THE EMOTIONAL "BOTTOM-UP" REVOLUTION
Attachment Theory, “Affect Narratives”
and
Neurobiological Influences on Slavery
Annmarie
Early
received her Master of Science and Ph.D. in Marital and Family Therapy and
Master of Arts in Christian Leadership from Fuller Graduate School/Seminary.
She is licensed as a Marriage and Family therapist in California and Virginia
and is in private practice in Harrisonburg offering individual and couple
counseling. Her academic scholarship and clinical practice are informed by
affective neuroscience and attachment theory, as well as the importance of
embodied, experiential practices in creating change. Annmarie has specialized
training in depth psychologies and works with dreams, myth and story in her
personal and professional life as a way of listening deeply to the song of the
soul. Annmarie is a certified Emotion Focused Couples Therapy (EFT) Trainer and
Supervisor and continues to offer training, enrichment and supervision from
this perspective. Prior to accepting a faculty position at EMU, Annmarie
served as Assistant Adjunct professor in the Department of Marriage and Family
Therapy at Fuller Graduate School.
Part 1: Attachment Theory and the Emotional "Bottom-Up" Revolution
Yago: Annmarie, welcome to this blog that aims at
deconstructing the energies of enslavement that keeps us behaving inhumanly.
The remedies of compassion, forgiveness and embracing the “giant wound,” are
crucial but we are in need of the dynamic nature of science that is allowing us
to use new biological discoveries to develop successful remedies in our task to
deconstruct the energies of enslavement.
In this blog we ask
ourselves, why a person is able to act with such atrocity? What are the
psychological implications in relationships of enslavement? What is the role of
our emotional life in the middle of enslavement? How can we understand the way
of recovery from total disruption to bonding and belonging?
John Bowlby |
And this applies to this interview that inevitably will be a bit
technical. Very often we are tempted to give easy answers without attempting
first to understand the complexity of the situation. Often we are taking
decisions and judging people with a lot of ignorance from our part. In order to understand the dynamics of enslavement it becomes
crucial to know how our body behaves (especially our emotional brain) in
situations of conflict and violence. You are invited to share with us the emerging insights from attachment theory, neurobiology, and “affect narratives” as we keep on naming the energies of enslavement that subconsciously keeps shaping so much of our social and personal identities.
Antonio Damasio at TED Conference |
Annmarie, you wrote
recently an article with your husband on the Quarterly Magazine of the
Association for Conflict Resolution, titled “Neuroscience of Emotion: Attachment Theory and the Practice of Conflict
Resolution.” In the conclusion of your article you propose that the findings of
neuroscience underscore the fact that the emotion revolution is here (Antonio Damasio). Emotion is where we live, and we stay alive navigating the world by
paying attention to safety and danger. This has direct implications for how we
understand ourselves and how we understand change. Making contact with emotion
theory is crucial for developing models that move conflict theory (slavery)
beyond cognitive calculation of interest.
Annmarie: Yes, although we might like to believe that we can think our way
out of conflict, the power of the implicit and our wired in sense of safety or
danger is critical in understanding both the origins and the potential
solutions to conflict. I believe that we
must begin to value these wired in signallers in ourselves and in others. These processes are much more immediate than
our “thinking” brains. We make evaluations
from this place and our actions and reactions are in movement before we have
any conscious awareness or language understanding of what is happening. We must attend to these energies and
understand both their origins and movement to tackle a complex web like
conflict.
Yago: You say in your article “Neuroscience of Emotion” that our
understanding of what it means to be human is undergoing rapid change. We are
learning that humans (and mammals in general) use emotion to navigate the world
by filtering for safety and danger. We feel in order to survive and to thrive;
it is our first and most basic intelligence. But rarely we pay attention to it.
Why?
Annmarie: Well, I think we like to believe we are in control of both our
thoughts and behaviours. It is a
challenge to our very conceptions of self that something much more basic - more
primitive - is in control. Our very sense
of self has been understood more as a disembodied mind than a ‘body-mind’ that
works from the bottom-up. We have to
listen in a new way - tune in to new music - in order to value these inner
rhythms that have powerful communications both for harm and for healing.
