In her column of 9/13/09, a
letter writer asked Dear Abby: “At what point does a parent stop giving
unsolicited advice? It is painful to watch my "child" repeatedly make
choices that aren't in her best interest.” The writer's daughter was 43.
After describing some
self-destructive behavior by her daughter, the writer added, “Although I am
trying to keep my mouth shut, she tells me she "feels" my
disapproval… Must I duct tape my mouth shut?
The
relationship between parents and adult children is by its very nature a bit of
a mine field. In order to rear their children properly, parents have to
discipline them. Parents have to tell children what to do, what not to do, and
how to behave in various social situations. Parents have to find ways to make
their children follow these parental directives. Good parents continually set limits with
their children.
The
difficulty is, when is this supposed to stop?
Does the
child suddenly become capable of making his own enlightened choices by virtue
of having lived eighteen years? Should parents ignore the wisdom of their added
years and never advise their adult children about anything? If the parents do
persist in giving counsel, how upset are they going to be if the child chooses
not to follow their sage advice? If a parent suggests a course of action over a
particular issue, will the adult children feel infantilized?
Even with
peers who are not relatives, the issue of when and when not to give advice can get to be problematic. In Eric Berne’s
psychotherapy model, transactional analysis, he shows how asking for and giving advice can become a “game.” On the surface, two people may seem to be
engaged in an “adult to adult” conversation, but the subtext may be entirely different. One member of the dyad may be acting like,
say, a helpless yet petulant child trying to frustrate the other member, who
may be acting out the role of an exasperated parent who thinks he or she knows what is best for the other person.
A game people play |
When the two
parties actually are parent and
child, the question of whether or not there is a hidden agenda being acted out
becomes that much more complicated. The
parents may claim that they are “just expressing their opinion,” while the adult children feel like they are being told
what to do as if they had no valid opinions on the subject themselves. Is the parent’s advice merely an opinion, or is it a directive (a command
telling the child how to behave)?
Unless
parents and adult children are adept at metacommunicating about this issue
(talking about the way they talk to one another), tension is bound to develop.
This
situation becomes compounded exponentially in those situations where the
parents themselves are highly
conflicted about the advice they give.
They may be unsure of and unhappy with their own choices in life, but
cannot admit that even to themselves - let alone to their adult children.
In such a
case, two events frequently transpire: the parents bring up the issue involved
rather often — because they are themselves preoccupied with it — and they give out a
double message. The offspring often
interpret the advice to mean “Do it because I did,” but almost simultaneously, the
way the advice is given may also have elements suggestive of “I hope you don’t
have to do what I did and become miserable like me.” Whenever this chain of events
takes place, a question about the motivation behind the parental advice giving is
invariably created for the child.
The child
must choose between two possible presuppositions. As mentioned, either the
advice is meant as a directive or is merely the parent's opinion about a
controversial issue. The frequency of the advice giving will most usually
indicate to the child that how he or she behaves is a matter of grave concern
to the parent. Therefore, the younger family member will presuppose that the
parent's statements about the issue are directives or instructions.
But which part of the double message should the children heed? In situations
where the advice is given ambivalently or is part of a double message, they
will then make an effort to determine, using principles of ordering
environmental cues that I describe in my book, Deciphering Motivation in Psychotherapy, which side of the double
message to follow.
Consider the
example from that book of a woman I will call Trudy and her mother. Trudy was
having all kinds of anxiety symptoms over making a decision to really commit to
her boyfriend. Her mother had said on
numerous occasions that "marriage is a mixed blessing: one has to take the
bitter with the sweet."
One could
interpret this as sage advice on the wisdom of not expecting perfection and
retaining one's equanimity in the face of unavoidable adversity. Nothing in the
lexical content of the statement indicates that Trudy's mother was commanding
her to behave in any particular fashion or make any particular choices
regarding marriage or spouse selection. The statement can be viewed as an
expression of the mother's opinions about life and as good advice - nothing
more.
On the other
hand, the fact that the mother seemed compelled to drive this point home by
repeating it over and over again suggested otherwise. The statement began to
sound like a warning: "You'd better watch out! If you get married, you'd
better be prepared for all the bitter you're going to get along with any sweet!"
Every time the mother would talk about the good points of relationships, she
seemed to be throwing in a warning about it.
Not only
that, but her frequent repetitions indicated to the daughter that the mother
was very concerned about whether the message had been heard loud and clear by
Trudy. Perhaps she was worried that Trudy had not understood it the first
twenty times it was said.
Naturally,
Trudy began to worry about the consequences of getting involved with men. She
became concerned not only that she might be in for a rough time, but also, for
some reason, that her mother might become very upset about it. What Trudy did
not realize was that the mother's repetitions indicated that she was trying to
convince herself, not Trudy. In any event, the motivation presupposed by the
mother's statement was in question, and the patient had been forced to guess
what was correct. A good therapist would be alert to the possibility that Trudy
may have guessed wrong.
Dr. Allen,
ReplyDelete"What Trudy did not realize was that the mother's repetitions indicated that she was trying to convince herself, not Trudy."
I have found that the motivation you cite is operating in about 90% of the advice I receive, which makes it dicey to ask advice in any circumstance. And the people who offer it unsolicited? Forget it. That is a 100% ego trip for them. Thanks for the post (and I bought "Dysfunctional Families" after reading your Psych Today posts, so, again, thanks).
What's your opinion of Dick Schwartz's Internal Family Systems, since it seems related to your ideas about family-of-origin mechanisms? Do you feel "Self-to-Self" rapport is meaningful, and have you experienced anything akin to it?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Hi Anonymous,
DeleteThanks for writing, but I'm not familiar with that model enough to answer your question.