Between Two Songs

There are songs that become part of your autobiography.

You don’t simply listen to them. They become woven into your life so completely that years later a single chord, a familiar melody, or one line of lyric can transport you back to a younger version of yourself. They become companions to memories you never intentionally attached to them. Eventually you realize they are no longer merely songs; they have become chapters in the story of your life.

For me, there are two.

One begins with the voice of a child who cannot make himself understood.

The other ends with the voice of a grown man finally saying goodbye.

Together, they have become the bookends of my relationship with my father. Between them lies a lifetime of longing, confusion, grief, forgiveness, and, ultimately, redemption.

For years, Fiona Apple’s Never Is a Promise (Apple, 1996) was the soundtrack of my childhood. I could never fully explain why it affected me so deeply. I only knew that whenever I heard it, my father was somehow present.

The song was never about him.

At least, not literally.

But every time I heard Apple sing,

“You’ll say you understand, but you don’t understand...” (Apple, 1996)

I felt as though someone had found words for an ache I did not yet know how to name.

Only decades later did I finally understand why.

The song was never really about my father.

It was about the distance between two people who desperately loved one another but could not reach each other.

I loved him.

I know he loved me.

But love, by itself, was not enough.

Love did not give us the language to understand one another.

Love could not overcome addiction.

Love could not erase shame.

Love could not heal wounds that neither of us yet understood.

For many years, I interpreted that distance as rejection.

Now I understand it differently.

As I have grown older, I hear another line that once escaped me:

“But as the scenery grows, I see in different lights...” (Apple, 1996)

That lyric has become my story.

As the scenery of my own life has grown, I have seen my father differently. Age, fatherhood, recovery, therapy, faith, and loss have each added another light by which to view him. The shadows have not disappeared, but they no longer conceal the whole man.

This is not a story about blaming my father.

He carries no shame from me.

He is forgiven.

He is gone.

Nor is this simply a story about addiction.

It is a story about what addiction does to families.

It is a story about the children who learn to survive by making sense of what should never have happened.

It is a story about the fathers who love their children yet cannot find their way through the prison addiction has built around them.

Most of all, it is a story about grace.

I write these pages for every child who still waits for the parent who never came.

For every Adult Child of an Alcoholic who still carries that child within them.

For every person burdened by addiction.

For every family who has loved someone trapped inside it.

And perhaps, if God allows, I write it for the fathers and mothers who still believe they have wandered too far to come home.

Because I have learned something my younger self could never have imagined.

A person can tell the truth about their childhood without condemning their parents.

A son can grieve what he never received while remaining deeply grateful for what he did.

Forgiveness does not rewrite the past.

It teaches us to read it differently.

For much of my life, I had several different versions of my childhood.

Depending on who asked, I told different stories. Some of them were entirely false, while other were simply not entirely true. Some were carefully edited narratives that revealed just enough to satisfy curiosity while quietly protecting the parts that felt too painful, too confusing, or too shameful to name.

I became remarkably skilled at telling stories that sounded authentic while avoiding the truth.

It wasn’t until college that I finally spoke aloud what I had known for years.

My childhood often felt profoundly unsafe.

My father, like countless parents throughout the 1980s, was consumed by the crack cocaine epidemic. Before addiction, I remember a different man. He was intelligent, funny, generous, and remarkably gifted with his hands. There seemed to be nothing he could not build or repair. If something broke, he could usually make it work again.

Then I watched the man who could fix almost anything slowly become unable to fix himself.

As a child, I didn’t have words like trauma, family systems, attachment, or substance use disorder. I knew nothing about adverse childhood experiences or the developmental consequences of chronic unpredictability. I simply knew that the person who was supposed to make the world feel safe sometimes became the reason it no longer did.

Children are extraordinary observers.

They notice far more than adults imagine.

What they lack is not perception.

It is language.

Like so many children growing up in homes shaped by addiction, I learned the unspoken rules long before anyone had to teach them.

Don’t tell people what happens at home.

Don’t embarrass the family.

Smile.

Say you’re fine.

Become whatever everyone else needs you to be.

Those rules become second nature. They do not simply shape behavior; they begin to shape identity. Somewhere along the way, I stopped asking myself how I felt and started asking what version of myself other people needed me to become.

Looking back now, I don’t think I was trying to deceive anyone.

I was trying to belong.

Children can survive remarkable hardship when someone helps them make sense of it. What they struggle to survive is chaos without meaning. The mind of a child will almost always choose a painful explanation over no explanation at all. If a father disappears emotionally, the child rarely concludes that addiction has stolen him. Instead, he wonders whether he simply was not enough.

That question haunted much of my childhood.

Not because my father failed to love me.

But because addiction rarely allows love to be experienced consistently.

For many years, I confused inconsistency with absence.

I confused absence with rejection.

And I confused rejection with my own worth.

It would take me decades to untangle those knots.

One conversation with my father has remained with me for more than thirty years.

I was about sixteen years old.

My grandfather our shared namesake had recently died in what would become one of the most traumatic events in our family’s history. Grief seemed to magnify everything that had already been fragile. The drinking had become impossible to ignore, and for reasons I still cannot fully explain, I decided to confront the one subject everyone else carefully avoided.

I asked my father if he was an alcoholic.

He immediately denied it.

I remember feeling something inside me rise almost instinctively.

“Please don’t say that.”

He looked at me with confusion.

“If you’re an alcoholic,” I said, “I can understand that. I can accept that. But if you’re not... then none of your behavior makes any sense.”

I don’t remember how he answered.

Perhaps he responded the way he often did whenever I confronted him with painful truths.

Silence.

For years I remembered that conversation as a confrontation.

Now I remember it as something else.

It was a sixteen-year-old boy desperately searching for coherence.

I wasn’t asking for permission to excuse his behavior.

I wasn’t looking for someone to blame.

I was searching for a story that made reality understandable.

Children can live through astonishing hardship.

What they struggle to endure is suffering that refuses to make sense.

If addiction had a name, then perhaps it could be fought.

If it was an illness, perhaps it wasn’t entirely his fault.

If it wasn’t entirely his fault...

Then perhaps it wasn’t entirely mine.

I did not have those words at sixteen.

