Inner Work Notes

Blog

  • Stay Until I Fall Asleep: The Fear That Never Grew Up

    “Stay with me until I fall asleep. That’s all.” I hear some version of that constantly from people who keep falling in love too hard, too fast. It sounds like a small ask, and on the surface it is. A few minutes. A warm body in the room. Nothing promised, nothing signed.

    Then the light goes off. You lie down and, for no reason you can name, something behind your ribs turns cold. It feels as if you would be all right if only someone were with you, so you reach for the phone and scroll for anyone still awake. You stop on the name of a person you know abuses you. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Tonight none of that matters. If that person will only come and be with you, the night becomes bearable.

    This isn’t poor judgment. It isn’t judgment at all. What is making the choice is a fear from infancy, from long before you could judge anyone.

    Grown on the outside, unfinished on the inside

    Here is how I understand falling in love too hard, too fast, over and over. Psychologically, someone who loves like this has not yet been fully born as a person. Their body was born, but inside they never finished separating from their mother (or whoever first cared for them) and standing on their own as a separate self.

    After physical birth, a child gradually learns, “I am a separate person, and I remain myself even when my caregiver is not beside me.” This is not one event. It grows out of an experience repeated many times: the child moves a little away, gets upset, comes back to the caregiver, and finds that nothing has been lost. The caregiver is still there, and the child is still the same child.

    When that process is left unfinished, the body still grows up and the person learns to do adult things, but being apart from someone can still feel like a danger to life itself. When a partner is away, it doesn’t feel like ordinary distance. It brings back the old terror of a small child left without the one person who keeps them alive.

    I kept wondering what that would feel like from the inside. What is it actually like in the mind of an adult who was never fully born as a self?

    Fairbairn, a psychoanalyst who laid the groundwork for object relations theory (the study of how our earliest relationships go on shaping the way we relate to people), described how the self splits when a child’s early needs keep going unmet. One part functions: it goes to work, keeps appointments, and talks normally at lunch. Another part is still waiting for what it needed as a child and never got. Split like this, the self never comes together as one whole “me.” That is why a capable adult can still feel unsure who they are and live in constant fear of being left.

    If you never developed a stable inner sense of being held and protected, you have no memory of safety to draw on when someone leaves. You may know in your head that you can cope, but your body has never learned, through experience, that people who go away come back.

    And life does what life does: it doesn’t go your way, and it doesn’t tell you what’s coming. You have to live in it day after day, not knowing who you are, empty inside, afraid underneath, with nothing solid at your back.

    Everyone fears being left. This is not that.

    A bit of worry about being dropped is normal, and everyone has some. Do they actually like me, or are they just being polite? Nobody gets through a month without a version of that thought, and it means nothing.

    What I’m describing is a different animal. Anxiety is far too small a word for it. This is closer to terror, and at some moments it becomes panic, a state you simply cannot get through on your own.

    That terror is what sits under the late-night call to the person who hurts you.

    Letting go costs more than staying

    When being apart from someone sets off terror, stopping the terror becomes more urgent than judging the other person’s character. That is why you may call someone who has abused you even while knowing exactly what they will do.

    So it stops mattering to you that this person abuses you, or that they have no love to give you. If they will be there beside you, that is enough. Who they are, and how they treat you, stops being the question. The people who love you look on and cannot understand why you stay. But you are not holding on because the person is good. You are holding on because the moment you let go, the full terror comes down on you at once.

    Out of sight, gone

    A second problem is tangled up with this fear of being left.

    Somewhere in a decent childhood, a child builds a quiet certainty that the people they love do not stop existing when they leave the room: “Mom is in the kitchen. I can’t see her, but she’s still there.” Psychoanalysts call this object constancy; in their language, an “object” is a person we are attached to. Once you have it, you never notice you have it.

    Without object constancy, a person who is out of sight feels gone. Your adult mind may know that they still exist and may come back tomorrow, but your feelings react as though the relationship has ended for good. That is why facts like “they’ll be back tomorrow” often do nothing to calm the body.

    Because what you can’t see feels gone, the request I began with comes out so specific, and so small. While someone is in the room, you can see that they are still there. Just stay until I fall asleep — that’s the whole thing. Not forever, not a promise, not a ring. Stay in the room until my eyes close.

    The dark is not the problem

    I hear this one constantly, too: “I can’t sleep by myself. Lying there alone is unbearable.”

    Ask who that fear belongs to. It belongs to a baby alone in a dark room, when the one person keeping it alive is not there. It is not the dark that frightens the baby; it is being alone in it. For something that small, that is the end of the world — and there’s nothing irrational about it. A baby has no reasoning to fall back on, only the bare fact of being alone.

    Some adults still feel exactly this fear, at full strength, in their twenties, thirties, forties and fifties. Picture a woman in her forties lying alone in the dark and feeling what that baby feels. The fear never grew up with the rest of her.

    So the people around her are baffled. “Just go to sleep,” they say, not unkindly. But for her, those hours alone in the dark come close to panic. What she wants isn’t complicated: somebody warm, with their arms around her.

    Auditioning people to fill a hole

    One person to be there with you. That is the entire requirement, so you go looking, and you will use whatever works.

    You fish for attention in places you don’t even want it. You post something you know will get a reply. You answer the message from someone you’d already written off. You leave a door open to a person you would never pick in daylight. If someone seems likely to accept you and stay by your side, who they are stops mattering.

    It shapes the big decisions too. Most people choosing a partner to build a life with ask about the life they would share. What do we both want? Could I stand to grow old next to this person? When this fear is in charge, those questions never get asked. Only one question counts: can this person take away the empty, low feeling of being alone? Somebody can fail every other test and still pass that one.

    The child on the station floor

    There is also a flat, emptied-out feeling that comes over you when you are alone. It comes from the same place as the terror: the separation from your first caregiver that was never finished. Your sense of who you are never came together as one whole. Without a stable sense that you are still yourself when nobody else is there, being alone can feel like losing yourself. Having someone beside you can make a night of terror bearable, but it does not make this feeling go away, because what is missing is inside you.

    Here’s the picture I keep coming back to. A packed station at rush hour. A very small child has lost the adult they came in with. They’re sitting on the floor screaming while strangers step around them.

    The child can’t reason it out. All the child knows is that the one person who keeps them alive is not here. From down there on the floor, the world has ended, and it stays ended.

    That child’s despair and fear are what fill these nights. The station scene is more than a comparison. The same despair and fear are carried whole into a grown body that gets up and goes to work in the morning.

    The fear belongs to a baby, not to the adult you are now

    Tonight the light will go off and the cold feeling in your chest will arrive on schedule. Before your hand finds the phone, stay where you are for a moment and ask what is really frightening you. It is not that there is no one to hold on to. It is that a small child who was once left alone is still sitting inside you.

    This fear comes from a very early stage of life, so adult reasoning does not reach it. Telling yourself, “This is ridiculous; I should be able to sleep alone,” only adds shame; it does not make you any safer. Instead, respond the way you would to a frightened child. Put into words what is happening. Notice the fear in your body and let it be there, without running from it. And do not put your safety in the hands of whoever answers the phone first.

    If these nights have started to bring thoughts of hurting yourself, tell a doctor instead of carrying that alone.

    The station is still loud, the child is still down on the floor, and strangers keep stepping around them. That child is the one sitting inside you. Instead of going out to find just anyone, sit down on the floor beside that child.

    References

    • Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. London: Tavistock. — the central ego (the part of the self that goes on functioning) and the splitting of the self.
    • Mahler, M. S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books. — separation from the first caregiver, and object constancy.
    • Masterson, J. F. (1976). Psychotherapy of the Borderline Adult. New York: Brunner/Mazel. — abandonment depression: the flat, emptied-out feeling that comes when you are alone.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Why the Loudest Person in the Room Feels Empty at Home

    You were the loudest one at the table — the biggest laugh, the widest eyes, the gasp that turned heads two tables over. And you meant every bit of it, which is the part that confuses you later.

    Then you got home. Keys in the bowl, coat still on, and somewhere between the car and the kitchen the whole thing drained out of you. The quiet had a sound to it.

    Not sad. Not upset. Flat — as if somebody had reached behind you and pulled the plug out of the wall.

    If you know that drop, this is about the drop, and about what it might be trying to tell you.

    Does a big personality mean a big inner life?

    Some people run at a higher volume than the rest of us. Wide gestures. A voice that swings from a whisper to a shout inside one story. Reactions a size or two bigger than the moment called for. It shows up in men and women alike, and not only in how they talk — the whole body goes up a size with it.

    We keep a kind phrase on hand for them. We say they feel things deeply, and most of the time we mean it warmly.

    Maybe they do. But there is a second question. Is the big expression coming from a feeling that is already there? Or is the person using a louder voice, bigger gestures and other people’s reactions to stir up a feeling they cannot hold on to by themselves? From the next chair you cannot tell the two apart. The difference shows up afterward: one person stays emotionally steady, while the other goes numb as soon as the talk, the laughter and the attention stop.

    What could all that brightness be covering?

    Psychoanalysis explains this kind of liveliness in a way that surprises most people the first time they hear it. When liveliness runs this high, it is best understood as the person stirring themselves up to cancel out a feeling of deadness underneath. Deadness here means a numbness inside: the sense of not being alive, of not quite existing.

    In everyday life it looks like this. The person talks faster, laughs harder, tells one more story and watches the room respond, because each time the room reacts, they feel something again, if only for a moment.

