The Concept Of An Inner Child... Not Really Buying It

[Pencil]

Sherlock Holmes

Okay, Eleanor, define 'fiction'. :)

 

[Pietro]

2) The inner child as a naturally occurring separate narrative self that comes and goes (DID).... And then there is 4) the thing in between 1) and 2) where there is a "piece" of yourself (still clearly yourself) that is "stuck" at a certain place in your biography like Pencil was saying.

One thing in general that we are likely missing, here, is knowledge of the history surrounding the "inner child" concept, Structural Dissociation Theory (which is where the ANP and EP concepts come from), and how/why the two get correlated/confused with one another.

Regarding Structural Dissociation Theory and DID, I believe that there is supposed to be a definitive relationship between these two, that they are both on the same continuum.

There is no common language and definition when referring to 'inner children', despite Pietro's best attempts at explaining the difference.

You're right, there's not -- I was just trying to reason-out a correlation. :)

Regardless of whether any correlations exist, I think it's also important to keep in mind that these are all either "theories" or "therapy abstractions". What's *really* going-on, physically, is still pretty ambiguous. To Pencil's point, it is unfortunate that the psychology community, which is supposed to be a professional discipline, does not, itself, seem to be clear on the distinctions and correlations between the concepts. I know that I've been very confused by this myself, and went through TherapyBankrupt's situation.

For now, until we can get more science behind all of this, it's probably best to treat this much like religion -- to each his/her own.

 

[Nicolette]

I think we have different approaches and ways of thinking, and if you think I'm wrong not to be more influenced by what's currently accepted theory, then why not just leave me to it? I still don't understand why you seem to feel a need to correct or redirect me in one way or another rather than simply stating your different views and any evidence for them.

Well said Hashi.

Please be mindful of how you approach things going forward Pencil as this is Hashi's thread and she retains the right to control the direction it takes :)

 

[Pencil]

Nicolette, I really only wanted to clarify the confusion between the two uses of the term 'inner children'. I had no tone, no issue, no attitude. And due to the fact that there seems to be a problem, I have refrained from further comment. It IS Hashi's thread, and people DO experience a split.

 

[Deleted member 19035]

I think the 'inner child' is existing. It is the 'thing' I connect with when I play with my kids or when I am using strategies to influence their behavior. There is also no question in my mind as my Princess's 'inner child' surfaces very often and is clear to see.

Also research demonstrates most brain development happens from pre-birth to eight years old. At eight years old over 2/3 of the brain's life long learning has already taken place. Therefore, I think when faced with a new or challenging situation it is natural to go back to those connections in the brain that occurred during childhood-e.g. connecting with your inner child.

I think it is the therapists job to 're-wire' the connections caused by trauma during childhood. In order to do this, the adult first has to go back and identify with their 'inner child' to see why those connections were developed in the first place.

I think grasping the concept of an 'inner child' is incredibly difficult especially if you have managed to 'get by' through ignoring those connections-e.g. the ones that say you are not good enough. My Princess cannot identify with her 'inner child' at all and refer's to her child self as an 'it' that is not part of her adult self. When she truly connects, she will begin to heal better. Just my thoughts...

 

[Hashi]

In order to do this, the adult first has to go back and identify with their 'inner child' to see why those connections were developed in the first place.

I like the fact that you said "identify" with the inner child rather than "connect" with the inner child. I don't know how deliberate that was, but to me it's an important distinction. It has made me do a lot of thinking, like many things people have said in this thread.

This is very long but this is where I am now, thinking about all this.

My original question here was about approaches to healing. Why there's an idea that childhood trauma should be approached any differently from an adult trauma, through the vehicle of some sort of inner child that needs to be connected with in a direct way as part of our present selves.

I've approached adult trauma by trying to see myself at the age it occurred as part of my history, and not still in my present. The effects are in my present, but I haven't tried to connect to the original 20 year old self as somehow being still part of my present self. My therapist has been very careful about this too. We've done empty chair work where she put chairs in a line to represent myself at different ages, to show that they were continuous and related, but one chair (my 20 year old self) was not occupying the same space as another (my present self).

Whatever the theories around splitting, and however other people might approach it, this is how I need to conceptualise it in order to work on it safely. The 20 year old self that got split off in order for me to survive is "next to me" rather than within me. I have to identify with her, as in integrating her into my past, but not connect directly in the present.

Working on the trauma when I was 20, I've been aware of a sort of version of me right next to me who has gone insane and can't stop screaming. At first I worried that this was something getting nearer and I was going to become that. I've come to see it as being contained there, right next to me, so I'm allowing that part of me without my main consciousness connecting to it and being overwhelmed.