Yago: In a previous interview in this blog John Paul Lederach shares his
open commitment to explore the below and beyond in situation of conflict. He
says that “the below refers to something that goes deeper and penetrates under
the surface of the technical layer. Rather consistently I have found that when
you have a real connection with people, when you get to the below, you touch
something deeply connected to, or reconnected with a basic and shared sense of
humanity. Simultaneously I experience this as connected to something
transcendent. Finally he says that, "the below and the beyond holds a paradoxical
quality: those things that are the most transcendent are also those things that
reconnect us with being human. It is about the quality of presence.” Lederach’s
words go in the same line of your proposal of the importance to focus into the
“emotion revolution” (Antonio Damasio) and the “affect narratives.” You argue
in your article “Neuroscience of Emotion” that, "emotion research, and the
theoretical reflection that makes sense of it, can aid practitioners in their
work with those who experience conflict by paying attention to underlying
“affect narratives”(…) moving conflict to resolution through choreographed
vulnerable encounter of listening and responding." How does paying attention to
affect narratives help the peacebuilder practitioner and the pastor? Could you
explain to us how did you reach that conclusion?
Yago: Diarmiud O’Murchu talks of anthropocentrism as one of the
fundamental causes of the energy of enslavement that keeps tied humanity. For
me, it is at the foundation of any other traumatic experience that we can
experience. The fact that we have separated ourselves from the natural and
animal world has provoked in us a profound alienation with our real identity.
What can you say on this?
Annmarie: There are very basic ways that we are separated- separated from self,
others, and our surroundings. Again,
using music as a metaphor- we’ve lost the melody for rich living. No longer do we listen for guidance emerging
from the synchrony of our surroundings.
When the drive for power and control pervade- for reasons both internal
and external- we forget like one in a deep slumber- why we are here.
Yago: Could you tell us about the story that Barbara Kingsolver shares in her book Small Wonder?
Annmarie: In her book, Small Wonder, Barbara Kingsolver shares the story of a
family in Iran who after returning from the fields after a days work, find that
their young toddler daughter has wandered off.
They search for her to no avail and after days- having given up all
hope- find her in a cave in the hills curled at the belly of a mother bear
suckling milk. Held in this cross
species communication of survival- some how a mother bear knows no boundaries
of other and keeps this young child alive with her own milk. One wonders how a bear knows to care- to be
more human- than we do.
Yago: Annmarie let us move now to the “low road” of our emotional undercurrent life. From behaviour to cognition to affective embodied. You said in your introduction to the “Attachment Theory” conference at EMU that “throughout the universe but most evident in living organisms it is becoming clearer that we are who we are because of the history and current state of our dynamic connections. Attachment theory broadly understood gets to the heart of the struggle to be alive, it identifies the dynamics of connected relationships, and helps us to understand why we feel what we feel, and why we do what we do, not only this has tremendous explanatory power, it also has the further advantage of being true.” I believe that this summarizes in a nutshell what is about attachment theory. Could you tell us more about its background and how has become to be so widely accepted and recognized in the scientific world beyond the psychological, evolutionary and ethological fields? What makes it different from other psychological theories? Why is becoming so fundamental in our understanding of relational dynamics?
When, on the other hand, we don’t have access to our “other” and we lack the internalized working models of safety and security, our danger system is activated and the entire landscape of the world shifts. Attachment theory speaks directly to what it means to be human and the consequences of insecurity on every aspect of our lived experience- including conflict.
Yago: You argue that the basic tenet of attachment theory apply across
context, it is a universal theory. Attachment theory is not only at the
individual and familial levels but also at the communal and society levels.
Could you expand on this?
Edward Tronick |
Annmarie: The same dynamics that are active between caregiver and child
extend throughout the lifespan and across contexts. We know from the research of Ed Tronick (see the still face experience) that secure attachment is built on the daily rhythm
of rupture and repair between a mother and child. The micro misattunements of being human are
the building blocks of security. When
the rhythm of rupture and repair is absent insecurity is built. Those same dynamics of security and
attunement occur across contexts. We
bring our history with us and this colors - either positively or negatively-
our current interactions and circumstances.
