As humans, our awareness of death is inherent. When confronted with this reality, we tend find ways to self-soothe that, though largely unconscious, are limiting to us in our lives, our relationships, and our goals. In his book, In the Wake of 9-11: The Psychology of Terror, Dr. Sheldon Solomon describes how in the period of time following the September 11 attacks, the country saw an increase in rates of drinking, gambling, and other common vices. Comfort foods sold better. Cigarette sales jumped. People started turning to their “drug” of choice in an unconscious effort to relieve their fears. Existential realizations often leave us looking for comfort and security in everything from our meal choice to our political leaders. Following 9/11, each time George Bush announced that the terror alert levels had raised, his approval ratings would follow suit.

Terror aroused by the realization of our own mortality can fuel a tendency to be punishing or hateful, pitting us against enemies or alienating us from our loved ones. It can lead us to limit ourselves or to defend against living fully. Every one of us would benefit from asking ourselves the question, “How does this awareness impact us?” Perhaps a lot more than we think. Since we are all affected by this knowledge, we can use our power of introspection to intentionally move away from negative actions and reactions to our anxiety. We can instead use it to make conscious choices that create meaning in our lives. We can determine and control how our anxiety impacts us, as opposed to denying it or allowing it to take on destructive manifestations.

Accommodating to death by not living fully can have destructive effects. In an effort to subdue or submerge our fears, we tend to engage in behaviors that help us to feel numb, unattached, or adverse toward ourselves and others. We use defenses to cut off from the pain of our existence, and in turn, detach from our vitality and the things that makes us feel alive.

In an interview I conducted for PsychAlive.org with Dr. Sheldon Solomon, one of the developers of Terror Management Theory, he described the role this awareness can have in our lives as follows, “To recognize that you are finite and not particularly pleased by that prospect is to momentarily divest yourself of all of the culturally and interpersonally constructed delusions and fantasy bonds that have sustained you for your whole life. And you can’t do that without momentarily, psychologically speaking, dangling on the precipice of oblivion. But then and only then can that real kernel of who and what you are begin to emerge and that’s when we’re going to see people, myself included, at their best.”

On May 22 I will join Dr. Sheldon Solomon for the CE Webinar “Creating Meaning,” in which he will further explore the role of death awareness in our culture.Dr. Solomon and his colleagues have argued that this existential awareness is a large contributor to many of the world’s wars and political conflicts. Conversely, both Dr. Solomon and my father, psychologist and author Robert Firestone, argue that when death awareness isn’t denied, but recognized, we can use it to promote peace and compassion. The idea that, as humans, we are all in the same boat (“all be it a sinking boat,” as Dr. Solomon points out) promotes a sense of equality and togetherness. The acknowledgement that our physical selves share the same fate, and that we all hold the same fears can help us to be more understanding of one another’s limitations and defenses.

Being kind and compassionate toward our fellow humans further gives us a sense of value, purpose, and meaning. Generosity is good for us. As my father, wrote in his PsychologyToday blog “Life-Affirming Death Awareness,” “By acknowledging death as a reality instead of resorting to defensive denial, we can best meet these challenges and embrace life more fully. People everywhere confront the same essential problems and struggle for survival. Therefore, we are all brothers and sisters, and there is no room for indifference to those people suffering from starvation and poverty, and in addition, there cannot be resignation to manifestations of prejudice, ethnic strife or actual warfare.”

For most of us, it is almost second-nature to defend against the realization of our mortality. Yet each of us has the power to embrace a cultural worldview that gives meaning to life. We can create our own moral compass and build our self-esteem by feeling that we are a valuable member of society. Instead of turning against others, we can use our universal condition as inspiration to treat each other well and to make the most out of the precious time we have.

Our fears of mortality can leave us with an urge to retreat from life, to live less fully as a means of reducing the pain of our demise or the scope of what we would lose. The anxiety we feel may motivate us to give up the things that connect us to our physical selves, our sexuality, our bodily desires, or our bodies themselves. Yet, this knowledge has the power to do just the opposite, to inspire us to live life full steam ahead, pursuing our most meaningful goals, staying close to our loved ones, and living with integrity, self-esteem, and purpose. As Ernest Becker, the famed author of Denial of Death wrote, “And this is the simple truth – that to live is to feel lost – he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked.”
 
Join Dr. Lisa Firestone and Dr. Sheldon Solomon for the CE Webinar “Creating Meaning” on May 22. All registrants can download a video recording of the Webinar following its live presentation online. Sign up today
 

Dr. Lisa Firestone, PhD, is the Director of Research and Education for The Glendon Association. Since 1987, she has been involved in clinical training and applied research in suicide and violence. In collaboration with Dr. Robert Firestone, her studies resulted in the development of the Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts (FAST) and the Firestone Assessment of Violent Thoughts (FAVT). Dr. Firestone has published numerous professional articles, and most recently was the co-author of the books: Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships (APA Books, 2006),Conquer Your Critical Inner Voice(New Harbinger, 2002), and Creating a Life of Meaning and Compassion: The Wisdom of Psychotherapy (APA Books, 2003).

