Viewing a Relationship from the Outside

   In Anna Karenina, Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910) stated that “every family is happy in its own way and every family is unhappy in its own way.” 1 This is a very true statement.  It is very difficult for people to understand a family or a marital relationship from the outside. 
    It is not uncommon for people to see a couple and wonder, “Why are they together?” A variety of things bring two people together.  In some cases it is love, in some cases it is money, and in some cases it is a connection which no one else may ever understand. 
   The topic of relationships has been written about by numerous people and has been examined from various standpoints, such as anthropology, religion, culture, and others.  Relationships is one of the main themes in Ivanov, a play by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860-1904) which was first produced in 1887 at the Korsh Theater in Moscow. 
   The basic premise of the play is quite simple.  Nikolai Ivanov is a young estate-owner, heavily in debt, especially to Zinaida Lebedev, the wife of the head of the District Council. Ivanov used to be energetic, creative, and unconventional, the "star" of the local gentry. He married for love--a Jewish woman, Anna, whose parents disowned her after she converted to Russian Orthodoxy in order to marry Nikolai. Anna is totally devoted to him; however, Ivanov is suffering from profound depression.
    It seems to him that all his good ideas (like building a school for the poor) were for naught and he has become a "superfluous man." He spends every evening socializing at the Lebedev estate, even though he knows how this hurts his wife. Doctor Lvov, Anna's physician, is a humorless and terminally sincere young man who has no insight into Ivanov's depression.
   One night Anna gets fed up and follows her husband to the Lebedev house, where she discovers Ivanov kissing the Lebedevs' daughter, Sasha, who is hopelessly in love with Ivanov, although he doesn't reciprocate her affection. Some weeks later Anna's illness (tuberculosis) has gotten worse. Lvov condemns Ivanov for his lack of concern regarding Anna’s health.  The doctor suggests that Ivanov sent Anna to Crimea in order to get the help she needs, but he refuses to pay for the trip because he owes money to several people. After Anna dies, Ivanov and Sasha are set to be married, but at the last minute he cannot go through with it. At the end of the play Ivanov is confronted by several people who challenge him to a duel because they believe that he is marrying Sasha for the sole reason that he can get her dowry.  Instead of dueling, he retrieves a gun from one of his serfs and commits suicide. 2
    Looking at this relationship between Anna and Ivanov, it is difficult for us to understand how he can have such little regard for her health.  We do not know what is going on between them so we come to the conclusion that he is a cold and uncaring man.  However, we must keep in mind that his depression would make it difficult to think about anyone, but himself. 
    Had he married Sasha, it is possible that he would not be the same way with her as he was with Anna.  Severe depression makes it difficult for someone to enter into a healthy relationship; however, if the right person comes along he or she can be a wonderful source of support which can encourage the depressed person to get the help they need.
    This is a very challenging play since it speaks to us on many levels.  Not only is the play dealing with the relationship between Anna and Ivanov and eventually between Ivanov and Sasha, it is also a deeply political play which is addressing many of the issues which were facing low level bureaucrats in late 19th Century Russia.  The issue of bureaucracy was also discussed by Nikolai Gogol (1809-1852) and various other authors. 
    As with all Russian plays or stories, the use of surnames, especially men’s names, is very important.  The fact that Chekov chose the name “Ivanov” for his main character is significant.  Ivanov is the most popular surname in Russia and Ukraine, so there is a strong indication that Chekov was speaking to everyone, not use a chosen few.  In 1939, Frank Capra (1897-1991) produced a film entitled Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 3 which starred James Stewart (1908-1997) as the main character.  This film dealt with the impact of one man on American politics.  The name “Smith” is as popular in the US as “Ivanov” is in Russia and Ukraine.
    Relationships are always difficult to write about; however, Chekov does a wonderful job of giving us insight into this particular relationship.  If someone was writing a play or story about your relationship, what would they say?  You might be surprised to read what an outsider would say about your relationship. 
                                                       End Notes
1) "Anna Karenina" http://www.literature.org/authors/tolstoy-leo/anna-karenina/part-01/chapter-01.html (accesse 5/24/12)
2) “Ivanov” http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1139 (accessed 5/24/12)
3) “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Smith_Goes_to_Washington  (accessed 5/24/12)

Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt

   The title of the article comes from the song, “Sixteen Tons”, which tells the story of an American coal miner and was made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford.  This song was written in 1946 and what was true just after World War II among the American coal miners is true now among many other aspects of society.  As a consumerist society, the United States actually encourages people to go into debt as a way of helping to support our economy.  In fact, it would not be untrue to say that someone could easily qualify as un-American if they do not go into debt. 
   Going into debt is not normally done because of basic necessities, such as food, but because we have been encouraged to believe that we need to keep buying things in order to be happy.  If a person has any doubt about that, simply watch any television station on any evening and more time will be devoted to commercials than to the actual shows. 
    With every passing year it appears that the middle class is getting smaller and smaller.  I would not be surprised if one day the middle class will disappear altogether.  If you visit almost any suburban area you will see one shopping center after another where all the same products are sold.  This is not a new development.  In the 1960s, there was a song entitled “Big Yellow Taxi” which accurately describes this situation. 
    The demise of the middle class is certainly not a new problem.  This issue was addressed by Anton Chekov (1860-1904) in his play The Cherry Orchard.  This is rather unique because there “main character” is actually the orchard instead of any particular person and there is no character that could be considered a villain.  The main person in the play is Madame Ranevskaya who owns the estate where the orchard is located.
   Madame Ranevskaya is part of the old aristocracy in Russia which has now fallen on hard times.  Her financial situation has given her two options. She can sell her estate and allow new houses to be built on the property or allow it to be taken away by the bank.  Even though she would like to maintain her estate, she realizes this is not possible and either way the orchard will disappear.  Her way of dealing with this is to spend seven years in Western Europe so she does not have to face the situation.  She is also dealing with the fact that her marriage had failed and her son had drowned in the pond on the estate.1 
    Another character was Leonid Andreieveitch Gayev, Madame Ranevshaya’s brother. He is more of a comedic character than his sister.  He is addicted to billiards and cannot engage in conversation without talking about it.  His sister has no husband.  One died and the other one continued to manipulate her even after their marriage failed, so she comes to rely upon Leonid.  However, he still considers himself to be a ‘man of leisure’, so he is not really able to help his sister because he has no idea how to deal with this. He is a not a bad person, he is simply clueless about what is happening around him.
     Next we meet Yermolai Alexeievitch Lopakhin, a merchant. Lopakhin is by far the richest character in the play, but comes from the lowest social class. This contrast defines his character: he is enjoying living the high life, but at the same time is uncomfortably conscious of his low beginnings and obsession with business. He is often portrayed as an unpleasant character because of his greedy tendencies and ultimate betrayal of the Gayev family, there is nothing in the play to suggest this. He works strenuously to help the Gayevs, but to no avail. Lopakhin can be understood as representing the new middle class in Russia; one of many threats to the old aristocratic way of doing things.2 It is this new middle class who will receive the benefit of turning the estate into a housing development. 
    Firs is the manservant who has been with the family for generations.  He is almost 90 years old and remembers the days of Russian serfdom.  An aging eccentric, Firs considers the emancipation of the Russian serfs to be a disaster, and talks nostalgically of the old days, when everybody admired their masters and owners, such as Gayev's parents and grandparents. He can be understood as a supporter of the Slavophile movement and appears to be rather lost in this new society.  In Firs, we can see the decline of the old order.
    Ultimately the cherry orchard is sold and the family leaves the house to be torn down. The orchard is chopped down and sold for the firewood. Chekhov does an amazing job of presenting the different emotions and motivating factors of the characters and, in the end, it seems as though he is making the point that society will progress and change will occur regardless of what the individual might desire or try to hold on to. All of his characters have their personal desires and idiosyncrasies, but they cannot change the fact that Russia is undergoing drastic change. All of the characters are being buffeted by the tide of change, but they can control their future by the attitude with which they view the future.3
     What Chekov wrote about Russia in the 19th Century is also true in the United States in the 21st Century.  Family farms in the US are becoming a thing of the past. The land is worth an enormous amount of money as the farmer sinks deeper and deeper into debt.  His land is sold to a real estate developer who will build another shopping  mall (which we certainly do not need), a housing development where every home looks like every other home, or some “McMansions” (enormous homes which are so expensive to maintain that many people find it difficult to furnish them).  Could this really be considered progress?
   This does not have to be the future of modern society, but if things are going to change it is essential that we bring about this change.  We certainly can control our attitude about the future, but this does not mean that we should simply allow things to remain the same if we can do something to change it. 
   The Cherry Orchard was Chekov’s last play.  He is certainly an example of a classic Russian author since this plays speaks to countless generations and can be read numerous times with different insights being gained with each new reading.
                                                           End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 77
2) “The Cherry Orchard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry_Orchard
3) “Symbolism in The Cherry Orchard: Chekov’s Russia” http://bewhuebner.hubpages.com/hub/symbolism-in-the-cherry-orchard-chekhovs-russia  

The Forging of Relationships

   The building of a relationship between two people is always an interesting development.  Two people come together and enter into a relationship for a variety of reasons.  When do we begin to build relationships?  The truth is that we begin to forge relationships at a very early age, beginning with the relationship we have with our parents and, most particularly, with our mother (whether biological or adopted). 

