Category: Uncategorized

I’m judgemental, and that’s as it should be.

As a therapist, I make it my business to create a warm, safe, non-judgmental space for my clients. I think I achieve it. I really hope I do.

The question really is how?

Being judgemental is a vital life skill.

Being judgemental is not a bad thing.

Being judgemental is something that feeds the most primitive human instinct there is: survival.

Judgements stop us crossing the road when it isn’t safe. It tells us not to eat the meat that’s sat out for a little too long. It tells us to avoid someone who we may think will be bad for us, whether short or long term. Judgements are really really important, and about 80% of the time, we should listen to them.

What’s also really important is to understand what informs them. So for example, if you feel negatively judgemental about gay people, you need to ask yourself why. Why do you think that it’s wrong? Where have you learned that message? Why are you caught in a narrative about it being wrong? How does their sexuality affect you?

The answer is, it doesn’t. Unless of course there is something a lot deeper going on than just fearing someone’s difference to you, for example the idea they may not be so different to you.

The thing about negative judgements is they help us align with certain tribes. They help us feel as though we belong. That’s why they’re so hard to resist. We see it in the playground from an early age. The child with ginger hair is excluded and isolated for a genetic predisposition, to facilitate bonding between his peers. The one who is good at maths and not sports is teased for being a geek or a nerd, because his intelligence is something to be feared, and his difference feels foreign.

Can you see how those childhood judgments translate into adulthood?

I certainly can.

The way to combat these is by being honest with yourself. For example:

‘Why does it matter to me if Sue walks her kids to school in her pyjamas? Why do I feel threatened by it? What do I see in Sue that I’m scared of seeing in myself?’

Because that’s another thing. Negative judgements are usually based on tiny little mirror reflections we are scared of seeing in ourselves.

Perhaps Sue has had to fight her kids tooth and nail to get the kids to school this morning. Perhaps Sue’s mother/brother/other was rushed into hospital in the night and she hasn’t had time to look after herself before the children. Perhaps Sue can barely function due to hideous depression but is being a responsible parent, and is getting her kids to school on time.

Perhaps Sue doesn’t care.

What matters is that Sue is making her choice, and you can make yours. Neither should affect the other. We need to own our own ‘stuff’, and understand that our judgements of others is just that. OURS.

After all, to quote a ridiculously overused, but nevertheless important phrase:

In a world where you can be anything, be kind.

#therapy #counselling #bekind #judgemental #love #bristol

Narcissism.

Fair warning: this is going to be long!

Narcissism is a word we hear a lot in the media at the moment. It’s a word thrown around that seems to describe any behaviour that seems self indulgent or delusional. The layperson perception of a narcissist would seem to be someone who is self-centred, loud, attention seeking and grandiose.

That in part is true, but true narcissism, or diagnosable Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is much bigger and incredibly damaging and dangerous. Whilst the prevalence of NPD is low (thought to be around 1%), it seems as though maladaptive narcissistic traits are common. I will look at traits another time…!!

Otto Rank first proposed narcissism as a concept in the late 1800’s followed by Freud’s essay in 1914 called ‘On Narcissism’. In which he describes patients that were unaffected by transference (a phenomena between client and therapist which is informed by subjectivity and need, i.e. putting a therapist in the role of ideal mother if you’ve had a bad experience with your own mother). He put them in the same category as schizophrenic patients, but also said they were the type of people that would be fun to be around and would make great leaders (!).

Freud thought Narcissism was a natural part of development, and believed that primary narcissism existed to sustain and infants survival. If you think about that, it kind of makes sense. An infant is entirely focused on its own needs. They do not care if Mum or Dad need sleep, they need food!

He thought that pathological narcissism arose when someone was confronted with a trauma, and that trauma would fling him or her back into a primary narcissistic state, but obviously, as the person is no longer an infant, it is an unnecessary defence for survival. He called this secondary narcissism.

Freud acknowledged that his essay raised more questions than it answered, and he sadly never really got round to answering them. Luckily two eminent therapists did. Kohut and Kernberg.

Kohut is called a ‘self- theorist’ a kind of evolution of Freud’s school of thinking, but moving away quite from Freud’s psychoanalytical stance; and Kernberg is an conflict theorist, and part of the school of object relations.

