3.4.6 Linking Trauma, Attachment, Dissociation And Narcissism

The previous Sub-Chapters have described how a person who suffers trauma as an infant (or even in the womb) and grows up in a family where insecure, ambivalent, avoidant and in particular disorganised attachment prevails, might choose to dissociate for self-protection – which then becomes a pattern in her life.

That is, as she grows, she learns that the only way to stay safe is to grow rigid armour that will, in turn, put her at high risk of developing characteristics that are displayed to the world as unhealthy narcissism – whether vulnerable or grandiose.

Of course there are many, many people who have been traumatised by experiences in their lives, and who may dissociate from time to time for self-protection but are also reflective and self-aware, and are not at all narcissistic – but we will focus on healing strategies for the ones who tend towards unhealthy narcissism in this Sub-Chapter.

It makes sense that exploring and gaining insight into patterns of attachment will give us clues as to how to find such strategies!

Very hurt people who have, as I stated above, grown rigid armour may cause a lot of suffering to their loved ones – dispensing the pain that they cannot hold – and of course they will undoubtedly suffer themselves – and the suffering seems never-ending.

I have observed, over many years of work, that vulnerable narcissists seem to be better placed in respect of emotional healing because, at least, they may be in touch with their feelings. Ordinary people seem to be impressed by grandiose narcissists – remember they can be very charming. The praise and/or admiration can lead to constant affirmation of traits that are actually harmful to healing.

The constantly-complaining vulnerable narcissists, on the other hand, may not be popular in the hail-fellow-well-met meaning of the term, so when they are truly listened to, and experience unconditional positive regard they often find it healing in itself.

Getting back to the grandiose types, when they look for, or are offered support, they can either be very demanding or else totally passive-aggressive compliant – that is, pretending to agree but doing something to jeapordise whatever has been agreed on. Also – and this is another observation based on years of experience – they may tend towards addictive behaviour. (The addiction may not be drink/drugs, they might, for example, be workaholics).

There is a temptation for practitioners to feel that only for them we’d be able to do good work and focus on people who appreciate our help.  (I know – I’ve been that practitioner)! This leads to them being marginalised and ignored, and ultimately they drift away from the organisation that is set up to help them. (See this post in the Chapter on the Family Support Shamrock for more detail on this process).

However, I believe that the consequences of leaving such people out are very high.

Their increased isolation almost always fuels their sense of hurt and affirms their beliefs that it is someone else’s fault as they see others getting help while they are ignored.

At least, when engaged, they will often coach themselves to (kind of) go through the motions of behaving democratically, and the constant self-coaching that results from ongoing engagement has the potential (however slow) to change attitudes and outlook over time.  (This is a kind of fake-it-till-you-make-it process).

Also, we know from systems theory that if others change around them they will be affected.  Sometimes they will embrace the changes but sometimes the changes are too much for them to take and they will abandon the new scene and revert to their comfort zone.

Good enough support usually involves introducing healthy limits and boundaries. It is important to add here that the stronger and more trusting the relationship is, the more likely it is that people will feel the deep hurt of not getting their own way and be more accepting of such limits and boundaries.

In the Sub-Chapters above I referred to behaviours of very hurt, traumatised people in a general way.  I also mentioned how trauma finds its way into teams.

In the next few posts I will try to unpack some of the general behaviours.  As always, and in keeping with our commitment to be the change, I encourage us all, in addition to recognising narcissistic traits in organisations that we know of, and/or people we support or work with etc., to identify such traits in (shudder to think of it) ourselves!

The next two posts will focus on the impact on individuals and teams.

The trauma that I have described in previous posts can be called primary trauma.  That is, the trauma that happens to the individual experiencing it.

Also as I stated already, not everyone who suffers trauma dissociates, and/or appears narcissistic.  However, where trauma is linked to dissociation and narcissism, support work can be very challenging.

We, the well-meaning hard-working practitioners, feel that nothing-ever-seems-to-work as we observe behaviour that we deem to be irresponsible and often self-destructive. We come to the conclusion that the person that we are supporting will be forever emotionally dependent – constantly complaining to us but appearing to do nothing about their situation to improve it. This implies, in turn, an expectation that others (us) will fix it for them.

