La Risa: Un juicio juguetón?

La risa, ¿remedio infalible para un mundo de matones?

En este ambiente de separación, confrontación, sectarismo y violencia en que vivimos, florece el matoneo (bullying). Las estadísticas muestran que en los Estados Unidos al menos un 70 por ciento de los niños han presenciado ese tipo de acoso en las escuelas y un 30 por ciento han sido víctimas, un número similar al reportado por el DANE en Colombia. En España el porcentaje es de solo 10 por ciento con variaciones por región. En Noruega se reporta un 13 por ciento. Pero este matoneo no se limita a la escuela. Se presenta en el trabajo, en la familia y últimamente en Internet.

El bullying es un acto de crueldad intencional para dominar a otro. Solo hasta el año 2014 el Centro de control de enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés) definió oficialmente el bullying para el propósito de la investigación y el seguimiento de casos. El bullying se caracteriza por una conducta agresiva repetitiva y un desequilibrio de poder. Existe bullying directo e indirecto y se le divide en cuatro categorías: físico, verbal, relacional (como esfuerzos por dañar la reputación o relaciones del otro) y daño a la propiedad de la víctima. Con el mayor uso de los aparatos digitales, el ciberbullying se ha generalizado. Este ofrece la ventaja del anonimato para quien lo inicia y es difícil de detectar por parte de los padres y los maestros.

Las víctimas de bullying consideran el suicidio con una frecuencia de dos a nueve veces mayor que otros niños, según un estudio de la universidad de Yale.

Las consecuencias del bullying pueden ser devastadoras para un joven. En octubre del 2012, Amanda Michelle Todd, una quinceañera canadiense se suicidó después de producir un video donde compartía su desolación como víctima del ciberbullying. Fue un campanazo de alerta para el mundo entero que empezó a poner más atención.

Sin embargo, ¿dónde están los controles, las reformas, las leyes o el debate público sobre el tema? ¿Dónde está la consciencia pública que nos levanta colectivamente contra esta forma de abuso? Aunque somos más conscientes de que el problema existe, aunque se han propuesto soluciones, aunque se han emitido nuevas leyes, aún no se logra cambiar la cultura que favorece estas conductas.

No es un buen precedente que en los Estados Unidos se haya elegido presidente a un candidato que se ha caracterizado por estimular el prejuicio, la discriminación y la violencia durante sus campañas y presidencia con la aquiescencia de los medios de comunicación. Sus bravatas continuan siendo miedosas y frecuentes hasta el punto de queremos evadir las noticias y los análisis políticos de los medios, que nos dejan exhaustos, y preferimos escuchar a los comediantes que hacen circo con este personaje, con la ilusión de estar utilizando una forma menos estresante de enterarnos (pero sin el corazón apretado y los ojos llorosos) del manejo que se da a la problemática nacional e internacional.

El fundador del psicoanálisis, Sigmund Freud, consideraba el chiste una actividad lingüística del inconsciente[1]. El chiste por lo regular convierte a su sujeto en blanco sobre el que liberamos agresividad contenida. No nos digamos mentiras, el chiste, la comedia, constituyen con frecuencia otra herramienta de matoneo y aunque en ocasiones cumplan con la función de denunciar o de liberar tensión, no tienen una finalidad constructiva, no generan cambio. Los comediantes nos hacen reír a costa de aquella persona o tirano a los que se pintan como malos, ridículos o inapropiados. Y nosotros nos reímos en grupo y nos sentimos aliviados y no solo aceptamos este otro tipo de matoneo, sino que lo condonamos ¡incluso cuando se usa como crítica de los métodos de un matón! Algunos comediantes juegan un papel social de denuncia y crítica, pero a la vez corren el peligro de trivializar asuntos muy serios. El público se identifica con el comediante, y la risa permite liberar la tensión de nuestro propio enojo y canalizar agresividad; el chiste tiene pues también una función catártica. Lo triste es cuando la crítica, el juicio, la denuncia que hay detrás de los monólogos del showman, no se transforman en acción en busca de soluciones. Aunque puedan contribuir a crear consciencia, ayudan a perpetuar el statu quo. Alimentan el cinismo y la desesperanza cuando el mundo lo que más necesita es un optimismo (o un posibilismo, como diría la investigadora y autora Francesa Moore Lappé) que conlleve a la certeza de que conocemos las soluciones, de que éstas son posibles y todos podemos contribuir a ponerlas en acción.

