Life is a Stage

Life has always reminded me of theater. As events unfold or as the script changes, we continually decide what roles we would like to play. Some roles encompass the personality traits of the savior, the temptress, the helpless, the noble, the caretaker, the scholar, the Casanova, the entertainer, the misunderstood, the clown, the optimist, the reclusive, the family man, the philanthropist, the entrepreneur, or the industrialist. Character roles help define our identity. If a role resembles a stereotype, it is easier to play. The interaction among characters defines the script. At times, we improvise and control the script and at other times, we just play whatever the role demands.

The major difference between life and a play is that we take life more seriously. We believe some roles last a lifetime and it is hard to determine when the curtain has fallen. Many of us do not know when it is time to perform in a different play. For example, many women function as caretakers until all the children leave home. At that point, the woman can continue playing the caretaker to her spouse or her friends or she can portray a different character. We all have the power to decide what roles we would like to play even if it appears that external circumstances require a certain performance.

At different times, people can choose whether they want to be “actors” or part of the audience. Many people choose acting because they like attention. Other people are actors because they want to directly influence the performance. If they want a comedy, they can create one. If they want a tragedy, their environment becomes one.

I thought I wanted to be an actor because I liked having control over my experiences; but my assumptions were wrong. It took me a long time to realize that theatrical control is an illusion because actors are strongly influenced by the audience’s reaction and acceptance. If the performance is not accepted, the actor usually improvises and changes the performance, in an effort to be accepted. This is why actors usually care so much about what other people think. Actors never act for themselves, but for others, so in effect they are giving up control of their lives to other people. By being an actor, I was giving people the opportunity to review my performance. As everyone in the audience has the right to review, and most people are critics, the performance is never accepted by everyone. I used to be hurt or angry when the audience didn’t like my performance; but I eventually realized that my emotions were unwarranted. If I don’t want a review of my performance, then I don’t have to act. Instead, I can simply choose to be part of the audience.

Many actors do not pay attention to the reviews because they have confidence in their own performance. By ignoring the reviews, control is returned to the actor. If a particular audience doesn't appreciate the performance, the actor can find a different audience. Actors maintain control if they have the confidence to understand that it is the audience's lack of appreciation, rather than the performance, that causes the bad reviews.

For example, suppose a brilliant Shakespearean actor is performing to an audience of children in kindergarten. Undoubtedly, the children will hate the performance even if the actor is the best Shakespearean actor who ever lived. If Shakespearian actors continually try to please grade school audiences, they eventually realize that they have to act like a clown to get acceptance. Confident actors will not compromise their performance; instead they will find an audience who can appreciate the value of a good Shakespearean performance.

I know some people who have become brilliant “actors.” Everyone likes them and they are usually the center of attention. Skillfully, they have realized the needs of the audience and their performance adjusts to please the reviewers. These people have many acquaintances but very few real friends. Penetrating the superficiality of the performance is reserved for a select few (or for no one). Often these people spend so much energy pleasing others or adapting their performance that they become unsure about who they really are. Even the “actor” has difficulty understanding what lies beneath his or her own façade.

When I was younger, I also “acted” for others but then realized that if everyone accepted me, then I was merely a conformist. In essence, I was just portraying a character that was like everyone else. If everyone accepted me, then basically, I was no different from anyone else. My uniqueness remained hidden behind an acceptable performance. When I got older, I changed my performance to reflect my individuality and subconsciously, I wanted the audience to reject me. If I was rejected, I could be certain that my differences were obvious. I knew that everyone would not like the unique person that I had become but at least I was being true to myself. Later in life, I found that I no longer needed an audience’s rejections because I didn’t have anything to prove. I knew I was different and I didn’t need other people’s reactions to reassure me of my individuality. Once I had proven my uniqueness to myself, I stopped giving people explicit reasons to reject me.

When it comes to developing close friendships with others, I am still looking the right audience. I know I can't compromise my uniqueness only because certain people can't accept it. A person’s lack of approval only means that the audience isn't appropriate for the performance. I have learned that I need to be wise enough to understand when the performance needs to be altered, and I need to be strong enough to walk away from an inappropriate audience.

Appreciating a person’s individuality is also similar to appreciating a bottle of Lafite Rothschild Bordeaux. Few people understand the complexities of a bottle of Lafite; and a person who has not acquired a discriminating palate is unwilling to pay its high price (which costs $300-$1,000 a bottle). If a bottle of Lafite is not recognized as being significantly different from a $10 bottle of Beaujolais Villages, why would anyone pay the extra $290?

To appreciate Lafite, a person has to have the commitment to acquire a discriminating palate, which could take many years. Sophisticated wine connoisseurs gladly pay the price for Lafite because they understand that its subtle differentiation distinguishes it from all the other wines in the world and they believe that it is worth at least $300 to experience its uniqueness of flavor. Undoubtedly, the bottle of Lafite stays on the shelf longer than the Beaujolais Villages because there are fewer people in the world who appreciate the value of Lafite and only the minority is willing to pay the high price for its benefits. However, the few people who decide to purchase Lafite understand that they have just purchased a rare treat and they appreciate the experience to the fullest degree.

Lafite shouldn't be shared with someone who cannot distinguish one wine from another because its value would be wasted; and unique individuals should be patient enough to wait for people who can appreciate them. They may not be "purchased" very often but when they are, they can be sure that the “buyer” understands and appreciates the value of their differences.

