FROM ID TO FAMILY/WORLD SYSTEM
or
THE ID IS THE ENGINE IN THE GREAT LIFE MACHINE
by Dr. Daniel A. Bochner
Is there any systematic way of understanding the relationship between our individual psyches and the whole world that surrounds
us? There are many simplistic ways to explain how individuals work within their communities. Those who really like things simple
might take the Social Darwinist view and say we all just do what we do, and the strongest survive. Another simple, but somewhat more
humanistic view, would be to say we all just need to work toward understanding one another, and try to recognize that we are in a world
community, so that we all may prosper together. There are so many disparate ideas about how life works in a general sense, but is
there a way to specifically and systematically describe how people function, both within themselves and at the interpersonal level?
Comprehending the complex connection between the animal nature within us all and our interpersonal behavior at every level of
society is an issue that requires examination and analysis if we are to develop true understanding and clarity. Any truly useful
understanding will span the distance between the need to survive, compete, and prosper, as in the Social Darwinist view, and the desire
to embrace the depths of our humanity, which is the focus of any humanistic perspective. A useful understanding of this complicated
topic informs psychological intervention at many different levels so that we can help some do better for themselves, others do better
within and for their families, and yes, even perhaps so that we can help the world get along just that much better, one individual, one
family, one business or one city, state, country or continent at a time.
Although there is really no one legitimate place to start or finish in an explanation of how we all fit together, since all of us have an
effect on one another one interaction or impression at a time, the best example of how all interpersonal systems fit together can be
found in the family. In the family each individual fits his or her own internal (or intrapsychic) system of emotions within, around and
between the interpersonal system that is generally referred to as the family system.
DRIVES AND DRIVENNESS
Starting with the individual then we can simply ask, what is it that really makes us tick? This question in and of itself seems to
suggest that we need something or that we are wound up in such a way that we will keep on going. The most salient psychological
concept that attempts to describe what makes us “tick” is the concept Freud (arguably the progenitor of all psychotherapies) termed
“drives.” The “drives” Freud described were sex (or “libido”) and aggression. Now, I don’t think Freud was exactly correct about
what the “drives” are (for information about how I view the sex drive, please see my article, “Sex is Not a Drive, It’s Just Real
Important”) but, like any first that develops (the first car, the first computer, the first cell phone), Freud’s theories as a first have
evolved into more accurate and complete concepts. Certainly, with respect to “drives,” no one would deny that we all experience a
feeling of drivenness. That is, we all experience a feeling of being compelled or impelled to act based on definite and powerful needs.
The best examples of this feeling of drivenness include the everyday occurrences of hunger and the need to stay safe or protected.
We know that we are frequently and unavoidably in need of food, and of course our desire to stay safe is expressed constantly in the
ways we choose to be careful (locking doors, covering ourselves with clothing, managing to drive without crashing into one another).
With respect to hunger, we get a sense of needing to fill ourselves and then we eat until we are adequately satisfied. When we are
extremely hungry, however, we can almost get a sense that we are starving and we can become so voracious that we become
gluttonous with consumption. With respect to safety, we sometimes avoid those things that scare us, but sometimes the possible
occurrence of what we fear is such a threat that we become very angry or even aggressive. These aspects of life “drive” our
behavior.
The fascinating thing about how hunger and the need for self-protection “drive” us is that most of our experience for what we need
or what we fear can be expressed in the exact same terms as the terms used to describe actual need for for food or drink and actual
fear of, or aggression and anger toward, potential predators. That is we appear to symbolize almost every experience into being like
some aspect of hunger or self-protection. We can say we hunger for more money, more freedom, more friends. We can say we are
terrified of public speaking or that others judging us makes us furious. Often these two experiences, hunger and fear/anger/aggression,
can be intertwined in our pursuits. For example, when someone pursues power, they can be said to hunger for it but, simultaneously, it
is clear that power makes a person less vulnerable, thus clearly linking it to fear/anger/aggression. Really, the same thing could be said
about money, freedom, or friends, all examples used above to site things for which we have hunger. Each of these pursuits, in its own
way, also makes us feel safe, and if someone interferes with anything related to our safety we can become extremely incensed or
frightened.
SUSTENANCE AND SELF-PROTECTION
It becomes clear then that the experience of drivenness is primarily about two essential areas of life that all living creatures have in
common, the experience of hunger and the experience of fear/anger/aggression. These two aspects of drivenness I will call the need
for “sustenance” and the need for “self-protection.” With respect to the need for “sustenance,” a desire for something is very much
like hunger, and when we have had enough of some activity it is as though we have been sated - we then lose interest, or possibly even
start overflowing when we've had too much. Thus, there is a “sustenance” continuum between extremes of sustenance. Although
these extremes are rarely experienced in reality, on one end would be the feeling of abject starvation, while on the other end would be a
feeling of being stuffed like a snake after it's swallowed a raccoon.