Desafortunadamente, este mundo en el que vivimos adopta el bullying a todo nivel como un mecanismo protector, perpetuador de la cultura predominante. Las consecuencias del aislamiento, ridiculización y otras formas de acoso emocional, verbal y físico que caracterizan al llamado bullying, causan sufrimiento a las víctimas. Nada más opuesto a la creación de una cultura solidaria y al florecimiento de la compasión y el amor que una cultura que fomente el odio y el desprecio. La existencia del matoneo desde el nivel de la escuela primaria hasta el del presidente del país que se considera el más poderoso del mundo, son un síntoma de los males que padece la humanidad. Entonces, el bullying se extiende desde el nivel individual hasta las relaciones internacionales y se valida con la, aparentemente inocua, charada. Pero el mal que nos afecta no se va a curar a punta de risa. Un elemento positivo del chiste sería su potencial para generar vergüenza y cambiar el comportamiento, pero esto solo sucede en una persona que tenga consciencia de sí. Por otra parte, vale la pena preguntarse si en la medida en que los procederes que antes generaban vergüenza se vuelven comunes y aceptables y hasta graciosos (el comportamiento de un borracho en público, por ejemplo, o incluso la interpretación jocosa de una figura como la del presidente de los Estados Unidos en shows como Saturday Night Live[2]), esto permite, promueve o incluso incita a la imitación de esas conductas y en vez de tener una función crítica, la burla contribuye a la trivialización de un asunto muy serio.

[1] “El chiste es un juicio juguetón”, decía Ernst Kuno Berthold Fischer, filósofo, historiador y crítico del siglo XIX en quien basó Freud su trabajo de investigación sobre el tema.

[2] El actor Alex Baldwin se ha preguntado acertadamente si su impresión de Donald Trump hizo al presidente simpático para un público que debiera más bien ser crítico de sus acciones.

The third person is essential for emotional health

A dad is trying to playfully connect with his 9-year-old at a restaurant. The boy is standing to the left and the father has his arm around him. Both seem a little uncomfortable. The dad starts throwing what seems like a math quiz at the child.

What’s 40% of 50? the dad asks and the boy has trouble finding the answer.

The dad gives him clues, takes him to “what’s 40% of a hundred?” to which the boy easily replies 40 and then the dad insists with the former question.

Even though this time the boy easily says 20, he is frustrated and concludes, “I’m not smart, dad.”

This simple anecdote of interaction between father and son makes me think of a hundred things.

For one, how difficult it is to respond sometimes to the emotional needs of another person!

The father’s intention seems to be to communicate with his son, to play with him, to stimulate the child’s brain. However, he doesn’t seem to realize he’s making the child feel incompetent and stupid. Not a good foundation for a parent-child relationship, but unfortunately this interaction is not uncommon between adult and young males.

There was an implicit “leave me alone” plead from the boy that the father disregarded. I wonder if the child will remember this one as a humiliating moment where he perceived his father was more intelligent. Will he also feel that his father sees him as a failure and therefore won’t feel proud of him? Not unlikely, the father-son memory will be recorded with some resentment that will mark even the son’s choice of career (I’m not good for math, I will choose art).

The saddest thing though is not only that the father didn’t see the child’s discomfort (the father kept insisting) but that the dad’s good intention was not recognized either.

I believe in these cases a third person is essential. Was this a divorced father sharing weekend time with his child? The mother was not there. Would she have stopped the father from going on with the quiz to protect the child? Would she have interpreted and explained to the child what his father’s intention was?

I’ve seen how important it is for single parents to have a third person reinforce their authority, share responsibilities, explain their intentions to the child.

I’ve also seen how important it is for a child who is verbally mistreated in public to have a third person intervene and stop the abuse. It takes the blame out of him/her (“It is not something I did what explains my parent’s abusive behavior”).

I am certain that in many occasions our perception of the world is tinted and biased because we lack that third person in our lives who can explain and interpret the facts for us. For example, a grandfather who provides a different perspective; the stranger who intervenes to either defend the child or take the steam out of the situation; the wife who explains dad’s intention; the therapist who allows for a space where emotions are acknowledged, words listened, and new perspectives are possible.

Let’s look for opportunities where our children can see the two sides of a coin. That will help them integrate lightness and darkness and grow emotionally healthy.

I give thanks for all of my blessings

To continue with the principles set down by Reiki founder, Mikao Usui, I want to reflect on the benefits of being grateful. Neuroscientists tell us that having a disposition towards gratitude can increase our determination, focus, enthusiasm, and energy.

I have experienced once and again these benefits. Since I have made of Usui’s five principles an important part of my daily life, I look for things to be grateful even in the midst of distressing times. I’ve seen the immediate results of shifting from whining and self-pity to gratitude. It makes you feel fuller, happier. It helps you appreciate life.