And on the subject of complaining, I have observed that the more people complain without doing anything for themselves – that is, change within – the more likely it is that they are narcissistic, whether vulnerable or grandiose.

If vulnerable, the complaining has a poor me I’m the victim kind of flavour and if grandiose it has a more macho kind of I’ll fix them – vindictive character to it.  Or it can be a mixture of both depending on the circumstances.  (If you have opinions on this I’d like to hear them).

And also, I have observed questions like ‘what do you think you can do to change things’, or, (as a practitioner) ‘what do you want from me, that is, what can I do so that things will be better for you’ (so that situations might be resolved) to be questions that appear not only to be unattractive, but even a little threatening.  Very often, responses (if there are any) to such questions suggest solutions that are unrealistic and unattainable.

It is this feeling of being threatened when asked what might appear to most people to be reasonable questions that reveals the extent of the hurt, and – I think it’s fair to say – distinguishes from people who are also very hurt and traumatised, but are willing to engage with such questions.

I often wondered why. Some of the reasons that I came up with include:

1. If I am very hurt, I desperately need someone to take my pain away and a question does not do that.

2. Resolution of conflict (usually) involves intimacy, connection, forgiveness and trust, things that my rigid armour keeps out.

3. I instinctively know from experience (and/or probably bring from my childhood the belief) that the person who asks the question probably wants a solution so that they’ll have a bit of peace and won’t have to listen anymore, so that they can get on with what they are doing.

4. The question is more about alleviating the questioner’s anxiety to find a solution than the easing of my distress – I (once again intuitively) know this.

5. The question implies that the questioner wants me to start taking responsibility for my part in the solution.  This I don’t trust myself to do and/or I don’t yet have the skills or confidence.

6. My default place is the hurt one and I don’t really feel that I deserve to be happy – indeed, being hurt defines my identity to a large extent.  The response of it’s too late now always indicates a certain resignation to the status quo!

7. Because of the unbalanced growth of left-brain – right-brain, I may switch between either total irrationality, i.e. the instant emotional response, or, the totally logical response, whichever will gain the most immediate relief at the time.

8. I intuitively know (though am probably not consciously aware) that my situation will not be resolved in a quick-fix, linear, stepped, manner and I need to know that the practitioner is willing to be available for the long haul.

9. (Related to 8). Resolution of difficult emotional problems takes time and patience, and almost always consideration of others’ situations, whereas the narcissistic personality wants instant gratification – i.e. a quick solution that will take my pain away regardless of the consequences to others.

It is important to consider power when we are thinking of primary trauma.

Having a sense of power to, largely, determine our own destiny is important to all of us.

With good enough parenting, experimenting with and testing boundaries, and learning from significant role models we get a sense of legitimate and/or appropriate power over many years of growth.  These years stretch from the terrible threes through the teenage tears and tantrums and finally to mature adulthood.

If our parenting has not been good enough we may get stuck in the irresponsible years of childhood or youth and often engage in behaviour that is typical of that period of someone’s life.  That is, oppositional, anti-authoritarian, possibly addictive or compulsive, blaming of others, and ultimately self-destructive.

Here are some possibilities, in respect of power, as to why, if I am very hurt, I might not respond that well to direct suggestions, assertiveness, pointed questions etc.

1. My power may reside in the not resolving and if the situation was resolved I may lose this.  Or I may be fearful that the person who is assisting me in the resolution of the problem might challenge me.  (Sure – isn’t that sorted now)?

2. I believe in one-way knowledge flow – but it flows from me (the person complaining) to the person who is trying to help – a kind of harmful too much knowledge (nearly always head-knowledge, by the way) or know-all situation where I believe that knowledge is power – which it is – but it’s not a healthy sense of power, and it’s a barrier to reflective awareness.

3. I, who am very hurt, may believe that the reason for my distress is a decision (or decisions) made by the person/people that are the subject of my complaining and I don’t have a sense of power to do anything about my own situation.  That is, I’m not willing, ready or able to be the change.

4. My sense of my own power might be based on very fundamental beliefs and I am completely closed to any different way of thinking.  (These could be societal, religious, political beliefs etc.)

