The past is never a closed chapter. It regularly speaks a word, even though we are not aware of it. It may be a direction in which we should look for the solution to a communication problem. The past that asserts itself in customs, traditions, philosophy of life, loyalties and family histories. Our lives, our actions and communications are so steeped in our past that this is often anything but explicit. Not for others and not for ourselves.
Loyalties
past as historiography
The past is always present in the here and now influence. Whether this comes to the surface depends on whether the difference in the meaning of facts or events is noticed.
- Invisible: During her first week at work, Marjolein becomes confused because Marja bluntly expresses her appreciation. Later, Marja asks Marjolein if she has little self-confidence; she is so closed,shy. Marjolein does not consider herself shy at all and is sure that she has enough confidence. When she asks for an explanation, Marja explains that Marjolein reacted very surprised to her compliments.
- Visible: Then Marjolein understands: she is not used to receiving compliments. At school she was only told when things weren’t going well, if things were going well that was self-evident, wasn’t that how it should be? Before it was said, Marja gave more and more compliments to give Marjolein more self-confidence and Marjolein became more and more confused. In this way they influence each other because they seek the explanation of each other’s behavior in personal qualities or character traits.
Substantive loyalty
Certain behavior may in itself be incomprehensible. It only becomes understandable within the context of, for example, family traditions, social class, philosophy of life, school, work, etc. (loyalty). These manners are not always explicit.
Apparent apostate behavior
Your current behavior is based on your past. This makes it difficult for the other person to interpret if the behavior at first glance no longer has anything to do with the past or is even the opposite of it. At a substantive level one could speak of disloyal behavior, while at a professional level one could speak of loyal behavior:
Jeroen did not succeed in his studies even though he is intelligent enough. He becomes a truck driver. His father (son of a worker) was a notary, his mother a doctor, his sister a psychologist. It may be that Jeroen unconsciously stands up for his worker grandfather and resists arrivistes in his own way.
Conflicts: then and now
One can get caught between apparently irreconcilable orders, such as between vertical loyalties (family of origin) and horizontal loyalties (partners, colleagues, sisters, brothers):
- Ronald and Inge live together and have invited friends of Inge. One of the friends opens up about his problems. Inge responds by asking questions and showing understanding. Ronald remains silent. After they leave, Inge asks, annoyed, whether Ronald doesn’t like her friends. He denies. The friends come less often. Inge attributes this to Ronald’s ‘inhospitable’ and ‘disinterested’ attitude. Ronald insists: Inge’s friends are welcome.
- What is the case? Inge comes from a family where everyone could go with their problems. Ronald has always learned that it shows inappropriate curiosity to respond to and interfere with other people’s problems. For personal matters you should be with your partner or family.
Loyalty problems can only exist as ‘differences’ if those involved can see them in their family contexts. Each family wants the best for the other in its own way. However, the variants/shapes can vary so much that it is difficult or impossible to see what lies behind them.
Conflicts ‘now and now’
- Many people go to great lengths to spend enough time on their family during a period of overwork and to show solidarity with their colleagues.
- Many people find the weekend too short to maintain contact with friends and do household chores.
- Many care providers are familiar with the tension that arises when clients complain about bad experiences with fellow care providers.
These ‘situations’ cannot simply be resolved or simply be a matter of making choices. You can draw boundaries if:
- it is recognized how difficult it is to make a choice and
- it is realized that disappointments are inherent to living/working together.
Limits
The past is more than just family history: An is switching from the welfare sector to the profit sector . After three months she is exhausted; according to her, due to stress at work. An ex-colleague reminds her that the workload was at least as high in her old job. Then An realizes that she is ashamed because she wrote off the humanity in her old job for a higher salary. She misses the advantages of her previous work. That cheers her up. She thought she had difficulty adapting to her new job because of her upbringing.
Determinism
History is only one element in the larger context. Beware of determinism! Because that puts you in the cause-and-effect diagram (linear train of thought). The question is not: what happened in the past to make this person behave this way? But , can the history of people and loyalties somewhat contextualize / give meaning to the current influences and the course of the event?
The advantage of the circular principle of explanation is that it frees us from strict determinism.
People can only take stock when they realize that the past has many sides, depending on how you view it. This view can change through communication here and now. (To deal with your history means to give everything a place, both good and bad experiences.)
Social view
- Tom would like to visit his patients by bicycle. Yet he uses the car because he is afraid of not being taken seriously.
- Teresa lives in a ‘nice neighborhood’. The lawn is cleaned and mowed weekly. When a friend unexpectedly finds her there, she says: ,How bourgeois you have become!,
There is a conflict of loyalty here. You cannot always choose, that is only possible if you have a strong sense of belonging to a group and being loyal to it. History also plays a role in this.
The compelling nature of loyalties can invite leniency: the realization that ‘change’ is and remains a difficult process.