My thinking and feeling, at the moment at least, is that I need to take the same approach with trauma damage in childhood. I don't think it can be safe for me to say that "child" is still part of me in the present. I don't think it can be safe to connect directly to that version of myself (I also want to say "it", not her). I don't think there's anything I can do now for myself as a child that would be helpful, along the lines of reparenting or nurturing that is aimed directly at that "child self". General nurturing and being responsible are important, but I think not thinking that those are directly towards a childhood self. I don't feel it would help that part of me, although I understand that others might see it differently. At any rate, I think trying that would overwhelm my main consciousness in the present.

For the part/s of me that were damaged or split off during childhood, I think the best I can do now is integrate them into my past, from a distance. Also to be strong in the present and to try to create a better life for myself now, because that gives my childhood self a future beyond what I went through at the time.

Hearing about other people connecting directly in some way to the children that they were, I feel a little like I've got my nose pressed up against a window, looking at a place I'm unlikely to ever get into. I have some envy of those approaches. I can see from what a number of people have said here that working along these lines has been very healing and meaningful for them. I'm open to the idea that I might possibly get there at some point, but not as an initial approach and perhaps never.

I've been very depressed thinking about development stages and how much development is supposed to take place up to the age of 7, because my situation and severe lack of normal interaction meant that I didn't start a lot of this development until I was 6. What I mostly developed were mechanisms, attitudes and perceptions that were essential for psychic survival but ultimately damaging.

In there somewhere, though, is that I also developed a high level of attunement to my own mind and to ways of working with it. I was going to say it was quite crude, but actually it wasn't. At the time, it consisted mostly of deliberately dissociating, which I was aware of and would choose to do. I think this is why I don't have dissociative identity disorder (DID). The fact that I don't have symptoms or a diagnosis of DID kept me in denial and minimisation about my childhood for some time, because it's difficult to see why I wouldn't have it. However, I was aware that I needed to switch off part of myself and keep another part functioning, and to have a way in which certain things "weren't happening". I have no idea why I was able to, but I did this intuitively and consciously. This possibly contradicts theory about DID, and other people may have had very different experiences, but it's the way I see things for myself.

I'm aware that my approach to healing from trauma is often quite different from other people's. I'm very focussed on what I experience my mind doing (my perception of it rather than theories about the brain), and I tend to feel/think out for myself how to work with that. Before this thread, it hadn't occurred to me that this approach was part of my development before the age of 7. Now, it seems clear to me that it was. That's reassuring to me, and it fits with my overall approach to healing which is that I need to find things within myself (and outside myself) that can take me beyond "A happened, B is the resulting damage, X, Y and Z are all you can do. I'm not saying anyone is this thread has said that, only that I need to believe that if particular approaches don't work for me, then I can find others that will.

I don't think I can do inner child work in quite the ways that people have talked about here, except as a deliberate device like the metaphor idea which gives me some distance from it. It has been really helpful to hear about different ideas and get more sense of the ways they can work for people, and I'm very glad to have been able to explore it here before trying anything in therapy. It also gives me some idea of the concepts so I can discuss it more easily with my therapist when we come to do that. I'm going to have to read through it all again before we do, lol :eek:

While I don't feel I'm likely to follow one of the more mainstream approaches to this, that's OK because my therapist is quite flexible. One of several things I've taken from this thread is that, while we may need to work out a slightly different approach, there are certain things that need to be approached in some way, for example what Jaret and others have said about the emotional/heart aspects of this.

It has been such a useful thread, thank you everyone for posting and sharing here. I hope it has been/will be useful to others too, whatever kind of approach works for you.

:)

 

[Eleanor]

Wow, Hashi, really really clear and articulate post on a MOST difficult topic. I am going to have to think about this one a lot.

What you said about dissociation and early development is really... confusing but in a good way. Suggestive, is maybe more what I mean.

Thank you for all that.

 

[anthony]

I like the fact that you said "identify" with the inner child rather than "connect" with the inner child. I don't know how deliberate that was, but to me it's an important distinction. It has made me do a lot of thinking, like many things people have said in this thread.

Agreed... a vast distinction between the two.

 

[Mayday]

I like the fact that you said "identify" with the inner child rather than "connect" with the inner child

Yes, I like that too, perhaps it is just that some of my thinking is quite literal, so I can understanding identifying with inner parts, but "connect" makes it seem, I don't know....it just feels different somehow.

