CRITICISM: OUR DIS-EASE
| Laurence C. Smith, Jr., PhD |
| Criticism is the vehicle for imposing our beliefs on others thus perpetuating the Dilemma of Mankind. |
It is a generational disease very much like a genetic disease except that this one is strictly learned. It will never be attached to a
gene and as such, it can be unlearned and modified to a certain degree. Because of so many factors which I will discuss later, I
do not believe that it can become extinct in our society -- only reduced -- and even that can only be done by great personal
effort, motivation and determination. Unlike other authors who see criticism as positive, I submit that if one perceives another’s
interactions as critical, it never is positive. It always causes a “nick” in the receiver’s self-worth and creates a little doubt about
themselves, even if it is the most minimal of nicks.
It has the least effect on the strongest personality and ego, and the greatest effect on those egos that are undeveloped, weak,
shaky or those who already have serious doubts about their worth. Because of the automatic nature of the response to criticism,
it has to be the subtlest ongoing effect on the personality that lasts all of a person’s life.
When someone is perceived as being critical of you there are only three responses that one can make. Two of these are the
most common while the third requires a high level of maturation. When criticized the two most typical responses are 1. To adapt i.
e., to do what the demander says or, to rebel i.e., to do the opposite or something different than what the demander says. The
person who adapts typically says “OK you are right I’ll do it your way”, thus denying the validity of whatever he believed was best.
For example, if I say “you should put your coat on before going out” and the other person adapts and puts on a coat, he
overrides his self-knowledge about his tolerance for the particular weather and his hardiness to disease, which he may know
better than anyone else. The little “nick” that occurs creates self-doubt and acknowledgment that the other person really knows
what’s best for him and that he “can’t take care of himself”. It also contributes to his feelings of being controlled and may make
him angry.
The person who rebels basically says “you think you are right, I’ll show you” and does the opposite. In the above case, he goes
without a coat because he was told he should put on a coat. This response like the adaptive response is automatic without any
thought but often with angry feelings over someone telling him what to do. The negative self-worth may come to him later when
he realizes that he did not make a wise decision in doing what he knew what’s best for him. The “nick” is in self-assurance and he
begins to wonder whether or not he can really take care of himself.
In both the automatically adaptive and rebellious reactions to the demand “ put on the coat” the demander has placed himself in
the role of determining what the other person’s behavior “should” be. He is in the 0ne-up position and basically is conveying the
message “I really do know what is better for you than you do.” The irony of the receiver is that he too is acknowledging that the
demander controls whatever his automatic response is. That is, if he adapts and wears the coat, his behavior is automatically
determined by the acknowledged superior person. If he automatically rebels, his behavior is also a function of the demander
even though the rebel often thinks that he is independent of “others” telling him what to do because he is doing the opposite.
The third possible response, which requires considerable self-knowledge, independence and maturity on the part of the person
being told what to do, also requires that the response not be in an automatic mode. In this case when I say “you should put your
coat on before going outside”, you pause and move from the automatic emotional response to a logical and rational response
where you weigh all the facts at your disposal i.e., what is the weather like, what is my tolerance for this weather, and am I prone
to getting colds, do I believe that colds come from exposure to the anticipated weather and historically have I been able to handle
the weather and exposure time without ill effects. At that point you make a knowledgeable decision that is totally different from
the adaptive or rebellious decision. Your self-concept remains intact and your worth stays as it was without any “nick” -- indeed
you become a little stronger because you have determined what is best for you. You have made the best decision for you even
though there may be a resultant conflict with the demander. Rationally choosing not to wear the coat may well establish your
integrity, but it is also a clear statement to the demander that you will determine what is best for you and not the other person.
From the demander’s perspective you have rejected his “demand” or his “suggestion” and if he “expects” you to do as he says
he then will have one of two emotional reactions to you.