Mary Ainsworth |
Yago: Research by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 1960s
and 70s reinforced the basic concepts of attachment theory, and introduced the strange
situation that led to a categorization of attachment security and insecurity of
attachment patterns in infants: secure attachment, three forms of insecure
attachment-dismissive, avoidant attachment and anxious attachment. A separate
category, disorganized attachment, was identified later. Could you help us to understand all these
concepts and how they shed light to a better understanding of the childhood of
a person involved in criminal behaviour? What do we mean by “lack of secure
base”?
Annmarie: The attachment classifications are based on view of ‘self’- am I
lovable and worthy and ‘other’ can I trust you and depend on you. Someone who is secure has a positive view of
self and others. This secure sense of
self allows for an internalized sense of safety that frees them for exploration
and growth. When one- due to early
experiences with a caregiver or current insecure attachments- either has a negative
view of self and positive view of other (ambivalent attachment) or a negative
view of other/positive view of self (dismissive) or negative view of self and
other (fearful-avoidant). The patterns
(and it is important to see them not as static categories, but rather dynamic
co-created patterns. One can have an
attachment style with one caregiver that is different from another caregiver) are most evident and extreme during times of stress.
Allan Schore |
Yago: The “distress cycle” in children. Could you explain what does it
mean and how affects children and in their future life as adults?
Annmarie: As mentioned above, this pattern of distress is a wired in
mechanism that attempts to evoke reunification with the caregiver. This pattern, whether with a child separated
from their caregiver or when we as adults are separated from our attachment
figures, we protest- demand to be reunified, cling and seek- attempt to find
and hold on to what we have- begin to shut down in despair and depression when
our attempts fail- and eventually we shut down- or turn off our attachment
longings and desires. This most basic
system when it is severed, disconnects us from our basic human- in-wired
connection with other humans.
Yago: Mary Ainsworth devised a procedure, called “The Strange Situation”
to observe attachment relationships between a caregiver and child. Could you
tell us more about this procedure and what insights can give us towards
relationships of enslavement?
Annmarie: Mary Ainsworth worked with John Bowlby and sought to actively
measure attachment security and insecurity with this assessment device. In this protocol, a child is brought into the
lab with their caregiver. Observers are
behind a one- way mirror watching the behaviour of the child in response to the
parents presence in the room while trying to engage, when they leave, and their
response when they return. It is from
these behaviours that the above attachment classifications were developed. The secure child is distressed but easily
comforted when the parent returns for they can trust that the mother will be
there- as she always has been. The
children who are more insecurely attached either look- in the case of the
ambivalently attached child- distressed and dysregulated at the return of the
caretaker and the caretaker demonstrates misattunement and an inability to
comfort the child. They are most attuned
to the anxiety. The more avoidant
children act as if they aren’t affected by either the absence or return of the
caretaker. What is interesting, however,
is that when electrodes are placed on the child they are alight in fight,
flight and freeze. They have just
learned to hide their experiences of distress.
We all come from early childhood contexts that impact our current
functioning. The patterns mentioned
above influence our capacity to be in relationship. These patterns- based on our view of self and
other- make us susceptible to either high anxiety or to adopting a system of disengagagement
and avoidance. These patterns become the
implicit working models that guide our overt behaviour including our capacity
for relationship and other forms of human engagement. They also impact our body functioning,
decreasing our physical and emotional health.
Yago: Now let us enter into the process of moving from disengagement to
re-engagement. How does one move from being insecurely attached to becoming
more securely attached?
Annmarie: Security is based on the sense of our others “being there” for us
when we need them. When the answer to
the question “Will you be there for me when I really need you?” is yes we feel
safe and secure. When the answer to this question is no it leads to insecurity
and the patterns of distress are activated. Dan Siegel (The Developing Mind)
has coined the term “earned security” meaning that we have the capacity to
change our attachment patterns by changing our internal working models and
getting into relationships that foster security. We can change our very
neurochemistry and bodied sense of self by attending to our attachment
patterns. This is a hopeful message- we
are able to change throughout the lifespan and that has implications for all
forms of human engagement.
