Musings on Control
What does it mean to be in control of our lives? Is it at all possible, or desirable? Is it a better idea to try and let go of our need to control, or to find a way to exert influence at least over the meaning of our lives when bad times hit?
When do we feel in control of our lives? Do we want and need to be? It is one of those moments in my life when various storylines around and within me seem to cohere into one point. I find myself wondering about those transitional moments in individual lives — like a pregnancy, or a terminal illness — when we start to lose control of “our lives”.
It also seems to me that we are at a certain tipping point as humans, when we may be about to lose control of the ecosystem of which we are an integral part. Maybe we are all feeling the stress on some level of asking ourselves if we are in control, to what extent we can be, how we can be responsible for our small individual actions and how to keep believing that they have direct influence on what happens, while huge and irreversible changes take over around us and within.
“In control of my life” — what exactly does that mean? It brings to mind the image of someone sitting in a comfortable vehicle, with the steering wheel in a firm grip. A loss of control is a sudden swerving off the road. But is it really like this? Is it not an illusion that we are really in the drivers’ seat, an illusion fed by favourable circumstances, the health that allows us to drive at all, the personal affluence that allows us to buy a good car and hire experts to fix it, the affluence of the country we live in which has roads? What are “our lives” anyway? Maybe it is just the meeting point of all the decisions we make and all the ones which are made for us, starting with where and into what circumstances we are born.
Maybe it is true that we always have some degree of control — here Jean-Dominique Bauby comes to mind, writing The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly with his left eyelid. Our locus of control is shifting all the time; remaining in control may be a question of shifting just in time. For example, when no longer able to do some task for yourself due to ill health, you can remain in control of who you organise to do it for you. If you don’t spot the moment, preferring to cling to the illusion of being able to do the task, you may end up with the whole matter being taken out of your hands. It is also a question of constantly redefining what is important to us, and what exactly we wish to be in control of, and finding new ways of getting those needs met as our circumstances change.
When loss of control hits us hard, Buddhists have a head start: life is understood to be suffering (sickness, old age and death) from the outset. It is harder then to define loss of “control” as a personal failure. The ultimate personal failure is loss of your “self”, which is also something Buddhists have come to terms with at the very start. If that carefully built up sense of ourselves as a consistent “thing” is only an illusion, there is so much less to worry about. It does seem however, that for those who do not do the work, do the practice of meditation which shows us in a practical way what there is aside from our illusions, it is easier to philosophically appreciate that loss, change, and transformation are our natural states of being when we are in sound health and comfortable.
I’m not sure where I am going with these musings. I feel an itching to bring them, in fact, back under control and find a conclusion. But I don’t think there is one. While being out of control can be an exhilarating state, which explains all kinds of risk taking, from various uses of drugs and sex to extreme sports, it is interesting to note that often such attempts to escape control end up controlling you.
When life comes along with its own constraints, we have to modify our ideas of control and then in the midst of this usually painful process, we can sometimes come up with the smallest little moments in which we can either let go of the tense, futile efforts to stay masters of our own destinies, or we can exert influence on our own lives and moods in small secret ways.
As Victor Frankl, the psychiatrist and concentration camp survivor, wrote:
If a prisoner felt that he could no longer endure the realities of camp life, he found a way out in his mental life — an invaluable opportunity to dwell in the spiritual domain, the one that the SS were unable to destroy. Spiritual life strengthened the prisoner, helped him adapt, and thereby improved his chances of survival.
Funnily enough, these two opposite strategies — letting go of attempts to control, and finding our own creative, often spiritual ways of carving out a sense of control over, if nothing else, our reactions, the meaning of our situation — seem to amount to much the same thing. A sense of being present, and of being able, in some terms or other, maybe even despite our own deaths, to survive.
Related Posts
- Burma: Bloody Repression and Buddhism
- What Does ‘Post-9/11′ Mean to You?
- Self-Focused Religious Beliefs — Poorer Mental Health?
- Compassion Meditation Changes the Brain
- Staying Aware: Meditation and the Desire to be Somewhere Else
Other articles by Sarah Luczaj
This article was last reviewed by on Wednesday, 26th March 2008. You can leave a response below.
The URL of this page is:
http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/03/26/control-frankl-buddhism-meaning/



27th March 2008
Hi Sarah,
I think the problem at the heart of this is the nature of the self.
I think some of the Buddhist language can get in the way. Eg that there is no identity. Presumably his disciples recognised Sakyamuni from day to day - and presumably this wasn’t delusion or illusion.
We can absorb control into other concepts such as creativity and ability-to-respond.
The self both shapes and is shaped by ‘its’ situation. The self is not only the individual. This is where consideration of control can lead us I think.
28th March 2008
Hi Evan, thanks as ever for the thoughtful comment.
I agree that Buddhist terminology can get in the way, as with all terminology, for some it clarifies and for others it gets in the way.
The lack of fixed identity refers to our essential nature I think, not the limited one which we use from day to day, in the same way that while in my very limited scientific understanding classical laws of physics show us how objects behave in a recognisable way, whereas quantum physics shows us all kinds of flux and ambiguity going on within those recognisable objects.
Sometimes it is useful for us to be aware of our essential flux and ambiguity, sometimes not!
What do you mean when you say “the self is not only the individual”?
28th March 2008
Hi Sarah,
I mean that seeing us isolated from our situation doesn’t mean much psychologically. Our behaviour makes sense in context. To focus on the individual leads to all kinds of problems. Eg it would seem difficult to define narcissism when there is only me to be focused on (unless we define narcissism as psychological health). It is a-social and so leads to problems with values (psychotherapy becomes training in being a psychopath: becoming efficient in getting what I want. More humbly the complaint about psychoanalysis that the graduate of the therapy doesn’t make love but masturbates on their partner.). Psychotherapy is about the fluid interaction of the individual with their situation. (So I think the fluidity may be of the everyday self while their may be a more permanent identity that lies deeper).
I hope I don’t sound like I’m just playing with words. I think this discussion is vitally important. I hope my concerns are coming through. I’m very happy to try and clarity what I’m saying.
31st March 2008
no, no, it doesn’t sound like word-play to me! There are probably as many ways of understanding “self” and “individual” as there are selves and individuals!
Do you mean that psychotherapy is there to help people with their individual selves as they relate to other people in context, rather than in some artificial isolation? And that there may be a “more permanent identity which lies deeper” which you might call the self?
I would say that that very flux of the interrelations of “us” with our “context”, and our identities as we think of them and how others see us and all that is a part of the “self” which feels in a way more permanent, because it can’t be reduced to any of those solid definitions, and on the other hand totally impermanent …which is why I like all that buddhist terminology!!
31st March 2008
For me psychology is about the relation of the person in their situation.
To try and look at the person isolated from their situation just doesn’t make sense. Thus ‘individual functioning’ - restricting the person to within the skin - does not make sense.
This is hard for me to make clear. I believe creativity and autonomy are vital to a human life. But I do not think the individual person’s creativity and autonomy make sense apart from their relation to their environment (influencing and influenced by).
I think there are elements of us are that relatively permanent (and that sometimes these are ‘discovered’ in our relation to our context). There is also learning, and trying out and discarding different options too. So there are some elements of our experience that are fairly transient too.
I’m trying to avoid jargon and speak of our experience, although a little abstract I confess. I trust I am making sense. I confess I find it hard to express myself clearly about this.
31st March 2008
That last post sounded clear as a bell to me, Evan!
I totally agree with what you say. Then I add some kind of pretty abstract dimension of my own, that’s just me ;-)