The Art of Happiness (12 page)

“That's very true,” said the Dalai Lama.

“For instance, there's a certain type of relationship that's highly valued in the West,” I observed. “That is a relationship that's characterized by a deep level of intimacy between two people, having one special person with whom you can share your deepest feelings, fears, and so on. People feel that unless they have a relationship of this kind that there is something missing in their lives ... In fact, Western psychotherapy often seeks to help people learn how to develop that type of intimate relationship ...”

“Yes, I believe that kind of intimacy can be seen as something positive,” the Dalai Lama agreed. “I think if someone is deprived of that kind of intimacy then it can lead to problems ...”

“I'm just wondering then ...,” I continued, “when you were growing up in Tibet, you were not only considered to be like a king but you were also considered to be a deity. I assume that people were in awe of you, perhaps even a bit nervous or frightened to be in your presence. Didn't that create a certain emotional distance from others, a feeling of isolation? Also, being separated from your family, being raised as a monk from an early age, and as a monk never marrying and so on—didn't all these things contribute to a feeling of separation from others? Do you ever feel that you missed out on developing a deeper level of personal intimacy with others or with one special person, such as a spouse?”

Without hesitation, he replied, “No. I never felt a lack of intimacy. Of course my father passed away many years ago, but I felt quite close to my mother, my teachers, my tutors, and others. And with many of these people I could share my deepest feelings, fears, and concerns. When I was in Tibet, on state occasions and at public events there was a certain formality, a certain protocol was observed, but that wasn't always the case. At other times, for example, I used to spend time in the kitchen and I became quite close with some of the kitchen staff and we could joke or gossip or share things and it would be quite relaxed, without that sense of formality or distance.

“So, when I was in Tibet or since I've become a refugee, I've never felt a lack of people with whom I can share things. I think a lot of this has to do with my nature. It's easy for me to share things with others
_;
I'm just not good at keeping secrets!” He laughed. “Of course sometimes this can be a negative trait. For example, there may be some discussion in the Kashag
³
about confidential things, and then I'll immediately discuss these things with others. But on a personal level, being open and sharing things can be very useful. Because of this nature I can make friends more easily, and it's not just a matter of knowing people and having a superficial exchange but of really sharing my deepest problems and suffering. And it's the same thing when I hear good news
_;
I immediately share it with others. So, I feel a sense of intimacy and connection with my friends. Of course it's sometimes easier for me to establish a connection with others because they're often very happy to share their suffering or joy with the ‘Dalai Lama,'
‘His Holiness
the Dalai Lama.'” He laughed again, making light of his title. “Anyway, I feel this sense of connection, of sharing, with many people. For instance, in the past, if I felt disappointed or unhappy with Tibetan government policy or I was concerned with other problems, even the threat of Chinese invasion, then I would return to my rooms and share this with the person who sweeps the floor. From one point of view it may seem quite silly to some that the Dalai Lama, the head of the Tibetan government, facing some international or national problems, would share them with a sweeper.“ He laughed once again. ”But personally I feel it is very helpful, because then the other person participates and we can face the problem or suffering together.“

Virtually all researchers in the field of human relationships agree that intimacy is central to our existence. The influential British psychoanalyst John Bowlby wrote that “intimate attachments to other human beings are the hub around which a person's life revolves ... From these intimate attachments a person draws his strength and enjoyment of life and, through what he contributes, he gives strength and enjoyment to others. These are matters about which current science and traditional wisdom are at one.”

It is clear that intimacy promotes both physical and psychological well-being. In looking at the health benefits of intimate relationships, medical researchers have found that people who have close friendships, people whom they can turn to for affirmation, empathy, and affection, are more likely to survive health challenges such as heart attacks and major surgery and are less likely to develop diseases such as cancer and respiratory infections. For example, one study of over a thousand heart patients at Duke University Medical Center found that those who lacked a spouse or close confidant were three times more likely to die within five years of the diagnosis of heart disease as those who were married or had a close friend. Another study of thousands of residents in Alameda County, California, over a nine-year period showed that those with more social support and intimate relationships had lower death rates overall and lower rates of cancer. And a study at the University of Nebraska School of Medicine of several hundred elderly people found that those with an intimate relationship had better immune function and lower cholesterol levels. Over the course of the past several years there have been at least a half-dozen massive investigations conducted by a number of different researchers looking at the relationship between intimacy and health. After interviewing thousands of people, the various investigators all seem to have reached the same conclusion: close relationships do, in fact, promote health.

Intimacy is equally as important in maintaining good emotional health. The psychoanalyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm claimed that humankind's most basic fear is the threat of being separated from other humans. He believed that the experience of separateness, first encountered in infancy, is the source of all anxiety in human life. John Bowlby agreed, citing a good deal of experimental evidence and research to support the idea that separation from one's caregivers—usually the mother or father—during the latter part of the first year of life, inevitably creates fear and sadness in babies. He felt that separation and interpersonal loss are at the very roots of the human experiences of fear, sadness, and sorrow.

So, given the vital importance of intimacy, how do we set about achieving intimacy in our daily lives? Following the Dalai Lama's approach outlined in the last section, it would seem reasonable to begin with learning—with understanding what intimacy is, seeking a workable definition and model of intimacy. In looking to science for the answer, however, it seems that despite the universal agreement among researchers about the importance of intimacy, that seems to be where the agreement ends. Perhaps the most striking feature of even a cursory review of the various studies on intimacy is the wide diversity of definitions and theories about exactly what intimacy is.

