Curious about counseling/therapeutic/buddhist response to spousal abuse...

[Lisa McCann]

Hello! I would like to hear your thoughts about a situation I encountered a few years ago at a sangha meeting. At this twice monthly meeting, which takes the format of sitting meditation/walking meditation/sitting meditation followed by serving of tea and discussion.

On this particular Sunday evening, we had a visitor, a young woman who appeared to be in the midst of a pretty distressing life situation. She confessed to the group that she was being abused by her husband, and asked for our help regarding how to cope with her predicament. To my horror, a number of men in our group suggested that she "be open to what was going on" and one person offered the possibility that she herself could be responsible for "upsetting her spouse." As the only other woman at the meeting, I was devastated. I talked to the woman after the meeting, and we never saw her again.

I was so sad to think that Buddhism could be used, it seemed to me, to almost justify oppression, and I found myself to be more and more distant from the folks there. I also wondered what level of support I would receive as a member of the group were that to be my situation (luckily, it isn't--my husband is wonderful and we have been happily married for nearly 30 years). I just couldn't support a faith that would give this kind of counsel as a response to suffering. And I am sad that the woman went away feeling pretty dejected and hopeless.

I didn't know where to post this message, and finally decided that it belonged here since this group is categorized partly as "pastoral care." I would welcome your thoughts on the subject.

In Gassho,

Lisa

[Robert McCarthy]

I agree that if someone reports strong violence, that is something that a person should never suffer. Sometimes I can miss the essence of a discussion, but on looking back through the posts, I only see the word abuse used. This can involve a broad paradigm of events, including very serious violence. I would expect in therapy that use of the term would lead to enquiry to establish some clarity of circumstances. rob

[Dharmavidya]

Dear Ixchel, Thank you very much. I will do my best to respond to your comment: "respectfully ask for clarification"

I do not in fact disagree with the substance of what you say in your post. You say that what I say is "potentially open to a different interpretation" - perhaps so, but the interpretation that you then give is indeed a different one from the one intended. Basically, therefore, I do not think we are at odds. That said, let me try to fine tune the matter.

I am writing very specifically about what is proper for the therapist to do. A social worker (I have been one of those too), a police officer, a lawyer, or a friend, might all have different responsibilities in this situation. The therapist has to help the person in front of him find a way to deal with his or her actual life situation and choose for themselves what they do. As a citizen I probably have an opinion about what would be a wise course of action, but as therapist I have to put this on one side. The client has to decide for him/herself. Say the client is a woman who is suffering violence at the hands of her spouse - I think that this is the type of situation you have primarily in mind. She might decide to stay or to leave her spouse. She might decide to murder him. She might decide to commit suicide. She might decide to join an organization that campaigns for women's rights. In the therapy she needs a space where she can explore all or any of these possible courses of action in safety. She will not be able to do this if I make plain either explicitly or by my choice of language what I think she should do because I will by this stage have become an important resource to her and she will not want to put that resource at risk by saying things that do not fit with what she thinks is my preferred outcome. If therefore I choose language that broadly hints that this is a case of such and such a type in which such and such must or must not happen I limit her options for psychological exploration and in doing so I reduce what I am doing. It stops being therapy and becomes problem solving or worse. Most 'jargon' would fall into this category because most of it has a judgement built in and most jargon fits into a 'procedural' way of thinking. I prefer to use straight forward Anglo-Saxon. In my terms people are not abused, they scream, provoke, hit, rape, beat people, they fight, they kill each other, they do what they do. Therapy is not about aloting blame or responsibility. People are already responsible. They will enjoy/suffer the consequences of what they do and there is nothing I can do to avert that. What I can contribute to is the understanding that my client has and that may save them. It is about exploring the reality of what is going on and what could go on. In the process the range of what could go on almost inevitably expands. The client finds new options. It is likely however that the client will vacillate between options for some time before making the kind of decision that they then act upon and this is as it should be because usually a lot is at stake. The therapist, therefore, should keep the therapy space as clean as possible (free from biass) so that this process can unfold safely. This not only helps the client to make the best possible decision for herself, and one that she can live with, it also immediately gives her an experience of the kind of acceptance that she may never or rarely have experienced. In order to experience the power of making the decision fully herself however, she does need that acceptant safe space - a space in which she can discuss and weigh a whole range of things that the therapist probably privately hopes will never happen, but which are actually on the cards as possible. You wrote "I cannot in all conscience witness harm to others and not name those actions amd circumstances that cause suffering as unacceptable" - but one of the dilemmas of being a therapist is that one very rarely does actually witness anything. One only has the client's word for it. I know from the time when I was a socal worker and often had to work with both partners to a family dispute at the same time that the stories that you get from different participants in the same situation seldom match. As a therapist one is very rarely working with established fact. One is working with a client who is going through a process of reflection while they are with one and making decisions and carrying out actions when they are elsewhere, actions that have consequences for themselves and others. For the therapist to think that they know what the client should do is a mistake. The therapist can facilitate the client's process - he cannot live her life for her. Regarding "my judgement is focussed towards challenging the actions and consequences of such violence" - in order to do so you must work with the violent person not with the victim. There is a real danger that the 'therapist' use the client as an agent in the therapist's own campaign rather than empowering the client to seize her own life in her own way, and that indeed would be abuse in the proper sense of the term. If, as a therapist, one thinks one knows what should happen, one has probably reduced the client in one's mind to 'a case of such and such a type' rather than a unique individual who will make her own decision - a decision that might not even be to the therapist's liking. It is this sort of thing that makes real therapy such an exacting and difficult business. We really must not become manipulators of the client. In passing, I can say that as a Buddhist I do not believe in "Hate the 'sin', not the 'sinner'" From a Buddhist perspective a person is what they do. There is no separation. Responsibility is total - but because it already is so, it is not part of my role as therapist to act god and try to allocate it. The people involved in the awful drama that I am hearing snatches of will enjoy and suffer the consequences of whatever they set in motion. I sympathise, but I cannot change that. I can help the one who talks to me to understand more deeply and, hopefully, make wise decisions, certainly make their own decisions. That is at least my duty. The whole thing has to be based, however, on a profound respect for the self-determination of the client herself. That is my sense of it. I hope I can create such a safe space and maintain it and I have faith that my client will do whatever it is that she needs to do. Does that make sense? I'm afraid that I am going to be away for a bit so while I hope that this dialogue may continue I shall not be able to take part in it very much over the next week or so. Warm wishes. As I say, I think our positions are not really very far apart, but I have tried to clarify some points.

