by Jessica Fern
To best respond to whatever arises in front of us day by day or even moment by moment, we sometimes need to tighten up on the reins of autonomy, while loosening the reins of connection. In other moments, we tighten the connection reins, moving in closer to our partners while releasing the autonomy reins. In her book Mating in Captivity, Esther Perel warns us how too much closeness can collapse into fusion and that too much distance impedes connection. She advises that we need both separateness and connection for intimacy and eroticism, so when it comes to secure functioning, I would say that we must be able to “straddle” both of these needs simultaneously. With practice, we learn that autonomy and connection aren’t an either/or experience but a both/and experience. We can be both different and connected. With practice we can also learn how to ebb and flow between the two states with more skill and grace, using both reins simultaneously to embrace both our independence and our dependency, our autonomy and our connection.
Boundaries and the Giving and Receiving of Love
Our boundaries are the ways we protect ourselves physically, mentally and emotionally. They are how we establish our sovereignty, as well as how we open ourselves to others. Our boundaries are the meeting point between ourselves and another—the point at which we can be both separate and connected. Our boundaries guide us in navigating our relationships and they are directly related to the ways in which we are able to give and receive love. When we’ve experienced attachment wounds as children or adults, we can experience disruptions in our ability to give love, receive love, or both. If connection and love from our caretakers was absent, inconsistent or dangerous, we may want love from others, but then have difficulty fully letting it in. We can struggle to believe that it is safe and real, that it doesn’t have strings attached, and that it’s here to stay (or at least that it won’t immediately leave). It can be extremely vulnerable to try to let people into the deeper places and we may not even allow ourselves to go there. Soaking up the love from our partners and allowing it to penetrate into our bones and cells can be foreign and frightening.
Giving love can also feel problematic when we have attachment wounds. We are unsure whether our partners will receive it, see it as enough, reject it, take it for granted or take advantage of it. We might wonder whether our love will be reciprocated or if we will we be left standing on the relational edge alone? Giving love can be just as vulnerable as receiving it because when we give, we are taking the risk of revealing our hearts. We’re declaring our desire to be close to someone and we are potentially exposing our limitations in the process.
When we have attachment insecurity we may find ourselves struggling on both the giving and receiving ends. We may either over-take or under-take from others, as well as over-give or under-give to our partners. All these are forms of boundary issues.
In the book Loving Bravely, Alexandra H. Solomon defines healthy boundaries as the balancing point where you are able to both connect to another as well as be separate from another, maintaining your own energy and sense of self while your partner maintains the energy that is theirs. Similar to how we need both autonomy and connection to be in secure functioning, we need to have connection and protection in concert with each other to maintain healthy boundaries. Our boundaries begin to become unhealthy when we’re either underprotected or overprotected towards others, as well as when we’re being too connected or not connected enough. Solomon further describes boundaries as either being too porous or too rigid in terms of what we allow in from others and how we give outwardly to others. Porous boundaries arise when we are connected but not protected, and rigid boundaries stem from being protected, but not connected.
Input
Output
Healthy Boundaries
Being connected and protected.
We can connect with others, while also maintaining our sense of self. We can take in love from others.
We share our feelings, opinions and perspectives, while respecting and allowing others to be distinct and separate from us. We can give to others.
Porous Boundaries
Being connected but not protected.
Over-receiving: We absorb and allow in what is not ours. We lose our sense of self.
Over-giving: We intrude onto others, inserting our thoughts, feelings, opinions, perspectives or sense of self into them.
Rigid Boundaries
Being protected but not connected.
Under-receiving: We block out the input and love of others.
Under-giving: We restrain ourselves from expressing or giving to others.
TABLE 2.1: Healthy, porous and rigid boundaries, adapted from Loving Bravely by Alexandra H. Solomon.
Porous Boundaries
According to Solomon, when our boundaries are porous on the input, we are absorbing, and when they are too porous on the output we are intruding. When our boundaries are porous from the outside in, we are being too wide open. We let other people’s thoughts, opinions, preferences and judgments eclipse our own inclinations, wisdom or better knowledge. Absorbing is when we take in what is not ours, when we lack enough self-definition that we leave ourselves underprotected while being over-connected. When our boundaries are porous from the inside out, we become intrusive to others, trying to inhabit their skin or meddling too much in their business. We are intruding when we give unsought advice or tell people what they should or shouldn’t do in the name of helping them. Usually the help we’re offering was either unsolicited or not a match to what the other person actually needs. Intruding also includes crossing or ignoring other people’s boundaries, especially when those lines have been articulated. In both cases of porous boundaries, we may find ourselves feeling overly responsible for others, either absorbing or intruding in order to fix, accommodate, people please or overcompensate.
