On Consensus Trance, Essence, and Mislove

This post is just going to be really raw thoughts, haven't had the time to really think about it between staffing, classes, and SBS audition season. There's been a lot on my mind, but I'm kind of delirious, so I'll defer some of it to a later post. Who knows, I might wake up and realize nothing here makes sense.

This quarter, I'm taking a class called Valuescience, and it's been incredible. In particular, one of the readings explored something the author called "consensus trance" and its interplay with "essence." Basically, consensus trance is the form of brainwashing that is more commonly known as enculturation. From a young age, we are conditioned into a particular set of norms by our parents and the rest of the society that surrounds us alike, and most people grow up taking cultural habits for granted when, in reality, there is a huge element of relativity behind most cultural norms. Essence, on the other hand, is the set of values, beliefs, and temperaments inherent to our individual genetic code. To illustrate these distinctions as it pertains to my life, I've drawn up this Venn diagram.

Circle ADEG: Chinese/Taiwanese culture, as exposed to/relevant to me
Circle BDFG: American culture, as exposed to/relevant to me.
Circle CEFG: My essence
Universal region (A-H): All possible values and beliefs in the world

So, some oversimplified examples of things that fall into each region
A: Buddhism, use of physical force for discipline, lack of value in arts or humanities
B: Party culture, masculinity stemming from physical aptitude, "American dream" and individualism
C: Hopeless romanticism, harmony and altruism over economic self-interest
D: Recognition of engineering, medicine, law, etc. as valuable career areas
E: Speaking Chinese, emphasis on academic achievement
F: Recognition of humanities and arts as valuable career areas
G: Compassion, respect towards parents, care for family
H: Cannibalism, belief in Allah

In an ideal world of perfect cultural sensitivity and understanding, all cultures would completely overlap such that regions A, B, E, F are empty for any two cultures (complete circles). There might still be universally agreed upon wrongs (i.e. region H, e.g. unprovoked murder), but anything that one culture deems valuable every other culture would accept (i.e. region D and G is all-encompassing besides H) Within this ideal world, your essence would be a subset of that all-encompassing region (i.e. region C is empty).

Obviously, the world is not ideal. The challenge, therefore, is to find a culture or subculture that has the greatest overlap with your essence, and then move to and live in that culture. Doing so is contingent upon having an understanding of what your essence is, and that is remarkably difficult because of the consensus trance. It is hard to distinguish between what is of your essence, and what has merely been instilled in you and taught to you as valuable.

I think that is the answer to what it means to be emotionally mature, a question I struggled with in my previous post. Being emotionally mature entails consciously knowing what your essence is, and escaping the consensus trance that society sets you up to fall into (and to no fault of society and without malicious intent, because consensus trance is something that propagates through generations). Similarly, building effective relationships with other people is contingent upon understanding their essence, and being able to divorce the influences of their essence and their enculturation when thinking about their behavior and empathizing. And while I don't think it is ever possible to fully get clarity on any one person's essence, including your own, I do believe some people are closer than others.

Unfortunately, in many ways--as a friend or RA, as a once lover, as a son--I am realizing I am perpetually fighting the consensus trance. Mislove occurs when one individual tries to enculturate (used loosely, could be something as innocuous and unintentional as a microexpression frown of disapproval or a slight change in tone of voice) someone else without fully understanding their essence because of prejudices established by the consensus trance. Usually, this happens without bad intention; the individual was only acting on what he or she had in turn been enculturated as "right" or "good." I am guilty of having misloved E-, N-, A-, both of my parents, and I'm sure many others that don't come to mind immediately. Similarly, I've been on the receiving end of mislove as well. It's inevitable.

Some people will never develop a deep enough understanding of their own essence and, more importantly, others' essence to build the relationship that "could have been." The tragedy of this entire thing is that there are potential relationships (between almost lovers, between family members, between nations) that would be downright magical if both sides understood each other's essences, but it never gets to that point, and so that potential relationship never reaches fruition. You can only ever work on escaping the consensus trance and improving your own understanding of your essence and their essence, put that understanding in the open and hope, pray that the other side reaches the same understanding. Sometimes they don't, and what could have been never becomes what is.

Revisiting Drinking

These thoughts have been brewing in my mind (pun intended) for a week or so, but only now did I find the time to sit down and think through it.

I was trying to pinpoint my aversion to drinking. Throughout my childhood, my parents have, with some regularity, consumed alcohol in the form of wine or champagne. During high school, they had taken up more "American" forms of alcohol too: beer, off-the-shelf, hard fruity beverages. In other words, aversion to alcohol has not been something that has been instilled in me throughout my childhood.

My aversion to alcohol was primarily by conscious choice (as opposed to habit, learned values, or conditioned). In the last two years, I saw my mom resorting to alcohol to deal with her problems, and I told myself I did not want to turn to alcohol to solve any problems I might encounter.

