One thing that has become abundantly clear, based on the responses that I have received regarding my last post, is the apparent misunderstanding that styles of relationship are equivalent to categories of relationship. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A "style", speaking psychodynamically, is something that is malleable and not in any way absolute. A "category", again, speaking psychodynamically, is something quite the opposite -- discreet and absolute. The misunderstanding that seems to have arisen here is that, in describing relationship style, it was suggesting that these were referring to categories of relationship.
Categories are not useful because they suggest discriminatory thinking, and, by virtue of this, are limiting. This position is basic Buddhism, and regular readers of my work recognize that, while I may speak about containers of generalized behavior, I rarely, if ever, refer to definitive categories of behavior. This would be antithetical to the non-dualistic meta-philosophy that informs my thinking on most matters, both spiritual and psychological.
Hank Weisinger, a purported expert in the field of emotional intelligence, was the first reader to misunderstand and subsequently comment upon the notion of categories in the original post. I must admit that my first reaction (ego, ego, ego !!!) to his comments was one in which I presumed that he was taking advantage of an opportunity to unabashedly promote his own work, rather than voice a legitimate critique of mine.
Although Mr. Weisinger's comments did it in fact point to his general misunderstanding of the scope of the article, they were a foreshadowing of the lesser misconceptualization regarding the differences between the continuum of style and discreet categories voiced by others.
The flurry of e-mails, as well as a few of the other comments on the post, brought me to the realization that I may not have been mindful in my estimation that the reader would naturally presume styles of relationship were not categoriesof relationship.
Now, I am the first to admit when I have not communicated something clearly, and it would appear that, with this article, that is indeed the case. That said I would be remiss not to reiterate that while categories indicate discreet and inflexible conditions, styles reflect a continuum of behavioral markers, and never the twain shall meet.
© 2009 Michael J. Formica, All Rights Reserved
Michael's Mailing List Michael's eMail
