Emotional Literacy;
Intelligence with a Heart
by
Claude Steiner PhDCopyright © 2002
BOOK TWO:
EMOTIONAL
LITERACY TRAINING
An open heart is the foundation of
emotional literacy and a prerequisite for the next two stages of emotional
literacy training: Surveying the Emotional Landscape and Taking Responsibility.
In the heart-opening portion of the training, we apply the findings of the
original Stroke City exercise, namely that by the simple act of exchanging
positive strokes in a safe environment we can cultivate our inborn loving
capacities. That is why the training starts here, by learning how to give
and take affection—or in plain English, by learning to love.
THE
POWER OF STROKES
Scientific
evidence strongly suggests that to maintain emotional and physical health, we
need strokes and have to know how to procure them. The undeniable evidence is
that love and intimacy affect health and recovery from illness. This finding has
been elaborated by Dean Ornish, MD in Love and Survival: The
Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of Intimacy. [i]
He writes:
“love
and intimacy are at the root of what makes us sick and what makes us well… I
am not aware of any factor in medicine — not diet, not smoking, not stress,
not genetics, not drugs, not surgery—that has greater impact on our quality of
life, incidence of illness and premature death from all causes.”
The
procurement of strokes is the motivation for interaction. People seek love; love
is exchanged transactionally, through strokes. Strokes can be physical or
verbal. Physical strokes are any form of touch: hugs, kisses, caresses,
backrubs, holding hands, or being held. Verbal strokes are statements that
acknowledge some feature of another person in a positive way. Verbal strokes can
be about a person’s looks, clothing, intelligence, generosity, creativity,
emotional literacy, kindness, integrity, work ethic, practical skills, dignity,
leadership ability, artistic talent, sexual responsiveness or prowess, honesty,
playfulness, practical wisdom, elegance, tact, or any other attribute the person
possesses. Listening carefully as
someone speaks, or giving someone you love a bunch of beautiful flowers can be a
powerful form of stroking, as well— “action strokes” if you will.
Marcel
and Carrey are a good example of how important action strokes can be. Marcel is
a very busy teacher. He has a full teaching schedule and a great deal of
committee work. He brings work home from school and is always busy.
Marcel
is not very good at giving verbal strokes, but Carrey, his wife, has accepted
this shortcoming and his busy lifestyle because he is very good at giving her
action strokes. He makes sure that when she needs to talk to him he pulls
himself away from his work and listens with complete attention. He brings her
breakfast in bed on weekends and he buys her little surprise presents. In short,
he is constantly showing her affection with his actions, in addition to the
physical strokes they exchange whenever time permits. Even though Carrey would
like to have longer conversations and more quality time with Marcel, she gives
him action strokes just by being there with a loving attitude and supporting him
in his work.
They
both feel stroked, even though they exchange few verbal strokes and would like
more. They have, for the time being, adjusted to the situation.
Another
example of actions strokes is Todd and Louis, two lifelong friends who exchange
strokes almost exclusively at the action level. They get together regularly,
talk about sports and cars, go fishing, or have a beer or two. There is no
question of their mutual affection and respect, and yet they never exchange
physical strokes, and exchange verbal strokes only by complimenting each
other’s truck or prize catch. Both men get strokes they need from each
other’s friendship. Their wonderful friendship could be further improved if
they opened their hearts more and learned to give each other verbal and even
physical strokes, but they are both well satisfied with each other.
Strokes
can vary in their intensity or in the kind of reaction they cause. Some strokes
are “superstrokes” because they are especially wanted. One teenager I knew
longed to hear that he was good-looking. It took years for him to ask the
question of someone and when he finally did he was lucky to receive a major
life-long boost in self-confidence. A superstroke can also be a stroke that
comes from a special person, like a revered teacher, our spouse, or a person we
have a crush on.
The
attributes that receive positive comment are not always obvious or expected. We
learn about ourselves from the strokes we get. For example, Jane has asked David
to give her some strokes about something other than her looks. Jane is surprised
when he tells her, “I envy the way you get so emotional. I wish I felt as sure
about what I feel as you do. I like it that you have such strong emotions.”
Jane had assumed that her tendency to cry at movies or during arguments was
annoying. She learned something about herself and was surprised (and pleased) to
find that David admired her for this sometimes dubiously positive ability to
show her emotions.
On
the other hand, there are negative strokes. These can be obvious insults, such
as “Why can’t you do anything right?” or subtle, hurtful remarks couched
as jokes. Sometimes negative strokes can come disguised as compliments when they
are based on a comparison between two people. For example, Jean’s mother
frequently said to her, “You have all the looks in the family, and your sister
Sara has all of the brains.” A statement like this was noxious to both of the
girls, who came to resent their mother for pigeonholing them. It took Jean years
to realize that they were both
good-looking and smart and that their mother had badly confused them with
her devious compliments. Her sister Sara still hasn’t gotten over believing
that she is ugly.
Another
example of a stroke that could feel good but be toxic would be a comparison such
as, “You are my most loyal friend.” Again, this might seem like a positive
stroke, but it is actually harmful, because it denigrates the person’s other
friends. Far better would be to say something like: “I appreciate your
loyalty. It’s pure as gold.”
Sometimes
a stroke that we actually want can be delivered too strongly, making it
unpleasant. An affectionate grandmother who smothers her grandchildren with wet
kisses or a spouse who showers more physical attention to his wife than she may
want at times are both examples of good strokes gone awry.
Finally,
strokes are sometimes given insincerely. These strokes are supposed to feel good
but rarely do. They are sometimes called “plastic fuzzies” (as opposed to
“warm fuzzies”). You may want to read The Warm Fuzzy Tale [ii],
my fairy tale about “warm fuzzies” and “cold pricklies” that makes these
distinctions perfectly clear. Even
though they feed our hunger for recognition and we do better with them than with
no strokes at all, negative strokes are toxic.
