So how can the cycle be broken? Is 'no contact' the only way (or even a legitimate way) to respond?

Is there a better way to respond to avoidance, banishment and excommunication?

The answer is to look at the abuse trauma experience in a completely new and different way. 

This means seeing the trauma as a layered phenomenon, rather than simply as a 'stage by stage' process.

'Layers' of Trauma

Experiencing avoidant abuse can be a complex and continuous traumatic experience. Without disengagement, its effects can build up over time - making it uniquely challenging to work through. Effective support for recipients thus -  rather than focusing directly or solely on just one isolated event or one aspect of the trauma - needs to include a more holistic approach which can address the entirety of their traumatic experience.

Here, we take up a unique, ‘integrated’ approach which is particularly suited to the peculiar nature of avoidant abuse trauma. By viewing the recipient’s experience as a 'layered' trauma, it becomes possible to address  and work through each 'layer' sequentially, as part of a holistic process to help recipients reach resolution. As per this view, avoidant abuse trauma can be considered to consist of the following main 'layers' :

Outer Layer : Denial

Secondary Layer : Re-traumatisation

Primary Layer : Abuse Trauma

The Nucleus : Core Grief

 
The Outer Layer : Denial
The first ‘layer’ that we come across lies at the outermost level, almost acting like a ‘façade’. This layer is usually characterized by an attitude of ‘denial’ which can often be expressed in the form of pretending not to care, acting at being 'over it' - when the problem situation is not yet resolved, nor has true disengagement occurred. This attitude can consist of a basic avoidance response to deal with a complex trauma experience which can seem just too painful and confusing to ever be truly 'healed'.
With the abuse ‘covered up’ and denied, there can be considerable resistance to even begin to 'open up' and address the trauma in its entirety. Breaking through this barrier of resistance thus becomes a primary step for many recipients.
 
The Secondary Layer : Re-victimization and Re-traumatisation
One level 'below' the layer of 'denial', lies the layer of ‘re-traumatisation’. This can largely be made up of ongoing experiences of invalidation of the recipient's trauma, the non-recognition, denial and dismissal of the abuse (whether by the abuser, or by others turned to for support and understanding), as well as due to doubtful or false justifications which can excuse or legitimize the abuse behaviour.  Vulnerable recipients often adopt questionable and even harmful beliefs (and habits) as a result of unawareness and a profusion of inappropriate 'advice'. This is the 'layer' in which 'triggers' can be embedded.
In addressing re-traumatisation, it becomes crucial to challenge and question many prevalent ideas and beliefs relating to relationships, abuse, and relationship dissolutions - which may be totally inappropriate in the context of avoidant abuse.
 
The Primary Layer : Abuse Trauma
Abuse trauma is the most complex 'layer', which can be challenging to work through as it can consist of multiple trauma experiences which occur not only as a response to abuse strategies which attack, but also those which re-attack the target, making it a continuous trauma and not a once off experience. For example, simple absence such as cutoff, ghosting or banishment can cause the primary trauma. Strategies which follow as a result of baiting tactics - such as social abuse campaigns and excommunication - can cause more complex trauma. In addition, the effects of psychological manipulation can make the comprehension of events even more obscure for the recipient, who may be falsely accused, and yet unable to realise they were baited and provoked, or unable to perceive the falseness of the allegations.
In addition to the abuse strategies, the recipient may also need to deal with the realisation and acceptance of the fact that a significant, loved and trusted individual has chosen to enact the abuse - and this realisation can include feelings of betrayal and disappointment. The views and opinions of the abusive individual - which can often include unjustified hatred, evil intent, disvalue and disrespect - can also be difficult to accept or even to comprehend. 
 
The Nucleus : Core Grief At the heart of the 'layers' exists what can be described as the 'core' grief. It can be the fundamental, ‘pure’ grief which is not necessarily connected with the abuse. It could be related to the ending of a significant relationship or of a phase of one's life, the loss of love or happiness, the loss of a valued individual from one's life or of a possible life or future that could have been.

