In
reading over 40 books and over 300 lay and clinical articles about stepfamilies
since 1979, I've never encountered any proposal that
four or five
cause most U.S. divorcing families and stepfamilies significant stress.
Therefore, I expect you to be
skeptical or cautious about the validity of this proposal and related ideas in this
nonprofit Web site.
This article
suggests four reason why has no one else proposed and formally validated this
meta-theory before:
My unique heritage, personality, training, and life experience; and...
My clinical experience with, and interpretation of, recent
theories about human systems; development; behavior; personalities; communication;
and bonding, loss, and grief; and...
Horror
and fierce social denial that our
American society currently promotes parental ignorance of
several
- which promotes widespread child
and...
Normal adult resistance to...
-
being
psychologically
and dominated by a reactive
and to...
-
changing comfortable ("traditional") beliefs about "human nature,"
"social freedoms," and "the world."
If you
agree with these factors and these
then you're done with this article.
For more perspective, read on.
My Unique Heritage,
Personality, Training, and Experience
Legions of well-educated, intelligent, motivated people have studied and
theorized about human development and behavior, family dynamics and systems,
and relationships, including our unremarked U.S. divorce
epidemic. None of them have my unique mix of these variables:
-
my
upbringing in a very
ignorant, double-alcoholic,
Germanic family system, and
my studying and experiencing personal recovery from the resulting
psychological wounds; ...
-
my
unique
(set of
talents, limitations,
genetic and
ancestral heritage, and interests; and...
-
my
18 years' formal education and 17 years' experience at engineering (i.e.
with
scientific-method problem-solving), and seven decades of life in America and
some world travel;
and...
-
my
personal experiences as a
re/married
and divorced husband, step-grandson,
stepson, stepfather, and stepbrother; and...
-
my full-time
two-year review of lay and clinical stepfamily
literature published between 1970 and 1980 for my Master's degree in Social Work (MSW); and
no-one else has...
-
my
formal and informal graduate and post-graduate training in human development, behavior,
communication (including clinical hypnosis and guided imagery), family systems, addiction
etiology and management; recovery from childhood neglect and wounds; and various types of
psychodynamic, dyadic, and
family therapy; and...
-
my
seven years on the Board of a major Midwestern suburban
mental-health center, including a term as Board president; and...
-
my
study and teaching of effective communication
basics and skills for over 40 years;
and...
-
my
17,000+ hours of clinical, seminar, and classroom experiences with over 1,000
typical divorced-family and stepfamily adults, and some of their kids and
relatives, and...
-
my experience as an
twice-invited Board member of the
Stepfamily Association of America (SAA).
Bottom line - one reason no one else has proposed this toxic [wounds
+ unawareness]
and its effects (that I know of) is that
no one else has my unique blend of the
factors above.
Another inter-related reason is...
Advances
in
Mental-health Theory and Clinical Practice
Key
elements of this clinical meta-theory (model) are less than 25 years old. Specifically...
the increasing clinical and
public acceptance of (a)
and (b) "eclectic" clinical assessment and
intervention, vs. older Freudian, Jungian, object-relations,
cognitive-rational, and other
traditional individual psychotherapies; and...
Acceptance
of
Multiple
Personality (Dissociative Identity) Disorder (DID) and related theories about
the etiology and treatment of human
mood and dissociative disorders; and...
the view that any
is a symptom of serious
family
vs. an individual pathology.
This is gradually combining family therapy and addiction treatment
into an inter-related concept, vs. separate clinical specialties; and recent
acceptance of...
the
concept of co-addiction, which has quickly blossomed into global acceptance of
as a widespread form of relationship addiction. Also
relatively new is...
the growing
acceptance of "
and "alternative therapies"
like aroma, prayer-group, movement, herbal, art, music, massage, acupuncture,
psychosynthesis,
voice-dialog,
EMDR,
Theophostic, etc...
as legitimate clinical modalities; and...
growing clinical acceptance
of the ancient concept of first-order and second-order systemic
and...
variants of
Ericksonian (indirect) hypnosis and
Neurolinguistic Programming
(NLP); and...
the
increasing clinical and lay acceptance of the "Inner Child" and "Adult Child" (of childhood trauma) concepts; and...
growing
evidence of the efficacy of
meditation, and prayer in
promoting permanent healing of personal inner wounds and discord - e.g. Drs. Bernie Segal, Larry Dossey, et. al.; and...
the ongoing
transformation of the traditional "medical (psychiatric) model" of
"mental
illness" and treatment into more organic, systemic, wholistic models; and
most recently...
the
application of accepted family-therapy principles and techniques to
cause desired second-order changes in disorganized inner-family
systems of personality subselves. This concept is still unknown to, or considered a "fringe" modality
by,
most professional counselors and therapists and their instructors at this time.