Share

After 16 seasons of The Bachelor and 7 seasons of The Bachelorette, you would think that people would be done watching. But they are enthralled more than ever as the 8th season of The Bachelorette begins. Emily Maynard, the single 26-year-old heartthrob, has captured the hearts of America as the newest Bachelorette. Her beauty, strength, and passion are making this season a huge success. And then there’s her tragic story: a single mother whose husband died in a plane crash only days before she found out she was pregnant. With a young daughter, she went searching for love on the Bachelor, only to win Brad Womack’s heart and get engaged. But it ended in disaster when the two broke off their engagement last year. Now, she’s back for round two to find her true love. And the men are ecstatic about this gorgeous, sensitive single mother. But of course, there’s the usual drama: group dates and one-on-one dates, secret rendezvous, men fighting and conniving against each other, tears and insults, all the men competing to spend the most time with Emily and fall in love.

So what is it that makes people so drawn to this show? In any other situation, a woman would never be able to date 25 men at once, all doting on her and her alone. Such a woman would be seen as a sleazy whore, not an American hero. Everything in our culture goes against this idea of dating and marriage. We are supposed to meet one person, date them, and eventually get married. There’s never a harem of girls/ guys to choose from. And finding true love is always a solitary pursuit, not a social game.

But The Bachelorette never comes under fire for this; dating 25 guys at once is seen as natural and all this is done in the hopes to find a successful relationship and eventual marriage. Like a fairy tale, the show is all about true love and finding soulmates. Emily has opened her heart to finding love again, and she expects to leave the show with the perfect man. Yet when you look at the history of other Bachelor and Bachelorette romances, hardly any have survived. Something always goes wrong, and the couple eventually breaks up. Why don’t these relationships ever work out? What does it take to make these love matches successful relationships?

• Maturity: Unlike many of the Bachelor/ Bachelorette relationships, ideal partners need to be emotionally mature. Growing up is recognizing the destructive elements of our past and moving past them. Ideal partners should separate their past experiences from their new relationship, and come to this relationship with a strong sense of independence and autonomy. Many of these men and women have not matured emotionally, so it makes it harder for the relationship to succeed.
• Openness: Being open and vulnerable is a key feature in a relationship. Although the Bachelorette always emphasizes this, it is rarely experienced on the show. Emily does not have much time to spend with each man, so each man tries their best to show her how open and vulnerable they are. However, these are hardly genuine as the guy is being forced to open up his heart without really engaging in true open intimacy.
• Honesty and Integrity: Honesty builds trust between people, which is necessary for a relationship to flourish. Without honesty, there is no real communication, resulting in an emotional disconnect between partners. The drama and competition in The Bachelorette creates an environment where the guys will do anything to get the girl, including lying, cheating, and insulting each other. The relationships are not honest or filled with trust, and it can be hard to move past that.
• Respect and Independence: Ideal partners are supportive of each other’s goals and sensitive to the other’s needs, wants, and desires. Although Emily encourages each man to be himself, the reality is that each loses himself to focus completely on her. The men do not have independent selves with wants and needs; it is all about fulfilling Emily’s desires.
• Empathy: A person should be able to understand and empathize with their partner. Without that part in a relationship, each partner feels unseen and alone. Unless there is an attunement to how the other person is feeling, their wants and needs cannot be met. Emily tries to empathize with each man, but she is often unaware of the competition and drama between the men in the house. She is kept separate; thus, communication and empathy is often difficult in these relationships.
• Affection: A good partner should be affectionate and responsive both physically and emotionally. They should feel uninhibited to give and receive affection and pleasure. Although Emily tries to show affection, she is self-conscious and inhibited in the presence of 25 other men. And when she does respond to one man, the others get jealous, resulting in a lot of tension. Thus, she is always questioning just how demonstrative she can be, so there is an absence of affection in many of these relationships.
• Humor: In order for a relationship to succeed, it should not just be about serious things. There needs to be some humor and play involved. Couples who are playful and teasing seem to have the best relationships. Emily tries to do this by making the dates fun, but humor can’t be forced making it difficult to create easygoing joking and play in each individual relationship.

Although these seven features are usually lacking in Bachelor/ Bachelorette relationships, it looks like The Bachelor and Bachelorette have many more seasons to come before people recognize the ridiculousness of the show. People are fascinated by Emily’s quest to find love, and they will be eagerly invested in her relationships. Yet, as the season begins and the Bachelorette starts giving out roses, I can’t help but wonder if Emily stands a chance and whether her perfect romance will soon fade just as those before hers have.
 
Yael Kent is a student at the University of California, Santa Barbara majoring in psychology and global studies. Yael is actively involved in intimacy and relationship research and works in the Close Relationships Lab for UCSB’s psychology department. Yael also works on campus at the UCSB Children’s Center and plans to pursue a Master’s in child development.

Share

Dr. Sheldon Solomon is a psychologist and the Ross Professor for Interdisciplinary Studies at Skidmore College. He is best known for developing Terror Management Theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski, which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality. Dr. Solomon is the author or co-author of more than 100 articles and several books, including In the Wake of 9-11: The Psychology of Terror. He’s been featured in several films and TV documentaries as well as countless radio interviews.

