Do you think that enablers want to also, in kind, be enabled themselves?
How would they deal with someone who may (in a form of suppport) advise from a non enabling standpoint?
Let us not forget the wonderful escape of denial and how that plays into what advice (even if against many others') you would be more likely to respond to.
Thoughts?
Personally I find this sort of mind bend facinating.
May I change your terms of reference, just for my post?
Enablee = strokee
Enabler = stroker
Strokers have a slightly different mentality. In stroking someone, they justify themselves. This is in itself a form of self-stroking. Regardless, if the behaviour is unhealthy, it's all moot, ain't it?
When someone advises from a non-stroking standpoint, they're usually met with hostility since they're viewed as a threat to the behaviour of the strokee and the stroker.
Denial is part and parcel of the strokee. In order to live with themselves, beyond being stroked by the stroker(s), they need to deny that the behaviour is applicable to them, as the strokee.
Do you think that enablers want to also, in kind, be enabled themselves?
How would they deal with someone who may (in a form of suppport) advise from a non enabling standpoint?
Let us not forget the wonderful escape of denial and how that plays into what advice (even if against many others') you would be more likely to respond to.
Thoughts?
Personally I find this sort of mind bend facinating.
When it comes to the helping process, there are two unhelpful extremes. Self congratulating tough love at one end, and collusive enabling at the other. Disclosure - I used to work in the field of child protection (I really know how to pick my professions...), and that's an area where poorly thought out intervention can have very serious consequences. So what you've raised is an issue that's important to me.
Anyone trying to help is liable to lapse into either of those extremes (tough love versus enabling) without proper training and supervision by other colleagues who are detached from the particular situation you're trying to help in. You have to start off by finding out a bit more about yourself through supervision during training and practice. Self disclosure, personal counselling, examination of your more selfish motives for wanting to help other people, navel-gazing etc.
Sounds like fun, but can actually be somewhat traumatic. The skills of lecturers, counsellors and practice teachers are variable - and all of us found out sooner or later what it was like to have our personal issues poked and prodded at by people who either disliked us, or who were just in the wrong job and not really equipped to carry out that kind of task. It teaches you just how valuable is the worker who can adopt an empathic, non-judgemental but effective approach to the art of helping.
In practice: say you've been told to visit a family, acccompanied by a police officer, where there's been a disclosure of abuse. Here are some basic rules I'd follow:
1. Be respectful and polite to the person you're visiting. You have to actually engage with the person, and that means showing a bit of warmth - regardless of your personal feelings about whatever it is they've been accused of. That's where "accepting the person but not the behaviour" comes into play. People sneer at that woolly sounding philosophy, but it's absolutely vital to understand what it means and be able to do it if you want a person to open up to you about very sensitive issues.
2. Be clear about your purpose. Encourage, and be honest in answering, questions they have about the potential implications of your visit. Don't be evasive, unless you want them to respond in kind.
3. Accept that they're going to be angry when sensitive issues are explored. Don't attack them for it, or react in a hurt, intimidated or similarly angry manner (but keep an eye out for signs that they're about to become physically aggressive - and leave without delay if you see those signs). Let them vent a bit, but bring the focus of the meeting back if it goes on for more than a few minutes.
4. Give muted responses to whatever you hear - regardless of how shocking. Your job is to get to the truth, not to express outrage on behalf of the rest of society.
5. That said, don't underplay the seriousness of the issues being addressed. Underplaying that seriousness would be where enabling, collusive behaviour comes into play.
You mentioned denial - which is a mechanism we all resort to from time to time in an effort to protect ourselves. It can be very destructive to rip away that mechanism without first exploring the fears that have led a person to employ it. "Forced exposure" would be another term for doing that. I personally would employ a lot of denial if someone I mistrusted, who I felt was motivated towards humiliating me, tried to address a very sensitive issue with me.
I've seen a couple of other message boards where lots of tough love/forced exposure is employed, and where there's generally that have a very self-congratulating group feeling of "we change people's lives!" To me, that's delusional, and it's enabled by posters who are seeking group approval and therefore tell the group what it wants to hear. "You've changed my life!"
A message board might be the catalyst for someone getting counselling, or considering a fresh perspective - but if someone's locked in a pattern of destructive thinking and behaviour, then it's going to take professional intervention to help them out of it. I see Loveshack as being a social sort of place where people can banter, vent, have debates and indulge in a bit of mental masturbation (my favourite bit). If it gives a bit of support to those who would otherwise feel very isolated, then that's also great.
