Have you ever read a book that has you questioning your whole personality? Like, there you were, thinking yourself a unique individual, only to have some random author read you for filth?
This happened to me, recently, when I came across the following two books:
For those who haven’t gone as far down the self-help rabbit hole, “fawning” is the most recent addition to the Four Fs of Trauma Response:
* fight
* flight
* freeze
* fawn
Psychologist Pete Walker coined the term, describing it as “a response to a threat by becoming more appealing to the threat.” It’s being submissive and cute, giggling when you actually feel terrified. It’s probably the origin of fundie baby voice.
Fawners disconnect from our own needs to merge with the whims of a more powerful person. It’s a response common in people who grew up in volatile, abusive households. We’re great at reading rooms and terrible at reading ourselves.
Heretic Hereafter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
I’ve known for a long time that fawning was my primary response to stress, but only in reading these books did I realize how pervasive this trauma response was in my behaviors and desires. When I think about my pie-in-the sky dreams about writing, service work, or parenting, at the root of much of it is a desire for approval.
Has fawning become my entire personality? How much of my life is simply following a script I picked up in childhood?
At least I’m not alone in my reliance on autopilot. Recent research estimates that 65% of daily human behavior is performed simply out of habit rather than by conscious choice. Anyone who’s had a loved one with memory loss can testify to how often people repeat the same conversations (and even jokes!) word-for-word.
Even given that habits are a big part of getting through the day, I don’t want my life to be governed by trauma responses. I want to access my “higher self” and choose my behaviors. We could call this living intentionally, which is annoying thing yoga teachers say, but, nonetheless, has moral validity.
If intentionality is the countervailing force to reactivity, maybe “purpose” is the north star that all those intentions are steering towards? Or does the word “purpose” necessitate a creator making each human with one specific job in mind?
I reject the idea that we each have one, singular purpose in life—we’re human beings, not steak knives. But I also know that one tension of being human is that we want to be loved unconditionally AND we also want to be of use to our community.
After all, one thing that’s come up in the “boys are in trouble” discourse during the past few years is how many young men feel useless—our tech-charged consumer culture pushes them towards irresponsibility and pleasure-seeking, but they paradoxically need to feel needed by their communities. We all do!
So, if we’re to take the black-and-white, hellfire god out of the equation, maybe it would look like this:
Purpose = Values (or Ideals) + Being Useful to the Community + Deep Joy
Thoughts?
By the way, I loved reading your comments from last week. You guys are so smart! The big takeaways for me were:
* y’all hate Rick Warren with the fire of a thousand suns
* many of you tend to focus more on living by a set of values than purpose
* I need to read Martin Luther on vocation
As always, I’d love to hear what you think. Do you like my “purpose” equation? How do you orient yourself towards your values? What’s your North Star?
