safe or not safe, that is the question

The principles of Imago and Non-Violent Communication offer dialogical frameworks that, when used correctly, enable participants to speak their minds and feel heard without hurting each other.

Of utmost importance in both models is the safety of the person you are speaking to.  When your listener does not feel safe, he or she cannot stay present to you.  He or she will either fight back or withdraw from you entirely.  

One of the common ways in which we make our partners feel unsafe is by trying to argue our position rather than present it as our story or personal experience.  

We get caught up in building a case for our “side”, appealing to third party authority— whether in the form of scripture, law or science— in an attempt to bolster our position and pre-empt the validity of someone else's.  We set up a conversation which leaves the listener only two options: to be with or against me. This is an adversarial stance in which there is no room for another.

Let’s take an example.

A man believes that his wife is unfairly biased against his children who are her stepchildren.  He has reasons for believing this and wants his concerns heard.

Safe = I believe that you hold my children to a different standard than your own and, because of my conviction based on my observations and theories explaining your past actions, I fear that you will continue to overlook certain behaviours in your children that you do not forgive in mine.

Unsafe = I do not trust you because, based on your past actions as proof, you hold my children to a different standard than your own, and I have no doubt that you will continue to overlook behaviours in your children that you do not forgive in mine.

The first is a statement that focuses on the link between me and my beliefs about my wife, a statement which emphasizes the subjectivity of my beliefs and their relativity to me, my perceptions, theories and convictions. They are put forward with certainty but without eradicating the possibility that my wife may have an explanation for her actions which may serve as a corrective to my own perceptions.

The second statement focuses on the link between evidence and my conclusions about my wife, a statement which emphasizes the justification for my conclusions and their objectivity based on the proof I selectively submit in their favour.  My convictions are put forward as truths and eradicate the possibility that my wife may have an explanation for her actions which may serve as a corrective to my own perceptions.

The first statement is safe for the listener.  The husband leaves room for his wife's account of her own actions from the inside.  The second puts a chokehold on her, leaving no room for her experience of herself and denying her the possibility of influencing his perceptions.

too little too late

Sometimes we keep trying to reach out to someone unreachable.  

They tell us it’s over but we can’t believe it.   

We urge them not to give up on us, to keep trying.  But they say too little too late.   

We tell them they never said anything to us, that we don’t want it to end, that it’s not fair and that they should give us a second chance.  Tell me what to do we plead, incredulous, because we still love them...  But the love is gone from their eyes.  

It’s over.

And trying to get them back is like trying to water a dead plant.

Questions about EMDR

[updated February 12, 2015]

Here are some common questions I have been asked about EMDR followed by my answers:

What do I have to do?

Nothing.  EMDR is an alternative to your usual way of solving problems by doing something.  With EMDR you do nothing.  You do not try.  You do not try to do something, and you do not try not to do something.  You do not even try to relax.  You just observe whatever arises.

Does there have to be an alliance based on trust and safety with the therapist in order for EMDR to work?
No, strictly speaking, you do not need to "trust" the therapist for EMDR to work.  But the therapist does need to be skilled at prompting during the process, including helping the client formulate pertinent questions, articulate fears and process emotions.  As in all therapy, the client has to feel safe enough to explore the issues that arise.  Ideally, trust is present and safety is assured. 

Do I have to believe in EMDR for it to work? 

No.  EMDR is not hypnosis or a placebo.  It is a form of bilateral (two-sided) stimulation to the brain that prompts your adaptive capacity without using suggestion.

How does it work?

EMDR is thought to enhance inter-hemispheric communication like Rapid Eye Movement (R.E.M.) sleep.   It is also thought to run interference with short-term memory cycles which, by regurgitating information processing patterns, can get us stuck in mental and emotional ruts.  EMDR is relaxing and also seems to improve our access to resources we never knew we had.  That said, nobody really knows how it works.

How do I put EMDR into action with my addiction? Can I use EMDR when I feel stressed or anxious?

EMDR can hep reduce stress, but it is not a replacement for the tools you need to manage stress or fight addiction.  It is a catalyst for emotional and mental processing that enables you to apply these tools and strategies more effectively and with less emotional reactivity.

therapist neutrality

Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.
~ George Bernard Shaw

Many individuals expect therapists to resolve conflict by taking sides.  But therapy does not work that way.

A therapist is not qualified to tell you what to do; she holds no degree in right and wrong.  If she wants to pose as a moral authority, take sides in a conflict or tell people what to do, she is in the wrong business.  She should take up preaching or law enforcement instead.

A therapist is no substitute for the voice of God, Reason or Fairness.  Rather, she helps clients find their own voices and the solutions that feel good, right or fair to them.  

Most people are relieved to hear this.  They don’t want a therapist telling them what to do or taking sides.  Others, not so much.  They only want neutrality when their therapist is hearing someone else’s side, but agreement when hearing their own.  They have a mandate and want results: get my wife to stay in the marriage, make my kids respect me.  Change their minds or… you’re fired!  They want the therapist to eradicate the problem by changing someone else.  

But therapists are not hit men who take care of conflict this way.  They are more like doulas  assisting in the organic process of human growth, facilitators of change.

Sometimes growth means allowing others room to grow themselves, even if we do not like what they are becoming.  Sometimes it means adapting to situations we cannot change by changing our strategies or ourselves instead.

In fact, change is what therapy is all about.
------------------
author's note (added April 11, 2106): neutrality applies only within a framework of non-violence.  Most therapists use some some variation of non-violent communication to guarantee safety during sessions.  Therapist neutrality does not mean enabling aggression, including passive aggression.