[Ixchel]

The discussions on the role and responsibilities of the therapist within the context of the therapeutic encounter are interesting in terms of how to provide a safe, non-judgemental space for exploration and reflection so that the person seeking that encounter may develop their own insight into their situation, which may then inform their future decisions and/or understandings of their actions and experiences. The point about the therapist not suggesting or telling a person in therapy what they should do is well made - as I understand it, therapy is about creating a space that facilitates personal reflection and understanding and 'ownership' or 'responsibility' for our own actions.

More broadly, not only in the therapist/client relationship, but also in day to day living and spiritual reflection and practice, what does Buddhism say about self-determination when faced with violence or violation of the person, physically, spiritually or mentally?

Do we always contribute to our own misfortune, for example when suffering verbal, physical or sexual abuse? Are we responsible for acts of violence we suffer or does the responsibility lie with the person/s committing those acts?

[Tim]

Very interesting post so far. In particular, Dharmavidya's points about creating a safe space for the client, in order for them to further explore their situation. People must find and walk their own path.

In my opinion, people are not obligated to be treated inhumanely. There is no karmic responsibility that is met by being a target for the abusive behaviour of others, family or not. To abuse or to harm someone is an act of choice or free will by the abuser. Abuse is never deserved. People must learn to not allow themselves to be abused, psychologically or physically. This can mean learning not to rationalise abuse as tolerable merely because its source is your family, your friends, or even a religious community. (Reference - Dr Brian Weiss)

[fangxiaoguo]

My opinion applies to any kind of abuse cases,not just spousal one:
Therapist is certainly not a lawyer nor a police to lead a client into actual problem-solving procedures,different roles different duties.Like offering a mirror, a therapist just helps the client to look into his/her inner-self and clarify the situations as clear as possible.The chain of determination, decision,action,consequences.....better begin with self-reflection.
Cause and Effect is such a complicated net that no scientist can analyze completely,as well a set of accounts(so many bad debts within!!!) that overwhelms any accountant and actuary.
From a Buddhist's perspective, if one could "witness" the past lives and realize what he/she did to the present violent spouse(of course they might be in other relationship in the past lives,or just a soldier who simply killed a kid on the street....),if one could confess and feel painful regret for his/her past life's violence or even crime, if one could accept his/her present tortured-fate and ensure that there are totally no negative emotions aroused towards the abuser, then he/she is considered to be bearing the karmic responsibility and somehow "clear his/her karmic bills"(though violence for violence is always a lousy pay back method).
BUT,how many sentient beings(prthag-jana) can achieve the above-mentioned "high spiritual level" ?Tolerance from a bleeding heart crying in fear,despair,anger,hatred,sadness.... and many other emotions, altogether give rise to another new causation of karmic revenge(brutal game continues again in the next reincarnation, with "interests"charged).
Meaningless sufferings are just keeping two twisted souls in prison,life after life,while unworthy sacrifice is just idiotic behavior.Sorry to say this to those victims(helpless kids excluded):one who allows other to do harm to himself/herself, isn't he/she a terrible accomplice too?
One who classifies himself/herself an innocent victim, please use individual wisdom to reach out for proper help,escaping from this awful reincarnating whirl!
Wake up=Way out.
Once safe physically and situationally,it is ideal for one to adopt some Buddhist therapic practice to let go the haunted past from inner-self,chanting for those who hurt(no more now!)him/her.Revenge is just the beginning of another violent tragedy, it deserves not even a thought.
Forgive then forget, free one's soul with one's awakening.

