to win mummy’s approval, while failing in order to qualify for her protection?
Stop it! I say. The answer to these questions does not matter. Don’t dissect the demon, speak to it. There are many other approaches to the problem that involve analysis at this stage, but I am describing a particular one that requires the problem to be addressed in its own right. At this stage it is actually better to picture the demon as a little horned being lurking behind our hero and ready to leap out and pitchfork his prospects, than it is to attempt to explain it away.
Instead of analysing the demon we analyse its relationship with our hero. This is how the personifying approach handles the logical dilemma of something that is “neither fully out there nor fully him”, it does so by projecting the demon out there while allowing it to be in personal relationship with him. The demon is seen as his partner—that is how it is neither fully out there nor fully him.
Partnership is not one-sided, it is not a victim state. Realising that fact provides the key to working with the demon. It can only have power over your life because it has paid for that power. The demon is providing some sort of service.
Demonic services can be broken into two categories—providing pleasure and avoiding pain. Better to avoid the loaded words “pleasure” and “pain” and simply say that demonic services are based upon feeding and avoiding.
In this case the demon is helping him to avoid change, avoid having to give up time to work, avoid having to commit to a career amongst others. It is feeding his sense of being a victim, a tragic hero, of being “too clever” or of being a failure. We don’t yet know which are the crucial exchanges in this case, but this is where we will start searching.
But it is also where we have to get ready to abandon our hero. Because the relationship with a demon is intensely personal in detail—only he can sort it out, not us, and there is no ultimate formula beyond this point.
So what does he actually do? that’s the question which arises again and again, but all I can reliably answer is “personify the problem: treat it as an equal, an intelligent, aware being until evidence consistently proves otherwise”.
Unless the person is exceptionally gifted, or unlucky, he won’t actually see the demon and hear its voice. He can speak to it—out loud is good, provided no-one else is around to make it embarrassing!
The answers can come in various ways, but it is worth remembering that demons usually prefer to hide. We are dealing with something akin to a wild person or animal that runs away when we actually address it.
So what would you do with a wild creature? You would stalk it, follow its tracks and be subtle.
The tracks of a demon can show in various ways. One we have already seen—in this case it was a string of missed job opportunities. Often the demon manipulates us through feelings: feelings so familiar as to be almost invisible. So I would advise our hero to look closely at his feeling reactions to certain aspects of his failed job hunt.
When one of his carefully worded job applications is met with a crude rejection, or even totally ignored, what does he feel? Anger? Where does that anger go? Inwards? Outwards? Is it dissipated or stored? Where is it dissipated or stored?
How also does he feel when an application is turned down, but in a really sympathetic and humane way—maybe with a genuine-sounding regret that the post has already been filled and “may we keep your details on file in case another vacancy arises”? Does he still feel angry in that case? or does he feel a subtle sense of relief? That would be a clue!
When his father asks how the job hunt is going, how does he feel? Does he relish telling father how it has failed? Is there a hint of “you smug smartiboots bastard—look what a fucking failure your son has turned out to be!” in his response? That too would be a clue.
A letter comes back from a company—don’t rush to open it, hold it in your hand trying to sense what it will say, and trying to anticipate what you really want it to say, and how you will react to it.
I say it again—we can go no further at this point because the relationship is a personal one—and that is what makes it so meaningful to him and so arbitrary to us. So we must leave him at this point and return to general comment on how to handle demons.
DEMON? WHAT DEMON?
In the above example, it was suggested that the hero might well resist the idea that he has a demon, and insist on another explanation. We need to explore that possibility further.
In the diagram are several alternative explanations. Taking a couple that lie quite close to each other:
• I’m not getting a job because the work ethic is a corrupt system designed to crush those at a disadvantage.
• I’m not getting a job because I’m too clever and that scares those ignorant bastards who post recruitment ads.
Ideas like that can be quite addictive: the more you believe them, the more evidence you find to confirm their truth. If our hero ignores my advice and opts for explanations like that, it could be his undoing, but it also could work very well. He might, for example, build up such a level of protest that he is driven to express it in violent punk music, or to write a scathing first novel.
Even the most negative ideas on the diagram can lead to success in their own terms. For example: “the reason I can’t get a job is that I’m just a fucking loser” could lead to a downward spiral towards self immolation and suicide that looks from the outside like an outright failure but is actually a superb victory over pompous attitudes in an arrogant, self righteous family—”get them where it really hurts” stuff.
Either way, a tempting thought grows into an addiction where it can lead to ruin or it can lead to triumph. More properly, as we shall see, it can lead to both. The loser gets revenge on his proud father, but sacrifices his life. The protest singer soars to fame, but will be particularly vulnerable to the other temptations of that lifestyle—including drugs.
So you don’t have to follow my advice in order to succeed. Does this weaken my case? Does it mean that demonising is just an alternative psychological trick to solve problems?
My answer is instead to extend the principle from therapeutic technique to broad life principle, by claiming that all those alternative explanations are simply demons in their own right. That is what makes them so addictive. We do not see them as demons, we insist that “I’m a loser” is just an explanation, rather than a parasitic life-form that is seeking a niche in the ecology of our minds. As a result “I’m a loser” gets a foothold, becomes a demonic partner to us and begins to manipulate our behaviour to confirm its validity and strengthen its hold. This is an example of a demon preferring not to be recognised and named, and thus it can grow without interference.
So the analysis has shifted. Instead of a choice between demons or not demons, I present a choice between two sorts of demonic pact. In one case we name, shame and co-operate. In the other we deny and are taken over.
Actually, it’s a little more complicated than that.
TOUGH AND TENDER APPROACHES
If I said to our hero “you have a demon” he might reply “don’t be soppy, it’s just a run of bad luck” or “just the fault of the narrow minded British approach to work” or whatever. Many people would say this reply is being “tough-minded” or “hard-headed” relative to my approach.
There is something in that. Working with demons