Kohut believed that we all have a healthy narcissism. That healthy narcissism gets us up in the morning and get presentable, empowers us to strive for promotion, drives ambition, and essentially generates self-esteem and self-belief.

Kernberg disagrees with this, and believes that narcissism only exists in a pathological form.

For what it’s worth, I’m with Kohut on this point!

Kohut agreed with Freud’s ‘primary narcissism’, but disagreed with secondary narcissism, or more specifically how it came about.

Kohut believed that narcissism develops in an individual as a small child if they are not presented with a nurturing, loving and supportive carer. He says that when a child is not given a strong sense of self through acknowledgment of feelings, experiences and an acceptance of his or her voice, he develops narcissism as a way to regulate their self esteem and identity. He believes that a child who is neglected or abused is more likely to become a narcissist because they are not supported into their individuality.

Overindulgence, spoiling, helicopter parenting can also suppress the development into individuality, and thus those people can also become narcissists too.

He describes these individuals as ‘mirror hungry’. That is to say that they are constantly looking for external validation of themselves to reinforce the created narcissistic identity, and suppress any feelings that question that identity.

Therefore, Kohut’s position is that others only exist as an extension of the narcissist, and serve only to reinforce the grandiosity and glorification of self.

Kernberg envisages narcissism as a defence mechanism against a crippled, fragile and highly sensitive ego. He stands in a similar position to Kohut as to why it develops, and later research has supported these theories. (Just google ‘why does narcissism develop’ for the research).

So from Kohut and Kernberg we are left with two different types of narcissism, grandiose or overt, and vulnerable or covert.

In its introduction to the DSM 3 in 1980, the criteria whilst largely based on Kernberg’s theory was deemed to be one dimensional and only addressing Overt Narcissism. The DSM 4 included a few more criteria allowing for both types following research that evidenced two presentations as thought, but it was still heavily weighted towards overt. In DSM 5 the criteria were further expanded; however, despite plenty of recommendations and input from practitioners, it is still heavily criticised as not giving enough of a picture of narcissism.

It is often claimed that it would be impossibly to diagnose someone with NPD on the basis of the DSM 5 criteria.

My research has led me to believe NPD is a condition that exists as a paint palette with each individual presenting with maladaptive narcissistic traits in a strength or weighting unique to them.

Essentially narcissism is borne out of abuse. It seems to be that it’s more emotional abuse, whether neglect or overindulgence, but essentially a lack of individualisation where a person can accept that they can be flawed and still a good person.

Narcissists will do everything they can to protect the image of self. They will project an image of perfection, and should anyone contradict that they will become incredibly abusive through manipulation, smear campaigning, gaslighting, and triangulation, to name just a few. Narcissistic rage is something Kohut talked about, and is triggered when someone does something to expose the narcissist, or even merely contradict them. A more overt narcissist might create a row there and then, but the more covert might crumple, positioning themselves in victim role and the exposer into persecutor (think about the drama triangle I wrote about).

Narcissists are unlikely ever to be cured, largely because they rarely enter treatment for themselves, because after all, it’s not them, it’s you….

A Description of an Overt Narcissist

Bill is 45 years old. He is married and has 2 teenage children, a boy and girl. Bill is a manager of a large department store. He is well presented, charismatic and charming. The life and soul of the party, but he doesn’t seem to have any very close friends, or friends he’s had for a long time.

When Bill is in conversation with someone without really understanding why, the other person will find the conversation will turn onto talking about Bill no matter what subject was originally started on. Bill will regularly mention contacts that he thinks have value, essentially ‘name dropping’ to impress others and inflate their perception of him.

Bill has a nice car and house, which he invites people to see often, and always has the latest gadgets or accessories. Bill enjoys shopping and buying himself ‘treats’ feeling as though it’s absolutely his right to have it.

When someone contradicts Bill, or disagrees with him, he takes it very personally, and will usually get very angry. Bill will make the person who has offended him look as bad as possibly in order to discredit anything negative that may have been said about him.

If Bill makes a mistake, he will do everything possible to avoid taking any blame. He will justify his mistake by blaming everything and everyone apart from himself. Bill never takes responsibility for his actions.