Describing these rarely experienced extremes is necessary because we are driven to act to the extent that we experience the
extremes in these feelings. For example, we would be far more motivated by a feeling of abject starvation than by having a mere
craving. Feeling stuffed like the raccoon-sated snake would be motivating to the point of overflowing and could lead to purging in some
way, which is far more drivenness than that which comes from merely being sated. While it's easy to give examples of feeling
motivated by being starved such as clinging to others when starved for affection, or the drive to amass large quantities of material goods
due to being raised in poverty, it's somewhat less typical to think about the motivation that arises from being over-stuffed. The best
examples are actual purging by the bulimic, and starving oneself as seen in cases of anorexia. Those afflicted with such maladies have
often, among other experiences, felt controlled within their life experiences to such an extent that it's as though they are stuffed with the
concerns and wishes of others. Frequently, experiencing similar control leads to other kinds of “purging,” such as the need to
perpetually do for others, and thus leave nothing for oneself.
With respect to the need for “self-protection,” we can become fraught with anxiety when there is not any real physical danger
(public speaking being the most common example), but when we realize that there’s little to fear we can calm down and perhaps be just
a little uncomfortable. Likewise, we can feel explosive at times when there is really no physical need to defend ourselves, but when we
realize there’s little threat, we can calm to being irked. Thus, there is a “self-protection” continuum between extremes of self-
protection. Although these extremes are rarely experienced, on one end would be a fearful withdrawal so strong that it would be almost
like an experience of completely vanishing or ceasing to exist, while on the other end would be a feeling of being so destructive one
might destroy the entire universe.
We are driven to act by emotions experienced within the self-protection continuum depending upon how extreme they are, just as
was the case in considering the sustenance continuum. One would be far more motivated to act by a feeling that their existence was in
jeopardy, for example, than they would be by worried anticipation. Likewise one would clearly be much more motivated to act by rage
so explosive that it made them want to obliterate everything around them than by trifling aggravation, irritation, or annoyance. Fear at a
level akin to feeling ones existence is in jeopardy might occur if ones life was actually being threatened. A feeling of explosiveness so
intense that one might desire to annihilate humanity might occur in someone filled with rage due to experiencing a lifetime of being
abused and exploited.
RELATEDNESS
It is obvious that something to do with hunger/sustenance on one hand, and fear-aggression/self-protection on the other, is very
central to our experience of drivenness. These emotions involve very real biological needs on one hand, but also symbolize our
experience of almost all other experiences in one way or another. Yet these most powerful of the emotions, the ones that are actually
intrinsic to maintaining life itself, are not the sum of all human experience. Because human beings are social animals, that is because
we live in relation to one another at all times, and because we depend upon the fact that we are communal animals to progress, either
through reproduction or development or by using teams to accomplish what no one human can accomplish alone, there is a third factor
in the experience of drivenness, “relatedness.”
“Relatedness” is a drive that develops toward a healthy balance only to the extent that the first two types have become relatively
balanced. Balance of the need for sustenance requires that one's environment has been adequately nurturing for his or her particular
level of need in that area based upon genetic loading. Balance of the need for self-protection requires that an individual’s environment
has been adequately safe given his or her particular level of need in that area given his or her genetics. Without adequate balance in
sustenance and self-protection, relatedness only develops to rudimentary, very unbalanced, levels. When these two aspects of
experience do develop toward relative balance, then the third kind of drivenness, the need for “relatedness” can develop more
completely. Although it is not nearly as primordial an experience as the need for sustenance or the need for self-protection, the need
for relatedness can be seen in all our social behaviors. The currency of relatedness is very different than the other two, however.
While being sated is the obvious currency of the need for sustenance, and safety is the obvious currency of the need for self-protection,
responsibility is the far less obvious currency of relatedness.
This idea, that responsibility is the way we express ourselves with respect to relatedness, might seem strange at first. Although
almost everyone believes responsibility is an important factor in successful living, most people do not think of responsibility as a primary
and rudimentary factor of life. But when you think about one factor that allows people to be close or “related” in their feeling to one
another, it is how much responsibility they take. In order to develop a feeling of being “related” we must trust the other person to take
us seriously, call us back, do what they have said they are going to do, or to, in general, reciprocate the level of relatedness we feel
toward them. We must also trust them not to hurt us or, even more importantly, not to damage us. At a more elemental level, for
example, the baby must trust the mother to maintain a healthy level of satiation and safety. This is true about food and shelter, but it is
also true about the mother's reactions of lovingness. When the child then matures, he or she will have to be trustworthy and responsible
with others in life, eventually with his or her own children, in order to engender good relations with them.
