Healing Confessions (updated draft)
(c)2015 His High Witness, The Prophet V
(with reference to my book, "Integrity", chapters 8, 15 and 17)
When a person tells you something alarming and asks to keep it secret, do you automatically assume they have "something to hide" and try to catch them out? Perhaps not, but you'd be amazed how many people out there do just that. They take the view that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" and that any other course of action is "dodgy". Oh, really?
In some cases, public confessions bring about catharsis. The trouble is that the public are worse than Stalin when it comes to acting as judge, jury, executioner and Cowell. I have found it useful to confess my religion and politics, my obsession with systems analysis, my advocacy of panoramic polyamory (where appropriate to mention - i.e: not all the time), and - much as it pains me - my casual love of Rotherham United F.C - often in the face of bitter odds being stacked against them. But these are my choices. None of these confessions have been dragged out of me by duplicitous means, nor - on confessing them - do I expect a Barnsley supporter to glass me in the face or some terrible rumour to be circulated about me that I regularly engage in goat-fuelled, baby-bashing trysts. Indeed, I hope that by "coming out" as a Millerite, I can encourage others who may feel stigmatised, especially when lined up against Manchester United or Arsenal. The fact that for much of my recent life, I may not even been anywhere near South Yorkshire - and only discovered the team due to a short stint in the town - should not leave me open to charges of "traitor". It's only football. Get a life. It's only polyamory. Get a wife (or two).
What is so unsettling is not that people disagree with me, or anyone else, but that they feel that have an automatic right to do anything and everything to me, up to and including "Facebooking" their "allegations", assault and damaging my property. Essentially, our culture has developed an Irony Bypass, where it cannot tell what is a statement from what is an action, or what is said slightly tongue-in-cheek from a dogmatic statement. An example of that would be my dislike of Barack Obama. It's quite a leap from pointing out that Mr Obama is a black man to assuming that I am being racist. Speculation is fine for some things. If an oil company is sponsoring a particular service, my guess would be they probably aren't going to encourage consumers to take the train. I can't prove that, but it's a reasonable assumption.
Often, the deepest confessions involve money, sex, violence and - the most precious commodity of all - information. Information is the commodity that can kill someone whilst they are still alive by presenting them in the worst light, so it is the listener's duty to act as advocate for the defence wherever possible. If I stole a stapler from the office cupboard and confessed it to you, I would not expect this information to leave your lips if I had confided in you for a good enough reason.
It is not our business to claim to create a "safe space" for someone, but then go acting as "moral policeman" and pretend we are the heroes, exposing the supposed "wrongdoing" of the confessor who has put his or her trust in us - often at great risk to themselves. If we develop an overwhelming arrogant urge of "public duty" to confess the "moral failings" of a confessor, we might get our facts hopelessly wrong, and if we do, that might make us far worse than the person that is sat revealing themselves in front of us. We should take the view that once someone is in front of us and begins to confess, whether as a friend or a client in a confidential relationship, what is private should stay private. Trying to "play the hero" and shine your flaming torch of justice on some dark corner of wrongdoing might do more harm than good, and "passing the buck" to a complete stranger could wreck that person's confidence. You could just end up looking like a pompous fool.
There is nothing "weak" in confessing to another, but if a person does, they are in your care, and your first priority is to protect them - and not try and second-guess what their motives are. A person in trouble can seem "dodgy" because their body language is usually heightened due to sadness or fear. They are more likely to be tearful or get angry. if you are in an intimate relationship, they are more likely to use physical touch (possibly sexual) as a way of numbing their fears. None of this should be taken at face-value as "further proof" of their dishonesty of "dodgy-ness". You might want to give them a hug, and let them cry and rant and rave.
