Category: Struggle

Posted on

Hope.

Fear and hope are alike beneath it.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson
     Usually, the illustrations that accompany my posts are my own. I have written about this in the FAQ’s section, but to summarize; my drawings are awful. I know it, you know it. However, art was once a big part of my life. There were experiences and thoughts I would not have been able to express in another way without it. As I grew older, I lost touch of that part of myself. That artistic aspect, without so much of a yelp or whine, simply faded away without my awareness or intent.
     Then I read Rollo May’s The Courage to Create. This work was a challenge to reclaim a part of myself long abandoned. Every time I publish a post with one of my illustrations, it is a stretch. There is an element of shame and embarrassment with each one! And that is precisely the point of publishing them. 
     However, on this rare occasion, I’m off the hook. I recently had the privilege to dialogue with an incredible artist named Nicola Samori regarding his piece: L’Occhio Occidentale (The Occidental Eye). To me, it is a fascinating study in hope. A man, shrouded in shadow, reaching up and out with hard-worked hands, looks to the sky with a stone face; not fully formed. Or not yet carved. As one hand reaches out, another reaches in. There is fear. There is also hope.

     When working with clients and discussing hope, therapists must be sensitive to the reality that hope can be a burden. Sometimes, it is too heavy a burden. In those times, the healthy response of the therapist must be the placeholder for hope and then provide it in small doses to families and individuals as they come to us. We must always have hope.

     Hope is never fully formed. Like the man in shadow, it sits reaching out, and in, waiting to come to fruition. There is no certainty where hope exists. This is the dialectic tension which exists in the relationship between hope and certainty. Where there is certainty there is no need for hope. Where there is hope, there is also fear. If we hope for one outcome, in the same breath we are stating we are fearful the alternative may occur. But in this very tension there exists a positivity!

     Within every fear there is a positive hope. There is a distinct difference between a negative hope (“I hope something bad does NOT happen.”) and a positive hope (“I hope something good DOES happen!”). A negative hope does not instill peace. Instead, it encourages nearly non-stop avoidance. A negative hope does not facilitate calm, but creates anxiety. Positive hope is a meaningful goal or practical dream! Goals, when they are congruent with our values, can be a boon to any individual or family, when they are ready to create them.

Negative hope says, “I’ll never let that happen again”.

Positive hope says, “I’ll do better next time”.

     A special thank you to Nicola Samori for taking time to discuss his painting with me and providing permission to use it in this post. 

 L’Occhio Occidentale (The Occidental Eye), 2013, Oil on copper. by Nicola Samori
Posted on

Overt Assumptions

“What makes earth feel like hell is our expectation that it should feel like heaven.”
― Chuck Palahniuk, Damned
 
     For nearly 5 years, I grew up in Hendersonville, TN. Then, in my 4th grade year we moved to High Point, NC. Both states had many similarities. Food, family, and freedom were important to everyone. A few outsider, like ourselves, shared some insights into living in North Carolina: 1) “Yankees” are like hemorrhoids: If we come down and go back up, we’re alright. If we come down and stay down, we’re a real pain. And 2) Southern people are the nicest people you’ll never get to know. This isn’t to imply they’re inhospitable. Traditionally, and culturally, Southerners tend to have large and close-knit family systems. It can be difficult to get into the culture without a blood relative.
     Another slight difference was sports. When I lived in Tennessee, soccer was not even on the radar. If it was popular, I missed it. In North Carolina, it was unavoidable. Everyone played, watched, and lived soccer. Because the last 5 years had provided me very little exposure to soccer, I was not adequately prepared for this cultural shock. Still, I wanted to fit in, so I jumped in and tried to play whenever I could. I was awful.
     Part of my awfulness was due to the fact that I’m just not gifted in coordination. Some people are kinesthetically brilliant. I was kinesthetically blinded by that brilliance. To that, add a lack of general exposure to the sport. I never practiced the mechanics and fundamentals of the game. The physical act of kicking a soccer ball was a mystery to me! The ball may as well have been made out of cement. It didn’t seem to matter to anyone else that I was also completely unfamiliar with the rules of soccer! A game would be mid-half and suddenly, WHISTLE! Everyone, nearly in unison, would turn to look at me. Even the kids who didn’t know me looked! Took me three seasons to figure out what off-sides was.
     There had been a break down in communications. The other players began learning these things they were very young. The rules were taught alongside the mechanics. As they developed their mechanical skills through kinesthetic repetition, they strengthened their overall knowledge of the game. I missed these developmental milestones and was thrown into a game where nearly everyone knew all the rules; and they assumed I did, too.