TROUBLE
IN STROKE CITY
Our
basic nature cries out for abundant strokes. Unfortunately, positive strokes
don’t always flow freely, even among people who love one another. It should be
simple and pleasurable both to give and to get them. But when most of us try to
pass strokes back and forth, we fumble. This vexing problem was exemplified by
one of my clients, Thomas, who found that whenever he tried to say something
loving to his wife, he felt as if he were being choked by an invisible hand.
Though he knew what he wanted to say, he literally couldn’t get the words out.
On one occasion, when confronted by his wife’s frequent question, “Do you
love me?” he did manage to force the words from his mouth. But all he could do
was utter a barely understandable, froglike croak: “Ighh ghhluv ghuu.”
Fortunately,
his wife had a rich sense of humor, and much to his relief, burst out laughing.
“What?”
she asked.
“I
love you, I love you,” he replied sheepishly, undercutting the powerful
message by his hurried, embarrassed tone of voice. This farcical example of a
common problem shows the fear and even physical difficulty we run into when we
try to speak about our loving emotions.
People’s
evasions take many forms. “You know I love you,” they may say. Or, “How
many times do I have to tell you that I love you?” Or “Would I be here if I
didn’t love you?” Sometimes the sentiment is ruined just by the tone of
voice—ironic, irritated, or dismissive—“Yes, dear, of course I love
you.” In any case, the loving stroke that one partner wanted and the other
actually had was not truly delivered. This occurs commonly because few of us are
truly free to love and to speak of love openly. Even though we talk and listen
to talk about love constantly, we are inhibited about giving, asking for, or
accepting strokes. We are especially uptight about giving strokes to ourselves.
What restricts us?
Most
of us follow unwritten rules about the exchange of strokes. When we break these
rules, we are likely to experience disapproval or even harassment. If you warmly
hug a loved one on a busy sidewalk, chances are that some people will look away
uncomfortably. If you are over a certain age and kiss or cuddle each other on a
bus, other passengers may look embarrassed or frown. If you call your wife or
husband from your office and say, “I love you,” you open yourself up to
remarks from the person at the next cubicle. But these prohibitions don’t come
only from outsiders who disapprove. They are also severely enforced inside each
of us by our inner Critical Parent.
What
are the unwritten rules about giving and taking strokes? Where do they come
from? I first became aware of the prohibitions placed on stroking at one of Eric
Berne’s weekly meetings. We would try different “psychological
experiments” as a form of recreation after our “scientific” meeting. On
one occasion, I suggested we try one of the “games” played at that time by
members of Synanon, a drug-treatment organization. In this game, group members
would go at each other with savage criticism. They did this because they
believed that the drug addict’s character required that type of tough approach
for change to happen.
Following
Synanon’s example, we went at it with glee and the nasty comments—some
offered supposedly in jest—flowed freely. I found the experiment quite
disturbing. My feelings had been hurt by some of the things said about me, but
of course I did not tell the others of my distress. I would have been too
embarrassed to admit how badly I’d been hurt and how much I wanted the
affection and respect of the group. Instead, I proposed that the next week we do
just the opposite of what we had done and say positive, loving things about each
other.
Everyone
agreed. But at the next meeting, no one could think of much to say. Though we
eventually muddled through, it was clear that producing positive strokes was
hard, while producing negative ones was easy. Not only were people inhibited
about giving strokes, I discovered, but also about asking for them or even
accepting them. Giving oneself strokes was definitely taboo.
Years
later, Diana, a group therapy member, helped me see this problem even more
clearly. I noticed one afternoon that she seemed uneasy when someone in the
group offered her a compliment. I asked her about her uneasiness.
“When
Robert said something about me being pretty,” she explained, “I was afraid
that other people in the group might be thinking, ‘I don’t think so.’ That
if I smiled too much, or was moved, they would think I looked needy and pathetic
and pity me.”
I
thought it would be interesting if I suggested that, as an experiment, she ask
Robert to give her the stroke again. “But it would seem so pathetic and
needy,” she insisted, squirming in her chair.
Emboldened,
I suggested, “Well, then, how about giving yourself the same stroke? Would you
be willing to tell yourself that you are pretty?”
This
was a shocking idea and by now, there were tears in her eyes. I feared that I
had made her cry and asked if I had been too demanding. I asked her why she was
crying; she said that Robert’s compliment had shaken her up. She wanted to
believe him and to thank him, but was terrified of allowing herself to look
pleased. I asked her to reflect on why she might be feeling this way. After
thinking about it, she remembered that when she was in grammar school and high
school, the unpopular kids were always most likely to be made fun of when they
acted pleased with themselves. Seeing this over and over had taught her to be
afraid to accept strokes, especially a stroke that she really wanted. She felt
that might cause her to become emotional in public and therefore—in her
mind—make her seem ridiculous. Asking for strokes or giving herself strokes
frightened her even more.
Diana
had no trouble giving strokes, but she had severe inhibitions against accepting
them, asking for them, or giving them to herself. Unfortunately, Diana was not
unusual. Some of us reject any strokes that are given to us. Many of us, like
Thomas, choke up when we try to deliver them. All of these reactions keep us
from being close to people.
The
Stroke Economy and Its Rules
Have
you ever felt a great desire to tell someone that you liked or loved him or her
and found yourself unable to do so? Or have you found yourself wondering if a
friend, family member, lover, or spouse really loves or likes you and if so, in
what way and for what reasons? Have you thought of coming right out and asking,
only to dismiss the idea? Do you put yourself down, giving yourself negative
strokes as a way to fish for positive strokes, hoping that somebody will
contradict you? All of these are the result of our submission to the rules of
the Stroke Economy.
The
Stroke Economy is a set of rules enforced by people around us, but even more
importantly, by our own Critical Parent, that critical voice we hear inside that
keeps us from giving and accepting positive strokes. The Critical Parent would
have us live by these Stroke Economy rules:
•
Don’t give strokes you want to give.
•
Don’t ask for strokes you want.