 
Addressing the 'Layers'
 
It is not just the complexity of avoidant abuse trauma which is underestimated - its very nature can frequently be misunderstood. To understand the reason for this, we need to revisit a crucial point that was mentioned earlier about the harmful nature of avoidance - that is, that avoidant behaviour in itself is so destructive in nature, that its practice almost always results in the disintegration of relationships. What this means is that avoidant abuse is almost always experienced by recipients in conjunction with relationship dissolution.
 
Avoidant abuse is almost always experienced by recipients in conjunction with relationship dissolution
 
The fundamental difference however, between a relationship separation marred by avoidant abuse, and one which is not abusive (as well as different from bereavement), is that abuse includes the conscious decision by the significant other, to engage in behaviour which is intended to harm and cause suffering to the recipient. It is this feature which results in two simultaneous experiences - one, the 'core' grief - arising mainly as a result of the relationship dissolution, and the other, the abuse trauma - which occurs as a result of the enactment of behaviour intended to cause harm.

As this distinction is often not recognised, a common mistake many make is to automatically assume that the suffering of the recipient occurs only due to the grief of the dissolution - or the 'core' grief - without realising that it largely arises as a response to abuse.
Unawareness regarding avoidant abuse can lead to recipients addressing (and being advised on) only their grief response and not the abuse trauma - when both actually occur in conjunction. As a result of this amalgamation, both the grief and the trauma can be perceived by recipients as one 'combined' experience. Often, recipients who feel as if they are unable to 'move on' can mistakenly interpret it as 'attachment' or 'heartbreak' grief or trauma over 'rejection' - without recognising that it may largely be occurring as a response to abuse.

On the flip side, many online amateur 'narcissistic abuse' forums see the trauma as arising ONLY from the abuse, and call it 'trauma bonding' due to intermittent reinforcement. While there is some truth to this, it is not the whole story. In terms of CBT based and family systems therapy, the cognitive dissonance can be seen to arise due to the inability to reconcile the two contrasting aspects of the abuser - the good 'lovable' aspect, and the 'cruel abusive' aspect. It is this inability which causes the cognitive dissonance, leading to 'emotional fusion' an unhealthy attachment) which is popularly referred to as 'trauma bonding'. This emotional fusion can be overcome by developing resilience. Further on we will see the specific ways in which emotional resilience is built so that emotional fusion (or trauma bonding) is weakened.

 
For many, what can be most challenging upon recognising the abusive behaviour, is to then be able to differentiate the abuse trauma from the 'core' grief. If these two are not clearly distinguished, they can feel as one insurmountable confusing heap of 'emotional baggage' which never fully seems to resolve. A crucial step for avoidant abuse recipients is thus to be able to differentiate the abuse trauma from the 'core' grief

"GOOD PAIN AND BAD PAIN"

 
A basic difference between 'core' grief and abuse trauma can be seen to lie in their fundamental nature. In simple terms, the former can be identified as a 'good' pain, while abuse trauma can be considered to be a 'bad' pain. 'Core' grief is largely a 'blameless' grief - it is a grief that is no one's 'fault', which would have existed upon the dissolution of the relationship even if the abuse had not taken place. It is very different from the trauma arising from abuse which is generally deliberate and pre-planned in nature.

'Core' grief can largely be related to the 'losses' of the 'good' things - and in this sense it can be seen as an experience which - while painful - can still be considered 'benign' in nature - one which consists of realisations that need to be acknowledged authentically and not resisted. Abuse trauma on the other hand, is a largely an unnecessary pain. It can be considered a 'bad' pain which does not 'help', but which can hinder disengagement and extend the grief processing. The 'core' grief can - if dealt with directly - offer closure naturally - akin to the idea that ‘the only way through grief is through it’. But abuse trauma can 'block' this process and prevent disengagement and resolution.

When a relationship dissolution is accompanied with abuse, what recipients can be most distressed by, are not the 'losses' (of the person or relationship) of the 'core' grief - but rather the manner in which things were conducted. No matter how much an individual or previous relationship is desired or missed, respectful and compassionate conduct during separation can enable one to bear the pain of loss. Secrecy, deceit and abuse on the other hand, can diminish one's innate resilience which can make the experience of separation far more traumatic and painful than it needs to be, because the psychological mechanisms which can help to bear the transition, can be 'wounded'.
 