I only knew that I needed reality to become coherent.

Today, after years of studying trauma, attachment, addiction, and human development, I understand that conversation through different eyes.

My father and I were not having the same conversation.

I was trying to understand him.

He was trying to survive himself.

Addiction rarely permits honest self-examination.

Its first task is almost always self-protection.

Denial is not simply dishonesty.

More often, it is the fragile architecture that allows a person to keep living one more day.

That realization has not erased the pain of those years.

It has changed the way I remember them.

Compassion has a remarkable way of widening memory.

It allows us to see not only what happened, but what the other person may have been carrying while it happened.

That does not excuse the damage.

But it does make forgiveness possible.

Years later, while sorting through old papers and forgotten boxes, I stumbled upon something I had completely forgotten I still owned.

Two faded tickets to a monster truck show.

I was thirteen years old when my father bought them.

For more than three decades they had remained quietly tucked away among old papers, unnoticed and undisturbed, waiting for me to find them.

The moment I picked them up, time collapsed.

I wasn’t looking at two pieces of cardboard.

I was looking at a thirteen-year-old boy.

I remembered how excited I had been.

I remembered telling my friends.

I remembered imagining what the day would be like.

Most of all, I remembered waiting.

Waiting by the window.

Listening for a car.

Wondering if this time would be different.

He never came.

For years, I thought those tickets represented disappointment.

Now I understand they represented something much deeper.

They were evidence that, for one brief moment, my father had wanted to be there too.

Somewhere inside the man addiction had imprisoned was a father who bought two tickets because he wanted to spend the day with his son.

The promise was genuine.

His ability to keep it was not.

Perhaps that is why Fiona Apple’s words continued to haunt me all those years:

“But never is a promise...” (Apple, 1996).

As a boy, I heard those words as abandonment.

As a man, I hear something different.

I hear the tragedy of a father making promises that addiction would not allow him to keep.

The tickets no longer make me angry.

They make me sad.

Not only for the little boy who waited.

But for the father who likely believed, when he bought them, that this time would be different.

Addiction steals far more than sobriety.

It steals birthdays.

Baseball games.

Conversations.

Trust.

It steals ordinary Tuesdays that children remember for the rest of their lives.

As I sat there holding those tickets, I quietly whispered,

“I forgive you.”

Those words did not begin that afternoon.

They had been growing inside me for years.

When my father died in January 2022, I found myself standing before family and friends reading his eulogy that I had written, reflecting on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. I remember telling those gathered that we often misunderstand the story because we focus almost entirely on the son. Yet the heart of the parable is not the son’s rebellion but the father’s grace.

As I said that day,

“The story is less about the lost son and the obedient sons and daughters. It is more about the generosity and grace of the father who, regardless of the lost son’s failings, upon seeing him, set the table for a great banquet. He rejoiced because the one who was lost had now been found.” (Cottrell, 2022)

At the time, I believed I was speaking about my father.

Looking back now, I realize I was speaking about both of us.

My father had finally come home.

I simply did not yet realize that I was still finding my own way home.

A few days before I delivered those words, I had been given one final gift.

The privilege of sitting beside my father’s bed as he took his last breath.

A few days before I stood to deliver my father’s eulogy, I sat beside his hospital bed.

Because of COVID restrictions, I was alone with him.

After everything we had lived through together, it was once again just father and son.

The room was remarkably quiet.

Machines continued their work with rhythmic precision, but beneath their steady sounds there was another silence the kind that settles over a room when words have nearly reached their end.

I took his hand.

With my other hand, I gently brushed his hair.

For a long time, I simply sat with him.

Then I began to speak.

I told him everything.

I told him about the disappointment.

About the birthdays.

About the broken promises.

About the years I had spent trying to understand why.

There was no anger left in my voice.

Only sadness.

And gratitude.

Finally, I said the words I had carried for most of my life.

“I forgive you.”

Then I told him something I had come to believe with every part of my being.

“Your struggle is over now. You’re going to be free.”

One by one, I called my siblings.

My mother.

His brothers and sisters.

Each of us had the opportunity to tell him the same three things.

You are loved.

You are forgiven.

You are free.

Some might question whether he could still hear us.

I cannot answer that.

What I know is this.

Love is never wasted.

Neither is forgiveness.

When I left that room, I realized something had changed inside me.

I had spent much of my life believing I needed answers before I could forgive.

Instead, I discovered that forgiveness sometimes becomes the doorway through which understanding finally enters.

A few days later, I found myself standing before family and friends, trying to give words to a life that could never be summarized by either its victories or its failures.

I remember saying,

“None of us would want to be remembered for the worst thing we ever did. We are all much more than our failings and our successes. We are complex. We are human.” (Cottrell, 2022)

I believe those words more deeply today than I did when I first spoke them.

My father struggled with addiction for much of his adult life.

He also loved deeply.

He laughed easily.

He could build almost anything.

He never forgot my birthday.

Every time we spoke, he ended the conversation the same way.

“I love you.”

Many sons spend an entire lifetime longing to hear those words.

I never had to wonder whether my father loved me.

I wondered whether addiction would allow me to experience that love.

Those are two very different questions.

For years, I confused them.

Today, I no longer do.

My father was never the monster.

Addiction was.

The man beneath it was still there, but over time his voice became increasingly difficult to hear. When he spoke, his words were filtered through fear, shame, secrecy, and the desperate self-protection that addiction demands. The disease became louder than the man.

There is no longer any reason to protect him from a shame that no longer belongs to either of us.

Telling the truth does not diminish my father.

It restores his humanity.

The truth is not that he was a monster.

The truth is that he suffered.

The greater truth is that he was loved.

And the greatest truth of all is that grace always speaks the final word.

For many years, I believed my father’s addiction was something that happened to our family.

Now I understand that was something that also gave us the opportunity to inhabit grace.

I came across words I had spoken at my father’s funeral that suddenly carried new meaning.

“It was not in my power to save him, and it was not in his power to save himself. Addiction is like that. But here is a secret that is true for every single one of us, addicted or not.” (Cottrell, 2022)

I believe those words more deeply now than when I first spoke them.

For most of my life, one sentence quietly governed the way I understood myself.

