CAN YOU:
NOT DO WHAT YOU WANT NOT TO DO
IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT
THEY WANT YOU NOT TO DO IT?

Vast energy is typical of that age, and growth is built in. What is rebellion but that healthy urge to grow and (sorry) individuate, differentiate. To do that, the young would need to examine, one at a time, all the habits and beliefs that they'd absorbed but had never actually decided to; and then unlearn some of them (a difficult thing at any age). Traditionally, they find it easier to discard everything and fumblingly start over to build their identity. Either way, in Maslow's term, is self-actualizing.

Maslow (read Toward a Psychology of Being) told of the positive expectations that were nurtured in the children of the blackfoot tribe he'd studied. A child tried to get out the door, and though an adult was within arms reach of it, he did not help, and the child evidently had no expectation of help. So the child learned to use leverage or resonance, and got the door open enough to slip out. S/he was not robbed of the opportunity to learn, and took the responsibility for his desires. If you were helped to do something you could've learned by doing, you was robbed!

On the other hand, responsibility without desires yields resentment and/or a lessening of respect. Young women since the sixties have rebelled; now she doesn't tolerate violence or disrespect; she's dumped old roles imposed by people and cultures long dead. Her mother may feel this as a threat to the meaning of her own life, if it shows her that--in her own youth--she could have taken her own permission to design her life in accord with her own desires, not someone else's.

"Could've-beens" are heavy, and awareness of things un-dealt-with can create more stress. This often precedes personal as well as political revolutions. That's not always a bad thing; stress that leads to a needed change can be called eustress (eu = good), as distinct from distress.

Unfortunately, parents have usually tried either to fight their child's unexpected new behavior or take a part of it as their own. Both, as tactics, defeat the purpose of the youngster's behavior,and force him to a further extreme. That purpose is to grow; to differentiate; to strike out and achieve something new as their identity. The purpose is healthy; the direction may be and may not be. This is most evident when some take up the smoke habit, and think they'll look more adult, when the fact is the contrary; that it makes adults look childish! It's so dumb to take the "cure" for nervousness by repeatedly subjecting yourself to the very thing that caused it in the first place! Death is the unhealthiest thing of all; it's nature's way of telling the rest of us not to smoke.

The direction they choose can be made more natural if the parents let go to the greatest degree possible for them--as soon as possible. With firm love, you will not overprotect, not remove the consequences of their actions. Protection does not prove forgiveness; nor forgiveness necessitate protection. No; to understand is the greater part of forgiveness, and to respect is the greater part of love. And kid, go ahead, let yourself be capable, not suppressed or forced to play a role. The real translation of "cool" is "secure". Security can come when you have made those examinations of yourself and made your own decisions about who you want to be.

In microcosm: parents tell kids to brush their teeth all the time. It's not something they want to do, in fact, they want not to do it. You still want not to do it. As an adult, though, you know (strictly with the rational mind) that you'd be better off in the long run. To rephrase: you desire the result of having good teeth that'll go many years without the feel of a drill. So go through the process; rebel against it because they want it. Realize you don't have to. Then realize that you desire the above result, and brush 'em cause you want it. Grow ahead and do it in spite of them!

The problem for parents of a youngster, then, is to express themselves without an attempt at control. Extremely difficult. Control too heavily and they may have to take the "geographical cure": fledge and fly all the way cross-country to escape the reminders that role-regress them. That would be a healthy rebellion for them--a time of change that permits more changes. And when the parents accepted it, it would be growthful for them, too. It might sometimes suffice for the sad lack of a rite of passage in our culture. They may find it easier to treat the new adult differently than the child they'd known. With awareness of the respect he gets and the changes he'll likely go through, a kid will rebel all the same, but rebel against things that deserve it more; and with less wasted energy flying in all directions. S/he'll feel more stable.

The geographical cure, like so many other things, works for cultures and nations as well as individuals. The most vital new cultures and nations in history (U.S., classical Greece) were born of a migration. Rebellion made simple. Easy. Necessary.

If the trip, or any other reaction, was just a counter- rebellion, however, they may not soon realize that they're controlled all the same. Forced to do "X" by a parents desire that they do "Z".

Rebellion is an assertion of a status of decidability, and thus: identity. (PAUSE... It's OK to read that again...)

Rebellion can be seen (& respected) first in a baby's push away of your hand when she wants to do it herself. Older, she'll be frustrated if her ideas are not taken seriously; and frustration leads to anger, which can lead either to productive assertion or to negative aggression. The way she goes depends on what implicit permission she's been given. With enough permission, she'll have positive expectations.

