The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: Part I - Body Image, Our Thoughts, and the Art of Sculpting

The Whole is Greater than the Sum of It’s Parts:

Part II – Kintsugi, Our Broken Parts, Inside-Out and Outside-In

Kintsugi (“golden joinery”) is the Japanese art of repairing broken pottery with lacquer dusted or mixed with powered gold, silver, or platinum. As a philosophy, it treats breakage and repair as part of the history of an object, rather than something to disguise. Wikipedia

Kintsugi: The art of repairing metal with gold or silver lacquer and understanding that the piece is more beautiful for having been broken

The epiphany:

It was close to 25 years ago when I had an epiphany that has since helped to guide me in my life. This epiphany came in the form of advice from a man whose identity and name I never knew, until maybe recently. It was a dark night the first time I met him. I started out alone. I was feeling particularly fuzzy this night, as I walked around the apartment I was renting. It seemed as if I was exploring my apartment for the first time. Feeling groggy, I walked upstairs. I remember feeling a sudden sense of surprise, because this was the first time I realized that my apartment had stairs, yet alone another floor. When I arrived at the top of the stairs, to the newly discovered attic of my apartment, I noticed a door. It opened to what looked like my childhood bedroom. And on what looked like my old bed sat a somewhat rugged, yet friendly looking man with dark hair. He was smoking a cigarette, while watching an old black and while episode of “I Love Lucy.” I don’t remember him speaking, though I think he had a New York accent. For some reason, even though he was a stranger, I wasn’t scared – It was like I had known him all of my life, without knowing I had known him all of my life.  I can’t say I remember much more than that on this particular evening. At some point, I must have gone back down stairs to the apartment I knew and recognized. And at some point that night, or early in the morning (in case you haven’t guessed yet that this was a dream), I woke up.

In my dream I did not know this man’s name, and though his name is not really relevant, to keep things simple I will just call him “Al.” This man, Al, occurred in several more of my dreams, during a particularly rough year in my life. I was in my early-twenties.

This entry is about “parts” - more specifically, the “parts” of ourselves that are broken, disowned, and sequester -and how and why the world around us reinforces this and helps to keep us broken. It is also about the importance of all of our “parts” to help guide us through our lives, and how placing emphasis on the outside world’s unhelpful messages (from our culture) can get in our way, while atunement and acceptance of our internal worlds of our emotions can help guide us.

I will explain more, but first another dream with Al. This is the epiphany dream, by the way:

I was sitting at a table playing a game, and Al was sitting across from me. I again remembered his New York accent, though he didn’t speak until the end of this dream. Though Al was sitting across from me, I seemed to be the only player in the game. He was seemingly just there to guide me. The game consisted of about ten square pieces (kind of like scrabble pieces) lined in a row. My job was to choose a piece, turn it over, and read the message on the back. I would then repeat the process by choosing another piece. This felt almost like choosing a fortune cookie, as I couldn’t initially see the message. Once I turned over each piece, I was then able to read what was meant to be an enlightening and helpful message. I read more than a few of these messages. Although  I don’t remember what any of these messages said, I do remember Al’s words to me, as I chose first one piece from one end of the line, then another piece from the other end, working my way from the outside-in. He said with his brusk New York accent, “Karen, your doing it all wrong. You are supposed to start from the Inside-Out. Not the Outside-In.” And that was it. That was the epiphany! I felt it in my dream. And then, I woke up.

Al was right…I had been doing it all wrong. I had been trying to be and do what I thought I “should” be and do, and feeling horribly awful when I failed, or perceived this to be the case (which seemed to me to happen a lot back then). I remember having a ton of rules for myself, which were nothing short of perfectionism, and feeling then quite often like a defeated perfectionist, or just all and all defeated. I had rules for myself to not complain, to not get angry, to just be OK with everything, even in the face of things that weren’t OK.  And because so much around me wasn’t OK, and because I was “supposed” to be OK no matter what…I wasn’t at all OK. I was completely out of touch with my “inside” self, and thought if I could just do and be what I was “supposed to” according to these “outside” rules, then the inner part of me would be OK. But it wasn’t. Because, according to Al, I was doing it all wrong. And this was an inside-out message.