Webinars with Dr. Sheldon Solomon

Creating Meaning: On the Role of Death in Life
CE Webinar
May 22 – 4pm – 5:30pm PDT
* Video recording available after live Webinar
Learn more or register here

Self Esteem: the Belief that One is a Valuable Contributor to a Meaningful Universe
Free Webinar
June 12 – 11am- 12pm PDT
Learn more or register here

Continuing Education Information

* Continuing Education (CE) credits are being offered to mental health professionals through PsychoEducational Resources, Inc. (PER) Participants may earn 1.5 CE credits”

* CE Certificates will be mailed out from (PER) 3-4 weeks after completion of the webinar For additional CE information contact PER at 800-892-9249 or email support@per-ce.net. For more information on CE credits click here

* If you have a special needs questions or have any concerns, please contact Jina@glendon.org or call 805-681-0415

* Once payment and registration are received, there will be no cancellations or refunds. Should you be unable to listen to the live event, a complete recorded session will be made available to you at no additional charge.

Share

Sheldon Solomon:And so here, if I recall accurately, we talk about three things: borrowing heavily from Becker, where he said, “OK, first and foremost, is, you know, does the culture provide for the material needs of its constituents, given its current level of technology and access to natural resources?” And I’m pretty sure here he’s borrowing from Maslow’s bottom part of the hierarchy of needs. You know, we are physical creatures that require fundamental, fundamental physical sustenance. You know, everything from food to water to places to live and so on and so forth. And he says, “Well, one way we can judge a culture is, well, how well does the culture do that?” And, you know, in this respect, he actually, this is the 1970’s, and I don’t think I would argue he’d change his mind today, he said, “You know, we can do a lot better.” You know, no country in principle is better able to take care of all of its people than the United States. And you know, yet here we are, I don’t know what the numbers are, but I think about one third of the American population is impoverished and 10% go to bed hungry every night and, you know, the unemployment rate and so on and so forth. And he’s like, “Well, that would be – that’s a demerit.”

And, his point being that, OK, Somalia can’t be held to the same standards as America because different countries have different degrees of technical expertise and access to the raw materials. Alright, but then, a la Maslow, he just says, “OK, but people don’t live by bread alone. So, we need a second standard and that’s to what extent does a culture provide social roles with appropriate standards of conduct that enable as many people as possible to feel like they’re significant or worthy participants in the cosmic cultural scheme of things to which they subscribe?” And in his language, that’s self-esteem. I think there are other words one might use for that and I don’t know if the terminology matters that much. But, you know, Becker called that the “dominant human motive,” this need to believe that we’re persons of value in a world of meaning, which is, by the way, just an extension psycho-dynamically of the love and basic trust that the attachment people, that Bob talks about as just being the fundamental nutrients that nourish the soul and without which we’re unable to stand up every day. And so here Becker would say, “Well, alright, you know, Christianity, for example as a grotesque caricature of a stereotype, Christianity in the Middle Ages, you know, said everyone is potentially eligible for salvation.

It doesn’t matter if you’re the king or a dipstick for a cesspool, if you do the right thing and if you care for your fellow humans, if you do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, regardless of your moral transgressions, good things will happen in the afterlife. And Becker’s point was – I’m not trying to propose that we go back to the good old days of shoveling shit in the Middle Ages, but his point was that psychologically, there were opportunities to obtain and maintain self-esteem back in the day. Similarly, Erich Fromm in his Escape from Freedom, you know, talks about, again, without glamorizing or over-romanticizing the old days, “Well, you know, back in the Industrial – before the Industrial Revolution, people did stuff with their hands. And so, if you were a shoemaker, you would make, like, an entire shoe. And, then, when you got done, the person who wore those shoes, you know, they would literally, that would be a tangible manifestation of your unique creative abilities as a human being.” And, his point, and this is also one of Marx’s basic points in his early days, was, “That’s got to feel good that there were these opportunities that were profuse through the entire social order where everyone could feel good about themselves. Well, now, if we fast forward a couple of hundred years, an unintended consequence of the Industrial Revolution as you know was the transition from crafts-person-ship to mass production. So now, you don’t make a whole shoe anymore.

You put the left hubcap on the front wheel of the Ford Escort as it goes through the assembly line and there’s no opportunity to feel good about what you do as a result of your daily efforts. And then, on top of that, because of the diminution of belief in religion, even though we need to qualify that because America is certainly a religious country, be that as it may, we still tend to measure people by their fiscal resources. And this is what I would argue is particularly true for males and so if you’re a male in American society, then, you know, it’s how much cash do you have. You know, my kind of glib joke is you can look like Donald Trump, like the purple gruesome hair and you still have like the six young babes dangling off each of your arms because, you know, money talks and bullshit walks. And for women, maybe arguably even harder because you’ve got to be young and thinner than a piece of linguini, and that’s impossible, too. And so the point that we make just borrowing from Becker extensively is that, Geez, you know, in America, our kids are taught at a very early age to adhere to a set of values that is not realistically attainable for the average individual. And so it shouldn’t surprise us that, you know, a third of the American population is depressed and another third is addicted to drugs and alcohol and the final third watching television or shopping at Wal-Mart for a chain saw and a lemon. And so that would be his second point, is, does the culture deliver the psychological goods as well as the physical ones? Then the kind of kicker for both Becker and in our work is: can you accomplish those things without undue harm to either other people in different cultures or designated inferiors in your own?

