It is difficult to deal with a narcissist when you are a grown, independent, fully functioning adult. The children of narcissists have an especially difficult burden, for they lack the knowledge, power, and resources to deal with their narcissistic parents without becoming their victims. Whether cast into the role of Scapegoat or Golden Child, the Narcissist's Child never truly receives that to which all children are entitled: a parent's unconditional love. Start by reading the 46 memories--it all began there.
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts

Monday, October 22, 2012

Superior, Subordinate, Equal Pt 2: DOING it!

Remember in the last entry I noted that you needed to learn how an Equal/Equal transaction feels? “You start by finding out what an Equal/Equal transaction feels like. This is a situation in which two people treat each other as equals, with respect for the other person’s position and feelings, even if they don’t agree. If there is an issue under discussion, some persuasion may be encountered, but it will be put forth respectfully as an appeal to reason and will not include any implications that you are somehow defective if you persist in your disagreement. The transaction will close as the result of a compromise or an agreement by both parties to agree to disagree. Respect by and for both people involved will be the hallmark of the transaction. When you walk away from a transaction like this, even if you didn’t get all that you wanted out of it (compromise involves giving up something of what you want in order to get some of what you want), you do not walk away feeling beaten down or disrespected, nor do you walk away angry. If you truly had an Equal/Equal transaction, you feel respected by the other party—and respect for the other party—even if you didn’t get what you wanted…Suppose you walk away from the transaction feeling angry and taken advantage of? Or beaten down and crying? Or guilty? Or victorious, like you got one over on the other guy? Then you did not participate as an Equal. If you felt victorious—or angry that you didn’t get what you wanted—then you participated as a Superior. If you felt defensive or guilty, you participated as a Subordinate.” How you feel, both during the transaction and after, is a key to learning how to tell when a transaction is diverging from an Equal/Equal path.

One of our barriers to this knowledge is our own hypervigilance: we hear or see challenges that aren’t really there…and then we react to them as if they really were. Sometimes we are even proud of ourselves for putting that nosy neighbour or snotty clerk “in their places,” but when that happens, you aren’t transacting as an Equal, you are transacting as a Superior. Before we can hold the feet of others to the fire, we first have to get a handle on our own tendencies to conduct transactions from a Superior or Subordinate place.

I am not going to kid you—this can be hard. What you will be doing is trying to break a very bad habit that has been ingrained in you since childhood. Not only that, but you will be trying to do this while others are trying to sabotage you…and while most of that sabotage will not be intentional, some of it very well may be—there are people out there who will feel very threatened if they can’t push your buttons any more and they will do what they can to keep those buttons active! When you succeed (not “if,” when) you will be in a position where you choose to act as a Superior or Subordinate, not because you automatically default to it when faced with someone else taking one or the other. (Yes, there are times when choosing a Superior or Subordinate position is appropriate or wise…what matters is that it is a choice, not a reaction.) When you succeed, you will have taken back your power.

What you will be doing is eliminating a longstanding habit, and you will be doing it against opposition. Mother Nature abhors a vacuum, which is why habits can be so hard to break so, instead of breaking the habit, you will substitute a new, healthier habit for the old, unhealthy one. The first step in doing this is awareness. You can’t stop a habituated behaviour unless you can recognize when you are doing it—after the fact is too late. Catching yourself in the middle is good—catching yourself before you begin is even better: both can be tough. When I quit smoking I had to create new behaviours to help me catch myself. Instead of putting my cigarettes and lighter close to me for convenience, I would purposely put the cigarettes in one room and the lighter in another and me in a third. By forcing myself to get up and walk from room to room to get and light a cigarette, I forced myself to be aware of what I was doing…which gave me the option to stop before I unconsciously grabbed a cig and lit it.

