Power and Empowerment

It is incredibly difficult to unwind the pernicious effects of shame because it requires, first, the presence of a non-shaming witness; and secondly that the client be willing to expose themselves in a vulnerable manner in the presence of this witness. This last goes counter to the effect of shame in creating in an individual the desire to hide, marginalize or minimize one’s shame and the felt-sense of diminishment. The entire process is somewhat counterintuitive, but leads to the healing of shame as that which gave rise to the shame is integrated, no longer dissociated, the body/mind no longer treats it as if it were a foreign body. (This is similar to the process of the human immune system reacting to foreign bodies in creating autoimmune diseases).

The more one becomes empowered within, and feels the strength and confidence to open oneself to allow oneself to feel the immense import and impact of the shame one has experienced and the residua, the more one becomes able to process the shame; and to transform the power and strength deprived (and obtunded) by the original injury into new and awesome power for oneself.

The perpetrator may have inflicted the original injury in order to prevent one from experiencing and wielding one’s personal power. The beauty and innocence of the child is so powerful and magnetic that it implies a threat to the carefully crafted façade of the armored adult, safe within the confines of the kingdom of the illusion, the societally approved behaviors of adulthood. The child’s naïve purity may remind the perpetrator of their shame, against which all of the adult barriers of cognition have been erected. In many ways, one might speculate that the entire façade of the modern adult world has been so constructed, in order to protect the shame, and all of the shame sequelae-driven agencies (e.g., entertainment, the permanent war economy, etc.) of reminding the adult of what has been lost. Being dishonest and lying becomes second nature when one feels ashamed of who and what one is. The entire edifice of modern civilization is built upon a dung heap of lies and deceit.

It is, to some extent, one’s personal evaluation of oneself (one’s body, perceived shortcomings, shame-induced fears and phobias – in short one’s entire global assessment of who and what one is and how that self presents itself) determines one’s attitudes toward power and money. Although money is usually awarded to those who play the current game by the contemporary rules (generally ruthlessly and without conscience for the most part), it is also a reflection of one’s perception of the self. If one feels strongly that one is “right” in one’s perceptions of the world, and is encouraged and supported in these perceptions by one’s contemporaries and the social niches into which one builds oneself, then one will likely unabashedly pursue money and power with a fervor matched only by the restraints one has internalized (e.g., fear of prison). One might say of such a one that he or she believes that self worth equals net worth.

If, on the other hand, one perceives oneself as weak and undeserving, one might spend one’s life in poverty and penury – never ever feeling that one has the right to live comfortably and well. Another aspect of this more downtrodden position might be taken by the recipients of abuse who adopt the quasi-religious position that they should not be involved with the things of this world because they are contaminated and that they are awaiting the “coming of the Lord” wherein they will be rewarded for their perspicacity.

In either case (pro or con), there seems to be some level of attitude that may influence an individual and his or her pursuit of money. Not to say that there are not truly those whose goals and ideas (not to say ideals) lead them to pursue more ephemeral visions than that of money. Even then, there is a level on which one might live comfortably and well without being a greedy venal capitalist without conscience. Again, I believe that all individuals are guided (even driven) by internalized images of the propriety of their well beingness. This in turn motivates one to live one’s life in certain ways, one of which involves one’s interactions with money.

This is tied to abuse in yet other ways – as a precursor for domination and sublimation to power wielded first by parents, and then by other “legitimated” agencies such as priests and ministers, teachers, doctors, police and military. The parental figures act as agents of the state during the process of socialization – mainly a way of subduing the budding autonomy of children so that they “fit in” (reflecting the parental fear of being marginalized or ultimately even ostracized, and left out of the collective “groupthink).

The abuse (or neglect) fostered by the parenting figures both reflects the larger framework of power and abuse by government and other “authorized” agencies of social control and reinforces it as good and right and proper. Thus one matures having been properly indoctrinated from the very beginning of one’s life to be a “good little boy” (or girl) who properly obeys authority and reveres his or her abusers, holding them in proper awe and respect – and learning to blame oneself for their abuses, therefore ensuring the continuation of both abuse and Empire. This last most certainly uses abuse of power and obedience to authority as one of its innate building blocks.