Introduction
A few weeks ago, I was asked to read a critique of positive psychology and provide feedback of the critique. Despite being relatively unacquainted with this topic I decided to do the exercise anyway. As I read the critique, one of the points that stood out to me was that positive psychology does not offer much perspective on social factors that impact our development, and rather argues more for a perspective based on personal responsibility. Given what I know about Adverse Childhood Experiences and brain development, I found myself finding legitimacy in the critique which gave birth to this blog post.
Since I am not particularly familiar with positive psychology, I will be leaving that piece out and will instead be focusing on social determinants of human health and development. In part one of this blog post I will present the argument for social interventions while exploring ACEs literature and brain development. In part two we will look at proactive approaches to ensuring healthy child development such as educating parents, providing parents with resources, extending maternity and paternity leave, and different forms of home visiting. In part three we will explore ways in which we can reach those who, despite proactive social interventions, wound up succumbing to the effects of ACEs and childhood trauma.
To be clear, my stance is not to give people a pass or dismiss the importance of personal responsibility. In the end, we are all inevitably responsible for our actions and should be held accountable, by ourselves and those around us. My stance is that we, as a society, have a responsibility to one another and that we should do everything in our power to ensure we are raising healthy, loved, and nurtured children - and if anyone slips through the cracks, that we are there to provide a chance at redemption.
Part I
Those who argue for personal responsibility employ a “no excuses” attitude - you are accountable, you are responsible for your choices. This is an empowering perspective because with accountability and being responsible for one’s actions, growth and development are inevitable byproducts. Further, at the core of this philosophy is a kernel of truth: that no one is to blame for our choices except ourselves. With that in mind, there are external factors that contribute to a person’s decision-making capacity which does not make certain acts or behaviors excusable, but rather, provides essential context. One essential factor that contributes to poor decision-making is Adverse Childhood Experiences.
The original ACEs survey that was created in the 90’s includes all forms of abuse and neglect, parental divorce, having a parent with an addiction and/or mental illness, having a family member who is incarcerated, and witnessing domestic violence. Other adverse experiences that were not part of the original study include witnessing community violence, being discriminated against, death of a parent or other close family member, extreme bullying, natural disasters, and experiencing displacement, homelessness, or foster care. All these experiences can have negative effects on children, especially when they are recurring and if the child is left to their own devices to process these unfortunate situations. Further, persistent abuse and neglect cause toxic stress in the child, which means their stress levels, and thus the stress hormone cortisol, are perpetually elevated. For example, parents who are under-resourced and often exhausted, or who went through adversity as a child but did not pursue a healing journey, may have trouble attuning to their baby which could be considered an inadvertent form of neglect.
In a famous study called The Still Face Experiment, a parent and her child are playing, engaging in a normal back-and-forth routine. The mother is then instructed to stop all facial expressions and engagement and instead stare blankly at the baby. Very quickly the baby tries to “win” mom back with bids for connection and begins to show signs of stress - frustration, confusion, and hurt. This went on for two minutes until the mother was instructed to go back to her normal way of engaging with the baby. Imagine a child who experiences this on a regular basis? How would that affect them?
In situations similar to the above example, elevated levels of cortisol during the child’s formative years cause changes in brain development that direct more growth into the “survival brain” than is otherwise typical. The result is less growth in the areas that contribute to cognitive and emotional processes such as executive functioning, emotional regulation, and social-emotional competence. Learning disabilities are more likely to develop, the child may display more disruptive behaviors or act impulsively, and there may be significant challenges with focus and following instructions. Out in the world, the child may not do well in school, may have trouble making friends or sustaining friendships, and may exercise poor judgement. If there are no interventions and they are left to process the adversity on their own, the child will likely grow to be an adult with physical and mental health challenges, few meaningful friendships, a greater likelihood of committing crime or succumbing to addiction, and more generally, a life unfulfilled. Unfortunately, these are the harsh realities an adult might face when their childhood lacks love and nourishment.
Due to the significant damage caused by toxic stress, those who have succumbed to poor treatment and difficult life situations will face far more challenges because of how their brain developed under those circumstances. For example, planning requires executive functioning skills that allow us to prioritize, organize steps of action, and exercise self-control to arrive at the end goal of following through. When someone’s executive functioning skills are limited due to how their brain developed under circumstances that were beyond their control as a child, they are more likely to be reactive and less likely to see the consequences of poor decisions. A fair question, then, is “how much choice do they truly have”? If you add fear to the mix, which is part of the survival brain and mindset, this further narrows their ability to discern and make choices that benefit them in the long run. In other words, they need to overcome a physiological hurdle. Are there exceptional, courageous people who manage to navigate their way over that hurdle more efficiently and effectively than others? Yes, but this should not be an indictment against those who get stuck and need more support. Rather, we should look at this as an opportunity for society to develop strategic proactive interventions in childhood as well as coordinated responses throughout adolescence and adulthood. The question we need to ask is, have we done everything we can as a society to mitigate ACEs and the subsequent fallout? The answer should be yes. In Part II we will be looking at ways in which we can be proactive in preparing parents for the responsibility of raising children.
Comments (0)