WHAT DO YOUREALLY WANT?
Chapter Five
"Sabotage" ofthe UNwanted
An interesting sidebarto this discussion is the fact that people methodically, if unconsciously, sabotage whatthey don't want in life. People even sabotage themerely "pretty good" when their spirits are striving toward something theyreally want. When you think about it, who wouldn't prefer, for example, a miraculousresult to a result which is somehow less than that? If one part of you is hoping forthe miraculous and another part of you is working in the direction of, for example, themerely "reasonable," does that not suggest the phrase "house divided?" In other words, you'll find that you are somehow working against yourself. Itis only at the moment that you know what youreally want that youcan direct your energies effectively.
Classic examples of"sabotage of the unwanted" often occur in the workplace, where historicallycapable people suddenly start "messing things up" with regard to their jobs,even though they "know better." A high percentage of the time, I havefound, such people are straining to make some essential difference in life. Rightlyor wrongly, they do not feel - deep down - that they can make that difference in theircurrent job. If and when they become clearer about the essential difference theywant to make (the uncovering of which often takes methodical inquiry), it becomes possiblefor them to make a powerful choice regarding their job. Until thathappens, there is often a stream of conduct which is itself, in one way or another, amanifestation of the unwanted. Such conduct is not infrequently referred to as"sabotage." In a way, it is. Yet the intention is almost never thedestruction of a currently-existing reality, except perhaps as to their own participation. Sometimes the nature of the job itself is very much the issue. At othertimes, the pertinent matter is the way in which the individual thinks of or understandshis or her relationship to that job. A shift in the latter often allows the personto make that essential difference in the same job which once seemed to preclude thecontribution toward which they had been reaching.
At its mostfundamental level, the issue is no less than the fullest possible expression of thatperson's highest self, the sort of thing sometimes referred to by the word"purpose." In likelihood, the individual will not have that job or fulfill that purpose while they continue merely to"function" within the "limitations," perceived or real, of theircurrent job. Of course, until people are able to articulate their purpose, at leastto themselves, it is difficult to know whether or not they are fulfilling it! Often,it seems, people are so preoccupied with trying to be the person they think they"should" be, that they fail to notice such things as "what they really value," which is always a cornerstone of their moreprofound purpose. Their current job may always have been a marvelous, perhaps evenmiraculous form of true self-expression, of fulfillment of their purpose. Yet, inthe absence of substantial self-knowledge with regard to their purpose, they are unlikelyto have noticed that fact!
I suspect this issuearises from time to time in every person. It is perhaps one of the most fundamentalaspects of the human experience. Until it is dealt with, powerfully and effectively,a sort of pressure continues to build within the individual. It is no accident thatpeople so often say "I am under great pressure." The issue isclarification of the actual nature of that pressure. Unfortunately, we have beentrained to spend months bemoaning or otherwise discussing mere symptoms ("difficultboss," for example) without ever inquiring into the possibility that such a symptomis a function of our own creative process. This is not to say, of course, that it isimpossible for a boss to be inappropriately difficult! Often, though, the boss'sconduct is emanating from this same fundamental pressure. In such situations,attempts at "behavior modification" are almost ludicrously ineffective, at leastin the long term.
Left unclarified, suchmatters in the workplace can show up as pretty irrational stuff. For example, peoplemay quite genuinely assert that their situation is "killing them," yet they alsofeel that their "survival" depends upon holding onto what they now have. They can become so locked into the "survival" point of view that it becomesthreatening to even look at what they really want. So the thing they really wantlurks in them, showing up in a variety of ways from time to time, but mostly leading themin a dance from the unconscious. In this sense, it can often seem "unsafe"or otherwise threatening for a person to look at what is really wanted.
Over time, though, itbecomes more and more likely that people will sabotage what they do not want. Theirmethods may vary: health may "fail;" they may "screw up" things easilywithin their range of competence; the range of options is unlimited, even by theirimaginations. Whatever the method, the underlying motivation is the profound desireto create a reality which is truly wanted. It is not simply a matter of"somewhere they would rather be." The fundamental impulse to "moveon" is generated by the possibility that they might make a greater difference inlife, which is what the human spirit always strives for.
A friend of mine, anhonorable man who is currently doing a job which genuinely matters to many people, recently commented to me that he felt peoplewere not getting the most available from him in his current job. For him to leavethat job would unquestionably be unsettling to quite a few people, probably includinghimself. Given the music he would have to face if he were to act on his instinct toexpand the difference he is able to make, it will take enormous courage on his part toactually become the most it would be possible for him tobe. At this point in his contemplations, it is only his spirit, not yet his mind,which even has the capacity to glimpse an image of what might be possible. Ourspirits, of course, always reach toward even more senior levels of service toothers. My friend's already-substantial level of service, which is certainlyvaluable in and of itself, may be even more valuable as a foundation for the nextcontribution he might make to others.
We might call theinstinct to move to the next level of service "The Mother Teresa Instinct,"although I feel quite certain that my friend's self image would have him be more than abit uncomfortable with such a tag! Those familiar with Mother Teresa's history willunderstand the basis of the suggested designation: she moved from junior symbols, early inher life, to more and more senior expressions of her profound underlying commitment tomake a difference with people. It is extraordinarily important for us to create aculture which does the most it can do to bring forth wanted realities, even when the birththroes of such realities involve such difficult possibilities as the "sabotage"of "less than that!"