I think the problem that you and TBF have raised is that sometimes that support is more about people who are destroying their own lives or hurting other people colluding with eachother in saying "it's okay really....it's the rest of the world that has the problem, not us. We don't have issues...." Or the other form of enabling - people becoming so hooked on trying to relate to those people, that the message of "you're raising a pretty serious, concerning issue here" is completely undermined. Then people who take an opposing view dive in angrily and clumsily - with the result that everyone becomes more and more entrenched in their respective positions.
Last edited by Taramere; 20th July 2008 at 8:06 AM.
Since advice is given solely in text, it can be construed in many ways, reliant on the emotional state of the person reading it.
Also, there are more than enough people solely looking for validation v. help. It's pretty easy to spot this type of thread since the OP tends to argue down or deny anything that doesn't validate by claiming non-support or harshness of advice given. "I am so misunderstood".
Since advice is given solely in text, it can be construed in many ways, reliant on the emotional state of the person reading it.
Also, there are more than enough people solely looking for validation v. help. It's pretty easy to spot this type of thread since the OP tends to argue down or deny anything that doesn't validate by claiming non-support or harshness of advice given. "I am so misunderstood".
Since advice is given solely in text, it can be construed in many ways, reliant on the emotional state of the person reading it.
Also, there are more than enough people solely looking for validation v. help. It's pretty easy to spot this type of thread since the OP tends to argue down or deny anything that doesn't validate by claiming non-support or harshness of advice given. "I am so misunderstood".
You know how, when a thread develops on LS, you'll get a sense of the OP connecting with some posters and not others. Often the ones they'll tend to connect with most are those who say "I'm in a similar situation....that happened to me too. I can relate!"
I think people will often post a problem here primarily in the hope of just connecting with someone. Possibly someone who has had a similar problem to the one they're going through. The value of support groups being that people in them don't feel judged, because everyone's in the same boat. Nobody's going to look down on them for their drinking problem, drug misuse, mental illness, gambling problem or whatever else they're seeking help for.
Possibly most of them go their initially for validation. "I have this problem, but I'm still an okay human being. There are other people who've had the same problem or made this same mistake. They seem like perfectly nice, likeable human beings. I'm not alone here."
I haven't really read the addictions threads, but I'm guessing that a lot of them involve people with addictions in common supporting eachother in staying away from the substance/behaviour in question.
The Other Woman section is one that draws a lot of accusations of people enabling eachother/excusing hurtful behaviour. I get the impression that a lot of that is about people encouraging eachother to adopt an element of bravado about being part of a commonly stigmatised, alienated group. "We're sexier, more fun, thinner, more beautiful, more adventurous in bed" are some of the common themes I've read between the lines of many posts there. In contrast, many BWs will adhere to the "we're principled, loyal, decent people...and we're beautiful and good in bed" theme.
There might be elements of truth in both arguments, but people cling to those positive images associated with whatever group they've allied themselves with. Look up to the posters who are in the same situation they're in, and do seem to be genuinely happy with it. That perhaps enables them to avoid taking a hard look at themselves and their lives and saying "this situation I'm in isn't all I'm cracking it up to be. However well others can - or say they can - handle it, I'm not happy. I need to make some changes."
I haven't read the OW section in ages, but I remember Newbby and Lady Jane both being very good posters who had a great deal of honesty and insight about them. Posters like that lessen the amount of enabling that goes on...but I'm guessing that a lot of the time they're plugging away at a fairly thankless task.
You know how, when a thread develops on LS, you'll get a sense of the OP connecting with some posters and not others. Often the ones they'll tend to connect with most are those who say "I'm in a similar situation....that happened to me too. I can relate!"
I think people will often post a problem here primarily in the hope of just connecting with someone. Possibly someone who has had a similar problem to the one they're going through. The value of support groups being that people in them don't feel judged, because everyone's in the same boat. Nobody's going to look down on them for their drinking problem, drug misuse, mental illness, gambling problem or whatever else they're seeking help for.
Possibly most of them go their initially for validation. "I have this problem, but I'm still an okay human being. There are other people who've had the same problem or made this same mistake. They seem like perfectly nice, likeable human beings. I'm not alone here."
I haven't really read the addictions threads, but I'm guessing that a lot of them involve people with addictions in common supporting eachother in staying away from the substance/behaviour in question.
There's support and then there's enabling/validation of negative behaviours. The ones that need therapy, can't be helped by therapy because they're so entrenched in denial. It's no use going to therapy, if you don't first admit you have a problem and that the problem resides with you.