I never want to become my father.

It was an understandable vow.

It was also an incomplete one.

Because over time I discovered something I had never expected.

There were parts of my father I desperately wished I had inherited.

I wished I knew how to build things the way he could.

There seemed to be nothing beyond his ability to repair. Broken engines. Old machinery. Houses. If something wasn’t working, he would stand quietly beside it, study it for a while, and somehow know where to begin. I have often wondered if he approached people the same way before addiction taught him that some things felt impossible to fix.

I wished I he had taught me how to be athletic.

That was never my gift.

I was the child more likely to disappear into books than onto a playing field. While other children competed, I imagined. I read. I wondered. Stories became companions because they made room for parts of me that often felt unseen.

As a boy, I thought those differences separated me from my father.

Now I think they simply made us different.

As I learned more about his childhood, something unexpected began to happen.

I started recognizing him.

Not the addict.

The boy.

He wasn’t naturally hard.

He wasn’t the larger-than-life figure he sometimes tried to project.

Much of that toughness, I have come to believe, was armor.

Beneath it was a thoughtful, intelligent, remarkably sensitive man who had learned very early that sensitivity was dangerous.

That realization changed more than the way I understood my father.

It changed the way I understood myself.

For years, I believed I had spent my life trying not to become him.

Now I think the truth is more complicated.

I spent my life trying not to become the parts of him that were wounded.

The parts of him that were beautiful were never the problem.

Perhaps they had been quietly living inside me all along.

There is one memory that finally made sense only years later.

When I was a young man, my father insisted that I join the United States Air Force. He drove me to the recruiter’s office, and against nearly every instinct within me, I enlisted.

Life unfolded differently, and I never fulfilled that commitment.

For years, I remembered the experience as another example of my father trying to shape me into someone I was not.

Then I learned something I had never fully appreciated.

Years earlier, my grandfather had forced my father into the Army.

He lasted less than a year.

Suddenly the memory looked entirely different.

He wasn’t really seeing me.

He was seeing himself.

He was trying to rewrite his own story through mine.

That is one of trauma’s quiet tragedies.

Until it is understood, it often repeats itself not because people intend to wound those they love, but because unresolved pain searches for another ending.

Once I saw that, it became impossible to remember that day with resentment alone.

I began to see a son still carrying the expectations of his own father.

A father trying, however imperfectly, to spare his son from disappointments he had never fully grieved himself.

It did not make him right.

But it made him understandable.

And understanding has a remarkable way of making room for compassion.

Not long before my father died, that compassion would be tested one final time.

One of my younger brothers found himself in a difficult situation. My father was asking something of him that, in my view, he simply was not in a position to give. My brother loved him deeply and struggled to say no. I had watched that dynamic my entire life, and this time I decided I could not remain silent.

I called my father.

I asked him to stop.

The conversation escalated quickly.

He became angry.

Then, with all the force those words carried between a father and a son, he said,

“You’re not a man.”

Even now, I can still feel those words landing.

They found the one place every son carries quietly within himself.

For a brief moment, I was no longer a therapist.

No longer a father.

I was simply a little boy, once again hoping his father would see him.

Then, almost without my permission, words came out of my mouth that I wish had never been spoken.

“I am more of a man than you have ever been or ever will be.”

The silence that followed was deafening.

I wish I could tell you that I immediately apologized.

I didn’t.

I wish I could tell you that he apologized.

He didn’t.

Those words remained suspended between us.

Thankfully, they were not the last words we ever spoke.

Looking back now, I understand that conversation very differently than I did then.

When my father questioned my manhood, I don’t think he was truly speaking about me.

He was speaking from the deepest wounds within himself.

Addiction has a cruel way of convincing people that strength means domination, that vulnerability is weakness, and that love must be hidden beneath anger lest it expose how frightened we truly are.

My father had spent much of his life trying to survive.

I had spent much of mine trying to understand.

For one brief moment, both of us failed.

Yet even that failure has become part of the grace I now see.

Because if that argument had been our final conversation, I suspect I would have carried it for the rest of my life.

God, in His mercy, gave us another conversation.

He gave us another goodbye.

When I sat beside my father’s hospital bed about a year later, I did not remember those words first.

I remembered something far older.

I remembered the man who taught me to ride in a dump truck.

The father who never forgot my birthday.

The man who always ended every phone call the same way.

“I love you.”

James Blunt’s Monsters (Blunt, 2019). A song my youngest brother once shared with me, but I had forgotten, perhaps it stuck a chord too sharp for me at the time.

“I’m not your son, you’re not my father. We’re just two grown men saying goodbye.” (Blunt, 2019)

Now I understand those words.

Not because we had ceased being father and son.

But because, in that room, neither of us needed to win anymore.

Neither of us needed to defend ourselves.

Neither of us needed to rewrite the past.

There was only love.

There was only grief.

There was only goodbye.

Today I am a father.

There are many accomplishments I have been blessed to experience in this life. Degrees hang on walls. Licenses bear my name. Patients have entrusted me with their stories. Books fill my shelves. I have spent years studying trauma, attachment, identity, and the remarkable capacity of human beings to heal.

None of those things compare to hearing one little voice call me,

“Daddy.”

In every true sense of the word, my son is God’s greatest gift entrusted to my care.

There simply are no words large enough to describe what I feel when I look at him.

When he laughs, something inside me heals.

When he struggles, I ache with him.

When he succeeds, I quietly thank God for allowing me to witness the person he is becoming.

More than anything else, I want one thing for him.

I want him to know that he is safe.

Not because I can protect him from every disappointment this world will inevitably bring.

I cannot.

But because I pray he never questions whether his father will be there.

I never want him to wonder if he matters.

I never want him to question whether he is loved.

I never want him to become so accustomed to disappointment that he begins expecting it.

He has never stood at a window wondering whether I would come.

He has never questioned whether my promises mean what they say.

When I tell him I will be there...

I am there.

Not because I am a perfect father.

I am not.

There will be days when I lose my patience.

Days when I misunderstand him.

Days when I fail him in ways I cannot yet imagine.

When those days come, I pray I have the humility to do what every parent eventually must.

To say,

“I’m sorry.”