Bill’s relationships are based on exploitation, using people, including his own wife and children to advance and enhance his self-image. His wife is likely quiet and timid, generally enabling Bill’s behaviour. His children will likely have been cast into roles, one as a ‘golden child’, who can do no wrong, and one as a ‘scapegoat’, who can do no right.

Bill is dominant in his relationships, and uses manipulation to get people around him to do what he wants them to do. Bill has likely cheated on his wife many times, but will always blame her for his actions, for example if she denies him sex he will say he had to get it somewhere.

He sees his children and wife as extensions of himself, so when they do not behave in a way he deems acceptable he demonstrates huge anger towards them, disproportionate to whatever ‘offence has been caused.

As a manager Bill is superficially friendly and gregarious, appearing generous to those who tow the line, however he won’t think twice about exploitaing someone to gain more power at work, or slandering/libelling someone if it will benefit his cause.

Bill believes that he is always right, and if he is wrong it is because someone has misunderstood him or fed him the wrong information. Bill will believe the way he does things is the best way for them to be done, even if someone practically demonstrates a better way. Should a person contradict Bill in this manner he will become angry and aggressive, perhaps once again engaging in slander or libel to discredit the person who has shown him up. Bill likes to give his opinion whether requested or not, and enjoys lecturing colleagues, family and friends on his superior knowledge.

Bill expects people to respond to his demands for attention immediately, and has no consideration for anything that might require his patience. Bill does not care that his employee’s child is in the hospital, after all, if the child is in the hospital, the parent doesn’t need to be there too.

On social media, Bill only ever posts photos where he looks great, or to show off what exciting activity he is partaking in.

When Bill has got everything he think he can out of another person, he will ‘discard’ them, cutting all communication and ignoring any attempts to reconnect.

Bill will always be trying to establish his superiority and dominance, even drawing those around him into competition to reinforce or build his position.

Covert Narcissist.

Angela is 63 years old; she’s a mother of 3 children, 2 girls and a boy. The boy is her middle child. She is divorced and re-married. Her youngest daughter and her son both are married with children, her oldest daughter is not married but has 2 children she is raising alone.

Angela does not work, and hasn’t ever worked apart from a few admin style posts, which she left because the people there were mean.

To people outside of her family, Angela appears quiet, timid and shy. Angela doesn’t like confrontation, and is easily upset by criticism. When someone criticises her, Angela becomes very defensive towards the criticiser, but then aligns herself with someone to discuss how horrible the criticiser is, and how it isn’t her fault she got something wrong.

Angela secretly believes that she should have had a better life, and regularly fantasises about living a wealthy lifestyle. Angela likes the finer things in life but plays down how much she spends or enjoys things, projecting an unaffected attitude to the high value belongings she has. Angela does not boast or brag, but enjoys it when others admire the things she has.

Angela’s house is well presented, and she is irritated when others disrupt her order, although she won’t say so openly, but will make passive aggressive comments to communicate her distaste. If anyone confronts her about her behaviour she will be offended or move quickly into a position of victim, suggesting the confronter is attacking her. Angela will let all those around her know about the confronter’s behaviour, which she will consider to be outrageous. This will be the same response to any behaviour she finds unacceptable.

Angela views her children as extensions of herself. Her eldest child is a disappointment because she is a single mother. It doesn’t matter to Angela that her daughter is both working and raising the children, because her daughter has bought shame on the family. Angela may use religion as a justification for her attitude, saying God disapproves of unwed mothers. Angela may even attempt to get custody of her daughter’s children, especially if her daughter withdraws regular or total contact.

Angela’s son is her golden child. She thinks he is everything that a human should be. She will ignore any bad behaviour, even if she would correct it in her other two children, and in fact probably enable it. Her son’s children are the apple of her eye, and she regularly buys them gifts or offers to look after them, which she doesn’t do for her other grandchildren.

Angela will not understand why her other children find this hurtful and will accuse them of being selfish and unfair.

Angela will dismiss protestations of hurt, upset or anger from her children as silly and overreacting. Angela will deny any event that makes her look anything less than the perfect parent. Angela will have often ignored her children’s emotional, physical and practical needs if they conflict with her own. For example if her children needed to be taken to school and she was tired she would make them walk at an inappropriate age.