•
Don’t accept strokes you want.
•
Don’t reject strokes you don’t want.
•
Don’t give yourself strokes.
WHY
PEOPLE ACCEPT NEGATIVE STROKES
When
all the people in a social group follow the dictates of the Stroke Economy to a
certain extent, the quantity and quality of strokes exchanged are dramatically
reduced. People will become stroke-starved. One very important and damaging side
effect is that stroke-hungry people begin to accept or even seek negative
strokes because they can’t get positive ones. In the same way that people
dying of hunger or thirst will eat rotten food and drink polluted water, people
will also accept and take in negative strokes when they get sufficiently
stroke-hungry. But negative strokes, like salt water and rotten food, make
people sick. Getting healthy, life-affirming strokes is a major human
predicament and pursuit.
As
I have said, one of the most important discoveries I made in the 20 years I have
been teaching emotional literacy is that by systematically breaking the rules of
the Stroke Economy and providing people with a steady diet of positive strokes,
people’s hearts will automatically open. They will experience loving feelings
they have not before experienced and the effect will spread out from them to
their families and friends. I have seen many people (myself among them) develop
their loving capacities over time, simply by giving strokes, asking for strokes,
accepting the strokes they want, rejecting the ones they don’t want, and
giving themselves strokes.
The
Emotional Literacy Training Program
Let
me now introduce step by step the emotionally literate transactions which, if
used when appropriate over a period of time, will effectively increase your
emotional literacy:
The
first transaction of Opening the Heart is giving strokes, but before you start
opening your heart, let me introduce an even more important transaction: asking
for permission.
Emotionally
literate transaction #0: Ask for permission. I number this transaction “zero” because it a
special transaction which should always precede any of the others. Why? Because
any emotional communication can be a daunting experience. It is not uncommon in
emotional literacy training to see people cry when they are given a much-desired
stroke, asked a particular question, or given a needed apology.
When
about to speak about strokes or any other emotional issues, asking the other
person’s permission:
*
Gives a warning that a difficult communication is coming and provides an
opportunity to prepare and be ready to listen.
*
Allows a choice about dealing with the issue at this time (he may have a
splitting headache or a big exam in the morning).
When
we follow this approach, we ensure that our statements will fall on fertile soil
and generate productive responses. By asking for permission every time we are
about to engage in an emotion-laden transaction, we avoid possible shock,
defensiveness, fear, and even anger in the other person.
Most
important, though, the recipient has to be given a genuine choice. We need to be
willing to accept that the timing of our statement might not be particularly
good, and if so, be ready to wait for a better moment. By going slow and easy,
we prepare ourselves and the other person for the strong emotional response that
might occur.
The
most important first step toward learning emotional literacy is finding one or
more persons to learn it with.
Once you have found a person who is interested in an affectionate, thoughtful
dialogue and you are planning to give a stroke or address an emotional issue,
give him or her an idea of what you are about to say with a comment like:
“Can
I tell you something I like about you?”
“I
would like to talk about a feeling I had when we talked the other night.”
“I
have been wanting to apologize to you for something I said a while ago.”
“May
I tell you what my favorite thing about you is?”
“I
have been feeling upset lately. May I explain?”
“There
is something going on between us that I don’t like. Are you interested in
talking about it?”
Many
people find these preambles highly awkward. That is because what needs to be
done is unusual and sometimes seems unnatural and likely to be ridiculed as
excessively “California-ish.” Emotional discourse can be dismissed as
“psychobabble” or laughed at by people who are uncomfortable with their
emotions. Nonetheless, these are important methods that produce the changes we
are trying to make. Although asking permission to make any kind of emotion-laden
statement might seem odd, practice will remove this strangeness over time and
will improve your interactions.
Emotionally
literate transaction #1: Giving strokes—offering honest and truthful statements of
affection.
Throughout
this book, the theme of honesty will come up again and again. The fact is that
heart-based emotional literacy cannot develop in an environment of lies or
subtle dishonesty. For people to feel the trust and confidence in each other to
acquire the skills I teach here, they have to make a commitment to truthfulness
and honesty. (See “Notes for Philosophers” at the end of this book.)
Giving
strokes is the first opportunity to practice the all-important principle of
truthfulness. A stroke has to be honest, not manufactured. Anything else will be
confusing and counterproductive. As our hearts open, so do our intuitive powers.
It is confusing to our intuition to receive a stroke that is presented as
heartfelt and sincere but instead (at the intuitive level) feels phony and
unreal. When we decide to give a stroke, we must make sure it is authentic. For
some people, honesty is easy because they know how they truly feel. For others,
that is where the learning begins.
For
instance, Daphne was taught early in life that being nice and saying nice things
to people was important, even if that was not the way she felt. After years of
saying nice things and never considering their truth, Daphne doesn’t really
know how she feels about people or what it is that she likes or doesn’t like
about them. Therefore, she has to concentrate to become aware of her true
feelings. Sometimes, when she is being truthful with herself, she realizes she
has nothing complimentary to say. When that happens, she cannot honestly give a
verbal stroke. At such times, her Critical Parent makes her feel very guilty and
she reverts to the values she was raised with and invents a stroke. This
prevents her from understanding that simply listening to people, touching them
lightly, or smiling can be a stroke, as well—an action stroke. Daphne could
sit back and tune in to how she feels and resist the nagging of her Critical
Parent, who urges her to “Say something nice, stupid!” Unless she is true to
herself, she cannot be true to others. And others will intuit when she is not
telling the truth and treat her with hidden suspicion, dismissing her.
STROKE
ENEMY #1: The Critical parent
The
main problem in giving strokes is our Critical Parent, who acts like an
emotional prison guard, giving us discouraging messages that keep us from
getting in touch with our true feelings. Here are some of the messages our
Critical Parent whispers or shouts to stop us from giving strokes:
*
If the stroke is not wanted, you will look foolish.