In the beginning, I would only realize I was smoking about half way through the cigarette…at that point I could make a decision: finish the smoke or put it out. I would put it out, but that wasn’t helping me to awareness, breaking the automatic, unconscious act of getting a cigarette and lighting it. So I moved them to another room, making me have to actually get up and make an effort to get them and a further effort to light one up. This broke the automatic part of the habit—it made me aware of what I was doing and that awareness gave me choice: light one up or put them down. I have now been a non-smoker for more than 25 years…

Breaking the REactive habit works much the same way: first you must become aware and that, in itself, can be tricky. You see, I once had a very strong REactive habit and not only was I aware of it, I was proud of it! It was perhaps my worst flea. I had the first step down pat, but that second step—acknowledging it was an unhealthy behaviour—was a tough one because I was getting something out of it. You see, we learn a lot of things from our NMs, some of it stuff we don’t realize. What I had absorbed from my NM was that taking responsibility (“blame”) was foolish if you could find a way to make it someone else’s fault. Like NM, I had a volatile temper and I could rationalize it, excuse it, by making it someone else’s fault. I was merely reacting to something someone else did or said, therefore I wasn’t responsible. Without that provocation, I was the nicest person you would want to know, but don’t piss me off (and back then, it didn’t take much to piss me off)! This REactive behaviour wasn’t limited to my temper, either. It pervaded all parts of my life (I told you it was a big flea!)…I literally lived my life in reaction to others.

Some people may get “helplessness” out of their REactive response: NM snarls and you immediately react by becoming subordinate and helpless…you can’t help yourself, you are afraid, you need rescuing, poor you! It becomes OK to be helpless in all facets of your life because the REactive habit with NM bleeds over into the workplace, into relationships with coworkers, lovers, even kids…it is how you become a doormat. You—and only you—can change that by stepping out of REactive behaviour into PROactive behaviour and you do that by taking back your power—by changing how you respond to them.

It took therapy to fix me. When I changed therapists (mine was going overseas), I chose an older woman who was experienced in dealing with abuse survivors, particularly emotional abuse. In our first session she evoked a startling reaction out of me: she said in our work together, I would learn to become strong…and I recoiled in a panic! I did not want to be strong! My mother was strong and I didn’t want to be anything like her! She was so strong she crushed people beneath her heel and I would never, ever want to be like that!

It took some work and it took some time, but eventually I came to realize that not only was my mother not “strong,” she was a bully, but that I was choosing my life in reaction to her…a kind of rebellion, as it were…and in doing so, she was still controlling my life! This was a pivotal discovery: no matter how independent you think you are, if you live your life in reaction to others, you are not in control of your life, they are.

So, the first step is one of awareness, and the second is one of internalizing that living in a reactionary state is not healthy and you must therefore want to change that. What comes next?

Monitoring yourself. Try to have Equal/Equal transactions with people—sales clerks, co-workers, your neighbour. Monitor your emotional response to what they are saying: did you feel defensive or guilty or like you wanted to fix or help the person? Analyze that feeling: did the person actually try to persuade (or even order) you to do something or did you perceive some well-meant advice or suggestion as a command? Did the person really seem to be trying to get you to volunteer to dog sit or mow her lawn or pull her weeds, or did you perceive some friendly neighbour revelations as a manipulative bid to get you to do it for her?

You see, we are hypersensitized to manipulation and may see it were it does not exist. To protect ourselves, many of us have learned to perceive innocuous communication from others as having a manipulative subtext and while this may well be very true of our NMs, it is not true of everybody. And while you have the right to suspect subtext and refuse to fall for it, you do not have the right to be rude or challenging about your refusal. How about an example?

Equal/Equal transaction:
Mrs. Elderly Neighbour: Hello, dear, I haven’t seen you around for a while.
Donna: Hello, Mrs. Neighbour! How have you been?
Mrs. EN: oh, not so good, my dear. Getting old has its price…my poor garden is going to ruin because I can’t pull up those tough weeds any more and the big garden shears…well my shoulders just won’t take it. And then there is Mr. Kitty—I have to go to my sister’s next month and she is allergic to cats and I have no one to care for Mr. Kitty now that my daughter has moved to Timbuktu…
Donna: I’m sorry to hear that. You know, I think my vet has a boarding service where you could leave Mr. Kitty—and I am sure I have seen cards for pet sitters there. Would you like his number? Have you thought about Mr. Next Door’s son? He might enjoy earning a little money by pulling those weeds for you…he mowed my lawn last weekend and did a good job, considering he’s only 12…