To ask,

“Will you forgive me?”

To begin again.

Perhaps that is one of the greatest gifts my father unknowingly gave me.

He taught me, through both his presence and his absence, the kind of father I longed to become.

For years I believed I had spent my life trying not to become my father.

Now I understand something far more beautiful.

The greatest parts of him survived.

His kindness.

His tenderness.

His capacity to love.

Those were never destroyed.

They simply found another way forward.

Perhaps that is what redemption looks like across generations.

Not pretending the past never happened.

Not denying the wounds.

Not romanticizing the suffering.

But refusing to allow pain to have the final word.

There are still days when I hear Fiona Apple singing,

“But as the scenery grows, I see in different lights...” (Apple, 1996).

She was right.

The scenery has grown.

Fatherhood changed it.

Recovery changed it.

Faith changed it.

Time changed it.

Most of all, grace changed it.

When I listen now, I no longer hear only the frightened little boy who wondered why his father could not always find his way home.

I hear a man who finally understands that his father spent much of his own life trying to find his way home too.

And then another song begins.

James Blunt’s Monsters (Blunt, 2019).

The words no longer feel like an ending.

They feel like a blessing.

“Don’t be afraid... it’s my turn to chase the monsters away.” (Blunt, 2019).

I thought that lyric was about a son comforting his dying father.

Now I hear something more.

It is about every generation choosing whether the monsters continue.

Whether fear continues.

Whether addiction continues.

Whether silence continues.

By God’s grace, the monsters do not have the final word.

Love does.

The little boy who once waited for his father is no longer waiting.

The father I have become has finally found him.

And by the grace of God, they are both finally at peace.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a Ph.D. candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences. His dissertation research explores identity coherence, examining how individuals construct, integrate, and sustain a cohesive sense of self across the lifespan through the interplay of attachment, narrative identity, belonging, meaning-making, psychological flexibility, and lived experience.

Leave a comment

The Scaffolded Formation of a Scholar

Looking backward, my educational journey appears remarkably linear, although it never felt that way while I was living it. Each degree seemed, at the time, to answer a practical need or emerging interest. Only in retrospect has it become clear that every stage of my education functioned as scaffolding for the next, gradually constructing the conceptual framework that ultimately became my dissertation.

My academic foundation began with a liberal arts education at Brookdale Community College. While an Associate of Arts in General Studies may appear broad and nonspecific, it introduced the central premise that would remain with me throughout my career: understanding human beings requires more than studying psychology alone. Courses in history, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, political science, environmental biology, communication, and intercultural studies cultivated an appreciation for the complexity of human experience and the ways individuals are shaped by culture, history, language, and environment. Before I ever learned to treat people clinically, I first learned to see them as participants in larger historical and social systems.

That perspective deepened during my Bachelor of Social Work education at Monmouth University. Social work introduced me to the profession’s foundational principle of person-in-environment, a framework that fundamentally altered how I understood human suffering. Rather than locating pathology solely within the individual, social work challenged me to examine the reciprocal relationships among biology, family, community, institutions, culture, and social policy. Human behavior could not be understood apart from the contexts in which it developed. This ecological perspective became the conceptual lens through which I would later approach developmental trauma and identity formation.

Graduate study in the Master of Social Work program shifted my attention from understanding human systems to intervening within them. Advanced coursework in clinical assessment, diagnosis, psychotherapy, child and family practice, addictions, and evidence-informed intervention taught me not simply to conceptualize distress, but to accompany people through it. Clinical work revealed something that theory alone could not explain: individuals with remarkably similar histories often arrived in adulthood with profoundly different psychological lives. Conversely, individuals presenting with similar symptoms frequently carried vastly different developmental histories. These observations introduced me to questions that would later become central to my doctoral research concerning multifinality, equifinality, and the developmental organization of the self.

Seeking a deeper understanding of childhood adversity beyond the therapy room, I pursued graduate study in Child Advocacy and Policy at Montclair State University. There I encountered trauma within legal, educational, and child welfare systems, studying forensic interviewing, developmental trauma, juvenile justice, and child advocacy. This experience expanded my understanding of adversity from an intrapsychic phenomenon to one embedded within multiple interacting systems. Trauma was no longer simply something that happened to individuals; it unfolded within families, institutions, communities, and public policy. The ecological complexity of adversity became increasingly difficult to ignore.

Doctoral study in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University provided the methodological and theoretical tools necessary to investigate these questions empirically. The curriculum intentionally integrated public health, epidemiology, family systems, research methodology, quantitative statistics, qualitative inquiry, addiction studies, criminal justice, and integrative social work. It challenged me to move beyond clinical intuition toward scientific explanation. Rather than asking only whether trauma predicts later outcomes, I became increasingly interested in understanding the developmental mechanisms through which those outcomes emerge. Learning advanced quantitative methods, particularly structural equation modeling, provided the means to examine relational processes that previously had remained largely theoretical.

At the same time, my theological studies in the Master of Divinity program at The General Theological Seminary expanded the conversation in an entirely different direction. Theology invited questions that empirical science cannot fully answer: questions of meaning, identity, suffering, forgiveness, hope, reconciliation, and human dignity. Rather than competing with my scientific education, theological formation complemented it by reminding me that people are not merely psychological systems to be analyzed but persons whose lives are organized through narratives of relationship, purpose, and belonging.

When viewed together, these educational experiences reveal a progression rather than a collection of degrees. Liberal arts education taught me to appreciate the breadth of human experience. Social work taught me to understand individuals within ecological systems. Clinical education taught me to recognize the complexity of developmental adaptation. Child advocacy exposed the systemic realities surrounding childhood adversity. Doctoral training equipped me to investigate those realities scientifically. Theological education challenged me to consider the existential dimensions of healing and identity that often extend beyond empirical measurement.

The dissertation emerged naturally from this scaffolded intellectual development. It asks a question that none of these disciplines could answer independently but that each prepared me to investigate collectively: How do adverse childhood experiences become organized into the adult self? Existing research convincingly demonstrates that childhood adversity predicts poorer physical and psychological health across the lifespan, yet it provides only limited explanation for the developmental processes that connect early experience to adult identity. My dissertation proposes that attachment insecurity represents one of those critical developmental mechanisms.

