— Parents or close people set certain expectations for their children, or for other close people. And they think they know what is right for them. And perhaps from this come advice and recommendations that, in response, very often trigger such negativity and irritation. Is that expectation or not?
— Today we will approach the answer to this question with a broad message.
It’s important to understand right away that a person wants to feel ownership of something in their life. And when parents declare, “I’m the parent!”—first and foremost this is an expression of a certain ownership of another person. In fact, it’s like slavery: a person shows that they are the one who points the way, that they must be obeyed without question. Even though there was no such agreement, and we didn’t sign any contract like that.
Naturally, there are different peoples, religions, forms of agreement in different countries with specific rules. Yet we see how many conflicts arise on the topic of daughters or sons not agreeing with what is happening in the family. For example, when parents say that there are countries where children must give all their money to their parents; there are countries where a husband for a daughter is chosen by the parents; there are families where the child’s future is strictly determined: what sport they should do, what profession they should have, which clubs they should attend, what they should be like at school, down to whom they should associate with. An enormous number of films have been made about this, and all of this primarily stems from a person feeling their property. Everyone must be very clearly aware of this.
Some people will not like my words, and they will react: “No, Alexander, what do you mean? That’s not slavery.” This is slavery! This is the desire to own a person, to point them to a path—in some role. There are parents—full-fledged slave owners—and there are gentler and simpler ones, but they remain the same.
Next—why does a person do this? Basically, a person feels ownership and a more significant, higher position over another—just as bosses at work often feel this way; in a family, a husband feels a higher position over a wife, or the other way around; a wealthier person feels a more significant position over others, and others are belittled and feel a lower position. Of course, a person knows that this is their child, and they can hand out instructions to them—they have done so all their life.
Take your life: you were given a lot of instructions in life. I am your brother, and I saw many examples where it seemed to me that you were acting or making decisions not of your own free will, but under the instructions of your parents.
Another aspect is that sometimes you seemed to make some decisions not exactly under your parents’ instructions, but because you were afraid of harming them or were afraid that they would perceive it somehow the wrong way, not understand. I probably did many such things too, but with you I always saw it. Maybe I’m wrong, but from the outside it seemed that way to me. We can assume that they built such a position of upbringing and transmitted the idea that they know how it should be. Since, after all, in growing up parents have the right, for example, to clearly restrict or permit certain actions—where the parent, religion, country consider it right or wrong. But parents restrict a child in many aspects, and they develop possessiveness.
The thing is, it’s also important to understand whether I have possessiveness—toward my children, toward my subordinates, toward my wife, toward the people around me. Do I have it or not? You should always give yourself an internal report on that. How do you truly relate to a person? Do you consider them an absolutely independent person? Your question is not about changing the parents, but a reflection on understanding what is happening on that side, and building for yourself a chain of calm perception when interacting with people with whom it’s hard to be (in this case, with relatives).
How do I find a solution for myself by which I will react adequately around relatives? And here we come to the point of what “adequately” means. The fact is that you gave examples from the parents’ point of view, when they are wrong. But there is also the opposite situation in which you cannot be around relatives because it seems to you that they are wrong. Why does the opinion form that they are wrong? For the very same reason.
Most children—99%—in the modern world are deceived in their upbringing: by parents, neighbors, at school. They are told: “To get a job you have to graduate from a university,” “to earn well you have to work very hard,” “to have a good wife or husband you have to do certain things,” and so on. They are delivered a whole set of aspects that often do not coincide with reality. They are told: “To be healthy, you need to do this action.” A person does it—and gets sick; or a person performs the action—and something else happens to them. A person feels a state of deception. A teacher will tell them one thing, they go to another class, and there another teacher tells something completely different. On television—endless deception, constant manipulation. “There will be no war”—it happens. “There will be no earthquakes”—they happen. “We know how to treat absolutely all diseases”—then new diseases appear, whose treatment no one knows.
A lot happens in places where a child is in a state of deception. And, of course, the maximum concentration for a child in terms of deception falls on the parent. Why? Because parents feel that they own this child, try to instruct them, persuade them of the correctness of their actions, project and outline the plan of their life, which doesn’t align with a huge number of different things, while preserving the desire for possessiveness and ownership. This is—possessiveness and ownership.
