Reactive Attachment Disorder Blog

01/22/08

The power of HOPE

Posted by : Nancy Spoolstra in Reactive Attachment Disorder Blog at 10:28 am , 1161 words, 539 views  
Categories: Keeping your tank filled
One reader’s poignant response to yesterday’s blog about “Golden Nuggets” was:

Without hope, what do we have?

Hope really is the crux of it all, isn’t it? What do we have without hope? If we give up hope that our lives and the behavior and lives of our children will improve, how are we to survive?

Wikipedia defines hope in this way:
Hope is a belief in a positive outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life. Hope implies a certain amount of perseverance — i.e., believing that a positive outcome is possible even when there is some evidence to the contrary.

SPONSOR
Perseverance is the key word here. We have all persevered beyond any reasonable expectation. We define perseverance. And then there is “evidence to the contrary.” This goes back to the golden nuggets. If no nuggets are tossed our way, the evidence points to our reality that no change is occurring. Therefore, we are left to hope against all odds…

Wikipedia goes on to state:
Hopefulness is somewhat different from optimism in that hope is an emotional state, whereas optimism is a conclusion reached through a deliberate thought pattern that leads to a positive attitude. But hope and optimism both can be based in unrealistic belief, or fantasy.
Did you know that when Pandora opened her famous box of evils, one “evil” was not allowed to escape? I didn’t know this. Consider one last quote from Wikipedia’s website:
In Human, All Too Human, existential philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had this to say about hope:

Hope. Pandora brought the jar with the evils and opened it. It was the gods' gift to man, on the outside a beautiful, enticing gift, called the "lucky jar." Then all the evils, those lively, winged beings, flew out of it. Since that time, they roam around and do harm to men by day and night. One single evil had not yet slipped out of the jar. As Zeus had wished, Pandora slammed the top down and it remained inside. So now man has the lucky jar in his house forever and thinks the world of the treasure. It is at his service; he reaches for it when he fancies it. For he does not know that that jar which Pandora brought was the jar of evils, and he takes the remaining evil for the greatest worldly good--it is hope, for Zeus did not want man to throw his life away, no matter how much the other evils might torment him, but rather to go on letting himself be tormented anew. To that end, he gives man hope. In truth, it is the most evil of evils because it prolongs man's torment.
The obvious conclusion here is that, according to Nietzsche, hope is an evil. Hope allows man’s torment to continue.

In this blog, the last of three parts, I discuss Anne Kimble Loux’s book, The Limits of Hope. Some did not like this book because of the very nature of its message … it was not an uplifting read. Deborah Hannah’s book, An Unlit Path, is also a very sobering dose of reality, yet she manages to convey some degree of peace through her troubles. No doubt it is her spiritual outlook that allows Deborah to maintain that degree of peace … much as Patricia describes the source of her “nuggets” in this comment.

The sermon last Sunday at church provided me with additional food for thought. It was the story of the Good Samaritan. We all know that story, but did you know some of the reasons why the priest who passed the wounded Jew on the side of the road might have made that decision? He thought the man was dead; if he touched a body, he would have been unclean for seven days. Our pastor asked us if we would do something for someone else if it meant "clearing our calendar" for seven days. The Samaritan placed the Jew on the Samaritan's donkey. Did you know they had 23 miles to go to the next town? Our pastor asked if we would do something for someone if it meant we cleared our calendar for 7 days and walked 23 miles. Did you know that the two denarii the Samaritan left the innkeeper to pay for the wounded man's needs amounts to about $2,000 today for the average home in my community? (In terms of percentage of wages earned.) Would you stop and help someone if you had to clear your calendar for a week, walk 23 miles and pay $2,000 for the privilege? Now here is the kicker … what if, when the wounded man recovered, he cursed you for assisting him?