The
combined impact of these shifts in applied mental-health theory is slowly seeping
into the human-service training and practice communities. "Traditional" clinical hero/ines of my graduate-student days
(1979 - 1985) -Carl
Whitaker, Murray Bowen, Virginia Satir, Carl Rogers, Peggy Papp; Jay Haley, Milton Erickson,
Fritz Perls, Gregory Bateson, Carl Jung, et. al - were largely unaware of, or didn't
advocate, the integration and clinical application of these ideas.
The
mosaic of mental-health theories and the social and ecological environments are
co-evolving and inter-related.. Concurrent
mega-trends include...
-
the movement toward of racial,
ethnic, and gender, equality, and sexual liberality;
-
the gradual liberalization of religions +
growing acceptance of divorce and non-marital cohabiting + the increase
in pre-marital child conception + a decrease in, and postponement of, legal marriage;
+ increasing non-Anglo U.S. population
percentages; and the...
-
self-amplifying accelerations in
communication and personal knowledge via personal computers + the Internet + affordable "smart"
wireless communication networks + cable TV networks; and...
-
the escalating impacts of uncontrolled global
population + urbanization + resource depletion and pollution - particularly
in petrochemicals, potable water, wetlands, forests, biomass depletion,
and the air and ozone layer; and...
-
the ceaseless adaptation of microorganisms
to evade human medicines, and the ongoing threat of pandemics like AIDS
and bird flu being spread by an increasingly mobile global population;
and...
-
the social, economic, military, and political shockwaves from global terrorism
+ religious-philosophy clashes, and American political and military
intervention in other societies;
All of these are combining to affect U.S. social
institutions of "the family," "education," and "religion" in complex ways.
It appears that (a) the rate of global change is accelerating, and that
(b) average people in developed societies are becoming more aware of this change
and its local impacts. These promote increasing family-system stress, which
invites clearer understanding of "the human condition" and mental-health
policies and practices.
Bottom line - the inexorably increasing
rate of global and local geo-social change is increasing stress levels in
average persons, families, and cultures. I suspect this is gradually reducing
lay and professional "resistance" to evaluating new ideas (like this model)
about understanding, reducing, and preventing personal and family dysfunction
and illness.
The third
reason this
hasn't been proposed before
may be the most powerful:
Avoidance and Denial of Three
Painful Realities
The core premise in this model is that
our society is gradually succumbing to an unrecognized, spreading
of [psychological wounds + unawareness]. A related premise is that the
implications of this cycle are so scary that few lay and clinical people are
willing to objectively consider it, so far. This is similar to the recent
widespread avoidance of and skepticism about the toxic impacts of man-made
global warming. The first reality people need to avoid is
1) The Psychological Impacts of
Allowing Pandemic Child Neglect
Typical lay people and human-service professionals need
to deny that significant
childhood
(lack of psycho-spiritual nurturance) shapes evolving
into a chaotic
of
powerful discrete
subselves. Until people become aware of and harmonize their subselves, they
suffer from personal and social stress and trauma like addictions, obesity,
divorce, homelessness, "depression," bankruptcies, social isolation, and
premature death.
I have
seen hundreds lay and clinical
people's reactions to first hearing the idea that most
Americans (a) come from significantly
childhoods, and consequently (b) carry related psychological
caused by a well-meaning, unseen
Typical first reactions to the idea that their
personality is probably composed of 20 or more "subselves" who are often
uncoordinated and conflicted (ineptly led) are typically anxiety ("Are you saying I'm crazy?"), disorientation, and
disbelief.
Reality check: what are your reactions to these ideas, as applied to you, your
mate, your kids, and your parents? If you're skeptical, read
this and try this safe, interesting
exercize.
