Pages

Showing posts with label savior role. Show all posts
Showing posts with label savior role. Show all posts

Friday, February 11, 2011

Dysfunctional Family Roles Part II: The Best of the Rest

As promised in my last post, here is a rundown of dysfunctional family systems roles other than the previously described spoiler.



1. The savior: In this scenario, a parent has suppressed his or her ambition to excel at some endeavor in order to satisfy cultural mandates, leading the child to act out the parent's forbidden ambition. The savior role often leads to chronic depression in the patient playing the role. For example, a woman from a traditional culture who has been exposed to female professionals in the United States might secretly wish to become a doctor. She can admit such a wish to neither herself nor anyone else, for fear of being disowned by her traditional relatives who expect her to be nothing more than a wife and mother.

Because parents often live vicariously through identification with their children, the woman might push her son or possibly even a daughter to become a doctor. This child becomes the parent’s savior. Whether the mother’s “stage mother” behavior initially produces a conflict in the child depends on whether or not that child had a natural inclination to become a doctor. However, even if the child were so inclined, a conflict will develop as the child gets closer to the goal. If the son or daughter succeeds in getting through medical school, the mother may, for example, become depressed.

The reason that the mother becomes depressed is that the child’s success reminds her that she herself was not able to do what she had really wanted to do all along. When she reacts negatively to the child, she is in reality covertly thinking about her own disappointment. From the perspective of the child, however, it can easily look as if the mother never really wanted him or her to become a doctor in the first place. The child becomes depressed because success becomes equated with a sense of helplessness and futility over keeping the parent stable.



2. The avenger: The avenger acts out a parent’s forbidden anger and hostility. This often leads the avenger to develop antisocial traits. For example, a father who is angry at his own employer but who was expected by his own Depression-era parents to keep his nose to the grindstone may react with not-so-hidden glee when his son creates havoc for the son's boss at the son’s place of employment. If the son keeps it up, however, father then feels obligated to be critical, for two reasons. First, he was taught that such flagrant self-expression is wrong in employment contexts. Second, he really does not want to see his son lose his job.



3. The defective: This role often leads to somatization or chronic psychological impairment. It is often seen in families with traditional gender role conflicts. The parents may or may not be conflicted over the role of parent per se, but feel useless when they are no longer needed in their capacity as traditional family caretakers. Children of course grow up, and the empty nest approaches. During this period, the parents may have fantasies about being free from family obligations and indulging in their more individualistic tendencies. Unfortunately, they feel useless and vaguely guilty if they do indulge them.

The child of such parents fears becoming independent for fear the parents might develop a pathological empty nest syndrome. He or she responds by failing to become self-sufficient. So that the parents do not blame themselves for the child’s lack of independence, or feel as though they had been inadequate parents, the child blames this inability to take care of himself or herself on some physical or psychological disorder.

The actual disorder may or may not be present, and if present, may or may not be exaggerated. Often it is unclear whether or not the child is purposely exaggerating his or her apparent disability. This way, depending on whether the parent is feeling guilty or angry at a given time, the child can assuage one polarity and feed into the other. He or she attempts to regulate exactly how much of each their parents’ are experiencing, in order to provide maximum stability.

Diseases that were traditionally thought to be "psychosomatic" are usually the ones used by a defective in need of a physical impairment.  That is because they can be easily faked.  One can wheeze even when one is not having an asthma attack, or have a pseudo-seizure when not having a real seizure.



4. The go-between: In this situation, the child is triangulated into a conflictual parental marriage. One or both parents may use the child as a confidant to complain about the other parent. Sometimes the parent may even subconsicously induce the child to act as a sort of surrogate spouse - providing to that parent what the real spouse is not providing.  In the latter scenario, if the parent-child relationship has any sexual overtones, the child may exhibit histrionic traits. Sometimes, adult go-betweens are “on call” to settle marital disputes. Mother might come over and say to a grown daughter, “Go tell your father to do such and such; he won’t do it if I ask him but he will for you.” If the daughter complies, the mother may become jealous of her child’s relationship with the father.



5. Little man: This scenario is a variant of the savior role that leads to narcissistic issues. It is usually seen in males but may occur in a slightly different form with females. Gender role conflicts once again are the main culprit. In this situation, a woman who may have been taught as a child to be dependent on men and defer to men for most major decisions marries a man who is inadequate in some way. She may describe him as “never there for me.” He may be a poor provider due to a general unwillingness to work hard or may even desert the family altogether.

The woman then turns to her son to take care of her in all the ways his father did not. However, the son fails in this role for two reasons. One, he may be too young and simply lack the capabilities to look after her; he probably needs his mother to take care of him. Second, the mother resents his attempts at looking after her and subverts them. The reason for this is that she really is not - nor does she really want to be - as dependent as she may appear to be. The more the son tries to meet her needs, the more the mother emasculates him.

A male with narcissistic personality disorder may marry a female with BPD. Such a union is a common couple type seen in marital therapy and is an excellent example of a marital quid pro quo.  The female with BPD is almost a prototype of a woman who seems to be in dire need of someone who will take care of her, but who spoils any attempt by anyone to do so. The relationship of the narcissistic male with his mother is thusly re-created in an even more extreme form within the marital relationship.



6. Monster. These people become seemingly horrific people within the family through such reprehensible behavior as severe child abuse. Everyone loves to hate these people. They may even brag about their misdeeds so that other people are fooled into thinking they are actually proud of them and therefore hate them all the more. This role can serve various purposes, such as to take the heat off parents who were themselves playing the monster role.

