Results tagged “abuse” from Marilyn Sewell

In my last reflection I commented on David Brooks' recent review (5/14) of Josua Wolf Shenk's essay "What Makes Us Happy," found in the current issue (June 2009) of the Atlantic.  Brooks says that the researcher, George Vaillant, discovered through his longitudinal study of the lives of Harvard men that "the only thing that really matters in life are (sic) your relationships to other people."  Brooks muses about Vaillant's life, a life lacking in warm relationship and intimacy, and concludes, "Even when we know something, it is hard to make it so."

I just read Shenk's article and found it fascinating.  It was one of those on which I used a magic marker copiously.  Shenk gives summaries of various case studies throughout the article, and he also from time to time reports interesting conclusions which Vaillant came to during his intensive study.  A few of these are the following:

". . . a glimpse of any one moment in a life can be deeply misleading.  A man at 20 who appears the model of altruism may turn out to be a kind of emotional prodigy--or he may be ducking . . . <a> kind of engagement with reality. . . ; on the other extreme, a man at 20 who appears impossibly wounded may turn out to be gestating toward maturity."

". . . mature adaptations are a real-life alchemy, a way of turning the dross of emotional crises, pain, and deprivation into the gold of human connection, accomplishment, and creativity."

He sites the seven major factors that predict healthy aging, both physically and psychologically: employing mature adaptations, education, stable marriage, not smoking, not abusing alcohol, some exercise, and healthy weight.

But at no place was Vaillant more powerful and articulate, says Shenk, than when he describes the significance of love and intimacy in our lives.  Vaillant was asked in an interview in March 2008, "What have you learned from the Grant Study men?"  Vaillant responded: "That the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people."

Perhaps Vaillant was so keenly aware of the importance of relationship because his life has always been fraught with such difficulty in that arena.  So how is it that someone can know so much and yet find it so difficult to put into practice what he clearly understands?  Vaillant answers this question in a profound and moving statement in his book Adaptation to Life. Speaking of his male subjects not from a scientific, but more from a philosophical or even theological perspective, he writes: "Their lives were too human for science, too beautiful for numbers, too sad for diagnosis and too immortal for bound journals."

So yes, the process of learning to be fully human, the process of learning to love openly and deeply, is in the final analysis, a mystery.  We don't understand why we do what we do, or why we fail sometimes to become what we most earnestly desire to become. 

However, in my last reflection I did promise you an answer, and an answer I will give.  Love is the most powerful force that exists, and love can be taught.  It is best taught in the first 18 months of a child's life, and if a child is separated from mother during those years for any reason, or if a child is abused, or if a child is with parents who cannot for whatever reason nurture the child, then learning love later in life will prove difficult.  But except in the most profound cases of deprivation, it will not prove impossible. 

People who need to learn about love can do so by being with people who know how to love, in community and in intimate places in their lives.  Often helpers are needed--skilled psychotherapists for sure, spiritual advisors, massage therapists, yoga teachers, etc., etc.  A loving community is essential.  In the best of all worlds, the love-deprived person will be able at some point to enter into a long-term, intimate relationship with someone who is good at loving and who will love the person exactly as he or she is. 

Is there any guarantee?  In this world, there never is.  We just don't know.  But we can do our best to increase the odds.  We can love, and we can reach out for love.  In the end, we'll find that Vaillant is right--it's all that matters. 

 Share this

It has been disturbing to many of us who have supported Sam Adams that he lied to the public about his sexual relationship with Beau Breedlove.  During the mayoral campaign, Sam was accused by a rival candidate of having sex with a minor, and fearful that the public would not believe him (Sam) if he explained that Breedlove was of age, he lied.  In fact, Sam claimed to be only a mentor and feigned indignance that people might think that he, a gay man, might not be trusted in a mentoring relationship with a handsome young man.  He created a public relations campaign to discredit his detractors, and as part of that effort, coached Breedlove to lie effectively, as well.  Moreover, Sam may have hired an unqualified individual, a former reporter, as part of his staff, in order to stop her investigation of his relationship with Breedlove. 

Many citizens have called for Sam to step down, saying that he has lost the public trust.  Others have urged him to stay on as our Mayor, saying that he has done nothing illegal, and though his deceit was reprehensible, he has learned his lesson and that he has the skills and commitment to serve the city well. This is a complex issue, with no clear-cut answers.  I have tried to sort out my thinking on the situation, and want to share those thoughts with you. 

My God is a God of love and mercy, rather than a God of judgment and condemnation.  Therefore, I believe that if Sam truly understands the import of what he has done and repents of his behavior, then he should stay in office.  If he is opportunistic and devious, thinking of his own career and well-being, then he should by all means resign.  Only Sam knows what is in Sam's heart, and I would urge him to consider what is there.  Those of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition might be reminded of King David, who sent Bathsheba's husband into the front lines of battle, that he might be killed, so David could have his wife.  We might remember Paul, who was a fierce prosecutor of Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus.

We might ask ourselves: who among us has not done something absolutely stupid, because we were sexually attracted to another, or "in love"?  We might ask ourselves if we have ever lied to avoid getting in trouble.  "Yes, but Adams is a public servant!" we say.  And public servants are also human beings.  We often forget that.  And we often forget the immense pressures that leaders are under, and the isolation they feel.  Does this excuse bad behavior?  No, but it helps to explain it.

Another dimension of Sam's offense is the abuse of power.  The two men were not equals, and Sam needed to recognize that his age and position made Breedlove vulnerable.  Fortunately, by his own testimony, Breedlove seems to not have been harmed by the relationship.  But Sam must recognize that with the power of office comes the responsbility to use that power to serve and protect--otherwise, other abuses of power will come into play. 

Incidentally, the question of whether or not Breedlove was 18 when he and Sam had sex is a legal question, but not a moral question, to me.  Was it two weeks after his 18th birthday, or two weeks before?  The moral question is whether or not any liason, at any age, has integrity.  When I was growing up in the '50's in rural Louisiana, people often married young.  I remember that my brother's best friend was a young farmer who married at the age of 15 to a beautiful young woman of fourteen.  They had four beautiful daughters and a good, sound marriage.  Age and sexual propriety changes with time and with various cultures.  It is arbitrary.  (And yes, one should respect the laws of the land.)

Another consideration is whether or not it makes a difference that Sam Adams is gay.  Are we more forgiving of Bill Clinton, because after all "men will be men"?  In recent days we have brought into office a President who seems to have great integrity--and we breathe a sigh of relief.  We don't want to see any more sexual scandals in high places.  But it is interesting that during the past few days, dotted frequently with memories of other heroes, when JFK was mentioned or when MLK, Jr., was mentioned, no one seems to remember their well-documented extra-marital sexual liasons, again an abuse of power.  And indeed, I'm happy not to go there, either.  But we cannot have it both ways--condemning people we don't like (Larry Craig), while passing on people we admire (Clinton).

So again, I say, what kind of man are you, Sam Adams?  Do you know what you have done?  Have you truly repented?  Are you willing to go forward in good faith, and serve the public with honesty and integrity, understanding that it's not about you?  If so, I say, "Don't resign.  We all make mistakes.  We can change.  I believe that you have much to offer our city, and I hope you have the character and will to offer it."

 Share this