WHAT DO YOU REALLY WANT?
Chapter Five
"Sabotage" of the UNwanted
An interesting sidebar to this discussion is the fact that people methodically, if unconsciously, sabotage what they don't want in life. People even sabotage the merely "pretty good" when their spirits are striving toward something they really want. When you think about it, who wouldn't prefer, for example, a miraculous result to a result which is somehow less than that? If one part of you is hoping for the miraculous and another part of you is working in the direction of, for example, the merely "reasonable," does that not suggest the phrase "house divided?" In other words, you'll find that you are somehow working against yourself. It is only at the moment that you know what you really want that you can direct your energies effectively.
Classic examples of "sabotage of the unwanted" often occur in the workplace, where historically capable people suddenly start "messing things up" with regard to their jobs, even though they "know better." A high percentage of the time, I have found, such people are straining to make some essential difference in life. Rightly or wrongly, they do not feel - deep down - that they can make that difference in their current job. If and when they become clearer about the essential difference they want to make (the uncovering of which often takes methodical inquiry), it becomes possible for them to make a powerful choice regarding their job. Until that happens, there is often a stream of conduct which is itself, in one way or another, a manifestation of the unwanted. Such conduct is not infrequently referred to as "sabotage." In a way, it is. Yet the intention is almost never the destruction 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 other times, the pertinent matter is the way in which the individual thinks of or understands his or her relationship to that job. A shift in the latter often allows the person to make that essential difference in the same job which once seemed to preclude the contribution toward which they had been reaching.
At its most fundamental level, the issue is no less than the fullest possible expression of that person'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 their current job. Of course, until people are able to articulate their purpose, at least to 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 more profound purpose. Their current job may always have been a marvelous, perhaps even miraculous form of true self-expression, of fulfillment of their purpose. Yet, in the absence of substantial self-knowledge with regard to their purpose, they are unlikely to have noticed that fact!
I suspect this issue arises from time to time in every person. It is perhaps one of the most fundamental aspects 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 that people so often say "I am under great pressure." The issue is clarification of the actual nature of that pressure. Unfortunately, we have been trained to spend months bemoaning or otherwise discussing mere symptoms ("difficult boss," for example) without ever inquiring into the possibility that such a symptom is a function of our own creative process. This is not to say, of course, that it is impossible for a boss to be inappropriately difficult! Often, though, the boss's conduct is emanating from this same fundamental pressure. In such situations, attempts at "behavior modification" are almost ludicrously ineffective, at least in the long term.
Left unclarified, such matters in the workplace can show up as pretty irrational stuff. For example, people may quite genuinely assert that their situation is "killing them," yet they also feel that their "survival" depends upon holding onto what they now have. They can become so locked into the "survival" point of view that it becomes threatening to even look at what they really want. So the thing they really want lurks in them, showing up in a variety of ways from time to time, but mostly leading them in 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, it becomes more and more likely that people will sabotage what they do not want. Their methods may vary: health may "fail;" they may "screw up" things easily within their range of competence; the range of options is unlimited, even by their imaginations. Whatever the method, the underlying motivation is the profound desire to create a reality which is truly wanted. It is not simply a matter of "somewhere they would rather be." The fundamental impulse to "move on" is generated by the possibility that they might make a greater difference in life, which is what the human spirit always strives for.
A friend of mine, an honorable man who is currently doing a job which genuinely matters to many people, recently commented to me that he felt people were not getting the most available from him in his current job. For him to leave that job would unquestionably be unsettling to quite a few people, probably including himself. Given the music he would have to face if he were to act on his instinct to expand the difference he is able to make, it will take enormous courage on his part to actually become the most it would be possible for him to be. 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. Our spirits, of course, always reach toward even more senior levels of service to others. My friend's already-substantial level of service, which is certainly valuable in and of itself, may be even more valuable as a foundation for the next contribution he might make to others.
