Healing Trauma Through Growth-Fostering Relationships
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!
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)
The Difference Between Boundaries and Rules
Something that comes up in so many discussions I have about Relationship Anarchy is boundaries, rules, and expectations. Honestly, it’s so important that it comes up in any conversation about relationships, regardless of philosophy or style! I find this is especially prevalent in non-monogamous dynamics as there tend to be more navigational requirements around these topics than for monogamous folx.
Something that comes up in so many discussions I have about Relationship Anarchy is boundaries, rules, and expectations. Honestly, it’s so important that it comes up in any conversation about relationships, regardless of philosophy or style! I find this is especially prevalent in non-monogamous dynamics as there tend to be more navigational requirements around these topics than for monogamous folx.
This week I wanted to dial in and focus on the difference between boundaries and rules. I want to share my definitions of these terms, how I differentiate them from each other, and some areas where I’ve seen these come up in my own relationships and the relationships of those around me.
Please be aware that this is just a reflection of my own experiences, and these definitions and perspectives may not be helpful for everyone. This isn’t a one-size-fits-all kind of thing!
What is a boundary?
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of a boundary is:
Noun:
Something that indicates or fixes a limit or extent.
So, what does this look like in relationships?
I like to think of boundaries as structures that help a person stay on the right path. If I am a forest and my beloved wants to explore the forest, then they would likely use a pathway. My boundaries would be the areas where the path and the forest floor meet, indicating where is and isn’t appropriate to walk.
It is also up to me to maintain clear pathways within my forest, so that others know where is and isn’t okay to walk.
De-stigmatizing the concept of boundaries
I hear people focusing on the “limit” aspect of a boundary often. I know I have at some point in my journey with boundaries. In this perspective boundaries are viewed more as walls that stop a direction dead in its tracks. In my experiences, this perspective can create a lot of anxiety toward the mere concept of boundaries, let alone expressing them. Often it is through this perspective where boundaries can be mistaken for rules, as it has a more aggressive tone to it. That aggression can cause unnecessary conflict within a conversation or connection.
Instead of perceiving boundaries as a wall which denies access to something or a part of someone, I see boundaries as the barriers which help us find the best path to take. Rather than focusing on the limiting aspect of the boundary, I choose to see boundaries as helpful guardrails guiding me along the path to deeper, more wholesome connections. This perspective shift helps me to de-stigmatize boundaries and unravel the notion that they are synonymous with rules.
How do I know if this a boundary instead of a rule?
A lot of information I’ve seen on the net talks about boundaries as if they are synonymous with rules. I think this is a harmful way to approach boundaries because it can create controlling dynamics in relationship negotiating. This is especially true for non-monogamous relationships, where there is more communication and navigation of peoples’ needs, wants, limits, and edges required.
Something I emphasize heavily in my own relationships is that Radical Transparency around wants, needs, boundaries and expectations is extremely important. This is so that I can make the most informed decision about how best to engage with the other person, and I want to give them the opportunity to do the same. I also emphasize expressing these truths in a way that preserves the other person’s autonomy.
I make my needs clear, but I do not force the other person to help me meet those needs. Instead, I welcome them to support me meeting my needs in whatever ways they authentically can or want to.
So, how we differentiate between boundaries and rules? Here is a list of a few key traits that identify a boundary:
· The boundary/need expressed serves a self-care/self-maintenance function.
· The person who expresses the boundary takes accountability for fulfilling this need.
· The person expressing the boundary does so in a way that invites autonomy support for the recipient but does not force it.
The emphasis is always on one’s own experiences and actions when discussing a boundary. Boundaries typically express something a person needs to navigate a situation or conversation safely and healthily, and clearly identifying and expressing the boundary is a self-care practice on its own.
Rules, on the other hand, place explicit emphasis on what the other must do to resolve the unmet want or need.
Rules in relationships
The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of rule is:
Noun:
1. One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
2. Control of or dominion over an area or people.
Verb:
1. Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people)
2. Pronounce authoritatively and legally to be the case
That’s a mouthful, I know.
Something that sticks out to me about this definition is the emphasis on authoritarian interaction styles. The essence of a rule is that one party is asserting a semblance of control over another. Sometimes this is consensual (agreed-upon rules), and sometimes this is not.
Identifying traits of a rule are:
· An abundance of “you statements.” (Ex: “you must check in with me once every hour when you’re on a date”).
· A threat of punishment for the person who does not adhere to the rule.
· The rule places the responsibility of meeting a want or need on the other person, and not on the person with the want/need.
The key trait that I sit with is that rules force the other party to take accountability for the wellness of the person setting the rule. Unlike boundaries, which serve a purpose of self-maintenance, rules can be set for any number of reasons – both healthy and unhealthy ones.
