Some of the mature defenses also lend themselves readily to the creation of new modes of
relating. For example, the individual using affiliation “deals with emotional conflict or internal
or external stressors by turning to others for help or support. This involves sharing problems
with others but does not imply trying to make someone else responsible for them” (APA, 2000, p.
811). This last distinction is important, as it differentiates this defense from those in which subtle
or overt manipulation of others is central. For example, whereas help-rejecting complaining may
at first appear as affiliation (e.g., a person seeks advice from a friend about a problem), there is
the lack of mutuality and genuine use of support from the other that marks affiliation (e.g., the
friend soon realizes that advice offered is invariably met with a “yes, but . . . ”).
It is clear that the individual using affiliation is well-served by its function as a defense—
anxiety is lessened in the act of sharing and expressing emotional experience with another—but
its use also has the potential to go beyond this function by fostering a new relational experience,
one shared by both parties. Because the user of help-rejecting complaining is not genuinely open
to a mutual exchange, he or she cannot fully “let in” what is offered relationally from the other
party. The more mature defense of affiliation, by contrast, allows the individual to be open to
not only to new ideas about resolving the conflict at hand but also a new relational experience.
Combining affiliation and humor, Viktor Frankl (1984) wrote of his experience in a work
camp:
Some of the mature defenses also lend themselves readily to the creation of new modes ofrelating. For example, the individual using affiliation “deals with emotional conflict or internalor external stressors by turning to others for help or support. This involves sharing problemswith others but does not imply trying to make someone else responsible for them” (APA, 2000, p.811). This last distinction is important, as it differentiates this defense from those in which subtleor overt manipulation of others is central. For example, whereas help-rejecting complaining mayat first appear as affiliation (e.g., a person seeks advice from a friend about a problem), there isthe lack of mutuality and genuine use of support from the other that marks affiliation (e.g., thefriend soon realizes that advice offered is invariably met with a “yes, but . . . ”).It is clear that the individual using affiliation is well-served by its function as a defense—anxiety is lessened in the act of sharing and expressing emotional experience with another—butits use also has the potential to go beyond this function by fostering a new relational experience,one shared by both parties. Because the user of help-rejecting complaining is not genuinely opento a mutual exchange, he or she cannot fully “let in” what is offered relationally from the otherparty. The more mature defense of affiliation, by contrast, allows the individual to be open tonot only to new ideas about resolving the conflict at hand but also a new relational experience.
Combining affiliation and humor, Viktor Frankl (1984) wrote of his experience in a work
camp:
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..