At the living room on Saturday we had an interesting conversation about perseverance and the ability to impose routines and discipline upon ourselves.
The conversation was led by our learned Friend George who is well known for his evening recovery routine in which he spends time looking back through his day, initially complimenting himself for situations he has handled positively, and then rigorously assessing areas he could have dealt with in a more productive way.
With the latter – rather than using them as a rod to beat himself with – George always tries to see them as a learning experience, and promises to himself that he will do better next time round.
As George was talking the thought arose in my mind, to do this exercise (which includes physically patting yourself on the back for things you have done well, and gently slapping the back of your hand for things you could have done better), requires an understanding of who the person is that is administering this positive feedback and constructive discipline.
In my own case I have often struggled to sustain a positive discipline which Wynford calls ‘stick-at-it-ness’ and which in the words of The Promises read out before a group therapy session at the Living Room say “they will always materialise if we work for them”. I hunger after some confidence and consistency as to who the being is at the core of my nature, the core of my personality. At times there seem to be so many personae vying for control of my psyche, so how can I be sure who to listen to, and will it be the same person listening to me each time I want to ask a question?
I have heard this described in Freudian terms as a battle between the Superego and the Id, in which the ego can often seem to be a bystander. In recovery groups people sometimes liken it to the analogy of the Devil sitting on one shoulder, and an angel on the other.
George said that he initially followed the latter analogy, but in time came to see it more as having the “best possible George” on the one shoulder, and the “former George” (the addict George) on the other.
For me I can easily bring to mind “best possible Paul”, but given my past practice and core beliefs this carries the likely and serious risk of using this model of perfection to set myself up to fail, to create an impossible target to fall short of. On so many occasions in the past (in some ways it was my “modus operandi” at work for decades) I have set myself complex and largely unachievable goals and have entered into massive self-recrimination when I did not live up to the model I had imposed upon myself. More than this, relying on this model of perfection carries with it a layer of permission giving and excuse providing – “oh well, it’s so hard, it’s not worth trying” or “ok, so I knew I was never going to succeed anyway, so what the hell!”.
I can also bring to mind the very worst Paul, being the character that acted out uncontrollably on my addictive impulses.
For me, these two characters are never going to agree. Putting them together in the ring will either result in a titanic death match in which I would be the fatality or – more likely – becoming despondent and giving up. And in any case, the idea is that rather than demonise and reject the very worst part of your personality, the more secure and mature part can accept this as “the cancer within”, going further by reclaiming, nurturing and loving it to aid the process of recovery.
So – borrowing an idea from options appraisal – on top of these two rather unhelpful models, I try to move towards what Dee Lally Osborne has described as a “right sized” self-image by cultivating and keeping in mind two further (less extreme) ones that are still different from the “as is” position. One of these, five years into recovery, is prone to being a “dry drunk” – abstinent from acting out on addiction but locked in emotionally and capable of holding and nurturing resentments and other negative emotions that maintain the addictive illness. The other – while not being perfect – has taken on board the message of recovery, and is willing both to work a solid programme and to maintain his humility and openness to growth.
I hope and pray that a useful dialogue can emerge between these more human and multi-faceted beings that can allow both acceptance and courage to coexist in me, and achievable and sustainable recovery to develop.
January 2019