If Angela’s children complain of inappropriate behaviour towards them by a partner or friend, Angela will likely deny their experiences and not take action to protect them.

Angela will be intrusive and use inappropriate boundaries around her children’s privacy, especially as they become older and sexually active. She may even try to attract her children’s partners.

Angela may have behaved promiscuously in the past, or maybe even in the present. If Angela is caught cheating she will likely deflect and deny, blaming others for her behaviour.

Angela enjoys forging fast and firm new relationships with people, only for the person ‘not to be the person she thought they were’, blaming that person for the failure of the relationship. Angela likes to be around people who tell her how wonderful she is, and if she is in a group, she will quietly bring the conversation back around to her without others really noticing at first.

Angela’s relationships are short lived, although it is always they other person’s fault for the relationship breakdown. Angela is still furious with her ex husband for leaving her, despite having remarried a quiet and acquiescent man. She blames him for not having a wealthy lifestyle, and the problems in the relationships with her children.

When Angela is criticised by her children, she will either fly into a rage, or she will play a victim role. It is usually only with her husband and children that she will demonstrate anger.

Angela is critical of anyone and anything that does not measure up to her standards, or who takes any spotlight away from her. She will actively tell lies and stir gossip against those who threaten her image of perfection.

Angela will seem quiet and unassuming, all the while manipulating everyone around her into submission through her victim behaviour. Angela will never accept responsibility for any wrongdoings, and will avoid any discussion of conflict by deflecting and bringing in old arguments or offenses against her.

Many people feel sorry for Angela, until they have spent enough time around her to become aware of her easy shift into a place of victimhood that results in her manipulation of a situation to an outcome favourable to her.

What if I told you, depression is healthy?

What if I said depression isn’t illness, but a healthy response to the burden you’ve been carrying?

I went to a lecture on Saturday night where my tutor said just this.

His position, and one I wholeheartedly agree with and will embrace in my therapeutic work, is that depression is a healthy response to difficulties we face in life.

When we are depressed, it means we have moved from denial into a place where we are acknowledging we have some difficult things to work through.

So being depressed is healthy, because it means we are facing our difficulties.

It doesn’t diminish how hideous depression is, or what a huge killer depression is, merely says ‘you’re doing this right, have no shame’.

It doesn’t expect you to heal quickly or even at all, but says ‘your pain is valid, and your fight is real’.

We constantly hear the media rhetoric of depression being a mental illness. Attaching the word illness implies there’s something wrong. Perhaps that’s why I see so many people struggling to use the word depressed when describing their emotional state.

We live in a society that medicalises mental health, and whilst there is nothing wrong at all with taking medication, the depression is trying to tell you something, that you have things to process. That medication can give you some breathing space and clarity to start working things through with a therapist so it’s not a bad thing, but relying on it alone to cure depression is likely not to work.

The same can be said for anxiety. When I reframe anxiety as something helpful for a client it becomes a completely different experience for them. That horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach is telling you you’re not okay and you need to stop and self care.

Find the space you need, take time, be kind to yourself, sit with the feeling and try and identify what’s triggered it. Make friends with it, say hello, welcome anxiety in, sit down and ask what it wants. What is it trying to protect you from, and is the threat real or perceived?

When we look at something head on, we can see it more clearly. That’s why this approach seems so much more natural to me as a therapist.

Let’s change how we look at depression and anxiety, and see them as helpful warning signs that we haven’t processed something. No matter how big or small you think it is compared to someone else, all that matters is how it makes YOU feel.

What do you think? Can depression and anxiety be seen as healthy and helpful, even though they make you feel like you’re swimming in tar?

I regularly see posts about how forgiving those who have wronged you is the only way to move on in life. How forgiveness liberates you and brings peace.

I disagree. For me.

There are some things that can never be forgiven. Abuse, Rape, Neglect or any other kind of suffering imposed on one human by another does not require forgiveness for the survivor to move on.

When we forgive, it could be argued that we are absolving the offender of their behaviour. It is not up to us to grant another freedom from their remorse or guilt (if indeed they have any) that’s for them to do.