    Read that again, and this time picture yourself as that person, not someone else. The claim isn’t that the liveliness is fake. It’s that the liveliness has a job to do, and the job is to keep you from noticing the numbness underneath.

    Why would anyone need to shake themselves awake?

    Think about a leg that has gone to sleep under you. You press it, knock it against the chair, stamp it on the floor until the pins and needles arrive — and pins and needles hurt, and you want them anyway, because numb is worse than pain. Numb makes the leg feel like it belongs to somebody else.

    Some people live with emotional numbness. Ordinary pleasure barely registers, so they increase the intensity: a bigger laugh, a more dramatic story, a stronger display of delight. The stimulation and the attention from others create a temporary sense of being alive.

    If this is you, it all looks like joy from the outside, and people tell you what good company you are. On the inside, it is closer to asking one question, over and over: Am I still here?

    That is why coming home can feel like a sudden drop. While you were out, you were kept stirred up by the talk, the laughter and other people’s attention. At home all of that stops, and you feel the numbness again, because the laughter never made it go away. The next time, it takes a louder laugh and more attention to get the same sense of being alive. Each time the stirring has to be stronger, and nothing underneath changes.

    This feeling is almost impossible to explain to someone who has never had it. Say you feel dead inside and most people hear sadness. It isn’t sadness. Sadness at least moves, like weather: it comes in, it presses on you, it lifts again. Feeling dead inside doesn’t move. Nothing comes in and nothing lifts. As a therapist, I see it far more often than you would guess, usually in someone who has suffered from it in silence for years without finding the words for it.

    Does too much of something always hide its opposite?

    Here is one rule that will change how people look to you. Wherever there is too much of something, its opposite is usually sitting right underneath it.

    A mood kept unusually high can hide a low one. As long as the music, the talk and the excitement keep going, there is never a quiet moment long enough to feel the low mood underneath. Acting loudly superior can protect a private belief that you are inferior. And someone who keeps announcing how strong they are is often afraid that others will notice how weak and helpless they feel.

    You will recognize the shape once you have the rule. The friend who tells you, unprompted and often, that she is completely over him. The colleague who turns every serious conversation into a joke inside thirty seconds. The uncle who explains at each family gathering how little he cares what anybody thinks of him. None of it is exactly a lie. Each sentence is doing a job: keeping its opposite out of sight.

    So being too much is not a character flaw to be embarrassed about. It’s information — often the best signpost you’ll get to what is hidden underneath. Once you know the rule you can hear it in your own sentences too: not just what you said, but what saying it was supposed to cover.

    Why does saying “I’m weak here” take strength?

    “I’m not good at that part.” “That one still gets to me.” The people who can say sentences like these out loud without flinching are, almost always, the strong ones.

    It sounds backward until you look at what the sentence costs. To name a weakness out loud, you first have to be able to hold it: to let the thought sit in you for a while without setting off an alarm. The words only come after that, never before. It also takes a belief that the people around you will not pull away once they have seen that weak spot.

    If you can’t hold it, or can’t count on them staying, you don’t say it. You go the other direction instead, and you go fast — louder laugh, harder argument, brighter performance, one more story where you come out of it well. How hard you run is usually a fair measure of how big the thing is that you are running from.

    If you have ever watched someone say a thing like that out loud in front of you, you know the strange relief it brings. The room loosens. Nobody has to keep pretending they haven’t noticed the weak spot, and for the rest of that conversation people say slightly truer things than they had planned to.

    Does this mean cheerful people are all faking it?

    No. And please don’t take this to the next party and start reading the guests.

    Plenty of people are simply lively. Some grew up in a loud, warm house and never had any reason to turn the volume down. Being big and expressive is very often just who a person is, all the way down, and the world is better for having them in it.

    The difference doesn’t show up in the volume anyway. It shows up afterward. This idea earns its keep in one narrow place: when an extreme keeps repeating itself and a strange blank follows it every single time. You laugh hardest at the table, then feel hollow in the car. You keep insisting, in a firm voice, that you’re fine, and feel small the moment the door shuts behind you.

    The height is not the signal. The drop is.

    And you weren’t lying at that table, by the way. The laugh was real while it was happening. The question isn’t whether you meant it. It’s what the laugh was keeping you from feeling.

    Use this idea to look at your own week. Don’t use it to read anybody else’s.

    Write down the loudest minute of your week

    This exercise is small and takes no more than a minute. Pick one moment from the past week when you were too much: the hardest you laughed, the loudest you argued, the most eagerly you put yourself forward. Write it down as one plain line.

    Then, beside it, write the opposite of what you were showing in that moment. If you were being strong, write weak. If you were lit up, write flat. If you were overflowing, write empty.

    Don’t fix it, don’t explain it, and don’t soften it into something you’d rather read back later. Give the opposite its name and close the notebook.

    Name the thing underneath and the extreme loses some of its size.

    One more thing before I let you go. This exercise is reflective writing, not treatment, and it is small — but the flat feeling it can bring to the surface is not small at all. Over time that feeling tends to weigh on you more and more while you notice it less and less, until you barely register it as a problem. If it has been sitting in you for months, or if the noise you make is mostly there to keep you a step ahead of it, don’t leave it in a notebook. Say it out loud to a therapist who knows the difference between flat and sad. Writing the word down was the first move. Make a second one.

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Why Not Understanding Someone Makes You Angry

    Someone is explaining something to you, and the words keep arriving, but nothing is landing. You ask them to go through it once more, and they do, patiently — and you still have nothing.

    Then you notice the heat coming up in your chest.

    Which is strange, when you think about it. Not following someone costs you nothing at all, and nobody gets hurt. You could say “I’m not getting this” and the afternoon would carry on exactly as before. But your jaw sets, your voice comes out with an edge you never planned, and something in you has clearly taken offense.

    That heat is worth a closer look, because what drives it began long before this conversation, when you were a baby.

    Why do grown adults still throw tantrums?

    In the first months of life, a baby’s mind works very differently from an adult’s.

    A baby experiences hunger, cries, and is fed. Because the baby cannot yet understand that a separate caregiver heard the cry and chose to respond, the hunger and the feeding feel like one continuous event. At this stage, the baby cannot yet tell where he ends and the world begins.

    Psychoanalysis calls this early state infantile narcissism. The baby is the center of his own world, and as far as he can tell, things happen the way he wants them to. It is a normal stage, not a fault.

    As a child grows, that self-centered state has to change, slowly, until he can want something badly and still notice that the person fetching it is tired. The trouble starts when that change never happens. Then the baby’s expectation that things will go the way he wants is still at work at ten, at twenty, at fifty. You can see it at an airport gate when a flight is cancelled: a man at the counter, his voice climbing, talks to the agent as though she had grounded the plane herself. Some part of him still expects the world to rearrange itself the moment he asks.

    For some people, this expectation is not just one part of them; it shapes their whole personality. Then it does not stay quietly in the background. It is strong, and it allows no exceptions: things have to go their way, every time. A no does not merely disappoint someone like that. It shakes them.

    What does a baby learn when crying brings milk?

    That early stage comes with a feeling of enormous power. It is not power over other people; the baby does not yet know other people are there. It is simpler and wider than that: I can do anything. Psychoanalysis calls it omnipotence, and the baby feels certain the power belongs to him.

    He feels this because he cannot yet imagine that anything is coming to him from outside. There is hunger, there is crying, and then there is warmth and milk and fullness. From where the baby lies, that sequence can mean only one thing: I made that happen. I produced it myself.

    The illusion holds because the milk arrives soon after the hunger — soon enough that the baby can feel he created it himself.

    Meanwhile someone is awake at three in the morning, and someone’s back hurts, and the baby knows nothing about it — and at that age he shouldn’t have to.

    He needs that illusion for a while because it creates the first sense that his actions affect the world. Gradually, small delays teach him that another person exists separately and that satisfaction does not always arrive on command. As he learns to bear those waits, the feeling that he can do anything slowly turns into a more realistic confidence. When that learning remains incomplete, the old expectation — whatever I need will come the moment I need it — carries on into adult life. And for an adult, what is needed is often not milk but an answer: “If I need an answer, an answer must exist, and I should be able to get it now.”

    Where does “I have to know everything” come from?

    When we picture that feeling of power, we usually think of the doing side of it: I can handle anything, I can fix anything, just hand it to me.

    But that feeling has a twin, growing from the same root: I can know everything. Psychoanalysis calls this second one omniscience. In adult life it usually sounds like this: I have to know everything.

    You will recognize it immediately if you carry it. Not being able to let a thing go until you work out why someone spoke to you in a certain tone. Reading every review on the internet before buying a kettle. Two in the morning, still searching your symptoms online. Sitting in a meeting where one word goes past you, and feeling something clench.

    Curiosity looks identical from the outside, but curiosity can be put down. You get interested, you get distracted, you are perfectly fine. The need to know everything cannot be put down — it has to be finished.

    And it can never be finished, because we are small and the world is not. Most of what happens near you will never be explained to your satisfaction. Why your neighbor moved. Why a friendship cooled. What your father was really thinking. A great deal will simply stay unexplained. Some people can’t accept that. The missing answer does no harm by itself; the harm comes from refusing to live without one. That refusal keeps them frustrated, and, as the next scene shows, the frustration turns into anger at other people.

    What happens to your voice when you don’t follow?

    Here is the scene where this belief shows itself. Two people are talking, and one of them is getting angry because he does not understand what the other is saying.