    New research from the University of Reading in England says that children, especially boys, who have insecure attachments to their mothers in the early years have more behavior problems later in childhood.

    An analysis by Pasco Fearon Ph.D., from the School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, looked at 69 studies involving almost 6,000 children aged 12 and younger.
    The quality of the relationship between children and their parents is important to children's development, but past research on the link between attachment and development has been inconsistent. The volume, range, and diversity of earlier studies made it difficult to get a clear picture. However, this new analysis has been able to pull together evidence from past research to answer a number of scientific questions around attachment.
    According to attachment theory, children with secure attachments expect and receive support and comfort from their care givers. In contrast, children with insecure attachments have requests discouraged, rejected, or responded to inconsistently, which is thought to make them vulnerable to developing behavioral problems.¹
    It is in our earliest developmental stage that we begin to learn how to develop relationships, a quality which remains with us for the rest of our lives.  The bonding, or lack thereof, between a mother and her child can have a profound impact on this person’s ability to forge lasting relationships due to a lack of trust. While it might be true that a mother instinctively loves her child, it is not necessarily true that a mother instinctively bonds with her child. 
   While such psychological inquiries involve the relationship between adolescent children and their mothers, there are very few, if any, long term studies of the relationship between mothers and their adult sons. 
   Men are more likely to confess to a predilection for pornography than admit to a close relationship with their mother. There isn’t much left that the modern man is made to feel ashamed of, yet confessing to your friends that you sometimes call your mom for a chat is something few do. Even though a man’s mother is likely to be the second most important woman in his life, even though he may have deep feelings of love for her, this is a relationship about which men are sheepish, secretive and often outright embarrassed.
   Why are men ashamed to be seen being kind to their mothers? Cultural pressure is a factor. On film or television, if you see a man talking to his mother, or (heaven forbid) listening to her advice, you are probably watching a comedy, and the conversation will be the screenwriter’s way of letting you know this is the kind of guy you can push around. But is there something more complicated at work here? And how do mothers feel about their sons’ reticence? There is only one person to ask: my mother.
   I called her up. She is pleased to hear from me. Of course she is – she is my mother. When I explain why I am calling, she tells me that she is, at that moment, listening to a radio dramatization of Anthony Powell’s A Dance to the Music of Time, in which the arch-creep Widmerpool is always talking about his mother.
   “Isn’t this very hard on mothers and unfair?” I ask her. She responds by reminding me that she is a woman as well as a mother, and every woman knows that there is something unhealthy and unattractive about a man who is too close to his mother. As a mother of boys, you know that your job is to prepare them to be handed on, she tells me. You know that you harm them by keeping them too close for too long. “I was constantly torn between not being overinvolved and not seeming indifferent,” she tells me. “It’s a hard balance to strike, and you never know when you’re getting it wrong. I still don’t know.” ²
    This issue was addressed by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860-1904) in his short story entitled The Bishop.  In the cathedral a distinguished bishop (Pyotr) is conducting the liturgy on the Eve of Palm Sunday. Among the hordes of people who come to the altar to receive palm branches, the bishop sees an elderly peasant woman who resembles his own mother. He drives home to the monastery feeling extremely fatigued (he has been ill for three days) and learns that, indeed, the peasant woman was his mother, who had unexpectedly made the long journey from her village to see her famous son.
   The next day the bishop dines with his mother and his naughty niece (Katya). Suddenly, after the meal, the bishop becomes gravely ill with typhoid. Yet over the next few days he travels around conducting Holy Week Services. Toward the end of the week, he begins to hemorrhage. He reviews the events of his life as his mother sits by his bed. Just before Easter arrives, he dies. As time goes on, the bishop is forgotten, except by his mother. ³
   Here one is taken into the personal thoughts and concerns of the bishop as he struggles with the psychological effects of “feeling distant” from his mother. While such distance might be understood as a sign of “respect” which she gives him due to his position, he perceives it rather it terms of “loneliness”.  She is comfortable with other people, but not with him. ⁴
   This person is not only an adult, but an Orthodox bishop; however, in regard to his relationship to his mother none of this makes any difference.  There is no way for anyone to understand the relationship between two people from the “outside” which is true of any relationship. 
   Even though Bishop Pyotr feels a certain way about his relationship with his mother, it appears that his mother had a much different feeling about the same relationship.  It did not take long after Bishop Pyotr died before people began to forget about him.  Life moves on and the people now have a new bishop.  However, he was remembered by his mother.  Ideally there should be no stronger bond than the bond between a mother and her child.  However, this is not true in every case.
   In Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy wrote "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."  Unhappiness is not a requirement for family life. The most important thing is that parents should begin to establish a relationship with their child(ren) as quickly as possible which will have a life-long benefit for both them and their children.  If no bonding takes place between a mother and her child it will have a negative impact on the child’s ability to bond with anyone in the future.  The forging of a positive relationship at an early age has long term benefits for everyone involved. 