An example. When a person dies—people cry. For the most part they cry because of how hard it will be for them without this person. Someone says: “I’m not crying because of that, but because this person will not get a long stretch of life: they won’t see grandchildren, great-grandchildren, won’t travel to other countries.” Who told you that this person wanted to see grandchildren and great-grandchildren and to travel to certain countries?
This very often arises in the interaction between child and parent. I am by no means saying that all parents are monsters. I am saying that these things are very manifest in the social world—states of love and states of possessiveness arise simultaneously. And your reaction to your parents and to many relatives is automatically projected because of this.
I had an interesting case. In 2010 I made the decision to move to Moscow, and in the same year our dad died. One relative says to me: “Sasha, you can’t do that, whom are you leaving Mom to, the house, who will look after all this?” Where did such thoughts arise in this person? Did he discuss in detail with Mom the patterns of her perception, the details of life; did he discuss with me why I made such a choice—what basis lies in it, what difficulties or ease exist? The person saw an external problem that theoretically arises in another person and decided to project it onto me. Although, in theory, he should have said: “You’re taking such a strong action! You have a small child, your father died—you’re moving to another country to a new job, to a new life, to new housing. You have one mother left, with whom you’ve been used to communicating all your life. Of course it will be very hard for you. I wish you the strength to preserve the opportunity to work well and to preserve respect in the family, with your wife, with your child, so that you can continue to live in a calm attitude, in acceptance of your father’s death, in order to learn to preserve and develop your relationship with your mother. And to have the strength and opportunity to help where you consider necessary, and we will help where we consider necessary.” Probably in such circumstances the conversation would be adequate in terms of perception.
It turns out that they immediately created a story for me in which I owe someone something (in this case, to Mom)—I don’t understand this and I no longer want to do it. I know a huge number of people who live with their parents in the next building entrance and see them once a year or once in five years. People don’t call their parents, don’t meet with them, and don’t discuss anything.
And there is a sense of possessiveness. When I was moving to the USA, I periodically heard phrases about people moving to other countries: “So you are leaving your country, it gave you so much, you should be grateful to it.” I lived 27 years in Minsk, where I was born, and 12 years in Moscow. I always ask in response: “Who said that I owe anyone anything?” Maybe the country owes me, because I created many projects, I worked, I paid a huge amount of taxes, I always helped, I treated the people who live there and the country with respect. I always tried to bring a lot, I did a lot. So maybe the country owes me, and not I? Did I have any agreements with it that I must? Where did those agreements come from? It’s clear that there are formal agreements in terms of the laws or citizenship of certain countries. But it’s one thing—I “sign up” for certain obligations in a conscious age, another—I “signed up” for them by birth. I certainly didn’t know about them. I’m not sure I agree with many things. Another point is that there is the law. I am a person who abides by the law and am not going to violate it. But it doesn’t say there that I do not have the right to move to another country. Therefore, who said that I must? If I must, then write it into the Constitution.
And here an interesting aspect arises. Why do people even transmit this? Why do they say it? Why do they try to prove that you owe someone? The very fact of debt is very interesting. We are approaching one of the most important things from the point of view of reasoning in this article—whether parents owe the child, and vice versa. Who owes whom? Do parents have to raise the child and support them all their life? Or should parents not raise the child, and the child should then support the parents all their life? Or is there some “mix”?
You and I had a conversation with our close friend. She said that in America it is customary for the bride’s parents to pay for the wedding. I smiled—I have two daughters and two sons. And the friend asked how I would act in such a situation. I said that it’s absurd to discuss it now: “At the moment nothing is happening, it’s possible that my child will never get married; anything can happen, they may not want to have a wedding”—here the question is, do I have the right to insist on something. And if they want to—here arises the moment that it is my right: to make a decision whether I want to pay. It’s the right of the family, of the husband and wife, of the people who are discussing it and making a decision. It is the parents’ right—to pay or not, and not their obligation, even if it is customary in society.