In describing the “relatedness” continuum, its relationship to responsibility becomes clear. At one end of the continuum lies
“responsibility fragmentation” which is a state of experience in which a person becomes so overwrought with responsibility for
everyone else that they start to feel as though they are breaking into pieces. Complete isolation and alienation lie at the other end of the
relatedness continuum, which occurs if a person takes so little responsibility for others, or for their effect on others, that they cease to
maintain any relation with others at all. Because responsibility is the currency of the relatedness continuum, the feeling of drivenness
involved with the relatedness continuum is generally shame or guilt. A person may attempt to avoid guilt and shame by doing everything
they possibly can for others and then become fragmented. Such a person is typically avoiding the possibility of isolation which they fear
could develop if they do not behave well enough or do enough for others. They hold themselves to high standards so they will be good
enough and so they can avoid guilt, but they wind up being fragmented. On the other hand, a person can attempt to avoid the feeling of
fragmentation by perfecting the way they do things. These individuals want to do things so well, so properly, and so morally, in the
context of a world of relatedness, that they need not feel guilt or shame. However, such individuals perfect themselves in such an
exaggerated way that they become almost completely rigid in their interactions with others and maintain within themselves virtually no
vulnerability. This form of perfectionism leads to isolation since there can be no emotional connection to others without at least some
level of vulnerability.
Again, it is at the extremes that the relatedness continuum leads to the most driven behavior. When a person fears complete
isolation, they are far more motivated to commune with others than if they are merely a tad lonely. Likewise, a person is far more
driven to free themselves from obligations when they have become completely fragmented than when they merely feel they've taken on
a bit too much. The relatedness continuum does lead to significant drivenness but, as is obvious here, the level of drivenness involving
the need to relate to others cannot compare to drivenness related to sustenance and self-protection. While sustenance and self-
protection involve emotions, at both real and symbolic levels, comparable directly to survival itself, relatedness is at a whole different
level of humanity in which, as indicated above, sustenance and self-protection must already be in balance to some degree if it is to
develop at all. If relatedness is to develop beyond complete isolation/alienation or constant fragmentation, some relative balance of the
sustenance and self-protection continua is necessary. For that to happen, parents must adequately nurture and protect their children.
THE INTRAPSYCHIC AND INTERPERSONAL BALANCE OF EMOTIONS
Of course, parents cannot always act loving and nurturing without kids becoming screaming brats. In fact it is absolutely essential
that parents do not provide everything for their children while expecting nothing in return. When everything is provided with no effort
from the child, and the child is completely safe from any kind of concern or worry, the child is not going to become balanced. They
would never adequately care for themselves or become independent because there would be no need for self-development. When too
much is provided the child feels justified in greed and aggressiveness at every whim and will fail to become responsible for others or
how others feel. The human animal develops independence from the tension created between each of the three primary continua of
life, with the ideal external influence from parents providing adequate protection, sustenance, and relatedness, but not an overabundance
or a paucity of any of the three. Self-development occurs, to a great extent, because a child needs to balance his or her own needs for
himself. But in order to do so and develop confidence, an adequate amount of interpersonal sustenance, protection, and relatedness
must be available. So, how is “enough” love and protection restrained from being “too much?” And how is relatedness balanced so
that we are not either too isolated or too fragmented?
The way we balance our feelings of drivenness has a huge impact on everyone else in our environments. Based on how we balance
our own drivenness, and expression of that drivenness, others will have to balance their own feelings. When we are balancing
ourselves in unhealthy ways, others in our environments are also likely to balance in unhealthy ways, especially if we are necessary for
their well-being, as parents are to their children. Similarly, the more well-balanced we are in expressing our feelings, the more likely it is
that others, especially our children, will also balance in a healthy manner. In order to have a fuller discussion of balance, we will have to
understand what a lack of balance in each of the three types of drivenness looks like. We will also have to understand what factors
lead to expression of unbalanced feelings, on the one hand, or the holding in of unbalanced feelings (“repression”), on the other hand.
