Wounded or unwoundable?

Hello everybody, welcome to another episode of the Thriving Adoptees podcast. Today I'm delighted to be joined by me. You've just got me again, again, just me on my own today. Um, you may have noticed that, uh, I've been releasing less podcasts than I used to do, and I thought I should let you know why. Well, the, the why is that I'm focusing on my Uh, on, on speaking and, and training, and in particular working with adoption agencies to help their, uh, the staff that work for them and, uh, their adoptive parents to a different perspective on trauma. And what I've been talking about quite a lot, uh, you may have heard me talking about being being trauma-informed, but healing obsessed, uh, and thriving obsessed, right? Thriving, focusing on, uh, focusing on our thriving. I've clearly also been doing a lot of work, uh, if you watch what I'm doing, uh, in terms of webinars as well, um, for those groups that I've mentioned and also for, uh, for adoptees. So I, I'm trying to do whatever I can to share what I've learned from my own experience and also the experience of the fantastic guests that have been on the podcast in this Thrive Framework. So the Thrive Framework is based on everything that I've learned over the last 3 and a half years. And it's a framework for a course, for webinars and a book in time. So that's why I'm doing less episodes of the podcast. So Let's get straight to it then. Um, the, the title of this podcast was Wounded or Unwoundable, and I came up with that. Uh, I came up with this, uh, this parallel, this question for, for a post on, on Facebook, and I put, I put that on. Uh, so what we're, we're juxtaposing, we're putting these 2 views against one another to see what, uh, what feels right to us. So I'd ask you to check in. Do you think that we are wounded, or do you think that we are unwoundable? And, or do you think we're both right? Or do you think we're neither? Uh, and I'd encourage you to Just, just go with your gut, gut feel for that and, and, and check in. So wounded, unwoundable, both, or neither. Um, maybe there's another, maybe there's another, uh, option that I haven't come up with, right? Um, so wounded, we're talking about Nancy Berrier and the, and the, the primal wound, uh, theory here in her book, which came out, what, early '90s, 1990s? 3, uh, that, uh, being separated from our, our birth parents causes this, um, I think she calls it psychological, emotional, um, and, uh, I think she uses the word mental, uh, and I think she also uses the word spiritual wound, right? So that's, that's her contention. Um, and The name is well known, clearly. The, the name is clearly well known, uh, amongst the adopt— in adoption circles, this Primal Wound. Perhaps a name that's less, uh, less well known, a guy called, uh, Richard Schwartz. He's the founder of something called Internal Family Systems, and, uh, the book of his that I've, uh, listened to is No Bad Parts. And his contention is that the, uh, the essence of who we are, what, what we call, what he calls the uppercase S, that that is unwoundable, right? So I, I think the most direct comparison between these 2 people And they're both shrinks, right? They've both got their qualifications as shrinks. I think what Richard Schwartz would call the uppercase S, if he was going to give it a synonym or a different name that meant the same, he would call it spirit. He would call it spirit. And I think I, I'd agree with him too. I would say that uppercase S is the— is spirit, is consciousness, is awareness. Okay. So, but does this matter? Like, oh, first off, is Richard Schwartz a trauma denier? No. Um, he, he essentially says that the trauma is in our parts but not in ourself, right? So the clearest metaphor I can— I've come up with for this is the little— the cheese holder in the Trivial Pursuits game, right? So if you've played— ever played Trivial Pursuits, each, each player has, um, a little circular piece of plastic with, uh, 6, um, 6 triangular spaces in it, and, and you, and you put the— when you get the question right for each of the 6 spaces, you put the cheese in the cheese holder, right? So, um, what I'm saying here is, uh, Richard Schwartz is saying that the uppercase ourself is the cheese holder, uh, and the parts which have the trauma in them, they're the cheese. Right, they're the cheeses. They're the 6 cheeses. Okay. So does it— so what, as I put— I posed this question on Facebook, are we, uh, un— are we wounded or are we unwoundable? So wounded, Nancy Verrier. Unwoundable, Richard Schwartz. But it's not a deny, he's just saying the trauma is in our past, not ourselves. Okay, are you with me so far? I hope so. Um, what surprised me, uh, was the number of people when I put this post on Facebook, the number of people that actually said yes, uh, yes to Richard Schwartz. And, and they talked about, um, uh, a lowercase s self That is, is wounded, and an uppercase S Self that is unwoundable. Right. So that's what— that surprised me, because we see so much talk of the trauma that's in the parts, and so little talk— and talk, by talk, I mean, um, chatter on, on Facebook or, or in groups— we so see, uh, we hear so So little of the uppercase S self, the unwoundable