About a decade ago, I found myself. My favorite shirt became one that read, “If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution.”
I should preface this by pointing out that I’ve been lost and found on more than one occasion. 15 years ago Kevin even figured out where my lost self was and kindly showed me a map. By lost and found, I am describing the sensation of seeing myself clearly- achieving clarity that has perhaps been lost in filth, muck and goop.
Back to the finding in question though. I spent a year doing research with my dear friend and reading literature by Carol Gilligan and the founding scholars of the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute. After starting off with more traditional theories of human development, these writings resonated deeply with me. Someone captured for me the strengths that made me good at relating — the irony that my commitment to connecting with others had been been pathologized and degraded with terms like “codependent,” and “needy.”
Someone saw me. There was hope that I could celebrate who I was, rather than strive to become something, somebody else.
A couple years later, I got to see some of these scholars in person and was even more amazed. I felt able to cope with a fundamentalist boss, a patriarchal mental health system and a workplace flailing under the the pressure of rigid gender roles. More than coping, I felt able to make change.
So, it was with this rebirth in mind that I headed out to Boston last month to visit the founding scholars and participate in an intensive training. As I read and prepared, I was almost giddy. The research and theories they were publishing appeared to support our parenting choices with perfect congruence. Connections, relationships, attachments are all reframed as strengths.
It was an inspiring weekend. There was talk of breaking the dominant paradigm — of reducing isolation — of changing therapy, workplaces and society at large. Revolution. Breaking free of “power-over” dynamics.
Here’s the rub though. These are well respected, published scholars at places like Harvard. They aren’t as powerful as men in the same situation, probably, but they are influential, respected women. If they do have children, they have the luxury of making certain their attachment needs are met while still attending to their careers.
I believe my lifestyle is a revolution. I rebel against a society that tells me a house is more important than connecting with my children — that good, strong women can do it all. I can’t do it all. I choose to spend more time with my children. I choose to let the career slide in order to play with play-dough and jump in piles of leaves.
It’s entirely possible that the presenters have done the same — intimate details of that sort were not shared. What saddens me is that it was discussed. After school programs that help older children resolve conflict were outlined. How science is used to manipulate women into certain birth decisions (decisions with which I would tend to agree) was outlined in one of the publications, but families trying to stay connected were not. The cost to families of a two income minimum for survival didn’t figure into the revolution. They accommodated my child’s attachment needs with grace and generosity, but I didn’t see myself there. No one articulated the difficulties I face every day trying to balance my connections with my kids and with my career.
There was one stay at home mom portrayed. She was the “client” in the therapy vignette. She was in therapy because her children had left for college and she needed to get a job.
I’m doing the reading and research, and I hope to wade through it enough to see myself in it, and then sing it to the world, dancing my own revolution. More to come, about motherhood, womanhood and how it all connects.
