David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Attachment vs. Detachment: Finding the Psychological Golden Mean
By Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D.
January 15, 2009
Being too detached--or not sufficiently available or responsive to others--represents one pole of the attachment continuum. Over-responsiveness (or excessive relational dependency) defines the other. Here what's impaired isn't our ability to experience the full spectrum of human emotions, but our ability to sufficiently detach from these emotions so we're not totally preoccupied, or consumed, by them. Extremely sensitive to how others see us--in fact, being held so tightly in the grip of external validation that we view ourselves mostly on the basis of how we imagine others view us--constantly threatens our mental and emotional equilibrium. Whereas being excessively detached from others hardly represents a viable solution to the "perils of engagement," at least some detachment is required for us to be firmly centered within ourselves, and so less vulnerable to others' possibly negative reaction to us.
But if we're substantially more attached to others than to ourselves, such disequilibrium inevitably throws us off balance. In allowing others to exert primary influence on our thoughts and feelings, our emotional stability is dependent on how they treat us--or how we think they're treating us. Externally directed to a fault, we're externally controlled as well. Insecure in our all-important relationship to self and so unable to validate ourselves from within, we're too dependent on what others might say to us, or behave toward us.
Unwittingly permitting others to dictate how we feel about ourselves, we can't help but obsess about the impression we're making on others, on how (almost moment-to-moment) they're perceiving us. Unconsciously allowing others to govern how we see ourselves, we're prone to both anxiety and depression. And our marked reactivity to others can make it exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) for us to achieve any peace of mind. Our autonomy, our independence--even our integrity--is fatally compromised whenever our attachment to others becomes so dominant that how we think we're being viewed by them becomes our foremost consideration. For as long as our behaviors are literally controlled by what we think others want from us, we've forfeited the fundamental freedom to be ourselves.
And while our feelings figure--and should figure--prominently in almost all our behaviors, if we're properly centered from within, these feelings won't overcome our better judgment. When we feel inadequate we can be led to give of ourselves indiscriminately and thus compromise our integrity. In such instances, we're liable to end up feeling victimized by those who, never really having earned our trust in the first place, take us for granted and experience not the slightest impulse to reciprocate what we've offered them. Feeling needy and insecure--and therefore anxious to ingratiate ourselves with others (since we're dependent on their validation)--we may take unjustifiable risks or in various ways overextend ourselves.
Psychological balance, which involves identifying that level of emotional commitment to others that doesn't compromise our all-important commitment to ourselves (i.e., doesn't subvert our authenticity or genuineness), exemplifies the golden mean of attachment. Achieving this ideal means that our relationship to others complements the relationship we have with ourselves, and vice versa. As a result of such balance, we're able to have the emotional involvement in the lives of others (and they in ours) that all of us need to feel meaningfully, and rewardingly, connected to the outside world. This optimal level of attachment/detachment alone can provide us with a sense of ourselves as richly connected both to others and ourselves. Our sense of interpersonal "belonging" comforts and enriches us--yet in no way threatens our feelings of independence and self-determination. Paradoxically, we can belong simultaneously to the world outside us and also feel profoundly connected to the world within us.
Not compelled to protect our vulnerability--either through deferring to others and ultimately losing ourselves in relationships, or through avoiding close relationships altogether--we can cultivate intimate relationships while at the same time remaining true to our core values and beliefs. Recognizing and accepting our inborn vulnerabilities, yet able to keep them from controlling our behavior, we don't experience the need to hold intimate relationships at bay to safeguard our inner security. And confident about our ability to be ourselves with others--without, that is, worrying that such spontaneity will come back to haunt us (as it may well have when we were growing up)--we're free to express ourselves without constraint.
When we're appropriately attached to others, we respond to them with equal amounts of reason and emotion. Relational decisions (such as deciding whether to agree to a request) are based on what we (not just the other) need to feel good about ourselves. So when we're giving to another, it's not because we feel we're under the gun--that either we accommodate their desires or face rejection. It's because contributing to another's welfare or enjoyment offers us ample satisfaction as well. Put simply, it feels right to us. It's an expression of who we are. Given what in our nature is nurturing, serving others also serves ourselves. Expressing consideration and compassion enables us to fulfill something essential in us. Paradoxically, we're the ultimate beneficiaries of our kindness. And here, it might be added, the golden mean of attachment actually dovetails with the golden rule.
If our attachments are truly to contribute to our personal contentment and well-being--if they are to address not just the needs of others but ours as well--we need to be become increasingly sensitive to what's driving our behavior. For it's only through the wisdom gained by carefully interpreting our past interactions with others that our head and heart can begin to work synergistically--and help us avoid making relational choices that might leave us feeling either alienated from ourselves or exploited by others. Again, the golden mean of attachment involves being fully (though selectively) there for others without in any way feeling somehow obliged to forsake ourselves. While we certainly need to be sensitive to others' needs, we can never afford to lose sight of our own.
It's only when we're able to sufficiently detach from others, through first becoming whole in ourselves, that we can accurately appraise others' trustworthiness and comfortably decide how much faith to put in them. It's only when we can align our feelings with our rational faculties that we can keep our emotions under control and make decisions that will enable us to relate to others in healthy ways that fulfill our basic need for connection. Our responses may to varying degrees be "shaped" by our feelings but they still stop short of being dictated by them.
At its best, our thinking is not unemotional . . . and our emotions are not unreasonable. And this healthy integration of thought and feeling is what optimal balance is all about. It allows us to think and feel fully--without becoming enslaved by either. On the scale of attachment/detachment, such integration encapsulates the "golden mean."
