Hi again Tweedledum, great question.
Sometimes, yes, people can confuse
healthy validation ("validating the valid") with just blanket agreement or "free passes" ("validating the invalid"). "Oh, I can't give my BPD child any consequences for doing XYZ, because it's invalidating".
Fortunately that is a misunderstanding of true validation. True validation isn't agreeing with everything pwBPD say or do, or protecting them from natural consequences, or tiptoeing around bad behavior "because if I'm really being empathetic, I should understand why they feel that way and excuse it".
True validation identifies and understands the feelings behind the words the person says, without having to agree with the words or feelings, without having to argue with the words or feelings, and without having to protect the person from natural outcomes of bad choices.
A great resource for examples of how to not excuse bad BPD behavior, while also being wise and not making things worse, comes from the
National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder. In their
"Family Guidelines" section on "Limit Setting", under the heading "Do not protect family members from the natural consequences of their actions. Allow them to learn about reality. Bumping into a few walls is usually necessary", it reads:
People with BPD can engage in dangerous, harmful, and costly behaviors. The emotional and financial toll to the individual and the family can be tremendous. Nonetheless, family members may sometimes go to great lengths to give in to the individual’s wishes, undo the damage, or protect everyone from embarrassment. The results of these protective ways are complex. First and foremost, the troublesome behavior is likely to persist because it has cost no price or has brought the individual some kind of reward. Second, the family members are likely to become enraged because they resent having sacrificed integrity, money, and good will in their efforts to be protective. In this case, tensions in the home mount even though the hope of the protective measures was to prevent tension. Meanwhile, the anger may be rewarding on some level to the individual because it makes her the focus of attention, even if that attention is negative. Third, the individual may begin to show these behaviors outside of the family and face greater harm and loss in the real world than she would have faced in the family setting. Thus, the attempt to protect leaves the individual unprepared for the real world. Some examples will illustrate the point.
A daughter stuffs a handful of pills in her mouth in her mother’s presence. The mother puts her hand into the daughter’s mouth to sweep out the pills. It is reasonable to prevent medical harm in this way. The mother then considers calling an ambulance because she can see that the daughter is suicidal and at risk of harming herself. However, this option would have some very negative consequences. The daughter and the family would face the embarrassment of having an ambulance in front of the house. The daughter does not wish to go to the hospital and would become enraged and out of control if the mother called the ambulance. A mother in this situation would be strongly tempted not to call the ambulance in order to avoid the daughter’s wrath and to preserve the family’s image in the neighborhood. She might rationalize the decision by convincing herself that the daughter is not in fact in immediate danger. The primary problem with that choice is that it keeps the daughter from attaining much needed help at a point when she has been and could still be suicidal. The mother would be aiding the daughter in denial of the problem. Medical expertise is needed to determine whether the daughter is at risk of harming herself. If the daughter’s dramatic gesture has not been given sufficient attention, she would be likely to escalate. As she escalates, she may make an even more dramatic gesture and face greater physical harm. Furthermore, if an ambulance were not called for fear of incurring her wrath, she would receive the message that she can control others by threatening to become enraged.
A 25-year old woman steals money from her family members while she is living with them. The family members express great anger at her and sometimes threaten to ask her to move out, but they never take any real action. When she asks to borrow money, they give the loan despite the fact that she never pays back such loans. They fear that if they do not lend the money, she may steal it from someone outside the family, thus leading to legal trouble for her and humiliation for everyone else involved. In this case, the family has taught the daughter that she can get away with stealing. She has essentially blackmailed them. They give her what she wants because they are living with fear. The daughter’s behavior is very likely to persist as long as no limits are set on it. The family could cease to protect her by insisting that she move out or by stopping the loans. If she does steal from someone outside the family and faces legal consequences, this may prove to be a valuable lesson about reality. Legal consequences may influence her to change and subsequently function better outside the family.
A 20-year old woman who has had multiple psychiatric hospitalizations recently and has been unable to hold down any employment decides that she wants to return to college full time. She asks her parents to help pay tuition. The parents who watch their daughter spend most of her day in bed are skeptical that she will be able to remain in school for an entire semester and pass her courses. The tuition payments represent great financial hardship for them. Nonetheless, they agree to support the plan because they do not want to believe she is as dysfunctional as she behaves and they know their daughter will become enraged if they do not. They have given a dangerous “You can do it” message. Furthermore, they have demonstrated to her that displays of anger can control her parents’ choices. A more realistic plan would be for the daughter to take one course at a time to prove that she can do it, and then return to school full time only after she has demonstrated the ability to maintain such a commitment despite her emotional troubles. In this plan, she faces a natural consequence for her recent low functioning. The plan calls upon her to take responsibility in order to obtain a privilege she desires.
Each of the cases illustrates the hazards of being protective when a loved one is making unwise choices or engaging in frankly dangerous behavior. By setting limits on these choices and behaviors, family members can motivate individuals to take on greater responsibility and have appropriate limits within themselves. The decision to set limits is often the hardest decision for family members to make. It involves watching a loved one struggle with frustration and anger. It is important for parents to remember that their job is not to spare their children these feelings but to teach them to live with those feelings as all people need to do.
What's your perspective on that article?