The monster is in effect saying, “It was OK that you abused me because look how awful I am. I clearly deserved whatever it was you dished out. In fact, I even do the exact same things you did.” Such people rarely come to therapy, so I have mostly learned about this role indirectly when my patients have to deal with parents who played the role. I believe it is central in cases in which abused children become abusive parents themselves.



These are the major role types, but there are also supporting roles such as the circuit breaker, who distracts two warring family members just when their arguments are about to escalate into violence. There is also the switchboard, who relays messages between other family members who are playing the major roles and their parents when the two parties are not speaking directly to one another.

Saturday, September 11, 2010

If at First You Have Never Even Tried, Fail, Fail, Again


One of the most frequent debates I get into with patients and psychotherapy trainees alike is the true meaning of the oft heard statement, "I did not try to do (such and such) because I was afraid of failure."  This statement is made by patients and people in general all the time to explain away such decisions as not going back to school to learn a more lucrative trade or refusing to enter the dating pool.

The statement sounds to me like an excuse that is used to cover up a real reason why the person did not do something potentially beneficial.  But why do I think this?  Well, first of all, I wonder why these people are just assuming that they are going to fail when they have not even tried.  Nobody can do much of anything with a guarantee of success.  If we all demanded certitude in succeeding before attempting something new, no one would ever accomplish anything.

Second, if someone is afraid of something, that usually means they will go to great lengths to avoid that something.  If you are afraid of snakes, you try your best to avoid them.  If you are afraid of failure, that should mean that you should persistently keep trying to accomplish whatever it is until you succeed - in order to avoid the failure which you supposedly fear. 

So how exactly is not accomplishing something through sheer lack of effort at all a success? 

I know it is somewhat more discouraging if you fail at something after you have attempted to do it than if you never tried at all, but in both instances, you have failed!  And as I said, why would you presume that you were going to continue to fail?  Unless they are trying to do something that is clearly totally beyond their capability, physical capacity or talent, most people can succeed at a great many things.  A given person may have to work harder that the average Joe to achieve one or another particular goal, but if they were truly afraid of failure, they would in fact work as hard as necessary.

When  people do fail at an initial effort, they can learn from their mistakes and try again.  Instead of doing that, some people beat themselves up about the initial failure.  They tell themselves the irrational thought, well known by cognitive therapists, that just because they did not succeed the first time, they are just a miserable excuse for a human being who is bound to fail from that point in time until eternity.

If you keep telling yourself that, you will undoubted continue to fail, because you will never make the required effort.

What is even more surprising is hearing people offer the "fear of failure" excuse for not doing something a second time after they already had succeeded at it or something very similar the first time!  As a therapist, I hear this as well.  The lameness of the "fear of failure" excuse starts to become more obvious in this situation. 

I think people who use the fear of failure excuse are really afraid of success.  Failure is the end result (the net effect - see my post of August 20) of not making any effort to accomplish something.  Yet failure is what these people profess to fear.  This sounds like Orwellian doublespeak. Seeking out something that one claims to be afraid of. 

Why would people be afraid of success?  I find many patients who claim to fear failure believe that  it is their success that seems to destabilize their family of origin.  The others around them try to invalidate or make light of their efforts or even their achievements in any number of ways, appear jealous and resentful, and often accuse them of trying to be better than everyone else in the family. 

"Who the hell do you think you are, Mr. smarty pants?  You think you're so great?!  We know how you'll turn out!"  Imagine if everyone you know and love is saying things like that to you with all the vitriol they can muster.  Do you think you might be a bit intimidated?

When  people say that they fear failure, they are usually not actually lying, however.  "I am afraid of failure" is not a complete sentence.  We have to ask, failure to do what?  The failure to accomplish the ostensible task of which they speak?  That cannot be the answer to the question for the reasons I've mentioned.  The failure that they may fear is the failure to keep their family stable.  If they really try to succed at the ostensible task of which they speak, they will fail at keeping the family stable, and it is that failure that they fear.

In some cases, family invalidation of successful offspring (in the more ordinary sense of the word successful) is not nearly so extensive.   Some parents in fact push and push their children towards a specific goal like, say, becoming a physician, whether the child wishes to pursue that career or not.  However, when the child graduates from medical school, the parents appear to get depressed.  Sometimes they do not even come to the medical school graduation, and make an excuse for not coming that is oh so obviously lame. 

What I believe is happening here is that the parents are pushing their child to do what the parents always wanted to do but were not able to do - because of either family rules or external circumstances - and cannot for various reasons admit that that is what they are doing.  The parent then lives vicariously through the child.  According to psychiatrist Sam Slipp, the child in this case is playing the role of the parent's savior.

When the child is too successful, however, it reminds these parents that they did not get to do whatever it is they had been pushing their child to do.  That is usually why they get depressed, but the child has no way of knowing about this.  Often, the successful children then get depressed themselves. 

Sometimes after a child becomes what the parents really wanted to be, the parents start to send off negative messages that seem to indicate to their offspring that the offspring should back off on the achievement thing.  This, after the child gave up what he or she really wanted to do in order to be what the parent wanted! 

This betrayal is called a double bind on achievement.  The adult child living out his or her parent's dream is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position.  If they do not achieve, they are criticized, but if they do achieve, they are still criticized or made to feel bad in some other way.  Sometimes, the only way out is a bizarre compromise. Example: get the MD degree, but keep failing the licensure exam.  That way it looks to the parents like their children are doing what the parents originally wanted, but failing at it all on their own.