Undoubtedly, some people buy Lafite for all the wrong reasons. Since its reputation is praised by wine connoisseurs, individuals who cannot appreciate its value may choose to purchase the wine in an attempt to impress others or as a way of pretending that they can distinguish a good wine from an inferior one. In the same vein, pretentious people can desire someone’s “external packaging” without an appreciation of the person’s individuality. Attractive women or wealthy men are often chosen for all the wrong reasons. Impressing other people or satisfying one’s ego in the short-term becomes more important than ensuring long-term compatibility. Eventually, the benefits of the “acquisition” fade and the relationship ends with unhappiness and bitterness. External “resumes” should never be more important than a person’s true intrinsic value.

When I dated someone, I could easily tell if he could not appreciate the value of my differences. Often, I would end the relationship by telling him that he didn’t really want me. Instead, he really wanted to “drink a different bottle.” My dates never understood this rejection. They insisted that I was wrong. How could I be telling them what they wanted? I knew they wanted someone who was cute, nice and fun and they thought that I fit these descriptors. Yet, they failed to appreciate the complexity of my character. I knew the person who was “right” for me would appreciate the uniqueness that I had worked so hard to achieve.

If life is a stage and if we all are its performers, then we need to see beyond people’s costumes to appreciate their souls. Sometimes a disguise merely conceals the characteristics of a unique individual who is afraid of rejection. Masks make us feel that we easily fit into society because our costumes usually reflect other people’s expectations. Masks are a form of fake conformity. When we take off our disguises, we reveal ourselves, which means that we also reveal our vulnerabilities. If we weren’t afraid of judgment, we wouldn’t be afraid of removing our masks. It is similar to Halloween. When we walk into the party as someone else, we are free to act out any character trait without judgment. When we take off the mask, all our actions are attributable to us.

Normality appears to be beneficial, but it only means that a person is exactly the same as everyone else. Even if people appear to be the same, they are not; and striving for abnormality is actually a strength. In society, we need to be able to accept differences by allowing people to remove their masks. Kevin Spacey once said that actors are healthy because they can express hidden elements of their personality through characters that are different from themselves. Are any of us any different? Doesn’t a mask allow us to express certain personality traits behind a disguise that appears to be different from ourselves?

It takes guts to remove the mask, but there are also benefits. We breathe easier because we can be forthright and honest regardless of the consequences. How many people are strong enough to expose their true character? How many people really know who they are? Do we wear masks because we are hiding from ourselves? If we take off our masks, are we afraid of what we will see? In the Scarlet Letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote, “No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the truth.” Our masks can make us believe that our external personas (or how others perceive us) characterize our true identity. We may become confused between the person we are in public and the person who is hidden behind the socially acceptable performance.

Marianne Williamson says, “We are all afraid on some level that if people saw who we really are, they would recoil in horror. That is why we invent the mask, to hide our true selves. But the true self…is that which is most beautiful. We must reveal ourselves at the deepest level in order to find out how lovable we really are. When we dig deeply enough into our real nature, we do not find darkness. We find endless light…our safety actually lies in letting down our mask. But we cannot do this when we’re constantly afraid of being judged…we need to feel safe enough to be ourselves, knowing that our darkness will not be judged but forgiven.”

Individuals need to stop letting their external roles define who they are. We need to let go of our egos and our comparisons to others. As Wayne Dyer says, “Your ego believes you are what you do, what you have, what others think of you. Your ego believes you are separate from everyone else… Thus, that ego is always judging, evaluating and comparing you to others. When you don’t measure up, you engage in self-contempt. Then you review how many times you failed and turn those self-perceived failures into self-hate.” Who we are and what we do or what we project may be completely different from each other (in fact, it is more common that you do what you are instead of the other way around). There needs to be an honest evaluation of the difference between the essence of our true character and the masks that we wear. Costumes should be saved for Halloween, which is a time when frightening characters expose themselves to the world. All of our positive emotions cannot be expressed through a disguise. Love, generosity, compassion, and understanding require an honest expression of emotion.

If we take off our masks, we can reveal ourselves openly, which allows us to experience the spiritual liberation that comes from expressing our individuality. Freedom is achieved when we can unveil ourselves with confidence, without fear that others will negatively judge all the positive qualities that make us different from everyone else.

Is Honesty the Best Policy?

When I was five years old, I was accused of stealing my sister’s money. Nobody would believe that I didn’t do it, in spite of my painstaking attempts to proclaim my innocence. The injustice of being accused for something I didn’t do has affected me ever since. I knew that the real truth could be known by only me and after that day, it became difficult, if not impossible, for me to lie.

Some people think that honesty is an admirable character trait, but it has only gotten me in trouble. People tell us they want us to be honest, but many times they don’t. In High School, my girlfriends would show up at a party, and ask me, “Do I look good?” If the truthful answer to the question is no, it is impossible not to lie. Telling the truth can cause someone incredible pain, so often I have to ask the question, “What is worse; telling the truth or hurting someone’s feelings?”

I have discovered that certain questions are not really questions; they are only requests for affirmation. If someone asks for a compliment, many times we have to say things that may not be truthful. I had to be able to distinguish a real question from a question that had only one answer. If a friend asked me if she looked good while she was getting dressed, I could suggest another outfit. However, if the question arose when there was nothing to do to change the situation, the answer had to be yes, regardless of the truth.