Why there's an idea that childhood trauma should be approached any differently from an adult trauma, through the vehicle of some sort of inner child

I agree with the shampoo analogy in regards to the whole inner child stuff, as in it works for some people, but not so well for others. I also think that childhood trauma will usually need a different approach than adult trauma, just due to a child's mind processing things differently than an adults

The 20 year old self that got split off in order for me to survive is "next to me" rather than within me. I have to identify with her, as in integrating her into my past, but not connect directly in the present.

Oh...I like how you've described this, I may steal it!

However, I was aware that I needed to switch off part of myself and keep another part functioning, and to have a way in which certain things "weren't happening". I have no idea why I was able to, but I did this intuitively and consciously

This makes sense to me if I look at dissociation as being on a sliding scale with not dissociated at all at one end and DID at the other...in this case what you were intuitively doing would be maybe 2/3 along the scale towards DID. Not sure if I've explained that in a way that makes any sense :confused:

 

[Pietro]

I don't think it can be safe for me to say that "child" is still part of me in the present. I don't think it can be safe to connect directly to that version of myself

This is the most important thing, I believe, in your consideration: you felt that the "traditional" approach wasn't safe for you.

To me, it sounds like you are doing some very similar things to what others are doing with regard to therapy, but are approaching it from a different angle, one that makes more sense to you, one that you can "feel". And one that you consider a much safer abstraction.

Really, much of this type of therapy deals with thought-abstractions. For example, it would do little good to use a therapy technique, that involved the concept of a "cocoon", with someone who had no concept of the life-cycle of a butterfly. These abstractions need to be intimately known in order for them to work. You found one that makes sense to you, and that's comfortable for you. And if you're finding that it's working well, you may be able to write a book about it eventually. ;)

 

[Don't trip]

Shell,

Fantastic post and I completely relate. I regress when triggered as well.

I do understand the concept of the inner child. The problem with me is that I am completely dissociated from that little girl. I have not reached the point where I can get in touch with her emotionally, although I see her logically and the trauma that she suffered. There are multiple sexual abusers in my childhood, happening at various ages, so it's hard to say where I became 'fossilized", emotionally.

I think, for me though, it's about having compassion for that child, instead of hatred for her whenever she peeks her head over my shoulder and into my life via my triggers. I want to shove her back down and hide her, just like my abusers did and pretend that I'm 'okay!' when I'm not. It has taken almost two years now in therapy to address the realities of my triggers and reactions. It truly disables me and this is a new present reality for me. Now it's about coping.

I can't do anything about what I endured as a child, I can only do the best I can, to the best of my understanding now. I think if I were 20 when the abuse happened, it would have been remarkably different for me then it was at 8 as I was in a different developmental stage. At 20 I could openly discuss it and had the freedom of choice in how to deal with it, without fear of an authority figure abusing if I revealed, at eight I could not and further, if I had done so, I would have endured more abuse (and did ultimately anyway).

I don't know that it's necessary to get in touch with that inner child, but more so having compassion for the abuse that was suffered and learning to be kind to myself as I deal with the daily consequences.

 

[Hashi]

At 20 I could openly discuss it and had the freedom of choice in how to deal with it,

Don't trip, I do understand what you're saying about the autonomy of an adult compared to the situation of a child. I also understand that you were speaking for yourself when speculating about the abuse having happened at the age of 20 rather than as a child.

I just want to clarify that being an adult doesn't automatically mean it's safe to disclose or deal with a trauma. I was older so the form they took was different, but the same sort of survival needs came into play at 20 as during childhood. I think this can be true of many adults, for example it might be true of an adult in an abusive relationship.

My mind couldn't handle the extent of the trauma when I was 20, and I had few resources, support or stability in my life or within myself. Accepting that the trauma had happened would have had the likely result of me killing myself or losing my sanity. I didn't have a way to support or look after myself if I couldn't keep going, and I saw psychiatric care as putting me at high risk of being abused further. That's why I had to make the trauma not have happened. I needed to do that as much as a child needs to protect themselves from the reality of what's happened/is happening to them.

I'm not saying this to be argumentative, but to try to express why I don't see all aspects of childhood trauma as very different from adult trauma, and why I personally question the idea of taking different approaches to the two.

There are multiple sexual abusers in my childhood, happening at various ages, so it's hard to say where I became 'fossilized", emotionally.

This is another thing I wonder about the concept. Continuous abuse with continuous dissociation is one reason why I don't see myself as having split at certain points and had my identity frozen at certain ages.

I don't know that it's necessary to get in touch with that inner child, but more so having compassion for the abuse that was suffered and learning to be kind to myself as I deal with the daily consequences.

I agree.