In the last five years, I have been a part of several projects across disciplines, many of which were creative, entrepreneurial, and collaborative. Along the way I entered the therapy field and it has been a haven for me in terms of being in relationship to the inevitable labour. This work feels ever-changing and, perhaps most characteristic of all, requires me, as a person, to be well.
In sessions, openly acknowledging the power dynamics between myself and the patients is part of the work and yields therapeutic material in itself. I find that incredibly liberating as we are actively collaborating by co-creating an environment to address personal and unconscious matters.
I understand collaboration as a democratic act and concept. However, some of the past failed collaborative relationships have left me gasping for solo-ness and with a disorganized attachment to work and working with others. Why does it feel undignified?
I began wondering whether a common reason why those relationships didn’t work out is that I wasn’t willing to give up Power. Power that we all individually need to recognize in ourselves and be seen in. Power not in the domineering sense but that which is inherent to a person. If embodied and relationally encouraged, Power allows for collective resonance and impact, and effective collaboration.
Introducing Power from the attachment perspective
Unlike the capitalist sense of power, which has the following traits:
hierarchical
oppressive
reliant on external validation and attention
in this system, it takes the form of wealth and influence
Power with the capital P is a felt groundedness in a person’s sense of self, which acts as a safe capacity that houses all parts of them. Power is cultivated by strong and compassionate relationships between the self and its parts.
While Power generates and grows relationally (e.g. when we experience a sense of belonging in a community, when we feel connected to the planet at large by spending time in nature), and intrapersonally (within oneself), it is constant and immune to diminution. Though it may not be accessible at all times, it remains.
From an attachment perspective1, one of the ways in which insecure attachment reveals itself in power is in its premise of domination and dependency: “I’m only good when I’m on top. I’m not okay or enough without [insert forms of influence/wealth]."
When we’re in our Power and able to respect others in theirs, we are experiencing secure attachment. As attachment expert Dr. Diane Poole Heller describes, think of it as “‘in the middle’ where you have some yearning to bond but also some comfortable autonomy, and neither one is stressful.”
Let’s put it this way: when I’m in my Power, I walk alongside you and invite you to walk alongside me; I don’t need to walk ahead of you, nor do I tolerate being asked to walk behind you.
The problem with the notion of ownership
I’m coming to understand and accept that those collaborative relationships collapsed because we were committed to being insecurely attached to power. We said we wanted to merge minds, ideas, and capabilities, but we failed to escape centering ownership (over ideas, decision-making power, aka control, areas of expertise, and thus being the authoritative voice).
Ownership is inherently exclusive and capitalist. It operates from a scarcity perspective that there’s a finite amount of whatever you’re trying to own. “If I don’t claim [the idea / executive power / this area of expertise] as mine, it will become theirs.”
Ownership translates to and transforms into power, a reward that gets positively reinforced. When power/wealth/influence is retained, society defines that as success. This is the cycle of capitalism and specifically neoliberalism, sustained by participants (the “subordinated”) who believe themselves to be free.
Byung-Chul Han (2014) argues that overturning the system is impossible today as long as we are participating as the oppressive force and self-exploited entrepreneurs, enthusiastic about using our energy and bodies. He writes, “Restricting freedom quickly provokes resistance. Exploiting freedom does not.”
Approaching this with the understanding of conditioning, capitalism encourages us to obtain the rewards of power/wealth/influence by way of oppressive behaviours directed at ourselves and each other. Such behaviours are reliant on domination and external validation, recognized as a well-adjusted survival mechanism in this culture.
The powerful reward system
Addictions, for many, are an attempt to survive, whereby using or consuming (substances, screen time, mindless behaviours—anything that allows one to dissociate, or simply, to not be here) feels is the only or accessible solution at the time. The endorphins released in the brain offer a reprieve, an “effective” avoidant strategy.
In any environment where power and domination at the expense of another are celebrated and rewarded, seeking and accruing power/wealth/influence, then, is a form of capitalism-induced addiction. It disguises itself as the gold standard of achievement, rather than is recognized—and interacted with—in its toxicity, something that causes (lethal) dependency (more on capitalism-induced addictions later). Wanting, attaining, and using power/wealth/influence, like any other kind of addiction, is a coping response to oppression.
The majority of us have been patterned to be insecurely attached to the “capitalist goods” (again, for survival) and some of us unknowingly have an active addiction to self-exploitation in exchange for power, or simply, a sense of “freedom”. Ergo, capitalism slowly decapitates us.
As we continue to disregard and disconnect from our body’s response to this relationship with the system, ownership will continue to trump community (no matter the buzzy social platitude, which in itself is arguably a system-preserving campaign at times). Han mourns:
“Today, everyone is in competition with everyone else, even within a single enterprise. This universal competition may lead to an enormous increase in productivity, but it destroys solidarity and the sense of community.”
From “Why Revolution is Impossible Today” in Capitalism and the Death Drive
An invitation to grieve
In the capitalist system, power dynamics have secured their place as a normalized part of the structure, especially in the workplace, where we dominate and submit for survival.
The majority of the collaborations I’ve been a part of faltered when one party took ownership of the project and other parties are thought of and treated as employees rather than collaborators. The power dynamics transformed into chess pieces; we shifted from collaboration to negotiation.
“What can you do for me?” feels like what my past collaborators ultimately wanted to say to me. It’s unilateral. It’s exploitative. It’s a quick pro quo. It’s individualistic. It’s capitalistic. It, well, made me very sad.
image from @pingusarcticmemes
When I shared my experiences with others, I saw I’m not isolated in this complicated relationship with working with people. Though not obvious to me at first, its challenges are connected to this intersection we find ourselves here with capitalism, relationships, and mental health.
Working with people is hard. What makes it truly challenging may be the understandable desire for power. Power imbalance exists among and across the hierarchy of intersections. Ultimately, under the capitalist system, power is dominance. Dominance is patriarchal. The structures of power are unequivocally linked, mutually beneficial, defended, and sustained.
Intersecting Axes of Privilege, Domination, and Oppression, from PettyJohn et al. (2020), adapted from Morgan (1996)
It is through acknowledging our location on the axis and in relation to others and the land that this triad of me/we, capitalism, and mental health can be processed. I extend an invitation to you: to peruse, join in, take what you please from here, and expand it into your own internal and immediate landscapes.
How do you know when you’re connected to Power?
Which relationships are you grieving?
If you haven’t begun, how might you like to celebrate, honour, or simply recognize the hopes and expectations you might have had for the relationship(s)?
In our survival, what’s working for you?
Where might you like to make adjustments?
It might look like sharing a discussion with somebody, giving yourself permission to take a nap, taking a reflection prompt into your journaling or creative writing, or not thinking about it again, which would be okay, too.
Thanks for reading.
Note on attachment:
Like many things, attachment is a spectrum rather than fixed categories (the “styles”). Most of us move between different attachment responses depending on the people/subject, while having a dominant attachment style, formed by early and repeated life experiences.
Not only is earned secure attachment attainable, secure attachment moments happen and go unnoticed. From a developmental perspective, insecure attachment is, albeit less than ideal, a form of survival.
If you’re curious, take this quiz on a day when you’re feeling a bit off to understand what your attachment styles might be.