Perhaps the ancient mystery/enigma of women is that even they didn't know who they were--what power they had--after they've been so oppressed away from a healthy rebellion. In that regard, I've noticed a strange statistic: much fewer women than men can whistle! Why would that be? I doubt very much that there's any significant physical difference. (The differences in genitals are simply like those of belly buttons: some are innies and some are outies!) Could it be that women have just felt more suppressed in their modes of expression? I'd like to see a study of the current teen-aged women for comparison with those of thirty years ago.

As I recall, 19 was once the age when a boy was considered mature; when most were strong enough to carry a lance aboard a horse, plus a year to practice. Girls, of course, were different. A girl was a woman when she was given into virtual slavery to said boy. You notice that, in the old days, the man asked for marriage, the woman just said yes or no. He made his first big decision just as she made her last!

Mark Twain told a story of a young man, let's make him 19, who thought his father stupid. The young man then went away to college for some years, and when he returned was amazed at how much the old man had learned in that time! Apparently, the young man had outgrown his "Make-Wrong". And that, psychologically speaking, is maturity, my friend. It may come in any degree and at any time in life, if ever.

If a parent who was always thought of as omniscient is caught in an error or strong difference with the child, the child will then question all of the opinions of the parent. "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"; an over-reaction that turns out to be healthy. Naturally, the parent will be judged incompetent, insane, and just totally wrong! This flight overboard can be very educational, very motivating, very productive of growth. Of course, it can also be a handy excuse to not try; to wallow in defensive blind blame. "Make Wrong" can also be a painful habit to carry into life and marriage; ask any battered wife!

The young will naturally compare the parent's behavior not with their own, but with the behavior of the ideal self they expect soon to be! No fair! It's healthy for them, but in this, the parent is at an enormous disadvantage and, in fact, can't win. Extreme honesty and disgust at hypocrisy are common young ideals. (the latter belief lives longer.) Over-rebellion in this healthy direction, however, could lead him to give up and join the "enemy". It's bad enough that these ideals seem to fade, despite the best intentions of every generation in their turn. Still, they are vital as examples, so their elders can see, remember, and perhaps rejuvenate some of their own faded ideals.

The more important part of honesty as the best policy is that it requires integration of your beliefs, ideals and behavior. What you make public--you've obligated yourself to; but only might have committed yourself to. (remember, committments are desires, and so are free to change). If you face things that bravely, you light a clear and simple path to growth and integrity.

Few people (parents, for instance...) become completely frozen in their growth just because a baby (you, for instance...) is born. They will continue to change and grow all their lives. We finally begin to notice that they are not quite frozen in time, immutable. When we were very young, we were the only ones that went through any changes. We saw adults day after day, and it seemed they didn't change a bit. It's an "obvious revelation" to see that they're just people, too.

In the 1970's, many 50's people grew into the 60's, though late enough not to bother the younger people. Much. But it forced them to lose that particular rebellion-style. Too bad; much of it was good.

It's best for society when anyone's rebellion is against immorality, inhumanity, greed, and other unethical behavior. This "new age" consciousness seems to come in cycles. The peaks in this century came in the 1910's, 1930's, and 1960's. Between the peaks are the pits, of course, but these are necessary to give the next generation something to climb from.

Right now, the generation is mostly in two camps; with punks and money-grubbers at the extremes, neither likely to achieve much personal happiness or real pride. We may observe from the past that so often, those men of the most material means were often the ones of the least personal means. They often painfully lacked in personality or warmth. Yet, let us not feel this too critically; had we been born at the same time, we'd have been influenced by exactly the same things. Partly, you are who you've been influenced to be. Perhaps we or they were born on the "border" of two ages, or between two camps. That can add even more confusion to a tough time. I've been there...

At this point, I find myself with a thought I'm a bit embarassed to go into. To coin a word for it, I'll call it Psycho-Darwinism, as there are unfortunate parallels to the Social Darwinism of the last century. If I may define relative weakness as: those more violent, and less educated or aware; then if weak or strong offspring tend to chose like mates, each creates, in their direction, a more extreme environment for their children. I hesitate to advocate the position, but feel there must often be considerable truth to it. If the tendency does not exist, then there are still those times when it happens anyway, and the young are pushed up or down beyond the norm.

I have hopes for the 2000's, when concern for human values may top even the 90's, the 80's doldrums die, and a fresh breeze blow again. Another small renaissance--which, with a sweep of the pendulum, will pass in it's turn.... Can we doubt that Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Madison and Monroe were the product of one of the highest of those peaks of rebellion? They were very young men at the time and had held on to that precious gift of youth: idealism. Yet it was mixed with such wisdom they seem beyond--even above their years.

