Hiding in Plain Sight: Chronic Shame in Clinical Practice

Hiding in Plain Sight: Chronic Shame in Clinical Practice

In my clinical practice I see a thread of chronic shame woven throughout the fabric of life of many of my male, or male identifying clients; a thread just waiting to be plucked that sets in motion a degree of dysregulation and personal pain that will be avoided at nearly all costs. The difficulty is that this thread is most often initiated in their most intimate relationships— those of deep love, that are most precious, including their relationship with those tender, routinely disavowed wants and needs within themselves.

Many definitions of shame/chronic shame exist, and those which ring most true for me attempt to describe with heart the wholesale dysregulation, destruction, and attack on the very core of the person that shame elicits. Patricia DeYoung (2015) defines chronic shame as “one’s felt sense of self disintegrating in relation to a dysregulating other” (p. 18) and Dorahy (2015) includes the desire to hide, disappear or even die. For those who experience chronic shame, these descriptions begin to describe what it feels like psychologically and neurophysiologically when activated.

It’s important to differentiate between shame and chronic shame. Chronic shame appears much earlier than shame; first seen in the 2nd year of life, prior to conscious memory, remaining in a wordless state (Hill, 2015). The dysregulation experienced by the child is “”affectively burnt in” the infant’s developing right brain” (Schore, 2014, p.390), becoming a thread that is waiting to be picked, touching “a wound made from the inside by an unseen hand” (Kaufman, 1989, p.5), that reverberates throughout one’s interpersonal life. Additional research by Schore (2017) shows that male children are at increased risk for a number of psychopathologies because of slower brain maturation, particularly on the right brain, which leaves them vulnerable longer to negative experiences, particularly relational trauma that form the fabric of shame.

For those with chronic shame, integrated strategies for avoiding and surviving shame (Hill, 2015) are woven into the client’s Internal Working Model (Bowlby, 1973) – the way that people see themselves, the world, and their place in it. If we add to this Daniel Siegel’s (2010) assertion that ‘the brain is an anticipation machine’, we can see why chronic shame states are so incredibly enduring, and that no matter how safe or stable things are in the present, the thread of chronic shame remains active, and when activated, the same neural affective states that were experienced as a child are re-experienced by the adult client. We must remember that because chronic shame is formed prior to declarative memory, it exists outside of the conscious memory system, leaving it largely impervious to cognitive therapies, rendering clients baffled by the repetition of these intensely dysregulating interactions.

The benefit of bringing shame more into our clinical awareness, is that it can shift our focus from simply attending to behavioural issues and patterns—addictions, disengagement, anger, perfection, procrastination, pleasing—and begin to see the role that chronic shame, which is often dissociated from the client’s awareness, is having on initiating or perpetuating these patterns, and focus not just on the fire, but the fuel that is feeding it.

Clinically, I see two common expressions of chronic shame that are often used unconsciously and interchangeably by the client. The first is to internalize the shame and implode or collapse in on themselves, feeling the full weight of the humiliation or mortification embedded in the affective states of their nervous system and psyche. The second is to externalize and attack the interpersonal other, feeling the grandiosity and righteousness of their actions in defense of the disintegrating self (shame reaction). Chefetz (2016) includes contempt, dissmell, and disgust within the shame spectrum of emotion, and I see this play out both internally and externally within each pattern. Needless to say, the severity and intractability of chronic shame creates massive turmoil and strain within their most intimate interpersonal relationships.

