It seems like in psychology today the lingua franca in describing patients is “emotionally damaged.” So what is that? It means someone who is neurotic, full of pain, damaged by years of abuse, etc. So I got to thinking about it and tried to define it in a more precise way. There are two aspects to this. One: There is a timetable of needs beginning in the womb. How completely they are fulfilled or not determines one aspect of the pain. Secondly, needs that require fulfillment are the most painful the earlier they occur. And this is pretty much true for all of us. Early primal needs are nearly always a matter of life-and-death. Their lack of fulfillment can be catastrophic. This is imprinted and endures for nearly all of our lives. There are secondary, non-lethal needs that require fulfillment but when not fulfilled hurt but do not change our basic neuro-physiology. These needs come late in the evolutionary time-table.
So let us assume that of the many needs, to be touched, talked to and listened to, to have our needs acknowledged, to be understood and have our moods mirrored by parents, there are only one or two that are fulfilled. The rest means pain. There is hierarchy of needs; those that are involved in life and death—oxygen at birth, a calm environment while being carried, feeling safe in one’s surroundings and being protected. Above all, being touched and caressed and kissed right after birth. Parents need to show their love. Lesser needs such as being talked to are important but they do not alter the great pain of not being held and caressed as an infant. We can adumbrate the amount of pain by measuring the vitalness of the need and how much it was not fulfilled.
Those who are most damaged are those who have in my lingo, first line pain. The only damage equivalent is something that is commensurate with first line such as incest at age six or eight. But in addition to that there are other needs not fulfilled, then you have the makings of serious mental illness. When the parent who is supposed to protect you becomes the danger, damage is inevitable. When a child has no one to express her feelings to, damage is also evident. In my books where I write on the nature of love, I have discussed the various needs and their need for fulfillment. If you have been touched and held but not talked to the damage is much less. If you have not been held but have been talked to the damage is much more. So damage increases as deeper brain areas are touched. That is why Hollywood does not ordinarily ruin people. Those who are already wounded seek out Hollywood.
Hello Dr Janov.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of needs that I find interesting is their relationship to development. All needs must ultimately be linked to development (otherwise they wouldn't exist), so where we are deprived must also, surely, be where our development is compromised.
If a baby is not held and loved right after birth then the baby must get the devistating message: "You are not supported, you are therefore in danger". With the defensive reaction: "Prioritise your energy to winning support". And while the baby must prioritise this pure survival need, their core social development (first with their mother) must also be compromised, because the baby--still trying to deal with an emergency--is not fully engaged in learning the link between feelings (through body contact) and facial expression with their mother, etc.
I would guess that you could get some clues to the nature of an individual's deprivation simply by recognising certain developmental deficiencies. One example (relating to the previous paragraph) might be that an individual who was not held much during their earliest periods might in turn, as adults, struggle to get a feel for where other people are at through their expressions, because that early associative learning was not able to take place (properly).
To say, I think this effect can lead to interesting compensatory developments too. I think people can become very clever over time, on certain levels, but I think sometimes that cleverness may have only developed to compensate for a more primary "dumbness". In fact I think we all probably have a lot of that.
Absolutely correct. art janov
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Andy. Indeed, well as defining 'emotionally damaged' it is worth defining 'need' too in a neurophysiological and biological sense. Clearly 'need' constitutes the fulfillment of a necessary precondition for some aspect of our human development which if not met will ultimately me reflected in and measurable by its effect on our condition. I think someone like John Bowlby is interesting here whose theory of attachment behaviour (which closely relates to Harlow's work and is certainly inkeeping with Dr Janov's in my view) suggests that there are clear phases of development our behavioural systems go through in order for them to become refined (goal-corrected in the context of the human polar affect system) and that if necessary pre-conditions are not met then behaviour takes alternative trajectories e.g. showing clear signs of disturbance caused by dislocation and interruption (although Bowlby over emphasised separation from the primary caretaker as the main cause here)of the mother-baby relationship.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the extent to which needs are met defines our experience of our environment. This is as much true in the womb as out of it. No organism is able to adapt beyond his environment - it would be a waste of energy and not to mention physiologically impossible. But of course where needs are not met not only can an organism not adapt, this ultimately means he can not express himself and it is this stifling of genetic expression (and therefore physical and mental potential to become socially functional) that causes ultimately the pain and hurt that precipitates the splitting or neurosis.