The world is filled with a variety of people. Some people we like and others, we may not like. There is no requirement to like everyone, but this does not give us the right to tell people our true feelings. I always heard, “if you don’t have something nice to say, stay silent.” Usually, that policy avoids the situation of forced lying, but not always. There are many circumstances where silence is not accepted. Silence creates uncertainty, which can make others more insecure because their own fears are used as the basis for theorizing opinions. A simple silence can be turned into an insult if other people assume that their own thoughts are being shared by the person who is silent.

Often we must have relationships with people we would like to avoid. In professional situations, people with few similarities have to work together to achieve a common goal. Remaining professional requires tact, and often the avoidance of the truth. If we are in relationships for reasons other than personal choice, we have four options when we are confronted with questions where the truth is unpleasant. We can tell the truth, which may hurt someone else’s feelings; we can lie to maintain the relationship; we can stay silent; or we can end the relationship.

Even though honesty may be admirable, hurting someone else’s feelings can be much worse than telling a lie. We can open a wound that could take years to heal. Or we can cause someone to feel extremely insecure, which can damage a person’s self-esteem. I’ve learned that the ultimate honesty must begin with ourselves. We have to be truthful about why we are involved with other people in the first place. If the relationship is required for professional reasons or because we are related by blood, honesty or ending the relationship may not be possible. We can’t quit our jobs every time we encounter someone we don’t like and we can’t join another person’s family. There are also many situations where the truth is too painful. In these relationships, silence or lying may be the only way to avoid causing pain.

The best way to minimize the need to lie is to have personal relationships only when the truth is not painful. If thoughts are continually negative about someone else, the relationship should end. Some people stay in negative relationships for all the wrong reasons. For example, a couple may stay together because the need for security or the need to provide stability for the children is greater than other needs. A relationship that is based on a foundation other than love will most likely result in pain. In a close relationship, the truth eventually comes out, even if the words are not said directly. If the truth hurts, the relationship will hurt. Lying, remaining silent, or ending relationships are options that will either fail or are avoided.

Someone once told me that you should always tell the truth because it is easier to remember. If honesty were so easy, then why do so many people lie? Do we believe that others are unable to handle the truth? What is the real motivation behind lying? Are we really lying to others, or are we lying to ourselves?

People often lie to get out of trouble. When we are younger, lies often avoid punishment. If we don’t get caught, we may believe that this tactic can work our entire lives. Yet, the people we usually hurt by lying are usually ourselves. We live with the fear of “getting caught” and once we lie to someone, we have to continue to lie or we will have to face the embarrassment of our actions and a negative reputation for being untrustworthy. Many people are unable to forgive someone after the person lies, even if it happens only once. When I first met Melissa, she emphatically proclaimed that she could never forgive someone who lied to her. If someone lied, that person was no longer a part of her life. I thought the comment was fairly harsh since most people have lied at one time or another but I knew I would never change her views. The best thing I could do was to set an example. Two months later, a mutual friend of ours blatantly lied to me. It was more important for me to forgive him for Melissa’s sake because it was the only way I could make the statement that I needed to make. In my mind, it was more important that her opinion of him remain untarnished. I noticed that her compliments about him started to change and even though I was the one hurt by the lies, I found myself defending him and offering rationalizations for his behavior. I still don’t think his reputation has been untarnished in her mind, but for me, I had to be sure to continually give him the benefit of the doubt.

People also lie because they believe that others will “like” them more if they portray a character that appears to be superior to their own self-image. I have never understood this motivation for lying. If people like us because they think we are someone we are not, then they don’t really like us at all. They only like some character we have created. If we become this character in other people’s presence, we can never know if someone likes us for who we really are.

Another motivation for lying is because we feel guilt over something we have done. If we are late for an appointment, we may make up a reason that appears to be more forgivable than our own irresponsibility. If we are unfaithful in a relationship, a lie appears to keep the relationship together. Yet, the lasting negative aspects of infidelity are the guilt and lies that follow the action. Even if we think we “have gotten away with something,” we never really do because the lies and guilt remain long after the act has occurred. In our hearts, we know that we can’t really be trusted even if our partner continues to trust us. In essence, we just can’t trust ourselves.

Some form of lying happens when we purposely avoid telling someone something that we know will affect our relationship. In the movie School Ties, Brandon Fraser did not tell his classmates he was Jewish. He never lied but he knew they could not handle the truth. When they found out about his religion, they alienated him and accused him of lying even though no lie had ever been spoken. The other students didn’t tell him their religions and no one asked about his, so how could he be accused of lying? We should not be required to tell people things that they may not be able to handle until we are sure that we can trust them with the information. I don’t tell every stranger about my non-conformist views but before developing a deeper relationship with someone, I usually let the person know who I am. I release the information fairly quickly because the rejection hurts more if I have developed an attachment to the person – and I know that it is easier to reject non-conformity than to accept it.

Sometimes people lie because they have convinced themselves of an alternate reality. The inability to see the world clearly can result in lies that are perceived to be truthful. For example, individuals may see themselves as victims of external circumstances when they are actually the ones to blame. “I can’t understand why everyone deceives me and treats me poorly,” claimed a relative. “I am always giving and everyone else is always taking. Every time I do something nice for someone, they take advantage of me.” In actuality, others do not perceive this person as giving or generous. The self-perception of “being taken advantage of” is actually a lie. This person merely has a unique set of rules that causes a skewed definition of “balance.”

Frequently, people who believe that they are givers are actually perceived as takers. They just believe that they should be given more in the first place and if those expectations aren’t realized, they feel cheated. Often these people can only see the world through their own eyes. They only see the times that another person has hurt them, without recognizing that the pain could have been provoked. They remember all the times they helped someone else and conveniently forget the reciprocation. Their perception of the truth is completely biased by their own needs and expectations.