Equal/Superior transaction:
Mrs. Elderly Neighbour: Hello, dear, I haven’t seen you around for a while.
Donna: Hello, Mrs. Neighbour! How have you been?
Mrs. EN: oh, not so good, my dear. Getting old has its price…my poor garden is going to ruin because I can’t pull up those tough weeds any more and the big garden shears…well my shoulders just won’t take it. And then there is Mr. Kitty—I have to go to my sister’s next month and she is allergic to cats and I have no one to care for Mr. Kitty now that my daughter has moved to Timbuktu…
Donna: Well, I certainly hope you aren’t hinting that I take that hairy beast into my house and get hair all over everything. And if you can’t keep your yard up, you should be hiring a garden service. Letting your garden go to wrack and ruin just lowers the property values of the neighbourhood. Your garden is not only a mess, but your house needs a good paint job too. You should be ashamed, in an economy like this, lowering the value of everybody’s house on the street because you are too lazy or too cheap to hire it done!

Equal/Subordinate transaction:
Mrs. Elderly Neighbour: Hello, dear, I haven’t seen you around for a while.
Donna: Hello, Mrs. Neighbour! How have you been?
Mrs. EN: oh, not so good, my dear. Getting old has its price…my poor garden is going to ruin because I can’t pull up those tough weeds any more and the big garden shears…well my shoulders just won’t take it. And then there is Mr. Kitty—I have to go to my sister’s next month and she is allergic to cats and I have no one to care for Mr. Kitty now that my daughter has moved to Timbuktu…
Donna: I’m so sorry to hear that. Maybe I could keep Mr. Kitty for you? I’m allergic to cats, too, but I can get some allergy meds from my doctor. I can make some time Saturday and take care of those weeds for you…I think I have a little time between my lunch date and my dental appointment…or I could just cancel the lunch date…no, I’ll cancel the dentist because I’ll be useless after I see him…

In the last two transactions, Donna perceives that Mrs. Elderly Neighbour is trying to manipulate her into providing free pet-sitting and free gardening services when, in fact, Mrs. EN is innocuously answering Donna’s question. In the Equal/Superior transaction, Donna takes umbrage at the perceived demand and takes a Superior position, chastising Mrs. EN for her presumptuousness and then throwing in some criticism for good measure. In the Equal/Subordinate transaction, Donna immediately shifts from Equal to Subordinate as soon as she perceives a demand in Mrs. EN’s innocuous response to her question.

You do this—so do I. We read things into what others say to us. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong, but if we are operative REactively, we are going to be wrong more often that right because we will be reacting to our NMs, seeing them in the innocuous communications of others, and our reaction will be all out of proportion to the situation. This is why you need to monitor your responses to what people say and do around you and try to figure out if you are hearing them—or if the NM in your head has over-ridden what they were really communicating to you.

This can be tough but there is a pretty simple way to handle it—assume that everybody is addressing you in an Equal/Equal way and respond that way. You will soon find out by their reaction to you, if their part of the transaction is Equal or not! If the person takes a Superior position and you reply from an Equal position, neither caving in as a Subordinate nor barking back as a Superior, she’s not going to like your response because she’s not going to be prepared for it. She will be prepared to order your Subordinate self around or the fight your Superior self until she can subordinate you, but she is not going to be prepared for you to take neither position. She can’t win if you do, so she’s not going to like that.

Years ago I worked as the secretary to three Directors of Engineering. Between them, they had a staff of about 70 people. I provided full support to the directors, extremely limited support to their subordinate managers, and none at all to the 60+ engineers. Shortly after I took the position, one of the engineers came up to my desk and dropped a thick stack of papers on my desk, perhaps 30 to 40 pages.

“I need 20 copies of this, collated and stapled, by noon for a meeting,” he said and started to walk away.

“Wait a minute,” I called after him. “I don’t know who you are.”

He came back to my desk and introduced himself as I picked up his stack of papers.

“The copy room is that way,” I said, pointing down the hall with my right hand while I handed the papers back to him with my left. “If you have difficulty with the machines, please let me know and I’ll give you the number for maintenance.”

He looked at me, a bit nonplussed, then annoyed. “Aren’t you the Engineering secretary?” he asked, his voice sharp and stern.