part. There was maybe a third of the people agreed with that. I don't do a tally. There were, there were a lot of people that went with, with Nancy Ferrier's theory. And I can understand why that might be the case. And as I was thinking about this podcast this morning, as I was walking this morning, I thought about the kind of— we watch a lot of— I thought about legal dramas, right? And cop dramas. And often in a cop drama, that is, you know, it comes to court, right? And you've got one lawyer stating one thing and one lawyer stating the other. And what, um, what hit me from— what hits me from that is that, you know, sometimes I, I know which lawyer is right, and sometimes I, I don't. Okay, so it's more— there's, there's more of a drama to it if we don't know who's right. But I both, but, but both, when I don't know which one is right, because I haven't seen the evidence myself, both people seem really, really believable. So they pick the channel, they, they pick the, um, they, they pick the words, they pick the events, they pick the stories. that suit their case. So if they're arguing for the defense, then they'll pick the events and ask the questions trying to elucidate— that's wrong— that point to the defendant being not guilty, right? But the prosecutor, she or he, will pick what suits their needs too. And as the viewer, we're confused, right? And this is what adds to the drama, because we're not sure which lawyer is right. And because we're taken in by both of them, that adds to the drama. If we're clear, if we clearly know, that, you know, that the defendant is guilty, for example, we think one way. And if we kind of, um, and if we think the defendant is innocent, we think another way. And, and we'll see, we'll see the truth in, in the lawyer representing the person that, or yeah, representing the side of the case that's, that we know is, is incorrect, right? And both of these people Nancy Verrier and Richard Schwartz have really, really convincing arguments. Um, but who's correct? Who's, who's right? Or are they both right? Or neither of them right? Uh, so as you, as you're thinking, as you're listening along to this, I'm thinking, well, Are, are people moving from just one view that Nancy Berry is right? Are they thinking now of Richard Schwartz might be right, uh, as well? Um, so everybody's got their own opinion on it. Everybody's got their own opinion on it, uh, and their own experience with it. So I, I would share. My, my experience, um, and my, my thoughts. So when I read The Primal Wound, I, I thought, this is— this explains everything. This, this explains— this explains everything. She's totally right. And there was a relief in that diagnosis, right? Finally, I found the, the cause of all my stuff. And, and then I started hanging— I mean, at that time I was hanging around in groups looking at, uh, look, looking at, uh, who, who look at self-development kind of courses, right? Looking at who we are and looking at, uh, our thoughts and feelings, our emotions. Um, and, and what, what some people might call consciousness. And, and then I— it struck me, it struck me so clear one day that who we totally are— sorry, who, who we fundamentally are— is unwoundable. So, so what? So what? Well, it's, it's freedom. For me, that was freedom from what my friend and colleague Jude Home calls the, you know, the, the trauma-bound identity. That insight was the, was the key that unlocked the padlock that was chaining me in. And, and, and, and, and so what? Like, so, so what? I mean, it's, uh, people were asking the question. Some people asked the question on, on the Facebook group. So you're asking this question, Simon, but I don't see what the difference is. Well, um, until we see the difference, we won't feel the difference. Um, let Let me, and also, you know, like make your own mind up. I'm, I'm positing my theory. These two of the people were positing their theory. I would encourage you to make your, make your own mind up, but be, be, be open. I heard this great phrase yesterday, heard it before, forgotten about it. Psychological flexibility. So we're not asking anybody to— I'm not asking anybody to change or to change the way they think or whether they feel or the way they feel. I'm literally— I'm just saying that psychological flexibility has really helped me. So psychological flexibility is is taking our own thoughts less seriously, um, questioning our thoughts, our feelings, and, and belief. And as I think this, as I, as I say this, I'm thinking, am I coming across as pompous and know better, that I know better here, right? Um, I hope not. I don't know. How, how can I, how can I judge that? But I, I would encourage you to take a, take a look at this and Uh, and, and because it comes to the, the why thing, right? Um, and, and, and what is this uppercase S Self that, that Richard Schwartz is talking about anyway? Well, he doesn't— he just talks about the uppercase S Self, but what he does for me, uh, far better is, is he explains it Uh, in, in terms of his 8 Cs, the 8 Cs. So they, they are, uh, compassion, creativity, curiosity, confidence, courage, calm, connectedness, and clarity, right? Those, those are the characteristics of the uppercase S, self. And I want