Too busy?

Time flies when you live like an American.  A friend of mine (Dayna) pointed out to me this past weekend that I hadn't blogged since March 14.  I actually didn't realize it had been that long.  The past few months have been extremely busy.  I'm not complaining or anything, but life has been pretty busy this summer for some reason.  Wait, now that I think about it, it seems that life is always busy.  Is that really the case though?  

When you run into to someone you haven't seen for awhile a

nd you ask that person how things are, the response usually includes something about how busy he or she is.  When you or others feel bad about not being in better contact with friends or family, what is the usual excuse?  Too busy.  When we say that we really need to take better care ourselves and work out more, what's the excuse for not doing so?  Too busy.  

Is 'too busy' the default American excuse?  Do we schedule ourselves until we have no time to do things that are truly important and perhaps even necessary?  Are our priorities out of sync?  

Perhaps some of those things are occurring, but I have to wonder if we even really are as busy as we think we are.  Don't get me wrong - I know a lot of us have demanding careers, classes, and families.  But I have to wonder, if I added up all the minutes in a day that I spend doing nothing, how much time would that be?

I might suggest that many people, including myself, waste more time throughout the course of a day than they realize.  I am most likely worse than others; for example: rather than staring at the floor in the morning waiting for the coffee to get done, I could email a friend.  Or rather than sitting on the couch for ten minutes when I get home 'decompressing,' I could use that time to blog!

Well, perhaps people are extremely busy.  There is certainly something to be said for that argument.  But in addition to my being fairly busy, I know that I waste a substantial amount of time that could be used for more productive tasks.

Maybe this will be a New Year's resolution;  we know how well those usually work out.

Balance

I seem to have a problem (get in line, right?).  I have a difficult time finding balance in life.  It seems for as long as I can remember I tend to throw everything I have at something, while neglecting other aspects of my life.  I don't stop until I'm so busy that I have to schedule time to eat.  

My current major endeavor is graduate school.  I am thoroughly enjoying my studies and am taking an enormous amount of knowledge and personal growth from the experience, but at what cost?  Whenever I try to read a book for pure enjoyment or watch a movie, something inside of me sends a rush of guilt through my body.  I experience an this overwhelming feeling and beat myself up because I'm not studying.  I view school as my main "job" at the moment and so I think that if I'm not investing the majority of my time and my self toward it, I'm somehow failing. 

This is flawed thinking, I know.  I have to allow myself time to relax and recharge my batteries.  I can't possibly spend every waking minute studying and thinking about human behavior (psychology is my field of study).  I'll get burnt out before I even start practicing.  I have a tendency to pour my heart and soul into things and before I know it, I'm burnt out and need a break (as evidenced partly in my previous career as a teacher).  

Now, I don't think these guilty feelings are all that bad.  They certainly help me to stay on task and get things accomplished.  However, I do need to keep things in check and allow my self some fun every now and then.

Well, not the most exciting post - but just some thoughts.

Is Western Society Too Idealized?

Does western culture focus too much on the future and not enough on the here and now? Are Americans so caught up in living the “American dream” that they neglect their real selves? These are just a couple of the questions that have been on my mind lately. Karen Horney’s concepts of the real and idealized self helped propel my thinking on these issues to the next level. Whether it’s encouraging or discomforting, I have yet to decide, but I do think I have a better understanding of what may be happening.

According to psychological theorist Karen Horney, children who receive loving satisfaction of their needs develop into productive adults. If they experience the basic evil, inadequate parenting, they stray from their real self and develop neuroticism. Along with neurotic behavior they develop an idealized self, which is a fictitious view of who they should be. It is a distorted view that cannot be achieved. This concept is perhaps the one that has resonated with me the most so far. Horney often referred to the ideal self as the “tyranny of the shoulds.” I would venture to say that almost every person in the United States, several times on a daily basis, uses the phrase, “I should really…”

I do subscribe to the importance of childhood as it relates to development. The first years of life are clearly extremely formative and provide a basis for our hopefully fruitful future. With that said, I would like to take Horney’s theory a step further. Can an individual develop an idealized self even after experiencing healthy childhood development?