Truth is relative to a person’s subjective experiences and a clear perception of reality is impossible if individuals aren’t first truthful with themselves. The problem is that some people can’t or won’t accept the truth about themselves. They may be afraid of looking at the truth, which causes avoidance; or they haven’t learned how to forgive themselves for acts they feel guilty about. These individuals either lie by altering the truth or they hide from their guilt by ignoring the truth. Others may measure their self-worth according to other people’s opinions, which causes them to believe that the masks they wear represent the truth. When they look in the mirror, they can only see a mirage. Some people are completely unaware of the truth. Their lying evolves from ignorance. Either because they are unable or unwilling to explore their true self, they become a number of characters, which completely adapt to external circumstances. They represent no one because they represent everyone.

Socrates believed that humankind’s highest obligation was to seek the truth. The pursuit of truth and self-knowledge formed the basis of Greek philosophy. “Knowing thyself” is a journey to depths of the soul without being afraid to discover the truth. It requires continual introspection and an ability to see the complete picture without judgment or idealism. Many people may argue that it is impossible to objectively know thyself because the analysis is conducted subjectively. How do we see ourselves without looking through our own eyes? How can we be certain that we are seeing the truth?

Objectivity could be achieved by listening to other people’s criticisms. These criticisms may be another person’s projections or they could represent the truth. Self-examination only requires that a person be open to discovering the truth. When someone hears criticism, he or she must ask, “is it possible that I am hearing is a truth that I have failed to see, or is the criticism untrue?” Honest and open introspection is the path that allows us to differentiate “fact” from fiction. We can’t think about what we would like to be or what we hope that others think about us; we have to focus only on finding the truth.

Being open to the truth means that a person can say, “If the criticism is true, I can accept it. If it is true, I can evolve by changing this particular attribute. It doesn’t mean that I am a bad person, it only means that I have found another human imperfection that requires some work.” Instead of being seen as negative, the criticism is seen as an opportunity for growth. If the goal in life is spiritual evolution, the criticism will be accepted openly. Half of the effort needed to change something is simply the acknowledgment that a particular attribute exists.

The process of introspection gives us the opportunity to learn the truth about ourselves. The result of the process is that we can tell the difference between a genuine criticism and a false accusation.

Introspection also gives us the strength to stand by ourselves. We do not need others to acknowledge our positive attributes and when we hear criticisms that are untrue, they don’t affect us. Our world does not revolve around other people’s judgments; they revolve around our own.

Even if the majority of people see us in a particular light, it does not mean that the light reflects reality. Often it reflects a common misunderstanding. For example, some people like to be alone, yet the need to be alone is often misunderstood. The majority may accuse “loners” of being unhappy and lonely because they are projecting their own feelings onto the activity. Their accusations do not make the criticism true. The only person who can accurately assess the criticism is the person who likes to be alone. Unfortunately, “loners” who are misunderstood feel lonelier around their criticizers because they stand alone with the truth that being by themselves makes them happy, rather than sad. Others won’t believe them because they could never understand how that statement could be true. Knowing thyself means that a person has the strength to ignore majority opinion when the judgments are untrue.

Telling the truth is often difficult because of other people’s reactions. For example, when we admit that we are feeling grief or sadness, others offer advice about how to recover, instead of providing compassion for the pain. “Time heals all wounds,” or “tomorrow will be a better day” are statements used to “comfort” people who suffer. Human beings need to openly express all feelings, whether they are positive or negative. Eventually, many people simply hide the truth about feeling pain because others don’t want to hear about negative emotions.

The truth is also difficult because people want to be strong during times of crisis. When parents are afraid, they hide it from their children. When friends are sad, they conceal their pain to provide the illusion that they are coping with their grief. We need to allow friends and family to share their pain without judgment. People who are suffering simply need someone to listen; they do not need advice about how to ignore or recover from pain. Being able to tell the truth requires acceptance and compassion, rather than rejection and condemnation.

Outside of the mathematical and scientific world, the “objective” truth might not exist, or if it does, we may never be able to discover it. Joseph Campbell says, “The ultimate truth cannot be put into words. It is beyond words, beyond images.” Even history is subjected to interpretation. We can report that an event took place on a certain day at a certain time and that observation may be the truth. Yet beyond the simple citing of the facts, the truth is subject to individual perception. The truth is biased by the person who tells it.

On September 11th, the United States witnessed the most devastating and catastrophic terrorist attack in world history. The truth seen through the eyes of most of the world is extremely different from the truth seen through the eyes of the terrorists. In horror and with extreme disbelief, we wonder how any human being could have planned or executed such an attack. These terrorists, on the other hand, hold a religious book in one hand and a shotgun in the other. “In the name of God” they commit an atrocity against humankind that would be severely condemned by any power in the universe. They label their heinous acts of brutality as a part of a “Holy” War. How could terrorists possibly rationalize the murder of thousands of innocent people because they disagreed with US foreign policy? The only way to understand their version of the truth is by assuming that they are insane because their subjective reality does not fit within any type of reality that we could imagine. Yet these are people who have spent their entire lives killing innocent people to support their principles, and they continually view their actions as being the same as any other war that was fought to preserve belief systems. Their version of the truth is as insane as Hitler’s “truth” about the superior race. It is a “truth” founded in darkness, hate, evil, and inconceivable weakness and insecurity.

