Yesterday I found a great resource with a practical guide for interacting with high conflict people. Today I wrote this.
_______
Trigger Warning: Donald Trump's Mental Health

I've spent a good chunk of my life forgetting and then remembering and then forgetting and then remembering again that most people don't want to change their behavior and, more importantly, if there is evidence of even low-level mental illness then they very likely physically cannot change their behavior. It is actually not possible. This is terrain over which a person may have no conscious awareness or an area in which they likely will never possess gained insight. They couldn't change, even if they tried.

In most cases, no amount of articulation of the behavior, however neutral or gentle or kindly brought to the surface, will do anything other than ignite defensiveness. No matter how gently the behavior is described, the person describing gets cast as the bad guy, the bully, the 'instigator' in the eyes of the person with the mental health issue and by the people who enable the behavior. In the best case scenario, the describer gets shunned. In the worst case scenario, the describer gets physically or emotionally abused.

What I've learned is that venting about it to someone else doesn't alleviate any stress from the situation. It never helps. Venting doesn't provide solutions, as there seemingly are no solutions. Gossiping about it only creates a weird stagnation that feels toxic. Because, frankly, gossip is toxic.

Just as the person's behavior is out of their control, so too is their behavior out of my/our control. And, in the bigger picture that is as it should be, for when we are able to actually create a balanced system then we find we do not require to be 'in control' of other people.

In my experience I've really only ever found that removing myself from the situation or from the person is what works, even if the removal is only temporarily. I need and I take my space, be that in mental or in physical retreat. I shrug it off when I can, ignore it if I'm able, or I leave.

Facing the dysfunction directly and out loud in my experience has only ever backfired miserably and has never achieved any beneficial outcome. Nobody feels good afterward and the situation remains unchanged.

I've observed that this presidential campaign and election has made it so that technique of removing myself isn't available in the way I've utilized it before...in the classic accounting of 'what happens on the micro level happens at the macro level', I'm seeing enacted on a large scale some of the specific power play dynamics that I experienced during my childhood and it's uncanny to now observe how numerous people cope with being presented with that timeless indirect order to submit to another person's mental illness for the perceived safety and security of the group...if retreat was my go-to for responding to an untenable situation, how do I remove myself entirely from a mentally ill person who has 60 million enablers, a military at his command, a public relations industry that protects his lies, billions of dollars at his disposal and the support of the nation's police departments?

And, no, moving to Canada is not a viable answer. That option is still retreat and I'm/we're looking to do something different.

Through this past election cycle I've gained more insight into how often I've removed myself from situations I've deemed unbearable because the alternative that presented itself seemed only that I submit to living a mutually agreed upon lie that the person stirring up conflict did not need to be held accountable. And, as much as I honor and respect the problem-solving skills of my past child self, I'm learning what different options are out there.

Because, as a strategy, retreat isn't working anymore. Every time I/we retreat into ourselves, we clip off some delicious, curious, creative and intelligent part of ourselves from the world. We curb our spirit.

And yet, straightforwardly describing Trump's behavior and making pleas for change clearly does not achieve anything other than up the ante for him.

I say this out loud as a reminder to myself and to us that when we rightly and accurately describe our President Elect's behavior as driven by mental health issues and instability, we ought not to be surprised when we provoke only defensiveness from the very people we'd like most to listen to us. We ought not to be surprised when we are collectively cast as 'bullies'. If only for the sake of our own mental health I suppose we ought to continue our public descriptions of the behavior, but for the sake of that same mental health we ought not to expect different results from him or from his enabling supporters.

Millions of lives are at stake from suffering physical harm at the whims of his instability, and yet being honest out loud about his mental state clearly isn't doing much to bring safety to these same groups. We need to find and provide alternative options without feeling as though we are backing down or, worse, submitting to the collective dysfunction.

Even as I type this, though, I think of the thousands of people armed powerfully only with prayer, their collective will and their spirit as they continue to face down assaults from a militarized police force. The people in the north in the Dakotas are providing us with a template for addressing the collective mental illness that is our dependence on oil and comfort. Prayer that is directly connected to spiritual action provides a route towards actual balanced power.

I suppose we can't pray for someone else to change; but we can pray for the internal strength to face the collective lies with honesty and with direct observation.

And, it will take strength to endure the onslaught of collective defensiveness.

We can't pray for someone else to change; but we can pray for the many things we are thankful for, the things that the mentally ill person cannot muddy up.

And, there are many things to remain thankful for.

We can't pray for someone else to change; but we can pray for groundedness within the slipperiness of it all.

And, the ground will remain slippery even as we can remain grounded.

In short, we can pray towards our own center.

