Who is talking to whom?

This post was triggered by the pattern of interactions that I observed in one of the alumni groups that I am part of. Most of the people in this group had worked together for a period of 3-5 years about 20 years ago. After that, there was not much interaction among these group members, till a WhatsApp group was set up a couple of years ago.

So, the ‘shared experience’ of this group was from a period about 18-22 years ago, when most of the members in this group would have been in their twenties or early thirties. So, the current interaction is taking place when most of the members are in their forties or early fifties. Very different life stages indeed!

This can lead to a wide variety of scenarios, in terms of ‘who is talking to whom’. For example,

• the ‘younger selves’ of the members are talking to each other about their shared experience (that happened a long time ago)
• the 'current selves' of the members are taking to each other about their current situation
• the ‘younger selves’ of the members are talking to each other about their current situation
• the 'current selves' of the members are talking to each other about their ‘old’ (shared) experience

I guess, the most ‘interesting’ interactions occur when the ‘current self’ of a member 'unexpectedly' interacts with the ‘younger self’ of another member. In a way, this is similar to a ‘crossed transaction’ in Transactional Analysis (TA), because the response one gets is from a 'different self' (different 'ego state', in TA terms) of the other person as compared to what one was trying interact with. It is very much possible that different people are looking for different patterns of interaction in  the alumni group. 

Since the alumni groups are created based primary on a 'shared experience that took place a long time ago', people can have varying expectations on the extent to which they want the members in the group, including themselves, to 'grow up' - in terms of the behavior/interaction in the group. If some of the members had joined the alumni group mainly to 'relive the good-old days' or to 'be their young self again', then 'growing up' might not be such an obviously correct choice for them, when it comes to their behavior in the alumni group (and this can annoy some of the other members in the group who have different expectations)!

These 'crossed transactions'  can lead to rage, tears, frustration, laughter or indifference. This is also one of the most common reasons* why people leave such WhatsApp groups (though they tend to come back after a while). The key factor that influences the outcome of this 'crossed transaction' is the level of trust/strength of the relationship between the members. If others join in on this interaction (from their various 'selves'), the situation can get even more 'interesting' and unpredictable!

*Note : Apart from the crossed transactions mentioned above (which is, in a way, a 'perceived violation of the psychological territory' of a group member), another important reason why people leave alumni WhatsApp groups is a 'perceived violation of their ideological territory'. As we get older, we tend to solidify our positions/ideologies in life. In a way, this is a attempt to make our life easier/ a mechanism to simplify the complexities in decision-making. If I define myself as a socialist  (or as a religious person or as a liberal), I can view and respond to life from that perspective. While this simplifies decision making, it can lead to inflexibility and intolerance. So, if someone says something in the WhatsApp group, that goes against my ideology, I am likely to perceive it as a personal insult and feel compelled to respond to it or to leave the group. This is especially so since the shared experience (that would have acted as a bonding factor/integrating mechanism) is in the distant past and it is no longer strong enough/active enough to help in resolving these perceived violations of ideological territory. 

Have you come across such patterns of interaction? Any observations/comments?

Before you call him a man...

My son (the same guy who featured in posts like 'Research and a three-year-old', "The leadership sandwich" and 'A mathematical approach to HR?') turned 18 (and hence a 'legal adult' in India) recently. While it was an important moment for both of us, somehow it seemed a bit less 'psychologically significant' to him as compared to what happened a year ago when he became taller than me. Turning 18 did lead to some discussions on whether he has lost the privilege to act like a child (especially with us, his parents) when he wants to do so. Can a boy, all of a sudden, magically transform into a man? 

Even if we look at the situation purely from a legal point of view, there are complications. In India, while an 18-year old boy can vote and enter into a legal contract as an adult, he can't get married until he is 21 and he can't be an MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly)/MP (Member of Parliament) till he is 25. So, is he a 'full adult member' or the society? By the way, does it make sense that at 18, he can choose the government (as he can legally vote) but he can't choose his wife (as he can't legally marry)? 

All this also made me think about another aspect - why there is so much more talk about 'becoming a man' as compared to 'becoming a woman'. You might remember Rudyard Kipling's famous poem 'IF' that ends with " And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!" or the Bob Dylan's song Blowin' in the Wind that starts with "How many roads must a man walk down Before you call him a man?" Also, "Be a man" or "Act like a man" are very commonly used phrases in day to day life. You might also hear questions like "Where have all the real men gone?" Again, in many tribal societies, there are very demanding initiation rites, before a boy is accepted as an adult. 