Through all the above, rather than we, the practitioners, seeing the attitude of the very hurt person as resistant to change, it might be more helpful if we acknowledge that he is choosing to carry his burden.

He simply needs assistance in carrying it – now – and that’s all, and to unburden would be a greater task than the continual carrying.

But we need to believe that it might not always be like that!

In the next Chapter I will describe Modalities (ways of working) that have a good chance of allowing our root foundations work at their own pace, and making it easier for someone to unburden himself of the pain and hurt that he has carried, probably for such a long time that he feels it defines him.

I mentioned the possible effects of trauma on teams briefly in the Sub-Chapter on Trauma and I will expand on it here.

A lot of research shows (and I know from my own experience) that groups of workers who have a lot of exposure to people who experience trauma are also likely to experience trauma.  Sometimes this is called secondary trauma; or secondary traumatic stress, or vicarious trauma, or it may have other labels.  I thought for a while what to call it in this website.

To make it simple I will call it secondary trauma, the primary trauma being that which the person in distress feels as described above, and vicarious trauma being that what is experienced by someone who, for example, comes across a tragic accident.  I stress that these terms can be interchangeable and I am just using the term secondary trauma because it fits pretty well with my intuitive understanding of it.

If trauma seeps into individuals we can conclude from different studies that it will also seep into the team as a whole.  Now this is nothing to be surprised about – it is a perfectly normal systemic process.

Just like the norms and practices of an extended family seep, (usually unnoticed – more high impact–low noticeability stuff) into different members of the families so the traits of people with whom we journey with will find their way into our team.

Of course, we could avoid this by choosing to work in an organisation that is very good at putting up emotional (or physical) barriers so that our work will not involve journeying. But if we have ambition to be present to people’s distress, and accompany them on their path to recovery this will not be the way we will want to work.

So, inevitably, we will expose ourselves to trauma.

For the purposes of our discussion secondary trauma can be described as the discomfort, distress or anxiety which we experience when, in our life or work, we are in continual contact with people who have experienced deep distress and suffering, and are seemingly helpless, isolated or excluded.

(It is important to note that what I am describing here is slightly different to compassion fatigue which is more about us becoming exhausted from reaching out again and again to help vulnerable, helpless and powerless people.  After some time recovering, our tiredness or fatigue will abate and our natural compassion will emerge again and we can get back to work).

Secondary trauma however actually causes changes in both our physiological (body) and psychological (mind) make up as we listen to the stories of, and maybe even share the suffering of others.  It can affect us both personally and professionally as we allow others’ suffering penetrate a little through our protective layer that I already described. 

Modern research, both reductionist (neuroscience) and holistic (experiential) suggest that trauma is stored in the body, and the body tells the story which is not as yet in conscious awareness.

There is an analogy here with sports. All sports coaches are aware of the importance of listening to the body in respect of healing minor injuries or illnesses when training or playing competitively. Even though sportspeople’s own ambition will always tempt them to do further training, coaches will instruct them to reduce the training intensity until the minor injury or illness passes – to maintain freshness and/or avoid more serious injury or illness. That is, not let the head (their thinking) fool the body.

In trauma it is similar, the reasons for the destructive behaviour, addiction etc. are contained in the body and healing involves listening to the body attentively.

As practitioners who chose to work in this way, we are willing to allow the suffering impact on us because we care, we have empathy, and we take on the responsibility to bring about positive changes in people’s lives. We are part of the process – see Secondly – middle of this post..

And we may be carrying trauma in our bodies too!

We can (and often do) experience re-triggering of this trauma, which can have the same effect as primary trauma, e.g. difficulties in identifying essentials in situations, alterations to memory, or reduction in our level of self-regard, esteem or confidence. This can, in turn, spark a range of other reactions, e.g. suspicion of others’ motivations, change in our assumptions about safety of ourselves or our loved ones in the world, whether human nature is good or evil and even the meaning of life.

Sometimes we may actually have come into this work by working through our own trauma, and our old patterns re-emerge in our work – the fractals we will be describing in a later Chapter.

These patterns may include thoughts on what we do or do not deserve, whether we attend to or neglect our own needs, or defaulting to macho type values when under pressure etc. etc.