                                                     End Notes

      1)    “Mother Son Relationship Key to Emotional Development” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100325093124.htm (3/29/10) Accessed 10/8/11. 

2)    “Men and their Mothers.  What’s it all about?” http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article3778942.ece  (4/27/08) Accessed 10/8/11.

3)    “The Bishop by Anton P. Chekov” http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1043 (Accessed 10/8/11). 

4)    Rodney J. Hunter (ed.) Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling (TN: Abingdon Press, 1990), p. 164

The Gift of Forgiveness

   It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that there is someone reading this article who has not been hurt by a friend or loved one at some point in their life.  Some of these painful acts on the part of the other person may be the result of thoughtlessness and others may have been deliberate.  Either way it is important that the person who was hurt forgive the person who hurt them.  This act of forgiveness is emotionally beneficial to the person offering the forgiveness regardless of whether the other person is willing to apologize or not.

   Before discussing why it is important for the person who was hurt to offer forgiveness, it is necessary to discuss what is meant by forgiveness.  Generally, forgiveness is a decision to let go of resentment and thoughts of revenge. The act that hurt or offended you may always remain a part of your life, but forgiveness can lessen its grip on you and help you focus on other, more positive parts of your life. Forgiveness can even lead to feelings of understanding, empathy, and compassion for the one who hurt you.

   Forgiveness does not mean that you deny the other person's responsibility for hurting you and it does not minimize or justify the wrong. You can forgive the person without excusing the act. Forgiveness brings a kind of peace that helps you go on with life. ¹

     In addition to giving a person peace of mind to help them go on with their life, it also has certain other benefits as well, such as, healthier relationships, greater spiritual and psychological well-being, less stress and hostility, lower blood pressure, fewer symptoms of depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, and a lower risk of alcohol and substance abuse.

    One of the challenges in regard to offering forgiveness is that it is often connected with “forgetting”.   How many times has it been said, “Forgive and forget”?  The first act is an act of the will, but the second act is not.  It is impossible to control whether or not one forgets what has happened.  Even if it is possible to consciously put such events out of your mind, it is impossible to control your subconscious mind.  While those who make the statement, “Forgive and forget” may be well intentioned, the reality is that such a statement actually blames the person who has been hurt for feeling the way that they do because he or she “cannot simply move on with their life and forget.”  Therefore, this person is being victimized once again. 

    Forgiveness can be challenging. It may be particularly difficult to forgive someone who does not admit wrong or does not speak of his or her sorrow. If you find yourself stuck, it may help to write in a journal, pray or use guided meditation. You may want to talk with a person you have found to be wise and compassionate, such as a spiritual leader, a mental health provider, or an unbiased family member or friend. You may also want to reflect on times you have hurt others and on those who have forgiven you. Keep in mind that forgiveness has the potential to increase your sense of integrity, peace and overall well-being.

   The issue of forgiveness has been written about in The Bible and various other sources.  One of those sources is The Letter by Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860-1904).  In this novel, the aged Father Anastasy, on the Eve of Easter, overstays his visit with the younger Father Fyodor (the ‘dean’ of the parishes in that district) this is a most inappropriate time for such a visit.  However, along with Deacon Liubinov, Father Anastasy struggles to work out a “family problem” and seeks help from the more refined Father Fyodor.   With his help, the widowed deacon writes a stern letter to his son, but later, convinced by the elder priest to ‘forgive’. The deacon, in a paradoxical and comical post-script to his letter, shows Christian compassion for his wayward son, thus undermining the sternness which he wished to project at the outset of the letter. ²

   One of the suggestions for helping with forgiveness is the idea of speaking with someone that you believe to be wise.  While the Eve of Easter is a very busy time, especially for both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (with their strong liturgical traditions), the timing is very appropriate.  The Season of Easter is a season of forgiveness. 

    Forgiveness is very important gift for the person who has been hurt because it is cathartic.  It relieves the burden of having to walk around with feelings or anger or resentment.  These feelings can destroy a person emotionally.  Even if the person who is being forgiven never acknowledges any wrongdoing or even knows that he or she has been forgiven, it is beneficial to the person who was hurt to offer forgiveness.  It is a gift which you can give to yourself that will benefit you for many years to come.

                             

                                                  End Notes

1)         “Forgiveness: Letting Go of Grudges and Bitterness” http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/forgiveness/MH00131

2)         Rodney J. Hunter (ed.) Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling (TN: Abingdon Press, 1990), p. 164