Rigid Boundaries
Rigid boundaries are a sign that we are overfocused on protection without allowing sufficient connection. When our boundaries are rigid on the input, we are blocking and when they are too rigid on the output we are restraining. When our boundaries are rigid from the inside out we are obstructing input from others, whether that is their love, attention, feedback or requests. When blocking, we are guarding what comes in and disallowing the influence of others, usually from fear of being hurt or attacked. When blocking, we can come off as prickly, abrupt, edgy, defensive, frozen or withdrawn. When our boundaries are rigid from the inside out we restrain ourselves from expressing what is true for us internally. We restrain our feelings (positive or negative), thoughts, preferences, requests and even the affection we have for others. Restraining is usually the result of feeling unsafe in expressing ourselves, so we instead hold back and hold in to try to stay protected at the expense of being connected. In either version of rigid boundaries, we are holding tight to our emotional armor, restricting the flow of love and expression coming in or out.
Questions to Consider
How do you find yourself over-giving in relationships? What beliefs about yourself play into this? What beliefs about others play into this?
How do you find yourself under-giving in relationships? What beliefs about yourself play into this? What beliefs about others play into this?
In what ways do you find yourself over-receiving or over-taking in relationships? What beliefs about yourself or about others play into this?
In what ways do you find yourself under-receiving in relationships? What beliefs about yourself or about others play into this?
In what ways do you experience your boundaries as porous, whether by being absorbing, being intrusive or both?
In what ways do you experience your boundaries as rigid, whether by blocking, restraining or both?
Do you need to focus more on tightening up your boundaries and protection of yourself, whether on the input or output? How can you do this?
Do you need to focus more on softening the rigidity of your boundaries and allowing more connection, whether on the input or output? How can you do this?
&n
bsp; CHAPTER THREE
THE NESTED MODEL OF ATTACHMENT AND TRAUMA
SO FAR, WE HAVE COVERED the different attachment styles and looked at how these relate to the different dimensions of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety, as well as the horizontal dimension of autonomy and connection. In this next chapter I offer an additional perspective to our discussion of attachment in an attempt to diversify the levels or dimensions at which we consider and contemplate our attachment experiences. This will support our discussion of attachment and nonmonogamy in Part Two. It is difficult to talk about attachment without talking about trauma and so before I present on these different levels, a definition of trauma is also needed.
The word trauma comes from the Greek word “wound,” which was initially used to refer to physical injuries. The definition has since expanded to further encompass psychological and spiritual wounds as well. In many ways, the lasting psychological impact of trauma has become much more central to the study and treatment of trauma than the physical, since mental and emotional symptoms can persist long after the physical body has healed and many traumas occur without the body even being touched.
Trauma can result from a single event, a series of events or multiple sets of circumstances that cause physical, emotional, psychological or spiritual harm. Single-incident traumas include one-off events such as robberies, assaults, accidents or natural disasters. Complex and relational trauma are terms used to describe the experience of multiple traumatic events that are ongoing, such as abuse or neglect, and that are interpersonal in nature. Traumatic events and experiences can be especially impactful in the earlier years of life. A distressing event at a young age can potentially negatively impact brain development, and if it is perpetrated by an attachment figure, it can be particularly harmful. Our fundamental sense of self and sense of safety in the world can be painfully called into question when the ones we are dependent on either can’t keep us safe or are the ones we need protection from.
Traumas are the events and situations that overwhelm us, leaving us feeling out of control, helpless and alone. Not everyone experiences trauma the same way, and not everyone who goes through the same events will necessarily be traumatized. Trauma occurs on a continuum of stress, and the difference between a traumatic experience versus a bad or stressful experience is the impact on our body’s ability to recover. When something stressful occurs, our bodies are wired to release an entire cocktail of chemicals into our bloodstream to activate the sympathetic nervous system’s fight/flight/freeze/appease defense response. This is meant to be a short-term strategy to keep us alive. Once the event is over, our bodies are supposed to return to a state of parasympathetic nervous system balance, where we can function as usual in a calm and clear-minded way. But bigger traumatic events can activate our natural stress response to such a degree that our nervous system is overwhelmed and dysregulated to the point that this chemical cocktail is unable to be processed and we are left unable to fully recover. This can have a lasting effect on the nervous system, and when left untreated, trauma can interfere with our ability to inhabit our bodies, exhibit mental flexibility, function in everyday ways, learn, grow, love and securely attach. Left unresolved, trauma can cause us to experience ongoing adverse effects on our physical, psychological, social, occupational and spiritual well-being.