    Look at it plainly and it makes no sense at all. The one who didn’t understand is the one who is angry. If that is you, why should missing the point put heat in your chest? “I’m not following you” is a complete sentence, and you are allowed to leave it there and go get a coffee.

    Instead there is the sigh, the clipped tone, the “no, but what do you actually mean.” The temperature in the room climbs two degrees.

    Underneath the sigh sits a sentence nobody ever says out loud: I am supposed to know this. And when the explanation will not go in, the frustration does not stay inside this one conversation. It spreads: this person makes no sense, the news makes no sense, nothing about the way the world works makes sense. There is an easy way out of all of it, one simple thought: there is something here I don’t know yet. And that is precisely the thought that will not come.

    Why does the blame end up on the other person?

    When you do not understand something but believe you should, confusion quickly becomes shame: “If I cannot follow this, there must be something wrong with me.”

    Because that conclusion is painful, the mind looks for another explanation. Anger provides one: the problem is no longer that you do not understand; the problem is that the other person is explaining badly.

    Then that thought comes out as blame.

    Psychoanalysis calls this move projection. When you cannot bear to feel confused or inadequate, you experience your own shame and frustration as something the other person is doing to you. You may even feel they are making it difficult on purpose, or looking down on you. So instead of saying, “I do not understand,” you say, “You are not explaining this properly. You are not making any sense. Anyone would be lost.” The accusation protects you from the shame of not knowing. But from then on, the conversation is no longer about what they meant. It is about what they did wrong.

    Sometimes the complaint is fair. Some people genuinely do explain badly. So use the heat as a signal. When you hear yourself say, hotly, “You’re not making any sense,” stop before you argue any further and ask yourself: am I ashamed, right now, that I don’t know?

    Why is “I don’t know” so expensive to say?

    For most people, most of the time, it costs very little. You say the three words, someone explains, and the world carries on turning.

    But if your self-worth depends on being the person who understands, those three words feel like a threat to who you are. Admitting confusion makes you feel exposed or inferior. Anger feels safer: it lets you keep feeling like the person who understands, and it puts the failure on someone else.

    It all happens very quickly. You miss the meaning. You take that as proof that something is wrong with you. You push that shame away and get annoyed at the speaker instead. By the time you notice you are angry, the earlier steps are already over.

    Have you ever said “I don’t know” and left it there?

    Nobody has ever read a paragraph like this one and thought, right then, I’ll stop needing to know things. The belief does not give way to reasoning, because it formed in infancy, long before you could reason at all.

    It gives way instead to experience, gathered slowly. You didn’t understand, and you said so, and nothing fell apart. You sat with a question that stayed open, and an hour later you were still yourself. Enough of those and the old belief loosens its grip. It never gets defeated — it gets outgrown.

    That means the change comes in very small steps. So start with one small step.

    The next time somebody loses you completely, say it out loud — I don’t know what you mean — and then stop there. Don’t ask them to explain it again, and don’t tell them they’ve explained it badly. Don’t turn it into a joke, and don’t attach a reason about being tired or the room being loud. Just the sentence, and then quiet.

    Then watch what your body does with the quiet. Maybe nothing much. Maybe a small squirm, an urge to fill the silence, or to give the excuse you promised yourself you wouldn’t give. If discomfort turns up, don’t argue with it, because the discomfort is the useful part. It shows you that the oldest part of you, the part formed in infancy, is still at work, still expecting the world to explain itself to you.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Mourning the Parent You Never Had

    You’re driving home from work when you catch yourself mid-argument, out loud, with your father. What you’re saying is what you should have said to him in the hospital, and you’ve said it to an empty passenger seat a few hundred times by now. He died four years ago, the house sold last spring, and everybody agrees you handled the whole business remarkably well.

    Or maybe your situation is different. Both parents are alive and healthy and texting you about the weather, and something in your chest still goes cold whenever anybody mentions them.

    From the outside it all looks settled. But your life keeps drifting somewhere you never actually chose, and you get close to something good and then trip yourself up on the way to it. You skip meals, you stay awake until three in the morning for no particular reason, you let the small repairs pile up until they turn expensive.

    You thought you’d let go of the past. Have you?

    What do you picture when somebody says grief?

    Most people picture a funeral, somebody who died, and the years since. They think of someone saying, “It’s been six years and I still can’t let my father go.”

    But grieving someone, or mourning them, is more than being sad. It is your mind finally accepting that the person is really gone — not just as a fact you can mention at dinner, but so deeply that you no longer half-expect it to be them when the phone rings.

    Crying hard doesn’t finish it, and neither does time. Mourning asks for more than either. In your ordinary day, the person you lost is still the one whose number you never had to look up, the one you keep arguing with in the car on the way home, the one you were always going to prove something to. Mourning means noticing each of these, one by one, and learning to get through your day without that person in it. When that work stalls halfway, the loss never moves into the past. It stays in the present tense: years later, it is still happening to you.

    Why do you start turning into the person you lost?

    When mourning stalls, you may keep the lost person present by copying them rather than accepting that the relationship has ended.

    You start using their phrases. You hold your cup exactly the way they held theirs. You feel what they felt and want what they wanted. You never decide to do any of this; it simply happens. Some part of you is keeping them alive by becoming them. There’s a name for this: identification.

    That sounds tender, and usually it is. The trouble starts when mourning stops there and goes no further.

    Because now the two of you overlap, and whatever was happening to them keeps happening inside you. If they were going downhill, you go downhill with them. And because they died, some part of you wants to die as well. That’s why depression settles in and stays for people who never finished mourning, and why some of them, in the worst cases, attempt suicide.

    From the outside, skipping meals, refusing help, or damaging a stable life can look unrelated to the loss. From the inside, getting better may feel like disloyalty: if the person you lost suffered, recovering can feel as though you are abandoning them. Continuing to suffer becomes a way of staying connected.

    Not every depression, and not every wish to die, comes from unfinished mourning. If you feel deeply depressed, have thoughts of dying, or can no longer manage everyday life, get professional help now. Your safety comes before any explanation of why you feel this way, including the ones in this piece.

    But what if your parents are still alive?

    Here’s the harder case. The grief that costs people the most is usually not for somebody who died, but for parents who are alive, well, and picking up the phone on the second ring.

    You’ll want to argue with that. How do you mourn somebody who is sitting right there in front of you?

    You can, because the one you have to let go of is not the person sitting there. It’s the parent from your childhood — the one who stood in the kitchen when you were nine and said something you’ve never repeated to anybody. And harder still, it’s the parent you made up back then, the one you wished you had. The mother who would have noticed what was happening to you. The father who would have come when you needed him.

    Neither the parent from your childhood nor the one you wished for is the tired, older parent across the table asking whether you’ve eaten. You already know this, and you ignore it anyway. You look at the tired parent in front of you and keep expecting the one you wished for, and afterward you wonder why every visit ends in the same disappointment.

    Everybody carries a picture in their head of the parent they needed. It isn’t a memory of what happened. You drew it as a child, out of longing: a mother who would notice, a father who would protect you, a parent who would apologize and mean it.

    Even when the real parent lets you down again and again, the hope you had as a child can hang on. So you visit again, hoping that this time they’ll understand. You explain yourself one more time, and you leave hurt by the same response. The disappointment keeps repeating because part of you is still waiting for the real parent to become the parent in the picture.

    So what you may not be able to let go of isn’t only your actual parent. It’s the expectation that this person will someday give you what was missing.

    What’s left when you let go of the parent you wished for?

    Only when you let go of the parent you wished for do you get to meet the parent you actually have.

    Not the one in the picture. The one in the chair, smaller than you remember and slower, limited now in ways that aren’t going to change, repeating the same three stories every single time you visit. Somebody who didn’t give you what you needed and is never going to, because they never had it to give.

    Never getting what you needed from them is a loss. A real one, with a weight of its own. Mourn it the way you would mourn any other loss.

    Is that the same as forgiving them?

    No, and the difference matters more than almost anything else here. Nobody’s asking you to understand what they did, or forgive it, or reconcile, or send a warm message on their birthday. You can let go of the picture and still keep every inch of the distance you carefully built. You can even mourn somebody you’ve already decided never to see again.

    Before mourning can begin, it asks one thing of you, and only one. Admit that the parent you wanted isn’t coming. Not next year. Not once you finally do well enough to earn it. Not at the very end, at their bedside, when they finally say the words you’ve been waiting for.

    Admit that, and mourning can finally begin. Refuse, and it can’t even start. You stay stuck in the life this piece began with, the one that quietly works against you: skipped meals, nights awake until three, tripping yourself up just before something good.

    Why does giving up hope hurt so much?

    Because hope has been protecting you from the full loss. As long as you believe your parent may someday understand, apologize, or put you first, you don’t have to face the fact that what you needed as a child may never come from them.

    When you give up that hope, you also give up the future you have been imagining, the one where they finally make up for what happened back then. That is why it hurts the way grief hurts, rather than feeling like a calm, tidy decision. But what you are letting go of is not your love for them. It is the hope that the past can still be put right.

    Two lines on one sheet of paper

    Take one sheet of paper and write two lines, one underneath the other.

    The first line: the parent I wanted would have ______. The second line: my actual parent ______.

    Fill in both lines and cross out neither. Don’t judge either line, and don’t soften the second one by adding that they were doing their best with whatever they were given. Understanding them is a different job for a different day, if it is your job at all.