Outside-In Thinking and Action vs Inside-Out Thinking and Action:

We live in a culture where we are taught to “pursue our happiness.” And then we learn what that entails. Outside-in thinking is basically the internalization of messages from our culture. These often include messages about what we need to be fulfilled or happy. These messages include how we should live, where we should live, and what we should look like. They include messages about how we should feel and how we should behave. In essence, we learn that our self-worth is dependent on how we look (i.e. our height, our weight), how we dress, where we live, what kind of job we have, if we go to college, if we get married, who we marry, if we have kids, how many kids we have, and so on.  Not only are these outside-in messages part of a cultural script determining what makes us worthy, but we also receive outside-in messages about beliefs regarding who is most worthy. We receive messages about who is most deserving of happiness, of dignity, or even of just being heard. Outside-in messages cause us to believe that we can only be happy after we “achieve” or “obtain.” They also teach us that some of us are just inately more worthy of dignity, and more worthy of pursing “what it takes to be happy” than  are others.

Ultimately the pursuit toward fulfillment through this type of thinking leaves us completely burnt out, lost, and unfulfilled. Outside-in messages, because they dictate what makes us worthy and because they dictate a hierarchy of who is most worthy and deserving leave us all nothing short of broken.

Inside-out thinking, in contrast, involves awareness and acceptance of our own feelings, beliefs, and values. It involves allowing those to guide us toward our own meaning and purpose. At its most ideal, inside-out thinking involves not only awareness of our own feelings, but also awareness of outside-in messages that are harmful, to ourselves and to others. Inside-out thinking leads to inside-out action. Inside-out action is movement in a mindful direction toward what is purposeful and meaningful to us. It involves making our decisions based on our own internal values and feelings, even if they fall in opposition to all of the “shoulds” out there. Inside-out thinking and actions can also contribute to good “self-care,” as we are able to listen to, acknowledge, and respond to our bodies’ physical signals of fatigue and hunger, as well as emotional signals of stress, anger, sadness, etc. In order to “think and move” from the inside-out, we need to be aware and accepting of the multitude of our emotional states. In a sense, we need to let our emotions (with the word “motion” in it) guide us. 

The Parts (of Ourselves):  A number of psychological theories gain understanding of individuals by viewing them in “parts.” Two theories that I am going to talk about are Objects Relations Theory and Internal Family Systems (or IFS).

Objects relations theory. Objects relations theorists believe that early interactions/ relationships between a child and their caregivers (most often parents) become internalized into what are called “cognitive schemas.” These are basically beliefs about one’s self and others. These schemas shape how children establish and view themselves in future relationships with others. In other words, our expectations of how others will perceive and react to us, as well as our experience of our self in our relationships, are established early in life. Furthermore, we may learn that certain aspects of our selves are acceptable, while others are not. Here’s how that goes: At an early age we internalize the validations and lack of validations (through dismissiveness, shaming, criticism) from our caregivers. We then form beliefs about ourselves based on how our caregivers/ parents receive and respond to each and all of our emotional experiences - love, joy, grief, fear, anger, excitement, and much more. In the healthiest of environments, parents are able to attune to their children and offer validation to all of their children’s emotional experiences, at least most of the time. Through validations, parents also give us the language for self-expression to share and communicate with others. In essence, it is this attunement from our parents that teaches us a “felt” sense that we are OK. ”

If, however, parents are only able to attune to certain emotional states or behaviors (let’s say happiness and displays of independence), while others (lets say anger and displays of dependence or “neediness”) are consistently discounted or criticized, then what happens according to object relations therapists is that we start to sequester – or break apart – the invalidated affective states, or “emotional parts” of ourselves because we believe them to be intolerable to others. In other words, validated affective states become integrated into the “acceptable self,” while invalidated emotional states become sequestered, or “split. According to the objects relations theory, throughout our lives we will be inclined to expect from others the same reactions/ responses that we received from our care-givers. Thus, we will typically display the “accepted” parts of ourselves, while feeling “shame” when the “sequestered parts” pop out. We then can develop maladaptive coping patterns – such as eating disorders or alcoholism – to cope with the shame we feel with these sequestered emotional states, or parts, believing that these “parts” will cause others to reject and/or abandon us. Healing our selves thus involves emotional attunement, acceptance, and compassion to our “sequestered parts,” or perceived shameful emotions.