Let us start with balance of the sustenance aspect of drivenness. When one is balanced in this area, one knows one can easily get
enough when one needs it. One would have enough food, enough love, and enough material possessions. When such a person hungers
for something, they know they will be able to satisfy that need somehow. This confidence in the ability to satiate oneself makes greedy
behavior a rarity. Depression is also a rarity, since such a person knows they will be able to get their needs met and that things will
work out. Because these individuals are relatively balanced with respect to the sustenance drive, their expressions of hunger or need
for control are also relatively balanced. Their impact on others is one of definite expression and clarity with respect to the sustenance
drive, and others understand them and feel free to appropriately express their feelings in the same arena.
However, when the sustenance aspect of drivenness is not in balance, one can behave greedily to the point of needing to devour
control over others or material possessions. Others around them thus feel starved for recognition or control or material possessions.
When the sustenance continuum is not in balance, and one feels and behaves as though starved, they can act completely hopeless and
helpless and may feel their needs will never be met. Others around them will generally feel a need to take control in coming to their aid
or to offset their ineptitude. Thus, it becomes clear how the sustenance drive, and the lack of balance in that drive, leads to expression
and then intrapsychic and interpersonal balance of a particular type. The interpersonal balance attained when one is unbalanced at the
intrapsychic level is, of course, unhealthy to whatever extent that it negatively impacts those from whom sustenance is taken.
With respect to balance of the self-protection aspect of drivenness, when one is balanced, one knows they can adequately protect
themselves when they sense tension, judgment, or pressure. This can mean they are able to physically defend themselves, but it also
means they can verbally defend themselves and that, inside themselves, they know that the thoughts of others need not effect the way
they feel about themselves. They know themselves well enough, through trials and experience, to feel relatively unintimidated by the
world and others. They can take feedback without being defensive, but they are equally able to tell others their own opinions and
maintain their own opinions when others present a challenge. Because these individuals are relatively balanced with respect to the self-
protection drive, their expressions of anger are also relatively balanced and indicate adequate assertiveness. Their impact on others is
one of definite expression and clarity with respect to the self-protection drive. Others understand the assertive person and feel free to
reciprocate in the assertive expression of their own feelings related to self-protection.
However, when the self-protection aspect of drivenness is not in balance, one can behave very aggressively and dominantly with
seemingly little provocation. Alternately, another type of poor balance in this continuum can lead to extremely frightened behavior when
there seems to be little to fear. When one does behave aggressively, to the extent that they dominate a situation, others shrink due to
fear. Likewise, it is often the case that some people will react to fear in others with dominant and aggressive behavior. Thus, it
becomes clear how the self-protection drive, and the lack of balance in that drive, leads to expression and then both intrapsychic and
interpersonal balance that is, just as in the case with the unbalanced sustenance continuum, not especially healthy.
Balance of the relatedness aspect of drivenness is quite similar to the other two. When a person is balanced with respect to
relatedness, they are able to manage their responsibilities adequately. They take on the right amount of work given the level of support
they have and the level of obligation they have within their families and communities. They know they can maintain a healthy level of
intimacy with those they love, while also maintaining good relations with friends and a trustworthy reputation among workmates.
Because these individuals are relatively balanced with respect to the relatedness drive, their expressions of responsibility are also
relatively balanced. Their impact on others is one of willingness to cooperate, but clarity with respect to the responsibility others should
take on as well. Others understand the person who is balanced with respect to relatedness and know they can be counted on, but also
know that such a balanced person will not allow themselves to be exploited.
When a lack of balance occurs with respect to relatedness, two different kinds of difficulties can arise. When a person takes on too
much responsibility, they can become overwhelmed and develop responsibility fragmentation, a feeling that there is nothing left for
oneself and that all one’s time, energy, and efforts seemingly belong to others. The response of others to a relatively fragmented
person, one who is trying to be perfectly responsive to everyone but themselves, is two-fold. Others try to get away from them because
the fragmented person appears to be controlling about the morally correct way to do things, and/or they take advantage of them
because such a person seems to have little need for themselves. In fact, the acquaintance of the responsibility fragmented person
typically perceives them to be completely giving, open, and willing to help in any way possible. However, with their offspring, the moral
rectitude the responsibility fragmented person will typically espouse often brings about rigid perfectionism as children attempt to develop
a style that is beyond moral criticism and also precludes the possibility of being hurt by moral judgment.
That style of rigid perfectionism derives the other type of unbalance on the relatedness continuum. Some individuals can become so
rigid and perfectionistic that they have practically no chance of feeling guilty or being hurt. Without guilt or vulnerability, or the humility
of being merely human, such individuals become interpersonally isolated because they never need to take responsibility, or even accept
the possibility that they might be responsible, for being wrong. Generally, family members of individuals who isolate themselves with
perfectionism respond by trying to please, and often experience themselves as somewhat responsibility fragmented because the rigid,
perfectionistic person is critical and can never be pleased. Acquaintances who come into contact with the rigidly perfectionistic person
typically find them extremely cold and unable to connect. Thus, we clearly see how the a lack of balance within the relatedness drive
leads to certain types of expression and then both intrapsychic and interpersonal balance that is not necessarily healthy.