*
The stroke you have is inappropriate, badly worded, and clumsy. If you say it,
you will only make a fool of yourself.
*
It will seem like a sexual advance.
*
It will just seem like insincere politeness anyway, so why take the risk?
*
Someone will think you are needy and desperate for friendship.
*
If you get overemotional, you will just make everyone feel awkward, and then you
might really get upset.
The
Critical Parent concocts complicated damning scenarios. For example, “If I
tell my sister that I really miss her, I might start crying. Then she’ll be
embarrassed, I’ll be embarrassed, and we’ll both feel stupid and everyone
will think that we are from a stupid family.” Or if I ask my friend if he
loves me, he might think that I am gay and panic and avoid me forever.”
Notice, however, that all these scenarios end up in the same way: not okay,
rejected, alone, loveless, and excluded from the tribe, group, or family.
By
giving strokes in spite of these Critical Parent injunctions, we see the
appreciation for our strokes and begin to get strokes back. We feed our hunger
for strokes. We realize how wrong the Stroke Economy rules really are. When that
happens, the voice of the Critical Parent gradually loses its power to inhibit
us.
For
example, Melanie is shy about giving strokes. This is another way of saying that
her Critical Parent harasses her
whenever she tries. She wishes she could be more generous; she would like to
give some strokes to her friend, Janelle, who is moving away to New York.
Overcoming her Critical Parent, who enjoins her to be cautious, she tells
Janelle that she thinks her new short hairstyle really becomes her.
“I
love it. You should keep it like that!” Melanie says enthusiastically.
Janelle
laughs nervously and says, “Oh, I think it’s too short.”
“Seriously,
it’s perfect for you,” Melanie adds, chastened.
Still
no response. Having stuck her neck out to give a sincere stroke, Melanie is sad
and disappointed. Her Critical Parent tells her that Janelle hated the stroke,
that it was inappropriate and may have been construed as a sexual advance.
Later, after Melanie rejects her Critical Parent’s harassment and thinks with
her Adult ego state, she realizes she gave that stroke quite abruptly, without
preparing Janelle for her unusual enthusiasm. Maybe Janelle is uneasy about her
appearance and doesn’t quite believe Melanie’s flattering remarks.
She
resolves to ask for permission. The next time they talk, Janelle tells a very
funny joke.
“You
know something?” Melanie says, still laughing.
“What?”
Janelle asks, worried.
“May
I tell you something I like about you?”
“Okay,”
Janelle says, cautiously.
“I
really like your sense of humor. At least we can still laugh together on the
phone after you move.”
Janelle
smiles, looking a little sad. Ignoring the sadness, Melanie is encouraged;
finally, she has hit on a stroke that Janelle is able to respond to.
Emboldened
by her success, Melanie addresses Janelle again. “May I tell you something
else?” After Janelle’s silent agreement, Melanie says, “You know, you’re
like a sister to me; I’m going to miss you so much!”
Now
Janelle doesn’t know what to say. She smiles nervously, then looks serious.
She promises to call as soon as she arrives in New York. Again, Melanie is
disappointed. What went wrong? Does Janelle feel guilty for leaving? Do
emotional goodbyes make her self-conscious? Her Critical Parent pitches in with:
“You never leave well enough alone. You are always pushing for more. You spoil
every situation with your greediness.”
Next
day Melanie goes out and buys a card for Janelle. She writes: “Dear Janelle, I
had the feeling last night that when I said you were like a sister to me and
I’d miss you, I made you uncomfortable. I’m not sure how you took what I
said, but all that’s important to me is that I let you know what a great time
I always have with you, and how smart and funny I think you are. Best wishes in
your new home.”
To
Melanie’s delight, Janelle wrote her a postcard two weeks later:
“Dear
Melanie, Got your sweet card. I love you too. Very busy. Let’s stay in touch.
Your New York sister, Janelle.”
By
starting out slowly, learning to ask for permission, being honest with her
feelings of affection and refusing to go along with her Critical Parent and
Janelle’s, Melanie was gradually learning the fine art of exchanging strokes.
She was desensitizing herself to the initial fear and awkwardness her Critical
Parent always exploited and working her way up from simple to more profound
expressions of positive, loving emotions. Over time, both she and Janelle became
freer in their ability to give and receive affection. This happened because
Melanie decided that she wanted to give Janelle strokes and was not dissuaded by
her own Critical Parent or by Janelle’s initial inability to receive them.
With practice, Melanie will find giving and accepting strokes easier and easier.
THE
POETRY OF STROKES
A
stroke should always aspire to be a love poem. Brief and shy perhaps, or full
throated and showy, one word or a long paragraph, but from the heart and always
hopeful and sincere. Even if it is an action stroke without words or physical
contact, a stroke works because it is a heartfelt act of kindness and love
extended to another person.
To
open up our hearts, we need to examine our lives and ask ourselves how many
times in a day we actually perform this basic function of human
nature—expressing love to another person, whether within our family, at work,
or on the street. We need to ask ourselves how we express this love: Is it done
almost imperceptibly, passionately, or somewhere in between? And if we discover,
as is often the case, that we are depriving others of the love we have for them,
we must resolve to do something about it and then go ahead and do it.
Emotionally
literate transaction # 2: Asking for strokes—requesting the affection that we need.
It’s
nice to get strokes, but sometimes they aren’t available or the ones that are
available are not the ones we want. We can spend years silently and timidly
waiting to learn whether the people in our lives think we are smart, creative,
good-looking, or kind. We try to guess if they find these positive qualities in
us. We seldom, if ever, simply ask. We have become so obedient to the Critical
Parent that the idea doesn’t even occur to us. But there are times when we
need to ask for strokes. At such times, we need to decide what to ask for and
from whom.
Asking
for strokes is riskier than giving them. We can never be completely sure that
the strokes we want are going to come our way. The other person may not honestly
be able to tell us what we would like to hear. It is therefore more hazardous to
ask for a specific stroke (“Do you like the way I sing?” or “Will you give
me a hug?”) than to ask for any
stroke a person may have, physical or verbal. The risk of the latter request is
that we might get a stroke we don’t want. The reality, however, is that in
most situations, with most people, when we ask, we can get what we need.
