A beautiful excellent pupil falls in love with a "one hundred percent sweet" gentle bastard and at close range does not notice the modest guy who adores her. The husband leaves a caring and loving wife for a fatal bitch. We love those who don't love us since the days of Shakespeare. Why? In ancient times, they did not bother looking for reasons: the will of the gods and that's it. However, even now, many people accuse the villainess of fate and insidious providence of unrequited love. We will look for reasons in human psychology.
Where did the iceberg come from?
- “And you are as cold as an iceberg in the ocean,” the once popular singer sang. When in a couple one person is burning with feelings, and the other is emotionally cold, one wants to compare the latter with an iceberg, says Lyubov Zayeva, a specialist of the European Confederation of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. - In the neutral version, he is alienated, and the loving object only has to contemplate his coldness. But there is also an extreme, when a person-"iceberg" becomes literally dangerous for the one who loves, since his chilling coldness can injure, destroy, cause pain. Why doesn't the one who suffers leave this relationship? How do you get into such a trap relationship? Why are people-"icebergs" often so attractive? Psychoanalysis contributed to the search for answers to these questions.
According to the teachings of Freud and his followers, the roots of any internal conflict lie in early childhood. It is there that scenarios, schemes are laid according to which the history of any person will develop in the future. A huge number of people choose a frustrating object for their partners, that is, constantly not giving, refusing something, precisely because their parents once treated them in this way.
The birth of children is initially associated with some idealistic ideas about a smiling toddler who will definitely make their mom and dad happy. In reality, it turns out that this baby needs to be given a lot, it is necessary to bear a great burden of responsibility, to deny oneself in many ways, to take an examination for emotional maturity, to learn something every day. If the mother of the baby is depressed or internally infantile, her resources for another, new little man are not enough. Her warmth is barely enough to maintain her own emotional balance, so the baby becomes a threat to her like an “extra mouth”. The child cannot be kicked out, but you can, say, not notice his needs, ignore them, not fill him with your warmth. Such a child is like an Eskimo, for whom cold, frustration is a natural habitat, something familiar, dear. "Iceberg" for him is like a representative of his tribe. In the minds of such a child, from early childhood, something like this program settles: "If I am good, patient, obedient, then the heart of the one I love will gradually melt, and I will get my share of love."
Years, decades pass, and this program continues to guide. First, such a person needs to find a cold object in the crowd, and then unconsciously participate in the creation of an emotionally dependent relationship, where everything depends, of course, on the will of a significant cold object.Like a once cold mother, the “iceberg” partner will cover up his inability to be warm, to love with accusations, regrets, devaluation of the partner depending on him (“Now, if you …, then I would love you more, but such (uyu), how are you, how can you love? "). It is impossible to warm a cold object with your libido, to make it loving and earn its love, just as it was once impossible to resurrect a sensually emotionally cold mother. It turns out, as in the myth of Sisyphus. But in the case of unrequited love, this is not about punishment. Rather, it is an attempt at internal self-healing of mental wounds that were received sometime in childhood. What if it works out? What if a miracle happens? But the miracle doesn't happen. Moreover, if an iceberg gets into heat, it disappears, it melts. This can sometimes happen with a cold object. He exists in such a relationship only in this role. A warm object may no longer be so inviting, not so sexually attractive. It just gets boring.
In addition, many people, due to hidden scenarios, persistently seek relationships in which their role as an unfortunate victim of love would remain. In this case, the object can be an "iceberg" only in their subjective psychic reality. This is the very case when "I love you precisely because you do not love me, but someone else." And again we are talking about secret mechanisms-processes in our psyche, which at all costs need to preserve the scenario that developed in early childhood - “love the one who cannot love you”. Unrequited love in this case becomes the very nourishing ambrosia. Without knowing it, suffering, people just throw "fuel" into the mouth of their unconscious scenarios.
Breaking, stopping, masochistic, addictive scenarios is not easy. This requires painstaking inner work on yourself. Only then our I, having stumbled upon a cold object, having felt the emptiness of a frustrating relationship, will be able to go around the “iceberg”, save ourselves from colliding with it, redirect our libido to a more harmonious and suitable object for creating strong relationships.
The famous Petersburg psychotherapist-psychoanalyst Dmitry Olshansky considers him the key in posing our question:
- The question "Why do we love those who do not love us?" can be put on a par with the questions "Why did all the swing-roundabouts burn out?" or "Why do all men eat toadstools?" It is not so much the logical error inherent in the question that is interesting, but the very form of the question and the one who asks it. We are attracted here not by the act of utterance (containing an erroneous judgment), but by the subject of the act of utterance. Why is he interested in this? Why is he asking us about this? Why is he asking us specifically? What is the desire of the person asking this question?
