A/N: I found this piece waiting in my drafts from April 2023. I touched it up a bit, but the events which inspired this original piece are now over 1 year old (though I left the recent-past tense in the piece). I may revisit this concept with a reflection piece, as I still see how these general thoughts I had are still so true and relevant to how I experience my current relational landscape, which is much different than the one illustrated below.
Enjoy the read!
Today I realized something important. No matter what partner, my anxieties around deception and abandonment show up at some point. I know these reactions are informed by my trauma history, and while I’ve come a long way in processing these feelings and experiences, there are moments where they still affect me very strongly. I can’t tell if this will ever fully dissipate, but something I noticed is that there are some relationships where this part of myself becomes a source of stress and disconnection, and others where it’s a non-issue and is worked through as quickly as it arises.
I began to wonder, why is this such a big issue with some partners and not with others? I concluded it came down to the dynamic within each individual relationship, and how all parties interact with each other in that space. In writing this article, I came to understand that it is more complicated than simply ‘chemistry.’ Communication compatibility, the structures placed within a relationship, the trauma histories, and how all parties respond to the each other all inform how the trauma-brain parts of myself interface in relationships and what happens when activation occurs.
To understand my experiences better, I decided to examine this recent series of moments from the relational-cultural counseling theory.
Relational-cultural Theory
Relational-cultural theory (RCT) believes that our experiences and identities are shaped by our relationships. Healing occurs when healthy, secure relationships are built, and trauma accumulates when we isolate ourselves from authentic connections. Authenticity is cultivated through affirming experiences in relationships. When we are not accepted in our relationships, we hide our authentic selves.
I recently made the choice to dissolve a cohabiting, core partnership in favor of developing a new structure with this beloved. In rewriting our relationship intentions and readjusting our landscapes to incorporate new partners, I felt my trauma surface in the face of changing dynamics and priorities. When I’ve shared my insecurities in the past, it led to communication breakdown, stress, and distance. Over time, this caused me to feel like there was something wrong with me, and I began to hide parts of my authentic self to maintain peace in our dynamic.
There is a concept in RCT called the central relational paradox which states that chronic disconnection can lead to condemned isolation, or a sense that one isn’t worthy of human connection (Duffey & Somody, 2011). Although people desire authentic connection, trauma causes folks to develop protective habits that further ensure isolation. I did this in my cohabiting relationship by hiding my authentic feelings and withdrawing.
This part of my recent relational history is why I have struggled so much in the last year to write these articles. Finding authentic words felt impossible because I wasn’t embodying them. It is also why I felt a deep sense of dread when my trauma responses began to emerge in a new dynamic.
Response Art: Being Held by My Team (2024)
RCT is a perspective which takes the focus off the individual and puts experiences and behaviors into a broader social context. Reflecting on my recent experiences from this lens, I see why when I shared my feelings with this newer partner, they responded in a way where I felt accepted. I didn’t feel like I was ‘wrong,’ or that my feelings were shameful, and they dissipated as instantly as they arose. Nuances in communication styles and trauma histories made all the difference when engaging in the same conversation with two different partners.
Healing occurs through growth-fostering relationships. Some characteristics of a growth-fostering relationship are:
· Mutuality
· Prioritizing each other’s growth and the relationship
· Authentic communication
· Radical acceptance
· Expansion of thought, feeling, and understanding
Along with complicated trauma histories, there were power differentials in my previous relationship which impeded our ability to achieve mutuality. In my experience, without this sense of mutuality it is impossible to step into a space of expansion, radical acceptance, and authentic communication. This served as a detriment in the vulnerable moments. The effect of these power differentials became apparent after we re-configured our relationship structure and were able to establish mutuality.
Using Relationship Anarchy & ENM to Heal Relational Trauma
We heal through being engaged in authentic relationships. We can build structures to foster these kinds of dynamics by fostering relational resilience, which includes the following shifts:
· Individual ‘control over’ —> supported vulnerability
· One-directional needs for support —> mutual empathetic involvement
· Separate self-esteem —> relational confidence
· ‘Power over’ dynamics —> empowerment through encouragement of mutual growth & constructive conflict
· Finding meaning in self-centered/self-consciousness —> creating meaning in expansive relational awareness (Duffey & Somody, 2011)
I began my journey into ENM and RA with intentions to heal relational trauma from my upbringing and early adult life. By cultivating a lifestyle where my relationship structures are based on intentional, mutual agreements which are subject to change, I have developed a foundation of relational healing to lean on in hard times. The struggles I faced over the last year in my cohabiting relationship stemmed from being unable to fully embody these values in that relationship. When we deconstructed and reconstructed our relationship, we were able to move toward relational resilience practices with each other and maintain a deep closeness in our new relationship.
The relationship with my new beloved has the benefit of the wisdom and experience I gained from my last experience. By weaving in agreements to mitigate the same power differentials that occurred, we are setting a structure that very intentionally fosters mutuality. From this mutuality, we work toward healing each other through compersion and inviting authentic communication. Having similar neurodivergence and communication styles make building and maintaining these structures easier.
I notice this growth-fostering relationship creates a feedback loop in my other relationships. With increased relational confidence built from experiences of security and acceptance, I can interface with other beloveds in a way that embodies radical transparency, radical acceptance, and from a community-based mindset.
My trauma responses still show up in both dynamics from time-to-time, and I imagine they will continue to do so as I heal, but the level to which they are enflamed or diminished, and the impact they have on myself and my connections vary based on the connection and structures in place. There is only so much that ‘compatibility’ can do for a dynamic, and we are all accountable to ourselves to meet others in our lives in a space to co-create growth-fostering relationships.
—Emily Lichtenberg
resources
Duffey, T., & Somody, C. (2011). The role of relational-cultural theory in mental health counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 33(3), 223-242.
Relational-Cultural Theory: Fostering Healthy Coexistence Through a Relational Lens
APA: Relational Cultural Therapy Sample
A Relational-Cultural Framework: Emphasizing Relational Dynamics and Multicultural Skill Development (NBCC)