![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 21st, 2006 04:49 pm"At the still point of the turning world,
Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is."
-T. S. Eliot
[RL] On the agenda for tomorrow, a trip to Half-Price Books, sending something to Houston, and baking almond shortbread cookies. Also meditating on the need to reduce my current massage workload and diversify my income sources. [/RL]
There are studies saying cultures and families that are more tactile are less prone to depression. In my personal experience, that is borne out by observation. They get depressed like anyone, but bounce back quickly, like they have a form of internal sponginess that keeps them closer to their proper shape. As modern Americans, we don't bounce.
I think your post makes a valid point about empathy (or lack thereof), but it coat-tails other sentiments that aren't necessarily contiguous.
Maybe those examples are not contiguous, but they concatenate in the way that all parts of a system are interconnected. Our cultural values relating to the appropriateness of touch make it more difficult to read the intent of the touch, not easier. The attitudes towards touching physically and touching emotionally are the same, and rooted in the same cause: the illusion that separation and distance will make us happier. Some problems can be solved that way, but using it as a blanket generalization that distance solves conflicts is a major drawback to our current societal structure.
the angle of this post makes it sound like having a "slow to warm" personality is some kind of mental disorder...
Hmm. I don't know if the term "mental" is applicable. It is a disorder, though, and it's spread all throughout the culture. Maybe it could be termed a social disorder. Like racism or classism, it's something that can be gotten over, but usually isn't recognized as being disadvantageous by the holder of the belief. I remember not liking people, not wanting to be touched, ever, except by a very few. I wasn't a tactile person for 7 years, from 9 until almost 16. There's no knowing how different I would be had I been capable of being receptive to friendly touch during my teen years and sexual development. If being gun shy about trust and physical boundaries isn't exactly a sickness, it isn't a cure, either.
People who weren't touched much as kids have issues with too much contact.
That is true. But those issues are not insurmountable. You can overcome your uneasiness through the vaccination-like effect of using more touch with the people you know and gradually extending that to people you know less well. The point isn't to touch everyone, or to be constantly holding onto something outside yourself, but to discover for yourself exactly where your touch boundaries are, without relation to a societal measure of where they "should" be. "Should" is an evil word and counts for so much of life's unhappiness. Discovering your actual (not imposed) limitations is a good thing, and shouldn't be so censored by society.
That's all.
Neither flesh nor fleshless;
Neither from nor towards; at the still point, there the dance is."
-T. S. Eliot
[RL] On the agenda for tomorrow, a trip to Half-Price Books, sending something to Houston, and baking almond shortbread cookies. Also meditating on the need to reduce my current massage workload and diversify my income sources. [/RL]
There are studies saying cultures and families that are more tactile are less prone to depression. In my personal experience, that is borne out by observation. They get depressed like anyone, but bounce back quickly, like they have a form of internal sponginess that keeps them closer to their proper shape. As modern Americans, we don't bounce.
I think your post makes a valid point about empathy (or lack thereof), but it coat-tails other sentiments that aren't necessarily contiguous.
Maybe those examples are not contiguous, but they concatenate in the way that all parts of a system are interconnected. Our cultural values relating to the appropriateness of touch make it more difficult to read the intent of the touch, not easier. The attitudes towards touching physically and touching emotionally are the same, and rooted in the same cause: the illusion that separation and distance will make us happier. Some problems can be solved that way, but using it as a blanket generalization that distance solves conflicts is a major drawback to our current societal structure.
the angle of this post makes it sound like having a "slow to warm" personality is some kind of mental disorder...
Hmm. I don't know if the term "mental" is applicable. It is a disorder, though, and it's spread all throughout the culture. Maybe it could be termed a social disorder. Like racism or classism, it's something that can be gotten over, but usually isn't recognized as being disadvantageous by the holder of the belief. I remember not liking people, not wanting to be touched, ever, except by a very few. I wasn't a tactile person for 7 years, from 9 until almost 16. There's no knowing how different I would be had I been capable of being receptive to friendly touch during my teen years and sexual development. If being gun shy about trust and physical boundaries isn't exactly a sickness, it isn't a cure, either.
People who weren't touched much as kids have issues with too much contact.
That is true. But those issues are not insurmountable. You can overcome your uneasiness through the vaccination-like effect of using more touch with the people you know and gradually extending that to people you know less well. The point isn't to touch everyone, or to be constantly holding onto something outside yourself, but to discover for yourself exactly where your touch boundaries are, without relation to a societal measure of where they "should" be. "Should" is an evil word and counts for so much of life's unhappiness. Discovering your actual (not imposed) limitations is a good thing, and shouldn't be so censored by society.
That's all.