Sometimes it can be more comfortable to find compassion, for ourselves, and for the offender. Understanding that what they have done to us is not right, and not okay, but that usually their behaviour stems from difficulties they may have experienced. That does not mean that it is okay for them to behave that way, but merely places the fault entirely at their door, because we are not to blame for their choices, and it is not our responsibility to forgive them.

If we are to forgive anyone, it should be ourselves.

We owe ourselves kindness when we’ve escaped abuse, or survived attack of any form. We owe ourselves forgiveness for it. We do so to absolve ourselves of any wrongdoing or blame taking for being in harms way. We do not choose to be hurt, and for me, forgiveness is not for the attacker, but ourselves.

I appreciate that some people feel the opposite way to this. Ultimately, whatever we need, we do. However, I feel strongly that we should never instruct another how to heal. That each person is unique in their emotional process, and what another finds helpful, another finds hurtful. We have no right to tell someone whether they are doing it wrong, all that’s required is love and support on that journey of healing.

Helen

#victimblaming Trigger Warnings: Rape, Sexual Assualt, Sexual Abuse, Victim Blaming, Victim Shaming.

Okay, so here goes…… I should be doing MA stuff, but I can’t put this off any longer, it’s too important! In this blog, I’m going to write about rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse. This may be triggering, please do not read if you are concerned about that. Thank you.

‘Victim Blaming’ is a phrase first used by psychologist William Ryan in his book ‘Blaming the Victim’ in 1971. He said it’s an ‘ideology to justify racism and social injustice against black people in the USA’.

The phrase has since gathered traction, and grown in application to include what’s known as ‘secondary victimisation’ or ‘secondary traumatisation’ of a victim of crime, specifically sexual assault. It’s also interchangeable with the term ‘victim shaming’.

What happens in victim blaming/shaming is this: somehow, for some spurious reason, the victim of the crime/rape/assault/anything they have not consented to, is held accountable for what has happened to them.

For example, the girl raped walking home at night in a short skirt she wore to the club with her friends. In the subsequent court case, the victim is asked about her sex life, her sexual preferences, whether she led anyone on etc. She is picked apart over something intensely private in order to justify the attackers decision to force non-consensual sex on her. The attackers friends, and worse possibly her friends imply that she is somehow ‘asking for it’ by walking home late at night in a short skirt on her own.

I understand the perspective that we need to do what we can to keep ourselves safe. I understand that there are behaviours that put us more at risk than others. I understand that we have to take responsibility for our own actions.

But it is NEVER someone’s fault they were raped. Nobody has the right to do that to another human. Nobody.

And then there’s the horseshoe theory that brings victim blaming back close to itself in the extremes, by asking ‘what does it say about men if we generalise that they can’t control themselves if a girl in a short skirt walks past them?’

When we attach responsibility to the victim of a crime perpetuated against them, we stigmatise the victim themselves, and importantly, those who suffer similar crimes. We relieve the criminal of his own responsibility, suggesting it isn’t his fault he put his appendage somewhere uninvited.

Victim shaming, especially against victims of rape or sexual assault, potentially prevents that person from reporting the crime against them. Especially where the scenario isn’t a clear cut case of rape, where maybe they knew the person, where maybe they were drunk and don’t remember saying no, where they felt they had led the person on, and so somehow ‘owed’ it to them to have sex.

When rape isn’t an aggressive force of violence, victims struggle to understand how it’s so clearly rape. When people have been victims of crime in situations that they feel like they somehow put themselves in danger, they make themselves accountable, because society tells them ‘you asked for it’.

Here’s the real problem with it:

I worked for a while with clients who were victims of sexual abuse. Not ONE of those woman (I didn’t have male clients) reported their assault. Not ONE.

Because then they get dragged through the court. Their sexual behaviour gets discussed in public. They’re forced to relive their experience over and over again in order to convince a jury that this degrading, violating act was made against them. Because they’re told ‘you were drunk’, ‘you flirted with him’ (or her), ‘you said yes to his friend’, ‘if you can’t remember being raped, how do you know you were?’, ‘your ex partner says you like it rough’, ‘you’re lying because you’re angry he broke up with you’.