Of course, it's also illegal at my current age. By my judgement, Stanford law enforcement (whether in the form of adults in the dorm, i.e. RFs, or actual on-campus sheriffs) are fairly relaxed about drinking law. Obviously, if you get transported or get a DUI/BUI/public drunkenness citation, it'll still go your record. This got me to thinking: what is the real reason why alcohol is illegal?

As far as I can tell, the intent of minimum age drinking (as well as any other drugs, like nicotine for instance) laws is to prevent irresponsible substance use. The fact that Stanford is so lax about these laws in casual environments (within dorms during parties and whatnot), and actually has programming that do not strictly discourage people from drinking (i.e. encourages people, if they choose to drink, to stay within the "social zone") seems to imply that they are confident in Stanford students' ability to make responsible decisions for themselves.

Indeed, over the weeks here I am realizing I am far more responsible than I gave myself credit for. It helped that last week a lot of the people I consider my role models and relate heavily to demonstrated (not intentionally to me in particular) that they were able to let loose without going overboard. The one time last quarter that I first consumed alcohol by choice did not propel me into a downward spiral of alcohol consumption. In addition, I think as strong a reason as not wanting to actually be irresponsible was the desire not to even possibly have an image of being irresponsible. Because alcohol is so commonly portrayed as (and at times is) the cause of crazy, irresponsible behavior, I did not want anyone to be thought of one of "those" college students.

What does this mean? It means I'm at this conflicted crossroads. I am becoming more comfortable with the idea of drinking because 1) I am feeling increased certainty that I won't adopt behavior similar to what my mom did (and she's getting better herself, so that helps), 2) some of the people I look up to the most and whose quality of character I consider admirable, respectable, and strive to embody myself are able to fit alcohol consumption into their lifestyle (the phrasing of this meaning to suggest that responsible alcohol consumption would not inhibit my ability to be the kind of person I want to be, rather than that I strive to be someone whose quality of character includes alcohol consumption), and 3) it simply felt good being less tightly-strung and feeling my muscles and emotion unwind with small quantities of alcohol.

When I look at that list, all of them are personal reasons. I've always been good at staying true to my own values and being outspoken about things I believe in. None of those reasons are a contradiction to my beliefs (e.g. out of peer pressure); instead, my reconsideration of the topic is due to a fundamental shift in my beliefs.

At the same time, a lot of the friends I'm closest to don't drink, and we got close because on weekends we seek non-alcoholic forms of recreation, etc. Will drinking ruin these friendships, and if so will the friendships I forge with other measured, responsible drinkers (which I am confident I can distinguish from irresponsible drinkers, and proceed to surround myself with) be worth the demise of these older friendships?

Honestly do not know.

Physical vs. Emotional Intimacy

This quarter, I'm taking a class called Love as a Force for Social Justice, and it's making me think critically about what it means to be "in love," different types of love, and how love is expressed more than I ever had. This'll mostly just be a collection of scattered thoughts I've had in the past couple of weeks.

First and foremost and actually totally unrelated to love, my dad needs to fucking stop sending me emails asking me to add him on Facebook. The reason I'm so desperately looking for a job or internship over the school year and summer is because I can't wait to be financially independent and not have to depend on his ass to help with tuition. I've gotten to a point where I've wondered if it's possible to get a restraining order on a family member. A quick Google search said yes, it is.

Now then, love. (Because that paragraph wasn't.)

In my Love class, we read an article about types of love. In a nutshell, the article classified six different types of love:

• Storgic love: founded on rapport, interdependency, and mutual need fulfillment. Good friends who have grown in intimacy, appreciate even mundane activities with each other, does not have a "falling in love" phase but rather realizes it after some time. Temporary separations are manageable due to mutual trust. Very similar to siblings.
• Agapic love: Centered around selfless devotion to the partner. Will put him or herself through various pains for the good of the object of his or her affection. There is no "falling in love" in the sense that their happiness is derived from a love object accepting the affection or love they're always willing to give.
• Manic love: Characterized by obsession with love object, sometimes beyond rationality. Jealousy and manipulation can be common, and separation is difficult. Usually very anxious/reflective about what can/did go wrong in a relationship. Can be associated with low self-esteem.
• Pragmatic love: Love based on investment of self. They assist the loved one in fulfilling each other's potentials, but is very business-like in the motivations. For instance, a pragmatic lover might think about compatability, future family size, financial security, and education all in context of how the relationship will affect it. Sex is not unwelcome, but might be done, for instance, to relieve sexual tension and sleep better rather than for physical pleasure.
• Ludic love: Love is like a sport, and the compatibility of partners is centered around how well the partners satisfy his or her wants. Love is like a challenge, and self-fulfillment is had when he or she is successful; partners are like conquests. Love affairs are considered natural.
• Erotic love: Extremely romantic, usually monogamous, incredibly explosive and escalates quickly. Usually very idealistic, risks that might harm the relationship are not afforded. Certainty in reciprocation is absolute, and partners rarely spend time apart. Physical intimacy happens early, and displays of passion are varied and frequent. Usually more common in people who have had a secure and happy childhood, especially those with happily married parents.