The media is slowly eroding our ability to keep counsel with others, and to regard private thoughts shared as sacred. We are losing our bottle, and almost everything the general public does seems to be public knowledge, whether it ought to be or not. This has even applied in psychiatric cases, where vast amounts of highly sensitive data is leaked, often doing more harm to the patient - and society - than good. We are told that we "must" report someone if we "think" they are a terrorist or other sort of criminal - a point of view that many senior barristers and human rights campaigners have labelled as "pre-crime" and an abuse of justice and due process. Failing that, we can simply start rumours over the Internet. But did you never stop to reflect that all of this "bad blood" might be the result of rumour-mongering - that the person concerned is entirely innocent? Worse, did you never think that someone else might actually be trying to "get at" the person doing the confessing to you - applying pressure, threats, or perhaps worst of all, subtle insinuations that aren't threats exactly, but hints, leaving that person unsure as to what they are likely to be facing, or where the next danger might be coming from, or when?
Indeed, if we report that someone we are "counselling" is under threat and needs "help", we might think we are doing them a favour. Or, we might actually be putting them at far, far greater risk. You have absolutely no idea what "can of worms" you are opening up by telling someone what YOU were told. You don't even know if the person you are reporting the "incident" to can be trusted, even if they are in a position of authority. (Occasionally, the person under discussion might be a masochistic type who enjoys being hurt, or simply want to lead a quiet life and not stir up further trouble, and your interventions might be depriving them of those rights too.)
Sometimes, the confessor who is putting their trust in you knows a little bit more about what is going on that you do, and who is involved in their situation - and in some cases, the network of intrigue can be huge, spanning entire towns and (thanks to the Internet) entire countries. Whether the threat comes from an individual, a gang, someone in authority or a combination of all of them, you cannot simply "assume" that someone is honest because they wear a uniform or has an official name-badge. In the case of especially clever forms of conspiracy, the authority-figure is often the very first to be "corrupted". I have even heard of cases where entire groups of individuals have been "nobbled" or otherwise compromised, and in some cases, this can lead to individuals finding it very difficult to know whom to trust.
Such threats or insinuations can go on for decades. Even just a few well-aimed warnings can utterly destroy someone's ability to live freely, even if no actual physical violence has taken place. You may think you know better than the person in front of you. Everyone can claim to be an expert at something, except reality.
If you relationship is intimate and sex is involved, then remember - sex is like a contract. It binds you to create and maintain a feeling of security and peace. There are cases where people try to get others into bed simply to extract confessions - a tactic most famously used by spies, and more recently, by police forces when dealing with political activists. If there is a conspiracy at work - and I mean a VAST conspiracy - then it is better for spies to catch those they wish to lure when they are off-guard in the bedroom and likely to start confessing.
I mention this extreme example of sex and entrapment in order to illustrate that it is necessary to make the other person feel secure and relaxed to the point of feeling bathed in the sensual act of confessing. Similarly, at work or at college, we should be able to confide in workmates without worrying that they too are acting as spies.
A siseable portion of my book deals with the politics of women's issues, and how they are manipulated - nor for the benefit of women, but in order to get women "on side" with whatever organisations want. "Go on. Let it all out, honey. Let go of the pain!" says the American daytime talk-show host, extracting a confession from some harassed female. But what precisely is being "let out"? Are women REALLY benefitting from this form of "public therapy" or are they just being used as pawns?
As the "caring sex" (i.e: wilfully forgetting all of women's intellectual abilities), women in many organisations are encouraged to act as warm seductive sponges, soaking up all of the gossip around the office by lowering people's defences and making them feel able to talk. But then, when the rock hits the fan, those same women are urged spill out everything they heard that day, without any awareness of the harm they are causing.
If organisations REALLY wanted to value women - as thinking, rational beings - they would not encourage such behaviour, nor aim it specifically at female fears: harassment, feeling devalued by men, child welfare and so on. They would not tell women to look for the "tell tale signs" of social pathology even when none were there, nor to report on other women who do not fit the company profile. But in truth, gossip is a company's way of oppressing dissent by keeping everyone on their toes, and this goes on without most women even being aware of their role in it.
Quite rightly, we value the sensual cleansing power of confession as a powerful aid to good mental health - to inner clarity and self-worth. But when we share with others, there it must stay. Never again should anyone fear that the warmth of private disclosure hides a dirty, sinister shadow, behind which lies violence and betrayal. We must learn that lesson now, before it's too late.
___________
|
|