We still wonder how any God could have allowed the terrorist massacre to occur. The problem is that the truth we see is only a piece of a much larger pie. What if the events on September 11^th were needed to avoid a much larger atrocity, such as the complete annihilation of the planet? The attack united the world against terrorism. Was that unification necessary to prevent the destruction of humankind? Did an alternate time line exist that prevented this attack but allowed the release of a contagious biological weapon? Did the victims die as heroes because they saved the lives of billions? The truth of the universe may be different from the truth on earth and these types of universal truths may be completely inaccessible to us while we are alive.

Many times the truth that is known to few is not the same as the truth that is known by many. Our history books may represent a truth that fails to include information that was hidden from the public. History books report that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy. Was that the truth? Or was information withheld by our government so that acceptable lies are presented instead of a truth that could cause outrage and despair?

Truth is also affected by what we personally see, feel and hear. Many people report out-of-body experiences (OBE). These people consciously travel in another dimension. Since they have experienced the event firsthand, they know that it is real. Even if the majority tells them that they are dreaming, they know that they are not. The truth for them is clear even if no one chooses to believe it. Yet what is the truth of an OBE? Is it a type of lucid dreaming, an altered consciousness, or a spiritual journey? We may never know.

Individuals are entitled to have their own views of the truth. The truth for one person will always be different from the truth for others. People need to be open to other’s perception of the truth, with expressions of compassion instead of judgment.

We also have a responsibility to discover the truth about ourselves. When I made a personal commitment to find truth, I knew I had to start with myself. My view of the truth might not always be the same as other people’s perceptions about me and I had to be comfortable with that. How could I expect an acquaintance to understand characteristics about me that took years of introspection to understand? I have realized that I need to secure with my own perception of the truth and ultimately, I know that I have to stand strong, even if it means that I have to stand alone.

Older and Wiser

Mr. Roselli sat on the bench in the front of his nursing home every day during Spring, Summer, and Fall. He said hello and waved to everyone in the neighborhood. Mr. Roselli became an expected sight in the North End of downtown Boston. Although we exchanged only a daily greeting, I felt that he was part of my life. Every time I saw him, I felt happy. I wished I could add pleasure to his life in the same way he added pleasure to mine, but in spite of the daily greeting, I was silent. On a hot day in August, he granted my wish by asking for ice cream. I felt grateful that he had given me the opportunity to do something nice for him, even if it was only ice cream. One day, Mr. Roselli disappeared. For weeks, I prayed that he would return, but I never saw him again. I was left mourning the death of someone I never knew. I lost a friend that I never had and I felt sad that I never seized the opportunity to know him before all my chances were gone. Why are we reluctant to go out on a limb to bring happiness to the lives of strangers? Does fear prevent us from interacting with others who are different from ourselves? Or is there just an invisible wall between the elderly and the rest of society? Mr. Roselli tried to bridge this gap, but instead, we all just passed him by.

I still stare at the empty bench and see Mr. Roselli. I am reminded of the feelings of envy and compassion that were ignited by him. I was envious that he had already survived life’s challenges. He had wisdom that I could only hope to achieve. Mr. Roselli had weathered the hardships of depression, technological change, disappointment and grief. In spite of all life’s lessons, he approached each day with optimism and joy. I wondered if I would still welcome the world when I reached his age; or would the scars of battle force my soul to retreat?

I wondered if Mr. Roselli was relieved to die. At some point are we just ready to graduate? Do we feel that the days between the last class and the graduation ceremony linger indefinitely? In school, we know the date of our graduation and we plan accordingly. In life, our greatest uncertainty is the date of our death. We know that the chance of dying is 100% but our greatest mystery is when. Would life be different if we thought that our graduation was close?

There is a group of woman who regularly sit in chairs in front of the nursing home that is next to my gym. One day I told them that I envied them because it seemed that their conversations were so enjoyable. With an expression of sadness, one of the women immediately replied, “but there is nothing else that we can do.” My envy immediately turned to compassion. I couldn’t understand. They had more friends than I have. They have the time to be together to share their lives with each other; but instead, they are only filling the time; waiting for something that they can’t define.

Compassion for the elderly also results from the imperfections of the human body. As an internal defense against a repressive marriage, my grandmother spent her entire life looking forward to old age. Before exercise was fashionable, she worked out every day. Her daily meals were filled with an abundance of vegetables and vitamins and she never smoked or drank. All her fantasies were stored in a box that would be opened after her husband was gone. She longed for the day that she could pursue her dreams without judgment or ridicule. When my grandfather died, the flower bloomed. She traveled around the world, started dating someone new and pursued the dreams that had been hidden for so long. Articles were written about her accomplishments and she won awards. She even started writing and publishing poetry. Yet the universe always has the final word. No matter how hard we try to preserve life, there’s a silent plan that interferes. Five years after she began pursuing her dreams, my grandmother had a stroke. She was confined to a wheelchair and she instantaneously forgot all the plans that she had made. Her dreams came to an abrupt and unexpected halt.

If we have a dream, we need to pursue it now. If there is a restless urge to travel to Africa, we must find a way. If the Peace Corps ignites a mystery in our soul, we must avoid the excuses we use to leave everything behind. Age is an illusion. Someone who is 15 may actually be at middle age and someone who is 40 may have only a few years left. We cannot plan our lives according to the expected average life span. Averages do not always apply. Which half are we? Are we the half that dies before the average or the half that lives longer?