While S- pointed out that the article clearly gave preference to storgic love, I nevertheless felt that it was reasonably fair towards the other types of love, and I still prefer storgic love to the others. What I want out of a romantic relationship is not financial security, or the thrill of "conquering" a romantic partner by winning their heart. I want to establish a deep, meaningful connection.

The first assignment in my Love class was to define "love," or explain why it couldn't be defined. While it was extremely open-ended and more or less ended up being a lot of students just sharing their thoughts on what love is, there were two ideas that particularly stood out to me.

First, one student defined love as a region on the high end of a continuum of how much you care for someone. On one end is total indifference, and then maybe 70% of the way up you've reached the part of the spectrum that contains your friends, and then maybe the top 5% are things or people you love. That makes sense to me; it doesn't strictly define what love is, but provides an operationalization of love such that you can sort of quantify love, or compare two things against each other and determine which you love more or less.

Second, one student suggested that you cannot be in love without leaving yourself vulnerable. To be in love is to fully put your emotional well-being into the hands of your love object, and trusting that they will not only do no harm, but might actually improve your emotional state.

In the context of those two ideas, I can elaborate on what I mean by a "deep, meaningful connection." I want this connection to be made between me, in my most honest and thus most vulnerable state, and my partner's most honest and thus most vulnerable state. When you meet someone, you don't just tell them anything; only after becoming close and building trust do you start to divulge more personal details about your life. That explains why I struggle with falling for people I don't know well, and believe I need to be close friends with someone before I can begin to consider them a possible romantic partner. What good is an emotional connection between the person you are when your walls are still up you're still on guard with anyone else? You need to have made the step to reveal everything about you first.

So if this is so straightforward, what is up with society that has obscured this clarity?

I had a pretty heated conversation with S- today wherein she told me that, as far as romantic endeavors are concerned, I'm essentially a middle school student because (spoiler alert) I've never been kissed on the lips.  At first, I was pretty offended. Who was she to evaluate on my behalf how meaningful my past relationships are? Who was she to tell me that, because I didn't slobber all over my past girlfriends, my relationships were meaningless? I'm convinced I've grown more as a person and learned more on how to partake in the miracle that is human-to-human interaction, including romance, from my relationships in middle school than many adults have.

But then I realized the underlying meaning that S-'s contempt carried: our society measures relationship success by physical intimacy, more specifically making out and sexual activity.

The ultimate end result of romantic relationships (in the western, American culture that I'm familiar with anyway) is to find "the one," the person you're meant to be with for the rest of your life and live happily ever after with, basically. As discussed earlier, that person is the partner with whom you have that ridiculously strong emotional connection to. In that process of building that emotional connection, it is common that you will do something physical, like making out or having sex. That does not mean that physical intimacy causes emotional intimacy/you to find "the one". There is a correlation, not causation.

Physical intimacy in cases where emotional intimacy is also present can simply be one of many ways to communicate passion. It is no different than giving flowers, or serenading, or making breakfast in bed, or holding hands, or cuddling on a couch watching a movie, yet it is blown so wildly out of proportion by popular culture.

And what is with "Facebook official" and being able/the right to use to phrase "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" to describe your romantic partner? While certainly some people see being in a relationship as a thing of pride and a thing to gloat about, I know plenty of couples in relationships that are not, say, Facebook official. In those cases, the purest way to think about it is that officiation is also a way to communicate passion. Homosexual couples have been living together for decades, yet the fact that they can get a marriage license with their names on it now is such a strong, symbolic milestone in their relationship (just like with any other marriage, I might add). It strengthens that emotional connection that we all, in theory, seek to make.

The obfuscation of relationship success by society, then, is because a relationship, perhaps back in the mid-20th century, would only reach a stage of physical intimacy after the emotional connection is established, and thus physical intimacy was associated with relationship success. However, in today's society where those in my parents' and grandparents' generation look and shake their head at my generation's liberal, gratuitous relinquishment of lip (and other) virginity, that is no longer the case. Relationships that are founded on physical intimacy, with or without emotional intimacy, are a thing in today's culture. (Especially because Hollywood says so.)

It seems to boil down to whether physical versus emotional intimacy comes first. I certainly prefer establishing an emotional intimacy first; physical intimacy is something that comes after the emotional connection is made. Unfortunately, emotional intimacy is less obvious or visible, and I think this might be why measures of physical intimacy (e.g. kissing, sex) are more often viewed as benchmarks for evaluating the development of a relationship. It might also explain cultural phenomenons like the friend zone and being led on, when the two involved parties see different levels of emotional intimacy.

Holy shit this was a long post.