Perhaps we have come into this work to find meaning or purpose to our lives, but when we encounter the realities of the lives of families in our Focus Group the purpose and meaning does not seem that important anymore.  In addition to (healthy) empathy we may identify too much with loss or pain, and we may not be accustomed to self-care. 

Or perhaps the trauma bond may be influential in attracting us to a job journeying with angry, fearful and traumatised people in the first place.

But, with good training and supervision, the wisdom and strengths that we have accumulated on our journey can be powerful starting points in healing and ensuring that our work is enriching, bringing positive changes to those with whom we have the privilege to share our journey.

Another long post following. Most of the important posts seem to be a bit long – and this is one of those!

In respect of dissociation, we will call the split that can sometimes occur in people in deep distress when they are under stress or pressure (that we described already as an out of body experience) the primary split).

This may cause a secondary split within a staff team, mirroring the dissociative states of some members of the Focus Group, many of whom may have suffered trauma. In my experience this secondary splitting always comes in disguise.

Sometimes it may manifest in little irresolvable conflicts about matters that are actually more to do with power than the issue itself. The suffering of people who are looking for help is forgotten as the individual team members argue about things that may not be that important at all in the wider context. Their own trauma is triggered by the trauma which they are experiencing day-in day-out.

Another cloak of disguise that dissociation puts on is competitiveness.  ‘I can do the job better than you’, or, ‘If I’m not the best I’ll lose out’ etc. etc.

The tasks of leadership, (allied to good training and supervision), in respect of secondary splitting are:

1. Being aware of the possibility of secondary splitting in a team, i.e. being attuned at all times to little nuances and changes.  Mostly this happens unconsciously, but it could happen because of an incident, e.g. a person who is accessing the organisation for support criticising one team member to another team member, or favouring one team member over another, or making a spurious complaint.

2. Deciding whether or not an issue causing dispute, conflict etc. is what it is, or is secondary dissociation in disguise.  (This requires knowledge, experience, and clarity of vision).

3. Being alert to competitiveness, affirming team members’ gifts and being aware of people who are not thriving because they are in the wrong box so to speak.

4. Continuous awareness-raising of the high impact-low-noticeability nature of trauma on team members. This will assist ongoing healing and integration.

Secondary trauma, and the dissociative split just described, affects the mental, emotional, physical and spiritual wellbeing of all members of a team that takes on this kind of work, and – naturally enough – if nothing is done to address it, will result in characteristics that will be very damaging to the mission of the organisation that wishes to reach out to very vulnerable people. 

I will describe a selection of such characteristics below, all of which lead to low morale among staff.  I am sure you will have come across some of these, and indeed you may have noticed others that I have not mentioned here:

1. (First and most important one)!  Leadership/management defaulting to hierarchical and punitive practices when under pressure, incorporating the rigid and disempowering values of the corporate world that I described in far more detail in Chapter on Power and Control in Section Two.  (In fact, this one is the reason for many of 2 to 15 below).

2. Anger which arises (both from the work with people in distress and the natural conflict among all groups of people who work together) is expressed in an inappropriate and dishonest way, almost always in the form of passive-aggressive behaviour.

3. Fear which can arise from many different sources.  For example, I might fear that my power base will be taken away, so I become territorial and defensive.

4. Complaining about what’s wrong and doing nothing about it is relevant here.  Perhaps the structure of the organisation means that doing anything is pointless – and if that is the case it is very discouraging for anyone who wants to do something constructive.  One of the most harmful aspects of this is seen in interpersonal relationship.  That is, gossiping – being critical of others and their behaviour but not having the skills to be open about it.  This often happens as staff break up into cliques.

5. Blowing things up out of all proportion i.e. making mountains out of molehills, and/or making everything a drama.

6. Being suspicious of decisions that are made – often those that involve change.  And on the leadership side – bringing in change too quickly and not allowing team members to absorb the change. (This is explored later on in the blog).

7. Team members believing that a genuine mistake is an underhand plot to disadvantage them in some way, and not believing that what they are told is the truth. This is a breakdown in trust.

8. Teams will often avoid people who present with the very problems that the organisation was set up to help.  This includes lack of awareness of the difference between discomfort and real danger – with danger being posited as the reason why certain people are avoided.  It can also mean diverting away situations that might be challenging, or bring difficulties, in a subtle and dishonest way.  (This will be dealt with in more detail in the Chapter on the Family Support Shamrock).

