The religious expert.

As you may know from reading this blog, I have often felt that what happened to me in therapy has a lot in common with spiritual abuse. And recently I got involved in a case that falls into that domain. It starts with a religious expert and a wounded seeker, and I'm sorry to say that's all I can reveal. I'm not working as a therapist, only as an advisor, but the underlying confidentiality is the same. Anyway, I need to get clear in my thinking, so I'm going to revisit my theories now, because it is really important  that I understand what might be going on.

So, when a religious expert, or a therapist has an all encompassing mono-theory (a mono-theory is one that provides a rigid framework to explain and describe problems and their causes) and they have a desire to nurture - at the moment I think this *desire to nurture* might be a critical factor? -  this situation isn't necessarily going to lead to an abusive relationship. But there may well be, or perhaps there must be at some point, a problem of faith. Problems start when the wounded seeker has recovered enough to start looking for a way out of the brain fog an all encompassing mono-theory might cause.

In religious thinking, this crisis of faith will be interpreted for you as the make or break moment. The bridge and the struggle that will lead a person either over the abyss or not.

Fundamentally a different theory system is pretty much an alternate reality unless, or until it meshes accurately with your version of reality. If it meshes with your experience of reality so far, then the theory-system casts light, and helps a person to see more clearly what they felt was already there, waiting to be found. If it doesn't mesh, the differences may be fun at first; it is a relief to be in a different world, especially if the seeker seeks salvation from suffering in this world. But problems begin when the person starts asking questions if instead of both people playing with ideas, the theory is presented as true, and beyond criticism. Keep in mind most theories of therapy and religion are impossible to test - so there is a high chance that the seeker is going to be experiencing epistemic injustice. 

This may be done in a kindly or an unkindly way, regardless! 

Epistemic injustice prevents a person orienting themselves to what is actually happening, here and now, and closes down their ability to make informed choices.

Testimonial epistemic injustice occurs when a hearer doesn't take seriously what they have been told. There is an editing of the speaker's emotional content or tone, and dismissal of their credibility. The speaker's information is minimized and misdirected 'oh you are just upset because of x,y,z!'  Prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to the information spoken or enacted by the speaker.

Hermeneutical epistemic injustice occurs before speaking; knowledge that might have been useful is denied to the speaker. This is a structural phenomenon. The outcome is to put someone at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their experiences.  

To be within someone's unquestionable theories is to be within an alternate reality. And this does indeed come close to what Eric Berne described as a game I think. When you try to call it out, when you ask the vital question, when the expert sidesteps and turns the question around, the only thing you can know for sure is that if you understand the ARG you will break the game, and the expert for all sorts of reasons, really doesn't want that to happen.

So, for this situation to occur both religious and therapeutic systems require:

• A compelling mono-theory that explains all suffering and the remedy.
• A story-teller.
• A wounded person seeking healing.

Problems start and escalate when:

• The wounded person has healed enough to hear the theory as a story (a version of reality that doesn't seem entirely correct or true), and the person doesn't leave.
• Because of their compelling reason.
• The recovered person seeks a change in the relationship.
• Because of their Factor X
• The story-teller explains their compelling reason. 

The problem becomes intractable when:

• The compelling story doesn't make sense.
• The story-teller hides Factor X.

The compelling reason is about keeping things the same. 

Whilst Factor X seeks change.  

My  compelling reason to not leave Kit's therapy room was my need for openness and honesty, to know how he really felt. His compelling reason 'clients come back and if there has been contact in-between it changes things' didn't add up. I had made it clear as soon as I recognised my feelings for him that I wasn't there as a client. So, what on earth would cause me to come back as a client!

The outcome is that my compelling reason remains as powerful now as then because I never found out how he felt; here I am, still  writing!

My Factor X was Eros, my desire for wisdom and knowledge. Denied physical and verbal expression, it fuels my search for understanding symbolised by the black box - all that is left after a fatal crash.

Taking another example; imagine a religious expert who has a vow of celibacy. He values his integrity, his status, his career more than the possibilities offered by a changed relationship. Let's say that the recovered person did not know about the vow because the expert dressed in ordinary clothes, there was nothing explicitly, verbally, behaviourally that communicated their status. At this point we could say that the expert was culpable of  hermeneutical injustice. 

He then explains that his vow of celibacy is a compelling reason not to change the relationship. 

And if the compelling reason explains the expert's behaviour sufficiently and everything now makes sense. No problem. The cognitive dissonance ends. Unfortunately this isn't always going to be the case. When the surface level explanation doesn't make sense of the person's behaviour (in this case an expert acting as if he doesn't have such a vow, perhaps he said things that really didn't make him sound like a celibate person!) the cognitive dissonance can only end when Factor X is found. 

One thing we know, vows and signifiers do not prevent Eros. 

Factor X may be hidden behind a fire wall of fear or shame, and epistemic injustice is also lying by omission. There can be very good reasons for being economical with the truth. But it becomes abusive when the consequence of continuing the omission obviously causes distress. Truth is often really painful and difficult to take. How it is presented matters. So you would think that religious experts and therapists would be skilled at delivering answers in a gentle and compassionate way? Paradoxically perhaps the seeker's desire for mutual respect and equality, is part of their awareness that these qualities are missing, and it being almost impossible for them to believe that!

That desire to nurture, mentioned at the beginning, may mitigate against clarity and honesty too. If the expert's style of nurturing is infantilising; treating the client as if they are going to be too hurt, too angry, too upset. this stops the expert speaking as an adult to an adult. 

Unfortunately Factor X often whispers that it is a kindness not be too honest. Then the question who does this silence serve best -  requires an answer.

And if it is them and not you?

Welcome to the world of gaslighting...

Meanwhile, of course all this, all of it reminds me of...

Reminds me of...

Fleabag...I think its on Prime?

My apologies for writing in such a serious way, but honestly, the thing I'm getting at, is really serious.  As humans we construct meanings all the time! 

As understandable as it is to go into shut down and side with anger and fear...

So why not do the scary thing instead...construct good and positive social constructs!