    Seeing the gap between those two lines with your own eyes is how you start to admit that the parent you wanted isn’t coming. That is where mourning begins. Today, all you have to do is look at that gap. A picture you’ve been holding since you were a child doesn’t drop out of your hand the first time you loosen your grip, and it was never going to.

    I write these pieces as notes to think with, not as treatment. A page can’t see your face or ask you the next question. So, fair warning about the second line: it’s the one that tends to hit hardest. People sit down braced for sadness and get something else instead — a flare of rage at somebody they have spent years defending, or a numb flatness that frightens them more than the rage would have. If that feeling is still with you at bedtime, don’t carry it alone and call that strength. Take the two lines to a therapist and read them out loud, both of them, in the order you wrote them. Half of what makes those lines bearable is that somebody else has finally heard them.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • The Oedipus Complex Explained: Why Your Partner Isn’t the Problem

    Think back to the last time you were properly angry. Not irritated. Angry — ears hot, hands not quite steady, the same three sentences going round and round in your head.

    You probably knew whose fault it was before the feeling had finished arriving. He said that thing again. She rolled her eyes at exactly the wrong moment. Or you turned the whole thing inward, the way people do at two in the morning, and decided you were too sensitive, too needy, too much. Hold that scene a second, because here comes the uncomfortable part. None of those was the real cause.

    If it isn’t the other person, and it isn’t you, then what is it?

    Psychoanalysis says something that sounds almost rude the first time you hear it. The pain you feel in moments like that doesn’t come from your husband, or your wife, or your children. And it doesn’t come from you being too sensitive, too needy or too much, either. It comes from a fantasy that’s been running inside you the whole time, one you never chose and mostly can’t see.

    Not fantasy in the pleasant sense. Not the daydream you pick up on the train and put down again at your stop. In psychoanalysis, a fantasy is something older: the wishes and fears of early childhood, still at work in the way you read the people closest to you. It works away below your awareness, quietly and steadily, and it has already moved your mood before you notice anything at all.

    The fantasy decides what something means before you have looked at what actually happened. Your partner goes quiet, and you immediately read the silence as rejection. That interpretation produces anger, withdrawal, or desperate attempts to hold on. Because the interpretation feels like a fact, you react to it without checking whether your partner’s silence had another cause.

    You know the sequence even if you have never named it. Somebody says a few words, you add “I don’t matter to them,” and your whole day collapses. The words triggered the reaction, but the meaning you added determined its size.

    Why can’t you tell when you’re caught up in a fantasy?

    As an adult, you can think things through, which sounds like an advantage. You can explain yourself, point to evidence, walk anybody through exactly how you reached your conclusion. That is precisely where the trap is set. Being able to explain it all makes you certain you’re looking at plain facts, so it never occurs to you that you might be looking at a meaning you added yourself.

    The difficulty is that an unconscious fantasy does not feel like an interpretation. It feels like simply seeing clearly. You do not think, “I’m adding an old story to this moment.” You think, “Now I finally see what this person really feels about me.” So feeling certain proves nothing about whether you have read the moment correctly.

    The fantasy also started earlier than you’d think. When you were only one or two, before you had words for any of it, your mind was already staging wild, violent scenes between you and the people around you: grabbing and shoving away, swallowing and being swallowed, smashing to pieces. It sounds bizarre, but psychoanalysis says every human being starts out with fantasies like these. They don’t stop when you grow up. You are still strongly influenced by them; you just don’t know it. You may even have caught a trace of them yourself: a flash of wanting to shove somebody out of the way at a dinner table, gone before you’d registered it.

    What happens in the Oedipus story?

    Psychoanalysis has one idea that makes these hidden fantasies much easier to see: the Oedipus complex, named after an old Greek myth. While Oedipus is still a baby, too young to have done anything at all, his father is warned by a prophecy that this son will one day kill him and marry his own mother. The father panics and has the baby left outside to die, but somebody finds him, and he grows up in another household, never knowing who his real parents are.

    Years later he’s out on the road, and at a crossroads he falls into a stupid quarrel with an old man in a carriage. He kills him. He travels on to a city that has just lost its king, answers a riddle nobody else has been able to answer, and the city hands him the empty throne — and, with it, the widowed queen as his wife.

    Then the truth comes out. The old man he killed at the crossroads was that city’s king, and his own father. The woman lying beside him is his mother. Tormented by guilt, he puts out his own eyes.

    The details shift depending on who tells it — who picked the baby up, how he ended up in that particular city, how much anybody knew. The versions disagree, and none of that’s the point. The real question is why a story this ugly refused to die.

    Why do these old stories keep coming back?

    Think of a myth as a picture of the part of your mind you never get to look at directly. Psychoanalysis calls that part the unconscious: the part that had already decided whose fault it was before you had even finished getting angry. A myth is not a lesson or a warning. It is a picture of how that hidden part works. The Oedipus myth is only one such picture. The Greek myths about Zeus, Athena and Poseidon work the same way, and so do the old stories of every other culture that lasted long enough to reach us. These stories survived because they picture something that really goes on inside us, and people kept recognizing it even when they couldn’t possibly have said what it was.

    Line up the stories people never stop retelling and they start to look strangely alike. Many follow the same basic outline as the story of Oedipus. A baby is sent away. A child grows up with the wrong parents, in the wrong house. The truth about where he came from comes out only much later. Think of Moses in the basket, Superman in the rocket, Harry Potter in the cupboard under the stairs, and Luke Skywalker, told his father was dead.

    It isn’t that writers copied one another. The outline matches the way the unconscious works in all of us, so it catches hold and gets told again and again. That is why it keeps turning up in myths, in fairy tales, and in films people watch over and over without quite knowing why.

    Notice which stories catch hold of you like that. If one book or one film gets under your skin far more than it seems it should, it’s worth asking what in you it touched.

    What happens inside a three-year-old?

    At first, your world had room for only two people: your mother and you, a small closed circle. Then you began to notice a third person who belonged in that circle too, usually your father. Mother, father, child — three corners now, and one of them was you.

    From then on, the child feels several things at once, and none of them fit together: love, rivalry, and a quiet wish for somebody to disappear. Freud called this three-cornered tangle the Oedipus complex, after the son in the myth who, without knowing it, kills his father and marries his mother. It usually begins around the age of three or four, a little after the wild, violent scenes of the first two years.

    According to psychoanalysis, a child this age feels a sexual desire toward one parent that is as strong as an adult’s, even though the child’s body is far too young to hold any of it. That is what the term incestuous desire refers to. At its heart is a simple wish: that parent should be mine and nobody else’s, and the other parent, standing in the way, should go. Shame and guilt haven’t developed yet, so nothing tones the feeling down. The child feels it at full strength, draws the desired parent into its fantasies, and enjoys them.

    The words psychoanalysis uses for this stage sound brutal: killing the rival, possessing the parent, incestuous desire. That isn’t an accident. Nobody is trying to shock you. The words are harsh because the child’s feelings are that intense, and softer words would be describing something else altogether.

    And still, nothing happened. Not one of those scenes took place. Hold on to that, because everything else depends on it. All of it runs inside the child’s mind — no event, no moment anybody else could have walked in on. It’s fantasy from the first frame to the last.

    This is where most of us go wrong. We hear that something was only imagined and quietly file the whole business under harmless. For a small child, that’s not remotely how it works. The fantasy is not just a thought; it is something the child actually lives through.

    Why does something imagined leave a real mark?

    Dreams make this easy to see. Nothing in a dream is really happening. Now take the plainest example there is: a man has a sexual dream and he actually ejaculates. Crude, perhaps — and that is exactly why it works. His body never stopped to check whether any of it was true. It just reacted.

    Or take the milder version: you dream you’re arguing with somebody, and the bad mood trails you around all morning, long after you’ve remembered there was never any argument.

    A small child’s fantasies work the same way, only they run all day, for years. What the child only imagined still produces real fear, real pleasure, real jealousy and real tension in the body. That experience doesn’t simply disappear as the child grows up. Years later, in your mind, your partner can come to stand where the parent you wanted all to yourself once stood. So when your partner goes silent at the table, you may read the silence through the old triangle — “I’m being replaced” or “someone else matters more” — before you’ve even considered what is happening now.

    Is “he ignored me” something he did, or something you added?

    Separating what is happening now from the meaning the old fantasy adds to it changes what you can do. If the entire cause seems to be your partner, your only options are to change, punish, or leave them. Once you can see what you added, you have another option: examine the interpretation before acting on it.

    So here’s one thing to try, starting today. The next time a strong feeling rushes up and grips your whole chest, take a sheet of paper as soon as you can and fold it down the middle. Fill in both sides. On the left, write what the other person actually said or did — the words, the action, nothing else. No tone, no expression, no guess at what they meant by it. On the right, write the meaning you added.

    “He looked at his phone while I spoke” belongs on the left. “He ignored me because I don’t matter” belongs on the right. “She said she needed an evening alone” belongs on the left. “She’s getting ready to leave me” belongs on the right. You do not have to decide who was right. The point is to see the exact step where an event became a story and the story became a feeling.

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Your Life Script: Why You Keep Repeating the Same Ending

    You made the promise back in January and genuinely meant it: this year would be different. Then, around July, you stopped doing the very things that had been helping. You missed the deadline, picked the familiar fight, or withdrew just as the relationship began to matter.