9. General lack of trust in one’s own judgement and autonomy, and a tendency to seek external advice (and/or pay high consultancy fees for advice) while ignoring wisdom generated within (or distrusting it because it does not come from a professional source).

10. General feeling of pessimism, fear of risk taking, and prevailing belief that the glass is half empty.

11. Intolerance of others personalities, jumping to conclusions and blaming others if things go wrong.

12. Appeasing narcissistic people (particularly the grandiose kinds) and giving them too much power – i.e. subtly (and sometimes inadvertently) enabling their grandiosity – instead of focusing on relationship.

13. Interpersonal and/or relationship issues are put on the long finger and not dealt with in real time.  This can cause people to behave in a passive-aggressive manner and different forms of exclusion can result.

14. Ignoring (or failing to use) spirituality, or not being aware that things like inspiration, hope or creativity are necessary components of healing distress.

And finally, the hallmarks of poor morale in organisations that support families in distress:

15. High absenteeism among staff giving all sorts of different reasons – this is generally due to poor motivation, low level of self-efficacy, and lack of interest in the work.  (Square pegs in round holes)?

16. High incidence of staff getting (genuinely) sick – due to emotional stress affecting our physical well-being.

17. High turnover of staff – due to people’s unhappiness and general discontent being ignored.

The objective of our work is to restore energy in our team.  Rather than being pulled and dragged by trauma, with trauma in charge. We need to take back control and create the space for trauma to be processed.

Now 1 to 17 above will be recognised (by any of you who have knowledge of management, governance or leadership) as traits that are the result of incompetence in all three.

And indeed they are!

And the observant and/or reasonably well-informed individual will recognise all of them as traits that seem to crop up in many organisations in the competitive world of the Pillars.

But that is not really our concern.

Our concern is how to lessen their influence in organisations that support families in our Focus Group and much of this website is about that – i.e. more about the solutions than the problems.

But to not mention the problems is like ignoring the elephant in the room, and also risks not giving the solutions a context.  (For example, if supervision – which can cost money – is a solution – what is the benefit of spending this money)?

We have already discussed, in some depth in the previous Chapter, the root foundations of growth, and stated that they apply to all of us!

What about the grandiose (or vulnerable) narcissist who dissociates under pressure and is carrying a lot of trauma that he is unaware of himself?

Where do the root foundations fit in for him (or her)?

We will look at the implications in respect of the root foundations here before we explore strategies for healing – and remember that this is like wondering how universal phenomena in the natural world (like gravity, mass etc.) behave in extremes of temperature, pressure, velocity etc.

I believe that integration is the biggest challenge for the very hurt person who has narcissistic tendencies.  This is worth looking at a little more because integration is one of the root foundations.

When we are little children, integration happens naturally.  We realise, as we grow, that when we take on a role in a game then it is a game that we are playing, and there is a time and place for it, and when we are at school (or as older teenagers, or young adults, perhaps at work or college) our role has to be different.

If we get upset, or angry, or afraid we learn to own our emotions and while they are very real for us, a part of us knows that there will come a time when the upset, or anger, or fear will pass.  And it does!  This is integration at work.  At the extremes of trauma, however, where dissociation endures into teenage years and adulthood, our natural process of integration is continually disrupted, so it is one the most important tasks to work on.

From what is written above, it is obvious that identity will be problematic for people who tend to dissociate when under emotional pressure.

The sense of belonging that is perceived by all humans in the good enough family is a most important part of forming our firm, unequivocal identity.  Being accepted in our community, school, clubs and societies etc. builds on the sense of belonging in the family and further cements our identity or sense of self.

This is why inculcation of a sense of belonging is so important in our work with vulnerable people.

Confidence, esteem and pride thrive in a sense of belonging.  It is obvious that isolation which may result from insecure disorganised attachment in our family and thereafter rejection by school and community might hinder formation of identity.

Continuing with our consideration of the root foundations, forming warm, trusting and intimate relationships may be fraught with danger for the very hurt person.  From our knowledge of the enduring effects of disorganised attachment, we can conclude that early experiences of intimate relationship, and/or love, were problematic. Even if not fraught with danger, love may have been conditional on achieving impossible standards. Being loved unconditionally is very unfamiliar – so it is natural that it is viewed with suspicion.