And I know it’s a tired example, but I think it’s a good one and one that most people are still very familiar with and that would be Hitler. Now, he comes to power in Germany, gets elected, by the way, not directly but his party was. German economy is in tatters at the time and he definitely got the trains running and the economy moving. Definitely made the German people feel pretty good about themselves and it’s just that ugly fact that 100 million people perished in the process. And, that can’t be good. And, you know, the same thing, forgetting about Hitler for a moment, you know, just when we look at the United States, you know, we always appear to have someone or something domestically that just serves as the all encompassing repository of evil. So back in the old days, it was the Communists and then it was, well, who knows what it was from time to time, depending on who you ask, it’s the old people or the non-English speaking people. I think the gay and transsexual people. Now, it’s Islamic people. I think the point is relatively simple and that is can we construct a social order whereby people can feel good about themselves without having to disparage somebody else in order to do so. And that remains, frankly, for me, kind of a chilling question. You know, is there a belief system that is strong enough to stand on its own merits and does not require setting itself up in opposition to something else. Because I think we’re in trouble if the answer to that query is, “No.” But we shall see.
 

 
Current Philosophical Climate in the United States
 
Sheldon Solomon: “Philosophical principles that now prevail in our country are literally based on assumptions that are just unambiguously incorrect.”
…Locke said that people vary in ability. He called it industry. He said that different people are more or less industrious. So it’s natural that some people over time are going to have a shit ton more than other people. And that’s not only natural, that’s a good thing. And my point is, is you can see Locke’s ideas today in people who just say, “That’s what it’s about. I’m going to get as much as I can. Don’t take my shit away. I worked for it. If you want it, then you work.” But, you know, two things: One is, is that Locke wasn’t an idiot and he said this is only going to work in a world of infinitely large resources. So he said, you can’t do it in England, so go over to America because it’s empty except for a few savages. Now, of course he had never been there so he didn’t know that that wasn’t quite true.

You know, and the other thing is that his original assumption that in a state of nature, people are independent is wrong. So I find it alarming, frankly, that the philosophical principles that now prevail in our country are literally based on assumptions that are just unambiguously incorrect. You know, if you start with the assumption that we’re fundamentally social creatures who are unable to exist in the absence of mutual support and cooperation, then I would argue that that leads to very different beliefs about the role of government and the disposition of scarce resources. And this in no way implies that everyone should have the same thing. I think that’s just as disastrously problematic as everybody, you know, just in it for yourself. You know, there’s got to be a middle ground. And we know what that is. It’s the social democracies that we loathe. So I love it when you hear on Fox News, “I’ll be god damned if America’s going to be like Europe.” And when I last heard that I was in Holland. This was in the Spring – on our way to Israel. And I’m like, “Well, what is it about Europe that you’re finding so objectionable? Is it that the trains run on time, that everyone speaks three languages, that they live longer than we do and they all know how to read? I’m not exactly sure.” And I don’t see any lack of entrepreneurial chutzpah as it were. So for me I’m kind of pre-occupied with this these days because I’m like, oh, you know, I think of when we talk about fundamental changes in the social order that might foster the kind of psychological benefits that we’ve been espousing.

You know, starting with how we teach our children about their rights as well as their responsibilities as humans. I find it ironic that the shrillest people right now in American politics are the Right – not to dump solely on them. But they are much more keenly assertive of their rights than they are willing to acknowledge their social obligations. You know, why is there no talk of compulsory national service? You know, and I think maybe it’s time, you know, if it were my world, I would insist that Americans actually read these folks, John Locke, Adam Smith, who would, by the way, be much more to the left of Obama. You know, all these people that are championed by the Right these days, you know, when you actually look at them, it’s not what it seems. You know, so here you have Adam Smith saying, “Oh yeah, everyone should just pursue their interest.” So the baker’s not baking bread for you, he’s baking bread for himself. And if everybody does that, we’ll all be better off. Well it’s true that he says that, but he wrote another book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments where he says that we’re also highly social creatures, he called it “sympathy.” Maybe today we’d call it “empathy.” But he said, “Yeah, we’re self interested but we’re also incredibly concerned about not only the welfare of our fellow humans but the way that our fellow humans think about us.”

And his view was that – and he called it “enlightened self-interest.” And I think that term has been mangled by people on the Right. Because his conception of enlightened self-interest was an overt denunciation of kind of a narcissistic preoccupation with personal wealth. He was like, “No. If you were really self-interested, you would want to do well. But you would also want to do well in part to insure that those around you were OK.” So he was never blithely indifferent to the well being of everybody. Moreover, he insisted that there were things that could not be done for profit. So he said that government should not only regulate commerce to prevent the kind of egregious fraud that was responsible for the last collapse. But he said government should be responsible for infrastructure, for public education, for health care. And I’m like, you know, whenever I hear the lunatics from the Tea Party, I’m like, “You should read these guys. You know, the very people that you’re saying you’re taking your cues from would be forceful advocates for the very things that you denounce as socialism.”
 
Dr. Sheldon Solomon is a psychologist and the Ross Professor for Interdisciplinary Studies at Skidmore College. He is best known for developing Terror Management Theory, along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski, which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality. Dr. Solomon is the author or co-author of more than 100 articles and several books, including In the Wake of 9-11: The Psychology of Terror. He’s been featured in several films and TV documentaries as well as countless radio interviews.
 