We might call the instinct 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 a bit uncomfortable with such a tag! Those familiar with Mother Teresa's history will understand the basis of the suggested designation: she moved from junior symbols, early in her life, to more and more senior expressions of her profound underlying commitment to make a difference with people. It is extraordinarily important for us to create a culture which does the most it can do to bring forth wanted realities, even when the birth throes 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 the plus-MINUS filter. It will appear that someone or something is "losing" if a person does anything as radical as, for example, changing careers. That is why we are 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 a person keeps doing what they have been doing! In that system, losing is assured one way or the other! Through a Pure Plus filter, though, the possibility can be seen that one of life's primary opportunities is to increase one's awareness of the difference it is available to make in the lives of our fellow human beings. In turn, we might even be encouraged to literally give life to the most senior possible expression of our indwelling instinct to go for making a difference!
The story of Fridtjof Nansen provides a wonderful illustration of what is available. A Norwegian who spent approximately the first sixty years of his life as an arctic explorer and zoologist, he made the choice late in his life to become a representative of people dislocated by the First World War. He was instrumental in creating the job description, previously unknown of the planet, "High Commissioner for Refugees." The League of Nations appointed him to serve in that capacity, which represented one of the first international actions in world history on behalf of refugees. He devised what came to be known as the "Nansen Passport," and successfully urged a wide range of governments 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 of stay, and sometimes a separate additional period of time if they could find employment, in each country which approved the passport. At the end of the agreed-upon time periods, the document would be presented at the border, and the perforated section giving that country's permission would be removed. The refugee would then move on to the next country. Many people survived their dislocation in this manner. It is interesting 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 a fascinating way to suggest to people that they could leave their familiar realities and venture into the unknown!
I might mention, as an aside, that this book is written with great debt to an outstanding teacher, statesman and author, John Stoessinger, who lived in various parts of Europe and then in China while under the protection of the progeny of the Nansen Passport. In the absence of Nansen's willingness and choice to "move on" to his next level of service in life, the thing he was "called" to do, if you will, many people would have been in relatively desperate straits. I wonder how many desired realities have come into existence because of Nansen's choices. Like Mother Teresa, Nansen was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
While Nansen's example is a fairly dramatic one, it is no different in its essence from, for example, the person who chooses to step into active participation with a "new family" (parents, step-parents, and adoptive parents, among others). This is similarly true of any other new role a person might choose which, while new to them, can make a great difference in the lives of people around them. For some, such expressions do not actually mean "leaving" old expressions, much less "sabotaging" already-existing realities. Seen through the plus-MINUS filter, though, transitions to new realities are seldom encouraged, and are often flatly feared. Whether in families or businesses, the refrain often begins, "But what will 'we' do if you start using large amounts of your time doing that?" Our training has often been to attempt to 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 substantially more secure place (or perhaps "less threatening") if each of us was enthusiastically encouraged to go for making the greatest difference possible with people?
When you think about it, it is odd even to use a word such as "sabotage," unless we assert an omniscience about how life's events are actually unfolding. Yet that is how we often think of, describe, or otherwise designate events along life's path. It is always possible that the actions we label "sabotage" are, in fact, intended to 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 be leading 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 human events is often missed entirely. Worse, glistening opportunities are sometimes overlooked because attention is immediately put somewhere less useful. For example, a supervisor may berate an employee for something which occurred on the job, never stopping 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) of people's actions in life often have us rush to append labels such as "self-destructive." It is fascinating, and quite revealing, that we have not 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 an intention to generate things which are wanted. This can be true even when all we can "see," all which is "apparent" to us, seems bound up, stupid, or any of the other negative possibilities which are "observed" by people who look through plus-MINUS filters! The suggestion here is that, when you see something you deem self-destructive, look again. Perhaps you will see an attempt, however badly expressed, to create some essential thing which is truly wanted. At that moment, you will be able to participate with a person in a more useful and powerful way, assisting them 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!"