Originally Posted by
haennie 
EndGame, I have not expressed to you this directly yet so will now: I'm so glad Mary Ann's treatment has proven successful and she is improving. On her not telling you and the family about her initial prognosis and outlook... Well, the first thing that came to mind reading it was that I would probably do the same with family... the second, is this really a reflection of denial? I don't know Mary Ann, but the way I would think about it is more in line with not wanting to stress out my family with information that I think I can handle by myself, especially if I had someone in the family I was very close with and knew they had difficulties in the past with the loss of loved ones. Just like what you mentioned on your thread about not wanting to overwhelm Mary Ann with your own experience, how this thing is exhausting sometimes. You mentioned on your thread that Mary Ann noticed your being tired and overwhelmed though -- again, if I saw something like that, would never want to add to it even more. Plus, given that you guys have a large family... again, based on what you shared with us about her being an independent spirit, I might even withhold that sort of info in order to protect myself from everyone's wanting to shower me with their attention in regards to something that is actually quite uncertain as of yet. I may be seeing this wrongly as I don't know any of you IRL and the whole situation, but I'm there with Robby in that I'm glad you did not insist on those conversations about her sharing that info or not. And will add that please don't take this as either her refusing your support or not trusting that you could endure such a situation well without drinking or anything adverse.
Hi Haennie.
What you've brought up is a very complex set of processes with no black-and-white "rules" that fit nicely into a comprehensive system. Freud's theory of repression and it's practical application are as much art as they are science. Without marginalizing popular conceptions of Freud's theories, the Freud that's been made available for public consumption is very different from his actual theories, and writing an essay on this would not be helpful. I cannot assume that anyone here has either a nuanced study or understanding of Freud's theories or a superficial understanding of his writings. Despite my lifelong study of Freud, my explanation will be both incomplete, less than comprehensive, and perhaps unsatisfying.
So, briefly, there has been an ongoing debate around whether or not the standard "ego defenses," as beautifully described by Anna Freud, are completely unconscious or only more or less unconscious. I fall in the latter group. In my understanding, Freud's concept of "ego" (which vacillates between the conscious and the unconscious) triggers the defenses to make disturbing or unwanted conscious content unconscious. The process itself is thought to be wholly unconscious, while the content itself is only more or less conscious, moving partially from one to the other under differing intrapsychic and external circumstances. As a means of clarification, repression is an unconscious process that protects the ego from unpleasant thoughts and feelings, while suppression is an actively conscious activity to "not think about" that which disturbs us. The latter can be both taught and learned, while the former is considered to be a natural function of the human psyche and is an automatic process.
The triggering of denial is so universal in the face of a potentially lethal medical diagnosis as to be startling only when it is not present. By definition, denial and the other defenses come into play whenever we're confronted with trauma. The "reflection of denial," as you put it, is not a simple concept. When unwanted conscious content is successfully repressed, it then "creates" or becomes a part of an intrapsychic conflict. This conflict, in addition to the psychic energy required to keep the content unconscious and to sustain the conflict, will eventaully reveal itself in another form (e.g., anxiety) of which we are largely conscious, though we are generally unable to link this "newer event" with that which was made unconscious. Sometimes these newer events "make sense" to us, and they sometimes carry what seems to be an obvious purpose, and sometimes they don't.
In my sister's case, the "reasons" for her not wanting to burden me or anyone else with her struggles, though they "make sense," do not mean that they are not a "reflection of denial." Bear in mind that unconscious defenses need to be efficient in order for them to "work," and this drive for efficiency often includes a compelling or at least a plausible "cover story." Again, the primary purpose of defenses is to protect the person from trauma, and they are neither "good" nor "bad." My framing her behavior in terms of denial was not a criticism, but an observation based on my experience. Mary Ann also said that she did not want to "tell this" to anyone, even to herself. If nothing else, this is a signal that revealing her fears around her diagnosis would only create further anxiety and essentially make both the reality of her diagnosis and her related fears "more real." Denial seeks to avoid this as the revelation of disturbing content to other people would therefore create additional sources of anxiety.
I'm there with Robby in that I'm glad you did not insist on those conversations about her sharing that info or not. And will add that please don't take this as either her refusing your support or not trusting that you could endure such a situation well without drinking or anything adverse.
Why would I insist that anyone else shares with me information about their trauma unless, of course, I found a good reason for doing so? For example, when I work with patients, I tell them that they don't have to talk about anything with me that they don't want to and, in fact, that I don't need to know everything about them. This gives them permission to talk about anything they want to talk about without feeling pressured to address "the issue" that they came to see me about in the first place in great detail.
As we all know, the subtleties of interpersonal interactions demand a certain amount of attention be paid to the needs and wants of other people. It is never just about me, no matter how clever I might think I am. All the experience, education and training in the world means nothing if I'm unable to hear where someone else is at.
...please don't take this as either her refusing your support or not trusting that you could endure such a situation well without drinking or anything adverse.
I can't say I know how you got this from what I wrote. I thought my comments were addressing my own process through the events which I described, and an appreciation for what Mary Ann may have been going through. When I told her that it might be a good idea to speak more openly about such things in the future, it was a signal, an invitation for her to share her anxiety with me when she feels she needs to, that I won't be overwhelmed by it, and that I understood why she kept things to herself.
Mary Ann may not always know or be able to admit to herself that I'm not as fragile as I was in early sobriety, so my checking in with her on this seems reasonable.
I very much appreciate your thoughts on this, as well as your support.
Thank you.