The age we live in exposes us to countless external stimuli, fragmenting our focus. Characters are being created in dystopian fiction, trapped in digital universes and their own loneliness. As we will explore in this text, we must recognize the power-centered structure that is advancing at full speed toward an imaginary goal, grasp its rules, and, in a sense, checkmate it. Meanwhile, in the face of a bombardment of stimuli, we must insist on developing a mindful and resilient stance, preserving our own mental and physical integrity. However, keeping this stance to ourselves is not enough; it is crucial that we also have the courage to share our existence with “others”. More concretely, these exchanges should be realized not through social media or images, but through direct dialogue and contact. Indeed, today, people are confined to monologues with the memories or dreams of those they interact with, not with the people themselves.
Referring to the title of author Michael Ende’s book, I would like to express that our age is “the prison of freedom”. People experience the unhappiness of instantly possessing almost everything they desire. Relationships begin in magical atmospheres, with heightened emotions, but then quickly collapse. Societal expectations shape people’s lives, and people retreat into their own fantasy worlds. Yet, the key is to bridge the gap between dreams and reality and, over time, create a non-binary life. At this point, we will draw on sociologist Jean Baudrillard’s “simulation theory”, psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s “false self” theory, and the work of many other researchers. Ultimately, we will focus on the possibility of authentic connections beyond avoidant, image-based miscommunications. Throughout this article, we will shed light on the concept of “labor”, which has been overshadowed by the imposition of “use and throw away, demand new” and examine the anatomy of strong and lasting bonds.
The Importance of Not Abandoning Those Who Make Us Feel Worthy
As social scientist and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm emphasized, love is not a personal emotion. Accordingly, love is an active act requiring effort, responsibility, knowledge, attention, and commitment. In other words, loving is not a feeling detached from the so-called loved one. To clarify, it is an action and a sphere of responsibility generated by active concern. We have a responsibility to those who make us feel safe and who accept us as we are, staying with us no matter what. In today’s popular culture, unhealthy relationships are normalized through movies, TV series, novels, songs, and many other tools. In this way, psychological and physical violence and unbalanced relationship models are presented as part of loving. However, it is possible to create safe spaces by focusing on understanding ourselves and those around us. To achieve this, we must recognize that our emotional manipulation tools cause great harm not only to those we interact with but also to ourselves.
This content applies not only to human relationships but also to other sentient species. If we have had long-term interactions with non-human sentient individuals, we understand that deep and secure bonds can be established without using words. However, in the shadow of many distinctions, such as human and animal, people silently scream for help within their own, extremely limited constructs. If we want to explore diverse and creative forms of relationship and communication, we must transcend ourselves. In this way, we discover that we will never harm each other and heal each other through an unconditional bond. In other words, as Goethe said, humans cannot recognize themselves in humans. When a person opens up to other beings (existing ones), they become aware of their personal boundaries and broaden their horizons. They can then share these experiences with others. Not letting down a human or other animal who has trusted us is healing and hope for ourselves as well.
Approaching the Spiral of Modern, Digital, and Indirect Communication with a Theoretical Framework
We encountered someone new, and we connected as if we had known each other for years. Many of our unique interests overlap. While nurturing each other’s inner selves, one of us distances themself by ending open communication. Even though no negative dialogue or action has taken place between them, they suddenly become strangers. When one of the parties gradually reduces communication (slow fading), mutual development is reversed. Because of attachment anxiety, the avoidant person also drags the open-communicator into the mix. John Bowlby, the founder of attachment theory, called this “anxiety contagion”. Sometimes this dynamic evolves into a contradictory strategy of ambivalent breadcrumbing. The insecurely attached person makes references to the healthy-attached person in digital environments. Thus, through indirect exchanges, they try to control the other by conveying the message, “you’re on my mind, but I can’t say it”. In direct conversation, they conceal their own feelings and attempt to inflict them on the other.
People who struggle with emotional expression and empathy create a “push-pull” environment, thereby inflicting psychological violence on others. The avoidantly attached person’s fears force the other into an ambiguous position. This fear, which corresponds to psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut’s “narcissistic injury”, prevents the individual from taking responsibility and being honest with themselves and the other. As Winnicott contends, “the false self”, instead of having the courage to directly express their true feelings, the individual attempts to exist from a perceived safe distance through implicit sharing. According to philosopher Emmanuel Levinas’s understanding of ethics, this attitude is the act of “ignoring the other’s face”. Self-centered individuals strive to assimilate others into their own world of meaning. For Levinas, who stated, “I exist through the responsibility the other places upon me”, remaining indifferent signifies an ethical betrayal and collapse. Drawing on Bowlby’s “secure base phenomenon”, the well-attached person can achieve controlled detachment by unraveling the other’s chaotic games and consciously mirroring them. In this way, therapeutic “checkmate” occurs.
From “Disneyland” Relationship Dynamics to Authentic, Mutually Nurturing Bonds
In Baudrillard’s theory of simulation, Disneyland is a perfect version of “simulacra claiming reality”. It is a center of illusion. People are captivated by Disneyland through brief immersion. However, this finite impact, this overwhelming happiness, is followed by deprivation. Today’s relationships are being transformed into objects of hyperreality. We must recognize this construct, where simulation replaces real sentient beings and experiences. We must take responsibility for our relationships, regardless of their nature, and allow ourselves to gravitate toward natural and simple spaces of communication without sublimating individuals and events. Beyond artificial excitement, prepackaged romantic scenarios, and superficial interactions, it is possible to create spaces of genuine contact shaped by effort. By breaking free from Disneyland’s cycle of happiness and pain, we can lay solid foundations for the necessary yet transformative groundwork of contact with the other. Overriding the ready-made formulas of consumer culture is possible through mutually vulnerable sharing. The key to sensitizing the world lies in having the courage to take responsibility for those around us.
References
Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Trans.). University of Michigan Press.
Kohut, H. (2009). The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders. International Universities Press.
Winnicott, D. W. (2005). Playing and reality. Routledge Classics.
Levinas, E. (1979). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.