By examining whether attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance mediate the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and adult identity coherence, the study seeks to move beyond documenting risk toward understanding developmental organization. This perspective reflects the cumulative influence of every stage of my education. The ecological perspective of social work, the developmental sensitivity of child advocacy, the methodological rigor of doctoral research, and the existential concerns of theological reflection all converge within a single research question.

Ultimately, the dissertation represents more than an empirical investigation of trauma. It reflects an interdisciplinary effort to understand how human beings organize suffering into identity, how relationships shape development across the lifespan, and how healing may emerge not merely through symptom reduction but through the restoration of coherent, meaningful, and relationally grounded lives.

There is a particular kind of grief that comes with being a therapist. It isn't the grief of losing hope. It is the grief of seeing, with painful clarity, the road someone is on while knowing you cannot walk it for them.

You can assess the risk.
You can formulate the case.
You can educate.
You can challenge distortions.
You can recommend the appropriate level of care.
You can call, document, consult, coordinate, and plead.

And then... you wait.

You watch someone drift toward choices you know may cost them their relationships, their health, their future, or even their life.

It is one of the most helpless experiences in this profession.

But I don’t think therapists have a monopoly on this feeling.

Too many people know it.

The parent watching addiction consume their child. The spouse watching mental illness convince the person they love that everyone else is the problem. The sibling who has exhausted every conversation. The friend who keeps answering the phone, hoping this time will be different.

There comes a point where love cannot substitute for another person’s willingness to choose differently.

That truth hurts.

As therapists, we are taught to respect autonomy, even when autonomy leads someone toward suffering. Families often have to learn the same lesson, only without the training, the supervision, or the emotional boundaries.

Sometimes the greatest act of love is continuing to care while accepting that you cannot control another person’s decisions.

Not long ago, I found myself honestly angry with someone.

Not a patient, to be clear.

Just angry. Disappointed. Reactive.

I often tell patients that anger is frequently the expression of an unexpressed emotion. I teach metacognition. I teach the pause. I often say, “Your first word is your breath.”

And yet, in that moment, I did none of it.

I did not pause.
I did not breathe first.
I did not step back and observe my own mind.

It was as if everything I know, everything I teach, had suddenly become unavailable to me. That is a humbling lesson: it is much easier to advise than it is to practice.

So I called a friend, who happens to be a priest, and he said something very simple:

“Harvey, we have no control over people.”

And immediately, I relaxed. Not because the situation changed. It hadn’t. But because those few words returned me to what I already knew. My anger was not really about control of the other person. It was about me. My embarrassment. My disappointment. My wish that someone else had chosen differently. And when I remembered that I have never had control over another person’s choices, the anger softened.

What remained was grief.
Humility.
And a little more compassion.

Sometimes wisdom does not arrive as new information. Sometimes it arrives as a reminder.

Being a therapist has been one of the greatest blessings of my life.

Truly.

I am permitted to sit with people in some of the most honest rooms of their lives. To listen. To walk beside them. To guide when guidance is useful. To point, gently, toward a direction they may not yet be ready to see.

And sometimes, the work is simply to wait. To wait until they see it for themselves.

There are few things more sacred than watching a person’s countenance change in the moment of recognition. When something once hidden becomes visible. When the truth arrives not as advice, but as discovery.

I have taught many things in therapy. But I have also been taught. Again and again, my patients have been my teachers. These wild, complex humans. These wonderfully and fearfully created beings. Each carrying grief, longing, contradiction, courage, beauty, fear, and hope. And somehow, I get to sit in the room where healing begins to speak.

Yet the wonder of powerlessness is something to behold.

It is both the cure and the curse.

It is the quiet paradox at the heart of every helping profession. We labor, we prepare, we listen, we guide, we offer everything we know, and still, we cannot choose for another human being.

Powerlessness is not the absence of love. It is the recognition of where love ends and another person’s freedom begins. For a long time, I thought accepting powerlessness meant giving up.

Now I think it means finally seeing clearly. It is wisdom as ancient as the Proverbs: that there are things entrusted to us, and things that never were. We are responsible for our own character, our own actions, our own response, but never for another person’s choices.

There is a strange freedom in that realization. It breaks the illusion that we can save someone by wanting it badly enough. It also frees us to love without trying to possess, to guide without controlling, and to remain present without believing we must carry what was never ours to carry.

Powerlessness is painful. But when accepted, it becomes one of the deepest forms of peace.

I strive to accept the things I can change and the things I cannot.

Every day, I seek the wisdom—and the courage—to know the difference.

It is a simple aspiration, but perhaps one of the hardest disciplines of the human heart. So much of our suffering begins when we try to control what was never ours to control, and so much of our peace begins when we recognize what has always been ours to cultivate: our character, our choices, and our response.

The difference between those two is where freedom quietly begins.

And as I write this, I realize I am not writing only as a therapist.

I am writing as a son.

I watched my father lose himself to addiction.

I have stood at bedsides where people far too young took their final breaths. I have witnessed the unbearable prayers of “not yet” and “please, just one more day.” I have watched families cling to hope, and I have watched hope give way to grief.

These moments have changed me. They have taught me that life is both infinitely fragile and unimaginably precious.

They have taught me that we do not own another person’s story, no matter how fiercely we love them.

And they have taught me that powerlessness is not the opposite of compassion. Sometimes, it is compassion’s deepest expression.

To accompany another human being through suffering is a sacred privilege.

To witness another person’s life unfold—their grief, their courage, their failures, their redemption, their search for meaning—is nothing short of holy ground.

I have seen the gravity and the grace of this strange gift we call life.

And I remain in quiet awe that, somehow, I have been called to a vocation that allows me to walk beside others as they make sense of theirs.

And I am reminded that I, too, am one of these complex, beautiful, wild creatures.

A human being.

A meaning-maker.
A story-weaver.
A dreamer.

I am the product of love, and of someone’s dream for me. My ancestors live within me. I am the fruit of their hope. And still, I carry unfinished dreams, thwarted goals, failures that became lessons, and successes I could never have dreamed for myself.

I am not outside the human story I sit with every day.

I am inside it.