I shook my head. “No,” I said, “I am Mike’s, Mark’s, and Scott’s secretary.” Then I smiled. He thought about that for a few seconds and then took his papers and headed down to the copy room.

Now, I could have lectured him from a Superior position, telling him that I was an executive assistant, thank you very much, or that I couldn’t possibly serve the needs of all of those engineers because I was only one person; I could have accused him of trying to take advantage of my newness in the office to slag off some unpleasant work on me; I could have chewed him up and spit him out, from a Superior position. Or—I could have taken the low-esteem Subordinate position, reasoning that he outranked me because he was an engineer and I was just a lowly secretary, and scurried off to the copy room to do work that he should have been doing for himself. But I took an Equal position and because he had no real response to my calmly stated, information-filled response (No, I am Mike’s, Mark’s, and Scott’s secretary), he not only went to do the work himself, he did not try to treat me as a subordinate again. Not everybody is going to come around so easily, especially people who are used to treating you like a servant or who are accustomed to you rescuing them all of the time. They will continue to use Subordinate or Superior communication in an effort to force you back into the role they are most comfortable with. So you have to be vigilant because with some people, you will fight this battle every single time you talk with them.

The bottom line here is, it doesn’t matter what position another person takes in the transaction, all that matters is the one you take. If you take the Equal position in every transaction, remind yourself throughout the transaction to stay in the Equal position, and refuse to allow yourself to be guilted or bullied back into the Superior or Subordinate position for eight weeks, you will find the Equal position pretty much habituated. Oh, there will be people who continue to disrespect you, who will regularly challenge you and try to push you back into old habits, there will even be a few who never, ever adapt to your new position and who will forever make the effort to control the position you take—remember, you cannot change anyone but yourself—so you’ll have to be a bit more vigilant when dealing with them, but you will have taken back your power and will no longer living your life in reaction to the positions of others.

Welcome to your own life!

Next: You don't have to earn anybody's respect!


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Superior, Subordinate, Equal

I was married to James, a malignant narcissist, for more than 10 years. Like most narcissists, he was a poor excuse for a human being, but he had a way of conning people to his way of seeing things. When he couldn’t bring someone around to his way of thinking with persuasion, NH would do what he called “beating him over the head with data” (inundating the guy in a flood of information, misinformation, facts and lies). If the person still resisted, then he was dismissed as “stupid” and, if the person was superior to him in any way NH viewed as significant (more wealth, better house or car, higher pay grade), resented. Dinner table conversations consisted of listening to him rant about his latest encounter, how this co-worker “sandbagged” him in a meeting or that colleague was out to get him as evidenced by disagreeing with him in front of others. If his boss was in the meeting to witness his humiliation (being disagreed with in private enraged him but in public, in front of a superior, he found it humiliating), NH would be doubly pissed, sometimes actually shaking with suppressed rage and spouting “get even” fantasies that would surely have gotten him fired, if not jailed, had he gone through with them.

Dinner time often consisted of listening to these rages, then talking him down by advancing alternative reasons these people might have had for disagreeing with him…always predicated on the idea that they were not smart enough or devious enough to do what he was accusing them of. Not that I believed these men weren’t smart and capable, but to calm him down, he had to believe it. It was an endless and endlessly exhausting task, talking him down from the ledge every night over dinner, but there were really were times I feared he would “go postal” on someone if he wasn’t brought back to reason before he came face-to-face with those people again.

Over time, listening to the same rants night after night, I began to realize things—to get a reading on his perspective and point of view. He admired his boss, a European man whom NH aped in dress and grooming and managerial style. He absorbed many of the man’s attitudes as well, not such a good thing when you realize that this boss later had his former secretary arrested for grand theft when his wife discovered that he had spent tens of thousands of dollars on her: to cover his tracks, he accused the woman of forging checks. Charges against her were dropped when she sued him and his employer for millions for sexual harassment…great role model, eh? Even when this boss did something monumentally stupid, like sending female sales reps to Saudi Arabia to meet with male clients (one poor woman got arrested by the Religious Police on a prostitution charge for being alone in a hotel room with a man she was not married to, even though they were quite obviously fully clothed and conducting non-sexual business), my NH could find no fault with him. He excused the boss’s mistakes almost indulgently, while he would fly into towering rages over the smallest error someone else made. I found it really puzzling…

And then one day, listening to him rant on about the stupidity and sabotaging behaviour (all in his mind, as far as I could tell) of one of the other managers, it hit me—this man’s world had no peers in it. It consisted exclusively of superiors and subordinates—there were no equals!