    The details are never the same — different boss, different partner, different city — and yet the shape of the ending is familiar in a way you can’t quite name. What stings is that you didn’t coast. This time you worked harder than you can ever remember working.

    Why does trying harder seem to make things worse?

    Underneath all that effort, something keeps steering you toward the same ending. There’s a word for it: a script.

    A film has one — every line, every scene, the ending already settled before anybody walks onto the set. You have never read yours, but it exists all the same, and it was written a very long time ago. Transactional analysis, a school of psychotherapy founded by the psychiatrist Eric Berne, calls it a life script. A life script is a conclusion you drew as a child, from the way your parents spoke to you and treated you, about who you are and how your life will go. It goes on steering your choices as an adult.

    Here’s the difficult part: the script often pulls the opposite way from your effort. The harder you try to make your life go well, the harder it steers you back toward the same old ending.

    That is because a part of your mind you are not aware of is still following that childhood conclusion. On the surface you are trying to succeed. Underneath, a belief such as “I am not allowed to matter” or “good things do not last for me” shapes what you do when success gets close. You delay, go silent, start a fight, or make a mistake that brings back the ending you already expect. That is why effort alone may not change the pattern: your effort goes into the goal, while the old conclusion keeps making the choices along the way. Worse, the harder you work, the closer success comes, and the moment success comes close is exactly when the old conclusion takes over.

    That produces the pattern you already know: you prepare for weeks and come apart in the last ten minutes, or you land the meeting you’ve wanted for years and then say the wrong thing at the table.

    Once is bad luck, and twice is still bad luck. But when the collapse keeps arriving at the same distance from the finish line, you’re looking at something other than luck. Something inside you is quietly determined that your life won’t run smoothly.

    Isn’t this just self-sabotage?

    That’s the phrase most people reach for, and it isn’t wrong so much as too small. Self-sabotage sounds like a habit — nail-biting, snoozing the alarm, the sort of thing you’d drop tomorrow with a little more grit.

    A script isn’t a habit. It’s a plan, with a beginning, a middle, and an ending already chosen, and you carry it out, without knowing it, with real skill.

    Look at the timing. You don’t come apart at random moments, but at the exact point where your life was about to change. The thing you’d been building toward is finally within reach, and that’s the week you stop sleeping, or pick the fight, or go quiet on the one person who could have helped.

    That isn’t sloppiness. It’s timed too precisely to be an accident.

    Why does “nothing I do matters” feel so true?

    When the script is working, a particular feeling comes with it — flat and heavy and oddly calm — and it tells you that nothing you do will make any difference.

    It is the feeling people mean when they call something fate.

    The script repeats one sentence quietly, year after year: struggle all you like, you’re not getting out of this.

    As far as conscious effort goes, that sentence is right. Lists, plans, and willpower work on what you consciously intend to do. They do not reach the childhood conclusion, which works at a level you are not aware of and switches on when you are about to be noticed, loved, promoted, or successful. That is why you can plan carefully and still repeat the same ending. The problem is not weak character.

    The pattern can change, but not through more planning. Change becomes possible once you find that childhood conclusion and catch the moment it starts steering what you do now. When you can watch the pattern play out step by step, it stops feeling like fate.

    Most of us never find that childhood conclusion. Some of us refuse to look for it at all. Others look once, don’t like what they find, and turn away. Either way, we keep pushing ahead on conscious plans alone, harder and harder, without ever looking at what is steering us. So we keep hitting the same wall, and year after year things fall apart in the last ten minutes.

    Who decided any of this, and when?

    Not you — not the version of you that reads and plans and keeps lists. The decision about how your life would go was made below your awareness, and it was made early. The script takes root around age three, and by six the whole of it — a beginning, a middle, an ending — is down on the page.

    Three years old. Before you could tie a shoe.

    Can a small child really decide when and how they die?

    Therapists who analyze life scripts say something that sounds frankly absurd: when and how you die is in there too. Whether you die in bed with your grandchildren in the room, or drop dead in the street on an ordinary Tuesday — they say it’s settled between three and six, and that it shows up plainly enough when a script is analyzed closely. Said out loud, that sounds like a palm reader tracing a line on your hand and naming the year you will die.

    But they are not reading the future.

    What they are reading is a decision the person made as a child. Picture a small girl taking in whatever the adults around her give off — the words, the sighs, the face across the breakfast table. From all that, she works out what sort of person she is, what sort of life she’s allowed, and even how that life will end. Then she makes a plan and keeps it.

    Because the plan was made below awareness, she never knew it was there. You made one too, at the same age, and you don’t know yours either. You go about your life guided by sensible, conscious thinking until the afternoon you trip over a decision you made at four without ever knowing you had made it.

    Why does running from it walk you straight into it?

    The Greek myth of Oedipus shows how trying to escape a prediction can be exactly what makes it come true. An oracle warns a king that his own son will kill him, so the king does the obvious thing and leaves the baby out to die — about as thorough an escape as a frightened man could arrange.

    The boy survives anyway, raised somewhere else by somebody else, knowing none of it. Years later, at a crossroads, he falls into a quarrel with a stranger and kills him.

    The stranger is his father.

    Sending the baby away is what made it happen: a son raised by strangers had no way of recognizing his own father at the crossroads. A script works the same way, and that is the frightening part. You can spend your whole life running from the ending it wrote and still arrive there exactly on time, because every dodge turns out to be another step along the path. If you are afraid of being left, for example, you may keep checking up on your partner and questioning them until they grow tired and pull away. What you did to hold on to them is what drove them off, and the old belief that people always leave you is proved right once more.

    So is there a way out? Only one — you have to know what your own script says.

    When you do not know the old conclusion, even your attempts to escape it can repeat it. You may leave a controlling partner and then choose another controlling person, because that familiar kind of relationship still feels like love.

    How does a prince end up as a frog?

    There’s another way to put it: a script works like a spell because you obey its instruction without realizing that an instruction was ever given.

    You know the fairy tale in which a witch turns a prince into a frog, and a frog is what he stays until somebody breaks the spell. Every child is born a prince or a princess, and then somewhere in the long business of being raised, some of them are turned into frogs.

    Not because anybody was cruel. The spell gets cast by ordinary, exhausted parents doing their honest best on four hours of sleep. They cast it with everyday words, and that is exactly why it is so hard to catch.

    A tired mother says, “Please. Just stop bothering me for five minutes.”

    She means exactly what she says — she’s worn out, the day was long, and five quiet minutes is all she wants. Any adult in the room would understand her perfectly. The child hears something else entirely: not the words but a message underneath them. Go away. Stop being here.

    Once is nothing, and a child carries it easily. But when it comes often enough and hard enough, and nothing afterward softens it, a small person does what small people always do and works out the rule. If me being here is the problem, then I’m not supposed to be here.

    That conclusion becomes her script, and afterward she spends her life making herself smaller — turning down the thing she wanted, not asking for help, sitting at the edge of the table, apologizing for taking up a chair. She isn’t choosing it freshly every morning. The decision was made a very long time ago, and she has kept it faithfully ever since.

    But it isn’t fate.

    A three-year-old read the room and reached a conclusion — a reasonable one for a three-year-old with that little to go on. But it was an interpretation, not a fact, and an interpretation can be read again. The grown woman can see what the child could not: her mother was worn out, not wishing her gone.

    So here is one small thing you can do. Recall a single scene from the last few years where something was going well and then it wasn’t, and go back in your mind to the minute just before it fell apart. Now write down one sentence — what you said to yourself right then.

    Not what happened. What you said.

    Something like: “Who do I think I am.” “This was never going to work.” “I always do this.”

    One line. Don’t explain it, don’t soften it, and don’t go looking for a second one.

    Then read it back and ask whether it is an old message. When you were small, did the adults around you tell you the same thing — in their words, their sighs or the look on their faces — even if nobody ever said it outright? If they did, you’ve found your script at work: not as a theory, but as the actual sentence it still uses to steer you.

    Changing it comes later, when you start doing something different each time that sentence shows up, until a new conclusion can take the old one’s place. Seeing it comes first, and most people never get that far.

    References

    • Berne, E. (1972). What Do You Say After You Say Hello? New York: Grove Press.

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • You Got Everything You Needed. So Why Does the Inside Dry Out?

    There is food in the fridge and the rent went through on time. You answered everything that needed answering. You finished the week, and anybody watching you would have said you were doing fine.

    Then you sit down at the end of it and notice that you feel almost nothing. Good news does not lift you, rest does not restore you, and the people you love feel farther away than they did before.

    It is not exactly sadness. Sadness is usually about something: a loss, a disappointment, a person you miss. This feeling is harder to name because nothing has visibly gone wrong. Your practical needs were met, but you went too long without warm attention, touch, or the feeling that another person was genuinely glad you were there. Many years ago, a doctor visiting hospital wards saw the same gap in babies, in a much starker form: they were fed, but nobody held them.

    What if you don’t already know what you’ll find?

    One thing before the doctor’s story, because it changes how you will read it.

    When you look at yourself, or at anybody else, there are two ways to go about it. You can go in already sure of what you’re going to find, or you can go in assuming there’s something there you haven’t seen yet.

    The first way is faster and almost entirely blind. You end up seeing only what you walked in believing, and quietly bending everything else until it fits the shape you brought with you. The second way is slower, and it’s the only one that ever turns up anything worth having. You go in admitting you don’t know, and so you come out with something you didn’t have before.

    So when you look at yourself or anyone else, the most important work isn’t collecting new ideas. It’s setting aside the ones you already have. Read the rest of this without deciding in advance what you will find.

