I have read on many, many posts about vulnerability. Clearly it resonates with many EC folk. Many refer to Brene Brown's TED talks which I have watched a couple of times over. But I am left wondering what she is talking about. I certainly do not mean this disrespectfully. I am simply being honest and suspect that it may be cultural. As a rather typical English person being vulnerable is about as bad as being a terrorist! I would really appreciate your help on this because it clearly is resonant in this wonderful community and I am struggling to understand it as a concept.
Making yourself vulnerable is when you take a risk you would not ordinarily do and put your self in a position of exposing yourself emotionally to others. Yes, not very British indeed! When you make yourself vulnerable, and afterwords you realize your still the same person, and no harm came from it, the feeling of accomplishment helps to boost your confidence and self esteem. At least this is what it is for me in summary.
Vulnerability, in the way Brené talks about it, is essentially openness. For example, if I am talking to a close friend, and I share something that's difficult or uncomfortable to talk about, I'm being vulnerable in that moment, in that I'm not sure how my friend is going to respond. And that vulnerability -- my willingness to be completely myself in front of my friend (in this example) is where real closeness and openness comes from. In a different setting, if I make a painting or piece of art, and show it to someone to get their authentic reaction, I'm (hopefully) being vulnerable, because I'm putting something out there that I made, put energy into, and hopefully am proud of, and hoping for a positive response from whomever I'm showing it to. Brené says "Vulnerability is standing naked on stage and hoping for applause and not laughter." I hope that helps.
Thanks Chip and OTH, But here is where I have a problem: "Vulnerability is standing naked on stage and hoping for applause and not laughter." To me it would be "Vulnerability is standing naked on stage and not caring whether I get applause or laughter because I am being honest, authentic and real." Thoughts?
I would say that if you don't care what the reaction is, you're not being truly vulnerable. When you open yourself to true, honest, raw emotions in a vulnerable way, you're going to have feelings when those reactions hit you. Like if you come out to a parent, hoping for acceptance. If you don't care whether or not you're accepted, you're not being vulnerable, you're being guarded, protecting yourself and your emtions.
In that case, you are not making yourself vulnerable; you are making yourself invulnerable. Being invulnerable, you will not find the closeness to others you desire.
I'm a bit of a pedant, I submit. But I still have no idea what you all are talking about. OK. Could someone give me an example when they were not vulnerable to something and then became vulnerable to it. I'm struggling with this and really want to understand. ---------- Post added 2nd Jul 2016 at 11:20 AM ---------- I guess I am suspicious. Watching Brene Brown's TED talks seemed to me to be watching a very obvious PR campaign for Brene Brown. At least half of her talks were about herself. Very self deprecating and very clearly PR.
Walking in a pride parade when having never done so and having just accepted my sexuality. That made me extremely vulnerable as the world now saw that I was gay when everyone previously only knew me as a straight guy. I opened myself up emotionally. While on the route, everyone was cheering, flags were being waved, and the feeling of acceptance was massive.
Personally, I find this interesting. Maybe more of a Buddhist type of vulnerability? No attachment to outcome is what I see here, unless you're doing it to protect yourself. Then that would not be vulnerability. I strive to get to the point of detachment from outcome. It's very difficult because we are so attached to our ego and our story. Of course, that's my point of view. To wish for the applause, you also have to be willing to accept the outcome of the silence or even a negative reaction. I guess one can hope for applause, but not NEED it to define you. I'm predicting or hoping for applause, but if I don't get it, that's perfectly okay. That's what I shoot for. ---------- Post added 2nd Jul 2016 at 01:20 PM ---------- I met and fell for a woman last year. The fear of her rejection of me was intense. I did something called "floodlighting." It's to flood the person with info about yourself. I swear to you at the time, I thought I was being vulnerable, but I was not. What I wa doing was controlling it and maintaining the pace of our emotional exchange. It can also come across as being manipulative. I didn't know this. For the life of me, I thought I was being vulnerable. I no longer do this or try not to. Now I follow the emotional lead of the other person, exposing parts of my soul in snippets. I no longer flood. This is scary because I'm not controlling it. I'm vulnerable to letting this unfold organically, which, may not end in the outcome I want. As Brene Brown says, all vulnerability is based in shame.
I'm with you LaS - I prefer to think of vulnerability from the perspective of the latter. The example about standing naked on the stage is confounding vulnerability and validation in a way that does not resonate with me. The first 2 paragraphs of Chip's post are more aligned with our thought process regarding vulnerability (as well as OTH's example in post #9). It's about expressing our true authentic selves without caring how others will react. There is an element of risking disapproval from the other person, and I feel that people vary in their tolerance of disapproval, which might explain the varied reactions.
I only watched her TED talk once and it was a while ago, so apologies if I am not too precise. From what I can remember, its linked to her concept of wholeheartedness: you are not afraid of letting people know how you feel. Indeed you let the way you feel guide you through your decisions and social interactions, because the way you feel is you true self, which we learn to hide because of socially instilled fear and shame. When we become adults we learn to hide our feelings and end up losing touch with our true selfs, and start making decisions based on what we think its 'right' or expected from us. Once you live your life based on what you think it will cause people to think this or that, you are on the path of unhappiness. Same for friendships, its much easier to find people with whom you gave an affinity if you are being yourself. The only trouble is that by doing so you will occasionally be opening yourself to being hurt. That's where the vulnerability thing comes in, I suppose. Say you like somebody, being vulnerable is letting that person know how you feel about them. You could hear something that makes you cry, but without regularly taking that kind of risk, you will never find true hapiness.
Let's be clear however: allowing oneself to be vulnerable means you could get hurt. On the other hand: no relationships, no scientific or other types of innovations, no change for the better will happen without a deep and abiding vulnerability. In the realm of politics, those who are most vulnerable are at the sharp end of the spear; the ones who take a chance against seemingly insurmountable odds...I've heard it said that pioneers are the ones lying on the ground with an arrow in their back. We are a risk-averse society, and that is not good for vulnerability, and this situation in turn discourages people from taking the often necessary and difficult actions to make things better, or to keep things from getting worse. It helps to present here the quote from Theodore Roosevelt that Brené Brown uses to make her point about vulnerability: And to repeat here a quote I found yesterday from the movie (and book) The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie: Daring greatly is an "interesting" place to be, it's what makes life worth living.
This is a helpful and constructive observation. In the rest of your post, you are taking vulnerability from the micro- to the macro-level, where it's more about risk taking. This is an interesting perspective that broadens how I think about vulnerability. It has the additional allure of consistency, since there's still risk of getting hurt at the micro-level.
One more point that just occurred to me. One may find oneself in the position of those who "point out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better...", it is very easy to criticize, or to take advantage of someone's vulnerability. It is easier to lead someone on in a relationship when one has no intention of going further. In other words, it takes courage, and yes, vulnerability to defend those who are sticking their necks out for a just cause, no matter how unpopular. It requires a strong independence of mind and even stronger values. If for no other reason, we all need to engage in situations that make us vulnerable, because only then can we understand, and perhaps choose to support others with compassion and empathy, because we ourselves have been "...in the arena..."