I recently realized that one of the ways I have been carrying myself and my relationships is an attempt at creating a safe world. An emotionally safe world where it is ok to express yourself and be yourself.
I realized this because I stumbled upon a therapist's blog about helping a client through her anxieties, while making sure the client does not become dependent on the therapist. While discussing the fine balance that has to be maintained, she casually mentioned how the client has to be prepared to deal with the "real" world, which is unlike therapist's office. There are triggers in the 'real' world, it is not always empathetic, it is not always safe and sometimes it's just outright scary.
That hit me. I realized I had been trying to create surroundings that are safe. I am not focused at making sure people are able to deal with their reality. Once again, I am not trying to make sure people are equipped to deal with the reality. I am trying to create a safe space. Those are two different things.
I wondered if I am trying to run away from dealing with the reality myself by trying to change it (!!!?!).
(On second thought, no, not really.)
I am not sure what my focus should be; to try to impact the "reality" of my surroundings so that it is safer, or create a safe space that gives people the strength to deal with their realities. Or both.
(While I write this, examples of when I outright failed at creating a safe space/ended up hurting people come to mind. Ne pas bien, brain!)
I have also been wondering about the limitations of validation. Validation is extremely powerful but it is also just that. It by itself gets us to feel safe and accept our experiences as they are. But it does not necessarily allow for changes to be made. It may or it may not, depending on other factors.
This is why focus at learning to/helping people deal with reality is also important. So, it may be a two-part process; validation of experiences and incorporation of that understanding to one's relationship with their reality. In my crisis line/face to face experience, the second part sort of naturally flows, but it only flows when a few other elements are already present. Mostly, I believe it has to do with the readiness of the person and their level of empowerment. If their ability to deal with their reality is my priority, my validation will have a dual purpose; to validate the experiences as they are and to help create a better understanding of their reality that helps them deal with it better. But the second part most definitely depends on the readiness of the person.
This makes me SO relieved! I had been afraid that I was going down the road of invalidation just to express that changes can be made. But no, it IS a two-part process that has to be carried out and expressed with care.
I realized this because I stumbled upon a therapist's blog about helping a client through her anxieties, while making sure the client does not become dependent on the therapist. While discussing the fine balance that has to be maintained, she casually mentioned how the client has to be prepared to deal with the "real" world, which is unlike therapist's office. There are triggers in the 'real' world, it is not always empathetic, it is not always safe and sometimes it's just outright scary.
That hit me. I realized I had been trying to create surroundings that are safe. I am not focused at making sure people are able to deal with their reality. Once again, I am not trying to make sure people are equipped to deal with the reality. I am trying to create a safe space. Those are two different things.
I wondered if I am trying to run away from dealing with the reality myself by trying to change it (!!!?!).
(On second thought, no, not really.)
I am not sure what my focus should be; to try to impact the "reality" of my surroundings so that it is safer, or create a safe space that gives people the strength to deal with their realities. Or both.
(While I write this, examples of when I outright failed at creating a safe space/ended up hurting people come to mind. Ne pas bien, brain!)
I have also been wondering about the limitations of validation. Validation is extremely powerful but it is also just that. It by itself gets us to feel safe and accept our experiences as they are. But it does not necessarily allow for changes to be made. It may or it may not, depending on other factors.
This is why focus at learning to/helping people deal with reality is also important. So, it may be a two-part process; validation of experiences and incorporation of that understanding to one's relationship with their reality. In my crisis line/face to face experience, the second part sort of naturally flows, but it only flows when a few other elements are already present. Mostly, I believe it has to do with the readiness of the person and their level of empowerment. If their ability to deal with their reality is my priority, my validation will have a dual purpose; to validate the experiences as they are and to help create a better understanding of their reality that helps them deal with it better. But the second part most definitely depends on the readiness of the person.
This makes me SO relieved! I had been afraid that I was going down the road of invalidation just to express that changes can be made. But no, it IS a two-part process that has to be carried out and expressed with care.
No comments:
Post a Comment