For
example: “Hi, Daphne. I’m having a really bad day. I feel embarrassed saying
this, but I could really use some moral support about my writing. Do you have
any strokes that you can give me?” Such conversations are normally
complicated, made almost impossible because people expect each other to lie out
of politeness. That’s why it’s so important to find good friends, or a lover
or spouse, someone who will be honest and gentle. With someone like that you can
ask:
“I
just bought these pants. Do you like them? Do you think that I look good in
them?”
Or:
“I wrote a letter to the editor of the Times.
Would you read it and tell me if you like it?”
Or:
“I just had a tough conversation with my teenager. I’m feeling unsure about
being a good father. You’ve seen how I am with my daughter; can you give me
some strokes about my parenting?”
Or:
“I looked at myself in the mirror this morning and I can see some new wrinkles
in my face. I’m afraid I’m becoming old and ugly. Can you tell me something
you like about my face?”
Or:
“I’ve been feeling very lonely at this party. Everyone is having such a good
time. Do you want to dance with me?”
And
of course: “Do you love me?” “Why do you love me?” and “Why else do
you love me?” “Will you tell me
again?”
Again,
the Critical Parent will be fiercely involved in making sure these questions
aren’t asked (or answered), throwing around all manner of objections such as:
“That’s
a silly question,” “You are coming across real needy,” “You’ll never
get an answer,” “Don’t be childish” and so on and on, ad nauseum.
Emotionally
literate transaction # 3: Accepting strokes—taking in strokes we want.
When
we get stroke-starved, we need strokes in much the same way that we need food.
We are like a starved, tired person coming home from work, considering a
month-old drumstick from the back of the refrigerator. We may become confused
about what strokes to take or to reject.
We
may be stroke-starved because we simply are not getting any strokes at all. We
may develop a sort of stroke anorexia and voluntarily starve ourselves of them.
Or we may be extremely picky and refuse any but certain sought-after strokes. On
the other hand, strokes may be offered to us that are toxic but seem attractive
on the surface, and we may take them. Or we may knowingly take bad strokes like
a person drinking sea water who knows it will be deadly. Given all these
complications, there is always the danger that we will take strokes we should
reject or that we will discount and not accept a beneficial stroke that we
actually want.
CASE
STUDY IN ACCEPTANCE
In
one of my training workshops, after I explained the Stroke Economy and
established the ground rules (no power plays or pressure to do anything, and no
lies), I invited the participants to go ahead and break any of the five rules of
the Stroke Economy.
A
thoughtful quiet ensued. After some of the people gave and took strokes for a
while, Anna began to talk about how she had plenty of permission to give strokes
but no permission to take them and even less to ask for them.
I
asked her if she wanted to do something about it.
Shyly
she agreed, and I asked her what she wanted to do.
“I
would like to give everyone here a stroke,” she said.
I
responded that this would be very nice but it might be a bit too easy for her.
How about asking everybody to give her a stroke?
She
was taken aback by the suggestion and shook her head.
I
said, “Well, in that case, what if just one person here gave you a stroke?”
After
some thought she nodded, “Okay.”
“Good!”
I said. “I think you should ask.”
She
found the very thought of this very difficult but eventually, after some
fretting, she said to the group, “I would like a stroke from anyone here.”
Valery
eagerly offered, “I am so glad you asked; can I give you a stroke?”
“Okay,”
said Anna.
“I
have known you for some years now, and what I like about you most is how sweet
and loving you are.”
Anna’s
face darkened. “Thank you,” she said.
I
saw that something about the stroke did not work. “Can I ask you, Anna, did
you take that stroke?”
Thinking
about it, she said no. She explained that while she heard the stroke, she also
heard her Critical Parent say, “She really doesn’t know you. That sweetness
is just an act, always being nice, never being yourself.”
I
turned to Valery and asked her if she agreed that she didn’t know Anna. Valery
responded, “I know that she is shy and sometimes doesn’t speak her mind, but
she is very loving, and I know that for a fact.”
Turning
to Anna, I asked if she believed Valery. Anna looked doubtful.
“Do
you think she is lying?” I asked.
“Maybe
to make me feel good.”
“But
we have a specific agreement not to do that. Do you really think that?”
Anna
thought for a few seconds. “I guess not.”
“You
know what, Anna?” I asked. Anna looked at me curiously. “I think to do this
right you need to apologize to Valery; she offered you this heartfelt stroke,
and instead you listened to your Critical Parent and rejected it. Would you
consider apologizing and asking her to give you the stroke again?”
Anna,
shocked by this suggestion at first, agreed. She apologized and asked for the
stroke again. This time she heard it, smiled happily and took a deep breath as a
warm blush spread over her cheeks. Clearly, Anna had leaped a big hurdle and
everyone was moved. It may be quite a struggle to convince someone to take a
heartfelt stroke, but it is worth the effort. Giving a stroke that is rejected
or discounted can be embarrassing and disappointing for both parties, so it is
reasonable to gently persist. When we give a stroke and suspect that it hasn’t
been fully accepted, it is important to investigate:
“Did
you hear what I said? Do you accept it? Do you believe me?”
“It
seems that you did not quite take in my compliment, am I right?”
“Please
take the stroke. I really mean it.”
“Didn’t
you like what I said? Why? Is there some other way I can phrase it?”
Keep
in mind that for stroke-starved people, strokes sometimes act like water on a
parched houseplant. At first the strokes may sit on the surface or run right
through and not be absorbed. Watering a parched plant may take extra care, but
eventually water will soak into the soil. Sometimes the process must be repeated
before there is any effect. Therefore, it is important to watch people as you
give them strokes.