Research and my clinical experience suggest that what is needed for clients to work through chronic shame is for them to experience solid, stable, caring relationships, including the therapeutic relationship, where they can feel the pluck of the dysregulating shame and share it with another person, have it witnessed, and, against all expectations in their emotional being, have them not be judged or criticized, but witnessed and cared for. This deeply relational process, both within, and outside of therapy, creates opportunities for corrective emotional experiences that begin to unwind the chronic shame, both cognitively for the client, as they begin to develop a fuller relationship with this process that resides in them, and within their neurophysiology. Donald Kalsched (2013) sums this process best: “what has been broken relationally must be repaired relationally. This calls for affectively focused treatment” (p. 13, Italics in original). Processing chronic shame is long term work, and requires nuance and care to weave between the disintegrating, near automatic responses of the shame state, and the need to provide an attuned, caring presence: Over time “the therapist provides an emotional re-education and remediates a developmental void” (Maroda, 2009, p.20). Additionally, it is critical that the intense affect be modulated so that dissociation can be limited and the client can maintain connection to their adult witness within the present moment, as the healing of trauma can only happen in the here and now.

It is my hope that as clinicians, we can attune to this debilitating dynamic in our clients that is often overlooked or misinterpreted, but is actually hiding in plain sight.

References

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2: Separation, Anxiety, and Anger. London: Penguin Books.

Chefetz, R. Catastrophic Shame and the Reorganization of Self, retrieved online Nov 4, 2018- http://csar.nyc/catastrophic-shame-and-the-reorganization-of-self/

DeYoung, P. (2015). Understanding and treating chronic shame: A relational/neurobiological approach. New York: Routledge.

Dorahy, M. (2015). Shame and Dissociation in Complex Trauma Disorders Webinar.

Hill, D. (2015). Affect regulation theory: A clinical model. New York: Norton.

Kalsched, D. (2013). Trauma and the Soul: A psycho-spiritual approach to human development and its interruption. New York: Routledge.

Kaufman, G. (1989). The psychology of shame: theory and treatment of shame-based syndromes- 2nd edition. New York: Springer.

Maroda, K. (2009). Less is more: An argument for the judicious use of self-disclosure. In Bloomgarden, A. and Mennuti, R. B., (Eds.) Psychotherapist Revealed: Therapists Speak About Self-Disclosure in Psychotherapy. New York: Routledge, p. 17 – 30.

Schore, A. (2014). The right brain dominant in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy. 51 (3): p. 388-397.

Schore, A. (2017). All our sons: The developmental neurobiology and neuroendocrinology of boys at risk. Infant Mental Health Journal. 38(1): p.15-52

Siegel, D. (2010). Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation. New York. Bantam.

The Clinical Heart of Bringing the Body into Practice

The Clinical Heart of Bringing the Body into Practice

In reflecting on what it means to be an attachment oriented, relationally focused, somatic psychotherapist and educator, I come to three questions that speak to the heart of the matter: What does it take to regulate a nervous system dysregulated by trauma, whether that be relational, incident or a complex blend? What does it take to offer reparative therapeutic experiences for development and maturation of the right brain and to shift attachment patterning? And, what does it take to venture into the abyss of the underworld and accompany the client as they reclaim their vital life force?

Early primary relationships build the growing self and wire the brain to anticipate and expect (Siegal, 2010) for better or for worse. Insecure attachment, created through inconsistent and unpredictable affect regulation and repair whereby the infant is left for long periods in high/hyper arousal states (abuse) and/or low/hypo arousal states (neglect), affectively imprints neurophysiological patterns in the body (Schore, 2014). Caregiver failure to recognise or respond to a genuine aspect of the child forces dissociation/disavowal of that part(s) (Bromberg, 2011), infusing chronic shame into the insecure internal working model (IWM) of the self. Thus, we find with insecure attachment the IWM has a distorted sense of self and impaired knowing of healthy relationships, scaffolded upon a dysregulated autonomic nervous system (ANS), impaired processing of the right brain, and patterns of relating and affect management strategies that lack flexibility.

Trauma wounds the neurophysiological body, fragments the psyche, and forces the soul into the abyss. Wounds of this nature call for therapists to jointly descend into the abyss of the underworld to accompany, witness and support the return to life (Wirtz, 2014), to facilitate regulation of the ANS and offer reparative relational experiences. In addressing both the psyche’s response and the bodily based impact of trauma, I believe the trinity of attachment-oriented relational psychotherapy, somatic work and an embodied regulated clinician are essential for the restoration of the integrity of the self.

