stonewalling

 The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons 
~ Dostoyevsky, The House of the Dead

Lady of Shalott, William Holman Hunt

Stonewalling is the act of shutting a person out using physical separation, verbal silence or emotional disengagemnt. As the name implies, it is a defense used to put an unwanted person or situation on the other side of an impassable wall. It is a primitive practice and was used in ancient Greece to collectively reject a socially dangerous person by voting with bits of shard (or ostraka, origin of the word ostracism) to elect the outcast, and goes back at least as far as the ancient Jewish practice of scapegoating if not earlier; to the casting out of Ishmael and Hagar in the desert (Genesis 21:14).

In intimate relationships, stonewalling is used (85% of the time by men) to separate the stonewaller from his partner, usually in a situation of heightened emotional reactivity or conflict. The stonewaller typically justifies his behaviour as a response to feeling overwhelmed. Flooded with negative emotional energy (frustration, anger, jealousy, resentment, guilt or shame), the intention is to avoid fruther escalation and to "cool down". Unfortunately, this is usually achieved only for the one who leaves the situation whereas the deserted partner's feelings further escalate into frustration, powerlessness, hopelessness, rage and despair. 

Although the stonewaller may be genuinely unaware of the deleterious effect of his behaviour on his partner, he might be using stonewalling as a strategy to get his partner to stop talking or behave in a different way; or he might be deliberately avoiding his partner and escaping accountability for his behaviour in order to pursue an addiction, affair or other guilty pleasure that excludes her. He might also be deliberately punishing and manipulating his partner in order to gain control over her or dictate the terms of their relationship*. 

Stonewalling induces very high levels of anxiety in the abandoned partner whose agency in the relationship has been singlehandedly euthanased by the stonewaller. She naturally feels insignificant and devalued from the loss of freedom and dignity in the forced separation which often leads to depression, anxiety, despair and insomnia until the stonewalling ends, also a unilateral decision of the stonewaller. 

Stonewalling 23 out of 24 hours a day for a long period of time is called, in prisons, solitary confinement of which Charles Dickens has aptly written:

...very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony of this dreadful punishment (...) which no man has a right to inflict upon his fellow creature. I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body; and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore the more I denounce it, as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay.(Philadelphia, and its Solitary Prison, Charles Dickens, 1842)

It is no wonder John Gottman includes stonewalling in what he calls the "Four Horsemen" predicting divorce.

While conflict and emotional flooding should be de-escalated as rapidly as possible, and taking space is one good way of doing that, in order to preserve the relationship it needs to be done with civility, kindness and even compassion. It is unncessary to be rude, abrupt or unkind, or to prolong the agony by inflicting a long separation which is a cruel and avoidable punishment.

If emotional flooding makes it so that you are unable to stay present to your partner during a conversation or argument, simply tell them that you need to take a break. Tell them how much time you need and check in when that time has elapsed. If you need more time, say that but stay in touch and return as soon as possible. This is called being caring and accountable. It is not necessary to delve into a matter which may be triggering for you. But you may find that, after a break, you are able to hear your partner and mirror back what you hear without arguing. You can respond or not, as you choose. This works very well to defuse conflict. You can also postpone hearing out your partner on a topic that is difficult for you, but not indefinitely without your partner's agreement, as this would introduce another form of unilateral control over your partner and the relationship. Instead, mutually agree upon when and how to address hard topics. 

There are many tools out there: I-statements, expressing needs, nonviolent communication, etc. It doesn't have to be complicated. Look it up on the net or ask advice from a certified couple/family therapist or other specialist trained in conflict resolution. There are many helpful tweaks that can smooth out tough conversations but there is not one good reason to stonewall.

* This is a more perverse form of stonewalling characteristic of narcissistically abusive relationships. A partner who is repeatedly abused in this way ends up walking on eggshells or fawning to avoid the dreaded punishment and, once the stonewalling is over, might compulsively proffer sex, apologies or forgiveness as a way to appease the abuser in a desperate bid for reconciliation, affection or emotional reconnection. This kind of behaviour is of course the tragic hallmark of a traumatically bonded partner.

communication, and how

 ~ the truth shall set you free (Jesus)

One of the most misleading bits of advice I've heard is that frequent, open, honest communication makes a couple stronger. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Too much communication can drive couples apart, and the wrong kind of communication can destroy them altogether (c.f. John Gottman's "Four Horsemen").

It is important to distinguish the types of communication we are using and to know their likely result when undertaking an important and potentially divisive conversation with a friend or partner. 

Aside from fact-sharing, which is a relatively benign form of communication*, there are two main styles of communication that can lead to very different outcomes: adversarial and collaborative. 

Among the adversarial styles are debate and argument. 