By Leon F. Seltzer, Ph.D.
January 15, 2009
Being too detached--or not sufficiently available or responsive to others--represents one pole of the attachment continuum. Over-responsiveness (or excessive relational dependency) defines the other. Here what's impaired isn't our ability to experience the full spectrum of human emotions, but our ability to sufficiently detach from these emotions so we're not totally preoccupied, or consumed, by them. Extremely sensitive to how others see us--in fact, being held so tightly in the grip of external validation that we view ourselves mostly on the basis of how we imagine others view us--constantly threatens our mental and emotional equilibrium. Whereas being excessively detached from others hardly represents a viable solution to the "perils of engagement," at least some detachment is required for us to be firmly centered within ourselves, and so less vulnerable to others' possibly negative reaction to us.
But if we're substantially more attached to others than to ourselves, such disequilibrium inevitably throws us off balance. In allowing others to exert primary influence on our thoughts and feelings, our emotional stability is dependent on how they treat us--or how we think they're treating us. Externally directed to a fault, we're externally controlled as well. Insecure in our all-important relationship to self and so unable to validate ourselves from within, we're too dependent on what others might say to us, or behave toward us.
Unwittingly permitting others to dictate how we feel about ourselves, we can't help but obsess about the impression we're making on others, on how (almost moment-to-moment) they're perceiving us. Unconsciously allowing others to govern how we see ourselves, we're prone to both anxiety and depression. And our marked reactivity to others can make it exceedingly difficult (if not impossible) for us to achieve any peace of mind. Our autonomy, our independence--even our integrity--is fatally compromised whenever our attachment to others becomes so dominant that how we think we're being viewed by them becomes our foremost consideration. For as long as our behaviors are literally controlled by what we think others want from us, we've forfeited the fundamental freedom to be ourselves.
And while our feelings figure--and should figure--prominently in almost all our behaviors, if we're properly centered from within, these feelings won't overcome our better judgment. When we feel inadequate we can be led to give of ourselves indiscriminately and thus compromise our integrity. In such instances, we're liable to end up feeling victimized by those who, never really having earned our trust in the first place, take us for granted and experience not the slightest impulse to reciprocate what we've offered them. Feeling needy and insecure--and therefore anxious to ingratiate ourselves with others (since we're dependent on their validation)--we may take unjustifiable risks or in various ways overextend ourselves.
Psychological balance, which involves identifying that level of emotional commitment to others that doesn't compromise our all-important commitment to ourselves (i.e., doesn't subvert our authenticity or genuineness), exemplifies the golden mean of attachment. Achieving this ideal means that our relationship to others complements the relationship we have with ourselves, and vice versa. As a result of such balance, we're able to have the emotional involvement in the lives of others (and they in ours) that all of us need to feel meaningfully, and rewardingly, connected to the outside world. This optimal level of attachment/detachment alone can provide us with a sense of ourselves as richly connected both to others and ourselves. Our sense of interpersonal "belonging" comforts and enriches us--yet in no way threatens our feelings of independence and self-determination. Paradoxically, we can belong simultaneously to the world outside us and also feel profoundly connected to the world within us.
Not compelled to protect our vulnerability--either through deferring to others and ultimately losing ourselves in relationships, or through avoiding close relationships altogether--we can cultivate intimate relationships while at the same time remaining true to our core values and beliefs. Recognizing and accepting our inborn vulnerabilities, yet able to keep them from controlling our behavior, we don't experience the need to hold intimate relationships at bay to safeguard our inner security. And confident about our ability to be ourselves with others--without, that is, worrying that such spontaneity will come back to haunt us (as it may well have when we were growing up)--we're free to express ourselves without constraint.
When we're appropriately attached to others, we respond to them with equal amounts of reason and emotion. Relational decisions (such as deciding whether to agree to a request) are based on what we (not just the other) need to feel good about ourselves. So when we're giving to another, it's not because we feel we're under the gun--that either we accommodate their desires or face rejection. It's because contributing to another's welfare or enjoyment offers us ample satisfaction as well. Put simply, it feels right to us. It's an expression of who we are. Given what in our nature is nurturing, serving others also serves ourselves. Expressing consideration and compassion enables us to fulfill something essential in us. Paradoxically, we're the ultimate beneficiaries of our kindness. And here, it might be added, the golden mean of attachment actually dovetails with the golden rule.
If our attachments are truly to contribute to our personal contentment and well-being--if they are to address not just the needs of others but ours as well--we need to be become increasingly sensitive to what's driving our behavior. For it's only through the wisdom gained by carefully interpreting our past interactions with others that our head and heart can begin to work synergistically--and help us avoid making relational choices that might leave us feeling either alienated from ourselves or exploited by others. Again, the golden mean of attachment involves being fully (though selectively) there for others without in any way feeling somehow obliged to forsake ourselves. While we certainly need to be sensitive to others' needs, we can never afford to lose sight of our own.
It's only when we're able to sufficiently detach from others, through first becoming whole in ourselves, that we can accurately appraise others' trustworthiness and comfortably decide how much faith to put in them. It's only when we can align our feelings with our rational faculties that we can keep our emotions under control and make decisions that will enable us to relate to others in healthy ways that fulfill our basic need for connection. Our responses may to varying degrees be "shaped" by our feelings but they still stop short of being dictated by them.
At its best, our thinking is not unemotional . . . and our emotions are not unreasonable. And this healthy integration of thought and feeling is what optimal balance is all about. It allows us to think and feel fully--without becoming enslaved by either. On the scale of attachment/detachment, such integration encapsulates the "golden mean."
Last edited by a moderator:
