I have long believed that only a fool disregards advice from someone who knows more about a subject than he or she does, and George knows more about domestic violence than I do. Taking his observations seriously does not mean that I agree with all of them, however. Quite the contrary. It means I pay them the respect of carefully holding them up to the truth of my own experience and research, and of deciding whether they make sense -- or does another explanation seem more plausible? When I’ve conducted this comparison in the past, George’s analysis has held up better than any other I’ve encountered. But we diverge on several points. In an earlier blog entry, I mentioned the fact that George and I diverge on the importance of forgiveness – namely, I don’t embrace the concept of forgiving my abuser even if such a process might have some healing effects on my own psyche. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't seem worth it to me. This difference may be explained by George’s more Christian approach to domestic violence and, I suspect, to the world.

And, yet, in disagreeing with George on this point, I would not make the statement, "he is wrong." I would not make that statement for two reasons. 1) I think that domestic violence is an extraordinarily complicated phenomenon and there is no one 'right' or 'wrong' answer for every situation. For example, if a victim believes that forgiveness is essential to healing or if he/she must have a continuing relationship with the former abuser (e.g. through shared custody of a child), then forgiveness probably is a correct response at some point. 2) -I- may be wrong. It has happened at least once or twice.

People who have not encountered what has become the standard approach to DV in universities, shelters, therapy, etc. will not know how refreshing and reassuring George's words of caution are. I will be critiquing the standard approach in some detail in future dvblog entries and, so, I won't dwell upon the differences here except to mention two in passing. 1) George offers the 'victim' respect by not pre-emptively negating the interpretation that a victim places upon his/her own experiences. Elsewhere in his commentary, George strongly disagrees with one of my interpretations so he is not being passive or sugar-coating the dialogue. 2) There is no dogma in his approach. It is a true dialogue.

My response: Extraordinarily good advice. While I was in California in my 20s, I went to a psycho-therapist for about a year to try and understand several experiences from my past with which I had difficulty; for example, I ran away from home at 16 and lived on the street for a short period. I found it difficult to deal with some of the violence surrounding that period. As the therapist and I rehashed some memories that I was consciously pushing away, I was shocked by the raw power of the emotions I felt, not just during the sessions but afterward and for days. As always, I tried to analyze what was going on. I think there is an emotional dynamic involved in opening yourself up to memories that you've pushed away for years, one that is akin to the emotional dynamic of childhood. Namely, your emotions are immediate and raw. When you are a child, you burst into tears at a harsh word or small setback but you can burst into laughter as easily the next minute. Waiting for Christmas takes FOREVER. As a child, you have not acquired the filters and skills (like patience or perspective) that come with aging and experience. These filters and skills can be negative, not positive, of course. For example, the filter of despair and the skill of evasion. Positive or negative, however, the process of aging dulls the immediacy and rawness of many emotions. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Rather than gulping life raw, you learn to savor. And the "gulping" part can often be rekindled by dealing with experiences that are new or so intense that they bypass your filters. (I think this is one reason I love to travel…my reactions to new places, tastes, smells, and customs feel rawer and, so, more real.)

When you open a psychological door that has been held shut for years, I think you return to the immediacy and rawness of childhood because you are dealing with memories/events without the 'benefit' of filters. It is as though the event happened to you yesterday and you haven't processed it. Or, perhaps more accurately, whatever processing has occurred has been done 'badly' by attaching guilt, shame, judgments, etc. to the experience. Therapy -- or just facing the problem honestly, which is what therapy should aim for in my opinion -- allows you to access the experience, correct the 'wrong processing' and deal with the raw experience by applying healthy filters and skills. While these are being applied, the emotions arising can be very immediate and very raw indeed. This is the "shaking" of which George speaks. But what the hell -- there are a lot worse things than a little bit of trembling.