If he “expects” you to do what he says because he believes he knows what’s best for you, he may feel disappointed and hurt that
you didn’t do what he said you “should” do. If you did wear the coat because of the third choice he will never know the difference
and may feel that you have done what he expected. If, on the other hand the demander perceived his “should” as a “demand” in
a controlling way and you chose not to wear the coat he will probably get angry at you and you will have to deal with his anger. If
that is the case your cognitive decision not to wear the coat becomes a clear statement that you will not be controlled by others
unless you determine that coincidentally the coat wearing is the best thing for you. That may lead the person who is controlling
to feel that he again had the upper hand and you in fact will do what he says. It will take other situations to further clarify this type
of interaction for both the perceiver and the demander
.
In this example as in most situations involving a demand there are several aspects, which can be examined: 1. The intent of the
person levying the demand. Is this person simply on “automatic” using the structure of our language to bring about change in
someone else’s behavior i.e., “wear your coat“? Is the person being parental or authoritarian in his attempt to change the other
person’s behavior? Is the person continuing or attempting to create a one-up -- one-down relationship where the message is
clearly “I know what’s best for you and you don’t”. Or is the person simply trying to be helpful or protective in attempting to warn
the other person of the cold weather outside?
Obviously, each of these intentions are different but all are conveyed by the same critical statement “You should put your coat on
before you go outside”. The recipient on the other hand has his own agenda upon hearing this simple statement. This agenda
will be a function of his age and maturation, the relationship that he has with the other person (a son may respond quite
differently than an adult visitor from a warm climate), the baggage that he carries with him, the extent that he has been criticized
in the past and by whom in his family, and finally the particular mood that he may be in at the time. If he is in a receptive mood he
may simply adapt or reflect and if he is in a hostile mood may rebel.
In summary, both the intent and perception of what is critically said are important factors in the interaction. We know that
perceived criticism generally causes hurt feelings as a primary initial feeling state. In our society it is common for men to do what I
call a hurt -- anger sequence. In this sequence they respond so quickly that the hurt is missed and the anger is expressed. By
the same token women are more likely to stay in the “hurt” position and respond on a feeling level from there. The important
thing is that perceived criticism causes feelings in the person being criticized . Neither hurt nor anger are positive feelings
therefore there are bad feelings evoked each time that there is a demand statement made that is perceived in a critical manner.
For this reason alone, anything that each of us can do to correct this kind of communication that we have with the people around
us can only make our relationships better.
Misteachings or mislearnings are a favorite area of concern of mine also. A misteaching is usually a demand or warning that our
parents or teachers taught us with good intention but bad results. Oftentimes they result in mislearnings that are considered
truths and that are devastating and affect us for our entire life. For example, most of us have been taught to “never hurt others
feelings”. While this seems at first blush to be a well intended harmless warning, the effects of this learned belief is much more
negative and destructive than positive.
Now some of you will immediately think “this guy believes in hurting other’s feelings”. In a similar way to challenge the
misteaching “don’t ever lie” may be misinterpreted as “he thinks it’s OK to lie”. In my defense, what I’m attempting to do is make
us aware that we have automatically taught a number of beliefs without thinking through the intent or the consequences of these
beliefs once they have been mistaught and mislearned. Most of these teachings have been passed on from generation to
generation and will continue to be, unless we become aware of the effects and choose to do differently.
The original intent of “don’t hurt others feelings” was quite different than its abbreviated passed down admonition. From the
Christian ethnic of “turn the other cheek” and “love one another” came the original teaching of “don’t purposefully do or say
things to people with the intent of hurting their feelings”. Basically, it was “don’t do intentionally malicious things to others”. Now
that teaching is significantly different than what has commonly come to be believed when one hears the admonition “Don’t hurt
others feelings”. As I have stated elsewhere (The Nature of Human Feelings), we know that both criticism and rejection will hurt
other feelings. We also know that each one of us has been hurt by rejection and we have rejected and hurt others, often with
tremendous guilt for having violated our belief which we learned from the misteaching. In a similar manner we have all been
criticized and have in time criticized others which also leads to the hurt feeling that we have been taught never to do.
