I am writing this article from the Marion Method perspective, rather than as an Aware Parenting Instructor.
As a preface, if you really resonate with the word ‘regulation’ to refer to emotions or feelings, I support and value your experience and choice. Each of us has a different history and background, and how we feel in our bodies when we say a particular word can widely differ between people. I value deep acceptance for each person’s perspective and respect for each person’s choices.
I also want to acknowledge all the ways that the research and teachings about what is called emotional regulation have been profoundly helpful for many people.
I am passionate about discernment, clarity and choice in relation to the words we speak and write, which have a profound effect on how we feel and how we act.
THE HISTORY OF THE WORD REGULATION IN RELATION TO FEELINGS/EMOTIONS:
It’s my understanding that the term ‘regulation’ was first applied to feelings and emotions in Allan Schore’s book, ‘Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self,’ which was published in 1994 (‘affect’ meaning feelings or emotions). I deeply acknowledge all the value that his work and related work has brought to the world.
I value academic rigour and research. I did my Ph.D. at the Winnicott Research Unit, Cambridge University, where I looked at the relationship between mothers and babies in the context of post-natal depression and afterwards was a Research Fellow looking at the cognitive capacities of babies. I am so grateful for all the research which has shown us what babies and children experience, feel and need.
I’m also passionate about honouring knowledge acquired through embodied experience such as the the ongoing experience of being a parent.
Here are the reasons I don’t speak or write “regulation” to refer to feelings:
ETYMOLOGY
DISCONNECTED DOMINATION CULTURE THINKING
BEAUTY
CLARITY
HONOURING FEELINGS
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN NEEDS-FEELINGS AND FEELINGS-FEELINGS
HONOURING FEELINGS, MIND AND SOUL AS WELL AS THE BODY
ETYMOLOGY
I believe that the etymology of a word has an energetic imprint which affects us when we speak that word.
The dictionary definition of regulate says: “early 15c., “adjust by rule, control,” from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare “to control by rule, direct,” from Latin regula “rule, straight piece of wood” (from PIE root *reg- “move in a straight line,” with derivatives meaning “to direct in a straight line,” thus “to lead, rule”). Meaning “to govern by restriction” is from 1620s.
Here’s Jeremy Lent, in The Patterning Instinct, talking about the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root word “reg”:
“The PIE root word for king was *reg-, which led to the Sanskrit word raj as well as the Latin rex and English royal… Across Indo-European Languages, the root word *reg- forms the foundation for words such as right, straight, correct, ruler and regulate – suggesting a conceptual underpinning that links power with right and associates the strong right hand with regulating what is correct, and which may be summarised by the phrase “might is right”… Another deep-rooted cultural inheritance passed on by the PIE horsemen of the steppe is a dualistic pattern of thinking about the universe…. a binary opposition between right and left is extended through the PIE language to form a systematic pattern of opposites, with concepts of healthy, strong and dexterous on one side and unfavourable, weak and sinister (the Latin word for left) on the other side. The right side is associated with males and the left with females.”
Applying this etymology to feelings, the word ‘regulate’ could infer using power over, or having control over feelings.
This is an internalised version of the disconnected domination culture (DDC), where the mind is valued more than feelings and is used to judge, shame and suppress feelings, which is exactly what has happened in the DDC for thousands of years.
Through language, the DDC affects consciousness in subtle ways, often without us being conscious of it.
DISCONNECTED DOMINATION CULTURE THINKING
I wonder whether the word ‘regulate’ to refer to feelings is a version of what happens with the DDC – when the colonising force comes in and takes over a tradition or spiritual practice and calls it something different in ways that fundamentally change the original practice.
In the DDC, the mind and might have powered over feelings, bodies and the earth rather than worked in harmony with them, and this can also happen in our internal ecosystem.
I love and value our minds, and I also deeply value the innate wisdom of our feelings and bodies.
I don’t want my mind to rule over my feelings and use power-over like an internal representation of the external DDC as internal colonisation.
I do want to support a healthy internal ecosystem, where my body, feelings, mind and soul are working together in harmony, with the Inner Loving Parents as loving and powerful listeners and guides rather than oppressive rulers.
When we feel fear, outrage or grief, our Outer or Inner Loving Presences can listen compassionately to those feelings and give us important information that can return us to true calmness and real power and can help us choose how, when and to whom we express our feelings. Rather than power-over our feelings, this is experiencing true power and choice through welcoming our feelings.
BEAUTY
If I were to describe myself as ‘regulated,’ I would feel sad and would miss the beauty of all the variety of ways that I could describe what I’m feeling.
For example, this morning I lay in bed and did my Inner Loving Mother practice, which involves bringing deep presence to my breathing, putting my left hand lovingly on my forehead and the right on my belly, and with loving presence, hearing phrases like, “I’m right here with you. I love you exactly as you are.”
