Stroking: Are you on target?
By Norman Araiza (April 21, 2006)


Some people believe that stroking is one of the most powerful forces in the world. I believe it is an essential need that if not filled adequately will result in physical or mental suffering. When I use the word "stroking," I'm not referring to a backstroke or a forehand stroke, as in tennis, nor am I referring to a cardiovascular incident. Rather, I'm referring to a word of recognition, a meaningful conversation, or some acknowledgment of existence of the individual. Research has shown that if we do not get enough strokes we turn inward and become depressed, ill and eventually die. So, strokes are as important to our body as food and water.

This fact was unknown until World War II. In an orphanage in France, because of the war demands, doctors and nurses were in short supply. On the infant ward, where there were 30 or more infants, there were only two nurses to care for the babies. They only had time to feed, bathe and diaper the infants. A seemingly strange thing occurred. All of the babies became ill. They began to lose weight. A team of doctors were brought in to find the cause, but to no avail. They added vitamins to the infants' formula, but nothing helped. Eventually, all of the babies on the ward died. Even during the war, this made headlines. Researchers from around the world came to the orphanage to search for an explanation. What they learned was that the children developed a disease that later became known as marasmus (progressive wasting associated with protein and calorie deficiency). The children lost their will to live because of the lack of stroking that occurred. The nurses didn't have time to hold or talk to the babies. They couldn't nurture or play with them and give them attention. 

This discovery kicked off a slew of research concerning the need for human touch and stimulation. Now, of course, the need for physical touch and love is widely known. Strokes, verbal or physical, are essential for life. Unfortunately, many of us from the Anglo cultures do not get enough of this psychological and physical nutrient.

As we grow older that deficit tends to get worse. If we are single and do not have children or grandchildren living nearby, we may go months or even years without receiving an affectionate hug. This lack of contact is so prevalent that massage therapists and other professionals refer to this unmet need as "skin hunger."

Research on massage, particularly its effect in the later years of life, has shown that those people giving the massage benefited as much as those receiving it. Not only did they experience less depression and anxiety but, they made fewer visits to doctors. Additionally, they were telephoning friends more often and even drinking less coffee. In other studies, massage has shown to boost the immune system, ease back pain, alleviate nausea in cancer patients and reduce agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

But you don't have to have a massage to access the healing power of touch. Even casual, everyday touch can have dramatic effects. For example, a Purdue University study found that students who were briefly touched on the hand when checking out library books reported more positive attitudes about life than students that had not been touched.

It's our attitude about touch that is part of the problem for Anglo-based cultures. The media do not help much by contributing to sensationalism about pedophilia and other kinds of physical abuse that leads us to believe that all touch is ultimately about sex. The effect is that from adolescence onward Americans regard touch with great suspicion. In our homophobic culture, unless it's in the sports arena, any physical contact between straight men is strictly taboo.

In our hosting Mexican culture, physical contact is far more accepted, and even expected. We have all noticed the cheek kissing that occurs even with first-time introductions in this country. When I first arrived here seven years ago, I was surprised but delighted to see my 15-year-old daughter walking arm-in-arm with her Mexican girl friends.

Mexican men customarily hug other men in an open sign of affection. 

But, just how extreme is the American taboo against touch-even among couples? A crosscultural study observing couples interacting in cafés found that in Puerto Rico couples touched each other an average of 180 times per hour; in France, they touched 110 times an hour. In the United States, the average couple touched only two times an hour. There is something pitiful about Americans' discomfort with touch. Of course, individuals and families differ greatly in their comfortableness with touch.

It isn't just physical touch from which some of us are deprived. Any kind of stroke is health-promoting. There are different kinds of strokes; some are physical and some are verbal. A physical stroke is a hug, a pat on the back, a handshake, even a punch in the nose, or just eye-to-eye contact. Verbal strokes include greetings, conversations, compliments and recognition that one is present. There are also conditional strokes and unconditional strokes.

An example of a conditional stroke is found in the statement "I really like your hair that way." It's a stroke based on the condition that the person continue to wear her hair that way. An unconditional stroke is "I really like you." In this example, there is no condition. Conditional strokes are strokes for doing. Unconditional strokes are strokes for being.

Remember that stroking is not just a matter of giving compliments. It's really just a matter of giving someone your undivided attention. There are also positive strokes and negative strokes. Positive strokes feel good. Negative strokes feel bad. If a person doesn't get enough positive strokes he or she may resort to bad behavior as a means of getting negative strokes. Negative strokes are better than no strokes at all, and at some level they are guaranteed to get attention. 

If not from the person whose attention is sought, eventually the behavior can become sufficiently bad that attention comes from the police.

Some of us are actually more comfortable with negative strokes than with positive strokes. We may question the motive of someone who says something to us in a sincerely loving way. For instance, I have noticed that some men get noticeably uncomfortable if I express my like for them. On the other hand, if I call them an idiot or some less attractive name they seem much more comfortable with that. I think this is a statement about their tolerance for intimacy with men.

The fact is that we are all stroke-worthy by virtue of birth. We shouldn't have to earn strokes; they should be given freely by those people who care about us. A good exercise is to ask ourselves what we do to get our strokes. Do I get enough strokes? The best way to get strokes is to give them. People who do not get enough strokes usually have poor self-esteem.