In essence we have created this cultural “catch 22” no-win situation where we are not supposed to hurt others and where we
have the impossible task of trying to live out this belief in a culture whose language is oriented toward criticism and where
rejection is a way of life in selecting appropriate partners, employees, employers, college students etc. I have also discussed in
The Nature of Human Feelings the fact that one of the major causes of guilt is a violation of our beliefs. Thus, if we believed in
this teaching -- which most of us do -- and we criticize or reject someone we cannot escape the resulting guilt. In a worst-case
scenario, which often happens in adolescents, when we adhere to the belief of not hurting others feelings and we stay in
relationships to avoid hurting the other one and to avoid our own guilt we make unwise choices that can effect us for our entire
life. This often happens at the expense of violating oneself at our very core. We violate ourselves in doing what we
fundamentally know is not right, in order to avoid the hurt. By adhering to our belief we invariably prolong the relationship which
eventually will end with the hurt that was only delayed.
I have also said in the other writings that I estimate 20 to 30 percent of our marriages occur because one person knows that the
marriage should not occur but let’s it go on in order not to “hurt” the other person’s feelings. In my clinical practice I have had
many men and women tell me this as their marriage was gradually coming apart. I even had one woman tell me that she went
through with their marriage not to hurt her husband’s parents feelings. I often wonder how many stories there are like this.
Developmentally, there are predictable stages that all relationships go through. At the end of each stage there is a decision-
making process by both individuals as to whether or not they will continue the relationship. I have found that at the death of the
last or most influential parent there is often a major developmental change that goes on quietly within the adult child of that
parent. I cannot help to think that in the above example of the marriage in order not to hurt the prospective in-laws feelings that
if the marriage did not end before, there would be a much greater chance of the relationship ending upon the death of the in-law
since she would no longer have to worry about hurting her feelings.
With our current divorce rate at plus or minus 50 percent, it is my belief and experience that over 90 percent of those individuals
who marry and adhere to the “don’t hurt others feelings” ultimately end up in a divorce. The exceptional relationship that
continues often does so because there is a stronger belief that prevails. A belief that “you married for life in the eyes of God”
can often sustain the relationship where one or the other originally knew that their marriage wasn’t right for them.
I have found that most of these beliefs which were mistaught, and which we accept as a mislearning, function throughout our lives
in spite of our growing maturity and ability to reason logically. Because of our ability to logically reason in adulthood you would
think that one could easily undo the belief. Unfortunately, beliefs that are so automatic and that have never been challenged do
not function on the basis of reason. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church to believe in not eating meat on Friday was
taught to all young Catholics by model and instruction for centuries. When this rule was modified by the church a few decades
ago it was extremely difficult for many people to “violate” the old belief and adopt the new teaching regardless of the new logic
that was presented. Even today there are many people who still adhere to the belief which they grew up with from early life. In a
similar way many people who are intelligent and mature continue to struggle with their early mislearnings whatever they are. .
At the risk of challenging such fundamental Washingtonian Americana about lies and cherry trees, it may be helpful to
understand the dynamics of lies. I must reiterate that this understanding is not to condone lies but to help us become more
aware of when and why we lie. As with beliefs about hurt feelings, the beliefs about not lying are firmly taught early in life, usually
during the first decade of one’s life. By the time we are preadolescent we do not lie and we try not to hurt others feelings. These
beliefs first become challenged by us when we reach adolescence. The belief about hurt seems to become more firmly
entrenched as we go through our adolescent relationships. Teenagers really struggle with this mystique and suffer greatly as
they find that rejection happens to them (which is much easier for most to handle) but they are unable to reject and hurt their
male or female friends. There is a much greater adherence to this belief during adolescence than there is to the belief about
never lying. There are some very interesting psychological reasons for this. First the adolescent begins to naturally pull away
from the parents belief system. As part of the first natural challenge to those beliefs coupled with a tendency toward rebellion we
have the foundation for a challenge to the admonition about lying.