In a debate, each speaker represents a side or position and attempts to systematically submit facts, logic and evidence in support of it. In an argument, the debate devolves into trying to dominate one's opponent by being right, sometimes invoking what is morality "right" or "wrong" while often using defensive and aggressive strategies to buttress one's position and attack another's. While a debate may be clarifying as to why one holds a certain position, it usually does nothing to influence your adversary. An argument, on the other hand, is just another word for a fight, i.e. a forceful attempt to influence an adversary. If you choose to debate or argue with your friend or partner, expect it either to reinforce two already distinct positions, or to quash one side in favour of the other which is clearly not going to win any points with the loser. More communication like this in your important relationships and they will be over all too soon.

Among the collaborative styles are discussion and self-disclosure. 

Discussion is a tame form of argument. It is an active bilateral dialogue that does not seek to win but to exchange information in order to deliberate on a subject together, peacefully. Self-disclosure, on other hand, is more of a monologue. Like a debate minus the side-taking, it is a unilateral revelation of ideas, thoughts, feelings and beliefs so another can see into my reality, my truth. Where debate uses a lot of declarative statements, self-disclosure uses primarily I-statements, a personal and intimate style of communication which seeks to be seen without trying to force someone to agree (one hokey description I have heard of this is "into-me-see": intimacy).

When difficult topics arise, rather than promoting our view with debate or argument, relying on discussion and self-disclosure will maintain and even improve connection so decisions and/or choices can be made without driving two people apart. 

*Informing and consulting are a subset of factual communication mostly used for the purpose of clarifying logistics

a misconception about healing

progress not perfection
~anonymous

In the language of my profession we talk about healing, as though emotional wounds were like wounds of the flesh that could heal over time. While healing may occur with emotional pain, or with the memory of its sharpness which does fade over time, an emotional wound leaves a hole that time cannot refill. That is trauma.

Trauma impales the psyche irreversibly. New experiences may be overlaid and new strategies implemented to protect the wound from further re-injury or decay, but these merely mask or buttress the original trauma. What was there before the injury cannot be restored much like bone from a cavity cannot be restored by a dental filling. Once integrity is compromised, the nerve will be closer to the surface than before, making it more susceptible to being reactive in the future.

One cannot dull the nerve of trauma with numbing agents or by extracting its "root". But that would not heal the wound anyway. It would be an emotional root canal that replaces reactivity with deadness.

The word heal comes from the word haelan, to save or make whole. Time and therapy cannot, unfortunately, do that for anyone. True to the etymological origin of our profession, however, therapists can compassionately advise, guide and accompany the wounded person as their faithful attendant or therapon in the unique and creative process of their grieving and recovery.

EMDR

Research has shown that about five hours of EMDR treatment eliminates PTSD in 84 to 100 % of civilians with a single trauma experience including rape, accident or disaster
~Francine Shapiro

EMDR works. It's fast, simple and effective, with unprecedented success in the treatment of symptoms that have been traditionally hard to treat using CBT or talk therapy, and even medication. This success has made EMDR the most frequently sought treatment by clients, and the one most routinely prescribed by doctors and psychiatrists. Once the object of scorn within the scientific community, EMDR is now so wildly popular that its success has become a double-edged sword. 

Everybody wants EMDR!

The problem is that clients seem to believe that, because their symptoms are severe or have not responded to more conventional methods of treatment, they need EMDR, as though it were a kind of magic wand for a broad range of symptoms and problems. When all else fails, try EMDR. 

I wish it were that simple. But it is not so.

First of all, EMDR is not a broad spectrum treatment. It works only when the core of the problem can be defined and targeted by the practitioner. While its use need not be limited to symptoms of a single trauma (see above quote), when the cause of symptoms is too diffuse or undefined, i.e. a traumatic childhood, relationship or another complex cause, it cannot be treated with EMDR. There may be aspects that can be targeted but the EMDR still has to focus on one particular occurence in much the same way as radiation therapy aims at one particular tumor. It would be absolutely useless, if not to say unethical, to subject a client to EMDR to rid them of the general discomfort manifesting as, say, generalized anxiety, depression, chronic pain or low self-esteem. We would need to deal with the discomfort the same way we would deal with feathers poking through a pillow, one feather at a time. Moreover, in isolating the direct cause, other interventions may be necessary along the way.

Another thing that should be clarified is the acronym EMDR which stands for Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocesing. Though EMDR originally used eye movements to bilaterally stimulate the brain*, it was never to reach the unconscious (as in hypnotherapy). Nor is EMDR the same as tapping (EFT), mental re-programming (as in NLP) or somatic experiencing therapy 

EMDR is remarkably efficient. It is a quick fix, but it is not a panacea.

* a better acronym would be BSRT (Bilaterally Stimulated Reprocessing Therapy)

. 

fast thinking

For lent I gave up
~anonymous

They say to starve a fever and feed a cold, but I think we should starve any disease that wants to consume us. That includes addiction and any and all thoughts that lead to addiction. It also includes other diseases like anorexia, anxiety and OCD and all thoughts leading to them. Starve them before they starve you. 