     Blended (and blending) families often present to therapy seeking assistance in how to make two families into one. I’ve seen families adopt or foster children when they have had no children of their own. That’s one of the nice things about having kids: They (somewhat) ease you into the process of parenting. Slowly, they learn to roll, then crawl, then walk, then run like wild animals! It’s fine when we’ve been with them for literally every step of the way because our parenting skills have grown with them. Imagine having a 2 year old dropped off at your house if you’ve never had children before! What’s normal? Are their noses supposed to make so much snot? Do they really have no volume control? Do they really have no sense of privacy when I’m going to the bathroom?
     Sudden baptisms into parenting are incredibly difficult. A healthy response is to cut ourselves some slack and realize we’re going to be playing catch-up for a little while. But what happens when there are sudden shifts in family functioning? Isn’t that what therapy is supposed to provide? New insights, awareness, and skills which a family will implement and change their pattern of relating.
     Sometimes, therapists can make the mistake of assuming the family understands the rules of relationship. Instead, we need to make the new rules (and they ARE new) overt. This can be done through verbal or written contracts, reflecting current changes in the process, modeling/coaching, and even through paradoxical injunctions. Regardless of the means, we have to take time and make the assumptions clear. This way, we prepare the family for change and mistakes, accidents, and regression becomes part of the learning process instead of demoralizing failures. Communicating this can relieve a great deal of anxiety associated with change and encourage open discussion among struggling families.
     Have any suggestions on how your therapy or therapist has helped people adjust to change? Leave a comment below!

Fragile Soccer
Nathan D. Croy, (c) 2015
Posted on

Traps and Trauma

     The difference between children who have experienced trauma vs children who have not is the difference between a well-fed dog and a dog caught in a trap. Being bitten by a dog stuck in a trap will be interpreted differently than the same action by the well-fed dog. The pain and fear of the person bit may remain the same in each case, but the reason behind the bite is very different. The knowledge of this difference could lead us to quickly forgive the trapped animal while punishing the well-fed animal. Same behavior, same outcomes, different levels of acceptance.

     The reason it is more acceptable for the trapped dog to bite is because we expect it. We know they are acting out of fear and self-preservation. The rescuer may even fault themselves for not taking extra precautions when approaching a wounded animal. We do not fault the animal because we see the trauma. Some animals may need extra care and services before they are rehabilitated enough to join a family and be adopted. Some dogs that have been trapped are euthanized and deemed impossible to rehabilitate. Most often it could be possible, but the expense, time, and resources estimated to bring that change about are seen as too great in a cost-benefit analysis.

     Unfortunately, even dogs that are well-fed and well cared for can still bite and are often “put down” for reasons citing temperament. As if “temperament” were an unchangeable aspect of the animal existing in isolation from the environment. This is not including elderly dogs who may be suffering from dementia. While there may be some truth to this, most healthy dogs can relearn how to behave appropriately in a family/pack unit.

     So it is with children who have experienced trauma. The scars are not always as visible as they are with dogs. Children can arrive at school or daycare, interact with children every day, and be caught in an invisible trap they have brought with them from their home. It is not clear we should approach them with caution or additional supports. Good intentions are greeted with snarls and threats. Well-meaning people are driven away, confident their loving actions will not be “wasted” on an ungrateful child.

     All the while, the traumatized child and the trapped dog know two things: 1) Someone more powerful than myself has done this to me, and 2) only someone more powerful than myself can help save me. Therein lies the fear that drives the bite. These victims have learned they cannot trust those who are more powerful than they are, yet they know they are dependent on them for safety. It is a dichotomy of terror with no hope. Realizing this, the dog chews off his paw and risks bleeding to death. Coming to a similar realization, the child cuts off their emotions (reactive attachment disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc), their connection with reality (schizotypal personality disorder, schizophrenia, etc), both their emotions and reality (Bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, PTSD, etc), or their own self (borderline personality disorder, dissociative identity disorder, etc). Ultimately, they may even choose to end their own life as a means of escaping what they perceive to be a world full of traps and void of help.

     There have been instances where people like this have been “put down”. It happens under the guise of justice and death penalties. It happens through social isolation and institutionalization. It happens socially and economically and religiously. Through these processes, humanity is enacting the age-old rite of self-preservation on a social level. “We” are protecting “Us” from “Them” because “They” are threatening. It makes complete sense and, evolutionarily, protects us from threats. However, too often we are in a rush to protect, to diagnose, to define, and to dispense. The onslaught of managed care has taught us to ignore the traumatic traps and treat the paw, the specific injury, and discharge the patient in under seven sessions.

