I am currently working my way through this book, "Overcoming Borderline Personality Disorder: A Family Guide for Healing and Change" by Valerie Porr. I am currently on page 144, in the section "Understanding and Applying
Validation".
I am having... .issues... .with this book. I was wondering if anyone else had any issues with it as well (and if I should perhaps be posting over in book reviews instead of, or in addition to, here?)
First off, let me preface by saying I am not saying this book is necessarily worthless. For one thing, I'm not done with it yet. For a second thing, I think there is a lot of value in here for parents dealing with a BP child, and possibly also for someone who had had children with a BP partner and is attempting to improve relationships with the BP in order to spare the children as much distress as possible (which I wholeheartedly support.)
However, I think this book might be actively damaging to non-BP children of BP parents. I won't get into specific criticisms right here because it would take too long (and I don't know if anyone else has this book, or has read this book, so saying, "On page blah she says this, and my objection is such-and-such... ." would be pointless) but I will try to state the general gist of my dissatisfaction.
Here's the analogy that I'm considering. Say you are swimming at the ocean beach and you hear a scream for help from out in the ocean. You look out across the water and see someone struggling, possibly drowning. They look utterly panicked. Maybe they are stuck in a riptide; maybe they just got in over their head and swallowed water; you can't tell from where you are. But they seem to be in significant trouble, possibly in danger of their life.
Do you dive in after them to rescue them?
Generally, no. Unless you are a trained lifeguard in good physical shape with equipment handy (such as a flotation device.)
Why not?
Because you probably aren't trained in rescue procedures. You may not be a strong swimmer yourself. And a person who is drowning, or thinks they are, and who is panicking
stands a very good chance of dragging you down with them. This is a critical point. By going in after them without training, without the needed physical strength and swimming skill, without the appropriate equipment, you most likely will not only fail to save them but you will drown yourself. You will be caught in the riptide and pulled under. Or the person himself will seize you around the neck, trying to save themselves, and you will be unable to swim. You will swallow water. You will go down. And you will both die.
Trained lifeguards know that sometimes if a drowning person is panicking, it is necessary to SLUG them, stun them or knock them out, to get them to go limp and stop impeding the lifeguard's attempts to get them to safety. Then, and only then, can the lifeguard get a jacket on them or a ring around them and tow them into shore. Only then will both the drowning victim and the lifeguard as well be safe.
In this book, the person with BP is repeatedly referred to in terms that make them analogous to the drowning person. They are in waters over their head. They cannot swim. They did not get there intentionally, but they have no idea how to get out. They may not have the strength to swim against the riptide; they may not even know a basic Dead Man's float to keep their head above water even if there is no riptide. And they are so panicky that they will impede any well-meaning attempt to get them out of the water. They cannot help their would-be rescuers be effective; all they can do is succeed in endangering the would-be rescuer.
This book appears to go out of its way to encourage all people who love their BP person to jump right into that ocean after the BP, heedless of their own safety, without doing any kind of self-check to make sure they have the training, and strength, and skill, and equipment to make a real rescue attempt with a possibility of success and a reduced chance of killing the lifeguard. People who have BPs in their lives are encouraged to offer them whatever they need to try and get out of the drowning ocean -- endless compassion, endless
validation, endless energy, endless attention. The BPs NEED these things, the book argues, or they will invariably drown.
But what if you need that compassion for yourself? You need
validation for yourself? You need energy for yourself, for your spouse, for your own children (in the case of we non children of BP parents)? You need the energy for your job, your livelihood? You need to pay some attention to things in your life other than the BP?
What then?
This book pays a certain amount of lip service to the "difficulties" (vast understatement) of having a BP in your life. But it reserves the huge bulk of its caring and concern for the BP who said to be carrying the "stone of pain" or "wearing the TARA tiara" (of neurobiological dysfuntion). There is a unspoken but unmistakable sense that the authors believe that nons who disengage from their BPs, who say "I can't do this anymore, I am drowning, she is taking me down with her and I WANT TO LIVE", are lacking in compassion, or insufficiently motivated to "help" their BPs. The BPs are not responsible, says the book. They are confused, angry, living in an emotional world they can't make sense of, that always seems to be attacking them, with people who never seem to be able to give enough to them to fill the void in their souls, who can never make them feel truly safe and loved. And this book seems to think that we nons are responsible for dealing with this because the BP is incapable. We should put up with being demonized because the BP can't help it. We should always be compassionate, practice radical acceptance, always validate the BP's feeling no matter how completely out of touch with genuine reality those feelings are. The BP can't help feeling that way. Their mind is attacking them, forcing them into feeling this way. Never leave the BP, because the BP is sick, needs our help, and might die without it.
While I can accept that many BPs are in fact truly NOT "morally responsible" for their behavior, I find this book's attitude toward complete acceptance of that behavior to be quite frustrating and invalidating toward nons. This book explicitly states that one should not "set limits or boundaries" with BPs because... .well, because it makes them feel bad. It makes them feel more pain. And that makes them act out more and behave more badly toward themselves and others. (A minor but important digression here: The thing that really puzzles me about this book is, although it repeatedly denigrates the notion of setting limits and boundaries with BPs, many of the examples it has given so far of effective therapeutic techniques show people doing exactly that! For example, it gives the example of a self-harming teenager who self-harms then calls her mother for a ride to the ER. The book suggests that the mother tell the daughter to find her own way to the ER, and find her own way home again. This sounds to me like definite limit and boundary setting, yet the book repeatedly says that is not a good thing to do with BPs. The inconsistency is puzzling, to put it mildly.)
