…the
ego or self which is annihilated in ego death is not the
ego of depth psychology and it is not the actual self.
It is specifically the self-identity. (A. H. Almaas, The Point of Existence, p.
524)
Alan Deutschman’s
Change or Die is based
on his coverage of
an IBM Global Innovation Outlook conference. Thought
leaders from around the world explored solutions to major social
problems and estimated the odds as nine to one against change, even when remaining unchanged could be life-threatening.
Why is resistance to change such a countervailing force, even in
the face of a conscious wish to change? Psychologically, resistance protects us from experiencing anxiety,
so
it’s quite natural to feel anxiety when trying
something new. Thus, the process of resistance can work so well
and keep us so safe, we sabotage the very change we want most.
Deutschman's
three critical keys to change? Relate, repeat,
reframe. We need support and emotional reinforcement, we
have to repeat the new learning, and we must change (reframe) our point of
view. This
will sound
familiar to those who’ve been following our
newsletter, and it's a
catchy formula – relate, repeat, reframe – but I’d like
to put a spin on Deutschman’s title by noting some part of us
has to die for significant change to occur; the loss of ego feels (to the ego) like death. Of course, even when we say someone’s “a new
person,” the loosening of habitual patterns doesn’t mutate an
Enneagram
Four into a
Seven, for example, but
the process of transformation can lead to what our stereotypes might label oxymorons: a
happy Four, a confident
Six, a mellow
One.
I've been taping
interviews about the transformational process so I can
understand each Enneagram journey from the inside,
and lately
a happy Four has inspired me to write next about that Enneagram
style. I also want to shed light on what
provides the courage and tenacity required by a commitment to
change, and
to see if Deutschman's formula always holds true.
Listening again to
interviews with Fours, I'm reminded how hard
they can be on themselves. One man said, “For
me, transformation is becoming something rather than
uncovering something. It's the difference between a
chemical reaction where you add a catalyst that actually
transforms it into a different compound, vs. building a piece of
furniture, where you start with a tree, slowly peel away pieces,
make different shapes, and put them together. At the end you
have a chair, not a hunk of wood. But it happened over a long
period of time with many small interventions, instead of a St.
Paul conversion. I’ve always interpreted transformation
to be a shorter – if not sudden – catalytic change into
something new. Most of the changes I’ve experienced and seen
have been more of the kind where it’s still wood when you’ve
done. At this point in my life I’m rediscovering things about
myself I knew in a slightly different form at other times, and
I’m not all that pleased about seeing them again. Mostly I'm a
chair. Just a f--king chair.”
Nonetheless, he acknowledged some
progress along the path: “Putting it in Four terms,
transformation would be living my life totally engaged and fully
in the here and now, as opposed to wanting to be somewhere else,
or doing something different. I’ve dipped in and out of this
experience at different times in my life. When I’ve felt most
healthy, whole, it’s been when I’ve been most engaged – and
usually that’s meant being present in a whole way as opposed to
sitting off on the sidelines.” From these comments it's clear
that repetition, as he "dipped in and out," played a role in
consolidating the changes he was experiencing.
What about reframing? “I’ve read
if you can think about it differently you’ll have more of a
handle on behaving differently," he said. "Shift your
mental model and you can shift your perspective. But for me,
it’s the reverse. I don’t think about it differently and
then feel differently about it. I have to feel
differently, then I can experience and think and behave
differently.” For this Four a metaphorical reframing would
probably work best. In addition, what he described as
"still wood" most people would recognize as an aspect of
transformation. A reframing of the process could help him see
how his Four frame blinded him to his own progress because it
seemed mundane. He wanted something catalytic, something
special.
In
contrast, a
more analytical Four saw how her frame of reference had kept her
stuck. Note the effectiveness of her own reframing: “As I think about it, there’s a clear
connection between being hooked on drama and the journey I’m on.
Drama was a diversion, a way for me to feel important, to fill
time with meaningful activity. I could sense a panic deep inside
as I considered giving up the melodrama. Without drama I felt
naked and vulnerable. No excuses, nothing to make me special. It
was scary. There are a number of lessons for me here. One is to
trust that where I am right now - without any exaggeration or
drama - is enough. Another lesson is that life without drama
isn't mediocre or bland, it's living from the center. It wasn't
the events or people in my life that were the problem, it was
the emotional energy I gave to them. I would lose my sense of
self and stop listening to my inner guidance. Drama pulled me
away from my heart. Today is a good day to let go of the baggage
getting in the way of my being in my heart. For this, I will
gladly leave the drama behind.”