And I am also interested in hearing this from the point of view of society. By which law should I act? Belarusian, Russian, American? Should I mix them simultaneously? Should I pay or not pay everywhere at the same time? Because in Belarus, it seems, the groom’s parents pay for the wedding. And in modern society it’s very hard to talk about this, because some people can be fabulously rich, and other people can be poor. So what does that mean? Or someone says that it should be paid equally. And what if it’s clear that people cannot do this? I, for example, in my life would like to try to discuss this normally with my daughter or son, with the groom or the bride, with the parents, if this question arises. If on the other side the parents disagree, then I am further entitled to make my own decision—the one that I consider needs to be made.
In general, parents are no different from any people who impose exactly the same rules. The question is in the reaction to what the parents say, how we hear it. I have a close friend who has a very good relationship with her mother. At the same time, she doesn’t listen to her mother on serious matters. In some small things she will heed her opinion.
— A question came up for me. You said that there is a lot of possessiveness in relationships. Is there also fear here? Do people behave like this toward their children or close ones out of fear? In the example with the relative who highlighted for you how difficult or not difficult, good or bad it is to leave, leaving your mother alone—isn’t there in such a moment their own fear, which they shift onto another person?
— Of course, there is one’s own fear. I moved twice in my life. When I was leaving for America, people started voicing their fears and thoughts: “There are some strange people living there, it’s dirty, housing is expensive, it’s hard to find a job,” “what will you eat, where will you live?” and so on. People project their fears. And of course, the person was projecting fear, on the one hand. On the other — he was still projecting a sense of ownership, his stance, his perception of who owes whom.
One of the fundamental constructs to figure out is: who owes what to whom. As soon as you sort out this situation—everything becomes absolutely clear.
— So who owes what to whom?
— First and foremost, no one owes anyone anything. There are basic things in terms of debt—if you took money on loan and you have a note—yes; if you promised, for the sake of which the person did it. There are adequate agreements. Why can I easily say that no one owes anyone anything? Someone might think that I’m voicing the harshest egoism. No, because I will add the following phrase: “Next, you live and act humanely—as a person out of love for another.” This is very important. Within the framework of love for another person, if this is your mother, you interact with her, you understand that this is the person who gave you life, that this is the person with whom you are incredibly strongly connected, or it is also your father, and you are incredibly strongly connected with him. These are your close people with whom you are, you treat them first and foremost humanely.
As soon as the question of who owes whom arises—this is both a task and a solution at the same time. What should you do? You should immediately say to yourself: “The first thing I will do is begin to treat people humanely. And then I will make a decision based on my own perception.” Everyone has different perception. Someone wants to see their parents every three days, and someone—once in three years; someone wants to see aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, and for someone it turned out in life that they didn’t see them and will not see them. That is a separate topic for discussion.
But the most important thing is to treat people humanely. Because if a person meets with their parents only because such a task was given in coaching, then this will not solve any problem. It is important to meet with parents because the person knows: this is true, humane, out of love for this person; it is compassion for the person, it comes from the heart. And, for example, you call your mother, father, brother or sister, with whom you have not spoken for a long time—and you do it out of love.
I know that sometimes, to “shake up” such a system—you need to carry out a coaching assignment. By virtue of my circle of communication (and it is not small) I knew many people, when during a meeting I saw: this person met with me because they were given such an assignment. I repeatedly saw people, including among my former partners, who apologized to me for their actions because they were given such an assignment in coaching. You know what’s most interesting? After that, nothing changed.
Can a coaching assignment trigger the resonance of the heart, love, virtue? Truly, that you will treat a person with compassion and apologize? Then it happens that you don’t need to apologize.
— Are you saying that very often a person treats this very superficially, just like some task, without living it through?
— That’s not true, not superficially. They treat it responsibly, but they cannot transmit love to another person. They cannot truly forgive them. They ask for forgiveness not because it is true—they have not realized it. And many people communicate with their parents because they have not realized this, therefore parents behave that way as well. I stated the thought at the very beginning that our task today is not to change the parents. Our task is to find the key to the solution. And that is the key to the solution.