The dynamics of lies is quite simple once you think about it.
Over and over again you hear me talk about the importance of our beliefs in our individual life and our life decisions. Our beliefs
effect all of our relationships. Our beliefs are so important to us that it only takes one major belief difference to end a relationship
or to not continue with that relationship. The depth and strength of these beliefs determines our actions. The deeper and
stronger the belief the more likely this difference with another person could end the relationship. For example, if one believes in
abortion and the other one doesn’t and pregnancy occurs, the relationship can and often will end if this difference is not
reconcilable. In a similar way we may choose not to have a relationship with someone who smokes, someone who steals,
someone who is a Republican, Catholic, or simply one who believes a different religion than we do.
As we go through adolescence those beliefs of the parents are often challenged as the natural part of adolescent rebellion. It is
not at all uncommon for the teenager to do the opposite of what the parent wants just because he is being oppositional. When
two people (such as a father and son) have a difference in beliefs there are only three possible interactions once both sides
acknowledge their differences in beliefs. The first choice is to openly confront the differences. The father and son will sit down
and confront and discuss their differences openly. The consequences of doing this are too great and the father has the ultimate
power and may “win” the confrontation each time. This confrontation usually isn’t a “fair” confrontation because of the natural
parental-child one up - one down interaction. While we teach that confrontation is the most mature way of dealing with beliefs
system differences, this works best when the two people are on an equal footing. They have to be equal in maturity and respect
to the other one and generally open and accepting of the other person in spite of the differences in beliefs. It has been my
experience that this type of equality is rare. If it is rare, then we will have very few direct confrontations of when there are
differing beliefs.
Every presidential election year it is interesting to me to watch how Republican and Democratic candidates avoid confrontation
with each other. There are the “change the subject” confronters, the physical “avoiders” of each other, the “I’ll take a shot at you
and you take a shot at me” confronters, and the “Don’t get me going or you’ll regret it” confronters. There are a very few who sit
down and try to define party differences or reconcile party difference that they each have.
Returning to the typical father and son example, if they are unwilling, are unable to confront there are only two options left: one is
to go underground (usually the son) but possibly the father as well. For example, Dad doesn’t believe in using pot and his son
only smokes behind the barn or out with his friends. The son may go underground if he believes in using pot and doesn’t want
the father to know. Going underground works as long as neither party really finds out about the son’s differing behavior.
The option that is left when one discovers the others “secret“, assuming that confrontation and irrational discussion about belief
differences won’t work, is for the person most vulnerable (son in this case ) to lie about his behavior: (Who me? I wasn’t smoking
pot” you must get the cigarette smell from my friend who I spent time with yesterday”, or “that wasn’t my roach that you found, it
was Bills - I was holding it for him”). It doesn’t matter what you’ve learned about never telling a lie, there are other consequences
more dangerous than violating that particular belief.
In summary, when there are belief differences between two people there are only three choices, Confrontation, Going
Underground or Lying. Strengthened with this information it is safe to say that at one time or another, usually during our earlier
years, we have all lied. The purpose of lying then is simply to avoid pain -the physical pain that can happen to you, the emotional
pain from rejection or the pain of hurting someone else’s feelings whom you care about. We may also lie just to avoid the hassle
that these differences create. We may also lie to avoid the anticipated criticism that these differences bring about. When you
think about our lies and recognize these motivations, we will have a much bunderstanding of how and why lies originate. Once
again - at no time have I said that it is OK to lie or OK to hurt others feelings, only that these two mislearnings will be violated and
that teaching others how to handle this breach will be much more profitable than threatening others to never lie or hurt others
feelings. To become less critical and more understanding of the process of a child differing with you and telling the child over and
over as he grows up that you know that he will differ from you, will allow the child to risk and discuss with you instead of driving
him underground or encouraging him to lie.