People troubled with chaotic
(mind chatter
and
uncontrollable mood swings ("Bi-polar disorder,"
"Manic Depression," Seasonal Affective Disorder
(SAD), etc") and chronic trouble concentrating (
A.D.D./HD
)
are more apt to say "Yeah - having a gang of subselves in my head makes sense!"
Their skepticism
and hesitance appears on hearing the next idea - that their
can have productive dialogs, negotiations,
and council meetings with their other subselves, causing desired
second-level (lasting) personality and
behavioral
Most lay people and many human-service professionals associate multi-part personalities with serious
mental illness, social weirdness, and "sickness." Accepting that
(a) we all
have such personalities without being pathological, and that (b) we can "meet
and harmonize our
subselves" is too alien and uncomfortable for most people (like you?) - perhaps because it
implies "If this is true, then I don't really know who I am or who has been
Added to this protective avoidance of personality subselves and related
wounds is the universal...
2) Rejection of Legally Licensing
Child Conception
|
Many adults have a primal need to conceive and raise children freely without
societal interference. This model: proposes that these freedoms are causing (a)
unqualified child conceptions and (b) epidemic
by needy, wounded, ignorant co-parents and uninformed social institutions
including laws, churches, and schools.
|
We
Americans spend billions trying to reduce the social
effects
of these, vs.
preventing what causes them.
We legally license (confirm the qualifications of) vehicle operators,
voters, attorneys, accountants, therapists, pharmacists, doctors, food purveyors,
day-care and casino operators, and others who affect social stability and safety
- but not parents. Any politician advocating licensing
parents to raise kids would surely
be ridiculed and defeated. Do you agree?
To avoid civil riots
and anarchy,
Americans wink and agree to
fruitlessly debate nurture vs. Nature without acting decisively to (a) raise the
nurturance level of our society's families, and (b) protect vulnerable kids from
the epidemic wounding and ignorance
The
reality seems to be that nurture and Nature combine to cause
this epidemic cycle and its toxic effects. If the
premises in this nonprofit site are true, then debating Nature
vs. nurture provides the illusion of "being productive" while avoiding our real
responsibilities to ourselves, our descendents, and our society. As a nation and
civilization, we are living examples of
the metaphoric fable of the
Emperor's New Suit.
Reality check: say out loud how you would react if someone asked you
"Do you favor legal licensing of child conception?" Then imagine how other
people you respect would respond...
The third discomfort our legislators, voters, and human-service theorists want
to deny or avoid is acknowledging...
3) A Major Flaw in Most Schools
and Churches
This clinical model implies that we Americans allow our
parents and mega-billion dollar educational system to leave our kids and
citizens ignorant
about...
-
family
function, and
nurturance levels;
-
normal personality formation,
and
-
effective communication
basics and
problem-solving skills; and...
-
healthy three-level
and how to develop a
and avoid blocked grief.
Without
understanding these, our kids mature, make unwise mate and child-conception
choices, and over half of them
psychologically and legally.
This significantly traumatizes their family members and society, and silently
passes false-self wounds
on to their descendants. Other millions live and die in numbness and painful
isolation, ruled by excessively
and
subselves which can't risk genuine relationship intimacy and commitment.
The uncomfortable question for us all is "Who is responsible for teaching and modeling these
four vital topics to our children - their caregivers, our schools, or both?" Without genuine social
concern, consensus, and related policies and legislation, U.S. kids and their
descendents are
at high risk of toxic ignorance on these vital topics. Co-parent
here and these related guidebooks offer basic knowledge about them.
Reality check: try these quizzes on
relationships,
communication, grieving, and
stepfamily basics - or study these
slide presentations - and see what you
experience...
Including these three uncomfortable premises in a clinical model risks
professionals' discounts,
scorn, and rejection. Few people who make their living as clergy,
therapists, and clinical educators, policy-makers, or regulators, are willing to
acknowledge and act to reduce
these primal stressors for the greater good, so far. Does it make sense to you that most (wounded, unaware)
family-systems theorists and practitioners would avoid publicly advocating:
-
epidemic
inept parenting and psychological wounding in America,
-
mandatory
governmental licensing and monitoring of child conception and parenting, and...
-
professional educators assuming
parental responsibility for their students on the four topics above?