    Why were well-fed babies wasting away?

    The doctor was René Spitz. He ran a children’s ward himself, and he went from one hospital or children’s home to another, watching infants. In some of those places he kept seeing something that made no medical sense at all.

    The babies were being fed properly, on schedule, as much as they needed. Breast milk, formula, whatever was on hand. And they were fading anyway.

    No illness explained it, and nothing was missing from their diet. Their bodies simply withered: they got thinner and smaller and quieter, week after week, and some of them died. On paper these babies were well cared for, yet they were dying in clean rooms with full bottles beside them.

    Nobody could give a reason for it. The cause was real, and it was right there in the room, but nobody had seen it. Spitz found it by going from place to place and watching the babies.

    This wasting came to be known as hospitalism, because it kept turning up in hospitals and children’s homes.

    Same formula — so why were babies in other wards plump?

    Here’s the observation that cracked it open. In some places nearly every baby wilted, while in others the babies were round and loud and thriving. Same formula, out of the same tins.

    Spitz compared the two kinds of places. They differed in a good many ways, and one of those differences mattered more than all the rest.

    In the wards where the babies faded, the bottle was propped up in the crib and the baby drank alone. In the wards where the babies thrived, a nurse lifted the baby out and held it while it ate.

    The nutrition going in was identical. The difference was a pair of arms.

    Why does being held count for so much?

    A baby can’t understand the idea of being loved; it has no words yet. What it has is skin, and love reaches it first as touch: being picked up, being stroked, being fussed over by someone whose attention, for that moment, is all on the baby. Through that touch the baby’s body takes in a message: something warm is holding me, something keeps coming back for me, so I must be worth coming back for.

    Repeated care gives a baby its first sense of self. Before the child can think “I matter,” the body learns it through being picked up, soothed, fed, and answered when it cries. Psychologists call this first, bodily sense of self the physical self. Whatever you later come to believe about your own worth is built on top of it.

    When no one holds the baby or answers its cries, food alone cannot give it that experience. An adult who goes without warmth still has ways to react: turning bitter, demanding, or withdrawn, or going numb. A baby has none of these yet. All it can take in is that it is in distress and no one comes, and so the lack shows up in its body. That is the wasting Spitz saw: babies who were fed but not held grew thinner and quieter, and some of them died.

    If babies waste away without warmth, why are you still standing?

    Because you are not a baby in a crib any more. Your first sense of self was built in childhood. It may have been built unevenly in places, but it is there, and being left alone all day no longer kills you. Nobody has to notice you or love you today for your heart to keep beating, and an adult can go a remarkably long time with no warmth at all and stay medically fine.

    What changes instead is your capacity to feel connected and alive.

    You still go to work, answer emails, and say the right thing at dinner. But your feelings are slow to come, pleasure fades quickly, and other people begin to feel distant. In a baby, deprivation can show up in the body. In an adult, the daily routine may continue while interest, warmth, and emotional responsiveness gradually weaken.

    You notice it in small ways, if you notice it at all. Weeks blur together. Nothing quite lands. Good news arrives and you register it the way you’d register a fact about somebody else. You can’t remember the last time anything reached you.

    And nothing shows. That’s the part that makes it dangerous. A broken arm gets a cast and a fever gets a thermometer, but there is nothing here to point at, so nobody thinks to ask — including you.

    Why won’t the zombie films stop coming?

    Imagine someone who has died inside, and ask what they would look like to anyone watching. You already have the picture. You’ve seen it hundreds of times. It walks around. It eats. There’s nobody home behind the eyes.

    Zombie films never go away. A series gets a fourth film and a fifth, and then a brand-new one comes out. People keep making them because people keep turning up to watch, and a story only gets that big when it shows us something about ourselves that we can’t say out loud.

    The audience isn’t there for the makeup. Something in them recognizes that figure: a body that keeps going with nobody inside. If there weren’t so many people going hollow inside perfectly ordinary lives, that whole genre would have burned out long ago. Your own inner deadness ends up on a screen where you can look straight at it for two hours and never once realize what you’re looking at. What people can’t say about themselves, they will pay to sit and watch.

    How much attention does a person actually need?

    Transactional analysis, a school of psychotherapy, has a name for any small sign from another person that says, “I see you, and you matter to me.” It calls such a sign a stroke, in the sense of stroking a baby, not the medical kind. A hand on the shoulder counts, and so does your name said by somebody who meant it. People need a steady supply of these, roughly the way we need meals.

    The amount matters too: neither too little nor too much.

    Too little attention leaves you feeling unnoticed and emotionally depleted. Too much attention — constant questions, monitoring, touching, or demands for a response — removes privacy and puts the body on alert. Your jaw tightens, your thoughts narrow, and ordinary contact begins to feel intrusive.

    When that tension has nowhere to go, you may snap at the nearest person even when they did not cause it. The need is not for the most attention possible. It is for steady contact that lets you feel noticed without making you feel watched or controlled.

    Small signs like these are harder to come by now than they used to be, too. Notice how much of an ordinary day can pass without a single one. Coffee ordered through an app, groceries through self-checkout, work conducted in a chat window with people you have never stood next to. You can get from Monday to Friday without one person saying your name out loud, and none of it feels like a loss while it’s happening. It feels like convenience.

    So exchange one stroke with someone today. Only one, and it doesn’t have to be a big one.

    Say somebody’s name and add a sentence that’s genuinely about them — the barista, a coworker, your sister. Not a compliment you’d hand to anybody, but something you noticed about that particular person. If there’s honestly nobody within reach today, put your hand on your own arm and run it slowly down once. It will feel ridiculous, and you should do it anyway. The babies who thrived on those wards weren’t given a treatment. They were held.

    References

    • Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53–74.
    • Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Free-Floating Anxiety: Why Limits Make You Feel Safer, Not Smaller

    It’s a Tuesday evening and nothing has happened. The dishes are done, nobody in the family is angry with you, and tomorrow is just another day at work. And still there’s something running underneath it all — a restlessness that follows you from room to room, and you couldn’t say what it’s about.

    Then there’s the other thing, the one you don’t mention to anybody. You told yourself one drink, or one episode of a show, or ten minutes on the phone — and then you reached the limit you’d set and went straight past it, and afterwards you couldn’t explain why, even to yourself.

    These look like two separate problems. They may be the same one: never having learned where to stop.

    Why do you feel anxious when nothing is wrong?

    The psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg described a pattern he called borderline personality organization. “Organization” here simply means the way a person is put together inside: the ways of coping they fall back on, again and again, whenever something goes wrong. The first mark Kernberg listed for this pattern is anxiety — a low, steady unease that never quite lifts. Feeling this way does not, by itself, mean you have this pattern. The same unease can also come from too little sleep, physical illness, or depression.

    The anxiety Kernberg described is not fear of something in particular. It is fear with nothing to attach itself to — it simply floats — which is why it is called free-floating anxiety. It turns up on quiet evenings and in the middle of an ordinary week, and when you ask yourself what exactly you are afraid of, you can’t find an answer.

    There is a reason for it, though. This kind of anxiety grows when your limits are unclear — when it is hard to say what you want, how far you will let yourself go, or when you will stop. Then, whenever you start something, whether a drink, a show or your phone, you don’t know how much is enough, and part of your attention has to keep checking whether you have already gone too far. And because nothing inside you holds your limits in place, they shift from one day to the next. You can never quite relax, even on an evening when nothing is happening.

    Picture an evening with nothing planned in it at all: nothing you have to do, all of it yours. That sounds like rest, and often it isn’t. What wears you down is not the freedom. It is that nothing tells you when to stop: when to put the phone down, when to switch off the show, when to go to bed.

    Is a limit a cage or a railing?

    Most people notice that a limit removes options, but a limit also removes uncertainty. If you decide before dinner that you will have one drink, the decision has already told you where the drinking ends. Without that limit, each empty glass means deciding all over again whether to have another.

    Stand on a balcony with a solid railing and you’ll lean out over it to look at the view below. Take the railing away and you’ll press yourself back against the wall instead. The railing never gave you the view. It gave you the nerve to go and look. A clear limit works the same way: because you know where it is, you can relax and choose freely inside it.

    The same thing happens with sleep, money, exercise, work, and phone use. A fixed bedtime removes the option of scrolling a little longer, but it also ends the argument you have with yourself every night about when to stop. A rule that part of every paycheck goes into savings limits what you can spend, but it also keeps that money safe from whatever you feel like buying on a given day.

    Why won’t a therapy session run late to make up for lost time?

    A therapy session runs fifty minutes. Say you arrive half an hour late — the trains were cancelled, a crash had the highway at a standstill, every word of your explanation is true and none of it is your fault. The session still ends at the moment it was always going to end. A minute or two over, sometimes. Never thirty.

    Nearly everyone hates this at first. It feels cold, and it feels like the one person who’s supposed to be looking after you is sitting there quietly watching the clock.

    But alongside the hurt, the fixed ending gives you something. If you arrive late, the lost time is gone; if you arrive on time, you get the full fifty minutes. After months of sessions that start and end the same way, you no longer wonder whether a crisis, an apology or an important story might buy you extra time. You know exactly what to expect, and that is part of what makes therapy feel steady and safe.

    Why does saying no settle a child down?

    Telling a child they can’t have what they want is hard, because you’re the one who has to stand there and watch the small face crumple. So you give in, and that’s easier on everybody for about four minutes.