It is when other teachings and beliefs violate some basic principles that we hold, thus producing a conflict, that understanding
and modifying these misteachings becomes necessary. For example, “Don’t hurt others feelings” will naturally be violated by
each one of us and modifying this belief into something like “limit your rejection and criticism because you know that it will hurt
others” may be more acceptable.
When I am working with a couple, one of the early assessment techniques that I use at the beginning is to see what each
individuals beliefs and expectations are about accepting the other one as they are or about changing the other one to become
“like I would like them to be”. In our society we have many families who raise their daughters to believe that it is their function to
choose a partner who “needs” to be changed. Why this is more of a female role than a male role is difficult to explain. Our
slogans say “behind every successful man there is a woman” implying that the woman helped make him successful. We don’t
seem to have the opposite belief about men “changing” women to be “ better “, or “different” people. The implication in our
society is that women are the keepers of our morality (and thus the determiners of our morality), the “one up sex” who knows
what’s best for a man and will make it happen her way. Men tend to be portrayed as cognitive, non-feeling, somewhat
unreligious, business and sports oriented individuals who bumble along in these areas of feelings, morality, and religious beliefs
until a woman straightens them out.
If you place all relationships on a continuous scale with Change on one end and Unconditional Acceptance on the other end, it is
possible to get an estimate of where each individual is in regard to Change and Acceptance.
Change -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Unconditional Acceptance
In my therapy with couples, I find more men obliviously accepting of the relationship and more women wanting change - unless
the issue being discussed is sex. When sex becomes the issue, this polarity
reverses itself and men generally verbalize wanting change and women verbalizing that they are willing to accept their sexual life
as it is. This usually comes about when there is a mismatch in sex drive. Please understand that this mismatch can just as easily
go the other direction where the woman has the higher drive than the man.
Regardless of who wants what, there are a number of very predictable consequences in a relationship predicated upon change
versus a relationship in which the couple accepts each other as they are. As you can imagine, whenever there is dissatisfaction
in a relationship, the person who wants the most change is in the “one-up position” - the position of having determined what has
to change and usually will have been increasingly critical of the partner over a period of time in an attempt to get the other
person to change. This criticism alone will have had many negative effects on the relationship by the time the couple has sought
outside help.
If both parties have reached the point where changing the other one in order to improve the relationship is of paramount
importance, then criticism, either quietly to oneself or openly toward the other, has created a significant degree of tension in the
relationship.
A relationship is a very live organism. I see it as a third party, unique in itself because it is a function of the two individuals who
come together to create this entity. This concept of a relationship being a third entity has been extremely helpful in dealing with
couples and especially with couples who are adept at “the blame game”. I further conceptualize the relationship as an entity with
a life of its own following very predictable developmental stages. A relationship follows a very interesting growth curve
conceptualized in the diagram. A relationship that is in trouble, or that is dying has a definite decline that often takes several
years. The early years of decline are often very quiet and silent for one of the two individuals. While this process most often
doesn’t occur in both parties simultaneously - i.e. one is satisfied and one is not - it can do so. For the individual who is
becoming increasingly dissatisfied, the decline in the positiveness of the relationship finally crosses a point of no return. In the
early process of marital counseling I look to see if either party has crossed that line and usually ask each person in the initial
single interview. The outcome of those relationships which have been so damaged by excessive criticism, successive breaches
of trust, lies, irresponsibility, physical or verbal abuse, absence of any positive strength in the relationship, prolonged silences
and communication gaps, has already been determined by the offended individual. The couple has really come for divorce
counseling which is very different than marital counseling. They may also have come to help prepare the unsuspecting spouse
that the relationship is over or they may come for confirmation that the relationship is over. They come to the marital therapy
often without any knowledge of the developmentally predictable nature of relationships. College courses have not prepared most
couples for the development, growth and sustenance or decline of relationships.
Next Chapter
| CRITICISM: OUR DIS-EASE Laurence C. Smith, Jr., PhD CHAPTER III The Generational Illness |
 |  |  |  |  |
| Copyright © 2006-2009 L.C.Smith, Jr., PhD |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