So that is the heart of my dilemma with this book. It assumes we nons are all equipped to be lifeguards. And we are not.
Is it really the responsibility for nons to become lifeguards for the BPs in their lives? Certainly there is no harm in learning some lifeguarding skills, in gaining better strength and skill in swimming -- IF you have the capability to swim yourself (I might argue that asking non children of BPs to become supports for their BP parents is like asking a quadruple amputee to become a lifeguard at a beach -- it ignores the damage done to the BP's child by the BP's disorder that very probably has rendered them unfit to ever be a lifeguard, through no fault of their own -- their limbs have been cut off!) and IF you have the time and energy and money available to take classes on lifeguarding skills and do the physical workouts necessary to develop strength and skill. But even if you undertake the training and devote the time and energy to becoming a lifeguard, you still have to keep in mind that a panicky drowning person is a danger to you as well as to himself -- and you have to know how and when to punch out the drowning person to make it possible to save them. And you also have to learn the skill to disentangle yourself from the drowning person's panicked clutch around your neck, and, if necessary... .to leave them to drown if you determine that your skill and strength are not sufficient to enable a successful rescue.
That is the gist of my dissatisfaction with this book so far. I will toss out a few more analogies that occurred to me as I read, as further food for thought:
This book says that BPs engage in behavior that damages others in order to obtain short-term relief for their pain. They lack the capacity to see and understand that in the long term the behavior will cause them MORE pain as people withdraw from them and shut them out to avoid the damage. Their immediate pain is simply too great to let them see and act in their long-term best interest. So let's draw an analogy with, for example, a pyromaniac. This is a person who sets fires to express anger, or, in some cases, just because they are so attracted to the dancing flames they will start a fire anywhere just for the pleasure of watching it burn. They need that excitement so much they will start a fire regardless of whether there are children in the building they have just set on fire.
Do we hold them responsible if children die in the burning building?
Damned straight we do.
Do we say, "To keep them from lighting more fires, we must understand their need to set fires, radically accept them as they are, and love them and support them until they no longer need to set fires to feel fulfilled"? ... .Not if we have any good sense we don't. The fire bug has to have enough self-awareness to say "I know it is wrong to set fires. I know WHY it is wrong. I do NOT want to burn any more children to death to satisfy my urge to see a fire. Please lock me up or put me under house arrest until I can be sure, and you can be sure, that my compulsion will not harm anyone else. Only then should I be free." This book seems (to me) to be encouraging nons to let the firebug BPs in their lives run rampant and set emotional fires that cause real, lasting damage, out of compassion for them and the "realization" that they "can't help it, they are sick and in great emotional pain." While I would not say we should have NO compassion for an emotional firebug who can't help himself, I think we need to have MORE compassion for the dead or horribly burned children. I think we MUST protect ourselves, our children, our spouses, and other people the BP may be hurting, from the fires the BP can't help setting. First, we put out the fires and help the survivors recover as best they can. Second, we stop the sick person from starting any more fires. THEN AND ONLY THEN do we turn our compassionate gaze on the firebug and say, We will try to help you to learn to not set fires, to not set any more fires, to be happy without fires in your life.
This books seems to want us to jump to step three, insisting that putting out the fires started by the firebug is not the priority, that taking the fires away from the firebug will just make the firebug that much more desperate to start another fire for fulfillment, that the firebug needs compassion, understanding, time, energy, and love more than the people who have lost lives and homes and been horribly and permanently burn-scarred by the fires set by the firebug.
As a second analogy I will use the example of a child who is neglected and abused at home and joins a gang for support, safety, and a place to belong. This child then becomes involved in gang activity -- and one such an activity is a drive-by shooting where three innocent people, one of them a two year old child, are shot.
Do we feel compassionate toward the gang member? Yes. Do we have an intellectual understanding of the needs that drove him to join the gang, of what benefits he gains from gang membership, of how he is trying to survive in a hostile environment using the only effective tools he sees around him for doing so? Yes.
But do we let him off the hook for the deaths or injuries of three people, one of them a child, just because of our compassion for what he has suffered and our understanding of his reasons for joining a gang?
No. He is still responsible. People are still dead or hurt, people who, if they still live, or if they have surviving family members who are grieving, have needs that must come first, before the needs of the gang member.
A harmful BP belongs to a mental gang of which only he or she is a member, committing drive-by emotional shootings on all the people who get close. An exceptionally brave or compassionate person might seek to approach the gang member and ask him to stop shooting randomly out of the car at passers-by, but what are the chances the gang member will do so just for the asking? And if you want to protect yourself, and the others who may be depending on you such as your children and spouse, wouldn't the smarter and better move be for you to get out of the range of the gang member's guns, if you can? Certainly you have a responsibility to protect your children and spouse from flying bullets. It is not useful to say "The gang member has had a much more difficult life than you, he is in emotional pain, he does not know how else to express his feelings" -- when you are being SHOT AT.
So this is what I want to ask Valerie Porr, the author of this book.
1) If we feel a BP is going to drown us, are we required to risk our lives trying to save them even if we are certain we do not possess the skills, strength, or equipment to succeed in a rescue? (And the question is even thornier for we non children of BPs -- because it is THEIR responsibility to rescue US and not the other way around.)
2) If a BP is setting emotional fires and committing emotional drive-by shootings, must we stand there and be burnt and shot until we have loved and accepted the BP enough that they stop, if they ever do? How much damage are we required to absorb in the name of love and acceptance of the BP? Is there a limit?
I would love to hear from anyone else has read or is in the process of reading this book.
-- May