By: Elan Perchik
Imagine your child approaches you days before they plan on attending sleep-away camp with anticipating concerns and fears of homesickness. What would you say? Now imagine that same child coming to you five years later and informing you that they failed their driving test to earn their driver’s license. What would you say then?
In an attempt to support and soothe an individual facing difficulty, disappointment, or distress in life, there are two approaches that seem reasonable to be taken, each articulated by two leading psychotherapists.
Dr. Irvin Yalom, a foremost figure of existential theory, enumerates eleven “therapeutic factors” which engender change and healing for individuals in group therapy. His second of eleven factors is that of universality, which seeks to normalize one’s experience and frame it as being universal to human life (Yalom, 1995). It is of great relief to discover that one is not alone in their problems and issues, but that others are experiencing the same struggles and life experiences that they are. In Yalom’s words, such realization is a process that puts an individual more in touch with the world and makes them feel “welcome to the human race” and take comfort in knowing that “we’re all in the same boat.”
On the other hand, Dr. Haim Ginott, a master educator and child psychologist who revolutionized new ways parents can communicate with their children, writes, “Teenagers do not want instant understanding. When troubled by conflicts, they feel unique. Their emotions seem new, personal, private. No one else ever felt just so. They are insulted when told, ‘I know exactly how you feel. At your age I too felt the same.’ It distresses them to be so transparent, so naïve, so simple, when they feel complex, mysterious, and inscrutable” (Ginott, 1969).
Ostensibly, Yalom and Ginott are stating different ways of reacting to someone in distress or troubled. The question becomes: does it help to frame a person’s problem as universal or unique? Does telling someone “Everyone goes through it” make them feel better or turn them off?
While, strictly speaking, Yalom speaks of a group dynamic whose commonality breeds emotional comfort and company, and Ginott writes of the teenager’s thirst for uniqueness of feeling, their principles can arguably be extended and applied to two differing and distinguished contexts: developmental struggles and personal struggles.
The former are those issues and experiences that are part of growing and developing through any stage or age of life, young or old. Indeed, everyone goes through them to some degree or another. Puberty struggles are a prime example for children. In such contexts, when a child is told, “What you are going through is something all children growing up experience,” it normalizes their issue and makes them feel less alone and more part of a larger social and emotional developmental milieu. It is within this context that Yalom’s principle of universality fits and can be understood.
Conversely, Ginott’s caution that individuals wish to experience their feelings as unique and exclusive applies to personal and private issues. Something of that nature, which extends beyond the developmental framework of child, adolescent, or even adult growth, needs to be fully experienced in its raw, unvarnished manifestation. To dull and dumb it down by universalizing and simplifying it engenders insult and hurt. Here, empathy with the uniqueness of the individual’s pain and distress is desired. When told under these circumstances, “Wow, you’re in a really tough spot; this is a difficult situation,” there is catharsis.
Now let’s walk this back. When a child anticipating or experiencing homesickness is told that it’s completely normal to feel such strong emotions and they will likely pass with time, it soothes them. They are able to place themselves within the larger context of developmental processes and conceptualize their worries as a bona fide phase that will pass in due time.
However, you can imagine that telling a child who fails their driving exam, “Well, a lot of people don’t pass their driving exam also,” is something that will not make them feel any better. Here, it is not a mere developmental issue, but a personal and private one. Universalizing their failure is not cathartic. Identifying instead with their uniquely disappointing experience and encouraging continued effort will help. “You’re super disappointed to not have passed the test. You wish you were holding your driver’s license in your hand right now and had the freedom you always were wishing for. I see it in your eyes, Michelle … And yet, no doubt you’re right there. Next time, you’ll nail it! You are determined and persevering.”
The difference in communication may seem subtle, yet responding in just the right way can make all the difference and leave a person feeling completely understood as they deserve.
_________________________________________________________________________________
ELAN PERCHIK is known for his expertise in the field of childhood development, adolescence and family issues. His signature principle is a Culture of Truth. Perchik graduated from Johns Hopkins University, and is now pursuing his Ph.D. from Adams State University. He additionally earned his rabbinical ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College. Perchik as well serves as the Editor in Chief of TorahAnytime, and has featured articles in national and international publications, including The Jewish Press and Jewish Tribune in the UK. They have been translated into Spanish, French and Hebrew. He can be contacted at elan@torahanytime.com.