But unfortunately we live in a world driven by greed… and not only corporate greed. And greed leaves us feeling unfulfilled, incomplete and unhappy.

Have you tried to sit down and set up your basic, real, needs? If you haven’t, I urge you to make a list of the things that if you go without would make your life really difficult and miserable. My list is really short after food, shelter, and health. Awareness would be one of the things I would not want to relinquish by sure. But see? Awareness is not something that you possess, it’s something that you build with practice.

If you seriously think about it, most of the things we want or think we need are not essential for our well-being. In a consumer’s society, there came a point where corporations needed to create needs in the consumer to keep up the market going. Look at the TV commercials or Hollywood movies trying to buy a lifestyle that would “make you happy.”

So you buy the ipod, the iphone, the ipad, the mac and then you need cords, and covers to protect them and cases to carry them, and then you’re prompted to upgrade every year. And if you finally buy a home, you need to furnish and adorn and clean it with the latest products in the market and then upgrade the appliances every once in a while. It’s a never-ending process that keeps us working to exhaustion, compromising the really essential things like health and family.

If instead of being grateful for what we had, greed takes over (this desire for wealth or possessions) our lives would be marked by constant worry, maybe envy of what others have achieved and competition instead of cooperation.

I have no doubt that at some point in history, when we had exhausted the Earth’s resources in this “having” madness, when we had killed each other for oil (already happening) or water (corporations are already taking over the water resources), there will be a STOP sign that would make us return to a more basic existence.

I truly believe that if we focused more on giving thanks for what we already have than in having some more, we would live happier. This is not wishful thinking. Studies have already shown that feelings of gratitude directly activate the production of the reward neurotransmitter dopamine, which is also the substance that motivates us to do things.

So let’s give thanks for the wonderful day out there and the endless opportunities life gives us to learn.

Just for today, I do not anger

When I took the Reiki Master level class in 1999, my master told us that the mastery path consisted on achieving success in two “tasks:” One, aligning our will with the universe’s will and two, mastering the five Reiki principles or Go Kai:

  1. Just for today, I do not anger
  2. Just for today, I do not worry
  3. I give thanks for all of my blessings
  4. I honor my parents, elders, and masters, and
  5. I work honestly (on myself)

Reiki founder Mikao Usui had developed these principles to help practitioners and students on their spiritual path.

I started to look at the principles and to find ways to apply them. Years before I took that Reiki class, I had read Richard Bach’ explanation of why we get angry. It hit a chord with me. Could it be? Is there always, as he said, a power issue behind our anger?

Throughout the years, I tested Bach’s hypothesis and it seemed to work for me; so, I shared it with others. It seemed clear that when I got angry at the guy that didn’t provide me with, for example, good customer service over the phone, my anger responded to a feeling of something that sounded like, “who does he think I am? Doesn’t he recognize that I am not a dummy? Why does he talk to me as if I know nothing of the issue I’m calling about?” It felt that I was right in demanding more from customer service.

But what about when my anger was related to family matters? Why do we get upset with people we love? Are we really into power struggles with them? At times, the answer was a resounding yes! And so, I left Bach’s hypothesis unchallenged for the time being.

Later on, Don Miguel Ruiz’s writings offered me another pearl of wisdom. We get angry because we take it personally, he thinks. Do we? Maybe!

And there I went on testing the new hypothesis, combining it with the former one, eagerly trying to know the truth.

However, only recently it has dawned on me that anger is most likely related to love or the lack of it.

According to traditional Chinese medicine’s five-element theory, we’re born with love, compassion, and kindness and life experiences make us acquire opposite emotions: hate, anger, resentment.

At first, I started to notice that, indeed, when I got upset, I could be just reacting to unkindness, which felt… fair? I mean, there is indignation and there is anger, right? Indignation is when we justly get annoyed because of something ugly, unfair, unjust or disgusting.

I shall continue to work on the principles… I shall keep on working honestly on myself!

But there was something else. Unkindness just alerted me of the fact that I had a need to feel loved and liked. When somebody is unkind to me, I deducted, then I feel I am not loved. And this could explain the temporary falling out of balance.

Next question I asked myself was if I assumed that I shall be loved? And then, was my feeling rooted in unresolved issues from my past? But, I didn’t think so.

There is this part of me that knows only love, that resonates with love. Unkindness feels like a discordant note. And this was also part of the answer. However, I kept digging.

There was something else, I found, and the insight came out with tears. Unkindness by others also alerted me of my incapacity to love unconditionally and to totally accept others as they are.

I am love and love is what I came to experience! Since love is my north, becoming aware of how far I still am from achieving my destination obviously saddened me deeply.