Creating Meaning: On the Role of Death in Life
CE Webinar
May 22 – 4pm – 5:30pm PDT
* Video recording available after live Webinar
Learn more or register here

Self Esteem: the Belief that One is a Valuable Contributor to a Meaningful Universe
Free Webinar
June 12 – 11am- 12pm PDT
Learn more or register here

Continuing Education Information

* Continuing Education (CE) credits are being offered to mental health professionals through PsychoEducational Resources, Inc. (PER) Participants may earn 1.5 CE credits”

* CE Certificates will be mailed out from (PER) 3-4 weeks after completion of the webinar For additional CE information contact PER at 800-892-9249 or email support@per-ce.net. For more information on CE credits click here

* If you have a special needs questions or have any concerns, please contact Jina@glendon.org or call 805-681-0415

* Once payment and registration are received, there will be no cancellations or refunds. Should you be unable to listen to the live event, a complete recorded session will be made available to you at no additional charge.

Share

Dr. Pat Love On What it is to Parent

Share

Whatever one may think of The Biggest Loser’s “reality-TV editing” or competitive format, one thing I personally appreciate is that the show acknowledges that the factors contributing to obesity, food addiction, and weight gain go deeper than the surface. Contestants are encouraged to uncover and understand the psychological and emotional roots and implications of their struggle with their weight. When it comes to our relationship with food, there is much more going on than we would often assume. Like any addictive substance, food is often used to cover over or subdue emotional pain. It is used to numb us or soothe us, yet it is also used to torment us or cause us anxiety.

Struggles with eating and weight gain usually start early, when our relationship with food is first established. One contestant on The Biggest Loser described how the physical abuse he experienced throughout his childhood left him with a desire to somehow shield himself both physically and emotionally. Growing up with a violent and erratic stepfather and a fearful mother who failed to protect him, he used food to “feel bigger,” safer, and comforted. It’s easy to see how such an extreme example of physical abuse could lead a child to start to use food as consolation and weight as armor. However, it is far more difficult to identify how more subtle forms of mistreatment, mis-attunement, and abuse can lead to issues with eating.

As children, we all experience varying degrees of emotional pain. The love, care, and nurturance we get from our caregivers lead us to form a positive sense of self and helps us to create our identity. Yet, no parent or person is perfect. Even the best parents are only attuned to their child’s needs about 30 percent of the time. This means that, as children, each of us was inevitably left lacking certain things we needed. We may have felt rejected, isolated, unseen, or unheard. Conversely, we may have felt intruded on, overly controlled, or intimidated by our parents. All of these factors could have impacted our relationship with food. We literally and figuratively learned how to “feed” ourselves from how we were nurtured by our parents and influential caretakers.

Many of us eat for reasons other than to nourish our bodies or even to enjoy one of life’s pleasures. To understand why we overeat, it’s valuable to identify what the emotions are that lead us to mindlessly snack, overindulge, or binge. Are these feelings familiar? Do they bring up any memories or remind us of ways we felt in our past? Do our patterns of eating remind us of ways we saw our parents use food or other substances? Or conversely, might our actions seem like a reaction to ways we saw our parents use food or other substances?

A woman I know tells a story of her 30-year struggle with her weight. One of her earliest memories is of being barely over a year old and crying through the night for her bottle, while neither her mother nor her father woke to feed her. Night after night, hungry and alone, she would wait, but no one came. Finally, one morning when her mother brought her bottle, the child took the bottle and, even though she was starving, she refused it and threw it on the floor. She recalls that something shut down in her, and she never wanted food from her mother again. As she grew up, her relationship with food was further complicated by her mother’s own struggle with weight and consistent focus on her young daughter’s figure. As a result, the woman grew up suffering from binge eating, over-feeding herself with a desperation that indicated a disconnectedness from her body. She had trouble distinguishing her real feelings of hunger from a desire to fill herself up.

People with eating disorders, both overeaters and anorexics, disregard their own values and personal goals in relation to their health, looks, and lifestyle. They use food to feel bad about themselves, to punish themselves, or to gain a sense of control. Instead of using it to fuel their bodies, they use food to fuel a cycle of self-hatred and self-protection. All of us have an inner coach, or “critical inner voice,” that lures us into destructive behavior then pounces on us the minute we mess up. The critical inner voice is a driving force behind an eating disorder, and to challenge an unhealthy relationship with food, a person must deal with this internal enemy.

We live in a society that supports being slim, sometimes to the extreme. This unrealistic ideal can be used in the service of our inner critic to put ourselves down, to feel inadequate , or to isolate us from the world around us. Failing to identify our critical voices as they come up, leaves us more at risk for falling off the wagon. However, we can challenge our voices by not engaging in the behaviors they are supporting. And even though they may initially become louder, enticing us and telling us we will fail, the more we ignore them, the more they lose their hold on us, and the stronger we become.

To have a healthy body, it is necessary for us to take action of a physical level with diet and exercise, but to have a healthy relationship with food, it is necessary for us to understand ourselves on a deeper emotional level or to uncover why we eat the way we eat. If we challenge the behaviors alone through diet and exercise, the emotions we were using eating to cover up won’t just go away. Once we identify the feelings and inner voices that perpetuate the cycle of self-hatred and the insensitivity to our body, we can gain control of self-destructive eating habits and not react adversely to pressure and triggers that lead us to abuse food. By taking action on a physical level and taking interest on an emotional level, we can re-establish our relationship with food, with our bodies, with our past, and with ourselves as a whole. We can uncover who we really are, our real wants, desires, and goals, and we can stop engaging in the patterns that get in our way.