I’ve always wondered why we retire when we become old. In our later years, our self-worth can suffer the most. As we get older, we need work-related accomplishments to reinforce our value in this world. It is also the time when we are physically weak. If our planned retirement includes travel, most places will be difficult to explore. Ancient walled cities in Europe are built at the top of cliffs. To discover these cities, strenuous walking is required. Why don’t we plan for retirement in the middle of our life? Retirement is our earned vacation. If an early death occurs, we will be deprived of a dream that we truly deserve.

The United States is a country that rewards youth and neglects the wisdom of the elderly. In the US, someone says he is 50 and the response is, “You look wonderful. I could have sworn that you were only 40.” In China, when someone says he is 50, the compliment is, “You are only 50? I could have sworn you were at least 60.” In the East, wisdom is valued higher than youth.

The US is obsessed with hard bodies, endowed figures and wrinkle-free faces. We buy magazines that with slender models on the cover. The more beautiful the actor, the higher the box office proceeds. Everyone knows who Julia Roberts is. Only the minority is familiar with Joseph Campbell. The challenge in life is maintaining self-esteem when the majority cannot appreciate what you have to offer. As a society, how do we show an appreciation for the value of wisdom? How do we allow the elderly to share valuable lessons with the rest of us?

I recently heard that the elderly are now being employed as teachers in elementary schools. This revolutionary idea is brilliant. The elderly receives value from being able to share their knowledge with children and they reduce the scarcity of good teachers. Additionally, the lower salaries for teaching are not criticized by the elderly. I also applaud the programs that bring orphanages together with nursing homes. Creating foster grandparents is a wonderful idea. Children in orphanages feel alone and older individuals in nursing homes feel alone. Wouldn’t it be better if both groups could be less alone by being with each other? Though I wonder whether these programs only offer companionship instead of leadership. Most older Americans have stopped telling their stories and children don’t know what to ask. I asked the group of people at our local nursing home about their programs with kids. Their first response was that children didn’t want to hear what they had to say and school groups hadn’t been there in years. Orphanages never came to the nursing home. Maybe children aren’t the appropriate target group for their wisdom. They may be too young to appreciate the value of their learning. Perhaps adults could use the information more productively.

Gaining wisdom is easier if we have the opportunity to stand on other people’s shoulders. Where would science be today without the teachings of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein? Each person who lives on this planet has learned valuable lessons that need to be shared. Why should we reinvent the wheel every time a new life is born? Wouldn’t it be easier if we could learn from others who had traveled the roads before us?

I often wonder why we don’t reach out to the elderly more often. Are we afraid of old age because it is a visual reminder of what we will eventually become? Do we just ignore the inevitable by believing that it will be different for us? In most families, grandparents are tolerated rather than revered. Visits to nursing homes are filled with feelings of obligation instead of anticipation. How do we change people’s attitudes toward the elderly?

Most of us will be old one day. Don’t we want the quality of life to be positive? Charities focus on children, instead of older individuals. The Make a Wish Foundation grants wishes to children with terminal diseases. Why isn’t there a Make a Wish foundation for the elderly? These people have terminal diseases too, and it is a terminal disease that we all may share. People who are older have wishes too. “My best friend died last week,” related an elderly acquaintance. “Her only wish was to see her son in Wisconsin one more time before she died. Her son didn’t have the money to fly to Boston and she didn’t have the money to send him. She was never able to see him before her death. Her ashes were sent to Wisconsin yesterday and it broke my heart. If only there had been a way to bring them together one last time,” she said as her eyes filled with tears.

In Boston’s North End, there are Italian religious festivals during the summer weekends. Marching bands parade the streets carrying a statue of Madonna and people drop rolls of dollar bills out of their window as a religious contribution. During the Fisherman’s Feast, the parade was halted for almost an hour as the rolls of dollar bills were lowered into the street from the windows of the nursing home on my street. They graciously gave from their hearts even though they rarely receive anything in return. They believe in charity when others’ charity passes them by. The goal of society is to ensure that the stronger members help the weaker members survive. Charitable programs that help children are beneficial because they are weaker than adults; but we need to look both directions. The charitable commitment to children should be equal to the charitable commitment for older individuals.

We have a responsibility as a society to change our attitudes toward the elderly and to incorporate them into our lives. We can’t ignore an entire group of human beings because we are afraid of old age. Death is nothing to be afraid of. Life can be scarier than death. Especially a life has lost its purpose. Elderly individuals deserve genuine compassion, instead of actions that are based on guilt or obligation.

The wisest person I ever met was an 80-year-old stranger I met in the park. I was mesmerized by his words. Even though ten years have passed, I still think about what he said. If he hadn’t had the courage to talk to me, I would have missed a message that had a profound effect on my life. I’ve asked many people why don’t we don’t have one day a year when we honor the elderly. It’s not fair that they have given so much to society, only to be forgotten when they are old.

We need to break down the walls that separate youth from old age. If we don’t do something now, we are only perpetuating our eventual fate. It’s not going to be any different for us when we are 80; and if we ignore the problem today, we may be too weak to change things when they actually affect us.

Where would we be without older Americans? They supported us during both World Wars. They helped rebuild our economy during the worst depression in US history. Throughout their lives, they put their trust in us. Now it is time for us to put our trust in them. They are the same people in older bodies. Inside they feel young even if the mirror tells them that they are old. When we become part of the elderly population, we will finally realize that time is only an illusion. Do we treat older Americans in the same way that we would want to be treated? Do we want to sit on park benches waiting for our lives to end? Do we want a life where each day feels like eternity; a day filled with endless pain medication, television shows and bridge games? If that is not the desired future, then we have to make a commitment to increase the value of their lives. We need to ensure that being old doesn’t become synonymous with being neglected. We need to follow the example of countries in Europe and Asia. As a society, we need to value wisdom more highly than youth.

