Once the teacher of my Institute at a seminar said a very strange phrase: “If a child is lying, then he wants to live”. The phrase was completely incomprehensible for almost twenty years, remaining in my personal vnutriigrovoy Cabinet of curiosities kind of strange, but amusing thing. What does he wants to live and is lying - lying to survive? Like some spy in enemy territory? That means lying and wants to live – dreams to live in their transcendental worlds?
Subsequently, while working with the clinic I began to understand what was meant. There are families in which honesty is a very important, almost Central value. Parents convince the child never to cheat and, it seems, do also show an example of a crystalline transparency. Except for one thing. They do not explain what is so important absolute honesty. Or explain this moral requirement is very common phrases: bad to cheat, to deceive is a sin, etc., and here, I must say, they are a little disingenuous. Honesty in such families it is necessary not for the survival of the individual child (and then adult), but for the existence of the family, the basic principle of functioning of which is the lack of interpersonal boundaries, or “painful openness”. To advise clients of such families is extremely hard, because you can be sure that what you say in session will soon be known to other members of the family of the client and will be submitted at the kitchen meeting. The psychologist told our thirty-year child, he has no separately from his parents?! Let's call him and ask why he wants to destroy our family! – Anecdotal, but very real story when working with families by type “painful openness”.
Ronald Laing as important characteristics predplatitele personality highlights this feature as ontological insecurity. Ontologically secure person experiences the external world as coherent and continuous, but other people as real and alive. It has a ‘sense of his presence in the world as real, alive, whole and in the temporal sense, continuous person”. In contrast, the ontologically insecure person under the same conditions feels unreal, not coherent, not coherent, fragmented, not Autonomous, devoid of individuality and temporal continuity. Lang identifies three forms of ontological insecurity: 1. The absorption of 2. Tearing and 3. Petrification.
the basis of Absorption is the loss of autonomy and individuality that leads to the fear of any relationship with other people because of the fear to be comprehended, understood, loved, due to the permeability of personal boundaries and fear of losing my identity. Tearing based on the experience of the self as vacuum, absolute inner emptiness, accompanied by fear of the influx of foreign individuality. Petrification is associated with the phenomenon of depersonalization, the loss of their live and I feeling a thing *. It is quite natural that people with such a sense of self, Other, Peace has a high willingness to establish such pathologies as delusions of persecution, delusions of control, symptom openness thoughts (feeling that others can read minds), the syndrome of mental automatism (any perception of his feelings or actions are not as part of a private “I”, but as something alien, inspired by an extraneous force, that is, the alienation of their own mental act) and other classic psychotic manifestations. But in families with “painful openness” permeability of personal boundaries, the influx of foreign individuals, the treatment of human beings as a thing – it's not psychotic distortion, but a very real event in your everyday life! The psychotic remains only a little to tighten and to symbolize this state of things in any kind of nonsense. For example, mother doesn't approve of the suitor of his daughter in every way and hinder their meetings, including physical restrictions on freedom of movement – actually refers to your adult child as a possession, a soulless doll automaton of the tales of Hoffmann, in which something has broken. And one only has to place the doll in the right conditions or ask her the right program and everything will be fine. It is noteworthy that the mother requires daughter's absolute honesty. A victim of painful openness is immersed in a serious conflict: to be open and to lose their identity, or close out of self-preservation, but to lose the personal contact with a significant figure.
Question: How to protect yourself from psychosis and personal destruction in a family with painful openness?
answer: the Children of these families must learn to distinguish between honesty and a painful openness. They must learn to deceive. To deceive, to obscure, not to say, to protect themselves from the influx of foreign individuality. Because “therapeutically correct" phrases like “This is none of your business!” or “This is my personal life! " in the described families have no weight. At best, they cause laughter. In the worst – anger and persecution. Not here to win if you play by the rules. Children from such families need to learn to lie to survive. They must learn again to value honesty, truth, openness, because it is not a bargaining chip, not the background of the interaction, and a great gift that you can give only to someone you trust - that is, one who does not destroy your Ya.
(* the article used excerpts from the books of R. D. Laing and A. V. Vlasova)@