Quote:
The Other Woman section is one that draws a lot of accusations of people enabling eachother/excusing hurtful behaviour. I get the impression that a lot of that is about people encouraging eachother to adopt an element of bravado about being part of a commonly stigmatised, alienated group. "We're sexier, more fun, thinner, more beautiful, more adventurous in bed" are some of the common themes I've read between the lines of many posts there. In contrast, many BWs will adhere to the "we're principled, loyal, decent people...and we're beautiful and good in bed" theme.
There might be elements of truth in both arguments, but people cling to those positive images associated with whatever group they've allied themselves with. Look up to the posters who are in the same situation they're in, and do seem to be genuinely happy with it. That perhaps enables them to avoid taking a hard look at themselves and their lives and saying "this situation I'm in isn't all I'm cracking it up to be. However well others can - or say they can - handle it, I'm not happy. I need to make some changes."
I haven't read the OW section in ages, but I remember Newbby and Lady Jane both being very good posters who had a great deal of honesty and insight about them. Posters like that lessen the amount of enabling that goes on...but I'm guessing that a lot of the time they're plugging away at a fairly thankless task.
I don't recall Newbby but Lady Jane continues to provide good advice, while taking much needed extended breaks.
There's support and then there's enabling/validation of negative behaviours. The ones that need therapy, can't be helped by therapy because they're so entrenched in denial. It's no use going to therapy, if you don't first admit you have a problem and that the problem resides with you.
Definitely, but to come out of denial I think a person either needs to feel very safe about doing so without having any admission of their flaws thrown back in their face....or (far less positively, and at the other extreme) it might be possible for a strong group to embarrass/shame them out of denial. In the latter instance it wouldn't surprise me if they run straight back to that place of denial and entrench themselves even further into it, as soon as they're removed from the group.
My preference on LS is for threads that are general rather than dealing with one particular poster's problem. I think the latter sometimes results in an overwhelming array of advice, sympathy, judgement and criticism - and way too much focus on that one particular problem, which will sometimes become blown out of proportion.
General threads inviting people to swap insights and methods of dealing with certain difficult situations are less threatening for people to air personal issues/experiences on. Threads where people are open about their imperfections and can laugh at themselves as well as at eachother. I think that creates the environment where a person is likely to feel safest about taking the first steps out of denial.
Definitely, but to come out of denial I think a person either needs to feel very safe about doing so without having any admission of their flaws thrown back in their face....or (far less positively, and at the other extreme) it might be possible for a strong group to embarrass/shame them out of denial. In the latter instance it wouldn't surprise me if they run straight back to that place of denial and entrench themselves even further into it, as soon as they're removed from the group.
My preference on LS is for threads that are general rather than dealing with one particular poster's problem. I think the latter sometimes results in an overwhelming array of advice, sympathy, judgement and criticism - and way too much focus on that one particular problem, which will sometimes become blown out of proportion.
General threads inviting people to swap insights and methods of dealing with certain difficult situations are less threatening for people to air personal issues/experiences on. Threads where people are open about their imperfections and can laugh at themselves as well as at eachother. I think that creates the environment where a person is likely to feel safest about taking the first steps out of denial.
There are no safe harbours in life. If one needs a safe harbour, perhaps this is where to start the rebuilding process.
Tara, you post was spot on. I will be printing that and reading it again so that I can attempt to incorporate more of those tools in my life. Thank you.
It is a hard line to walk between being offensively supportive and the doormat enabler. I am always striving to improve this balance. However, I find it to be very individual based. It can prove difficult enough in real life, let alone over the internet. My original post was a shot in the dark at both.
The sensitive ranges between people and the grab bag of defense mechinisms/reactions you could be met with. Not to mention our own flavors of personality.
Sometimes offering help or support can feel like walking into a mindfield.
You have asked an excellent question and have received first-class, thought-provoking responses in turn.
To answer your question, yes I do believe that enablers would expect to be enabled in return. They are giving the type of support they wish to receive themselves.
An enabler grants permission, if you will, resulting in the enabler providing a measure of self-justification. Most human-to-human are interactions are circular like this.
While pouting. Of which is followed by a new screen name or come back for more attention with new threads.
While asking people not to be mean because they're oh so sensitive right now.
__________________
...and I feel like I'm naked in front of a crowd,
'cause these words are my diary screaming out loud,
and I know that you'll use them however you want to...
For a person who has (had) no idea from whence this thread sprang, many others (not you Shadowplay) came to mind. There is also a tendancy among many of the "enabler" types to often want to ram their opinions down the throats of those with a viewpoint that doesn't match their own biased one.
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Linear Mode