There have been times I have hurt the ones I loved. And there have been times I have been hurt. I have loved with great abandon, and I have watched love slowly change into something I could no longer recognize.

I have known great friendships. And I have lost friendships I once thought would last forever. I am both sinner and saint. Practitioner and patient. Teacher and student. Wounded and healer.

I do not stand outside the human condition offering wisdom from a safe distance.

I stand within it.

Still learning how to love.
Still learning how to let go.
Still learning how to become.

So tonight, if you’re reading this, or listening to these words, I want you to know this:

I see you.

I see the one who feels powerless.

The one who wonders if life is some cruel game and somehow you have become the pawn.

I see the dreams that never came to be.

And I see the hopes that did.

I see the one who is afraid to hope because disappointment has become too familiar.

And I see the one who dares to dream anyway.

Who risks one more chance.

Who gets up one more time.

I see the one carrying grief that no one else notices.

The one smiling while quietly coming apart.

The one who has forgotten that surviving is its own kind of courage.

I see you.

Broken, perhaps.

But not crushed.

Wounded.

But not beyond healing.

Still becoming.

Still carrying within you a story that is not yet finished.

And though you may not believe it tonight, I believe there is still something beautiful unfolding in you.

So hold on.

Take one more breath.

Choose one more faithful step.

The soul has a remarkable way of finding its path again.

I see you.

And I believe there is still something beautiful unfolding in you.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a Ph.D. candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences. His dissertation research explores identity coherence, examining how individuals construct, integrate, and sustain a cohesive sense of self across the lifespan through the interplay of attachment, narrative identity, belonging, meaning-making, psychological flexibility, and lived experience.

Thanks for reading The Inner Room! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Share The Inner Room

Leave a comment

Thomas Merton once wrote, “Our job is not to create love, but rather to seek and find all the barriers within ourselves that we have built against it. 1

When I was an undergraduate student, I remember sitting in my first introductory sociology course. It was one of those large lecture halls where students dutifully scribbled notes while professors confidently dismantled everything we thought we knew about the world.

At one point, the professor declared—almost gleefully—that love was a social construct. I remember feeling deeply offended.

At the time, I was a young man with deeply held religious convictions. One of the most important among them was the belief that God is love. If love were merely a social construct, then what did that mean? Was it simply a product of culture? A biological illusion? A collection of learned behaviors dressed up in poetry and hormones?

The statement felt less like an academic argument and more like an assault on something sacred. I lacked the language then to explain why it bothered me so much. Now, sixteen years later, I find myself returning to that classroom with a different question.

Not, “Was she wrong?”

But rather:

“What is love?”

How do we know when we are in love? What exactly are we talking about when we use that word?

The ancient Greeks, after all, did not settle for a single definition. They spoke of eros, the passionate and romantic love of desire; philia, the love of friendship; storge, the love that exists within families; agape, self-giving and transcendent love; and pragma, the enduring love that develops over time.2

Perhaps my professor was right in one sense. Perhaps cultures do shape how we express love. Perhaps they influence what we expect from it, what we call it, and what stories we tell about it.

But if love is only a social construct, why does it appear everywhere?

Why do human beings across centuries, continents, religions, and languages continue to orient their lives around it? Why does its absence wound us so deeply? Why does its presence transform us?

The older I become, the less interested I am in asking whether love is culturally constructed and the more interested I am in asking whether there is something deeper beneath those constructions. An ontological reality. Something fundamental. Something woven into the fabric of being itself.

Carl Jung believed that relationships invite us into individuation, the lifelong process of becoming whole.3 Carl Rogers believed that psychological healing occurs when we move toward congruence, the alignment of our lived experience with our authentic selves.4 Existential philosophers spoke of authenticity, responsibility, and the courage to confront reality as it is.5 Christian theologians have long suggested that love is not merely an emotion but participation in the very nature of God.

Strikingly, all of these perspectives seem to point in a similar direction.

Love is not merely a feeling we experience. It is a way of being.

• Perhaps love is what remains when we stop performing.

• Perhaps love is what emerges when fear loosens its grip.

• Perhaps love is not something we manufacture but something we uncover.

Which brings us back to Merton. Maybe our task is not to learn how to love. Maybe our task is to remove the barriers that prevent us from experiencing what has been there all along. And if that is true, then dating is not merely the search for another person.

It is part of the search for ourselves.

One of Carl Jung’s most challenging ideas is that the person sitting across from us is never just the person sitting across from us. At least not in the beginning. When we fall in love, we imagine we are seeing another human being clearly. Jung believed something much more complicated was happening. We are seeing them. But we are also seeing our history.6

• Our parents.

• Our wounds.

• Our unmet needs.

• Our fantasies.

• Our unconscious expectations.

The relationship becomes a screen upon which the psyche projects its unfinished business. This is why love can feel so immediate, so fated, so inevitable.

Jung observed that the less conscious we are of ourselves, the less free our choices become. What feels like destiny may actually be the pull of unconscious forces operating beneath awareness.

• The person is real.

• The attraction is real.

• The feelings are real.

But the story we tell ourselves about them may be only partially true. This is why relationships become such powerful instruments of transformation. Sooner or later, the projection cracks. The fantasy gives way to reality. The partner disappoints us. A conflict emerges. An old wound gets touched. Something inside us reacts with a force that seems larger than the situation itself.

And suddenly we are no longer dealing only with the present moment. We are meeting our shadow.

Jung famously wrote that everything that irritates us about others can lead us toward an understanding of ourselves.7

Again, this does not mean that every complaint is a projection. Sometimes people are genuinely inconsiderate. Sometimes they are selfish. Sometimes they hurt us. But often our strongest reactions reveal something hidden within us.

• The qualities we condemn most fiercely.

• The needs we refuse to acknowledge.

• The fears we work hardest to conceal.

• The parts of ourselves we have exiled.

Relationships illuminate these hidden places because intimacy removes our ability to hide from ourselves. The partner becomes a mirror. And mirrors can be merciless.

Yet Jung believed this confrontation was not a failure of love. It was one of love’s deepest purposes. For him, the goal of life was individuation, the gradual process of becoming a whole person.