A
stroke is a transaction that involves both the giver and the taker—not just
with words but biochemically. Because it is an emotional event that involves the
body, it takes time to take its full course. You can tell from the recipient’s
body language if the stroke is accepted or rejected. A deep breath or a quietly
satisfied look are the best signs that a stroke has been heard, and more
important, fully taken in.
Emotionally
literate transaction # 4: Rejecting unwanted strokes—
“Thanks but no thanks.”
The
most obvious example of unwanted strokes is sexual strokes from someone we are
not interested in. Most people can attest that it is very hard to categorically
reject certain unwanted sexual strokes. A woman may be unable to reject a sexual
comment because she feels it would be impolite to ask the person to stop. A
child may be puzzled by what seems to be a sexual stroke, but does not dare take
it that way. A man may feel it his manly duty to respond to a woman’s
advances.
Learning
to reject unwanted strokes is an important skill. We need to stop the unwanted
stroke to avoid an uncomfortable or even damaging situation. Furthermore, when
adults or older children impose sexual strokes on younger children or
adolescents, those strokes are undeniably harmful. Curiosity and hunger for
attention can result in a child seeming to consent to sexual strokes, which will
damage them emotionally. When we teach kids about molestation, we are
essentially teaching them how to reject injurious strokes, and if necessary, get
away from (and report) someone who won’t take no for an answer.
There
are other unwanted strokes that are less obvious than the ones mentioned above.
These are not toxic strokes; rather, they are strokes that seem to limit us. For
example, a beautiful woman may eventually tire of being constantly told she’s
beautiful. When that stroke is offered to her, it may make her feel
one-dimensional, as though that is all anyone ever notices about her. If she
thinks that the affection of others is based only on her beauty, then she may
feel trapped into always playing the part of the pretty woman. Actually, she may
be starved to have attention paid to her ideas, her work, or her integrity. With
emotional literacy training, she would learn to explain:
“I’m
sorry but I’ve been feeling lately that you only compliment me for my looks.
I guess I feel neglected in other ways. For instance, I really wanted you to
congratulate me on my job promotion. I know you don’t mean to offend or
disappoint me. Instead of strokes about my looks, could you give me other
compliments instead?”
Similarly,
a hard-working man who is constantly praised for his hard work and
responsibility may tire of such praise. Perhaps he would like to have more fun,
and he feels that he is only appreciated for his willingness to work. Or perhaps
he has other talents or admirable qualities that he feels no one notices, such
as being good with his kids, or being sexy.
When
people begin to resent a stroke they often receive, they usually think they must
always play the same old role to be appreciated. Of course, rejecting an
unwanted stroke can be uncomfortable and possibly even damage your
relationship with the other person. After all, when a person gives you a
compliment from the heart, he or she expects to hear at least a thank you. In
these cases, it is important to decline the stroke gracefully. In an
open-hearted manner, state what you would rather hear, and why, and ask for the
stroke you really want.
For
some, the most difficult task in this enterprise is separating the strokes we do
want from those we don’t want, and separating the strokes that are good for us
from those that may be harmful. When we don’t seem to want a certain stroke,
we need to ask ourselves: “Do I reject this stroke because it is not right for
me or is this a perfectly good stroke that my Critical Parent doesn’t want me
to have?” When we decide that the stroke offered is good and we want it, we
must fight our Critical Parent and accept it. If we figure out that it is bad or
redundant, then we should reject it.
Lately
there has been a society-wide movement to help people (mostly women and
children) reject strokes they don’t want. A positive development because it
protects from the damage unwanted strokes can cause, the negative side of this
movement is that we have built up additional barriers against all sorts of
strokes. People are afraid that their heartfelt strokes will be misinterpreted
and they will be perceived as being harmful or that in some cases simply holding
a crying child or being friendly with a coworker will be construed as sexual
behavior. This new stroke phobia is most evident in the way people who work with
children are now refraining from any physical affection, no matter how
innocuous. The fear of legal or social persecution reinforces the effects of the
Stroke Economy and contributes greatly to the current emotional numbing of
people and an increase in social alienation and depression. It would be far
better if children learned to reject unwanted strokes, thus freeing grownups to
be loving with them. This is why it has become even more important to teach this
distinction between the desired strokes that are good for us from the unwanted
strokes that are bad and should be rejected.
Emotionally
literate transaction # 5: Giving ourselves strokes—healthy
self-love.
While
there is no real substitute for getting strokes from others, knowing how to give
ourselves strokes is an important skill that is very useful when we get into a
difficult situation, away from people who will stroke us. Most of us have been
conditioned to think of “patting ourselves on the back” as immodest and
conceited or even needy, foolish, and humiliating. There is nothing to be
embarrassed about in giving yourself strokes, even if you are not in great need
of them. There may be good things about you that others do not know, or perhaps
people in your life have been stingy with their strokes and you need a few more
than you are getting.
For
instance, after everyone had devoured a meal that Colin made, he looked around
the table and asked,
“Well,
did you like the food?”
Everyone
nodded and grunted appreciatively, but offered little in the way of detailed
response. Somewhat disappointed by the lack of praise, Colin said,
“Well,
if you ask me, I thought the chicken was really tender and the rice was spicy
and fluffy. I can see you all enjoyed it. I’m really happy.”
“Are
you upset with us? We really did like it. I know I did,” said Carrie, worried
that Colin was reprimanding them for their meager responses.
“No,
I was just giving myself a little pat on the back for a job well done,” he
declared. The others smiled approvingly, and everyone felt good about the
exchange.
SELF-STROKES
TO FIGHT THE CRITICAL PARENT
We
especially need to be able to stroke ourselves to counteract the negative
strokes we get from our Critical Parent telling us that we are stupid, bad,
crazy, ugly, sick, or doomed. For this we need to understand how to respond when
our Critical Parent attacks us.
If
your Critical Parent says that you are stupid, unreliable, and can’t be
trusted, you need to be able to contradict this slander and tell yourself
something like: “I am intelligent and a high achiever. Considering the fact
that I have two well-cared-for children at home, I know I am reliable and can be
trusted. I am proud of how smart, reliable, and trustworthy I am.”