I think the answer is yes. While I haven’t conducted any research on those questions, I would suggest that there are a plethora of case studies at our fingertips: American citizens. I think that the pressure to succeed and achieve goals has become a staple of American culture, in some ways to its detriment. The notion of achieving the American dream, owning a beautiful house with a family while holding down a job that brings in at least a six figure salary, is ingrained in the minds of almost every American. We set goals and if we achieve them, we have to set more goals. Essentially, we are never satisfied; we always need more. I realize this isn’t true for every American, but I think a great many.

Some might suggest that there is nothing wrong with setting goals and achieving them. I agree, if the cost to the self doesn’t outweigh the benefits. According to Horney, people who live in accordance with their real selves are on the way to self-realization. The question to ask then is whether this goal-driven society is living in accordance with the real self or the idealized self. I think that people can have a very healthy concept of self while achieving goals in life. However, it seems to me that many Americans might not be on a path to self-realization.

Perhaps my pessimistic view of western culture and its lack of emphasis on the real self is a bit much for some people to take, but I do think it is a genuine problem, especially in the United States. My suggestion is that we take some advice from Horney and try to live in accordance with our real self. That might mean slowing down and actually spending some time with our own person and getting to know him or her. It would certainly do us all some good.

Is it really a dilemma?

Existentialists refer to the human dilemma or object-subject dichotomy as people being both the object and the subject of their existence. Humans have the capacity to themselves as objects to which things happen, as well as subjects who act on their experiences. In many way, this is what sets humans apart from other animals; the ability to step outside of ourselves and see ourselves acting in the world as well as being acted upon. Is this a dilemma or rather a healthy understanding of self?

I suppose it depends how far you take it on either end of this continuum of object or subject. You have behaviorists who advocate that humans are objects with little to no subjectivity. This is such an extreme stance and for me, very difficult to subscribe to. I certainly understand that a lot of behavior is learned and much of what we do or who we are is a product of our environment. However, to say that is the essence of who we are is placing us in the same category as every other animal on earth. Do behaviorists put themselves in this category? It’s hard for me to believe that they themselves think they are not free thinking individuals.

On the other end of the spectrum would be someone like Rogers (whom I love). He perhaps focused too much on subjectivity. The idea that our idea of self is developed only from our subjective view of our phenomenological field is again, a bit too extreme. This suggests to me that humans all live in their own little world and essentially choose what they want to be aware of. Perhaps there is some truth to that, but I would argue not to the extent in which Rogers thought. I think there are many stimuli from physical reality that have great influences on us, whether we are aware of or not.

It seems as I continue to write, I am aligning with May, who believed it a mistake to stress one side of the dichotomy over the other. It’s all about balance, which tends to be in a theme in all aspects of life. Once people are aware that they are both the object and subject of their existence, they can use that in their pursuit of self-actualization. The only way to become self-actualized is to be aware of one’s self, understanding not only one’s desires, but the also the motivations behind those desires. If you don’t have the ability to self-relate, this could be a difficult task.

With all that said, I would suggest that there are a great number of people living amongst us today who are simply the objects of their existence. Existentialists argue that all humans have an inherent need for meaning. This may be true, but I think that a lot of people perhaps haven’t yet realized that need. They go about their daily business, always looking for something new, something that might give them a sense of contentment. They seem to use material objects as a means for defining that sense of contentment or perhaps providing is a better word, while never taking a moment to ask themselves, “What is it that I really need?’ I think it is a sense of meaning they are looking for; they just don’t know it because they haven’t taken the time to be subjects of their existence.

So where do I sit on this continuum of object-subject? Well, at this point, I would lean towards the subject pole, while realizing the importance and large impact that the objectivity pole has on existence. I think to be extreme on any stance in life can be irresponsible. There aren’t many things that are cut and dry (although it sure would be nice if there were!), but having a balance and truly understanding the impact of all influences is crucial to succeeding in the pursuit of happiness.