Intimacy is the act of touching or closeness (or being in touch with or close to) another being.
In English, the word has taken on so many other colorations -- so that it is even used to mean: "an act of sex" or "privacy" -- simply because we are a culture that is "out of touch" much of the time. Out of touch with others. Out of touch with our feelings. Out of touch with our environment.
Any infant who survives infancy -- and that seems to be most infants, in our culture -- has experienced the intimate contact with another human being, usually the mother. The infant is held, stroked, fed, cleaned. Such closeness is a necessary part of the survival of the human personality.
Any limitations in such initial touching of the infant can lead to serious problems for the infant as adult. I firmly believe that the basic root for all neurosis and mental illness lies in the quality of the contact between the child and the other (usually the mother) in the first months (if not days) of life.
Much of our activity after childhood is an attempt to recapture that touching intimacy of the infant-and-mother contact.
The importance of one-on-one relationships to us as humans, of course, arises from this same early relationship. We need the touching, the closeness, for survival -- for our continued existence. But since the mother cannot stay forever in the role of intimate, touching care-giver, we must find other human beings to provide that intimacy to us.
I'll talk later about the appropriate, and most valuable, forms of intimacy, but first I want to talk about the substitutes for intimacy we all find ourselves using.
Each mother must wean the child not only from the nourishment she provides, but also from the touching dependence on the mother. A necessary step in becoming a full human being is the act of being rejected by the mother. In order for the child to become a functioning, self-actuating human being, the mother must stop being the totally intimate person of the child's first few weeks of infancy.
Growing up is a painful experience -- by its nature. All growth is painful, by definition, for something old must die for something new to take its place. The beautiful flower we admire so much grows in a soil enriched by the carcasses of countless forms of animal and plant life. This is the way of our universe. Something dies that something else may grow.
So it is with personal growth. If you wish to become someone else... If you wish to develop a new habit (or get rid of an old one)... You must lose the old "you," or the old habit.
And so it is with the infant. In order to become a person in his or her own right, each infant must lose that first Eden of total intimacy with the mother. The Expulsion from the Garden takes place in the weaning process.
Here in South Florida, the singles bars are filled with men and women looking for the "perfect mommy." Stuck emotionally somewhere around the weaning process, they are still looking for a return to the Garden of Eden: someone to be there for them totally, to accept them unequivocally, to be totally dependable, like Mommy was.
And there is, of course, no human being out there who can duplicate for you as an adult the absolute intimacy of the mother-child contact of infancy. Two human beings -- independent and realistically inter-dependent -- can create an invaluable intimate relationship, providing the elements necessary for personality survival. But two human beings who are both intent on finding a return to the intimacy of childhood are doomed to failure.
Worse, our society (particularly for those of us raised in a Nordic or Anglo-Saxon culture) frowns of touching per se. Hugging in public is frowned upon. And even getting within touching range is considered ill form in most public environments.
In a society such as ours, in which intimacy is not only denied the infant at weaning (which is natural), but also denied most of the population at all other stages of life (which is highly unnatural), substitutes for intimacy will be found. Here are a few:
Clapping the hands. When you applaud a performer, you are in effect expressing a desire to hug that person. How? Sociologists talk of "intention movements," those actions we take which show our intention of doing something. These movements are valuable means of communication. When you hold your arms out to another person, this is an obvious invitation for a hug. The act of holding out the arms is an intention movement for hugging.
When you approach an infant, often the child will stretch out the arms to be hugged. Often, the intention movement continues until the child's hands touch in a clap. The clap is identified in the child mind with the intention of hugging, and with the joy involved in hugging. Parents use the clap for several reasons (unconsciously expressing the hug intention) -- to get attention, to express joy (the usual infant meaning), and, of course, to invite a child for a hug.
Friday night, Edith and I attended a concert in Fort Lauderdale of the Houston Symphony Orchestra. After each performance, one person in the first row would stand up and begin clapping, his arms forming a wide arc almost in a caricature. His actions were obviously an intention movement for hugging!
It is thought that the enthusiasm for an extraordinary performance invites a subconscious desire to hug the performers. Originally, with the audience so removed from the cast, members of the audience were required to pantomime the hugging experience, leading to the clapping of the hands. Now, of course, the clapping itself has become a means of showing approval.