Dr. Lisa Firestone, PhD, is the Director of Research and Education for The Glendon Association. Since 1987, she has been involved in clinical training and applied research in suicide and violence. In collaboration with Dr. Robert Firestone, her studies resulted in the development of the Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts (FAST) and the Firestone Assessment of Violent Thoughts (FAVT). Dr. Firestone has published numerous professional articles, and most recently was the co-author of the books: Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships (APA Books, 2006),Conquer Your Critical Inner Voice(New Harbinger, 2002), and Creating a Life of Meaning and Compassion: The Wisdom of Psychotherapy (APA Books, 2003).

Share

Mother’s Day is this Sunday. For some reason, I was reminded of reading Nancy Friday’s book, My Mother/My Self many years ago; so I took Friday’s book down from a shelf in my office and opened it, quite by chance, to page 388, where I found this heavily underlined quote:

“As we get older and the tie to mother is weakened by physical or psychological separation, introjections gather momentum. When we move into an apartment of our own, when we find a job, take a lover, get married and have a child of our own – in all these important rites of passage away from her, as we take one step forward, we take another one back, and find ourselves doing things her way. Becoming like her overcomes our separation anxiety.”

Friday’s implication is that as we mature, we tend to become more like our mother, yet this represents taking a step backward in our own personal development. The truth is that becoming like one’s mother is a mixed blessing. Adopting our mother’s ways of doing things would be beneficial for our development if we were raised by the “ideal” or even a “good enough” mother. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many — or most — women. As Hendrika Freud emphasized, “Generally speaking, the bond between mothers and daughters facilitates passing on emotional health as well as pathology to the next generation.”

It’s these two opposing ways of identifying with our mothers that cause us distress. We easily identify with and imitate our mother’s positive qualities and point of view about life, but the problem is that we also imitate many of her negative traits and irrational views, even those that we may criticize in her – and we’re mostly unaware of this process.

Nancy Friday’s and Hendrika Freud’s ideas strongly resonate with me for many reasons, both personal and professional. For one thing, my father, Robert Firestone, has written extensively about the ambivalence inherent in every mother-daughter relationship. His descriptive accounts of the dynamics operating in the mother-daughter bond were published in Compassionate Child-Rearing (1990) and are explained in a chapter in our forthcoming book, co-authored by Joyce Catlett, The Self Under Siege: A Therapeutic Model for Differentiation.

What are some of the less-than-beneficial aspects of the mother-daughter bond? First, women tend to imitate their mother’s negative point of view about life and her maladaptive ways of coping with pain and anxiety. For example, if their mother acted victimized and helpless, they often have tendencies to relate to life as passive victims. If their mother saw men as weak, indifferent, or degrading of them as women, the daughters internalize these views and take them on as their own. As a result, many women fail to distinguish between the internalized negative maternal point of view and their own views.

Psychiatrist/Obstetrician Joseph Rheingold was also struck by the power of the mother/daughter conflict in the 2500 women that he interviewed in a 12-year clinical research program. Their personal narratives led Rheingold to conclude:

A woman may bring any number of assets to marriage – compassion, wisdom, intelligence, skills, an imaginative spirit, delight-giving femininity, good humor, friendliness, pride in a job well done – but if she does not bring emancipation from her mother, the assets may wither or may be overbalanced by the liability of the fear of being a woman.”

Feelings of fear and guilt in relation to her mother can cause a woman to turn her back on her own personal goals, to retreat from her sexuality, or to withdraw from being close to her partner. Women who pull back in these ways feel bound to their mothers, not by a genuine sense of closeness, but by an imagined connection or fantasy bond that was a substitute for the warmth and attunement that was missing in the early attachment with their mothers.

As women struggle to become their own person, to develop their own identity, to feel confident in their personal and professional goals, and to keep passion and love alive in their relationship, they often experience a kind of anticipatory fear that their independence and sexuality will threaten the illusory connection with their mother. While most women don’t consciously think, “By doing this or that, I might threaten my connection to my mother,” this subconscious threat can arouse intense feelings of separation anxiety left over from their childhood – the kind of anxiety that Nancy Friday described in her book.

Women’s unconscious reactions to these powerful feelings of fear and anxiety often take the form of a decline in their sexual desire or a diminished interest in sex. It can also injure their self-confidence and ability in relation to their personal goals and successes. This unwelcome trend could be a sign that they are becoming more like their mother, especially if their mother gradually gave up her identity as a sexual woman after she had children.

A friend of mine told me about an evening that she spent recently with her boyfriend where she felt more loving and passionate than usual. She said that she also felt very happy when he told her how much he loved her. It dawned on her that their relationship had become very meaningful. Later in the week, however, she began to have doubts about how he really felt. “He really isn’t that interested in you. Look at him. Doesn’t he seem a little cool and distant?” She noticed that she was becoming increasingly critical and irritated in her interactions with him. Suddenly, she recalled her mother’s complaints and harsh criticisms of her father. The realization that she was internally reciting her mother’s attitudes toward her father had the effect of dispelling her suspicious attitudes and doubts. Feeling genuinely loved and acknowledged by her boyfriend had triggered anxiety and she unconsciously slipped into her mother’s way of thinking and her general distrust of men. It was fortunate that my friend caught on to the way she was using her mother’s attitude to hurt her relationship and was able to differentiate from this internalized point of view.

