It has been a slightly longer gap than usual since I have posted anything on my blog. I have had a few personal issues to deal with, and in the spirit of this blog, I decided to give myself permission to take the time I needed, before getting back into examining TA theory.
This time round I have chosen to look at the ‘don’t be close’ injunction. I wish I could say that this was one of the lighter ones, but I would be lying. This injunction affects the ability of a person to be close with others, physically, emotionally, or both. Closeness refers to intimacy. Our response to and level of intimacy is linked to the personal boundaries that we have set for ourselves. A discussion of boundaries is something that I will leave to a future post, suffice to say that people with a ‘don’t be close’ injunction tend not to have flexible boundaries, and instead tend to block things out with rigidity or allow everything in through soft boundaries.
As with the other injunctions, this one is set up through messages we receive from the past. As with the ‘don’t belong’ injunction, this one speaks to our sense of being able to connect with others. That injunction impacts our ability to connect with the wider world and society, where as this one targets our ability to connect to individuals. It can be argued that this injunction is highly related to Attachment Theory, proposed by John Bowlby. Again, there is not the time to go into this theory now. In outline, it examines the way that we attach to our primary caregivers in the few months and years after our birth. The theory suggests that in this time period, inconsistent, interrupted or absent caregiving and attention can lead to insecure forms of attachment (or connection) to form. The pattern that is established then influences all the ways we connect to others in later life. This is in a similar way that injunctions effect the way that we interact and view ourselves in the world.
A parent or caregiver may (for a variety of reasons) withhold physical or emotional closeness from a child. An example of this might be if they are ill, or fearful of their child or insecure about their parental skill level. They might also have the internal message from their own upbringing that too much intimacy is unacceptable. The child will probably learn that they are not worthy of getting the thing that they desire, which is closeness, attention and intimacy with this important person in their world. Later in life, this message might be given when intimacy is withheld, perhaps as a punishment, or through ignoring and neglect. Sometimes gender can play a role, perhaps with it being frowned upon to hug a male child if they are in distress, or for a mother to hug a son or father to hug a daughter. Intimacy is not just thorough physical contact, but intellectual and emotional connection as well. Parents may often not have the time to explain and explore feelings their child, or they hide their true emotions from them. How often are the annoying questions of a toddler ignored, because there is not the time to give them the attention they are really asking for?
All of this may lead to the child feeling rejected and unwanted. Rejection is a painful feeling to endure. If felt repeatedly, the child may decide that to avoid it all together by not being intimate with anyone. You can’t be hurt, if you never get close in the first place. This however, is an extremely isolated and lonely way to live.
At this point, I will mention that this injunction usually goes hand in hand (or is synonymous with) the ‘don’t trust’ injunction. This comes about when the intimacy offered is inconsistent or withdrawn without reason. Being close and then suddenly rejected, or only receiving intimacy in a random fashion, will lead to extreme feelings of rejection. It will also lead to mistrust, not only of the caregiver, but also of yourself. You may begin to question why intimacy was given one day, but not the next, or why it was withdrawn. Was it something I had done? Is there something wrong with me? Is everyone like this? Can I trust that anyone will let me get close?
I must point out a very serious (and even more damaging) extreme of this behaviour which is inappropriate closeness/intimacy and abuse. The effects of this can be devastating for survivors, as it can completely breakdown the ability to form health boundaries and form trusting relationships with others. Survivors can recover, but very often they require support to do so. For this reason I have included at the end of this blog post a few sites for support for those who have suffered abuse in the past.
As with the other injunctions, there are different responses to the ‘don’t trust/be close’ messages. In the defiant state, a person may develop soft boundaries, by deciding to open up to everyone and everything. This extreme vulnerability leaves them open to abuse and manipulation by others. In the despairing position people may develop very rigid boundaries, thus excluding everyone and everything to maintain their safety and protection. As stated before, this withdrawal from the world will lead to isolation, lack of affection and loneliness. You may develop feelings that you are not only unloved, but unlovable, denying or shying away from both emotional and physical intimacy. A lack of trust of those around you can further reduce and connection and in extreme cases form a sense of paranoia. Driver behaviour can be adopted to try and obtain a sense of closeness. If it is physical intimacy that is missing, then there is link to sexuality. The ‘please me’ driver might cause promiscuous behaviour. This might also be adopted in the hope that it might lead to more emotional intimacy. You might simply believe that others will only let you get close and you are deserving of closeness if you help them out. The “hurry up” driver might cause accelerated opening up and sharing in a relationship, in the hope of reciprocation. Worthiness of closeness can also be seen as a reward for being flawless or productive, especially if it was withheld as a punishment, and so the “be perfect” and “work hard” drivers develop.
Living with this injunction can be tough. We are a social species that thrives on interaction and connection with others. We are also physical and sexual beings who have an inbuilt desire for touch and tactile connection. I offer below a few suggestions of permission for challenging this injunction. I will state that because this injunction effects boundaries, some of the permissions challenge soft ones and others tackle the rigid ones:
- I have the right to love and be loved
- I am worthy of love and closeness
- I can chose who I want to be close to, and who I do not
- I will not always be alone
- It is safe to let others in, when I want then to
- I am free to share as little or as much of myself as I choose
- “No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main.” John Donne (1624)
- I am entitled to closeness and connection to others
Resources / Links
- NSPCC: A place to report child abuse, and also resources to support those affected
- Childline: For support and guidance for children and young people who may be suffering abuse
- The Survivor’s Trust: For resources, support and advice fro those affected by rape and sexual abuse
- Survivors UK: A site for male survivors or rape and childhood sexual abuse
- Rape Crisis UK: A site offering support for women (and men) affected by sexual abuse and rape
Comments
Post a Comment