It must also be said that the influence of relatedness as it pertains to expression and drivenness is not nearly as polarizing as the
influence of sustenance or self-protection. While unbalanced expression of emotions related to sustenance and self-protection will
almost always pressure others to engage in complementary behaviors (domination bringing about submission and desperation bringing
about control), unbalanced expression of emotions related to relatedness can often bring about identification in exaggerated expressions
instead of complentarity. Parents who engage in a responsibility fragmented way of life greatly appreciate similar behavior in their
children, who often develop similar tendencies instead of developing the opposing, perfectionistic, rigid, and isolated style discussed
above. Likewise, parents who engage in the rigid and perfectionistic style tend to appreciate similar behavior in their children, who thus
can develop similar tendencies instead of developing the complementary, responsibility fragmented behavior that is so often observed.
BOUNDARIES AND THE CREATION OF COMBUSTION, COMPRESSION, AND FORCE OF EXPRESSION
In the paragraphs above, it has been shown how feelings become extreme when they are unbalanced, and then lead to specific kinds
of behavior and expression. However, this explanation cannot fully demonstrate exactly how or when feelings will be expressed or how
much influence they will have when they are expressed. It is certainly true that sometimes very healthy people can experience very
powerful emotions without those emotions resulting in extreme behavior. It is also obvious that very extreme emotions can be
expressed in very extreme ways by people even though there seems to have been very little stress involved. Balance is clearly one
aspect of this expression, but another aspect that is necessary for complete understanding of how the psyche is systematically involved
in interpersonal systems is the concept of “boundaries.” The unbalanced drives are like the fuel in the intrapsychic system, but in order
for combustion of this powerful fuel to give the system force, compression (inward pressure) and directional release (outward pressure)
is necessary.
Compression and directional release is provided by boundaries. When a person is said to have poor boundaries, it typically means
either of two different things or both. Poor boundaries can refer to behavior that results in more influence or pressure on others than is
appropriate given a particular situation, or that the feelings of others have too much influence on a person. The expression of emotions
sometimes seems extreme or has too much impact. On the other hand, when a person is particularly sensitive, the behavior and
expressions of emotions from others can be quite subtle and yet, nevertheless, cause extreme emotional reactions. When a person
does seem to influence others too much, or experience the influence of others too much, it can be said that their boundaries are too
porous. But to be more exact, there are actually two boundaries within any person. There is an internal boundary and an external
boundary.
To understand what is inside and what is outside of each of these two boundaries, and how each of the boundaries works, it is
necessary to look, once again, at the three primary factors of life. As has been described above, the sustenance, self-protection and
relatedness continua can be viewed as being balanced in the middle, with the extremes of each represented at the ends of each
continuum. To fully comprehend the workings of the internal and external boundaries, however, requires us to look at these continua
slightly differently. Because our most intense feelings are held deep within us, turning the three continua inside out allows us to see how
the boundaries function with intense emotions at our unconscious core and less intense emotions available for expression within our
conscious minds. With our most intense emotions at our core, it becomes much more clear how these intense emotions, in combination,
drive our interpersonal behavior. These intense emotions are, so to speak, combustible and must be contained. Their power is
harnessed and given direction by the boundaries. The internal boundary contains our most intense emotions and governs our awareness
of those extreme emotions. The external boundary determines which emotions are allowed expression and which emotions expressed
by others are allowed to have personal impact on us. The external boundary is the one to which most people are referring when they
use the term “boundaries,” thus it will be discussed first.
The external boundary not only determines whether or not feelings will be expressed, but also if they'll be steadfastly held inside,
or absorbed from others. We have all had the experience of deciding whether or not to express something, and we have all wondered
why the expressions of others have had unwanted influence on us. That is the external boundary in operation. There often seems to be
a lot of pressure on the external boundary. We think about whether the expression of a particular emotion will have too large of an
impact on others. We also think about the level of desperation seemingly imposed upon us by the experience of emotions, either from
holding on to them or from having them foisted upon us. The final outcome is rarely the result of a measured understanding of all
possible outcomes. More often than not, we simply succumb to a natural balance that is different for each of us as individuals, and
which depends upon our particular way of experiencing pressures within us and around us.