As I did that, I felt all kinds of sensations and feelings. I felt spaciousness and expansiveness, presence and bliss, serenity and relaxation, gratitude and openness, warmth and tranquility.
Describing that as ‘regulated’ would miss out so much beauty for me.
Similarly, to me, ‘dysregulated’ lacks the beauty, clarity and nuance of feeling words such as “frustrated, agitated or outraged.
If I feel these feelings, I value naming them.
When I say “I feel really frustrated!” or “I feel scared,” this helps me be compassionately present with the feeling. If I say, “I am dysregulated,” I feel less connected with the sensations. I experience it as a description with a tinge of judgment in it.
If I were to say, “I am co-regulating with my baby,” I wouldn’t feel as much joy as if I said, “I am holding my baby in my arms, feeling the calmness of my breath, radiating my calm presence, gazing into their eyes and feeling so much love.”
CLARITY
There are two ways in which I’d like to talk about clarity.
One is that the term ’emotional regulation’ is used by paradigms with very different conceptual underpinnings about feelings and emotions, which can lead to a lack of clarity when speaking the word.
For example, some people might be using the word regulation to refer to feeling a sense of true calm and presence.
In other places, the word regulation might refer to distracting from, suppressing or dissociating from feelings which are waiting to be expressed and heard.
These are two very different states. One is true presence.
The other is a state that looks calm but is actually a form of dissociation.
I value clarity about understanding which someone is referring to.
The Wikipedia entry for emotional self-regulation talks about distracting children from “states of negative arousal” and children having “strategies to decrease negative arousal such as rocking themselves.” Distracting children from feelings, and using ways to suppress feelings relates to the etymology discussed above could be likened to a kind of power-over feelings.
“Co-regulation” can refer to a beautiful process whereby one person comes to a true sense of calm and presence through the loving support of another person who is feeling calm and centred, especially in the case of a child and an adult. In this case, rather than ‘regulation,’ I would enjoy phrases like ’synchronisation’ or ‘harmonisation,’ or simply, “when an adult is feeling calm, this helps children also feel calm.” We could even say ’emotional harmonisation’ or ‘feelings synchrony’.
At other times, the term “co-regulation” might be describing a parent helping a child dissociate from their feelings by distracting them from how they really feel, which is a very different experience.
I really value understanding the difference between true presence and calmness that comes from dissociation or suppression.
Not only does this lack of clarity affect people talking about ‘regulation’ yet meaning different things, but it can also lead to confusion when someone is wanting to understand what may help them or their child when they are upset. In comparison, differentiating between the two types of feelings brings clarity about what kind of response could be most helpful.
HONOURING FEELINGS
Feeling truly calm is a beautiful and enjoyable state to be in, and one that I would love all humans to feel. I deeply value all the work that shows how important calm, loving, attuned presence is for babies, children and adults, and all of my work is based on this. For example, my Inner Loving Presence work is all about reparenting in adulthood to experience a deep internal state of presencing.
When babies or children experience frightening events, being close with an adult who is feeling calm and centred helps them experience an embodied sense of safety and support and helps them feel calm again. However, offering a calm and loving presence to a baby or child who is scared, overwhelmed or upset is very different to distracting a baby or child when they have feelings to express to us. The first can lead to true presence in a child, the second can lead to dissociation.
Of course we want to do all we can as parents to help our babies and children feel more happy. However, “minimising negative affect” indicates a judgment of feelings and can actually mean suppressing a baby or child’s feelings. Sadness, frustration and outrage aren’t ‘negative’ or ‘bad’. Distracting a baby or child from these feelings can teach them how to suppress, or dissociate from their feelings. In these cases, ‘regulation’ is actually suppression and dissociation.
Paradoxically, when a child’s feelings are listened to and responded to and their tears and tantrums welcomed as beautiful expressions, they develop an internalised welcoming of, and presence with, their feelings and fewer suppression and dissociative processes, and actually become more truly calm.
If we feel scared as an adult, the loving calm presence of another adult can signal to us that we are safe, and we can also internalise that calm presence and offer it to ourselves. When I feel scared, I connect in with my Inner Loving Mother, put my hand on my forehead, and hear her words, “I’m here with you. I’m listening. I hear that you’re scared, sweetheart.” This generally brings a sigh of relief and relaxation. Depending on the situation and whether the feelings are from the present or the past, I might add, “These are feelings from the past. You’re safe now. I’m not willing for you to get hurt.”
Feelings are always communicating important information to us. Are they about the present or the past? What are we needing? What younger parts in us need to be heard? What are we thinking?
When we are feeling scared, are there things in the present or past that happened that we didn’t get to choose?
When we are feeling frustration, anger or outrage (all forms of will energy), what are we wanting to say “no” to in the past or present? What are we not willing for?
The more we can welcome these feelings and what they are telling us, the more we can connect with our true power and our unwillingness for something. And of course, the DDC doesn’t want us to connect with the power of our ’No’ this way!