When we victim shame we are asking the wrong person to take responsibility. When we victim shame we are allowing the perpetrator to be excused of their crime, because the victim somehow led them to believe they were entitled to commit whatever crime it is against them. When we victim shame, we allow the cycle to perpetuate.

This concept does not only apply to rape. It applies to burglary, theft, pickpocketing, domestic violence, and any criminal offence committed against one person by another.

If you have been triggered by this post, please use these numbers to find support:

Samaritans: 116 123 (UK & ROI)

Rape Crisis Helpline: 0808 802 9999 (12-14:30 daily, 19:00 – 21:30 Daily, 15:00-17:30 Monday to Friday)

Women’s Aid & National Domestic Violence Helpline: 0808 2000 247

(Please let me have any other numbers you feel are relevant, these are UK based numbers only)

So today I want to talk about language and how it relates to our emotional understanding. Once upon a time, I was in a supervision session (therapy for my therapy) and I said ‘I feel like I am doing okay with this client because xyz’/.

‘No Helen, you don’t feel that, you think it. When we feel something, it is generally a short sentence, with an emotional word, when we think something it’s a longer sentence’.

Naturally ever since then I can’t stop noticing when people say ‘feel’ instead of ‘think’. Somehow when it’s a feeling, something seems more acceptable and easier to dismiss or ignore, which is precisely why we need to use think instead of feel.

The other reason for saying ‘feel’ instead of ‘think’, is that it is somehow less confrontational, that it isn’t as concrete, that it doesn’t hold another person quite so responsible. If someone behaves in a way that you disagree with, i.e. cheating on their partner, and you say ‘I feel like it’s not really something I would ever do’, rather than ‘I think it’s something I would never do’, it’s less judgemental, or critical of the other person because you have made it a feeling rather than a thought.

Does that make sense?

Another thing I notice time and time again is when people talk about their emotional experience; they often say ‘you’ instead of ‘I’. You only have to watch interviews of people who’ve experienced tough things in their lives to see what I mean.

We do this to disconnect from the emotional impact of the event.

‘How did it feel when you realised you had been attacked?’

‘Oh, well, you just feel in shock kind of’

It’s clever really isn’t it? Our brains protect us from the emotions by projecting them outside onto others, without us even noticing. This can also be problematic relationally, because you’re telling someone else how they feel, which you can’t possibly know, and that’s not very fair! (I’ll blog on that someday very soon!)

The problem is, that in therapy, usually we need to experience that emotion, understand it, and process it. We can’t do that if we talk in the third person.

In the response I’ve created above, the client even goes so far as to minimise their experience by saying ‘kind of’.

The way we use language really determines how we process emotion. When we suggest ‘it was a long time ago’, or ‘worse things have happened to others’, we are still minimising or avoiding our emotion.

But here’s the kicker.

You can’t avoid it forever.

If we stay in a place where we don’t confront the horrible pain life events have bestowed on us, we end up releasing it elsewhere. It turns into depression, it turns into anxiety, it turns into anger or resentment or fear or anything other than the original emotion because we have shrouded it in emotional armour, and when that happens, we have more therapy to do and more pain to understand, because the original emotion is so well buried we have to dig much further to find it.

So here’s my challenge to you. Notice when you are talking about yourself and you use the third person. Notice when you say ‘I feel’, when really it should be ‘I think’.

Be kind to yourselves, have a great week and weekend,

Helen

I have recently had reason to look at how we face bereavement. Both societally and personally.

Our family suffered a sudden and unexpected loss of a figure head. Naturally it has been a sad process coming to terms with his death but the thing that has struck me has been the way people outside the family have responded.

Some have tried to claim the loss as their own, telling us how sad they are, somehow forcing our care on them, so we are left holding their grief and ignoring our own.

Some have imposed their own needs on the person most affected by the loss.

Some have told us how to grieve, or what to feel, asking us to follow their path instead of our own.

Some have forced jollity upon us, telling us to look on the bright side of his sudden death because he didn’t suffer, as though he would rather have left us without saying goodbye.

Some have disappeared all together and tell us they don’t want to impose.

Few have allowed us to sit with our pain, sadness, shock and anger at the abyss left by his death.

It has struck me over and over again that the society I live in seems allergic to death. That the phrase trotted out is ‘IF I die’ not ‘When I die’.