However, enormous stressors or big overwhelming events are not the only ways that a person’s nervous system can be activated and overwhelmed to the point of experiencing trauma. We can also experience smaller but ongoing stressful events that have a cumulative harmful effect. Instead of getting a single massive blast of the survival cocktail into our bloodstream when we experience a car accident, a natural disaster or a physical assault, we can get little blasts throughout the day from experiences like demanding work environments, relationship tension, health issues, life transitions, traffic jams, parenting, etc. Our bodies need time to metabolize the chemical cocktail released from stress and when we are in a chronic state of stress—whether big or small, physical, emotional, psychological, environmental or existential—we can get pushed over the edge into a state of sympathetic nervous system dominance. This means that the survival response that was meant to be temporary has now become constant. The threat that we experience does not even need to be real, but the repeated perception of a threat, day after day, can push our nervous system into a traumatized state. When this happens, we are living in survival mode, stuck is sympathetic dominance and unable to access our ability to recover and thrive.
Some trauma experts have begun to further simplify the definition of trauma, framing it as the experience of broken connection. From an attachment perspective this makes sense, since broken connection with an attachment figure could mean death to an infant or young child and so being disconnected from our attachment figures can be in and of itself traumatic. But the trauma of broken connection also occurs through the massive disconnection that someone has with their self and another when enacting interpersonal harm.
Attachment is related to this, since having a history of secure attachment acts as a protective buffer against trauma. Research shows that in the aftermath of trauma, people who are well-connected with others are more likely to recover faster and less likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Conversely, people with a disorganized attachment history are more likely to develop PTSD after traumatic experiences. Seeing trauma as a result of broken connection also makes it difficult to tease trauma and attachment apart from each other, since the absence of safe nurturing relationships can lead to trauma, and having safe and nurturing relationships can serve as a shield in the face of other traumas. As you will see in the nested model of attachment and trauma, trauma and attachment wounds are not just an individual or relational experience. They also stem from the world we are in, where injustice and power imbalances still exist, and where generations of cultural and collective traumas have been unaddressed, all shaping and informing our experiences.
The Nested Model of Attachment and Trauma
Attachment unfolds over multiple levels of the human experience. When referring to different levels of experience, I am pointing to the different dimensions or aspects of our human experience: self, relationships, home, local communities and culture, societal, and the global or collective. These different levels may seem separate and different from one another, yet they are all interconnected, with each level acting as an important ingredient to our experience and informing any given moment, as well as the decisions we make.
To offer a simple example, if I am looking to buy a new car, there are several different facets or levels of my life that can influence my decision. At the self level, I might think about which car most appeals to me based on my individual preferences, likes, dislikes, needs and what I can afford. If I expand beyond my personal perspective to the relational level, I will consider which car would be best for my family, including my son’s needs. Additionally, the cultural level informs what kind of car I would consider purchasing based on how I do or do not want to be perceived by others. The range of cars I have access to in the US falls under the societal level, and considerations such as electric versus gas come under the global or collective level. In discussion of the nested model of attachment and trauma, I will refer to the different facets, dimensions or perspectives of our lives that coalesce into the whole of our experience, even if we’re unaware of them.
The current literature on attachment predominantly focuses on the self and relationship levels. That is, on identifying our individual attachment styles and considering them in connection to our relationship experiences. Concentrating on just these two levels of experience is perfectly understandable since our relational level experiences of having our attachment needs met or not shape how the self is formed and developed. Subsequently, the attachment style that arises at the self level feeds back into the relational level, informing how we show up within our relationships. In many ways, we can see attachment as a nice feedback loop in w
hich relationships shape the individual and individuals then shape their relationships, with relationships further re-shaping the individual and so on repeatedly.
We could easily keep the discussion limited to these two levels, but there are additional facets to our experience of attachment and trauma that are important to explore. The levels of home, culture, society and the collective all factor into how safe and secure we feel in the world, with others and within ourselves. If we fail to include these levels in our understanding of attachment and trauma, we run the risk of either reducing experiences that impact attachment to the self or relationship levels when they are actually occurring at another level, or we run the risk of missing these factors altogether. For example, consider poverty, gender expectations or institutionalized birth practices, and how each of these may impact attachment and trauma. Since all of the levels of experience are not actually separate from one another—each level interacts with and influences the others—I have chosen to present them as nested.