DIFFERENTIATING NEEDS-FEELINGS FROM FEELINGS-FEELINGS
We can understand whether calm is true calm or dissociation by understanding the three types of feelings: needs-based feelings, feelings-feelings, and thoughts-created feelings.
In each case, feelings are important, because they are communicating something to us. The more we listen, the more we can understand what the most helpful response is.
Needs-based feelings are feelings that our body creates when our needs are not met, and the feelings literally tell us that there is an unmet need. These feelings truly go away when we meet that need, because the feelings have done what they were there to do.
Needs-based feelings acknowledge that the physiological and emotional states of each person deeply affect each other. When our needs are met, including for calm and present connection and safety, the feelings truly leave our bodies, unless the need has been unmet for some time or in an extreme way. The feelings were signalling the need and so are no longer required.
Feelings-feelings are feelings from the present or past that need to be lovingly heard. For a child, that means to an adult who is able to be present with that feeling in our body. As we develop our own internal presencing, we can also lovingly listen to that feeling ourselves.
When the feeling-feeling is felt, expressed and heard with loving presence, it can leave our bodies, as can the associated stress hormones and physical tension and we can return to a natural state of calm, focussed presence. For a child, that might be having a big cry or tantrum with their parent lovingly listening. For an adult, that might be sharing with another adult, or being listened to by our Inner Loving Mother or Inner Loving Father.
If we believe that these feelings indicate an unmet need, and we do all we can to stop the feelings, we will at times suppress feelings. The person appear to be calm, but those feelings don’t actually leave their bodies. They are dissociating or suppressing rather than feeling true calmness.
Looking calm on the outside doesn’t necessarily mean calm on the inside. I imagine you might recall that yourself – times when you have appeared calm to others, but inside were feeling sad or seething or numb.
The word ‘co-regulation’ can be used to depict distraction of a child’s feelings by adults, such as in the Wikipedia entry. This would be interpreting feelings-feelings as needs-based feelings and distracting a child from those feelings. These all show us that just because a child stops crying, doesn’t mean that they are feeling a deep sense of calm and presence.
In the Marion Method work, there is a third kind of feelings – thoughts-created feelings. These are caused by our ways of thinking, and many of the painful ones are usually created from living in the DDC. Guilt is an example. Some experiences of fear can be caused by what we are telling ourselves. The apt response to these is empathy, followed by gradually choosing different ways of thinking.
With thoughts-feelings we are deeply engaging with our minds, but we are not using power-over our feelings to try to force or coerce ourselves. We are responding with Love and Will – compassion and the choice to think thoughts that are true to us, rather than those we acquired through cultural conditioning.
I love being as clear as possible about which type of feeling someone is feeling in their body, what the source is, and how they can be most helped. I find that the more clarity we have about our needs, our hurts and our thoughts, the more we can attend accurately to the source of the feelings in the most helpful ways.
HONOURING FEELINGS, MIND AND SOUL AS WELL AS THE BODY
I acknowledge how the work around ‘affect regulation’ has brought profound understanding to our core physiological needs for relationship with others who are calm, present and attuned.
I deeply value our bodies, our needs, including our fundamental needs for safe, empathic relationship.
And, I value feelings, mind and soul.
As we connect more and more with our Soul, or I, we have increasing capacity to lovingly listen to feelings and make choices – these are our innate capacities of Love and Will.
This increasing identification with our soul as Love and Will isn’t about power-over our feelings.
It’s about having an identity that is bigger than our feelings or younger parts, so that we know that we are more than them, and can thus hold them with love, and experience true power, rather than power-over. We have increasing true choice about how we respond.
CONCLUSIONS
I have a deep trust in human beings and our bodies and feelings, and how feelings communicate so much to us – about the environment we’re in and the people we’re with, about how much our needs are met or not met, about what happened to us in the past and what we need to express, about what we are saying yes to and no to, and about what we’re thinking and believing to be true.
I am passionate about freeing ourselves from the DDC which was all about domination over nature and the earth, power-over indigenous knowing and peoples, the feminine, women, children, animals, bodies and feelings.
I don’t want to dominate over my feelings.
I love holding them with deep compassion.
Feeling grief and loss with loving support, we connect us to what we care about and mourn what we have lost.
Feeling frustration, powerlessness and outrage with loving support, we connect with what we don’t want and what we are not willing for.
Feeling fear with loving support, we connect with times where things happened to us that we didn’t want, so we can find willingness for those to not happen again.
I trust what emerges when our feelings are welcomed and lovingly listened to, and how they help us connect more fully to how loving and powerful we truly are.
I invite you to reflect on this yourself. How do you feel in your body when you say, “I am regulated” compared to, “I feel calm and relaxed,” or “I am dysregulated,” compared to, “I feel sad / I feel outraged / I feel scared / I feel overwhelmed.”
Love,
Marion xoxo