Not a perfect person. Not a happy person all the time. A whole person. Someone who has learned to integrate light and shadow, strength and vulnerability, desire and responsibility, fear and courage.

Relationships become one of the primary laboratories in which this work occurs. The healthiest partners do not simply make us comfortable.

• They make us conscious.

• They challenge the stories we tell ourselves.

• They expose the places where we remain fragmented.

They invite us to become more honest. More integrated. More real. This is also why Jung warned against confusing love with power. He wrote, “Where love rules, there is no will to power, and where power predominates, love is lacking.”8

When fear takes over, we begin trying to manage another person. We want them to change. To reassure us. To heal us. To become whoever we need them to be so that we do not have to face ourselves. But love is not control. Love is an encounter.

Control attempts to eliminate uncertainty. Love learns how to remain present within it.

Perhaps most importantly, Jung believed that a genuine relationship requires a relationship with oneself. If we have not learned to sit with our loneliness, we ask our partner to remove it. If we have not accepted our own wounds, we expect our partner to heal them. If we have not learned to love ourselves, we demand constant proof that we are lovable.

Eventually, the relationship buckles beneath these unconscious demands. No human being can carry the weight of another person’s unfinished inner work. This is why dating is not merely the search for a compatible partner. It is also the discovery of ourselves. Every attraction teaches. Every conflict reveals. Every heartbreak uncovers something waiting to be understood.

The question is never simply:

“Are they right for me?”

The deeper question is:

“What is this relationship trying to make conscious?”

Because the person is never just the person. And love is never only about finding someone. It is about finally meeting yourself.

When most people think about compatibility, they think about shared interests.

• Do we like the same music?

• Do we enjoy the same hobbies?

• Do we want similar things in life?

Those questions matter. But relationships are rarely destroyed by differences in taste. More often, they are strained by differences in emotional maturity.

At some point, every relationship encounters disappointment, misunderstanding, conflict, stress, grief, uncertainty, or fear. The question is not whether these moments will come. The question is, who does your partner become when they do?

One of the most valuable qualities in a relationship is the ability to have a difficult conversation without turning it into a battle.

Emotionally mature people understand that disagreement is not rejection. A difference of opinion is not abandonment. Feedback is not an attack. They can tolerate discomfort long enough to stay present.

They can express their needs without demanding that everyone else manage their emotions for them. They can listen without immediately preparing a defense. Most importantly, they understand that being understood begins with trying to understand.

Many relationships suffer because curiosity disappears.

When something feels off, assumptions rush in to fill the space. A delayed text becomes evidence of disinterest. A quiet evening becomes proof of rejection. A misunderstanding becomes a character flaw.

We create stories about one another rather than seeking understanding. Emotionally mature people do something different. They ask questions.

“Can you help me understand what happened?”

“What was that experience like for you?”

“I noticed something felt different. Is everything okay?”

Curiosity is one of the highest forms of respect. It communicates a simple but powerful message:

“I do not want to assume. I want to know.”

This matters because every one of us carries histories, fears, wounds, and blind spots. Without curiosity, relationships become collections of projections. With curiosity, they become places of discovery.

Another hallmark of emotional maturity is partnership. Many people say they want a teammate. What they actually want is a rescuer. Someone to fix their problems. Carry their burdens. Absorb their anxiety. Manage their lives.

A healthy partnership looks different. It is not dependence. It is a collaboration.

An emotionally mature partner notices when life becomes heavy and asks, “How can I help?”

Not because they are responsible for your happiness. Not because they must solve every problem. But because your well-being matters to them. Sometimes support looks profound. Sometimes it looks remarkably ordinary.

• Checking in after a difficult day.

• Remembering an important meeting.

• Helping with a task when you’re overwhelmed.

• Encouraging you when self-doubt creeps in.

• Celebrating your victories without feeling threatened by them.

Healthy love is not merely finding someone who wants something from you. It is finding someone who genuinely wants something for you. Someone who wants your life to flourish. Someone who feels joy when you succeed. Someone who sees your dreams not as competition but as part of the future they hope you build.

Perhaps this is the deepest measure of emotional maturity. Life stops being “me versus you.” It becomes “us versus the problem.”

The disagreement is not the enemy. The misunderstanding is not the enemy. Stress is not the enemy. The enemy is forgetting that you are on the same side.

Emotionally mature people remember this.

• They approach conflict with curiosity.

• Communication with honesty.

• Success with encouragement.

• Difficulty with teamwork.

And when you find someone like that, something remarkable happens. The relationship becomes less about managing crises and more about building a life. You spend less time wondering where you stand. Less time defending yourself. Less time interpreting signals. More time growing. More time laughing. More time becoming.

In the end, the healthiest relationships are not built on perfect compatibility. They are built on two people who can stay connected when life becomes imperfect. So when you’re dating in the wild, pay attention to who can have the conversation.

Because attraction may start a relationship.

But emotional maturity is what allows it to last.

This is where Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT ) offers something profoundly helpful. While Jung called the process individuation, the journey toward becoming whole, ACT teaches us how to walk that path. Rather than helping us eliminate pain, ACT helps us make room for it. Rather than organizing our lives around fear, rejection, or uncertainty, it invites us to live according to our deepest values.

In dating, this means we stop asking, “How do I avoid getting hurt?” and begin asking, “How do I show up as the person I want to be, even when vulnerability is required?”

Individuation is not becoming someone new. It is becoming more fully yourself. ACT helps us loosen the grip of old stories, face what we have been avoiding, and move toward a life that reflects who we truly are.

Perhaps that is the real purpose of dating, not merely to find the right person, but to become the person capable of loving and being loved, without abandoning themselves in the process.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

A familiar song found me this week and the lyrics1 resonated with me in a way that had not in the past. Not because of its story exactly, but because of its ache. It is the ache of a person who looks at her own life and realizes that somewhere along the way she stopped recognizing herself. The heartbreak is not only about love lost, or even about disappointment in another person. It is the quieter heartbreak of self-estrangement. She remembers a version of herself who was imperfect, messy, lonely, kind, alive. She does not remember this former self as flawless. She remembers her as real. That is what makes the song hurt. It is not nostalgia for perfection. It is grief for congruence.