Fast on ideas rather than things so as not to allow your own thoughts to consume you. This is after all the purpose of fasting, isn't it? Freedom, not weight loss or a buff physique*.

*The popular "intermittent fast" may actually feed addiction by indulging restrict-binge cycles that reinforce craving rather than freedom.

I'd rather be safe

There is a saying that goes, "Either you're right or you're in a relationship." I first came across it during Imago Therapy training. My supervisor printed it on a magnet and stuck it on her filing cabinet. 

The gist of the expression, and why it is relevant to couples, is that you cannot maintain a collaborative partnership when you're both trying to be right. It is one thing to support your view with evidence or reasoned argument; quite another to argue your point by interrupting, talking over, discrediting, demeaning or devaluing your opponent... which can further devolve into name-calling, yelling, mud slinging and stonewalling. 

Trying to be right feeds a power struggle where each party wants to win and the other side has to agree, or lose. This adversarial stance is antithetical to relationship. It feeds a warmonger mindset and has no place in relationship, let alone love. I hate it very much.

Then there are those who would rather be in relationship than be right. These are the ones who can put themselves in your shoes, see where you are coming from and validate your truth even if it is different from their own. They value keeping the peace and will agree to disagree sooner than fight over who is right. These are my peeps and I love them.

BUT

While being able to acknowledge another person's perspective is a quality that peaceful society cannot live without, it can become pathological when you are dealing with someone unable to reciprocate on this level (civil) plane. 

Relationship at any cost is popularly known as codependency*. The codependent is an unwitting passenger or co-pilot on someone else's ride. Though your original intention was not to choose someone on a power trip, to remain with a person who cannot be civil to you in a reliable or consistent way is insanity.

Another expression puts it this way: "If you're on his side and he's on his side, who's on your side?" 

Though it is good to see others as legitimate and separate entities with rights equal to our own (and treat them as such), relationships become unilateral when only one person is doing all the work. In a sense, this is as antithetical to relationship as always wanting to be right. 

Though I would rather be in a relationship than be right, when being in relationship means always being wrong, I would rather be safe, unbuckle and get on another ride.

*codependency originally referred to the loving partner (parent, sibling or friend) of someone dependent on alcohol or abusing some other substance. 

heterogamous havoc (part two)

 ~evil appears as good in the minds of those whom gods lead to destruction

(Sophocles; Antigone)

 

In part one of this blog post, I shared my XY theory of value differences tending to coincide with gender. I concluded that, even if there is no right way to settle value differences, there are limits as to what can be valuable to pursue.  

The "Z " value introduces those limits. It represents the inflation or deflation of values as reflected on the horizontal and vertical axes of connection and power. Z is vitality, energy and desire. It is what motivates pursuit*.

In a heterogamous world, the discrepancy between conflicting values may prompt us to restrict our pursuits to satisfy others. We might sacrifice what we value, or go for compromise rather than satisfaction. This can be all right for a short time but, if we are driven by too much obligation, it begins to drain our vital energy and replace it with the burden of responsibility. Picture a kind of inversion on the Z axis which collapses upon itself into a black hole. This is deflation, and is experienced as burnout, depression and resentment. In this phase, the strain of frustrated desire threatens to rebound into a binge.

In the binge phase, we have a diametrically opposed scenario where we overinvest our own values by accepting trade-offs with values on the opposite axis. If we value relationships, for example, we might relinquish personal power to satisfy our need for connection. If we value productivity, we might accept loss of family time to feel more productive at work. Our curve begins to bulge in the quadrant of our most cherished values. Yet the intermittent and elusive nature of satisfaction motivates us to pursue them even more. This is not sustainable. Picture an overinflated balloon. Desire runs amok and threatens to burst into the chaotic pursuit of an addiction.   

At the intersection of the three axes, right in the middle of the Z axis, is an alternative to the binge/restrict cycle of pursuit. Paradoxically, it depends on tolerating the unbridgeable gaps between different values, and accepting the unattainability of the perfection we nevertheless desire. It is at rest yet has a transcendent quality because, not satisfied by material things, it accepts that reality. Though we may still value power over connection, or vice versa, we are no longer driven by either. Nor do we succumb to impulse or obligation, but respond in every situation with deliberation and self-control. A steady state of being okay is nurtured which does not depend on anything outside of itself. That is why it is free, leaving room for peace to rush in instead of folly.

Most religions try to locate where fulfillment lies, and all concur to some degree: it is in the mysterious place where there is stillness and trust, and contentment right where we are. But this is not some esoteric concept that does not apply to real life or real life relationships. In part three I will give some practical examples of how this theory works in practice.

*Coinzidentally, the last letter of our alphabet is derived from the Greek word zeta which in turn is derived form the Hebrew word zayin, meaning weapon, or sword. Both zeta and zayin have a numerical value of 7.