Nancy Bostock, a Florida mom who recently placed her very disturbed son in a residential treatment facility, provided her interpretation of this parable (quoted with her permission):
Last March, just as I was struggling the most with my "decision", my pastor preached on (the Good Samaritan). During the service, I was so side tracked with my new revelation I don't remember how or what the pastor actually presented but I do know I read the story much differently than he presented it. I became immersed in a new (to me anyway) dimension of the parable. I didn't see the good work that the Samaritan DID, I saw that the Good Samaritan was still GOOD even though he left the wounded man to be cared for by someone else (the Innkeeper.) The Good Samaritan was also a WISE Samaritan to know his limits and to seek appropriate help from someone better situated to help the wounded man. The Good Samaritan was willing to sacrifice for the wounded man but he quickly returned to his original journey and his original purpose. He sacrificed for the wounded man-- but he didn't give up his life or impact his family's well being for a sustained period of time. Yes, he gave the equivalent of $2,000 but he DIDN'T have to file for bankruptcy. He put the wounded man on his donkey-- he didn't buy bunk beds and put him in his home with his children. The Innkeeper provided the direct hands on care to the wounded man-- not the Good Samaritan. God still sees the Good Samaritan as good even though he basically "ditched" the wounded man with the Innkeeper and went back to his business.

… the fresh insight into the parable for me and and the decisions I was then struggling with concerning keeping my son in the home or not was nothing short of miraculous. I believe that God reached down that Sunday morning and gave me comfort and direction during my time of turmoil.
Sorry to say, I don't have any magic answers here. I struggle on a daily basis to balance hope with realistic expectations with my desire to serve my God and give freely without expectation of return. I hope I have given you some additional ideas to ponder ...

Photo Credit

Comments, Pingbacks:

Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
situations can be hopeless. people never are. to me, that's the difference. Thankfully, we have mercy and grace to also draw on.

What Nancy B says above about being able to forgive ourselves for perceived shortcomings is right on. the world has many people eager to say hurtful things, but what we say to ourselves can be a much bigger challenge.

"some evidence to the contrary"

what stands out in that sentence to me is the "some" part. holy cow, what about when there is NO evidence to the contrary? why do we hold ourselves to such high standards?

PermalinkPermalink 01/22/08 @ 16:33
Comment from: Julia Fuller [Member] Email · http://special-needs.adoptionblogs.com/
Hope allows man’s torment to continue
I am the eternal optomist, always thinking it will work this time. There were many times over the years while parenting my now adult daughter, that my optomism and knee time was all that kept me from disrupting. I know I wasn't the perfect parent, but I stuck with her for 11 years until she turned 18. Considering things that she put our family through, that is a miracle.
PermalinkPermalink 01/22/08 @ 21:50
Comment from: Lindy [Member] Email
Sometimes I feel selfish, knowing that the "hanging in there" part is as much for me (and my ego) as it is for her. It's hard to admit defeat and, I think hope plays a part in keeping me on task (seeing her to adulthood). Hope is such a strange emotion--defying logic while allowing us to put one foot in front of the other in our attempt to move forward. I'm glad I have it, yet I'm fearful of its power. What if all of the hoping in the world isn't enough? Time will tell. Until then I continue to hope.
PermalinkPermalink 01/22/08 @ 22:43
Comment from: mater [Member] Email
I am struck by how needy many parents are. This is not fair to children who normally are solipsistic themselves. It is reasonable to expect house rules be followed, yes, but not that children or anyone, for that matter, love us. Yes, it's nice when people do, but it's a bonus. It is simple not in the cards to presume we are loveable to any particular person. It is a sign of an immature parent -- often seen in teen mothers -- that the purpose of children is to love the parent. When children don't love or like us, we still should understand the need to raise them with kindness and patience, preserving their dignity and respecting their right to not love us. We still are good parents because as adults we are compelled to do the best we can for children. And most especially, a loving parent would never cart a child off to an Attachment Therapist to be abused by "high confrontation," intimidating and threats.
PermalinkPermalink 01/23/08 @ 00:35
Comment from: Lindy [Member] Email
Loving is such a basic emotion...one that all of us need in order to strive. The object of love may change, but the ability to love is necessary for successful survival. One of our many jobs as parents is to teach how to love, by example and by freely giving our love. It is not unreasonable to expect some type of return for our investment. The return is not just for us as parents to reaffirm that we are worthy, it is to pave the way for our children to be able to give and receive love in their adult lives. Healthy relationships are built on respect and some degree of human love. It's not a bonus to receive love, it's a necessity. Often times doing the best for our children involves introducing them to new pathways of living and, yes, loving.
PermalinkPermalink 01/23/08 @ 11:07
Comment from: mater [Member] Email
Lindy -- This appears to be a fundamental difference between people who endorse Attachment Therapy parenting and those who believe it is abusive. One camp requires "a return for their investment," and the other believes adoption is done for the child, not the parent.