The external boundary manages our presentation to the world and how much outside influences effect that presentation. It shows
others what they perceive about what we feel and think. Some people are especially good at maintaining the particular kind of outward
appearance that they wish others to see. In that case, the external boundary represents what is often called in psychology, a “false
self.” In other words, a false self is a presentation that is maintained for effect or which develops to have a certain effect, but which
does not accurately represent ones true feelings. Some people have too little control of what is presented and have extreme impact on
others when they should actually be able to contain themselves. Others absorb more from others when they should be able to maintain
themselves without allowing such influence. When ones emotions, that is the drivenness experienced from the unbalanced need for
sustenance, self-protection, and/or relatedness, overwhelm the external boundary, the balancing emotions that are complementary to
what is held within are displayed or absorbed and do actually lead to balance within the person expressing or absorbing the feelings, but
not in a healthy way. The emotions displayed in such people misrepresent the emotional state of such a person and thus also are a
presentation of false self.
A person's outer presentation of themselves is only an analog of “true self” to the extent that the person has managed to adequately
balance the inner emotions so that they can be genuinely and spontaneously expressed without impacting others unnecessarily.
Expressing true self does not preclude impacting others, but does require that such impact be reflective of ones true emotional needs
and requirements. For example, if a person feels afraid, they act afraid, which could elicit a protective response from others to balance
the fear. Such a person does not, however, balance by acting especially angry and fearless to camouflage the fear they experience
beneath. Likewise, a person can act angry when angry, which could elicit a fearful response from others. They do not, however,
balance themselves by acting annoying to elicit an angry response, thus camouflaging their true anger and resentment.
The external boundary is the most crucial of the two boundaries for this current discussion since it so directly involves interpersonal
influence, but the whole topic of boundaries cannot be explained without also mentioning the internal boundary. The internal boundary
governs whether or not we are aware of, or impacted by, our own most extreme feelings. That boundary also can be too porous.
When the internal boundary is too porous, which typically occurs because drivenness from lack of balance in sustenance and/or self-
protection cannot be adequately contained within the inner recesses of our minds, extreme feelings flood our awareness, we are
dramatically impacted by those feelings, and the feelings are so intolerable that they cannot be contained. Thus the severity of these
needs is so powerful that they seek immediate expression.
The internal boundary can also be too rigid or impermeable instead of being too porous. Most long-term psychoanalytic or analytic
therapy focuses on uncovering aspects of very deeply held extreme feelings that are actually too well governed by the internal boundary
because it is not porous enough (at least with respect to certain specific feelings). These extreme feelings are so well repressed
(pushed down inside) that the individual experiencing them is not at all aware that the feelings exist. What is so interesting about this
phenomenon is that the drivenness from relatedness is quite well-established in these individuals even though some aspect of the
drivenness that is held deep within is so extreme that it cannot be tolerated. That is, the thoughts about that feeling actually threaten
relatedness to such a degree that the feelings are held deep within, yet outside (actually too far inside) of awareness. This threat to
relatedness involves the guilt or shame possible if ones inner feelings leak out or must be acknowledged. Although individuals with such
difficulty are relatively well-balanced with respect to sustenance and self-protection, problems with repression involve difficulty in
balancing relatedness since the potential for harm in ones thoughts involve the possibility of hurting others.
For example, perhaps a person must think of him or herself as extremely generous and helpful, but expresses the selfish need of
being in control by taking charge when they help others. That control allows them to be sated by knowing where their nurturance will
come from – gratitude from others - while simultaneously keeping them safe and protected because no one will be able to aggressively
dominate them and make them feel vulnerable. Such an individual actually has a relatively non-porous inner boundary that is too
powerful in repressing specific feelings of vulnerability, aggressiveness, or extreme need for nurturance. Nevertheless, some feeling
escapes the inner boundary and seeks expression. Balance comes only from being in control as a boss, but this satisfaction is indirect
as the individual allows themselves to feel very giving while denying the taking they simultaneously experience. True health, and thus
the reason for psychoanalysis, comes only from uncovering the need for repression, and acceptance of the feelings that are so
threatening (a need for nurturance/appreciation and a need to be dominant).
The simple “denial” that is so commonly discussed in everyday conversation is related to this repression. With denial there is a need
to keep oneself from knowing something that would be too upsetting. The knowledge that is denied can be related to ones own feelings,
but can also involve the feelings that could be stirred up if one were to allow themselves knowledge about something else that is
happening in their relationships. Denial works with repression, that is the pushing down of ones feelings to prevent them from becoming
overwhelming, so that many kinds of knowledge can be ignored, and so that feelings that could threaten relationships can continue to be
held within the internal boundary where they cannot effect ones important relationships. Typical examples include the cuckolded
husband who successfully ignores every sign of his wife's infidelity so that he will not have to confront her and jeopardize his
relationship with her or perhaps his children. Another typical example is the wife of the addict who never thinks her husband has a
problem in spite of numerous addiction related mishaps and difficulties so that her relationship with him can continue on in its current
pattern. In these situations, denial is a valuable defense for maintaining the status quo in relationships and works through the repression
of ones awareness of facts that would seemingly require disruptive action.