But in particular, love and relationship were inconsistent………

Research (and common sense) shows that relationship is the most important factor in bringing about healing in the very hurt person.  But it has to be consistent and reliable.  Like love, many very hurt people are suspicious of trust – thinking that it will result in exploitation or being used and/or abused – because this is what happened before. 

Building and maintaining warm, trusting and respectful relationships will be a big challenge for practitioners because we will be constantly tested to see if we are sincere.

Let us examine another root foundation now – consciousness.

Our consciousness ensures that we are able to be aware of self.  If we say that we did something unconsciously it means that we were not aware, prior to doing it, that we were going to do it.  We may only become aware of our decision to do it afterwards – or, if we are not alerted to it, (or we don’t realise it ourselves) our actions may stay forever in our unconscious – in other words, we may never be consciously aware of how we have behaved.

Now this is not a bad thing per se, we generally live our lives doing all sorts of things unconsciously and this is how our personality is formed and how we become known to others. 

However, that said, a balanced level of conscious awareness is important for our growth so our actions will, generally, be in keeping with our values and what we say is important to us.  Raising someone’s awareness that what they are doing unconsciously is destructive to their overall aim to be loved, respected and valued requires skillful relationship building and inculcation of trust.

What about another root foundation, emergence?

We cannot imagine humans, (and families, communities and societies) without emergence.  No matter what we do – emergence will happen.  What might emerge may contribute to our well-being and thereafter the well-being of all those around us or it can contribute to negativity and destruction.

(For example in the Chapter on Power and Control in Society I described how the two major World Wars of the Twentieth Century emerged from whatever conditions prevailed in Europe in the 19th Century and the early decades of the 20th).

So desperate is our need for integration and identity (but particularly identity) that we can, (when we are children – and particularly as we grow into teens) attach ourselves to something that is bad for us, thereby copper-fastening our identity. What might then emerge may be harmful and destructive traits that become part of who we are.

However it is my firm belief that when we realise that there are options for us, and that we do not have to be that which we appear to have been predestined to be by virtue of birth or family circumstance, constructive rather than destructive choices will emerge, slowly but surely, as the preferred options over time.

Finally, and in the context of slowly but surely, let us consider the foundation root that straddles the natural/physical world and the world of the psyche.  That is, time! 

We may think that, if we undertake say, 50 sessions, over a year, and there is no obvious change for the better (viewed from our practitioner perspective) that we have wasted time.  It is only natural that our enthusiasm will begin to fade somewhat.

We are so accustomed to considering time as something that has to be used to bring about change for the better in a stepped (or linear) way that we may be on a totally different path to the very hurt person looking for help – who could be totally oblivious to time passing, and does not have any progress-over-time-interval plan for herself at all [1].

It is in the fostering of conditions that allow the root foundations to grow at their own pace where leadership comes in, to which a full Chapter is devoted in Section Five. 

[1]. I am not disparaging the very valuable and highly effective cognitive-behavioural work that can be done with people in the mainstream population to ease distress.  But for many individuals in our Focus Group who are suffering deeply I have found work which has expectations around time to of very limited use.  This will be explored in the next Chapter, Modalities of Helping in far more depth.

Paradox

I have used the term paradox before and here we go again.

Dissociation is a (mostly) unconscious choice that we make to survive trauma, but at a cost.  The paradox can be observed in the cost.

While we long for safety and security, when we carry trauma we are continually in conflict, clinging to attachment figures while at the same time pushing them away.  We may experience loathing of self while at the same time apparently feeling that we are the only person on the planet, and deserve special treatment.

We long to be seen, yet at the same time try to be invisible.  In adult life, dissociation due to trauma in childhood (or in infancy, or in the womb) can result in anxiety, depressive tendencies, low self-confidence or self-esteem, poor sense of identity, and may be diagnosed with a wide variety of mental illnesses.

Those who aspire to be healers in the context of trauma, imprisonment etc. need to be aware of the possibility of self-alienation and self-hatred within people who dissociate. Central to the healing must be helping hurt people recognise how trauma splits and often leaves minds and bodies in conflict.