Realizing this was huge. Later on, when I applied this insight to other dysfunctional personalities in my life (I still had not heard of narcissism), I found it applied to some of them as well, most notably my NM. You were either her superior or her subordinate, and she had no equals: people were either above her or below here and there were no in-betweens. The people above here were famous or rich or powerful—or all three. They were admired by others—and especially by her—people like Marilyn Monroe, Joan Crawford, Lucille Ball. Who was beneath her? Everybody else.

When your world is broken up this way, “fate” does not decide the status of others, you are the one who assigns superior/subordinate status. In the company he worked for before he met Mr. Suave European boss, NH worked for another European man who was anything but polished. Crude, rude, rapacious, and predatory, he was an uncouth, squatty little man with an ugly personality who delighted in keeping everyone in his company in fear of their jobs. He had no qualms about stiffing a vendor (when I was a recruiter I supplied him with a CFO and even though he hired the man and kept him on board for more than two years, he refused to pay the fee—and when I asked why, he told me he didn’t owe me an explanation!), he had no sense of honour at all. But his ignoble character had made him a rich man and in his eyes, that made it OK. NH hated this guy, not only because he cheated him out of his vacation pay, but because there was nothing in him that other people looked up to…he was universally held in contempt by his peers…there was nothing in him for NH to emulate (he was already just as ruthless and devoid of conscience).

With the contrast of the two bosses and NH’s attitude about his peers—literally, other managers who were in the same pay grade and reported to the same VP he did—I came to the realization that not only did he divide the world up into superiors…people he wanted to emulate, and subordinates…people for whom he had no respect…there was no place in his world for an equal. An equal would be someone he might have to share with. In any competition, he had to win, so he would only compete with subordinates—people who he considered beneath him, people who were supposed to lose, to give it up to him. He did not compete with people he considered his superiors: he emulated and lionized them…and hoped to ride their coattails to wealth, power and glory.

Somehow this all felt a little familiar—not so much in the similarity to my NM kind of familiar, but like I had read or heard something about this before. After a bit of pondering and reflection, it came to me…when I was in training for my recruiting job, we had a psychologist speak to us and he gave us a brief training in Transactional Analysis (TA) and how it explains various communication styles. He also told us how to recognize and more effectively deal with dysfunctional communication styles.

In TA, you basically deal with others from one of three positions: Parent, Adult, Child. I prefer Superior, Equal, Subordinate because they are more descriptive and less likely to be confused with the real positions we hold in life. (For example, your NM is your parent in real life but she may interact with you from the position of a child, casting you in the role of parent. I think it is much less confusing to leave real-world relationships out and say your NM has placed herself in a subordinate position, casting you in the role of superior, dumping all responsibility on you.)

Myself, I lived in a world largely populated by peers—equals. I thought of others as equals, interacted with them as equals. Even people who were above me on the corporate ladder, while their jobs were superior to mine, they were not superior human beings. Additionally, I didn’t see very many people…outside of children…as subordinates, either. It might be germane to point out here that NH had often referred to me as being “very egalitarian” with a note of contempt in his voice that I could never quite fathom…

According to the psychologist, communication with others is a transaction--a two way operation. Both you and the other person assume a “position” in the transaction, and that position is either a superior position, an equal position, or a subordinate position.

Superior—When you yell at someone, you are taking a superior position; if he yells back, so is he.
Equal—When you calmly discuss something with someone, you are taking an equal position; if he engages you in the same calm, reasonable manner, then he is also taking an equal position.
Subordinate— If you interact with someone timorously, fearfully, deferentially, afraid or unwilling to ask for what you want or you try to get them to make decisions for you, you are taking a subordinate position; if the other person also won’t make a decision and behaves as if he is afraid to speak up or be decisive, then that person is also taking a subordinate position.