We see in this discussion that the strength of influence from the expression of emotions involves both balance of emotions, and
boundaries to contain or not contain emotions. We see that poor balance in general tends to result in poor boundaries and expression of
extreme emotions with little provocation, or absorption of emotions in spite of relatively little intensity of expression. We also see that
too much emphasis on relatedness, especially without adequate development in the balance of sustenance and self-protection, can lead
to a very indirect expression of emotions due to the workings of the boundaries which hold off the worst of ones true emotions. That is,
people typically express the opposite of their most uncomfortable feelings in an effort to deny the truth of the emotions while also
balancing ones own mind by evoking within others those feelings that are most threatening. If those feelings can be created in others, it
becomes possible to balance ones own feelings by proving to oneself that those feelings are much more true of others than oneself.
Most importantly, the influence of drivenness and boundaries within people are clearly shown to have significant interpersonal
influence. That interpersonal influence is the basis for understanding interpersonal interaction at a systematic level. The psyche is the
engine of interpersonal discourse, with drivenness as the fuel and boundaries creating compression and power by variably containing or
releasing the combustion of drivenness to particular parameters set by a combination of life experiences and genetics.
BALANCE OF EMOTION AND FAMILIES
Moving from the individual’s expression of emotions and it’s particular way of creating influence at the interpersonal level, we can
now see that seeking balance of internal pressures is the specific and singular purpose of expressing emotions (it could even be argued
that balancing is the purpose of all communication). The individual experiences feelings and needs and those feelings and needs are then
expressed to the extent that the individual requires a balancing reaction from ones environment. Balance is then either accomplished, or
the feelings and needs continue to be experienced and uncomfortable or even intolerable.
Whenever balance is not accomplished, it continues to be sought. Sometimes a person accomplishes balance completely internally
by talking to themselves differently about a certain subject or realizing that they don’t really need what they had thought they needed.
Other times, a new way to balance is sought, and a completely different behavior develops to supplant the behavior that is no longer
effective in helping the individual balance. For example, a person might develop a buying addiction, but then becomes unable to spend
(all credit gone, or put in jail, etc). Such a person may have been expressing a need for nurturance that did not necessitate the
vulnerability experienced when more directly asking for closeness or attention from others. When they become unable to spend, they
might develop hypochondriasis in an effort to gain attention and nurturance while maintaining control of their experience with others (Ie.
The hypochondriacal symptoms help them achieve nurturance without vulnerability since sickness is not thought of as weakness by the
hypochondriac).
But how does the need for balance effect families, or even communities, countries or the world? Essentially, within any kind of
group, the person who, or entity which, is perceived as the most powerful is able to balance his feelings first, and everyone else must
follow suit, or alternately, challenge the current authority. This hierarchy of balancing authority occurs even when people are mentally
healthy. When the interpersonal system is healthy, balancing behaviors promote health within everyone who is involved. For example,
a mother works hard, takes responsibility, and along with her husband perhaps, makes sure everyone in the family is nurtured and
protected. She then commands and deserves respect from her children. The fact that she commands respect might seem like a
weakness, but quite the contrary, it is simply the way it should be since she works hard to make sure the needs of everyone else are
met. She deserves respect. The fact that she demands respect does not diminish anyone else. Rather, it teaches the children that hard
work is respectable and that they too should try to work hard and be responsible so that they too can have respect. In fact, if they work
hard to get respect, they also make less work for their mother, and the entire process remains wholesome. To the degree to which a
family is healthy, every member’s needs are met simultaneously much of the time because the needs of the parents automatically bring
about meeting the needs of the children. For example, the father wants to work hard and succeed which allows him to support his
family and which also provides the children a good example of how they too should behave.
In the case of less mentally healthy people, however, strong needs and emotions are expressed and because they are expressed so
dominantly, the other less dominant people in the family must absorb those feelings in such a way as to complement or accommodate
those feelings. The word complement as I am using it here means opposite in such a way as to fit together, but is not a positive
attribute when used to describe extreme emotions. That is, dominant behavior necessarily results in submissive behavior. One person
in a family has to have his way because that is the only thing that will make him feel adequate. So others in that family specifically
cannot have their way. If the dominant person has to be smart, someone else must be foolish. If the dominant person must define
himself as sweet, then someone else must be rotten. The more complementary ones responses must be, the less healthy they are in
general and the more diminishing they are as well. But because this action requires, and thus results in, a lack of balance within those
other family members, that lack of balance seeks balance as well, and an unhealthy dominance hierarchy is created within the family.