     In the process of being so quick to protect ourselves from the threat, we have become the very thing we thought we were protecting ourselves from: Isolated. Isolation is a social tool of punishment designed to either alter behavior so “they” becomes more like “us” (a part of our pack), or else relegate “they” to alienation and almost certain death. This ensures homogeneity and easy identification of who “we” are. The United States claim not to be savage, to be moral, to be respectable. Yet, if we are judged by how we treat our sick, our young, and our old, we are incredibly cruel, immoral, and lack any modicum of respect. If the sick could heal themselves, we would not need doctors. If the traumatized could free themselves, we would not need therapists. If the elderly were cared for by family, they would not need retirement homes.

     This is not strictly about government policies, universal healthcare, or insurance companies. This is about a society becoming so consumed with living a safe life they have failed to live a life. Convenience, ease of use, and customer satisfaction has replaced effort, attentiveness, and prudence. Somewhere along the line, acquisition of material goods and resources became synonymous with safety and wellness.

     So we abandon the dog that threatens us. We forget the child that scares us. We ignore the parent that cannot remember us. We waste our lives on things, and are surprised when things dominate our lives. To quote Kierkegaard in The Sickness Unto Death:

     “What we call worldliness simply consists of such people who, if one may so express it, pawn themselves to the world… The greatest hazard of all, losing one’s self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all. No other loss can occur so quietly; any other loss – an arm, a leg, five dollars, a wife, etc. – is sure to be noticed.”

     And this is just what has happened. We have become worldly at the expense of our own selves, at the expense of those smaller, weaker, poorer, or sicker than ourselves. This has happened without a sound, with no notice, and it silently continues on, perpetuated by greed, fear, and the unending pursuit of safety. Let me assure you of one thing: a safe life is no life at all. There will be traps and traumas for all of us. Each of us will require the aid of another who is greater than ourselves to free us from these traps through relationship with patience founded on deep love. Just as each of us will encounter a trap, each of us will encounter another in their own trap. Will we risk being bitten?

(C) Nathan D. Croy
Trap
Posted on

Suicide & Autonomy

     From an existential standpoint, the morality of suicide is not always cut and dry. Ironically, this is where an atheist has better ground than a deist in regards to arguing against suicide. If the goal of life, a well lived life, is to be a life of Love, then, from an atheist’s perspective, suicide is the ultimate in destruction of relationship. Death, brought about by choice, ends any and all chances of reconciliation. There are no more opportunities to forgive, or redeem, or interact. No more opportunities to live authentically or with existential purpose. By that merit alone, the act of suicide could be labeled as unhealthy and requiring treatment.
    
     For deists, there is an afterlife. If we apply the same life goal of living Love, then there is another chance. Christian hymns declare this is “not our home” and that Christians are simply “passing through”. The argument I have heard is that suicide takes over what only God can ordain: Life and death. However, God ordained many people to be born deaf, but we invented cochlear implants. God ordained many people to be born with horrible eyesight, but we invented glasses. If the Old Testament is to be taken literally, God was so threatened by a building he confused our languages, but despite this, many people have learned multiple languages. By these examples, it would seem that God has ultimately ordained us with free will. Would it not logically follow that our freedom of will would extend to the self exercising the will. Christians have used this same argument to defend the death penalty. “The criminal knew the consequences of his behavior and decided to commit murder. Therefore, they assented to loss of their own life”. Yet, ability to assent to loss of life is withheld from those who are suffering.

     Which leads me to this question: If I, as an existential therapist, am presented with someone who is suicidal, what is the proper response? Taking Hippocrates into account, at the very least, my job is to first do no harm. Who here has not seen someone in great emotional, mental, and/or physical torment that seemed to exist with no end? Is it harmful to force that person to live when they could easily take their life? By denying a person the right to commit suicide, am I not denying their own autonomy and therefore reducing them to a being incapable of authentic living? And is this act, in and of itself, a form of existential suicide because it automatically denies a person their free will and attempts to force another to relinquish their personal will to the will of another?

     I do not know if this is the right answer, or if there really is one. Some cultures have extolled the honor of suicide. Others embraced euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. There does not seem to be an innate answer. Regardless, there is an incongruence with any society that upholds death penalties while condemning suicide. Here is why: Existentially, life is about potential. It’s why I struggle with abortion, death penalties, and suicide. While this is not the appropriate place for a debate on what does or does not constitute life, it is an appropriate place to talk about existential potential.

     The murderer could go on to become a healer. The sufferer could go on to be healed. While there is nothing, including serving life in prison, a person can do to bring back the dead, there is still time to make their life greater than it was. While there is nothing anyone can do to remove the scars and pain of past trauma, there is the possibility of converting the trauma into a meaningful beauty. There is potential in our pain, our mistakes, and our crimes. There is space for healing, restitution, and forgiveness. Death is the cessation of that possibility. By that fact alone, suicide may be inherently inauthentic as it denies the person their potential and future self.