Additionally, transactions can be Subordinate/Superior, Subordinate/Equal, or Superior/Equal. As I am sure you can guess, an Equal/Equal transaction is the ideal—and it is often the most difficult to achieve.

Look at the graphic on the right and you will see how many different types of transactions are possible. Only the Equal/Equal transaction is a healthy exchange of information between peers. The rest are rife with manipulation and best to be avoided. Unfortunately, that is difficult because people who are stuck in unhealthy communication patterns tend to want to continue them because that is what they know and what works for them…and they can actually, subtly, force you into their dysfunctional patterns despite your best intentions.

Why am I telling you this? Why is this important? Because if you ever hope to get any kind of peace with your NM—or with other dysfunctional people in your life—you need to be able to recognize and then change the kinds of transactions you have with them. You need to be able to spot it when someone is trying to force you into an unhealthy form of communication along with all the baggage that comes with falling for it.

Most common with DoNMs and their NMs, I would think, is the Superior/Subordinate (Parent-Child in TA) transaction. NM sets herself up in one position or the other and will, through her behaviour, try to force you to take the other position. If she sets herself in the Superior, you are expected to take the Subordinate so she can bombard you with messages of how unacceptable you are and then you are expected to take on the baggage that goes with it: guilt, remorse, and attempts to make amends (by doing whatever she wants you to do). I would guess this is the most common transaction between NMs and their daughters.

Some, however, take a Subordinate (Child) position and come across with helplessness, hopelessness, powerlessness, and whiny, rescue-seeking behaviour, casting you in the role of the Superior (Parent) who has to ride to the rescue. If you don’t you are abandoning her and heaped with guilt (both from her and yourself) for it.

When we stand up to an NM, too often we start out trying an Equal position but allow ourselves either to be reduced to a Subordinate status or goaded into taking a Superior position. Two people who try to conduct a transaction with each taking a Superior position are pretty much headed for conflict—you can’t have two bosses operating in the same space without conflict. She tries to tell you what to do, you shout back, telling her to get off your back (telling her what to do), and chaos ensues.

Equally untenable is a transaction in which the people both try to take the Subordinate (Child) status. Nobody wants to make a decision, not even for something as mundane as to where to go for coffee. They may find fault with each other “I never get to choose where we go for coffee…” “Ok, where should we go?” “I dunno…where do you want to go?” Imagine trying to buy furniture, or a house or even groceries when neither person is willing to make up their mind and keeps deferring to the other?

So, what do you do? You start by finding out what an Equal/Equal transaction feels like. This is a situation in which two people treat each other as equals, with respect for the other person’s position and feelings, even if they don’t agree. If there is an issue under discussion, some persuasion may be encountered, but it will be put forth respectfully as an appeal to reason and will not include any implications that you are somehow defective if you persist in your disagreement. The transaction will close as the result of a compromise or an agreement by both parties to agree to disagree. Respect by and for both people involved will be the hallmark of the transaction. When you walk away from a transaction like this, even if you didn’t get all that you wanted out of it (compromise involves giving up something of what you want in order to get some of what you want), you do not walk away feeling beaten down or disrespected, nor do you walk away angry. If you truly had an Equal/Equal transaction, you feel respected by the other party—and respect for the other party—even if you didn’t get what you wanted.

Suppose you walk away from the transaction feeling angry and taken advantage of? Or beaten down and crying? Or guilty? Or victorious, like you got one over on the other guy? Then you did not participate as an Equal. If you felt victorious—or angry that you didn’t get what you wanted—then you participated as a Superior. If you felt defensive or guilty, you participated as a Subordinate.

What is important to realize before we go any further is that the role the other person takes only affects your role if you let it. It is entirely possible to have an Equal/Superior transaction or an Equal/Subordinate transaction. All it takes is not budging from your Equal position no matter what the other party does to provoke you into the Superior or Subordinate position…and yes, I know, this is often easier said than done. How about a few samples?

An Equal/Equal transaction:
Daughter: Mom, I won’t be able to pick you up Saturday to go grocery shopping, something has come up.
Mother: OK, dear, thanks for letting me know in advance. I’ll see if Sue is available—if she’s not, can you make Sunday?