We shield people from death, through hospitals, morgues, undertakers and all the other forcefields under which secret death business happens. A body is sealed in a coffin and delivered to a church or crematorium to have words said over it. Occasionally the body is visited or laid out for viewing. Dressed in finery and made up to look as though it is sleeping.

Death is hidden. Spoken about in hushed words, feared as though contagious, as though somehow ‘it won’t happen to us’, because we’re immune to it. Somehow death will sneak up on us and surprise us when we least expect it and we are utterly unprepared for it.

As a result, grief is suppressed by many, and rushed in others, bystanders finding it hard to hold eye contact with it, to sit with it and hold it for the person suffering it.

But here’s the thing. Assuming mythical legends are just that; there’s not one of us on this planet who can escape death. Not one of us is going to live our lives unaffected by death. If you’re lucky you may not experience it close hand for a while.

So we HAVE to start talking about grief. About how natural it is. How it isn’t a linear process, how everyone does it their own way and takes their own time and walks their own path.

It is no one else’s job to tell someone how to walk that path. No one has the right to force a grief process on another. All we can do is walk the path with that person. Stopping where they stop, looking where they look, maybe sharing what we see too, but never ever imposing our path on them.

You will no doubt have heard of the grief model with 5 stages. Forget it. Forget it and it’s compatriots. Walk your own path and feel your own feelings.

Not a single one of them is wrong.

When we are small, we learn how the world works from the people around us. We learn what is acceptable behaviour and what isn’t from parents, siblings, friends and teachers. We learn how to respond to a given set of circumstances or how to demonstrate emotion from those people.

Essentially, we learn to relate to the world from the messages we receive as children.

So for example, in your family, how was sadness received? Were you hugged and soothed? Were you tickled till you laughed? Were you told ‘don’t cry’? Were you told to ‘man up’?

If your answers are any apart from the first, the message you may have internalised is ‘sadness is bad’. The same can be said for every emotion. Understanding how our emotions were responded to can help us understand why we might feel shame or guilt around our emotional responses.

These patterns of relating shape how we view ourselves and others, and indeed the world. They also inform how we behave in relationships with others too, both romantic and platonic, not to mention authoritative (ie police, teachers, doctors etc).

It’s important to realise that we don’t necessarily repeat the patterns. For example, if you grew up in a home where people were homophobic, you don’t automatically become homophobic. It may be that you reject the view completely and become an advocate for LGBTQ rights.
If you were taught anger was bad, you may really struggle to know how to process anger. You may have shame and guilt around anger and attempt to bottle it up.
We all learn different messages and ways to respond from the same relational responses, even in the same families. If you grew up around anger it may be traumatic for you when people start arguing near you, but your sibling isn’t bothered at all, and may even get involved in the argument.
Thinking back to how our emotions were received, and how our parents related to both each other (if they were together) and us will help us understand where we struggle with relationships.

Many many clients will tell me they don’t ‘do confrontation’. That they would rather ignore insults, slights, or something that has caused them emotion, because the fear of confrontation is so high they would rather hold on to it themselves, and absolve the other person of any responsibility.

Often this is because we are taught arguing is bad. If you argued with a sibling or friend how often were you allowed to resolve it yourselves? How often did a parent/carer or teacher step in and ‘break it up’?
Because this is such a common response to children arguing, they never learn how to resolve conflict, and as adults see conflict as a terminal act. That by confronting someone about something they found difficult in the behaviour means that the relationship will end, and they will some how be worse off without the person causing them emotional injury in their lives.
Does that seem right? That we hold onto injury because we don’t want to lose the injurer?!

So think back to your childhood, how were your emotional responses received? Were you allowed to argue to resolution? Were you allowed to demonstrate anger or sadness? How was your happiness and joy received?
When we understand that everything we know about emotion is taught, we can make peace with our own emotional responses, and know where they are coming from, meaning we take responsibility for them, and as a result establish a healthy boundary around how we are emotionally triggered by others, and how we respond with that knowledge.

Knowing why we respond in certain ways to certain circumstances or behaviour allows us freedom from the affect of others, and to prevent the repeat of maladaptive relational patterns that might put us in danger of abusive relationships.

I hope that helps, please feel free to ask any questions!

