Over the last few days this concept has emerged as important to people. Richard claiming that the weak need it. Tracey claiming that to receive validation is often crucial. I'm relatively inbetween these two extremes.
But each of them has a personality constructed around this concept. Validation is the process of telling another person that they did indeed experience what they claim to have, that they felt the way the claim to have. I usually don't require this since I do it myself. I trust myself and believe what percolates to the surface. Really I don't have such a surface as I can be found wading in the depths of who I am most of the time. Percolation is not required. So I don't need validationin any psychological sense. I do however require it about social standing. That I have any surprises the hell out of me. Of course I act as if I do, but that I different from feeling it from within. I still mostly retain the beleifs of an outcast, a social misfit and outsider. Of course, I know better - I've learned better. I'm buying a goddamn million dollar building. I must have some sort of social status - rather good social status in fact. :) But that is not how I feel inside. So I need to receive faxes from mortgage companies before really believing that I have enough social status to receive positive faxes from mortgage companies. Easy.
That is validation. Tracey needs to hear that if I treated her badly, I'll admit it. Validating her experience of this sort is crucial to her. Now to the generalizing. :)
Why does a person need to be validated about some things and not about other things? I suspect that when a continuous and systematically organized campaign of description is directed towards another person, even if they don't believe the content, they do weaken their own hold on its negate. The whole thing becomes an issue to them: to need validation or not to need validation.
Some need it and some hate it. Fine. The wise move here would be for me to be able to recognize this difference inpeople and simply respond accordingly. So much for the issue of it.
But more interesting is the cause, the reasons for this being so commonly an issue. [Both of these guys are going to jump around like a cat chased by a dog for what I'm about to write. AH well.]
We're in a society which commonly tells people what their roles are in situations. We have a highly socially governed society. People come to expect to be told what their roles are, and even in some cases stop seeing that there are other ways to determine who they are at all.
Both Tracey and Richard come from such backgrounds. If I did, I remained completely unaware of the attempts to get me socialized. I suspect both of them were aware of it, but chose different reactions to it.
Back to the abstract... Imagine that there is something that you want so strongly that it overrides the social acceptability bounds, and brings you to act independently. The social response will not be positive; that is, unless it is really used to you doing this and has learned to respond well to the successes this creates around you. All the people close to me have this in common. They want more than a standard stereotype life can allow for. A genX thing? Tracey would say so, although she admits not all genXers want this. :) I attribute it not to the times but more to individual people who want more indeply of generational influence -- this has happened through out history: original thinkers, inventors, trailblazers, frontiersmen.
If you want this unoffered unavailable thing and go for it, you'll receive a fair share of problems socially for it. "Why aren't you looking for a full time job?" "Who do you think you are?" "It's not your place to do that." "She needs to lead all the time, to be in charge." "She's a strong woman."
Note that the one thing that will happen is that people will talk about what you are doing. If the talking is positive, this is validating. If it is negative or even dismissive, a sort of anit-validation occurs. I get it.
Richard does not approve of it exactly because he all and only ever gets validated for what he does. He simply completely censors his own behaviour if it is not socially validated by the highest standards - which are his of course. Tracey does not receive this, and simply remains her own person in spite of the adversity she goes through. So when I put her through an adverse situation, and then admit to it, this is highly unusual to her exactly because she is used to being inadverse situations!!! [remember that I started out saying niether of them is going to approve all that much of this understanding I have. Heh.]
In a world of social, if you are not being validated socially, you are being anti-validated. That's the point. (Not of life, of course.) Only two modes where I was automatically assuming four - like usual. Richard talks as if there is a world out there where niether happens. People just are with respect to each other. Noooo.
We are all gossip mongerers. We talk and chat about each other, our relationships, our opinions about how people ought to behave in given situations. We tell each other off, compliment each other, snub or embrace. We smile encouragingly... rarely do we simply ignore. In fact, my mom used simple ignoring as a form of punishment. Even inaction and lack of response has a meaning of social interaction. No escape from the loop for a person who acknowledges even a little that social stuff is there at all.!!!
Now I feel stupid for discovering the obvious. :) And the even more obvious - some people request that you validate them. This whole system breaks down.