I read this book many years ago and then re-read it again earlier this year. It's been on my mind because Hillary Clinton was such a clear example of one of these archetypal role models for women. It was written back in 1984 and therefore some of the language is unnecessarily gendered but at the same time I found a lot of usefulness in it.

Dr. Bolen covers three categories of feminine goddesses in this book: Virgin, Vulnerable, and Alchemical. Within each type she covers three virginal goddess figures (Artemis, Athena, Hestia), three vulnerable goddesses (Hera, Demeter, Persephone) and the alchemical Aphrodite.

These are internal archetypes which the author uses to describe cognitive functions and behavior, so when she refers to 'virginal' she's not literally talking about hetero-normative idea of physical bodily penetration by a penis, but is instead talking about a way of being in the world that is self-contained and self-sustained without the need for outside approval or permission. Similarly, when she writes 'vulnerable' she does not mean this in a patriarchal sense of physical weakness. This vulnerability is centered in a type of underappreciated perception that is tuned in and receptive to the awareness of others, thus is 'vulnerable' and at times subjected to other people's thoughts and feelings as a priority over one's own. And, lastly, she describes a form of 'alchemy' which is neither virginal nor vulnerable but a combination of both inner impenetrable resources and connections with the outer world.

Dr. Bolen saw women and men enacting various aspects of both the functional portions of the archetypes as well as their dysfunction. It seemed to me that her goal in therapy was to bring people into alignment/balance with whichever was a person's predominant set of archetypes as well as provide them with tools for accessing more dormant archetypes. As I read the book, each chapter gave me an 'aha' moment of recognition to some aspect of how I perceive and walk in this world. I found them all useful in one way or another.

Virgin Goddesses
Artemis- the hunter, the sister, a goal-oriented athlete who finds joy in her own grace and accomplishments. She's the hiker in the woods, the traveler, the swimmer, the runner; anyone who can find peace and happiness from her own body's abilities.

Athena- strategist, intellectual, goddess of war and of the crafts such as weaving; like Artemis she is also goal-oriented but is not as connected to sisterhood as Artemis. I found a lot of Athena in Hillary Clinton. In her most positive aspect, people found respect for her supreme qualifications for the job as well as her ability to be unperturbed (impenetrable) by the onslaught of insults and political bullshit she faces daily. Yet, in Athena's dark aspect, she is an archetype that will side with the patriarchy and it's attendant power structures when that is the best strategy for her own gain, even going so far as to remain married to a politically powerful man because strategically it allows her proximity to his power. I admit that I often imagined Athena's owl sitting on Clinton's shoulder during the debates as I cheered her on, lol.

Hestia- goddess of the hearth and home. she is a virginal goddess in that her inner world provides sanctuary and spiritual completion. People who are drawn towards this archetype are naturally drawn towards monastic life. Their homes are beautiful, grounded, relaxing, and provide a welcome respite from the hubbub of the outer world.

Vulnerable Goddesses
In Greek stories, these goddesses suffered some sort of trauma or pain and yet found ways to transcend their victimization. They contain that sort of 'penetrable' way of perceiving the world which opens them up for being hurt by others (in ways the virginal goddesses cannot conceive of being hurt) and yet also gives them tremendous gifts of compassion, empathy, love and inner growth.

Most of our inherited 'western culture' focuses on these archetypes for women. They tend to reinforce the patriarchal system by squishing women into performing Wife, Mother, Daughter roles while ignoring or suppressing other aspects of herself. I think Dr. Bolen does a great job of honoring the underappreciated collective social benefits of these archetypes while also talking about how limiting they can be if a person defines themselves solely by them alone.

Hera- goddess of marriage, is hurt by Zeus' many infidelities but also finds ways to access her power through her support of her partner's achievements. She's the 'it takes teamwork to make the dream work' type of archetype and at her best can really do a lot of work to help others reach their full potential. At her worst, she defines her identity based on another person and is unaware or unable to develope her own potential.

Demeter- goddess of the earth, nurturer, the archetypal Mother, she loses her daughter to the underworld and mourns until her daughter is returned thus threatening to kill all life on the planet in the process; she is the patron goddess of the Eleusinian mysteries along with her daughter.

Persephone- queen goddess of the underworld, understands the perils of being caught below ground and yet also participates in her own rebirthing process to the surface of the earth. She is represented by spring flowers and is seen as a guide for others out of darkness.

The Alchemical Goddess
The final chapter of the book is related to Aphrodite, the alchemical goddess, for she is neither an impervious virgin nor is she a vulnerable victim. This archetype maintains the receptive form of perception that is located outside of the inner self and yet she is not endangered by victimization. This 'sweet spot' that is neither here nor there has a lot of potential creative collaborative energy to it, a perpetual birthing of the new, and thus is why traditionally Aphrodite is connected to the concept of beauty.

It's a good book. Check it out. I recommend it.