Yago: If we don’t hit what is the basic issue it creates a process that
makes things worse in the conflict. It is like attachment theory helps us to
see clearly what is actually happening in conflictual and enslavement
situations, like in the case of slavery. We are called to provide interventions
that go to the heart of the matter. Could you elaborate on this?
Annmarie: Yes, these patterns are helpful for narrowing our field of vision
and seeing with greater clarity the aspects of relational engagement that are
most powerful and persuasive. When we
use this lens to address issues of conflict- it allows us to more accurately
pinpoint key moments of bonding- that override entrenched patterns of
disconnection- and moments of injury- named by Dr. Sue Johnson (Hold Me Tight)
as attachment injuries- moments in time that create injury (either a symbolic
marker or an actual event) and activate the distress cycles. Knowing how to identify these critical
moments of rupture can aid in attempts to repair.
Yago: What do we mean by attachment disorder? What about Reactive Attachment Disorder? Creating strategies to survive. How does it apply to slave
holders or people acting in a criminal way?
Annmarie: Reactive Attachment Disorder is not an insecure form of attachment,
but rather the absence of attachment that creates extreme patterns of behaviour
do to the absence of any attachment figure. Children who have suffered circumstances that leave them without any
caretaker provide a context for extreme distress, dysregulation, potential lack
of empathy for how their behaviour impacts others, and dangerous behaviours. When we leave children without a caretaker
during those formative years, it has implications not only for that child but
for society. We are creating humans who lack the building blocks of healthy
attachment and the costs to society for this failure of parenting and
attunement gets paid back to our communities at a very high cost. It would be in our collective best interest
to make sure that every child has at least one consistent person in their life
for the first three years.
Yago: What is the role of boundaries in attachment theory. How a person
with an “unsecure base” behaves related to boundaries?
Annmarie: I like to say that boundaries provide safety. We need to know where our others are and be
able to push into something solid in order to know who we are- to learn our own
boundaries. The difficulty comes when we
attempt to help people differentiate- or have good boundaries -before they are
securely attached. The consequence of
doing that is to activate the fight, flight, and freeze system because being
alone can feel dangerous.
Yago: What do we understand by the terms “separation response” and
“affectionless character”? How do they relate to the person who perpetrates
violence?
Annmarie: When the attachment system has been shut down or was never able to
develop due to early childhood circumstance and deprivation, a survival
strategy to combat utter aloneness is to shut down. This, simply stated, for it is much more
complex, creates the lack of human empathic responding. We can harm what we have no feeling towards.
Yago: You say that our attachment style is based in our working models.
Schemas, internal mental pictures. Based in our thought, cognitions, beliefs,
emotions, our whole inner world system. Our working models are based on our
relationships with our caretakers and influences fundamentally the way we view
ourselves and others. Could you expand on this? What do we understand by
working models? How that perpetuates in adulthood? How this affects
relationships? How can you describe the working model of a slave holder, or a
dictator?
Annmarie: Whatever the internal constellation - the picture of our experiences
of self and other - influences how we engage the world. Our internal working
models are simply the internalized pictures of our outer experiences of
attunement with our caretakers. We take
those experiences into ourselves in a deeply embodied way and those experiences
then influence how we engage with the self and others. One
who asserts power over another or perpetrates violence is doing so both based
on their early developmental experiences and based on their current
context. Our actions come from context
and implicit experience - many times out of conscious awareness unless we spend
time reflecting on it - and cycles and patterns of behaviour are perpetuated.