The Modern Spinster

Some words in the English language elicit a strong emotional reaction. Spinster is one of those words. To a woman in her late 30’s or early 40’s, there are few words that provoke a more negative connotation than spinster. The origin of the word dates back to the time when marriage was the primary definition of success for a woman. A woman’s role in society was to get married, and if unmarried, the woman was unsuccessful. Even though times have changed and the definition of success has broadened, the antiquated negative connotations for the word “spinster” remain. Does this mean that on a subconscious (and sometimes conscious) level, older unmarried women still use marriage as a definition of personal success?

When I was five years old, my parents told me that a woman on our block was a spinster. It was the only time that I can recall the use of the word. She was in her late 30’s and she still lived with her mother. Her hair was tied back in a bun and she wore blue pointed glasses and dowdy clothing. No one ever thought this woman would get married and she was subjected to pity and scorn from everyone who knew her. Ironically, this woman did not stay single. The only “spinster” I ever knew got a makeover, left home and had a happy marriage. If she eventually got married, then how could she have been called a spinster?

I looked up the definition of the word and Webster’s dictionary states that a spinster is a woman who is still unmarried beyond the “usual” age of marriage or a woman who has never married. In the first case, the definition is transitory. If the woman eventually marries, she was only a spinster temporarily because during a period of time she was unmarried and older than the “normal” age for marriage. The first definition implies that at any point in time, half of all women are spinsters because the “usual” age is only a median number. The “usual” age is defined by the fact that half of the women get married younger and half get married older. However, if the definition of a spinster is a woman who never marries, we cannot know if she is a spinster until the day of her death.

The connotation of the word “spinster” may be someone who is unmarried at a particular age (which is usually older than the average age of marriage); but this subjective determination varies by geographic region, cultural norms and historical era. In 1965, the subjective age could have been 32 and today, it may be 42. By 2015, the age may disappear altogether.

The most interesting evolution in society is the personal attributes of the spinsters of the 1950’s compared to the spinsters of today. Fifty years ago, marriage was based primarily on attraction. My own mother was engaged to three men simultaneously and my father was only selected at the last minute as the ultimate winner of the “contest.” At that time, men desperately wanted to get married so that they could have sex on a regular basis and because they needed to depend on someone to look after the house and children. The ideal mate was a mixture of a maid, caretaker and sex partner. The qualities necessary for “success” were beauty, homemaking skills and kindness. Unique individuality was not a part of the equation. In fact, it detracted from the equation because a woman with a strong character might not be happy confined to the house and bedroom.

Growing up in the 60’s, women were taught that success was broader than marriage. Opportunities were unlimited. Graduate schools accepted many more women into their programs and women began to infiltrate professions that were typically male. It was no longer realistic to assume that doctors were only men. Women embraced their new marching orders with increased enthusiasm. They spent years developing their own unique personality characteristics and strove for success at the highest levels of society. At 35, a woman could now be one of the leaders of an elite group that used to be reserved for only men. Yet something unexpected happened along the way. All of a sudden, finding an appropriate partner became more difficult than obtaining the last promotion.

A self-assured, professionally successful woman no longer needs a steady provider as a partner. Instead, the success of a relationship depends on finding someone who can accept and appreciate the woman’s hard-fought individuality. The woman of the 21^st century conflicts with the preconceived notion of the passive sex partner and homemaker.

As women were evolving, weren’t men’s preferences evolving simultaneously? Why were men still seeking uncomplicated women who were willing to sacrifice their individuality for the promise of marriage? The movie, Runaway Bride, portrays this contradiction concisely. The woman who kept receiving marriage proposals was the one who became whatever the man was seeking. Her own individuality was lost.

It is not surprising that there is a strong correlation between confident individuality and staying single. Unfortunately, the boys of the 60’s had only one role model for the ideal marriage partner – their own mothers. Their mothers were homemakers, not top-level executives of major corporations. Their mothers made snacks after school, rather than closing the latest merger.

Today’s spinsters are stuck in a temporary time warp. They are creating the role models that the boys of today need to accept the professional women of the future. However, by performing this role for society, they face their own form of discrimination. How many times have these women been asked, “why are you still single? Or the backhanded compliment, “I can’t understand why men aren’t beating down your door.” Perhaps the men who ask these questions should simply look in the mirror. Modern spinsters are beautiful, successful, confident and interesting. They no longer wear dowdy clothing and blue glasses. They wear the latest fashion and tinted contact lenses. They do not live with their parents. They live in $500,000 condos decorated with antiques and fine art. They wouldn’t even know what to register for because they already have everything.

Marriage is no longer a requirement for personal satisfaction. It has evolved to a luxury that is indulged only if the right person appears. Marriage is not even needed for children anymore. If desired, these women can have children by themselves.

The optimal time for marriage may not be in the late 20’s or early 30’s. Perhaps it is at the entrance to old age. Growing old with someone may be more desirable than sacrificing individuality during the prime of life. When two people reach 70, their goals may finally be compatible. The couple can share their desire for rest and relaxation, even if they would have continually argued about the woman’s desire for a full-time career.