RAD is an "inability" to love. A therapy and/or parenting program that strong-arms children to love their caretaker is doomed to failure and frustration.

Research -- and common sense -- shows that children will attach with consistently good interactions and attention from the caregiver. Parents earn the trust of a child when the child is allowed to learn that the parent is trustworthy through experiences over time.

This all takes time and patience, not bullying, threatening, and attributing the worst motives to everything they do.

How can a parent ever expect real affection by abusing and exerting high control over a child? What child is going to love a parent who feeds her peanut butter sandwiches for half a year?

But this is exactly what Foster Cline proposed with his "Trauma Cycle" -- the horrific basis of Attachment Therapy. Cause a trauma to the child ("disturb the disturbed") and the child will lovingly cling to you. It was supposed create an instant bond, but that part was necessarily revised.

The Golden Rule might be a better starting...and ending point.
PermalinkPermalink 01/23/08 @ 15:32
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
so Mater,

Hello!

Your comments have me wondering. How many traumatized children have you successfully gotten attached to you? How long has it taken you and what are your recommended methods?

Just wondering......
PermalinkPermalink 01/23/08 @ 16:12
Comment from: Lindy [Member] Email
I have personally found that "common sense" flys out the window when it comes to parenting some of these challenging children. If were that simple, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. How I wish. Obviously, each child is different and presents different challenges along the way. Loving them is essential. Them loving us (or anyone) is frosting on the cake. Just as each family has different methods of parenting, each attachment challenged child has different needs and priorities in his life. We, as parents, can learn from each other if we bring to the table some understanding, leaving room for differences in parenting style, and as little criticism as possible re: others' opinions and methods. I think we all have the same basic goal in mind---that of rearing healthy, happy children to adulthood with as little damage to them and us as possible. I'm here to learn.
PermalinkPermalink 01/23/08 @ 16:34
Comment from: Sunbonnet Sue [Member] Email
this whole rabbit trail reminds me of a time long ago. One of our older boys was being especially wiggly, demanding and basically squirrely. He was 3yrs old or so at the time, my unmarried brother was visiting. There were mutterings from my brother about maybe our boy might need a spanking to help him learn to behave. I just laughed at my brothers lack of patience and let him know what a simplistic solution that idea is. Honestly if all it took was a few quick swats on the behind, we'd all have perfectly behaved children. Any parent who cares for and about their kids would be able to pull it off in short order.

It is human nature to attempt to frame challenging concepts into simpler ones. This tendency makes it easier for the uninitiated to feel they understand. It is a form of superiority.

Children of trauma represent an immense lesson on "the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know." It's certainly not about the parents and their needs. It's about all people and their needs. Our ability and need to relate to one another in a functional, supportive way is not defined by our age.
PermalinkPermalink 01/23/08 @ 17:55
Comment from: Chromesthesia [Member] Email
I read the Limits of Hope. It was deeply sad, but those girls were such strong good people despite all the pain that they went through and the way it manesfested itself.
PermalinkPermalink 01/24/08 @ 03:03
Comment from: radiant_tanya [Member] Email
Mater,
As with any category of therapists, there certainly are bad attachment therapists. However, to characterize all attachment therapy as abusive is incorrect and inflammatory. Good attachment therapy includes high structure and also high nurture. If you don't have both, it doesn't help the child recover and heal. You have a right to promote alternative views, treatments and parenting methods, but not to vilify those of us who have helped our children with attachment therapy. If you are truly interestested in why we believe reciprocal relationships are important, even critical, to the wellbeing of both parent and child, please read the works of Katharine Leslie.
PermalinkPermalink 01/24/08 @ 10:54
Leave a Comment: You need to login to leave comments.:

Login | Register

Login To AdoptionBlogs.com

Search

Sponsors

Misc

Subscribe to Reactive Attachment Disorder Blog

 Enter your email address:
 

 

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 129