According to “The Independent” Donald Trump and Prince Charles are in danger of having a “row” over climate change. Specifically from the article: “Members of the Republican politician’s staff have warned that Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth’s son, should not “lecture” him on climate change during the visit in case the fiery politician “erupts” in return.”
An exchange like this is practically begging to be dissected from an emotional integration point of view.
For starters, I find it amusing there is fear that neither man will be able to control himself during this exchange. Reading the article, one would almost think we were getting ready to watch a couple of schoolboys throw down in a parking lot. Instead, we have to be reminded that the concern is over the leader of the free world and the heir to a throne whilst having a discussion about one of the most critical issues of our time. However, given the state of consciousness the world is currently in, most probably see nothing out of the ordinary here. Quite possibly, many people only see the side of the climate change debate each man represents and hopes that in the ensuing drama, their representative will come out on top.
For those of you who may not be aware of the term “emotional integration”, it can best be described succinctly as having enough awareness of one’s emotional triggers that one can typically be in a place of response in any matter as opposed to a place of reaction. There are several paths to becoming emotionally integrated. However, the end result allows the recipient to engage with the world without causing any unnecessary or distracting drama. Using the tools of emotional integration (especially if both parties are in this state of consciousness) makes it easier to come to a place of mutual respect and cooperation.
Now, mind you, I do not currently have the opportunity to make the acquaintance of either Mr. Trump or the Prince of Wales. In fact, it is impossible to know if the statement reported is true or is the hyperbole the press is so fond of these days. No matter; the fact that it was reported in such a manner reflects the consciousness of the population. We pay for hyperbole because we are unintegrated ourselves. And that is why this discussion matters. When we, the populace, become integrated our leaders will become integrated. They will have to, or they will no longer have the opportunity to lead. Thus, this is the direction this blog will take going forward, so that we might be able to discuss current events and the world at large from their place of consciousness as they only reflect back to us what is going on within ourselves. What world leaders do or do not is immaterial. They are nothing more than fodder for discussion. What matters the most is how we choose to internalize and respond to that which is outside ourselves.
Let us begin with the concern that Prince Charles will “lecture” Mr. Trump on climate change. What does this mean? Will he, as many people nowadays do, try to convert Mr. Trump to his side? Will he ridicule? Will he attempt to instruct when instruction was not asked for? Will he try to tell Mr. Trump what he and his country “should do”?
All of these are the signs of an unintegrated ego. Lecturing, “shoulding”, and attempts to force belief onto others can reflect back many things. Without knowing Prince Charles, no one can say if he actually feels called to do this or why. (We can speculate, but nothing more.) So we turn the question on ourselves. Perhaps we have someone in our own lives who does this to us. Perhaps we do it to others. Either way, when we get down to the core of the reason why we behave in these ways (and why we project this behavior onto others, even in news articles) typically it is because we harbor some unintegrated fear, anger, shame, or grief. We then look outside ourselves to change the behaviors or beliefs of others in order to get what we want so that we can feel better.
What is the integrated version of this story? Perhaps, if the Prince Charles of the article is integrated, what he really wants to do is have a discussion. He wants to present the information he has available. He wants to express his beliefs. He is transparent and vulnerable enough to share his fears and other feelings without the need to lecture or have power over another. He is willing to openly hear either the integrated or unintegrated emotions of his opposition, if there are any. He is able to respect the other’s feelings without wavering in his own convictions. He can do this because he has the strength of knowing his true self. And, because he moves in the world without fear, he is able to have a rational discussion on a very serious matter.
Likewise, we look at the fear of reaction from Donald Trump. The article states that aides fear Mr. Trump will erupt if he encounters information he does not agree with. Again, we do not know if this will be the case of Mr. Trump. We do not truly know if he is integrated or unintegrated and cannot assume one way or another. In the end, it doesn’t matter what is or is not going on with him. What matters is that we look at what we fear and then examine it within ourselves.
“Erupting” at others is definitely a sign that we are in a place of reaction, not response. When we lose control of our emotions; when we yell, hurl insults, or make threats towards others, we are reacting to what we perceive as a threat. We may believe the other person is going to hurt us by their beliefs. We may feel like they are going to force us to do something we don’t want, so we become defensive. We are also afraid to share how we really feel because we fear they will take advantage of us, make fun of us, or otherwise bruise our identity. When we are unintegrated, we defend our identity wildly. We want the other person to stop what they are doing, go away, and never do it again.
What is the integrated way of handling information we don’t want? First, we acknowledge how we feel. (Early on, we may not be able to do this in the moment, only in hindsight.) Second, we check to see if what we feel is actually happening in the moment. Is the person really trying to control or hurt us, or do they just believe differently than we do? Is the experience a projection of something unpleasant from our past that we are afraid is occurring again? What is our responsibility? Finally, we feel what we are feeling while the event is taking place (and sometimes, even afterwards by ourselves). We allow ourselves to feel all the “negative” emotions that may come up without lashing out or creating drama with the other person.
The result is that we will often find the other person is not actually trying to harm us. They may be trying to give us information, or if they are unintegrated, they may be trying to “should” us. Either way, it does not matter. We know that in most cases, we are not in danger of being harmed or of losing our beliefs. We can hear the other. We can also be transparent and share how we are feeling. Again, we put ourselves in a place of unattachment to the results of the encounter. And by doing so, we set ourselves up for a more meaningful and positive interaction.
What will happen with Mr. Trump and the Prince of Wales? There is no way to tell until it actually happens. Until then, it behooves us to remain integrated ourselves. We can address our own fear, anger, shame, and sadness that this interaction might bring up for us , irregardless of how the two leaders choose to engage. And we can walk away from any exchange that does not serve our best interests as a society and as individuals.