Peace is a form of wisdom most adults eventually learn, so it's handy for most young to rebel against. From Jefferson's socio-political revolution, Roosevelt's social reform, and Kennedy's inspiration to true greatness, each dominant age peaks a lot of people at once, which leaves us a much greater percentage of "pits" in the next generation! Then, barring new influences, we produce a small peak again as the children of the pits rebel in turn.

Rebellion is a healthy thing, else we would have little progress in our cultural evolution. We first notice that children really rebel around the start of their teen years. This is, not coincidentally, the age of puberty: 12-15. The free, fun-lovin' children become puberty-striken adolescents who can't really believe that others went thru the same thing, or that they'll have kids who'll say it to them. They believe parents to be an accident of birth, or even a birth defect! Extremity is one of their few options of power. Some, in time, will learn that if you put out enough crap, some of it's bound to hit the fan!

And yet the value of their rebellion is enormous, for themselves as well as for society. It's worth cleaning up around that fan. So many of our values are pre-digested, that few have actually been felt or examined for truth. Without those fresh examinations, society would be more likely to stagnate under a dictatorship. It's well worth the mistakes that go with it. Viva la rebellion.

What was your rebellion? Honestly, now.... Religion, politics, sex, technology, hot cars, money or lack of it, weird clothes, cigarettes, even illness(!)? The important thing for some seems to be that it's necessary for parents to be unable to understand, or even to be repulsed. Some simply feel the need to rebel. To strike out on your own can be very exciting. (If you thought "scary" there, experiment. Call it "exciting". The two feelings are similar, aren't they?)

Would you chose the same rebellion again now? You may need to catch up, finish, or perhaps even start your rebellion! What would be the healthiest rebellion you could chose if you had it to do now? Stop a while and think /feel about it. And perhaps you'll dream of it soon.

The next thing you can do is to realize that the rebellion you would chose now, is one that you can chose to do. Now!

Some older folks I knew had a farm during the depression. Naturally, they had chickens. Chickens get lice. She told about how awful it was to reach under a hen to slip out an egg. That was before DDT, so they had to make do with other remedies.

They'd go to the store and buy a tiny bottle of Sulphate of Nicotine --a tobacco extract-- and paint a long line on the bottom of each roost in the henhouse. She said that just the fumes coming off the nicotine would kill all the lice for weeks!

I got clear on the role the subconscious takes in changing a smoke-habit when several clients each went through the process of cutting down in stages. We'd gone for total cessation, but their subconscious chose to rest at a plateau for a while. In fact, when this happens with long-term smokers, the plateau may last a long time. One went six or seven months. Curiously, the plateau is at such a low level, you'd expect that it would be easy to go just a little further and quit altogether. One client was smoking just one per workday. That's one cigarette, not one pack. He never had more than that, and easily had none on week- ends, when there was no reminder around him. He was very upset that he "couldn't" get rid of that small a habit after having smoked 2-3 packs a day for forty years. He felt fine at that level, but got nervous if he tried to quit entirely. That was a big hint. It was psychological, not physical.

It took a lot of explaining and reassurance that it was all right to let it take its course.

"Don't fight it. It's your security blanket while you change not only your body's chemical balance, but your label of 'smoker'; which is to say: your identity!"

"I dream of inhaling smoke, and feel that if I never smoke again, I can't handle it. It wakes me up."

"I notice you say you dream of 'inhaling smoke', not 'smoking'. What picture would you draw of a desirable end to that dream?"

"To turn away without any desire. To walk away feelin' good."

"As a gestalt, how does the smoke in your dream feel about you?"

"As a loser."

"Great. Now you can rebel."

In a scene from another client's dream, she was feeling that "since nobody loved me, I'd have a cigarette." The subconscious showed how ridiculous that was by making the cigarette 10" thick! It's surprising how often suicidal ideation comes up around cigarettes. Some of those people even realize it. I'd also like to see statistics on the percentage of agoraphobics that smoke, as relative to the percentage of the general population.

Inhaling smoke has been just a crazy accident of culture, it's not an original definition of 'you'. It's just that you've labeled yourself so long and hard that it feels organic by now. Ironically but typically, people label themselves as smokers the hardest just when they're trying to force themselves to quit. You can see that force implies an internal war; one part of yourself pushing another. That other part will then feel a natural rebellion, and feel that its habit was a real desire, and therefore that a change would be a loss of identity! The opposite is the case, of course, but how do we get that through to the subconscious?

Trust your natural tendency towards health, and be patient. You're cautiously trying the identity on for size. You are naturally and biologically an air-breather. Like an early adolescent, you're playing that role for a while until you deeply realize that that's the real you anyway. A tree that gets poison on its leaves will drop off those leaves and grow new ones. You're cutting off what was part of yourself. So right now, patience and trust in yourself are the most important things."