A Brief Detour (pt 4/6)

On this journey to understand and heal Romantic Relationship Addiction - RRA/ Love Addiction -LA, the roles of trauma and early attachment have been a major focus. It’s true that these factors influence romantic relationships in adulthood. In many, if not most cases our earliest primary caregivers inform the trajectory of our lives.  Attachment Theory is a one of many tools to help us understand the origins of our relational patterns.

Aaannnnd like any other “theory”, Attachment Theory has it’s limitations.  Pop culture “Attachment Style” quizzes don’t offer adequate insight or the nuance required to encompass alifetime of unique and dynamic relationships.

People are complicated and exist in a kaleidoscope of context. Culture, economics, family composition, race, gender, ability etc are just a few of the factors impacting someone’s given reality.

Practitioners who fully ascribe to Attachment Theory, usually consider it “universal”.  In my opinion and experience, Attachment Theory is far more narrow. The theory assumes a Westernized,  patriarchal, 20th and 21st century context as the norm.

This excludes variety of cultural approaches for rearing children and connecting to community. In Japan children are often reared in a way that prioritizes early self sufficiency and community cohesion.  In the US, allowing children certain levels of autonomy can be considered neglectful. What constitutes as a “normal childhood and healthy development” can have different and meaningful interpretations.  (Rothbaum et al., 2000)

Attachment Theory, like other common mental health theories and models, have a tendency to pathologize trauma responses. A growing body mental health professionals are rightfully questioning if the existing mental health medical model does more harm than good.  Dr. Jessica Taylor and Jaimi Shriver’s new book, Indicative Trauma Impact Model: A non-diagnostic, trauma-informed guide to emotions, thoughts, and behavior, offers expansive (and user friendly) insight into the limitations around common mental health diagnostics and treatment.

The text lays out the growing number of mental health disorders in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statical Manual) with each subsequent version.  The original DSM (1952) had 128 while the DSM V (2013) has 541 mental disorders. (Taylor & Shrive, 2023 p 20). Taylor and Shiver go on to assert the Biological/ Medical, Cognitive Behavioral, and Social Models (as well as the integrative Biopsychosocial model) all fall short in identifying trauma as the over arching cause of individuals’ mental and emotional responses. Trauma Informed Theory goes along way to alleviate the victim blaming and all to common misogyny that precede some mental health diagnosis. 

***It’s important to note that Dr. Taylor and Ms. Shiver are based in the UK which has a nationalized health care system. The US and UK have differing health standards and approaches to and funding for care.  Ex: In the US, you must (in almost always all circumstances) have a mental health diagnosis for insurance to cover  and or reimburse for mental health treatment.  A formal diagnosis is not required if an individuals pays for therapy as private pay.*** 

I share all of the former to transparently express: All of this “ish” is theoretical. I have tremendous respect for my colleagues, professors, the true pioneers in mental healthy and social servie. As a society, we have and continue to make strides in the understanding the importances of mental health.

Aaand at the same time-, we simply don’t know what we don’t know.  Nor do we know what’s we may already lost. Is there new language, tools, and approaches for supporting emotional and mental wellbeing since the days of our parents and grandparents? Yes, more than likely. But it requires considerable hubris to posit we’ve reached the pinnacle of humanity’s understanding of and approach to mental health.

As a Black Woman and descendant of enslaved Africans in America, I often wonder about the mental, spiritual, and emotional wellbeing of my pre colonial ancestors. I often imagine they flourished. I’m ever curious about their deep connection to nature and harmonious wisdom. Did these foster thriving connections and relationships with relative ease?  Maybe when community was valued over the great and mighty capitalism, maybe mental health as a stand alone construct, wasn’t a necessary … but I digress.  

Am I noting the theoretical limitations of the field of mental health to dissuade individuals from seeking care and support?  Quite the opposite.  My aim is to help people cultivate a more expansive and lierberating understanding of mental, emotional, and physical wellness. As we continue to learn and grow it’s imperative to be honest about what we may be out growing. We also need to be circumspect about the role and intention of those who have the power to “define” what “normal”, “ evidence based, “appropriate”, and “healthy”  entails. Narrow definitions of the such terms have a history of doing harm to the most vulnerable and marginalized.

A given theory, diagnosis, or cluster of common symptoms should only be used as an adaptable tool. These tools need to support the most appropriate care and facilitate healing. Mental health theories work best when used in pursuit of catching up with the amazing human mind and it’s potentail. Our inate ability to heal and the beautiful neuroplasicity of our brains allow us to create new paths for rewarding and reciprocal connections with ourselves and others.

Rothbaum, F., Weisz , J., Pott, M., Miyake, K., & Morelli, G. (2000, October). Attachment and Culture: Security in the United States and Japan. Harvard.edu. https://weiszlab.fas.harvard.edu/files/jweisz/files/rothbaum_et_al_2000_j_ch_fam_studies.pdf

Taylor, J., & Shrive, J. (2023). Indicative trauma impact manual: Itim for professionals: A non-diagnostic, trauma-informed guide to emotion, thought, and behaviour. VictimFocus.