Internal Family Systems (IFS): Richard Swartz, founder of Internal Family System (IFS), takes things a step further than emotional sequestering. Swartz believes in the concept of “multiplicity”… that, in essence, we all have different “parts” of ourselves.  The IFS theory believes that, just like family members function in a family system,“parts” of ourselves - internalized representations of family beliefs - function within us. In his book, Internal Family Systems Therapy, Schwartz gives the following example, “A female client’s parents may stress the importance of pleasing others and looking good, while shaming their daughter when she shows anger. As a result, she allows the parts of her that worry about the approval of others to dominate her life and to exclude parts that want her to assert herself. The approval- seeking parts have too much responsibility, influence, and access to resources, whereas the assertive parts have too little.” Thus, the values and relational patterns within a person’s family of origin will shape that person’s internal relations. The Internal Family Systems approach further believes that it is our culture which helps shape the values and beliefs, and thus relational patterns within a family. Which leads me to the next “part” of this entry.

Our culture: How the Outside Becomes Inside:

Whether it’s sequestered emotions or disowned “parts,” the impact from our culture is the same. Cultural beliefs filter into our communities, which filter into our families, which filter into our selves and our beliefs about ourselves. Again, these outside-in messages are beliefs about what makes us worthy, and beliefs about how we are defined. They include beliefs about what we should feel and how we should behave. Here are some examples of some beliefs commonly shared in American culture:

Men and boys shouldn’t cry, and boys that do cry are like girls, which is horrible. Women and girls shouldn’t show anger or be too assertive. Fat is bad, thin is good. Being thin makes you more worthy. The more money you make, the more successful and worthy that makes you. Success is money. There are tons more.

Here are some shaming messages you may have heard in your childhood: “Don’t complain", "don’t be selfish", "BE QUIET – until it’s time to talk, then don’t be shy!"  "Speak up". "Drama queen". "Be Nice!" "Don’t be bossy". "Don’t be a nag". "Don’t be a girl". "Stop being so sulky". "Just be happy."

More times than not, the messages we get about what makes us “valuable” oppress us.  A dominant narrative for women, for example, is that women are valued by their ability to take care of others; their role of caregiver. In order to do this, women are often forced to put their own needs and emotions aside. This has especially been the case with anger. Harriet Lerner, in her book, “The Dance of Anger”, writes, “Women have long been discouraged from the awareness and forthright expression of anger.” But, “Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to. Our anger may be a message that we are being hurt, that our rights are being violated, that our needs or wants are not being adequately met, or simply that something is not right.” And women need access to their anger more than ever these days!

Men in our culture are also negatively affected by cultural messages. Terry Real writes in a Networker Article, “The Long Shadow of Patriarchy,” that “the essential relationship between masculine and feminine is one of contempt. In other words, the masculine holds the feminine as inferior.” In this same article Real references feminist psychologist and sociologist Nancy Chodlorow, pointing out that “masculine identity is denoted by not being a girl, not being a woman, not being a sissy. Vulnerability is viewed as weakness, a source of embarrassment.” Or shame.

We become stuck in roles that are defined for us. And we internalize. We internalize culturally scripted beliefs about how we should feel and how we should behave, about what makes us worthy and about who is more worthy. We so deeply internalize the messages about how we “should be” and ”should feel” (these outside-in messages), because they so often come from the mouths of the people we know, love, and trust the most. We internalize these messages because our parents, other family members, and members of our communities have internalized these messages. And our parents’ who never learned, for example, that their own certain emotions aren’t OK, surely can’t be there with us when we need to express these same emotions. Our parents, who internalize the social narratives about what makes women valuable, for example, teach us to be “nice” and not angry (or assertive). Our parents who internalize the social narratives about what makes men valuable teach us not to even talk about emotions.

We not only internalize culturally scripted beliefs about how we should feel and how we should behave, we also internalize culturally scripted beliefs about who are most deserving of dignity and worth,  about whose voices are most important, about who are most deserving of being heard. We internalize misogyny. We internalize racism. We internalize sexism. We internalize homophobia. We internalize transphobia. And the list goes on.  Comedien Hannah Gadsby talks about the internalization of homophobia in her Netflix production, “Nanette.” She shares what it is was like to grow up, herself gay (but not yet “out”) in a community that was homophobic, with family members who were homophobic. She also spoke of the abuse in her life that she received because she is gay, and because she is a woman. Hannah spoke about how she internalized the homo-phobia, how she internalized the hatred - which then (of course) manifested in “self-hate.”