If
your Critical Parent says that you are fat, ugly, and doomed, you need to be
able to say, “So I don’t have the looks of a model. But I have a nice
healthy body and people have told me they find me handsome and attractive. I
like the way I look and I am sure that I will meet the right partner for me.”
The same approach is useful when you are assaulted by other people’s Critical
Parents.
In
Transactional Analysis, the source of this kind of positive “self talk” is
called the “Nurturing Parent.” Certain people are able to preserve a bedrock
compassion toward themselves, despite criticism and ridicule from peers. This
healthy self-love suggests a well-established, core confidence supported by the
Nurturing Parent. However, no matter how good a Nurturing Parent we have, it can
eventually run out of energy if it isn’t replenished with strokes. The
Nurturing Parent neutralizes the Critical Parent and is like a battery that is
available as long as it is kept charged with a steady input of positive strokes.
SUMMARY
We
start this training by opening the heart because the heart is at the seat of
love around which emotional literacy is built. We open our hearts and strengthen
our bonds with others by giving and receiving strokes.
We
all need positive strokes. There are physical strokes such as hugs and kisses;
verbal strokes such as compliments about looks, intelligence, kindness,
integrity, or taste; and action strokes, such as being attentive or helpful or
showing empathy or affection.
The
Stroke Economy is a set of rules that prevents us from giving and asking for
strokes, accepting the strokes we want, and rejecting the ones we don’t want.
It also prevents us from giving ourselves strokes. The result is that we become
stroke-starved and are willing to take whatever strokes we can get.
By releasing ourselves from the rules of the Stroke
Economy, we free ourselves to be loving with each other and satisfy our need for
strokes. We disobey the inner Critical Parent, which enforces the rules of the
Stroke Economy and interferes with every attempt to gain emotional literacy.
We
learn how to give people the strokes they want. We ask for the strokes we want.
We learn how to accept or reject strokes. To do this we must figure out whether
we want or don’t want a certain stroke that is offered.
When
we are stroke-starved, it’s difficult to reject a stroke we don’t want. That
is one reason we need to learn to ask for and accept strokes we want. This keeps
us stroke-nourished so that we are not tempted to take toxic strokes. We should
reject toxic strokes, but when our Critical Parent prevents us from taking a
stroke we want, we should defy this prohibition.
With
our Nurturing Parent, we can give ourselves strokes to build our
self-confidence. Still, we need to get strokes from others to keep our Nurturing
Parent strong.
CHAPTER 5
SURVEYING
THE EMOTIONAL LANDSCAPE
Emotions
can be classified as positive or negative depending on how they feel. If they
feel good, they are positive; if they feel bad, they are negative. This is not
to say that positive emotions are good and negative emotions are bad; all
emotions are important and useful.
Opening
the heart is concerned with the exchange of an exclusively positive emotion:
love. Even so, the exercise can tap major negative emotions because of the
Critical Parent’s opposition to positive exchanges. Fear, anger, and shame can
be triggered in the simple act of giving and taking strokes. Still, the basic
currency of opening the heart is positive emotion. In the next step, surveying
the emotional landscape, we squarely face and seek out not only positive
emotions but negative emotions, as well.
We
can discuss the nature and purpose of our emotions—negative
or positive—and even whether they are our friends or enemies. We
cannot argue, however, with their existence. They affect us every minute of the
day, whether we know it or not. Many of us are numb to our emotions, others too
sensitive to them. We may be afraid of them or too ready to embrace them. The
emotions can be calm and soothing; they can also be as threatening as a stormy
sea. How to become aware of our emotions and the emotions of others is the
subject of this section. Here we will learn to recognize, map out, and navigate
the emotional terrain.
The
causes of our emotions are often unclear. We mistakenly tend to think of them as
irrational. Every emotion we have has a definite cause; and that cause is, more
often than not, someone else’s behavior. We need to understand these causes if
we are to be emotionally literate.
I
CAN MAKE YOU FEEL, YOU CAN MAKE ME FEEL.
In
the last two decades, popular psychology has led us to believe that we cannot
cause feelings in others. You may have come to believe this false idea, which
gained a foothold when the poem written by the psychologist Fritz Perls, the “Gestalt Prayer,” gained acceptance as it was recited at
thousands of human potential workshops across the Western world:
I do my thing, and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you and I am I, if by chance we find each other,
it’s beautiful.
If not, it can’t be helped.
I
believe that with his poem, Perls was trying to help people rid themselves of
the excessive and guilt-based demands that people often make on themselves and
one another. However, what he wrote became vulgarized into a call for emotional
irresponsibility. In essence, it supported the belief that we are not
responsible for the way others feel.
Another
source for that belief is a particular interpretation of Buddhism which also
deeply influenced the human potential movement in the U.S. It claims that we
must strive to disconnect our emotions from the actions of others.
Whatever
its source, the belief that we cannot make one another feel is the high point of
emotional illiteracy. Years ago, I was so disturbed by the misguided
implications in Perls’s poem that I wrote a response to it:
If I do my thing and you do your thing
And if we don’t live up to each other’s expectations
We might live but the world will not survive.
You are you, and I am I,
and together, joining hands, not by chance,
We will find each other beautiful.
If not, we can’t be helped.
What
I was trying to say here is obvious to most feeling people: We are
responsible for each other. Regarding emotions, we can indeed cause them in
each other, and therefore we are often responsible for other people’s
feelings. However, there are those who vehemently disagree. At a lecture in
which I was presenting my point of view on the subject, a man stood up and
interrupted me.
“I
completely disagree with you!” he exclaimed. “You cannot make me feel anything unless I let you.”
I
am embarrassed to admit that I took his bait. Faking anger, I stared at him and
said: “That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Sit
down!”
Stunned
by my response, he turned bright red and sat down. From where I stood, he
appeared to be scared and very sad.