(C) Nathan D. Croy, 2014
Hanging Question
Posted on

Why The USA Abhors Existentialism

     If you do not express your own original ideas, if you do not listen to your own being, you will have betrayed yourself.  — Rollo May

     The World Congress for Existential Therapy is hosting a conference in London with dozens of existential therapists I would gladly have lunch with. If you are interested in learning more about this, click here. The flight, hotel, and entrance cost are prohibitive to me attending, but I hope one day to present there and have them foot the bill!
    
     In the meantime, something struck me as odd: Why are there so few existential therapists in the States? When I tell people I am an existential marriage and family therapist, they either stare at me blankly or ask what an existentialist is. They get bonus points if they pronounce “existential” correctly. I do not mean to disparage the intelligence of my fellow Americans. After I explain existentialism to them, they seem to understand. What frustrates me is how the term existentialism has been extricated from our vocabulary. The following is my theory why existentialism has such difficulty putting down roots in America*.

     This is just a theory, but here it goes: In 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, landed in America, and insisted the people living there were Indians, even after they told him otherwise, a path of dominance and brutality was begun. Nearly 400 years later, a zeitgeist of American desire to expand geographically, economically, and ideologically across as much of North America as possible occurred. This “God Blessed” right and desire was identified by John O’Sullivan as Manifest Destiny.

     Manifest Destiny is not compatible with existentialism. At its core, existentialism is relational and requires reciprocity and egalitarianism. At its core, Manifest Destiny subjugates and requires control and dominance. Manifest Destiny is a reason while existentialism requires reasoning.

     There is a vast difference between reasons and reasoning. Reasons are why we do what we do or believe what we believe. Reasoning is the process by which we arrive at our reasons.

     If we garner someones reasons as our own, without going through our own reasoning process, our motivation will be fallow and hollow and shallow. However, if we reason out why we’re doing what we’re doing or believing what we’re believing, then our reasons can easily be adapted when our reasoning is shown to be wrong. It is not an issue of dogma when we discuss our reasoning, it is an issue of dogma when we discuss our reasons. This may seem like splitting hairs, and in truth it may be. However, these hairs start wars. People kill and die over reasons. People can discuss reasoning. Creeds are reasons, prayer is reasoning. Reasons are static, reasoning is dynamic.

     It’s the difference between dialectical discussions and debates. Dialectical discussions are designed to allow two or more people to arrive at a general conclusion of truth. Debates are designed and constructed to prove one opinion correct and an opposing or different opinion wrong through the weight of arguments. Dialectical discussions bring two people closer together while debates encourage separation and exist as a zero sum game.

     And this is where the rubber meets the road: Life does not offer answers. Truth, understanding, knowledge, acceptance, all must be sought out via difficult means of self-discovery. Many Christians struggle with the idea of existentialism because they believe it is postmodern relativism and that it allows room for people to get away with anything; that it makes everything justifiable. Here’s the truth: Thinking in terms of black and white, reasons without reasoning, creates a festering fear that is threatened by anything different or new. It is the type of thinking that lead to the Spanish Inquisition, the Holy Wars, and the conversion by force applied to “savages”. There is no reasoning behind a suicide bomb, only reasons.

     Reasoning, like love, is a process; not a goal. This is where fear often emerges. If we trust the process, we must be willing to consider its results no matter how different they are from our own beliefs. The Disciples failed to trust the process while Christ was being crucified. I believe the argument could be made that extremist groups do not trust the process of their own beliefs and instead take the power and control into their own hands.

     My religion tells me to love my enemy, my neighbor, and myself, equally. My Christian community has failed to show me even how to love myself. This is because, too often, the Church has been more obsessed with being RIGHT, with its own Manifest Destiny, with its self, than it has been with the process it claims to promote and defend. Can we trust the process of love, of existentialism, of dialectical reasoning, or do we lack that bravery? Until we we can be brave enough to do so, Americans will continue to abhor existentialism because it threatens our right to be right at all costs. Existentialism calls us to be in relation. Can this be done when my needs exist to the exclusion of others? As long as being RIGHT in all of its forms (driving the right car, owning the right house, or having “the best”) remains more important than being in relationship with others, existentialism will continue to be perceived as a threat and generate anger and aggression.

     What’s the answer? Individuals choosing genuine relationship over, but not to the exclusion of, self. I do not expect America to change. I do expect you to change. The only question now is, are you brave enough?



World War No.
(C) 2014, Nathan D. Croy

*Just to be clear, I realize I’m being ethnocentric, or egocentric, or some type of “centric” when I say “America” instead of The United States of America. I know the term “America” could mean North or South America. It’s just easier to type, so leave me alone.