Nobody expected that 2020 will bring a lock-down. This lock-down aimed to protect us from a highly contagious virus. Together, the lock-down and the virus changed how we live in ways that would have been hard to imagine in 2019. As things are slowly reopening, it is easy to question the health management strategies that were put in place. Lives? Livelihoods? Why did we lock up so late? Why did we lock up at all? Why does it seem that we do not know what we are doing?
It’s a complex dynamic situation that requires a set of complex dynamic responses. When risk to lives was relatively low, emphasis was on livelihoods and businesses stayed open. When risk to lives increased, the lock-down was instituted. When economy deteriorated to a point of undermining livelihoods AND lives, we started to consider a reopening. Despite these efforts, many got affected at a personal level.
Frustration is understandable but I would like you to pause and consider differences between an attack, an accident and an illness. If you get assaulted to a point of requiring medical intervention and lose some of your mobility, two things happen: you undergo treatment and the perpetrator is held accountable and potentially jailed. An attack implies intention. If you lose some of your mobility because of a car accident, the driver will be held accountable and might use their insurance to cover damages but the driver is unlikely to go to jail. There might be negligence but there is no intentionality in accidents. You, not the driver, will have to undergo the necessary treatment. If you lose your mobility because of a newly diagnosed neurological condition, you undergo treatment. Treatment is the common factor. At an individual level, it makes sense to focus on rebuilding (treatment). Keep in mind that your assailant might be in jail and that you might get all the insurance payments in the world, but if you refuse to participate in treatment, you won't recover.
It is true that if COVID-19 did not happen, we will all be better off today. There is no use in trying to “rationalize” ourselves out of reality. However, it is not useful to engage in wishful thinking and creating alternative scenarios in our heads.
“If only” thinking happens when we face losses – many have lost loved ones, many have lost what they have worked for. I am not advocating the idea of forgetting and moving on. I think that we should remember and rebuild precisely because we remember. Perhaps now we remember things differently and a friendly chat at a local cafe means more now than it did in 2019. Life will never be the same. We owe it to ourselves not make it worse.
“If-only” thinking takes away our sense of agency: “If only my spouse did not die, today I would not have to suffer from loneliness”, “If only my business did not have to close, today I would not be faced with bankruptcy”. Such realities are painful. Such thoughts are immobilizing and add to our pain.
Imagine what happens in a mind of a person who dares to live their life with full awareness. How does it feel to say: “I miss my spouse terribly but now I have to learn to live without them”. What is the inner experience of someone who is able to say: “I am disappointed and angry about bankruptcy because of all the effort I put into my business and because now I have to do it all over again”.
Of course, we prefer for such things not to have happened. That is why we claim that events like that should not have happened, as if we had an ability to retroactively stop such things from occurring by focusing on their unfairness. “Shoulds” imply moral imperative while “should-nots” assert violations of some agreed upon moral code. Yet, the only thing that we get from “shoulds” and “if onlys” is added frustration. So instead, let's focus on what is feasible.
Thinking about Thinking and Focus on Losses and Conditional Thinking handouts might be useful in addressing the issues discussed in this blog post.
Comments