“Now, may
I ask you something?” I smugly retorted. “What are you feeling right
now?”
“Nothing,”
he insisted.
I
was bewildered by his response. He was obviously shaken, yet he insisted that he
was not. I turned to the rest of the audience and asked: “How about you? Did anybody feel anything?”
Many
hands shot up. One by one, people voiced their feelings. I had made some of them
angry with my fake attack. Others were embarrassed for my victim, while others
felt afraid. Personally, I was left very uneasy because I believe it is wrong to
power play or lie, and by faking anger I lied and attempted to power play
my interlocutor. Yet I had proven my point. A number of people had been made to
feel strong emotions by my staged response to my victim.
Clearly,
if people can be made to feel fear, anger, shame, and other negative emotions,
they can also be made to feel the emotions of joy, love, pride, and hope. That
is ultimately what achieving emotional literacy is all about: giving people the
tools to move from emotional numbness or frightening chaos to a positive,
heart-centered, responsive and responsible, emotionally balanced life.
In
this stage of the training we explore emotional awareness, which is the
understanding of how emotions affect us every day. We will examine what we feel
and what others feel, how strongly we feel those feelings, and why. The goal of
this stage is to make us comfortable and well-oriented in the “emotional
landscape.”
We
will look at:
*
The connection between one person’s actions and another person’s feelings
and
*
The connection between a person’s feelings and his or her own actions.
Both
of these points relate to the fact that actions and feelings are closely related
to each other and can’t be kept apart. In fact, as mentioned before, it has
been shown that actions will not occur without emotions. In addition, our actions can cause feelings in the people
around us, which in turn can cause them to act in ways that will cause feelings
in us, and so on and so on. In fact, the great majority of the emotions that we
experience and the actions that they cause are the result of interactions with
other people. True, some emotions are aroused by our own thoughts or by events
(like being hit by a car or falling out of a boat) that are not directly related
to others, but our emotional lives are largely the result of human interactions.
The cycle of feelings and actions can be positive and constructive; it can also
be vicious and destructive. In the next step, we will look at the connection
between actions and feelings.
Emotionally
literate transaction # 6: The action/feeling statement.
An
action/feeling statement is a judgment-free method of exploring the connection
between actions and feelings. It is a one-sentence description of the emotions
we feel as the result of another person’s action. This transaction provides a
way of talking about our feelings that does not involve judgments, accusations,
or theories. The boilerplate version is as follows:
“When you
(action), I felt (emotion).”
Very
simple, isn’t it? This statement is designed to tell another person about a
feeling you had because of his or her behavior. By staying away from any
judgments or accusations, it also helps to avoid placing blame or making someone
defensive. An action/feeling statement simply says that the acknowledged action
of one person resulted in an undeniable feeling in another.
ACTION/FEELING
CASE STUDY
John
and Mary have a telephone conversation that Mary ends abruptly. John is upset by
this sudden disconnection. The next day he calls Mary to tell her how her action
made him feel. He asks if he can tell her something that is troubling him, and
she agrees to listen. He explains, “When you
suddenly wanted to stop talking on the phone last night, I felt angry at first,
and then sad.” Assuming that Mary can agree that she ended the telephone
conversation abruptly, she now understands that John felt sad and angered by her
action. That’s all: no more, no less. This action/feeling statement
successfully provides Mary with information about how John felt when she stopped
the conversation.
A
small goal you might say, but a critically important one in the learning of
emotional literacy. It conveys information about John’s feelings in connection
with Mary’s actions. It is also a way for John to express his feelings in a
way that did not upset Mary.
A
single action/feeling statement shows that an action resulted in a particular
feeling. A series of action/feeling exchanges will have a dramatically
clarifying effect on any emotional conflict. The reason for this is that
action/feeling statements are a means of dissecting an emotional conflict, part
by part. This is done by separating a conflict into two elements: what happened
and what you felt.
In
an emotionally literate relationship, no emotional event is too small to be
dismissed. Invariably, once these seemingly trivial emotional events are
explored, they reveal deeper emotional issues: personal insecurities, recurrent
conflicts, real or perceived inequities, or persistent hurts in a relationship.
Action/feeling
statements are not as easy to exchange as it might seem; errors can be made.
Action
/Feeling Error 1: Confusing action with motivation.
When
attempting to describe an action, it is possible to go beyond a simple statement—
•
“When you hung up the telephone…”
•
“When you arrived late…”
•
“When you interrupted me…”
—and add
to it a judgment or interpretation of the action being described, such as:
•
“When you so rudely hung up on me”
•
“When you humiliated me by being late”
•
“When you showed your disregard for my opinion by
interrupting me”
These
statements put forward a theory about the other person’s motivation (the
intent to insult, humiliate, or disregard), rather than a simple description of
an action. Elaborations like these confuse matters. They are often incorrect and
will create unnecessary guilt, anger, and other disturbing feelings in the
recipient. We will see later how to express these elaborations by stating our
hunches and intuitions. For now we are dealing with the connection between one
person’s actions and another person’s feelings.
Action/Feeling
Error 2: Confusing feelings with thoughts.
Another
error that can occur in stating an action/feeling statement is confusing feeling
and thinking. When we try to express a feeling, we often state a thought
instead. For instance:
“When you
interrupted our conversation, I felt that you were angry,” or
“I felt
that you weren’t interested in what I had to say.”
These
are not feelings at all. Like the interpretations we looked at above, they are
actually theories about what was going on in the other person’s mind. Literacy
has to do with language, and to confuse a feeling with an idea, thought, or
theory is a common mistake that we need to avoid.
In fact, any sentence that begins with “I feel that…” is
most likely to be about a thought perhaps best expressed by saying “I think
that…” or “I believe that. …”
To construct a good action/feeling statement, you need to focus on what you feel, not what you suspect or assume that the other person is thinking or feeling. The only thing you can know for sure is how you feel. If you want