to just break, break those down for you, right? So I'm going to start at— I'm going to start with the last one, clarity. All right. So when people say, yeah, when we see better, we do better. When we come out of the fog, we see, uh, the, the trauma, the storms, the storm clouds of our of our trauma. And then at some point, some point, that, that trauma blows, blows through and reveals the, the, the, the blue sky, right? Or the black sky if it's dark. And, and at some point we realize, if we're really fortunate, that We are the sky, and the trauma—the clouds were were the trauma. We are we are space for for our feelings. We are not our feelings. We are not our trauma. So that's clarity, connectedness. Well, I I had a huge moment of this. connecting with my birth mother through a letter, reading a letter from her to the social worker about my teddy bear. And I've talked about this quite a lot, but I felt connected with her in that moment. But you haven't read my— you know, your birth mother is different to my birth mother. You haven't read my letter. So how are you— you know, how can you get that? Maybe you've had a moment of connectedness when you've been lost in the crowd, right? When you felt connected with everybody. Maybe that's been in a rock concert, maybe that's been in a church, maybe it's been on a football ground, maybe that's been in nature. But I'm pretty sure that at some point you felt connected. You felt connected with the rest of of, of the, of the, of the people that you're with or with the world. Uh, calm. Calm. C-A-L-M, right? Calm. That the, the essence of ourself is, is peace. And go back to the, go back to the, the, uh, the weather, a weather metaphor here. Uh, And the storm, the eye of the storm, right? The eye, the E-Y-E of the storm. The eye of the storm, in the eye of the storm is peace and calm. What if the eye of the storm, the E-Y-E of the storm is that is the I, the, the piece of the I, the letter I, who I am, who you are. The next one, the next C is courage. And I, and as I, as I say that, I think of the opposite of courage. I think of the trauma-bound identity, my trauma-bound— of how I am in my trauma-bound identity. Before before that freedom? And, and the answer's scared, terrified, afraid. That's what the trauma round feels like, right? Um, next one, confidence. A bit, a bit like, a bit like courage, really. So when we're— when, when I'm coming from my— when I'm in my trauma-bound identity, I'm, I'm second-guessing myself. I'm worrying. When I'm my— in my uppercase S self, I'm, I'm, I'm not worried. I don't fear failure. I don't fear rejection. The next C is curiosity. So I'd encourage you To be curious about this stuff and dive in. I, I've been curious about this stuff and it, it's really helped me. Uh, creativity. Creativity is the penultimate C. I'm not sure nothing comes, really comes to mind. I, I guess it's creative problem solving, right? The, the more in, in our, in our trauma-bound identity, we're shut down. The ideas— the, the idea flow has stopped, right? The solutions have stopped. The solutions getting out of whatever tricky situation we're in with our, with our birth parents, with our adoptive parents, with our, um, business, with our partner. Yeah. And, and the, the last one, uh, is, is compassion. And I'd, I, I, I, I'd urge this one because it, it's about looking at others rather than ourself, right? So when I'm in my trauma about a trauma-bound identity, it's all about me, me, me, me, me. What, what, what can I get out of this? Whereas compassion, we're putting— I'm putting other people's needs first. So there, there we, there we are. That's, uh, that's, that, that's a summation of the, of Richard Schwartz's 8, 8 Cs, and they're the characteristics of the uppercase SR. So I, I'm, I'm with, I'm with Richard Schwartz. And, and I, but I used to be with Nancy Dario. You know, my take, our takes change. You know, that's part of curiosity is, is being open to change. And I think I'll just leave you with one idea here. This is, this is the metaphor that I came up with earlier in the year of the kids' game rock, paper, scissors, right? So the rock is us. And, and, and so that's who we are. That's the uppercase S self. That's the rock. And in the kids' game, if if if we if if we shake a rock, we shake a rock. If we shake, if we're the rock and the other person is the scissors, then the scissors can't cut the rock and the rock wins. So that the scissors. would be necessary. You know, scissors can cut. Scissors cut, scissors cut paper, don't they? But do, do, does, uh, if, if our trauma is the scissors, does our trauma cut us? Well, that would be Nancy Ferrier's theory, that the scissors cut rock. But in the kid's game, Kids, uh, the rock beats the scissors because the scissors can't cut rock. But what we're not— we're not denying the trauma here. We're just saying that the— in the— using the kids' game metaphor, the trauma is the paper, and the paper beats the rock because it wraps it in the rock until We unfurl the paper and reveal the rock that has been hidden by the paper, that's been obscured by the paper, that's been covered over by the paper, but not damaged by it. Thank you very much. See you soon. Bye-bye. Thank you.