The bow, by the way, which performers use to respond to applause, is also a holdover intention movement of hugging. In its simplest form, the bow is a pantomime of a hug. The hand over the stomach and the bending forward as if hugging a person.
When we applaud a performer, and when the performer takes a bow, the audience and the performer are engaging in a massive substitute hug.
Waving the hands. Saying goodbye or saying hello is often accompanied by the waving of the hands. Different waves are used by different cultures, but the wave, again, is an intention movement related to intimacy. The first step in giving a hug is the reaching out of the hand as if to embrace the other person. When that person is at a distance, one substitute is the wave of the hand.
At times of high emotion, of course, the waving action is often accompanied by the actual giving of hugs. Watch a family at the airport greeting a long-awaited loved one. First, broad extreme waves of the arms, then rapid waving of the hands (as the person gets closer), and finally the intense hugging by members of the family. (A Latin family is more likely to act this way than a Nordic one, of course.)
The patting on the back, of course, is the direct origin of the wave. The pat on the back, as an adjunct of the hug, is an act of comforting. Another intimacy substitute is the light touching of another person's back or shoulder, as an act of friendship. Like all substitutes, it's better than nothing, but not as satisfying as a full hug.
Crossing the legs. This is an intimacy substitute that is not technically an intention movement. Rather, it's an act of self-intimacy. Crossing the arms and crossing the legs are both means by which we can experience a form of intimacy -- if only with ourselves. Self-grooming in public -- combing one's hair, patting one's clothes, putting on make-up -- often are attempts by human beings to experience that lost intimacy of childhood.
We say that a person who is sitting with tightly crossed legs or arms is "shutting out other people" and "isolating themselves." Though such interpretations are truisms in group therapy and encounter, they are not strictly accurate. The tightly crossed legs are a sign of fear -- of the unfulfilled need for intimacy which is only partly met by self-hugging.
We need to realize that the person who sits with crossed legs is not saying "go away" but rather is saying "I need a hug."
Other substitutes for intimacy include: pets, fantasies, sex-for- hire (including most massage parlors and tanning salons), and many articles of clothing.
My basic treatise is that we all need intimacy. We need the touching closeness of other human beings. And we will try to meet that need even in a society like ours that frowns on touching in public except in extreme circumstances.
You might be wondering why our society is so restrictive on touching. The roots for that taboo go back to the overthrow of the original Goddess-worshipping cultures by the nomadic, masculine herdsmen of 2000 to 1500 years before the current era. At that time, anything feminine became evil and suspect, and all things male became holy and sacred.
Touching is closely associated with the mother, so it became a taboo activity (along with sentiment, esthetics, and equality of individuals). In its place were installed the male values of isolation, ownership of people, logic, and "common sense." We became a sick civilization -- out of touch with other people, with nature and with ourselves.
The current movement toward a return to the old religion of intimacy with nature is not merely a religious fad but is a vital need in a sick society for a return to mental health. The old values of intimacy and equality are necessary for the emotional health of our civilization.
So what are the appropriate forms for intimate relationships?
First, touching and hugging are natural phenomena and are a necessary element in all appropriate relationships. We need the physical contact with others. Any relationship without actual physical touching will be, of necessity, a limited one.
Second, the position of each individual within a relationship must be one of equality. A "one-down" relationship will not satisfy the intimacy needs for either party to the relationship. If you are giving more than you are receiving in a relationship, you will not be meeting your needs adequately. (And if you are getting more than you give, you also will not be meeting your real needs.) This also means that any action of hugging must be mutually desired. Always ask before you hug another person.
Third, the touching intimacy need not be limited to a one-person relationship. The idea of one-on-one exclusivity (as far as touching is concerned) is the direct result of the masculine culture's insistence on people as property. If a wife is the possession of the husband, then no one else can touch her. If, on the other hand, she is an independent being responsible for meeting her own needs, then she is free to find touching and intimacy where she will.
Intimacy is the action upon which the concept of love is built. The affirmation behind the touching closeness of another person -- equal to oneself -- who wants to be near you, is unmatched in value in human relationships.
The substitutes are all right, of course, but real intimacy is best.
Blessed Be!