Of course, any"change" we make in our lives will look like a "bad" thing through theplus-MINUS filter. It will appear that someone or something is "losing" ifa person does anything as radical as, for example, changing careers. That is why weare given instructions such as "don't rock the boat." On the other hand,through the same filter, it will also appear that someone or something is losing if aperson keeps doing what they have been doing! In that system, losing is assured oneway or the other! Through a Pure Plus filter, though, the possibility can be seenthat one of life's primary opportunities is to increase one's awareness of the differenceit is available to make in the lives of our fellow human beings. In turn, we mighteven be encouraged to literally give life to the most senior possible expression of ourindwelling instinct to go for making a difference!
The story of FridtjofNansen provides a wonderful illustration of what is available. A Norwegian who spentapproximately the first sixty years of his life as an arctic explorer and zoologist, hemade the choice late in his life to become a representative of people dislocated by theFirst World War. He was instrumental in creating the job description, previouslyunknown of the planet, "High Commissioner for Refugees." The League ofNations appointed him to serve in that capacity, which represented one of the firstinternational actions in world history on behalf of refugees. He devised what cameto be known as the "Nansen Passport," and successfully urged a wide range ofgovernments to give temporary asylum to individuals forced out of their homes by the war. A person carrying one of these documents was allowed a certain number of weeks ofstay, and sometimes a separate additional period of time if they could find employment, ineach country which approved the passport. At the end of the agreed-upon timeperiods, the document would be presented at the border, and the perforated section givingthat country's permission would be removed. The refugee would then move on to thenext country. Many people survived their dislocation in this manner. It isinteresting to note, when considering the movement from junior to more senior symbols,that Nansen's own history as "explorer of new territory" equipped him in afascinating way to suggest to people that they could leave their familiar realities andventure into the unknown!
I might mention, as anaside, that this book is written with great debt to an outstanding teacher, statesman andauthor, John Stoessinger, who lived in various parts of Europe and then in China whileunder the protection of the progeny of the Nansen Passport. In the absence ofNansen's willingness and choice to "move on" to his next level of service inlife, the thing he was "called" to do, if you will, many people would have beenin relatively desperate straits. I wonder how many desired realities have come intoexistence because of Nansen's choices. Like Mother Teresa, Nansen was a recipient ofthe Nobel Peace Prize.
While Nansen's exampleis a fairly dramatic one, it is no different in its essence from, for example, the personwho chooses to step into active participation with a "new family" (parents,step-parents, and adoptive parents, among others). This is similarly true of anyother new role a person might choose which, while new to them, can make a great differencein the lives of people around them. For some, such expressions do not actually mean"leaving" old expressions, much less "sabotaging" already-existingrealities. Seen through the plus-MINUS filter, though, transitions to new realitiesare seldom encouraged, and are often flatly feared. Whether in families orbusinesses, the refrain often begins, "But what will 'we' do if you start using largeamounts of your time doing that?" Our training has often been to attemptto keep the "familiar" present around us, so that we can be "secure." Does it not seem obvious, though, that the world itself would be a substantiallymore secure place (or perhaps "less threatening") if each of us wasenthusiastically encouraged to go for making the greatest difference possible with people?
When you think aboutit, it is odd even to use a word such as "sabotage," unless weassert an omniscience about how life's events are actually unfolding. Yet that ishow we often think of, describe, or otherwise designate events along life's path. Itis always possible that the actions we label "sabotage" are, in fact, intendedto move people toward something, not merely away from something else. Yet through the plus-MINUS filter, the things truly wanted are often not visible,or at least not noticed. Instead of attempting to see where the spirit may beleading a person, there tends to be a myopic mental focus on such things as "what is(or might be) wrong here." In the process, the actual significance of humanevents is often missed entirely. Worse, glistening opportunities are sometimesoverlooked because attention is immediately put somewhere less useful. For example,a supervisor may berate an employee for something which occurred on the job, neverstopping to consider and, in turn, have a chance to empower, a much more useful reality!
Our plus-MINUS"interpretation" (again, "creation" is the more accurate word) ofpeople's actions in life often have us rush to append labels such as"self-destructive." It is fascinating, and quite revealing, that we havenot been taught to think of or refer to human creations as "self-CONSTRUCTIVE"! If one looks deeply into a person's intention, it is quite possible to discover anintention to generate things which are wanted. This can be true even when all wecan "see," all which is "apparent" to us, seems bound up, stupid, orany of the other negative possibilities which are "observed" by people who lookthrough plus-MINUS filters! The suggestion here is that, when you see something youdeem self-destructive, look again. Perhaps you will see an attempt, however badlyexpressed, to create some essential thing which is truly wanted. At that moment, youwill be able to participate with a person in a more useful and powerful way, assistingthem in the selection of more senior symbols of expression of the desired essence. One can then move beyond limited participations such as "critic" or"opponent" and into the domain of "partnership!"