Of course, some of this is just gender bias that makes 'becoming a man' something 'bigger' than 'becoming a woman'. Also, there are initiation rites for both boys and girls. 

I was wondering if there is anything more to it. May be, it is because there are no clear biological markers (like starting of menstruation in females) for males. So, becoming a man needs psychological markers. May be, it can even be said that a psychological transition needs to happen for a boy to become a man. If that is true, then the very demanding (even 'brutal') initiation rites in tribal societies can be viewed as an effort to 'engineer' this transition. In a way, the initiation rites can also be viewed as an effort to pass on the values and 'worldview' of the society including those related to what a man is supposed to do (and also to communicate the profoundness of the transition from a boy to a man). By the way, even in a modern society, we often hear people saying that having to cope with a stressful (even traumatic) event made them (forced them to!) transition from a boy to a man. 

Another perspective is to relate this (emphasizing the significance of becoming a man) to the transition from  'being a dependent' to  'being a provider'. A child is dependent on the family/tribe/society for nourishment and protection whereas an adult provides food and protection to the dependents. The fact that many of the tribal initiation rites involves demonstrating the mastery of skill that is very useful to the tribe (e.g. hunting a big animal, being able to function even under pain etc.)  could support this perspective. Yes, here also gender stereotypes, that are no longer valid, could be in operation (e.g. viewing men as providers and viewing women and children as dependents). 

It is interesting to note that in India, a girl can legally get married at 18 years of age whereas a boy needs to wait till 21 years of age. Whether this is based just on gender stereotypes or not, is a discussion that merits a separate post! It does raise philosophical questions like 'If one is not old enough to choose his wife, shouldn't he be considered as a boy and not as a man?'

Now, let's come back to the core issue of what exactly does 'becoming a man' mean? One way to figure out 'what makes a man' is to 'reverse-engineer' it from what a man is allowed to (and expected to do) that a boy is not. For example, being able to vote, to enter into a legal contract or to start working etc. might suggest that the person has developed the ability to make an informed choice, to live up to commitments, be a productive member of the society, to fend for himself, to know and live according to the laws of the land etc. 

Of course, there are also social stereotypes about what is 'accepted male behavior' (e.g. independence, dominance, control over emotions, pain tolerance, risk-taking etc.). We must remember that 'what it means to be a man' varies across time and societies.  For example, these days, the image of 'the ideal man who does't have any vulnerability' is being replaced by that of 'the ideal man who can make a vulnerable connection and manage his vulnerabilities well enough to be effective'. 

This brings us to an important point. The reality of 'becoming a man' is as much 'socially constructed' as it is 'psychologically constructed' and 'biologically constructed'. So, in a way, a boy becomes an adult when he is accepted as an adult by the society! It can also be argued that, to be effective, the initiation to adulthood and welcoming of the boy to the adult society has to be done by adults and not by other boys (and that this has become a problem in modern societies)!

There are deeper questions that we can consider. Is 'becoming a man' a  'one-time event'? Isn't it more of a 'state of the soul' than a one-time achievement (certification)? Isn't it more of case of being and not becoming? Can the transition from a boy to a man happen without some sort of acknowledgement from the women in the society?  

The last question can lead us to another intriguing (and more pragmatic) question - Why do so many wives think that their husbands haven't grown up (i.e. that they are just boys masquerading as men)? 

Now, let's come back to the aspect of initiation rituals (and that of rituals in general). We must be careful not to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Yes, we must remove rituals that reinforce gender stereotypes. Yes, we should stop (initiation) rituals that can cause physical or mental harm. But we must not 'de-ritualize' our society. Rituals can bring in a 'sense of the sacred' and that of profoundness to our lives, apart from facilitating psychological transitions. Rituals can even be useful in business organizations (see 'Accelerated learning and Rites of Passage' for an example). 'De-ritualization' is a move towards 'de-spiritualization' and hence towards alienation (from life and work)!  

Postscript: When I shared this post with my son, his first reaction was "How did you manage to think so much about this?  I didn't think so much when I turned 18!". This highlights another important possibility. May be, the transition from being a boy to being a man, is as significant (or perhaps more significant) for the parents of the boy as it is to the boy himself. When a boy becomes a man, the role of the parents (and part of the 'self image' of the parents) changes. So, making the transition is critical for both the boy and his parents! Some degree of 'letting go' by the parents and establishing a new 'relationship equilibrium' between the parents and the boy are essential for a boy to become a man! Unlike what used to happen in ancient societies, no one 'takes away the child from his parents' for initiation now.  Hence, this 'letting go' is even more important in a modern society.

What do you think?