[Alison Squires]

Really interesting responses so far. I just wanted to chime in a little on the whole 'she must have deserved it' issue. I would make a distinction between contributing to the cause of something, and it being one's own fault. Based on my own experiences and those of a limited group of people I know who have been through what has been labeled abuse, I think that both extremes can make 'coming out' with it difficult. On the one hand, the response that one might have been asking for it, might deserve it, might have caused it, is terribly upsetting. On the other, the idea that in order to be deserving of sympathy one has to be 100% innocent can also be upsetting, because so rarely is that ever the case. Portrayals of abused women as doing absolutely nothing to cause the violence/insults/rape etc., either in the media or in popular conceptions of how 'abuse' works, can make those of us who can see what caused it in our own lives feel like unless we are as stainless as these women, then we must be at the other extreme - the 'it's our own fault' extreme. Very few people can remain completely blameless in a traumatic situation, but it does not mean that in their imperfection they do not deserve sympathy.
'Contributing to the cause of it' - can include such things as goading the other party, not doing as they wish, or even just staying with a violent partner. The important thing is to push past this idea that people are divided into 'innocents' and 'aggressors' and that sympathy can only lie with those who are 100% innocent of any wrongdoing. It seems to me that one of the strengths of Buddhism is that love and compassion are cultivated towards all sentient beings, not only those who are perfectly good. This is not to say at all that if somebody is experiencing an upsetting situation that one should tell them to look and see how they contributed to it - they may just need support to get out of it. In a domestic violence setting, some people are attracted to partners who will be abusive - in that situation they will need support to see why that is the case and do their best to cultivate more healthy conditions for their lives.
A couple more things - first, the idea that Buddhism tells you to 'sit with' things is grossly exaggerated, in my opinion. As someone (I forget who) said on this thread, if you break your arm, you go get it fixed, you don't just 'sit with it.' Yes, accepting things as they are is important, but so is changing things that can and should be changed. If I am hungry, I go and get something to eat. I don't sit with my hunger until I starve. Sometimes it can be useful to observe our reactions to circumstances before or instead of changing them, but telling someone in a difficult situation that they should put up with it in order to be 'Buddhist' is misguided at best.
Second, this kind of thing was why I left my last meditation group. I do think that some single-sex environments can be useful, but other times an overly 'male' or 'female' group can lead to some really bizarre spins on the Buddha's teaching. I do not think that it is a case of men think this way and women think that, but there do seem to be some groups who are overly concerned with 'lack of attachment' and the like, bordering on equating Buddhism with Theosophistry (the 'rational' religion), and they seem to attract more men than women. Conversely there are probably some groups who lean too far the other way, but I have yet to encounter them personally.
I'm sure I've said some things up there that are offensive. Please do debate this with me if you are in disagreement :-) My thoughts are fairly tentative.
Alison

[fangxiaoguo]

Dear Alison,your views are not offensive nor tentative,really.Curiousity kills the cats,but resurrects humans,haha!
Many Buddhism teachings seem controversial and confusing, many Buddhistic behaviors are blamed for conflicting with real life situations,many Buddhists tend to"get stuck in the words'........humans see with eyes and think with mind,phenomenal solution itself,come out of human nature, unevitably falls into another whirl of Cause and Effect.
Sakyamuni Buddha disagreed to extremism of any kind, he never simply defined the oppressed tolerence as a deserving effect. If there is a rational fixed answer to every problem,if "sit with things" is a standard Buddhistic reaction to every circumstance,Sakyamuni Buddha woudn't have preached(without repeating the same dharma or sutra) for 49 years.
No wisdom no Buddhism.

[Tim]

Thank-you for the post Alison, you raise some good points. I totally agree with you about pushing past the different labels we might give to certain cases of abuse and simply focus on being compassionate for the situation as a whole.

I still believe that an no matter how an individual has acted in a given situation, the decision to get abusive falls solely on the person who has decided to act in this manner. As a child, I was very unruley and verbally abusive to my father. Still, this didn't give him the right to physically attack me. That was his decision. He could have acted differently if he had chosen to. I came to terms that I was a part of the cause of his frustration, but still remain adament he didn't need to hit me. Another example: My best friend was in a very verbally abusive relationship, he used to loose control and end up hitting his partner. No matter how big a role she had in the arguments, he still had no justification to hit her. They both had to take responsibility for the arguments and he had to take responsibility for loosing control and hitting her.

[Amy Frank]

I think what I learned from my lama's is true. I think and I am encluded in this that we see things through samsara and we don't see how we put our own selves into bad predicuments. I don't think anyone is justified to harm another person or any being. However, I do psychic readings and I get so many people will not accept the other person for who they are and for what behaviours they have. Many think that somehow they will change the other person to become the person the want them to be. And I find what one high lama said to me to be true. He said people don't want a relationship they want self worth. Or they think somehow they have a right to change someone or they can control someone. See I think if we understand ourselves and stop trying to control or change things for the way we want them to be then purhaps we can truely get into relationships with open eyes and truely hook up with people who have behaviors, attitudes etc. that we are truely willing and able to accept.