In this, it is particularly helpful to identify those parts that people are happy with, and are embraced and celebrated, (like being a success in sports, art, parenting etc.) in addition to the disowned and harshly judged parts (like problems in relationships, involvement in drugs, behaviours that bring shame and guilt).

The parts that have been harshly judged can be identified as heroes in survival stories.  That is, the reason for their existence was survival.  Accepting such parts and fostering a sense of compassion and feeling towards them is not beyond the adult self. 

This is because children (as I stated above) evoke feelings of tenderness and compassion, and we adults can grow secure attachment for our younger self. 

I believe that this approach, when it is done at the person’s own pace, is very powerful, and fits in with the aim of encouraging people to take responsibility for self-healing.  I was once my younger self.

Emotional and Spiritual Response

As community workers, we need to be aware of the debilitative effects of the misuse of power and control, perhaps over a long time in first an infant’s, then a child’s life that might continue into adulthood. This misuse manifests in threatening, seducing, bribing, terrorising or confusing children into silence, and enforcing secrecy.

A sense of ongoing shame and effective distortion of reality can actually dehumanise when we are in distress and prevent us finding our true voice. The reason that it is so important for community workers to be aware of this is that we must take great care not to re-enact all the above, particularly shame, during the healing process.

In journeying with people who have been to prison or involved in crime etc. we need to be aware of the debilitative effect of shame.  Shame is different to guilt – though sometimes they appear similar.  With guilt, we can regret what we did, apologise, try to restore our relationship, and move on.

With chronic, deep-seated shame, we feel worthless and even undeserving to live among our fellow humans.  We may feel that we are a burden to our family and the rest of society.  Our self-regard is destroyed.

(We are now coming close to the answer to the puzzling question posed in the post in the Chapter on Cause and Effect, as to why people choose to behave in a way that will result in punishment of the most severe kind, i.e. imprisonment).

In this respect, it is my belief that practitioners sometimes need to support families in the Focus Group who might experience the worst manifestations of the corporate values that abound in the Pillars, and which, in turn, can easily trigger the shame that is buried so deep.

In our work we need to take care to foster two-way knowledge flow through collaborative, democratic structures which will create a healing space rather than recreating the dynamics of the original trauma. 

Accompanying people on their journey is the essence of being with rather than doing for.

We already mentioned, briefly, the design challenges in development of long-term strategies to assist families affected by imprisonment.

In designing responses to supporting people with dissociative and/or narcissistic tendencies we need to remember some very important things – which are actually related to our root foundations theory.

1. We often forget what people tell us to do, or their advice, or instructions they give us, but we almost always remember how they make us feel.  This is because how they make us feel is stored in our body memory far more than in our cognitive memory.  (As we already said). So I believe that people who have suffered trauma need to experience affect, that is, an emotional response to their distress.

2. In our human experience spirituality is ubiquitous. But sometimes we become so alienated from our own sense of spirituality that we are not at ease with it – that is, we have more of a conflictual than a collaborative relationship with it.  (Spirituality will be explored again in the Chapter on Organisational Matters in another part of the website ).

I don’t believe that either of the above is achieved using the much-favoured-by-the Pillars written assessment form, or an impassive take-it-or-leave-it response. I mentioned triggering shame in the previous post – and impassiveness may trigger the blank face of the inconsistent caregiver described in the Sub-Chapter on Attachment. 

There is a continuous thread between the baby’s experience of disorganised attachment and the adult’s destructive and/or negative behaviour patterns.  A substantial amount of research now posits that therapeutic work with people who dissociate and suffer (or have suffered) deeply from trauma needs to focus on their current relationships (successes and difficulties) as much as their past traumas. 

When we were describing secure attachment I mentioned that this was what was desired in our work.

The therapeutic alliance needs to mirror (and model) the type of attachment style where the person in distress can return to and rely on as his secure base.  Safety is the crucial element in the healing and this is built on a foundation of warm and unconditional relationship, and acceptance of where one is at.  Our principal objective is to create a safe, consistent and predictable healing space – the opposite of the unsafe, inconsistent and unpredictable environment of trauma. 