I propose that the last reason this clinical model of
family-system dynamics and therapy hasn't been published
before is "human nature":
4) Normal Resistance to Changing
Traditional Beliefs
An
observable reality is that average adults and kids vary between "very open to new ideas and
beliefs" to "very closed." Even "very open" (secure) people
differ on which beliefs they'll change, given new information. The personal
impact of
changing beliefs varies, too - e.g. shifting from atheism to genuine spiritual
faith has a greater life impact than changing your belief that second-hand
cigarette smoke is tolerable or not.
I suspect that past and current
family-system theorists fall on a normal-distribution curve of "very
closed to belief
changes" to "very open." When it comes to accepting a new belief about personality
subselves and inner-family-system therapy, my experience is that most
human-service professionals (and average lay people) will find this concept too
alien and threatening to accept without serious
self-motivated exploration and validation. This is
corroborated by my inner-family teacher Dr. Richard Schwartz and other
Internal Family System
colleagues.
An important factor in deciding whether to change primal beliefs and attitudes
is evaluating what the change
means
personally and in general. In a clinical context, this
involves evolving stable, honest answers to questions like these:
-
"Have my pre-change
efforts been wasted and/or harmful to me or others?"
-
"How will this
belief-change affect my career choices, goals, and income?
-
"How will this new belief affect my
identity + my security + my self esteem + my priorities + my key relationships and
affiliations + my behavior + where and how I work?
-
If this change is valid, what other
beliefs of mine are suspect (false)?
Family-system theorists and clinicians who declare
that childhood neglect causes significant personality wounds which
underlie most client distress risk criticism and rejection
by peers with traditional beliefs. This rejection is specially repugnant to
people who are unaware of and/or denying their false-self wounds.
Reality check:
on a scale of one (I'm very
resistant to new beliefs) to
ten (I'm consistently comfortable changing my core beliefs), rank your recent
openness to changing your core beliefs. Would others who know you well agree with this
rank?
We've
just reviewed four probable reasons that no-one has proposed the pervasive
[wounds + unawareness] cycle and its toxic personal and social effects so far.
Do you agree with these reasons? If not - what would it mean to you, your
family, and your career if you did agree?
Recap
This
non-profit Web site and related guidebooks
are based on an unverified multi-part
of human
systems, development, and behavior. Its core premise is an increasing number
families in our and other(?) cultures are silently stressed by an inherited
cycle of [psychological wounds + unawareness]. Thoughtful readers will ask "If
this model is valid and credible, why hasn't
it been proposed and accepted it
before?"
This
article proposes four reasons:
-
My
ancestry, life experience,
formal and experiential training, interests, and personality are unique; and...
-
This model incorporates
ideas about human personality-development, wholistic health, family systems
dynamics, addictions, dissociation, and systemic therapy that are new within the
last generation. The instructors and
supervisors of typical current mental-health professionals and theorists were probably
not exposed to these ideas, and/or hadn't fully accepted them; and...
-
Three premises underlying this
model are highly controversial, and discourage its acceptance:
-
Average Americans come from
childhoods, causing conflicted, multi-subself
-
well short of
Dissociative Identity Disorder
(DID);
-
We need our
government to educate, assess, and license parents to bear and raise children, to reduce
our unacknowledged toxic [wounds + ignorance]
cycle.
-
American parents, schools, and churches are not teaching kids basic
information about family nurturance, healthy relationships, effective
parenting and communication skills, and healthy three-level grief. .
A final reason this clinical model has not been proposed before is...
This
clinical meta-model must be critically
examined and tested before making and enforcing policies and laws based on it. This multi-part theory is largely unknown
and untested now, first "going public" via the Web
around 1998.
The first of the current series of
guidebooks explaining the model was published in 2000, and was updated
in 2003 - so few people have red and evaluated their ideas so far. My current
goal is to finish and integrate these articles for professionals into a final
book in the Break the Cycle! (formerly Stepfamily inFormation) series.
Pause now and
reflect on why you read this. Did you get what you needed? If not, what
you need now? Can you (a)
describe the proposed [wounds + unawareness] cycle, (b) name the
of this clinical model,,
and (c) describe the four reasons
why no one has proposed this clinical model before? Has your attitude about the
model shifted from reading this article?
Is your
responding now, or "someone else"?
+ + +
<<
Prior page /
Add to favorites
/
Print page
/
Professional index
/
Email this article's address
>>
The Web address of this
article is http://sfhelp.org/etx/unique.htm