QA 46. Motion of confidence (Part 1)

I’ve been thinking about confidence and security: how they are related, how they operate within intimate relationships, how we get it wrong and how we could do better. “Getting it wrong” is when one person’s insecurity undermines the other’s confidence, or one’s confidence reinforces the other’s insecurity, or any other twist of neediness, dependence and power.

Confidence and security are both concerned with uncertainty: I don’t know what’s going to happen and I don’t know if I have enough information or the right understanding or if my judgement is sound or even what I’m capable of. What I am willing to risk depends on my confidence and my vulnerability. It’s important to have an accurate sense of both.

Confidence comes from Latin fidere, “trust”, prefixed with con-, expressing “intensive force”. In the words of John Dewey:

confidence is not a name for what one thinks or feels about his attitude; it is not reflex. It denotes the straightforwardness with which one goes at what he has to do. It denotes not conscious trust in the efficacy of one’s powers but unconscious faith in the possibilities of the situation. It signifies rising to the needs of the situation.

Dewey is talking here about an inherent and unconditional confidence, but we’re much more aware of the “conscious trust… in one’s powers” that grows from skills and familiarity. This is a secondary, conditioned kind of confidence. You can point to its foundations. You can jump up and down to demonstrate how strong they are.

Vulnerability is the possibility of being wounded. It’s a possibility that’s sure to come along and this is why uncertainty is such a torment. For Hamlet, awareness of “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to… makes cowards of us all”. Where we feel vulnerable, we want to take security measures. Security is provisional: it looks ahead and makes provision. It’s all about risk assessment and mitigation. From the Latin securus, from se- “without” and cura “care”, security means: “No worries!”

The Buddhist parable of the acrobats teaches that we keep others safe by keeping ourselves safe and that we keep ourselves safe by keeping others safe. To be able to provide for ourselves and look out for others is itself a mark of confidence, integrity and maturity. Confidence doesn’t scorn security – as does bravado (a “show” of confidence). But neither does it allow security concerns to constrain or undermine it. It’s courageous.

Sometimes we are incapable of keeping ourselves or others safe. Childhood is an extended time of such vulnerability and dependence. How we were cared for and how we learned to care for ourselves then probably still colours how we deal with uncertainty and vulnerability, especially in our closest relationships. Was care given generously and freely, without fuss, resentment or humiliation? Was it given sanely and intelligently, according to our needs and in accordance with the real situation? The capacity for confidence may be inherent, but it is nourished with good care.

to be continued…

Advertisements

3 responses to “QA 46. Motion of confidence (Part 1)

  1. Confidence implies community and trust: literally meaning to share one’s faith with another. It could be faith with oneself, or with God, or faith with one’s friends. It suggests a certain vulnerable openness to others, even in politics or at least in public spaces. But there is such a great risk in doing so, the risk of betrayal or misunderstanding. In his last novel, Melville’s “Confidence-Man” explored that space. The great South African novelist Nadine Gordimer exquisitely explored that faith in the era and then the aftermath of Apartheid. How can one regain confidence with others, once that faith has been damaged or lost? How can one ever trust again?

  2. Can actual confidence and freedom exist without understanding inherent wholeness, dignity and value?

    The culture for profit, as an entity, is sustained by consented dehumanization and is modeled and taught through our educational practices, political practices, and religious practices.

    These systems have been designed to rule by complexity and to leverage man against man where your inherent value is non-existent until it is proven through educational merits and productivity.

    They are sustained by idolized beliefs and masturbating cleverness to maintain ‘global’ usury of people and natural resources for profit.

    These unexamined practices and their systems are re-enforced by politicians, teachers, and the pulpit. They are sacred cows that rule through inherent complexity to maintain power and profit.

    The daily destruction of your inherent freedom is only possible as it is an insidious ‘complexity’ looting of your human wholeness, dignity & value!

    True freedom, to be open,vulnerable, and receptive, to life as is, unknown and uncertain, in natural flux and flow, requires a personal understanding that accepts and acknowledges inherent wholeness, dignity, and value in yourself and your other. When this is clearly understood the individual will no longer commit to unsustainable practices and complex paradigm rule of self or other.

  3. Pingback: QA 47. Motion of confidence (Part 2) | Questions Arising

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s