    But a child who never gets stopped grows more anxious, not less. Being told no is a surprisingly large part of what makes a child feel safe.

    When you tell a child you’re not buying any more candy, the child may whine, become furious, or lie on the supermarket floor. That reaction means the child has run into a limit, and what you do next is what counts. If you let the child be upset but keep the same answer, and stay loving while you do, the child learns two things: being angry with you does not end the relationship, and not getting what they want right away is something they can live through.

    If you give in because the crying is too hard to bear, the child learns something else: the harder they push, the more the line moves. Instead of learning to stop, the child learns to demand more loudly.

    Is the drink the problem, or the line you crossed?

    Look closely at what addiction actually means, and it turns out to be less about what a person uses than about going past a limit.

    Are drugs bad? Some of the same drugs people get addicted to are part of ordinary medicine. If you’ve given birth with an epidural, it very likely contained an opioid, and some cough and cold medicines contain opioids too. Is alcohol bad? Not by itself — whole countries drink at dinner and then stop when dinner is over. Some substances do carry far more risk than others, especially illegal drugs and misused prescription drugs, but the substance is not what defines an addiction.

    What defines an addiction is going past the point where you meant to stop, again and again. One drink becomes several, ten minutes on the phone becomes three hours, and you keep going even when your health, your work, your finances or your relationships are suffering. You can name the limit before you start. What you can’t do is stop when you reach it.

    Can something healthy turn into a way to hurt yourself?

    Exercise makes this plain. A sensible amount of it does you good, which is why nobody thinks of it as a risk. Now watch somebody who has gone past the line. Their knees and shoulders are ruined, and they keep training anyway, straight through the damage. That isn’t health any more — something else has taken the wheel.

    There’s a name for that something: the superego, the part of you that watches and scolds and keeps score. It doesn’t tell you when enough is enough. It sets a standard, and when you fall short of it, it punishes you. Once it has taken the wheel, you aren’t training to look after your body any more. You’re training to wreck it, and the damage is the punishment.

    So you can’t tell whether something is an addiction by looking at what a person is doing, because the activity on its own tells you almost nothing. Even something good can wreck you once you go past the line, and for some people, wrecking themselves is the point.

    What happens when nobody ever says stop?

    I work as a therapist, and not long ago an elderly couple came to see me about their son. He’s thirty-six, still caught in his addiction, and still coming home some nights and not others.

    In all the years they were raising him, his parents never actually stepped in. When he stole money, nothing whatsoever happened. There were words, plenty of words — don’t do that, do this — and the words were all there ever was. No consequence ever followed them. Plenty of telling. Never any stopping. The line got talked about for years and never once got drawn.

    Where does that lead? A person who is never stopped keeps going, further and further out, until he hits a wall. Sooner or later he always does. The last line left is the law, the edge of what society will accept. He crosses it, and once he has, society can no longer put up with him. So he gets locked up. That is the wall.

    Why would a locked door feel like relief?

    Being locked up is hard, and people hate it, count the days, can’t stand another minute of it. And alongside all of that, something in them quietly settles, because somebody finally drew the line.

    Some of the people who end up in prison know something the rest of us find hard to believe: being inside is easier than being outside. Not better. Not kinder. Easier. Outside, there were no limits anywhere, and for years nothing stopped them. Inside, there are far fewer choices to make, and what happens next has already been decided.

    Under that strange pairing — unbearable and a relief at the same time — there may be a wish they have never put into words: Someone, please, tell me where this ends.

    So who is going to draw your line?

    A locked door can stop a person, but it cannot teach him to stop himself. Nobody drew the line for the son while he was growing up, and nobody is going to draw yours for you either. That is less bleak than it sounds, because it means you get to say where it goes. Draw one tonight, something small: the phone, the run, the work you’d otherwise carry past midnight. Decide where it ends before you start, and then actually stop there when you reach it. If it’s drinking, and you already know that once you start you can’t stop, your line may need to come before the first drink: don’t start at all, and get help, from a professional if you need it.

    The hard part comes after you stop. You may feel empty, deprived, restless, or angry that your own rule has taken away something you could have had. If you go straight back to it, the discomfort disappears and the old habit gets stronger. If you let the feeling stay without crossing the line, you learn that you can want more and still not act on it. Repeat that, and you begin to build the limit of your own that was missing — one that lets you stop yourself before a wall outside has to do it for you.

    References

    • Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline Conditions and Pathological Narcissism. New York: Jason Aronson.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Why Someone Warm to Everyone Turns Cold With You

    Everyone describes him as warm and easy to talk to. His coworkers say he listens, laughs, and helps without being asked. But at dinner with you, he answers in four words, looks at his phone, and shows no interest in what you are saying. The difference leaves you wondering which version of him is real.

    You ask what he’s thinking about and he says nothing. Later you lie in the dark and do what you always do, which is look for the fault in yourself first. Maybe you need too much. Maybe you heard a tone that was never in the room. Maybe you’re just too sensitive.

    Hold on to that last one for a minute, because there’s an explanation that goes back to the 1940s, and it doesn’t start with you.

    Ronald Fairbairn, a Scottish psychoanalyst, had a name for people who keep others at a distance even while they seem warm. He called the pattern schizoid. The word comes from the Greek for “split.” It can sound like the name of a severe mental illness, but Fairbairn also used it for something he saw in ordinary people: a mind divided in two to keep itself safe. In the man who is warm at work and cold at dinner, his coworkers meet one half, and no one is allowed near the other.

    Fairbairn said this split shows up in three ways. Read them slowly, because each one probably explains an evening you have already lived through. I’ll write “he” throughout; swap it for “she” if that fits your life better.

    Why does nothing you say ever get through to him?

    The first is a quiet, unshakable sense of being right. Fairbairn’s word for it was omnipotence, which literally means being all-powerful, the way God is. The man at your table would never say it out loud, but inside he feels as if he were God, so to him, whatever he knows and believes simply cannot be wrong.

    For a man like this, what he believes does not feel like an opinion. It feels like reality itself. So when you remember something differently, or tell him it felt different to you, he doesn’t hear one more way of looking at it. He hears an attack, as if you had called him a liar, and he defends himself instead of thinking about what you said.

    You already know how that feels from the inside. You went in to talk something through and somehow ended up in a courtroom, where you explained and he defended, you softened and he defended again. You tried explaining it more clearly, and then tried again. But the problem was never how well you explained. He cannot bear the idea that there could be another way of seeing it.

    So why would anybody need to be that right? Fairbairn’s answer is strange, and it’s worth sitting with. In his view, being divided in two and feeling that the world is not quite real are the same condition. People and events never feel fully solid to a man like this. When nothing out there feels solid, the one thing that still does is what goes on in his own head. That is where the feeling of being God comes in: his own thoughts become the one thing he can be sure of. The less real the world feels to him, the harder he has to be right about it.

    Why does he move away as you move closer?

    The second is distance, and underneath it sits fear. Getting close to another person genuinely frightens him. Without realizing it, he expects anyone who gets close either to leave him or to take control of him. Here’s the part that makes it almost impossible to discuss — he doesn’t know he’s frightened at all. Ask him, and he may tell you he has just never needed people much. The fear never looks like fear. Instead he wraps himself in mystery and becomes hard to read.

    You can’t tell what kind of day he’s had, and a real question gets you back a shrug, a joke, or an answer to some other question. Step toward him and he is already a step further back.

    Early in the relationship, the fact that he said so little about himself may have looked like depth. You imagined a rich inner life in him, waiting to be shared, and thought that one day, as you grew closer, he would let you in. Fairbairn saw the mystery as armor. Because he never shows what he feels or why he does what he does, no one can get close enough to hurt him.

    Months later you finally work out what the mystery actually was: a line drawn without a single word. Come this close. No closer.

    The distance also feeds the first feature, the need to be right. Because he never lets anyone all the way in, nothing anybody says really reaches him — not the praise, not the warning, not the apology. With nothing from other people to steady him, all he has left to lean on is being right. The less he takes in from other people, the harder he leans on it, and the longer this goes on, the more certain he becomes.

    Why can a quiet man nod along and still change nothing?

    The third is living entirely inside his own head: his own thoughts and his own view of things count for more than anything anyone says to him. This one surprises people. You would expect it mostly in loud, self-centered types, but quiet, inward people often have more of it.

    The loud version is easy enough to spot. He takes up all the air, fishes for compliments, and wants the whole day arranged around him. Ten minutes in, you have him figured out: he thinks he’s the only person in the room who matters.

    The quiet version is much harder to spot. He does not raise his voice or ask for praise. He listens, nods, and lets you finish. But after an hour of talking, nothing has changed: not what he thinks, not what he does. He never tells you what is on his mind, either, so you walk away not knowing whether he agreed to anything at all. He looked open the whole time, and none of your words got through.

    That’s a different order of stubbornness. It doesn’t need to win the argument. It simply never has the argument.

    Why is the quiet one’s stubbornness so hard to see, even for him?

    Because the loud one keeps running into things. He charges at the world and the world pushes back — a job ends, a friend stops calling, somebody finally tells him to his face what he’s like. None of that is pleasant, but all of it is a mirror, and one day he might actually look into it.

    The quiet one collides with nothing. He stays polite, stays useful, stays well liked, so nobody ever has a reason to push back. No crash means no mirror. The pattern isn’t any smaller inside him; it has simply never been seen, not even by him, and it lasts longer for exactly that reason.