BALANCE AND ROLE DIFFERENTIATION
Oftentimes balance can occur in healthier families in relatively healthy ways through role differentiation. In healthy families
balance is found when the parents have relatively equal dominance, yet with role differentiation between them. In the traditional
family, for example, the father might be in the disciplinarian role and the mother the more nurturing role, but if both parents give each
other mutual and equal respect, and neither attempts to be dominant overall, then their example of balance can be passed down through
the children. The children in in following the lead of the parents are likely to differentiate their roles in relatively healthy ways as well.
Perhaps one child becomes the smart one who is “like” mom and another child becomes the athletic child who is “like” dad, and both
ways of being are considered equally positive.
In the unhealthy family, however, no one really feels balanced. The reason the unhealthy parents need to express so strongly
within the family is because of some extreme needs left in them from their own past lives or genetics. The children cannot possibly
balance the feelings foisted upon them by their parents, and they either express them in a negative manner within the family, with other
children outside the family, or hold the feelings deep within while saving them up for expression at a later time in life (or any
combination of the three).
PROBLEMS IN BALANCE AND DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES
Whenever you see extreme expression of emotion, there is clearly a problem in balance. This is true even in cases of depression,
PTSD, bipolar disorder, or even schizophrenia, when it is clear that there is an extreme experience or some genetic component
involved. If the experience (either a loss or a trauma) occurred recently, it can be far too difficult to tolerate for even healthy people.
However, the less healthy a person is, the more likely that any trauma or loss will be intolerable. With depression, an otherwise healthy
person can suddenly experience a loss of some sort which then leads to an inability to balance within themselves because of what that
lost thing or person provided for them. In the case of bipolar disorder, many times a person is born with extreme intensity (it exists at a
genetic level) and yet the fact that their parents have trained them to care, love, and take responsibility creates an extreme pressure to
be good even while the intensity of their emotions leads them to seek immediate gratification, thus making them “bipolar” (the vast
majority of “bipolar” diagnoses these days refer to people who have been brought up poorly rather than those who have been brought
up well but have extremely intense emotions). In the case of schizophrenia, there is a sudden inability to maintain an adequate internal
boundary and thus the mind is flooded with the most extreme, irrational emotions that then seek balance through the creation of an
alternate reality that balances those feelings.
BALANCE AND SOCIETY
Amazingly, all of these phenomena - balance of intensity, balance of relatedness, boundaries, interpersonal balance, balance
through role-differentiation - occur at all levels of society. One family affects another family as they try to balance their own standing
within the community. One city balances its needs against the other cities in its county. One company seeks hegemony over other
companies, just as countries try to rule over one another. It all starts in perceived needs within each family, city, company or country.
Boundaries get involved within each level that I have mentioned in a very similar way to how they are involved in every individual.
Whole societies have certain ways of being that are simply not tolerated (an internal boundary) as well as certain aspects of experience
that simply shouldn’t be, or always must be expressed (an external boundary). In everyday discourse between these various companies
or cultures, various pressures seek balance through interaction with the others. At all these levels, role differentiation can be seen in the
roles taken by families, cities, companies, countries, and even continents.
There are healthier ways of communicating and less healthy ways, with more aggressive and dominant expressions of the family’s,
city’s, company’s, or country’s needs often winning out until the more oppressed build up so much angst in their lack of balance that
their expression takes form against the more dominant. From a psychological perspective, the system will always balance, no matter
what any one individual wants. The only way for everyone to seek balance in a healthier way is to do so mindfully and intentionally.
Unfortunately, in almost all of us, even within me and most likely within you, it is our own needs that take precedence most of the time.
Strangely enough, watching out for our own needs first, but in balance with everyone else and our world, is the healthiest way for any of
us to be. That is, every one of us is most healthy when we are able to have enough self-respect to make sure our own needs are met,
but simultaneously we have enough confidence that our needs will be met that we can take responsibility for others and try to work
toward the greater good. In this way we can see that true mental health, at the individual level, the family level, the city, company,
state, country or world level, requires strength in convictions and confidence within the self or the organizational culture, along with
balance of needs and healthy boundaries at every level. The world itself must balance if there is to be health for everyone, and the
more every individual takes responsibility for himself and his culture, the greater likelihood that the world will become healthier and
healthier for us all.