Helen

Today, I’m going to look at triangulation. There are different types of triangulation, but the use of it is ultimately generates the same outcome: control and conflict.

Triangulation is a manipulative technique that an abuser or toxic person might use to manipulate or control two other people. It’s particularly good for creating rivalry between two people. Another term that describes that aspect of Triangulation would be ‘divide and conquer’. It generates conflict, and the idea is to leave one person outside and isolated, whilst two people are inside the triangle.

So this is how it works:

One person will use another person to relay information back to a third party, thereby not directly talking to the third party and creating feelings of discomfort around a subject indirectly addressed. This is particularly difficult when the subject is one that is critical of the third party. It also often means that the ‘messenger’ gets involved and asked for an opinion or even offers one unsolicited.

It’s a technique often used by narcissists to control relationships between others and their partner or child, to aid in smear campaigns. (smear campaigns are utilised when a narcissist comes under attack, such as the partner not tolerating narcissistic abuse anymore and disconnecting.) It makes the accusations and projections onto the third party more credible, because they’re coming through the second party, leaving the third party trying to catch up and explain themselves when the controller has already poisoned the second party’s mind and manipulated their opinion. If the controller is really clever, there will be a grain of truth to their tale, making it harder to deny.

In triangulation, the controller uses it to scapegoat a third party, to deflect and protect against any criticism against themselves. It’s like a force field of bad behaviour designed to keep the controller in charge of relationships and squeaky-clean.

An example of triangulation might be this:

Bob tells Sue that Terry really annoyed him at the work BBQ by talking to the boss about a project they were both working on, and he feels like Terry is taking over. Sue, not realising that Bob is manipulating her goes and speaks to Terry saying something along the lines of ‘Bob is really annoyed that you spoke to the boss about the project you’re both working on. I really think you should have invited Bob to join the conversation, it seems like you’re taking over and trying to control the project’.

So Bob has created conflict between Terry and Sue, and himself and Terry, leaving Terry isolated and his character tarred by a seemingly innocent action.

What Sue is unaware of is that Bob has not been pulling his weight on the project and Terry has been carrying it. Bob would be unable to hold a conversation about the project regardless, and to join a conversation would have exposed him to do so.

Can you see how clever and nasty that is? Terry now has to explain himself and justify his actions, looking as though it is he who is the abuser, not Bob.

Another way triangulation might occur is in familial relationships. The abuser/controller will use it to cause rivalry between other family members. So for example, a parent might tell child 1 that child 2 said something negative about child 1. This creates discourse and conflict between the children and allows the parent to keep them separate, most likely to stop them from discussing emotional abuse they both suffer from said parent.

Triangulation can also be helpful, but when done in an open and honest manner where everyone gets a voice. Relationship counselling is a good example of this. A neutral person with no agenda in your relationship can help unpick problems and conflict so things are easier to see and understand. It is directly opposite to the unhealthy form of triangulation.

You may spot some similarities between the drama triangle and triangulation, but the difference is it’s MUCH more calculated and MUCH more actively engaged.

To avoid being part of this behaviour, always question what you know and how you know it. Allow a third party to give their version of events. Look for evidence, and as I always say, trust your instinct.

Any questions?

Boundaries are something we talk a lot about as Counsellors but I wondered if I was making an assumption that people who are not involved in the therapeutic world would know what they are, and then I wondered whether even as therapists we could explain what they are.

I’ve done a lot of wondering 😏

So what are boundaries? Boundaries are rules we use and establish ourselves to determine what we will and won’t permit in terms of behaviour towards or from us.

Being able to say ‘no’ can be one of the most important skills we can learn, but it also seems to be one we are often woefully lacking in. We seem to need to justify ourselves in our negative position, as though we show our right and entitlement to do so.

There is nothing that says that’s true, apart from years of conditioning from teachers or parents who have perhaps made us feel guilty when we ask to meet our own needs.

For example, being a teenager at the family home, and being asked to empty the dishwasher when we’ve got loads of homework, or we’re tired, or we want to catch up with our best friend to find out the latest gossip. Our ‘no’ then won’t be met well (sometimes understandably!!) and we have to explain to the parent/carer/guardian why we can’t do what we’ve been asked.