This difference between 'good pain' and 'bad pain' is also reflected in the difference between the pain of knowing versus the pain of not knowing. The pain of knowing truths - even difficult truths - is usually a 'good' pain which can lead to clarity, resolution and even evolution. The pain of 'not knowing' however, can act as a terrible wound which can fester for years without respite.
 
A core weakness of habitual 'avoiders' is their refusal or inability to distinguish between 'good' pain and 'bad' pain

There is thus a fundamental difference between the kind of pain which while being bitter, can be 'medicinal' and heal, and that which can be toxic and 'eat away' at a 'wound'. The pain of ‘not knowing’ is almost always a worse pain than the pain of ‘knowing’ - which while unpleasant initially can ultimately lead to improving the situation. A core weakness of many who habitually employ avoidant tactics⁴⁰ and keep secrets to avoid the 'discomfort' of authenticity and transparency, is the refusal or inability to distinguish between 'good' pain and 'bad' pain. When the unnecessary and toxic pain of secrets, lies, denial and silence become a habit, growth and evolution - whether in a relationship context or as an individual - remains stagnant.

It is not just the combination of core grief and abuse trauma which makes avoidant abuse trauma particularly complex. In addition to these two, re-traumatisation too, can be combined with abuse trauma in the perception of the recipient. As we know, re-traumatisation can occur as a result of being subjected to inappropriate or unsuitable 'advice', or being the subject of mistaken assumptions which can occur during efforts made by the recipient to improve their situation following the abuse. As a result, experiences of re-traumatisation are generally encountered prior to (or in place of) finding suitable and effective support. This 'layer' hence ends up adding to the complexity of the entire trauma experience, and can result in a longer and more complicated recovery process. It thus needs to be recognised, addressed and worked on before moving on to the primary or 'core' grief or even the abuse trauma.

On top of all these, there can exist the most superficial 'layer' of denial which can arise as a result of avoidance coping. This is often exacerbated by methods applied wrongly such as going 'no contact' in response to the abuser. The result? ongoing trauma damage, poorer functioning in subsequent relationships, repeated patterns of attracting abusive partners, and more.

Breaking through this 'barrier' can be the initial challenge - especially when recipients are not yet ready to acknowledge or address their trauma and grief. In some cases, when years have gone by since the start of the abuse, substantial work may need to be done in order to re-frame thinking and processing patterns before one can even start to move on to the re-traumatisation, abuse trauma and 'core' grief.
 
Further ahead we will look at the process of working through these 'layers' of trauma with better, more effective approaches, which can include 'exposure', 'accountability' and acknowledgement of the ‘truth’, while focusing on formulating a response to the abuse in a way which honours oneself and one's own experience. We will look at different ways in which recipients can learn to respond more effectively to avoidant abuse strategies, as well as learn to function more optimally after experiencing abuse trauma. We will see how the taking up of various steps can contribute towards true healing and enable recipients to move forward more enriched and empowered than before.

 
 (book excerpt)
 
 

© 2015 Avoidant Abuse - The Abuse Technique of the New Age

 

ISBN 978-0-9942430-4-1

 

www.avoidantabuse.com

 

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Heavey, C. L., Christensen, A., & Malamuth, N. M. (1995). The longitudinal impact of demand and withdrawal during marital conflict. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 797–801.

Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L. & Miller, S. D. (1999). The Heart & Soul of Change: What Works in Therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mayer, B. S. (2015). The Conflict Paradox: Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &Sons.

McCraken, J. (2005). Falsely, Sanely, Shallowly: Reflections on the Special Character of grief, International Journal of Applied Philosphy 19(1), 139-156.

Rosenberg, R. (2013). The Human Magnet Syndrome: Why We Love People Who Hurt Us. Eau claire, WI: PESI Pub. & Media.

Sanderson, C. (2008). Counselling Survivors of Domestic Abuse. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Stroebe, M. S., Hansson, R. O., Schut, H. E., Stroebe, W. E., & Van den Blink, E. I. (2008). Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory and intervention. American Psychological Association.

Titelman, P. (2003). Emotional Cutoff: Bowen Family Systems Theory Perspectives. New York: Haworth Clinical Practice.

Vaughan, D. (1986). Uncoupling: Turning Points in Intimate Relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.

Visser, F. (2003). Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion. Albany, NY: State U of New York.