There is a way to challenge this fantasy bond with our mothers. I have known many women who challenged the harmful attitudes and maladaptive views that they took on as their own at an early age during painful interactions with their mothers. As they came to understand the division within themselves between their desire for independence and sexual fulfillment and the debilitating psychological tie to their mothers, they were able to break this fantasy bond by changing negative traits in themselves that were imitative of their mothers. Differentiating from the destructive aspects of maternal influence enabled them to experience more satisfaction in their relationships and to manifest a stronger personal identity.
 

Dr. Lisa Firestone, PhD, is the Director of Research and Education for The Glendon Association. Since 1987, she has been involved in clinical training and applied research in suicide and violence. In collaboration with Dr. Robert Firestone, her studies resulted in the development of the Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts (FAST) and the Firestone Assessment of Violent Thoughts (FAVT). Dr. Firestone has published numerous professional articles, and most recently was the co-author of the books: Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships (APA Books, 2006),Conquer Your Critical Inner Voice(New Harbinger, 2002), and Creating a Life of Meaning and Compassion: The Wisdom of Psychotherapy (APA Books, 2003).

Share

A couple months ago I wrote the blog “Are You an Addict?” to illustrate what draws people to addiction and how they can tell when they are engaging in addictive behavior. All addictive behaviors have at least these two things in common: (1) they help people cut off painful feelings and (2) they are strongly influenced or controlled by a destructive thought process that both seduces the person into the behavior and punishes them for indulging. Like a dance, an addiction finds a pattern by which to step seamlessly into a person’s life, luring and condemning, comforting and destroying.

People who engage in drug or alcohol abuse, who have an eating disorder, or who struggle with any addiction are acting according to the prescriptions of a destructive thought process known as the critical inner voice. For example, if you struggle with an alcohol dependency, this internal enemy will try to tempt you with a seductive, seeming friendly thought (or “voice”) saying, “You’ve had a rough week. Have a drink. You really need to relax.” If you’re overcoming a food addiction, it might lure you with rewards, “Have a piece of cake. You did well on your diet all week.”

After indulging, this deceptively soothing inner voice transforms into a cruel enemy, tearing you apart. The voice maliciously punishes you for indulging in the very behavior it had encouraged. “You weak-willed jerk. You said you weren’t going to drink anymore!” “You’ve ruined everything. You’ll always be a fat cow.”

Like the male dancer in the performance I watched, the critical inner voice always plays two roles in an addiction: seducer and punisher. Addictive behaviors represent a direct assault against a person’s physical health and emotional well-being, and they limit one’s ability to pursue meaningful personal goals in life. Therefore, it is important that a therapist help a client to identify the critical inner voices that govern these habit patterns and to challenge their dictates by learning more constructive ways of dealing with emotional pain.

In Voice Therapy, a therapeutic approach developed by my father, psychologist and author Robert Firestone, therapists help clients pinpoint environmental triggers that precipitate the painful emotions and negative thought patterns, which, in turn, influence them to engage in addictive behaviors. By further encouraging the pursuit of genuine wants, desires, and goals, therapists strengthen clients’ real selves, a process that enables them to achieve freedom from addictive, self-destructive behaviors. In addition, individuals can use the following techniques to help them overcome addiction:

Identify – It is vital to identify the thoughts that get you into trouble and lure you into destructive behavior. Even though these thoughts may seem friendly or calming, they should be recognized as an enemy. I often advise clients to look for patterns in their behavior. What occurs or goes through your mind right before you take a self-destructive action? What situations tempt you? What scenarios do you feel are dangerous? By identifying the internal and external triggers, people can become more conscious and self-aware. They can pause to reflect and resist acting on thoughts that go against their own self-interest.

Journal – Once you recognize your thoughts, you can record them as a means to get to know yourself better and familiarize yourself with your negative habits. Taking the action of writing down whatever comes into your head is a good alternative to engaging in destructive behavior. It also provides you with something to look back on to help you find patterns in yourself and discover what drives you toward addiction.

Reflect – Once you know what the thoughts are and when they come up, you can start asking why. Where do the “voices” come from? Do they sound familiar? Do they remind you of someone or something from your past? Did anyone from your past influence you by engaging in similar behavior? Did your parents or other influential figures use any destructive means to deal with their feelings or to soothe themselves?

Plan – Knowing what triggers you orients you toward action. You can then define a plan of what to do in moments when you feel compelled to use or indulge in your drug of choice. You can visualize yourself saying no. You can think of actions you can take that have worked in the past to distract or help you. You can seek out a certain person to talk to, a certain friend to hang out with, or a certain activity to engage in during moments of stress.

Have compassion – We all face struggles and make mistakes. To deal with an addiction is a sign of strength, not weakness, and you must not allow your critical inner voice to beat you up for any mistakes or relapses. Remember that the urge to self-punish is a strong part of what draws a person to addiction. Listening to that inner voice will only work against you, even when you slip up or experience a setback.