    Why does it only happen with you?

    This is the part I would underline twice. None of the three has to show up in everyday life, and Fairbairn was careful to say so. A man can know he carries them or have no idea at all. He can seem fine most of the time and then, in one area of his life only, the whole thing switches on.

    Sometimes that area is power. Watch how he handles a boss, or somebody who works under him, and there it is, sitting inside a life that looks fine everywhere else.

    Most often, though, the area is love.

    This is why a man can be generous with strangers, patient with coworkers, and emotionally cold with the person who loves him. Casual relationships do not require him to reveal himself or depend deeply on another person. Intimate love does. So the fear that stays quiet with strangers and coworkers comes up with you, because you are the one who is close.

    That’s why the man his coworkers describe and the man across the dinner table from you will never add up to one person. Neither description is a lie. They see him from a distance, and you see him up close.

    So are you the sensitive one?

    Not necessarily. Other people speaking well of him does not make the coldness you have felt any less real.

    Look at what you’ve been quietly doing each time he goes cold. You count it against yourself — too needy, too watchful, too much. Notice that habit, because the cause you keep looking for in yourself lies somewhere else.

    The trigger is intimacy. He goes cold with you not because you matter less than his coworkers, but because you are close enough that he would have to show his feelings and lean on you. His coldness protects him from that closeness. It is not a measure of your worth.

    But isn’t a bit of this in everyone?

    Yes. And that’s the part to keep.

    These three aren’t a checklist for labeling somebody so you can be finished with him. Being sure you’re right, keeping your distance, living inside your own head — everyone carries some of each, in different amounts, and usually in one particular area of life. If you read this only as an article about him, the same problems will keep coming back between the two of you.

    So go back over today and find one moment when you nodded along while, inside, you were quietly saying no. Just one. Don’t work out who was right; that’s a different job for a different evening.

    Then write it down, one line, in whatever words turn up: “I nodded along about the weekend plans, and inside I was saying no.”

    It’s small enough to feel pointless. It isn’t. Think back to the quiet man. What he carries inside never runs into anything, so it is never seen, not even by him. A no you say only inside your head is the same. Nobody sees it, and even you barely notice it. Once you write it down, it is on the page, where you can see it. That one line is a first step out of your own head.

    References

    • Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1940). Schizoid Factors in the Personality. In Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality (1952). London: Tavistock.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board

  • Regression Isn’t a Breakdown. Your Mind Is Just Going Home.

    The alarm goes off and you turn the phone face down. Nothing bad has happened. Nobody shouted at you, nothing broke, and the day in front of you is perfectly ordinary. Still, the only thing you really want is to stay under the covers and be nobody for a while.

    The voices in the next room sound far away, as if they were coming through glass. Your list of things to do is sitting right there on the kitchen table, and somehow it feels like somebody else’s. So you ask yourself what you always ask. What’s wrong with me? Am I just lazy?

    Before you call yourself lazy, ask why your mind responds to the ordinary demands of the day, like that list on the table, by withdrawing, putting off decisions, and wanting someone else to take over. The psychoanalyst Melanie Klein’s theory suggests that this is not random. Under pressure, the mind goes back to a way of coping from much earlier in life, when pulling back made you feel less afraid and someone else carried the responsibility for you.

    Which came first — the world, or your picture of it?

    Most of us assume a baby first gets to know the world as it really is, and only later, with more words and more years behind it, starts to imagine.

    Klein turned that around.

    Long before a baby can speak, she said, its mind is already full of pictures of what the world is like, built from what its body feels. She called these pictures unconscious fantasy, but she did not mean daydreaming or making things up. Fantasy, for her, is how a mind that has no words yet first makes sense of the world. When the baby is hungry, it feels as if no one will ever come. When it is held and fed, the whole world feels safe.

    For the infant, these unconscious fantasies are not occasional thoughts. They shape the baby’s whole experience of hunger and fullness, danger and safety, long before it has words or can check what it feels against what is really there.

    In Klein’s view, then, you did not begin with an accurate understanding of reality and add imagination later. You began with unconscious fantasy and gradually corrected it through experience. Each time someone close to you turned out differently from what the picture inside you expected, and your bond with them survived the surprise, that picture moved a little closer to the world as it really is.

    What does a good home actually give a child?

    If life begins in fantasy, that changes what we mean by a good home. We usually think of how much love a child was given, or whether there was enough money in the house. But part of what makes a home good is how much of the real world it lets a child take in — how often, and how safely, the child can check the picture inside against what is really happening.

    Put plainly: the worse the home, the less of the real world a child can afford to let in.

    That may sound backwards, but the reasoning behind it is simple. Children learn to swim in water they can stand up in. A steady home hands a child small, survivable disappointments — the promise kept a day late, the answer that turns out to be no — and every one of them is a chance to check the picture in their head against what actually happened and find out it was slightly off. Nothing collapses when that happens. The child learns that a disappointment is not the end of the world, corrects that part of the picture, and goes back to playing.

    When home is too painful — when the adults are unpredictable or frightening — a child has no room to calmly check the picture against what is real. Every look on an adult’s face can read as a sign of danger. So the child retreats into the world inside, which at least feels like something they can control. And the more time the child spends in that inner world, the less often the picture inside gets tested against someone safe, and so the less it gets corrected.

    Children are not the only ones who retreat into that inner world. Most of us go there for a while and then find our way back out. At the extreme are people who cannot find their way back out at all. That is the territory of psychosis: in schizophrenia, for example, a person stays shut inside their own private world. This does not mean that a painful home is the single cause of any particular illness. But it can shape how a person handles stress later in life.

    Why is the pull to retreat strongest at certain times in life?

    There are three times in life when people are most likely to feel they are coming apart: the teenage years; the early twenties, when many people leave home; and the years after marriage, or after setting up a household with someone.

    Why those three? Because that is when the demands of real life arrive all at once, from every direction. Your body changes, or your address does. The people around you change, and so does what they expect from you. You’re handed a role that nobody bothers to explain. There are more decisions to make, and more of the blame falls on you when one goes wrong. Worst of all, the way you’ve always coped stops working — quietly, and completely.

    At times like these, there is more to carry than you can manage all at once, and carrying it simply hurts too much. So the mind slides backward, into that inner world of early pictures. Every human mind begins there, which makes it the mind’s first home — a home inside you, not the house you grew up in. When you retreat like this, in a sense your mind is simply going home.

    If this is the year you feel like you’re coming apart, look at where you are in life before you go looking at your character. Check whether this moment falls on one of those three times, or on another big change in your life, such as starting a job, having a baby, or going through a divorce. You may not have gotten weaker at all. Reality may have just started asking for far more than it used to.

    So what is this pull backward, exactly?

    You live out in the real world for a while, it hurts, and something in you wants to be a small child again. No decisions. No judgment calls. Somebody else handling the difficult parts, the way somebody once did.

    The name for this return is regression. The mind is not inventing a new response. It is returning to an earlier state in which withdrawing, becoming passive, or waiting for someone else to act once provided relief.

    Why is it so hard to come back out?

    Regression feels familiar because you learned this way of coping early and used it many times. Avoiding a message, staying in bed, or waiting for someone to tell you what to do takes the pressure off right away. That relief makes the old way hard to leave, even while the unanswered messages and postponed tasks pile up and the anxiety grows with them. The safer it feels under the covers, the harder it becomes to come out.

    It shows up in ordinary ways, too. The afternoon that disappears into your phone. The message you could answer in four lines and somehow cannot. The steady, quiet wish that somebody would arrive and simply tell you what to do next. None of those look like much from the outside, and every one of them is the same short walk back to the mind’s first home. The pull is never loud when it arrives, and it usually comes dressed as tiredness, or as a small and very reasonable decision to deal with the whole thing tomorrow.

    When ordinary tasks feel far away and you want to pull back from every demand, you may be falling back on an old way of protecting yourself, not showing some permanent flaw in your character. Once you see it as regression, you can ask a more useful question: what is pressing on me right now that set this off?

    Does that mean you should get rid of the old picture inside you?

    No, and you couldn’t manage it even if you tried. The picture isn’t a part you can unbolt and throw away — it’s the place you started from. Adult life is the slow work of checking it against whatever is really in front of you and correcting it a little at a time.

    Stop revising the picture, and your trips back into that inner world get longer and longer. Keep revising it, and your time out in the real world gets longer instead. That is the choice, and the work is never quite finished.

    So pick one scene from the past week that felt heavier than it had any business being. A message that has been sitting there unanswered. A room that went quiet the moment you walked into it.

    Then write down, in a single line, what you were quietly expecting. “He should know without me having to say it.” “After everything I did, somebody should have noticed.” One sentence is plenty. Don’t tidy it up, and don’t argue with it. If the line makes you wince a little, you’ve probably written the real one down instead of the polite version.

    Once it’s sitting there on paper, you can slowly begin to see where it came from — the situation you were actually in, or a much older picture you’ve been carrying since before you had words for anything. Some of those lines will turn out to be fair. Others were formed a long time ago, to fit a house you no longer live in.

    That’s where the revising starts. One line at a time.

    References

    • Klein, M. (1946). Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 27, 99–110.
    • Klein, M. (1935). A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 16, 145–174.

    Related

    Written by Kim Hyung-keun — Director, Seoul Addiction Psychology Institute · Director, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis · Object relations psychotherapist and supervisor, 26 years in practice and teaching. Counselling Board