At the most concrete end of the spectrum is the author Desmond Morris, who writes about intimacy from the perspective of a zoologist trained in ethology. In his book,
Intimate Behavior,
Morris defines intimacy: “To be intimate means to be close ... In my terms, the act of intimacy occurs whenever two individuals come into bodily contact.” After defining intimacy in terms of purely physical contact, he then goes on to explore the countless ways in which humans come into physical contact with one another, from a simple pat on the back to the most erotic sexual embrace. He sees touch as the vehicle through which we comfort one another and are comforted, via hugs or clasps of the hand and, when those avenues are not available to us, more indirect means of physical contact such as a manicure. He even theorizes that the physical contacts we have with objects in our environment, from cigarettes to jewelry to waterbeds, act as substitutes for intimacy.

Most investigators are not so concrete in their definitions of intimacy, agreeing that intimacy is more than just physical closeness. Looking at the root of the word intimacy, from the Latin
intima
meaning “inner” or “innermost,” they most often subscribe to a broader definition, such as the one offered by Dr. Dan McAdams, author of several books on the subject of intimacy: “The desire for intimacy is the desire to share one's innermost self with another.”

But definitions of intimacy don't stop there. On the opposite end of the spectrum from Desmond Morris stand experts such as the father/son psychiatrist team, Drs. Thomas Patrick Malone and Patrick Thomas Malone. In their book,
The Art of Intimacy,
they define intimacy as “the experience of connectivity.” Their understanding of intimacy begins with a thorough examination of our “connectivity” with other people, but they do not, however, limit their concept of intimacy to human relationships. Their definition is so broad, in fact, that it includes our relationship with inanimate objects—trees, stars, and even space.

Concepts of the most ideal form of intimacy also vary throughout the world and history. The romantic notion of that “One Special Person” with whom we have a passionate intimate relationship is a product of our time and culture. But this model of intimacy is not universally accepted among all cultures. For instance, the Japanese seem to rely more on friendships to gain intimacy, whereas Americans seek it more in romantic relationships with a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse. In noting this, some researchers have suggested that Asians who tend to be less focused on personal feelings such as passion and are more concerned with the practical aspects of social attachments appear less vulnerable to the kind of disillusionment that leads to the crumbling of relationships.

In addition to variations among cultures, concepts of intimacy have also dramatically changed over time. In colonial America, the level of physical intimacy and proximity was generally greater than it is today, as family and even strangers shared close spaces and slept together in one room and used a common room for bathing, eating, and sleeping. Yet the customary level of communication among spouses was quite formal by today's standards—not much different from the way acquaintances or neighbors spoke to one another. Only a century later, love and marriage became highly romanticized and intimate self-disclosure was expected to be an ingredient in any loving partnership.

Ideas of what is considered to be private and intimate behavior have also changed over time. In sixteenth-century Germany, for instance, a new husband and wife were expected to consummate their marriage on a bed carried by witnesses who would validate the marriage.

How people express their emotions has also changed. In the Middle Ages it was considered normal to publicly express a wide range of feelings with great intensity and directness—joy, rage, fear, piety, and even pleasure at torturing and killing enemies. Extremes of hysterical laughter, passionate weeping, and violent rage were expressed much more than would be accepted in our society. But the commonplace expression of emotions and feelings in that society ruled out the concept of emotional intimacy
_;
if one is to display all emotions openly and indiscriminately, then there are no private feelings left to express to a special few.

Clearly, the notions we take for granted about intimacy are not universal. They change over time and are often shaped by economic, social, and cultural conditions. And it is easy to become confused by the variety of different contemporary Western definitions of intimacy—with manifestations ranging from a haircut to our relationship with Neptune's moons. So where does this leave us in our quest to understand what intimacy is? I think that the implication is clear:

There is an incredible diversity among human lives, infinite variations among people with respect to how they can experience a sense of closeness. This realization alone offers us a great opportunity. It means that
at this very moment
we have vast resources of intimacy available to us. Intimacy is all around us.

Today, so many of us are oppressed by a feeling of something missing in our lives, intensely suffering from a lack of intimacy. This is particularly true when we go through the inevitable periods in our life when we're not involved in a romantic relationship or when the passion wanes from a relationship. There's a widespread notion in our culture that deep intimacy is best achieved within the context of a passionate romantic relationship—that Special Someone who we set apart from all others. This can be a profoundly limiting viewpoint, cutting us off from other potential sources of intimacy, and the cause of much misery and unhappiness when that Special Someone isn't there.

But we have within our power the means to avoid this
_;
we need only courageously expand our concept of intimacy to include all the other forms that surround us on a daily basis. By broadening our definition of intimacy, we open ourselves to discovering many new and equally satisfying ways of connecting with others. This brings us back to my initial discussion of loneliness with the Dalai Lama, a discussion triggered by a chance perusal of the “Personals” section of a local newspaper. It makes me wonder. At the very moment that those people were composing their ads, struggling to find just the right words that would bring romance into their lives and end the loneliness, how many of those people were
already
surrounded by friends, family, or acquaintances—relationships that could easily be cultivated into genuine and deeply satisfying intimate relationships? Many, I would guess. If what we seek in life is happiness, and intimacy is an important ingredient of a happier life, then it clearly makes sense to conduct our lives on the basis of a model of intimacy that includes as many forms of connection with others as possible. The Dalai Lama's model of intimacy is based on a willingness to open ourselves to many others, to family, friends, and even strangers, forming genuine and deep bonds based on our common humanity.