Hello everybody,
ReplyDeleteYet another aspect of the need issue is that many needs are only PARTIALLY fulfilled. Indeed, a child may occasionally be listen to, stroked or kissed. There might be some situations when the child was shown some attention, when he received a compliment. I found that the less the need is fulfilled, the more difficult is to recognize and feel it. The most difficult needs to feel are the ones that are not fulfilled at all, the ones that stayed unconscious all the time.
Marjan Tosic
Adding to Andy's comment:
ReplyDeleteThis urgent 1st line need that is postponing further social development cannot recieve full attention once it is blocked from consciousness. Worse still, the need cannot be fully expressed because it is not fully felt. So no-one can see just how badly the child needs a hug. Not even the child can see it. Even a more feeling person will be less inclined to sense that the child needs to be held. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. If the baby was held by ANYONE during the first moments of life, and was surrounded by people who were more feeling than the mother, then perhaps the baby's 'self-destruction' phase could be halted to some extent.
How about a Janov Private Hospital for Births.
Richard: You often see the unfulfilled need in the actout. A woman may be hypersexual, trying to get touched. When we start with that and allow her to go back we find the original need. Cherchez le act-out. art janov
ReplyDeleteinteresting info on babies brought up on a kibbutz whose parents may only spend around 2 hours a day with them plus all day Sunday. The rest of the time the baby is looked after by a nurse, in the sense that its physical care is attended to. However, even though the parents are seemingly bit players the child's psychological need for security (as measured in its intensity of attachment) is fulfilled by the responsiveness and social interaction provided by its relationship to its parents and not at all by the nurse who does the caring. So as long as the child has a responsive relationship to a familiar figure and attachment can occur then pain and psychological hurt does not cause damage. It is when kids are farmed out by parents to teachers/nurses as surrogate parent figures that damage is done. I know Dr Janov has commented on the harmful effects of boarding schools in the past. I think this needs to be in the context of parents who are using the school system to evade their parental relationship.
ReplyDeleteAs a psychology student, combining Arthur's ideas with those of John Bowlby (attachment theory) is proving really profitable. I don't know if Dr Janov ever met Bowlby. Be fascinating to know if they did ever chat.
just to add, i think Dr janov's analysis of the damage caused by lack of touching, mirroring etc. is parallel to Bowlby's belief that the intensity of attachment of a child to its mother/primary care figure relates to 2 variables: 1. responsiveness of mother to the child 2. mutually enjoyable social interaction with the child. It is a given, it seems to me, that if a mother is unresponsive/not interacting then the pain of psychological insecurity, loneliness, stimulation deprivation will be terrible and inhibit social and physiological development.
ReplyDeleteStrange to think that both Bowlby's (1969)and Dr Janov's (1970) ideas are about 40 years old now (of course both were built upon research going back to the 50's as well as from direct clinical observation) and science is really only just beginning to run with them in a big way (evolutionary psych, developments in neurobiology). I guess it takes 2 generations for ideas to work through.
I knew about Bowlby decades ago but never met him.
ReplyDeletedr. janov
About Michael Holden. He was a really nice guy -- I knew him quite well (1977). However his primals always went straight from 3rd-line (here-and-now feelings) to 1st-line (very early -- with him it was birth). I don't think he ever felt on the 2nd-line or made any connections there. I think 2nd-line is so important and if we try to jump over it we do so at our own peril.
ReplyDeletePersephone
Absolutely correct. art janov
ReplyDelete