Resilience

It seems to me that one of the reasons psychologists to date have not generally accepted a broadly accurate and applicable understanding of resilience is that the usual conceptual structurings of self-identity are either too simplistic or not directed to a biologically-derived, adaptive system of phenomenal potential. Maybe these constructs have been generally functional in the past, but I personally find them lacking (involving potential improvement). As times change, it is helpful to develop one's ideas adaptively and progressively

What resilience is and how it works in people is hard to recognize and benefit from if we do not have adequately functional self concepts. In such a situation, our concepts may be sometimes as harmful as they are sometimes helpful. Although we can say that the four levels or collections of self I described in the essay "Self Identity and Globalization" don't really exist in one sense, they work in a certain way. By looking at self concept from this perspective, we can see that there is something traditional cultures do not DO in an adequate way in a global situation. From this perspective, we can begin to recognize that--often with the best of intentions, and with phenomenal possibility for growth--traditional cultures and the families we were raised in are not sufficient for meeting our aspirations. Not only is this the case in general for most people who are significantly exposed to globalizing influences, but this is not a problem or criticism if we accept these circumstances with a certain equanimity and sense of aspiration. In other words, absurdity or 1950s French existentialism is simply uninteresting and we are dealing in an attention economy.

Psychologists have accepted genetic and physical problems influencing unhappiness (my level 1--"nature"). They have accepted negative emotional patterning and low self-esteem as influenced especially in early childhood (level 2--"nurture"). They have not yet directly and forcefully incorporated cultural disorders as analogous to personality disordering (on an individual level) and familial dysfunctionality (on a small-grop level).

Just as personality disordering can occur due to one's individual beliefs and attitudes as well as a toxic family environment, "cultural disorders" can occur due to internal structures or external (between-society) situations. As long as people are unwilling to recognize cultural disordering, we end up denying the potential for cultural improvement within any given society and denying potential for real improvement between societies. This is where it becomes helpful to consider a singular global "culture" as evident of the vast array of human potential as influenced by history to date. My personal limitations affect what I believe is possble for anyone and everyone; my culture and my awareness of past and current problems affect what I believe is possible for anyone and everyone. Just as it is difficult to do successful therapy with a child who goes home to an abusive family environment, it is difficult to "become the change we want to see" when we are unwilling or unable to recognize the social characteristics that need to change in order to allow the progress we believe in.

While some of us are born with more or less genetically-based, physical resilience; while some of us are born with a more or less healthy and supportive family environment; all of us are raised with more or less adaptive and healthy cultural assumptions. Trying to be the change we want to see without recognizing cultural influences is like trying to become a happier individual by taking drugs rather than by addressing emotional thinking and habituation that we picked up from our families of origin. When we can't adequately conceptualize the problems or limitations we encounter, rather than trying to design or choose ways beyond those limitations, we will tend to either push willfully (try harder in a hopeless manner) or give up hope.

While many people like to use their politicized versions of religious tradition as a justification for continuing various conflicts between societies, those claims are always tied to social limitations based on cultural disordering. In this case, fourth level spirituality-language is hijacked by second level ambitions that are driven by first and second level emotionality. (Ken Wilber has written about this clearly.) By separating self concept into the four levels I have outlined, we are able to discuss and understand ourselves more clearly by delineating (relative) cause and intention of social actions more clearly. By improving understanding and communication of intention, we improve the likelihood of living how we would choose to live together. As Eckhart Tolle pointed out, when we can see things clearly enough, we can choose between a habitual pull towards drama or an intentional movement towards peace. As he also pointed out, when difficulty arises, then, someone who is adequately intentional already will be drawn to becoming more conscious by adversity while someone who refuses intentional progress will be drawn to a more habitually reactive, less intentional, less satisfying life. Working at a functional conceptual structuring allows us to simplify our momentary decisions to intend towards either some sort of health and peace or towards emotional reactivity.