Let's think about what we can say about this subject. Let's start from the beginning: firstly, the questioner extrapolates such a private and purely individual feeling as love to a certain community and speaks of love in the plural - “we love”. Who are we? And what kind of love are we talking about? Perhaps it is some kind of collective love that gathers and unites a certain community (for example, love within the church)? Or we are talking about a group of people selected for one specific criterion (for example, the love of blind people). In this case, the question becomes sociological. Obviously, the questioner views love as a collective feeling addressed from "us" to "them."
Secondly, he talks about unrequited love: "we love those who do not love us." Moreover, the questioner does not consider a specific case: “why he (a) does not love me, while I loved (a),” namely (1) group relationships and (2) stable relationships. The subject means a certain pattern of the situation: they say, we always love those who will never answer us why? It assumes a certain obligatory character of unrequited love and a pessimistic scenario.In this case, the question requires clarification: on the basis of what observations or research did the questioner come to the conclusion that we love those who do not love us? What data from the collective history of “us” suggests that not a single fact of reciprocal love on the part of “them” has ever happened? What are the predictions that "they" in the future may still show reciprocal love towards "us"? The refinements are statistical in nature.
Finally, note that the statement begins with the word "why?" That is, the author is asking a question. Who is he asking it to? Obviously, he is asking it to someone who knows the answer. But where is this knower? Does he belong to a group of people who love unrequitedly, or to a group that does not reciprocate, or does he take a neutral position. Depending on this, the answer will be different. Thus, the theorem splits into three lemmas, and the question can be reformulated in three ways: 1. You and I love them, but they don’t, why?
2. We love you, and you do not reciprocate with us, why?
3. We love them, but they do not, but you know better from the outside, why?
The respondent (or the subject of supposed knowledge) can be in any of these three positions, therefore, and he can answer in three different ways:
Option 1. As a part of our community, I am well aware of the quality and nature of our love for them, so I can draw conclusions why we do not receive the same love in return. For example, a believer could say: “As a Christian, I know very well what it is like to love your enemies, and I perfectly understand why they do not reciprocate with us, because the grace of God did not visit their hearts, did not fill them with the light of forgiveness and world love. therefore their hearts remained as strong as the walls of Babylon. But I continue to love them."
Option 2. I, being a recipient of your love, perfectly understand and know what it is, but I do not feel a reciprocal feeling and can explain why.
For example, an atheist could answer: “Being an atheist, I perfectly understand your blind faith in the dogma of forgiveness and love for enemies, but the light of reason, the logic of history and the heights of Darwinism do not allow me to merge with you in a single impulse. I sincerely hate you."
Option 3. I, being a neutral and disinterested person, know what love is, I observe the passage of its signal from point A to point B, but I do not observe the return of the impulse.
For example, a psychologist might comment: “As a psychologist, I know what love really is, unlike everyone else who is stuck in their infantile complexes. So, many people love to suffer, so they find themselves a father figure in the person of God and love someone who will never answer them, because they are simply afraid of serious adult genital relationships. And other people, knowing about their love, deliberately use them and mock them, thus getting latent or explicit sadistic pleasure. Both are pathologies associated with early trauma in the anal phase of development. To get rid of them and learn to love in an adult and genital way, you need to call me and sign up for my training."
Thus, we have three options for answering the question: "Why do we love those who do not love us?" Which way of answering is preferable depends on the desire of the questioner.
She is the reason for unrequited love, according to psychologist-psychotherapist Olga Lapteva:
- The reasons for choosing an object of love from those who do not love you, in my opinion, are rooted in deep childhood, when the child's self-esteem is formed under the influence of significant adults. It has long been no secret for those interested in popular psychology that the world is a mirror: what's inside is outside. That is, to put it simply, under the influence of certain conditions in a person in childhood, a number of complexes, fears, and claims to oneself are formed.As a consequence, this “bouquet” creates low self-esteem when a person is confident in his “unworthiness”. I put this word in quotation marks, since this idea of oneself has little to do with reality. And according to the “law of the mirror,” such an individual is inevitable and, sadly, unconsciously will look for a partner for someone who will not love him, since he does not love himself. This is a pattern. And it is even more sad that over the years such a choice becomes stable, and a person can hardly imagine that there could be other, healthier and happier forms of relations with the opposite sex. What is the solution if you are no longer satisfied with this state of affairs? Take full responsibility for your choice of partners and start working on yourself.
Which of these opinions is closer to you - decide for yourself.