On the other hand, people who are able to stroke others well are usually very effective people. This means they give their full attention to whomever they are interacting with. They don't leave people out. They include everyone with their attention. They have an ability to stroke people right on target. If we are good observers, we can be very effective in our ways of stroking others. We can acknowledge efforts taken by others to please us.

Nonetheless, to be very effective in our stroking we must learn to stroke others the way they want to be stroked. If I asked someone to scratch my back and she scratched my right side, when it was my left side that itched, I wouldn't get satisfaction. Likewise, stroking our partners off-target is much the same. "Target stroking" is a term referring to stroking our partners physically or verbally, not the way we think they want to be stroked or the way we want to stroke them, but the way they want to be stroked. The only way to really know is to ask. Ask your partner, "If I were going to stroke you, how could I be most on target?" What would you really like to hear me say?" Listen to the answer. "How would you like me to touch you more?"

Ask yourself that same question. "How do I want to be stroked, physically and verbally? What would I most like to hear my partner say to me? In what way, physically, would I like my partner to stroke me the most?" When we stroke on target our relations are the strongest because such important needs are being met. We are then able to support our partners the way they want to be supported. Unless we have checked it out with our partners, we really don't know whether we are stroking on target. Furthermore, this idea of target stroking can be applied to our children and other intimates. I think I would have loved it if my parents asked me what I would like to hear them say to me.

Sometimes, however, we may feel a resistance to stroke our partners the way they need to be stroked. When this occurs, usually it's because a resentment has been collected and needs to be expressed. When we have expressed our feelings openly and honestly, we are creating an intimate opportunity whereby the best possible stroking can occur. I'm talking about making a good thing better.

Psychologists define and categorize most all human behavior. Even our interactions with others can be broken down to five levels of interacting, from the least rewarding to the most rewarding interactions. The first level is called Rituals. This refers to ritualistic means of interacting. It's usually nothing more than a "good morning" or a "How ya doin'?" said in passing. There is not much going on in this interaction, but at least it's an acknowledgment that we and they exist. When it comes to stroking, some of us make a habit of surviving at this least-rewarding level.

The next level is the Activities level. This level of interaction includes necessary involvements, such as task-oriented issues and work-related, goal-directed and similar activities. Subjects of interactions are defined and limited to impersonal interactions. It includes playing sports, card playing, social games and other prescribed activities that are deemed worthy by the participants. At this level, interaction is primarily task-related and personal issues are normally avoided.

The third level is referred to as "Past Timing." Another word for this is B.S.ing, that is, talking about subjects that are of little significance. We are just passing time at this level. Guys talk about sports, cars or other less meaningful subjects, while women talk about fashion, pregnancy or other casual subjects. Many people seldom get deeper than this level of interaction.

The next level of interacting with others is called "Game Playing." At this level, psychological games are played with others unconsciously in order to receive the payoff that each player gets from the interaction. In his best-selling book Games People Play, Eric Berne defined sets of behaviors that people involve themselves in whereby one person gets to feel good by playing the game and the other person gets to feel bad. I call this level of interacting "Counterfeit Intimacy." It may feel intimate because of the emotion experienced by the game, but it is not truly rewarding. Family members and others to whom we are closer often take part unconsciously in this level of interacting. A lot of emotion may be exchanged at this level, but usually it's negative emotion.

The most rewarding level of interaction we can have with others is known as Intimacy. This level includes the most satisfying of all interactions whereby sincere feelings and hopes, fears and desires are expressed. 


The mutual trust that is implied in these relationships makes this by far the most rewarding and self-validating of all levels of interaction. Yet, many people fail to achieve this level of interaction with any frequency. There is no problem with that unless the person wants more.

If you want more than you are currently getting from your relationships, try Interpersonal Yoga. The goal to this form of Yoga is that instead of stretching and challenging the various parts of your body to become more flexible and strong, you are stretching your interpersonal limits to become more open and disclosing, and as a result more confident.

I believe that for most of us, to know us is to love us. The more open, trusting and disclosing we are, the more reasons others have to love us. It's not a matter of telling everyone our life's story, but rather of sharing parts of ourselves in normal discourse. The true spirit of intimacy for me is found in those early bonding moments of secrets told in the wee hours, during camping over-nighters, in the backyards of friends. The telling of secrets is normally our first adventure into intimate behavior, and it often sets the stage for future intimate relationships. If these adventures and experimentations in disclosure did not take place, then personal disclosure could come haltingly and awkwardly. There are defining moments in all intimate relationships in which trust is given and disclosures made, and forever the relationship is changed. The bond that forms between the two can become lifelong. Even through prolonged periods of absence, the tacit agreement of trust between the two will remain intact until something occurs to break it.

In summary, the quality of our relationships can be enhanced by improving our ability to stroke others effectively and by disclosing more of ourselves when appropriate opportunities present themselves.

Norman Araiza is an American-trained psychotherapist enjoying a limited practice in San Miguel. He may be reached at 152-5449 or nearaiza@hotmail.com