An Equal/Subordinate transaction:
Daughter: Mom, I won’t be able to pick you up Saturday to go grocery shopping, something has come up.
Mother: Oh no! What am I going to do? How am I going to get by? I’m so alone…Saturday is the highlight of my week because I get to see you. How can you do this to me when you know I have no other way to get to the store. Do you want me to starve? What am I supposed to do?

An Equal/Superior transaction:
Daughter: Mom, I won’t be able to pick you up Saturday to go grocery shopping, something has come up.
Mother: Oh no you don’t! You are not going to dump me to go running off doing something frivolous with those lowlife friends of yours! Whatever it is, it can’t be important or you’d tell me what it is. I’m not letting you get away with this—you said you’d be here on Saturdays to take me shopping and that is what you are going to do, do you understand me??

How you respond to Mom’s opening gambit determines the direction the transaction will take. For example:

An Equal/Subordinate transaction derails (1):
Daughter: Mom, I won’t be able to pick you up Saturday to go grocery shopping, something has come up.
Mother: Oh no! What am I going to do? How am I going to get by? I’m so alone…Saturday is the highlight of my week because I get to see you. How can you do this to me when you know I have no other way to get to the store. Do you want me to starve? What am I supposed to do?
Daughter: I’m sorry Mom! Can’t you get Sue to take you?
Mother: Why should I call Sue? YOU promised to do this for me…I can’t bother Sue—what would I tell her ‘Oh, my daughter dropped me at the last minute…’
Daughter: I’m sorry, Mom, but I just can’t make it this time. What about Sunday? Can we go Sunday?
Mother: No, I plan my shopping very carefully and I will be out of things that I need before Sunday. Why are you doing this to me? You said Saturday and I believed you. You don’t want me to go hungry, do you? Or my poor little SammyCat? I can’t believe you would be so unreliable and so thoughtless…

An Equal/Subordinate transaction derails: (2)
Daughter: Mom, I won’t be able to pick you up Saturday to go grocery shopping, something has come up.
Mother: Oh no! What am I going to do? How am I going to get by? I’m so alone…Saturday is the highlight of my week because I get to see you. How can you do this to me when you know I have no other way to get to the store. Do you want me to starve? What am I supposed to do?
Daughter: Dammit, Mom! You can survive one more day until I can get there! I am so sick of you whining and demanding and not appreciating anything I do for you. Maybe I should just let you take care of your shopping without my help, you are an adult, after all, aren’t you?

In both examples, what started as an Equal position on the Daughter’s part became quickly derailed in response to the position taken by the Mother. This is being REactive rather than being PROactive, meaning your mood and your response is a reaction to the other person rather than staying with your own feelings. This is a behaviour pattern that can become habituated (and almost automatic) and it is not healthy—it puts you at the mercy of other people and their moods rather than allowing you to be yourself. It is something we learn as a protective mechanism as children, something we undoubtedly needed to keep us safe when we were little, but we are not little any more, so we have actually outgrown this mechanism and it no longer serves us, we have come to serve it…and our NMs…when we allow ourselves to interact with them as if we were still only five years old and still under their control.

We can find our transactions even more easily derailed if our NM chooses to respond to our Equal opening statement with a hostile or Superior statement because that makes us feel defensive and even people who didn’t grow up under the harsh tutelage of an NM often feel defensive when they feel attacked. Some of us respond to the attack with anger and attack back (we assume a Superior position) but all too often we immediately sink back into the Subordinate position and let NM run roughshod all over us.

It is a fundamental rule of interactions that if you want something to change, you have to change what you are doing. Narcissists deplore change unless it works to their advantage, so any change you want to make in your communication with your NM is going to be fraught with resistance on her part and, depending on her individual characteristics, the resistance can be anywhere from the silent treatment to a whinge-fest to aggressive tactics to “show you who’s boss” and “put you in your place.” But if you want things to change, you have to change how you do things, even in how you communicate with your NM, and not let her manipulate you back to where she has had you all these years.

Next: Superior, Subordinate, Equal Pt 2: DOING it!