Yago: Although a traumatized person may not explicitly remember the
traumatic event, the memory is held in the body. In this regard neuroscientists
have identified two different types of memory: explicit and implicit. Explicit memory is not developed until
18 months. However, the implicit memory system is available from birth (even
before birth). Many of our emotional memories are laid down before we have
words or explicit recall, yet they influence our lives without our awareness. How
does implicit memory relate to internal working models? What is the role of the
subconscious in conflict situation, in situations of slavery? What are we doing
to effectively deconstruct all that? Why is so difficult to break the cycle of
violence?
Annmarie: Those are some difficult questions.
I’m not sure I can effectively answer them all, but I would say that our
inner working models are constructed from all of the explicit, languaged
experiences that are accessible to conscious awareness as well as the implicit
lived experience of the self being a body in the world. The implicit comes from the fringes of
conscious awareness- the immediate knowing of the body-mind and though powerful
may never have language or explicit understanding placed on them. So, many actions and reactions come not from
the thought out place of choice, but rather the automatic appraisal place of
instinct and intuition. We are acting
and reacting before we know what we have done. We have to look no further than our last fight with a significant other
to know how alive this place is within all of us.
Annmarie: We are a history embedded in a context that impacts moment -by -moment
choice. If we think we know who we are
and we avoid the stranger within we miss the alive presence of our wisest
self. Learning to pay attention to the
richness of the self in body opens greater self and other awareness.
Yago: As peacebuilders we are called to accompany the demanding people
caught in energies of enslavement. You say that people do things for a reason. What
can you say on that?
Annmarie: All behaviour makes sense in context. If we take the time to attune deeply to the
person and the story of the “other” we can hear past our assumptions and
expectations. We hear through our own
story- often missing the meaning underneath the surface- clouded by
interpretative scripts. Listening
through the implicit- understanding the power of attachment dynamics- and being
open to hearing differently the reasons for choices made opens up new realms
for encounter. And, encounter creates
change. When we truly encounter the
humanity of another casting off scripts and listening deeply the natural
process of bonding is creating. Bonding
is a wired in process that takes the stranger or enemy and makes them
friend. It is in these moments that
friends are made of enemies and new possibilities are birthed.
Yago: Another domain of attachment theory is “exploration and enjoyment.”
One of the most evident symptoms of people in conflict/traumatic situations is
their lack of creativity and enjoyment. Pain, suffering, frustration,
mechanistic and linear behaviour. Could you elucidate more on this?
Annmarie: The power of intersubjective delight releases us for engagement. When we are secure in our connections with
others and/or hold within us the inner knowledge of our relatedness to others-
that we are held in the heart and mind of another (Siegel)- we are free to
explore and play. We need to become the
dyadic presence of play in the face of trauma- meeting people where they are
at- always accurately attuning, but holding space lightly with delight and play.
Diana Fosha |
Diana Fosha the originator of Accelerated Experiential Dynamic Psychotherapy (AEDP) coined the term transformance and
names the experience of intersubjective delight being key for
transformation. As people face trauma
and release the bound up energy of fear and pain, they not only heal but become
more than they were before. This is the
space of transformation. Sometimes we
need to hold- in heart and mind- these possibilities for others- like one with
the map of the territory ahead- pointing the way to this new land.
Yago: Attachment is very much about regulation capacity. There is a new
movement in attachment theory towards regulating stress. Stress is one of the
core symptoms of energies of enslavement. Schore, in Modern Attachment Theory,
says that “in line with Bowlby’s fundamental goal of the integration of
psychological and biological models of human development, the current interest
in affective bodily-based processes, interactive regulation, early experience,
dependent brain maturation, stress, and non-conscious relational transactions
has shifted attachment theory to a regulation theory.” Could you expand on
this?
Annmarie: Well, Allan Schore says it best- attachment theory is a theory of
emotion regulation. Secure attachment
creates the capacity for regulation freeing energy for exploration and
creativity. The inability to regulate
creates a myriad of problems where we use other “things”, substances, people, behaviours
to help us regulate. Some of these are
helpful, others are deeply destructive. Developing the capacity to regulate or dyadically regulate is crucial
for overall well-being.
Link to Part 2: Attachment Theory and Neuroscience >>
Link to Part 2: Attachment Theory and Neuroscience >>