Within a warm and unconditional relationship, trauma-centred work can do a lot of good, particularly in more complex cases of severe trauma.

But the warm and unconditional relationship is vital.

The next Chapter (on Modalities) will be of interest in choosing the therapeutic elements that will optimise healing of very hurt people that I have been describing in the last number of posts.

Within the chosen modality, three therapeutic elements are identified:

1. Building a therapeutic alliance within the framework of a trusting relationship.

2. Introducing, reinforcing and affirming beliefs about self-efficacy and positive relationships with peers and the world in general.

3. Training in social interaction skills – much of this will be implicit rather than explicit.

An interesting aspect that emerges in research is the benefits of two or more therapists, or support workers, collaborating in the healing.

The thinking here is that sometimes the intensity of the relationship with one therapist is almost too much, and the opportunity to sound-off or get a different perspective can be very helpful.

From my observations over many years I have personally witnessed the power of non-formal encounters where people feel safe, but in a different way to the formal situation.  I have found it very interesting that safety is experienced in both situations – i.e. both are equally helpful – and one without the other would not be as effective.

I believe that the non-formal contact allows the person looking for help become confident in growing, i.e. to play with root foundations such as emergence, identity, relationship etc. to see how they fit, at a pace that suits them, just like a child growing up in a good enough family.

But, it is very important to state that when I say non-formal I don’t mean random.

The non-formality needs to have consistency and dependability – once again, like it would have in a family.  Consistency mirrors the secure attachment that we are aiming for.

Inconsistency in parenting or unreliability of presence of the parent or the secure base is one of the harmful aspects of avoidant or disorganised styles of attachment and we must take care not to repeat it.

While as support workers or therapists we take pride in the fact that we create a safe atmosphere for people seeking help, this place (or space) may be the scariest place a very vulnerable person ever goes.

If it wasn’t – it’s likely that they’d have gone there already!

Integrating the self (or selves) and trying out the true self is a risky business – after all the false self, or dissociated self has been the default option, and the safest option, for (probably) as long as the person can remember.

In this, I rarely ask anyone if they feel safe!  Safety, I believe anyway, speaks for itself – if people feel safe they will probably come back, if not they won’t, no matter how much reassurance that they get from others that it is safe.

Now they may not come back immediately – and reflecting again on the relevance of the root foundations it might take some time to process what it is like to be in a safe environment.

So if and when someone comes back, or re-engages, the welcome needs to be warm and genuine, not wondering what happened that the last appointment was missed, like a teacher would if a pupil missed a class in school.

Remember, a person who is carrying trauma is often just waiting for the next trauma to happen.  I often feel that the best favour that we can do someone is to offer them the best choices for themselves and their loved ones given the burden, as I stated already, that they choose to carry. And on this subject, remembering again our two-way knowledge flow, I believe that people in distress can teach us – the practitioners – a lot.

The challenge is that, in order to make the most of this, we need to be open to learning.

The healing that leads to what we might call a general improvement of behaviour in humans is a slow process.  Most people would probably agree that the older the human, the slower the rate of improvement.  (That is certainly true for me)!

This is evident in our old saying (referring to an adult) that ‘you can’t teach an old dog new tricks’, or, alternatively, (referring to a child) ‘as the twig is bent so it shall grow’. 

John Bowlby was very insistent that working with child and parent brought about the best outcomes – and, take it from me – this is rarely fast work.  Working with the entire family is not usually the norm in the medical model in general, which expects fast throughput so the next person can get help – like the healing of physical ailments.

Having created the space, and the trusting relationship that is safe, it may be possible to encourage the person to consider the attachment styles that were present in their families of origin.

Many people who tend towards being narcissistic have little or no sense of what it might be like to be compassionate, or forgiving towards self, so this can be a goal also.  (There is a Sub-Chapter on Compassion in the Chapter on Organisational Matters in Section Five and its importance in healing).

At a very practical level, very hurt people may be able to recognise how their behaviour is harming the relationships that they desire for themselves, particularly with their loved ones and children, friends or even employers if they have a job.  People who get in touch with their true needs (not just their instant gratification needs) will eventually become more in tune with the needs of others.

Sometimes storytelling is a powerful tool in this regard – but – like all other paths to recovery – it is rarely a quick-fix.