There are certain times when rules do make sense, though. As I mentioned above, there are times when boundaries can lead to the creation of rules in relationships. I see this often in non-monogamous relationships where children, co-habiting, or shared finances are present. Just as with boundaries, I think that the inherently contractual and authoritarian aspect of rules makes them seem more destructive.
When in a relationship where shared assets or children are involved, rules may need to be set to protect both parties and/or the children from potentially serious consequences of not following said rules. These could be things ranging from spending money in a shared bank account to new beloveds meeting children.
As with anything, the rule itself is not inherently a bad thing. It is how rules are discussed and why they are being implemented.
In my own relationships
I try to keep rules to a minimum in my more intimate relationships. I admit this is easier for me than some others because I am not legally married, co-habiting, or co-parenting with any of my beloveds.
Instead of implementing rules in my relationships, I have standards for Radical Transparency and practices I ask my beloveds to participate in for the sake of navigating mental, emotional, and physical health and wellness. For me, supporting my beloveds’ autonomy is one of the most important parts of relating, and I feel that implementing rules is counterproductive.
When I have created rules in past relationships, it has always boiled down to an attempt to curb an insecurity within myself. As I continue discovering new things about my relating self, I find that I tend to focus more on finding the “edge” of my comfort zone where the rule wants to come from and seeing if I can identify unmet wants or needs to communicate instead. Recognizing that my feelings, wants, and needs are my own responsibility encourages me to communicate these things to beloveds in a nonviolent way.
I use Nonviolent Communication (NVC) as a nice framework for inner dialogue about my edges and how those translate into boundaries in relationships. You can use my Finding Your Edges guided meditation as a framework for this reflective process.
— written by Amelia Lichtenberg
An Introduction to Radical Transparency
RT is a dedicated practice where we allow those in connection with us more insight into our present moment experience. This can mean a beloved, friend, or family member. This can also mean a business colleague or a stranger we have a momentary interaction with. Most importantly, this also means connection with oneself.
For me Radical Transparency (RT) is a core value. It’s so important that I have it as a key facet in my definition of Relationship Anarchy, and it is one of the first things I address with my clients.
When I talk about Radical Transparency I am typically faced with a few prominent questions, mainly:
· What is the difference between RT and just being transparent?
· Doesn’t RT lead to over-sharing? How do you maintain boundaries at the same time?
· What’s the point if no one else is being radically transparent with me, but I am with them?
· Being honest about something ended up with me being hurt in the end, why would I do that again?
All of these are important questions, and this week’s writing addresses all these points.
What is Radical Transparency?
Radical Transparency refers to the practice of openly sharing what is alive for us within any given moment. This practice allows us and our beloveds to know where our/their intentions are and helps foster deeper levels of understanding. - Emily’s definition
“Awakening to the Other Self” (2018)
RT is a dedicated practice where we allow those in connection with us more insight into our present moment experience. This can mean a beloved, friend, or family member. This can also mean a business colleague or a stranger we have a momentary interaction with. Most importantly, this also means connection with oneself.
What makes this practice radical as opposed to just “being transparent” is that there is a constant engagement with the act of transparency. It’s not just about being honest but about being honest with intention.
For me, practicing RT is a conscious choice. While I tend to be a rather transparent person by nature, I still have moments where my instinct is to hide a facet of my present experience from whomever I am engaging with. This may be hiding a moment of depression from a beloved or being quiet about a personal struggle during a client’s session. Sometimes there is a valid reason for withholding sharing with another, however, I find that how I’m addressing the experience within myself is where the difference really lies.
I understand the idea of “being transparent” as typically referring to how one interacts with the external world, meaning that being transparent refers to how we interact with others. RT, however, emphasizes transparency in all connections in all moments – that means in moments within ourselves as well.
Radical Transparency is not the same as oversharing
RT doesn’t necessarily imply that we are encouraged to overshare our experiences with others, nor does it mean crossing ours or others boundaries within sharing for the sake of “being transparent.”
I will use the example above regarding times when I am struggling with a personal issue during a session with a client to showcase this. As one might anticipate, it would be a boundary violation of the consultant/client relationship for me to openly share my woes during the session. I have a duty to be present with and for my client during our time together.
When something in my personal life is so alive for me that I feel its presence in my sessions, I take note of it within myself. A few minutes before a session begins, I will sit with the aliveness and be radically transparent with myself about my current state of being. RT in this instance is honoring my current state of being, while also being mindful of what boundaries are in place for the coming interaction. I allow myself space in this reflection to assess and decide what I need to successfully transition into the session, and I go from there. Taking this time with myself allows me to show up for my client in the fullest capacity that I may.
Often my clients bring a similar concern or situation from their own life into session and act as a mirror to my own story. I am typically able to see or pick up on patterns and thoughts both in them (and myself) that I might not have caught otherwise. Without directly expressing to them that I have a resonating experience, I can lead the conversation with this in heart. This usually lends itself to a very productive session for both parties.