Feel – Addiction numbs a person from joy as well as pain. Its purpose is to bury emotions that you are resistant to feeling or don’t believe you can tolerate. Naturally, when you break an addiction, emotions will arise that the addiction was helping you to avoid. Feeling these emotions and getting through them will make you stronger. It will also reduce your perceived “need” for the substance or behavior that was driving your addiction. Initially, the critical inner voices will get louder, as you stop listening to their instructions. However, when you persevere in your actions, they lessen and eventually fade. Throughout this process, you must be resilient, open, and compassionate. Talking to someone is important, and therapy is a healthy and intelligent option.

When you combat an addiction by challenging your destructive inner voices, you strengthen your true self. You achieve a better balance that leaves you stronger in the face of destructive temptations and hurtful behaviors. Most importantly, you break free from any internal chains that hold you back from experiencing who you are at your fullest potential and actively pursuing what you aim to accomplish in your life.
 

Dr. Lisa Firestone, PhD, is the Director of Research and Education for The Glendon Association. Since 1987, she has been involved in clinical training and applied research in suicide and violence. In collaboration with Dr. Robert Firestone, her studies resulted in the development of the Firestone Assessment of Self-Destructive Thoughts (FAST) and the Firestone Assessment of Violent Thoughts (FAVT). Dr. Firestone has published numerous professional articles, and most recently was the co-author of the books: Sex and Love in Intimate Relationships (APA Books, 2006),Conquer Your Critical Inner Voice(New Harbinger, 2002), and Creating a Life of Meaning and Compassion: The Wisdom of Psychotherapy (APA Books, 2003).

Share

I consider myself a freedom connoisseur. After having lived many years as a prisoner to OCD and panic attacks, freedom from anxiety is certainly not something I take for granted. And I’m constantly reminded of that when anxiety sufferers share their own personal stories with me. It may surprise you to learn that anxiety disorders are the number one mental health problem in nearly every country and affect over 28% of Americans alone. Sadly, this sobering fact reveals that many individuals all over the world struggle with the crippling effects of anxiety, and experience little, if any, relief. The good news is that you don’t have to suffer from debilitating anxiety, because evidence-based treatment exists. It’s called Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT), and more specifically: Exposure Therapy.

Fear and anxiety serve as our survival mechanism when applied appropriately, because they keep us away from predators in our environment. However, more often than not, we misperceive the hazards of today’s world, and end up avoiding situations that pose no real danger at all. Unfortunately, this pattern of avoidance gives us a false sense of safety, and instead, keeps us in a prison of fear. If you want freedom from anxiety, you’ve got to practice “exposing” yourself to the fear itself… literally.

No other therapies that exist today will give you the lasting benefits of relief as prolonged and repeated exposures can. Not only has exposure therapy been extensively researched for over 30 years demonstrating effective results, it’s actually a very logical approach. Just think about it. The more you avoid, the more power you bestow to the fear; the more you confront, the less substantial the fear becomes. As a recent fortune cookie read:

“Comfort Zones are most often expanded through discomfort.”

Although Exposure Therapy may seem daunting at first, especially when we’ve spent most of our lives avoiding that which we fear, it does get easier with concerted effort over time. Truthfully, nothing worth having is ever easy to come by. Freedom from fear can certainly be worth that extra effort. With guided exposures tailored to your specific needs, you too can be on your way to Renewed Freedom.

Read more from this author on PsychAlive

Dr. Jenny C. Yip’s experiences with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) began long before her current position as Executive Director of the Renewed Freedom Center.  Since childhood, Dr. Yip has fought her own personal battle with OCD.  Inspired by her struggles and motivated to helping others overcome theirs, Dr. Yip has dedicated her professional career to treating families and individuals with severe OCD, performance and sports anxiety, body image issues, and related anxiety disorders. Dr. Yip has developed her own innovative treatment modality integrating Mindfulness Training and Strategic Paradoxical Techniques with CBT in the treatment of children and adolescents.  She’s published numerous articles, presented at more than 35 national and international conferences, and worked to train other professionals in the field to be effective clinicians. She holds a Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) in Clinical Psychology from Argosy University, Washington, DC – an APA accredited program.  She is an Institutional Member of the International OCD Foundation (IOCDF), a Clinical Member of the Anxiety Disorders Association of America (ADAA), and a Clinical Member of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT).  She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Psychology Association (LACPA) where she chairs the Membership Committee and the Cognitive Behavior Therapy Special Interest Group (CBT SIG).

About the Renewed Freedom Center
Located in Los Angeles, CA, the Renewed Freedom Center (RFC) was established in 2008 by Dr. Jenny C. Yip as a way to help those suffering from OCD and anxiety disorders.  Dr. Yip and the RFC’s mission are to provide the most effective and state of the art treatment available for those suffering from a variety of anxiety and body-image based conditions.  For more information visit www.RenewedFreedomCenter.com or contact Edie Trott at edie@blupr.com.

© 2009 Renewed Freedom Center for Rapid Anxiety Relief Division of Strategic Cognitive Behavioral Institute, Inc.

Share

View slides from Real Love or a Fantasy Bond.

Watch the Video Recording:

See All Upcoming Webinars here

Recommended Books

Share