The independent, confident, and self-assured spinster has three requirements for marriage: The 3 C’s. The first C is chemistry. Chemistry forms the basis for infatuation, passion, excitement, and a mysterious connection with another human being. Chemistry cannot be understood or explained. It is truly magical. Chemistry evolves from smell, intonation, body language and the subtle nuances of character that only the subconscious mind can detect. Eastern religions might explain chemistry as a favorable memory or recognition of someone from a life lived long ago.

The second C is comprehension. Comprehension is an understanding and appreciation of the person’s individuality. In conversation, comprehension is the statement, “I accept you for who you are. I don’t need you to become a preconceived fantasy of the ideal woman.” Comprehension allows us to make compromises to make a relationship work, without compromising ourselves. Comprehension also requires compassion and non-judgment -- compassion for a person’s suffering in life and an acceptance of a person’s character without a negative judgment of characteristics simply because they are different, unusual, or unexpected. Finally, comprehension requires empathy. Individuals need to see their partners through their partners’ eyes, rather than through their own.

The third C is communication. Effective communication is the nourishment that allows the relationship to grow and evolve. Communication is intellectual, emotional and spiritual. Inevitably, seduction and desire are sustained through the power of the mind.

In the past, marriages were based on the first C alone. If there was chemistry, there was marriage. Currently, some marriages are based on chemistry and communication without realizing that comprehension doesn’t exist. Some people can become so involved with their own fantasies that they honestly believe that their spouse is the same as their fantasy. After years of objective perception and reflection, they finally discover that the person they married isn’t their fantasy at all. Or if chemistry and comprehension are achieved, the marriage fails as the partners find that they can no longer communicate as the relationship changes. Without communication, the relationship evolves to a roommate scenario where superficial conversations about events replace the profound discussions about dreams, goals, and ideas.

Finding these three C’s is an extremely difficult task and it is not likely to occur early in life. Comprehension can be obtained only after the person’s individuality has developed. Yet, most women discover their unique character traits from the ages of 32 to 38. Marriage prior to the age of 32 occurs while the woman’s personal identity is still evolving.

If a woman waits until after her individuality is formed, she may find that everyone else was getting married while she was discovering herself. Not only are there fewer possibilities, but she also has more complicated requirements for a successful partnership. Her potential partners need to accept this brilliant sculpture that was created by her own hands. Even though it may have been much easier to get married while her character was a lump of clay that could be molded by someone else, the outcome could have been extremely unfulfilling or in violation of her internal needs for happiness or personal satisfaction.

Fear is another barrier to marriage with a strong, independent woman. Men have evolved in many ways, but for many men, the need for superiority remains. Male dominance goes back to the stone ages. Their bodies are stronger and during primitive times, strength was a necessary component for success of the family unit. Reluctantly, men now have to accept that physical strength is an obsolete requirement for marriage (since it always can be hired when necessary). Dominance has now been replaced with balance. One person may be smarter, while the other person may be more creative. Superiority of a particular attribute should be respected rather than feared.

Yet some less secure men still need superiority in every area. They need to be stronger, smarter, more responsible, and professionally more successful. This need for superiority completely violates the principle of acceptance. The woman may be smarter or may earn more income, but if this form of “dominance” is seen as threatening instead of enticing, the independent successful woman is rejected and replaced by the more docile, dependent partner.

The women of the 21^st century were told that intelligence and success were positive attributes, so they fought to obtain them. Yet, inevitably, these strong women become confused when insecure men criticize the personality characteristics that took so much work to achieve. How many women have wondered why their best qualities are being labeled as faults? It is difficult to understand that the label is the problem instead of the attribute.

I’ve never understood why older unmarried men are called “eligible bachelors or playboys,” while there are no positive words to describe an older unmarried woman; and I don’t understand why divorce is judged less negatively than remaining single. Is it better to make a mistake and marry the wrong person than to wait for someone who is right? The single person knew that a potential partner was inappropriate and refused to walk down the aisle. Men may have been beating down the door, but she refused to let them in. As a society, we have labeled the determination to wait for the right person as negative.

An attractive, successful, intelligent single friend related an interesting story, “I called a friend who I hadn’t seen in ten years,” she explained. “Her first question was whether I was married or not. When I said that I wasn’t married, she begged me to confess that I was really gay. I couldn’t understand why her first assumption was that I was a homosexual rather than simply unable to meet the right guy. She had seen me date and fall in love with men for years. Why is homosexuality more probable than the conclusion that there might not be someone for everyone?”

Personally, I’ve often wondered why people don’t expect that an attractive, successful, intelligent woman in her late thirties or early forties would be single. For me, the question is the reverse. When I see a successful, attractive, intelligent person who is married, I wonder why she isn’t single. My hypothesis is that there are three possible reasons: 1) she got married young, before her spouse recognized her intelligence and accomplishments (since early in life everyone is just starting out); 2) the man she married is extremely secure and not threatened by her accomplishments; or 3) her spouse perceives himself to be more intelligent and successful than she is. Not surprisingly, I’ve witnessed the fewest number of younger marriages explained by reason #2 but when my attractive, successful, intelligent friends get married later in life, it is always because they found someone who was not threatened by their accomplishments.

The negative connotation of the word spinster needs to evolve with the times. It is no longer negative that a woman had the courage to wait for a partner that could appreciate her individuality without judging it. The need to compromise uniqueness in order to receive a marriage proposal is the attribute that should be classified as negative.

Sure, most women want to get married if the right person comes along. It would be nice to share life’s moments with someone we love. Yet, the fear of being alone should never be greater than the fear of being with the wrong person. The modern spinster should be congratulated for her courage to wait for the right person, rather than be judged for her refusal to make a mistake.