I consider this a form of RT because I am intentionally not hiding anything about my present experience from the client, but I am also not directly sharing what I am experiencing with words. I am using my experience to inform how I connect with them and stay present with their experience, which makes the moment our experience.
When a client asks me if I’ve experienced the conflict they are discussing, I answer with a more direct type of RT. I will say whether I have or haven’t experienced that conflict, and if they ask for insight into how I navigated it, I will share what insight I believe will be most helpful for them. I can share “yes, this was hard for me, too, and here is how I navigated that,” without oversharing the details of those long, painful nights in between Point A and Point B.
Please note that I am not a licensed therapist and my consulting practice does not adhere to the same boundaries as a licensed psychotherapist. My future therapeutic practice will, however, reflect those boundaries.
I make it a point to iterate to my clients that I believe inner work is a lifelong practice, and that my own journey is ongoing. This allows for interactions to become human-to-human, rather than just consultant-to-client. Boundaries are still in place, but the perceived power dynamic within the interaction is lessened.
Maintaining boundaries while practicing RT
It can be easy to perceive RT as a means for pushing boundaries (this includes oversharing). I want to iterate that truly embodying RT includes a wholehearted understanding and acceptance of our and others’ boundaries.
Part of being radically transparent with oneself includes knowing our boundaries. For me, I can overshare sometimes because of my deeply ingrained people-pleasing trauma responses. The wounded child within me feels the need to explain myself constantly. In being radically transparent with myself about the source of this behavior and with how much information I really want to share, I was able to discover where my sharing boundary is.
With my sharing boundary firmly in my mind and heart, I set out to learn new ways to share my experiences with others that feel authentic to my needs as well. Often I find that the best way to practice RT and maintain my boundary is to accurately name my experience and my intention for sharing. For me this looks like: “I’m experiencing/feeling _____, and I would rather not talk about it. I’m just letting you know, so that you can know where I’m at right now.”
RT does not mean we have to share all of the details of our inner world with another, but it does mean that we dedicate intention to naming our experiences in a moment to those around us to avoid potential miscommunication, and to foster deeper understanding.
Being radically transparent in a non-transparent world
Sometimes I find it disheartening how many people struggle with honesty and transparency in our society. Through my experiences with friends, lovers, and colleagues, I’ve come to the conclusion that these struggles come from a mixture of poor communication skills and a lack of RT practice within the self. This may not be true of everyone, but it helps me lean into deeper compassion in moments where my RT practice is not reciprocated.
I truly believe that the only way to foster more connection based in RT is to be the initiator. How can others discover the true freedom in Radical Transparency if they don’t experience it firsthand? A core part of my practice as a Relationship Anarchist is acknowledging that I have no control over the people in my life. That includes their abilities to meet me in radically transparent spaces.
I find that when being radically transparent with another it can be easy to see when it’s not being reciprocated. I combat this discord with more Radical Transparency. I kindly and compassionately name my experience, and I inquire with genuine curiosity about their perspective. In the event that this does not foster mutual RT, I kindly and transparently assert my boundary and shift in desire.
Sometimes people may come off as not being transparent when they believe they are. There are plenty of potential explanations for this, but the important thing to remember is that if something within a connection doesn’t feel right to you, then it is your duty to be transparent about that experience, rather than attempt to change the other to your liking.
When being radically transparent creates conflict
The final question I receive about RT often revolves around the fear of conflict. As a peacekeeper, I empathize greatly with conflict aversion, however, sometimes conflict is necessary.
I find that practicing RT evades more serious conflicts because you give opportunity to air grievances and discover conflicting desires before they have time to fester. For example, when exploring relationship dynamics with a new beloved, I much prefer to find out early if we are compatible than months down the road. By being radically transparent about feelings and desires right off the bat, it saves me time and energy addressing these things immediately.
In my experiences, having these conversations earlier on also tends to save meaningful relationships – if we can have a transparent dialogue early on and both parties feel seen, heard, and respected afterward, then we now have a stronger foundation for which to build whatever relationship we want. When I am not able to have these transparent dialogues or feel seen/heard after an attempt at RT with someone, I kindly and compassionately move on.
I would also like to say that just because RT makes a moment of conflict easier to navigate, does not mean that the conflict will not hurt. Hurt feelings are extremely valid, and it can be very disappointing to discover the end of a connection due to a transparent conversation. While the hurt can be present and valid, the “ripping of the Band-Aid” tends to be less painful (for less time) than a prolonged betrayal of oneself for the sake of conflict avoidance, and that is why I find practicing RT so valuable.
It’s important to remember that we are only in control of our actions and that the reactions of another person are not a reflection of us. People in our lives are not obligated to accept our truths as theirs, just as we are not obligated to accept others’ truths that don’t resonate with us. Conflict is a natural part of life, but I have found that navigating such spaces with Radical Transparency can ease these moments and foster deeper understanding and compassionate, human-to-human communication.
— written by Emily Lichtenberg