Internationally recognized clinician, author, trainer, and expert on cultural trauma Kenneth Hardy, shared in a powerful keynote speech at the 2016 Psychotherapy Networker conference in DC spoke about black lives, and the “assaulted sense of self.” This happens he stated, “When the soul of one’s being gets perpetually punctured and assaulted. It’s the culmination of a massive onslaught of dignity assault, both macro and micro. It’s an over-exposure to humiliation and to dehumanization. It’s what one gets as a living when we watch one of our extended selves lying in the middle of a cold street in a pool of warm blood turned cold, like road kill. …It is when one’s definition of self is defined by someone else. It’s when one’s sense of self is defined by what I am not rather than what I am.”  He furthers, “And so the therapist in me sits with black families, and I am always struck by the fact that white parents talk in very glowing terms about what their children are and what their stellar accomplishments are, and black family’s feel compelled to talk about what our children are not: ‘My son is not a bad kid, he’s not in gangs, my son doesn’t wear those baggy pants’…. This assault to sense of self is painful and enduring. It can be managed, but I am not so sure it can be healed.”

I feel moved to include all of Hardy’s and Gadsby’s speeches in my entry, because they are both such compelling acknowledgements of cultural trauma. This concept of cultural trauma is really deserving of its own entry. Like Hardy, I don’t know myself that this type of “broken-ness” can all together be healed.

As a culture, we have internalized beliefs about about who is most deserving of dignity and worth, about whose voices are most important, about who is most deserving of being heard. We have internalized constructs about how “others” are defined. Constructs that have included hate, dehumanization, disrespect, and worthlessness. And if we are the “others,” then we more likely than not have internalized damaging constructs about ourselves. Constructs that include hate, dehumanization, disrespect, and worthlessness.

This becomes a conflict within us any time we are defined by others - Anytime our feelings and our beliefs about ourselves come into opposition with what we learned we “should” feel and what we learned we “should” be. As a reminder, we often “disown” or “sequester” the parts of ourselves that others have deemed to be not acceptable. These disowned parts may include “emotional parts,” such as anger. Or, in the case of trauma, this can include our sense of worth and our dignity. When we are defined by all of these “shoulds”; when we are defined and pigeon holed by others, we more likely than not become broken.

Pulling it all together:

Cultural beliefs filter into our communities, which filter into our families, which filter into our selves. For a time in my own life, some of these messages broke and scattered my spirit, or my “parts.” We need access to all of our emotional states, all of our parts.  As stated earlier in this essay, in order to “think and move” from the inside-out, we need to be aware and accepting of the multitude of our emotional states.

According to both IFS and Object Relations theories, healing and mending the broken parts of ourselves involves self-love and compassion. It involves a mindful acceptance of “all” of our parts. Carl Rogers, founder of client-centered psychotherapy, coined the  paradox of acceptance: “The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.” Thus, awareness and acceptance of all of our emotions and “parts” is the first step toward transformation.  In a fairly recent Psychotherapy Networker article, “Engaging Ourselves Compassionately”, founder of IFS theory, Richard Swartz states, “Once people come to compassionately engage with troubling elements of their psyches, they’re often able to release difficult emotions and outmoded beliefs they’ve carried for years.” In other words, change really does start from within.

It is first through our own self-love and compassion that we can then embrace others with acceptance and compassion; that we can then truly be open to our differences; that we can then be open to hearing stories from others, and to put aside what we have learned and thought we knew.

I really wish that so many oppressive aspects of our culture would just change….that we weren’t put into rigid boxes, shelved on an oppressive hierarchy. But maybe if we go against the grain, if we risk staying true to ourselves, if more women speak up, if more men tune in to their emotions and share their emotions with more men, if more people “come out” (from their inside-out), and if more people hear and listen to more people, then change will happen. Power is in numbers, and change from within emanates outward change: movement from the inside-out.

And back to my dream: Over the years, there have been many ideas about the purpose of dreams. Though much research describes that dreams are just our synapses firing at night - a “clean up” process, per se, as we sleep - a particular “dream analysis” approach that I find interesting (whether this is true, or not) is Gestalt dream analysis. According to this form of dream analysis, the belief is that every person in our dreams is a projection of a part of our selves - and maybe even our sequestered parts. So according to Gestalt dream analysis, my friend Al in my dream was really just me, giving myself some useful advice. And his New York accent…well, maybe that was representative of an assertive “feisty” part of myself I had sequestered, coming out to help me in the safety of my dream. Who knows?  But my dream sure was helpful. And I need that feisty part of myself.

We can’t change our pasts or the past narratives of our families and our culture. We can’t change the sadness that brings to us. But maybe once we are able to integrate our “broken parts” and experiences, we will be able to see with more perspective. And maybe then, we are not as we “would have been” had we not been broken…but even more accepting, more compassionate, more powerful, and more beautiful for having been broken in the first place.