What does it take to regulate a nervous system dysregulated by trauma, whether that be relational, incident or a complex blend of both?

The ability of clinicians to make interventions to help the ANS process the bound or chaotic material of the right brain/body calls for a strong understanding of neuroscience including The Polyvagal Theory (Porges), the window of tolerance (Siegal), and Regulation Theory (Schore) to work safely and effectively with hyper/hypo arousal states. Additionally, a deep understanding of the complexity of the ANS and adroit use of specific somatic interventions and right brain processes to: foster embodiment; create movement and integration of energy bound and dispersed; restore thwarted or impaired impulses for connection and protection; embody, sense and process dissociated emotional and physiological content; and create a regulated ANS that can integrate the horror and terror inherent in trauma. While somatic processing is critical for the regulation of the ANS and integration of traumatic material, it is insufficient to repair the depth of psychic fragmentation and soul descent of individuals with histories of early trauma.

What does it take to offer reparative therapeutic experiences for development and maturation of the right brain and shifts in attachment patterning?

It is well documented that the therapeutic relationship can offer reparative experiences (Pearlman, & Courtois, 2005; Siegal, 2012; Wirtz, 2014) and such opportunities require clinicians to engage in relational practice that goes beyond alliance building, attunement, and empathy to include establishment of the regulated, witness self to help integrate non-recognised dissociated parts and to reorganize the distorted IWM in the reparation of early trauma. Additionally, authenticity and emotional processing of the relationship completes “the cycle of affective communication that was insufficiently developed in childhood” and provides “an emotional re-education” that “remediates a developmental void” (Maroda, 2010, p. 20). To build a safe enough haven for exploration and connection, therapist awareness of their own attachment patterning is paramount. The safety of the therapeutic relationship offers clients’ opportunities to: experience a secure base from which to relate, explore and assess their own system of relating and IWM; attempt and process new ways of relating to pave new relational and neural pathways; and explore rupture and repair dynamics that reveal dissociative relational material, that when addressed, heal past wounds.

And, what does it take to venture into the abyss of the underworld and accompany the client as they reclaim their vital life force?

The embodied regulation of the clinician is essential to bear “witness” (Prince, 2009), “to behold” (van Loben Sels, 2005), to stay present, embodied and regulated in the face of unspeakable, undigested, extreme suffering of the other. Holding steady as the client’s dissociative material emerges asks us to reach within and beyond into our depths of connection to the sentient archetypal world, to hold our ground and avail ourselves as the regulated anchor in the dysregulated realm of trauma.

References

Bromberg, P. M. (2011). The shadow of the tsunami and the growth of the relational mind. New York: Routledge.
Maroda, K. J. (2010). Less is More: An argument for the judicious use of self-disclosure. In, Bloomgarden and Mennuti, R. (Eds.) Psychotherapist Revealed: Therapists Speak About Self-Disclosure in Psychotherapy. New York: Routledge, p. 17 – 30.
Pearlman, L.A., & Courtois, C. A. (2005). Clinical application of the attachment framework: Relational treatment of complex trauma. International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. p. 449 – 459.
Prince, R. (2009). The Self in Pain: The Paradox of Memory, The Paradox of Testimony. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis. 69, p. 279 – 290.
Schore, A.N. (2014). The right brain is dominant in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 51, 3, p. 388 – 397.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press: New York.
Siegal, D. J. (2010). UCLA Adult Attachment in a Clinical Context Conference DVD with Main and Hesse.
van Lobel Sels, R. (2005). When a body meets a body. Spring 72, p. 219 – 250.
Wirtz, U. (2014). Trauma and beyond: The mystery of transformation. New Orleans: Spring Journal Books.