social systems.
• We perceive the other with “interpersonal shorthand,” i.e., we calculate unconsciously what or who the other represents to us in order to determine very quickly safety, control, power, and vulnerability.
4
“Attraction”
• Attraction is largely pre-determined. • We are attracted to two types of others:– TYPE A: YOU INDUCE: You find someone who is
familiar (i.e., will re-traumatize you or you can flip-flop roles with and traumatize him)
– TYPE B: YOU ARE INDUCED: You find someone who coerces you to act out a role from their relationally traumatic life (i.e., you are assigned a role and play it out)
5
Attraction + Induction
• Romantic love needs several ingredients:(1) Another person with enough
characteristics to play the TYPE A or TYPE B roles (“attraction”).
(2) Induction: This other person becomes coerced psychologically to fulfill TYPE A and/or TYPE B roles. (3) Relational constriction: freedom
gradually becomes narrowed and constricted.
6
The Code of Relationships
• These two types “code” our most significant relationships, giving them a patterned texture so that what is KNOWN can be repeated over and over again (no matter how traumatic or distressing).
• This code is similar to any complex intellectual exercise (GRE, LSAT): once the code is “cracked” or understood, we feel competent.
• So, people are moving through the world with a sense of cracking the code, even though their relationships may be highly dysfunctional.
7
Me/Not-Me
• Our self-concept (“Me”) is strongly fixed. • “Not Me” is resisted and pushed away. • We (and our partners) promote patterned
romantic relationships to maintain our notions of Me/Not-Me for emotional and psychological security.
8
Me/Not Me
9
The Patterns of Relationships
Inducing the Other (we find the Type A person: someone who will re-traumatize us -- ROBERT)
& Being Induced by the Other (we find the Type B
person: someone for whom we play a role in their relational past -- KEN)
10
TYPE A: Someone Who Will Re-Traumatize Us (“Robert”) // “INDUCING THE OTHER”
11
Sandra’s “Attraction” to Robert
• Sandra’s developmental history: she never “measured up” to her father’s expectations, and her father subtlety shamed her.
• Robert contains “elements” of Sandra’s father, i.e., he is an ambitious, charismatic entrepreneur who works very hard and has achieved success.
12
The Attraction is Relational Coding
• Sandra is drawn to qualities in Robert that ultimately caused her great pain but are familiar to her.
• Very early on in their interactions, she intuitively senses the familiarity and is “stirred” by it.
• The stirrings are largely avoided. • Her “ME/NOT ME” conceptions gradually create
the culture of the relationship, and Robert is indoctrinated into this culture.
13
As Indoctrination Continues ...
• Robert, because of his own attachment needs and his own psychology, “obeys” the indoctrination and begins to lose his relational freedom with regard to Sandra; he is then induced repeatedly.
• Robert’s care for/tenderness/desire to support Sandra SWITCHES OFF: he has now been role-assigned.
• At this point, Robert will often choose to stay in the relationship because of his need for role-assignment, usually to his own demise.
14
TYPE B: “BEING INDUCING BY THE OTHER” //someone for whom we play a role in their relational past -- KEN)
15
Ken’s Past
• Includes “break-downs” when he made an effort to attach/get close to important caregivers.
• The break-downs were painful, humiliating, and made him feel weak and vulnerable, which he never again wanted to experience.
16
Ken “Finds” Jennifer
17
Ken’s Attraction to Jennifer
• Jennifer recently went through a difficult divorce and moved to the town where Ken lives.
• She is feeling emotionally raw, unsure of herself (affair), low on her self-esteem, vulnerable.
• When she meets Ken, she is “attracted” to his confidence, strength, and helpfulness.
18
Jennifer Becomes Indoctrinated into Ken’s Narrative
• Ken will induce Jennifer, perhaps to play the role of HIM (in his prior life!).
• As their relationship evolves, Jennifer reaches out for Ken and he is not reachable ..... Jennifer feels the break-downs of connection and in a way comes to know what Ken experienced vicariously.
• They become polarized: Jennifer wants more and more, Ken withdraws/wants space more and more.
19
Resentment
• As resentments solidify, they signal the occurrence of role-assignment and induction.
• Both feel hurt and frustrated, but are usually unable to undo their roles with regard to each other.
20
DISCUSSION:Avoiding Type A and Type B
Induction Patterns
21
Type B: The Other Induces Us
-we sense we are being positioned into a role or some extreme position (we get “set up”)
-we don’t identify the other’s vulnerability -we represent something to the other (we are the
poster child for xyz) -we begin to change our own behavior and act in
accordance with these representations -the relationship makes us feel as if we are polarized
in relation to our partner
22
Type A: We Induce the Other
-understanding our relational past -recognizing “stirrings”-Me/Not Me constructions and lack of flexibility -the culture of relationship into which we socialize our partner-we cannot see our partner in ways that others can -we deny our own vulnerability – our partner does not feel as if they are meaningful to us
James Tobin, Ph.D.Licensed Psychologist PSY 22074220 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1Newport Beach, CA 92660949-338-4388
Email: [email protected] Website: www.jamestobinphd.com