A few months ago, I wrote that Dating in the Wild was never really about dating. It was about whether we can stay in relationship with ourselves while entering relationship with another person. Dating has a way of revealing where we are still divided. Many people enter dating hoping to be chosen. Many people stay in relationships hoping not to be abandoned. Far fewer pause long enough to ask whether, in the process, they are abandoning themselves.

As a therapist, I have come to believe that some of our deepest suffering does not come from rejection alone. It comes from the slow accumulation of self-betrayal. Rarely do we lose ourselves all at once. More often, it happens through small, almost reasonable compromises. We silence a truth because the moment does not feel right. We soften a boundary because we do not want to seem difficult. We ignore an intuition because we are afraid of what it might require. We postpone a dream because someone else’s needs feel more urgent. None of these choices may seem catastrophic in isolation. But over time, they can form a life in which the outer self keeps functioning while the inner self grows increasingly unheard.

Carl Rogers gave us the language of congruence for this kind of inner alignment. 2Congruence is the state in which our inner experience and outer expression belong to one another. What we feel, what we value, what we say, what we choose, and how we live are not perfectly identical at every moment, but they are moving in the same direction. There is a kind of integrity there, not the integrity of moral flawlessness, but the integrity of wholeness. We are not divided against ourselves.

Fragmentation is what happens when we begin to live too far away from our own truth. We may still appear functional. We may still be kind, successful, responsible, even admired. But inside, the distance grows between the life we are performing and the self we know ourselves to be. We become skilled at presenting a version of ourselves that others can accept, while quietly losing contact with the parts of us that are harder to explain. Over time, adaptation becomes identity.

This is why the song resonates so deeply. The narrator is not simply lamenting a difficult relationship or an unhappy chapter of life. She is grieving the distance between who she has become and who she remembers herself to be. She is grieving fragmentation. She is grieving the cost of all the ways she had to adapt, endure, survive, and keep going. Her sorrow is not that she changed. Life changes all of us. Her sorrow is that, somewhere in the changing, she disappeared from herself.

For many people, dating activates this same wound. Not because people are intentionally dishonest, but because longing makes us vulnerable. We want to be liked. We want to be wanted. We want to be chosen. So we begin, often without noticing, to manage the version of ourselves that another person meets. We become more agreeable than we feel. More available than we actually are. More relaxed than our bodies can sustain. We curate our responses. We make ourselves easier to love by becoming harder to know. What begins as ordinary nervousness can become a pattern of self-erasure.

This is especially true for those who learned early that love was something they had to earn through usefulness. Some of us became fluent in caretaking before we ever learned how to receive. We learned how to read a room, anticipate a need, soothe distress, prevent conflict, and become necessary. There is beauty in being a caring person, but there is also danger when care becomes the only language through which we believe we are allowed to belong. If love has always been tied to what we can provide, then stillness can feel terrifying. Rest can feel like risk. Receiving can feel unfamiliar, even unsafe.

There is a particular loneliness that comes from being needed but not known. People may appreciate what we do. They may depend on our steadiness, our emotional labor, our availability, our ability to hold what others cannot hold alone. But beneath all of that, a quiet question can remain: If I stopped carrying, would I still be loved? If I stopped fixing, would I still matter? If I stopped being useful, would anyone stay?

Every so often, however, we encounter a different kind of love, or at least a glimpse of it. It does not feel like an assignment. It does not ask us to perform, rescue, prove, manage, or become indispensable. It does not require us to scan constantly for what needs fixing. Instead, it offers something almost disorienting in its simplicity: presence. The nervous system, accustomed to labor, does not always know what to do with this. We may reach instinctively for our old roles. We may search for the problem, the need, the emotional weather we are supposed to regulate. But when no assignment appears, something deeper begins to emerge. We realize that we are allowed simply to be.

That kind of love can feel effortless not because it is shallow, but because it does not demand self-abandonment. It does not require the fragmentation of becoming one person inwardly and another person outwardly. It allows the inner and outer self to come closer together. In such moments, congruence becomes more than a psychological concept. It becomes embodied. The body softens. Silence becomes possible. Conversation does not have to be managed. We are not carrying a version of ourselves for someone else’s approval. We are simply present, and somehow that is enough.

This is not the fantasy that healthy love is without difficulty. Real relationships require honesty, repair, patience, and courage. But there is a difference between the effort of loving and the exhaustion of performing. There is a difference between mutual care and compulsive caretaking. There is a difference between choosing another person and disappearing into what we imagine they need us to be. Healthy love may ask us to grow, but it does not ask us to vanish.

Perhaps this is why congruence is so central to intimacy. To be loved while fragmented may offer temporary relief, but to be known while congruent offers something deeper. It allows us to experience connection without self-erasure. It allows us to belong without betraying ourselves. It allows us to discover that love does not have to be purchased through performance.

And perhaps that is why the song lingers. Beneath its sadness is a question many of us carry: What happened to the person I used to be? But beneath that question is another one, more tender and more hopeful: What if that person is not gone? What if the self beneath the adaptations, the grief, the fear, and the performance has been waiting all along, not to be reinvented, but remembered?

Maybe the deepest question in dating is not whether someone will love us. Maybe the deeper question is whether we can remain faithful to ourselves while love unfolds. Whether we can allow ourselves to be known without disappearing. Whether we can stop confusing intensity with intimacy, usefulness with worth, and being chosen with being seen.

Because intimacy is not the loss of self. It is the meeting of people who have learned how to stay with themselves in the presence of another. The song aches because the narrator can still name the woman beneath the wreckage: “messy, but…kind,” lonely, imperfect, still trying. She is not grieving a perfect self. She is grieving a real one. And maybe coming home is not finding someone who completes us. Maybe coming home is the quiet, courageous work of becoming whole enough to be met, so that the person who “used to be mine” is no longer only a memory, but someone we are learning to inhabit again.

When we are fragmented, we often make choices based on fear—fear of rejection, abandonment, conflict, failure, or loss. We become who we think we must be in order to stay safe. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) invites us to notice those fears without letting them drive the car. Instead, we identify our deepest values and take small actions that align with them.

(ACT) offers a practical pathway toward congruence. Rather than organizing our lives around the avoidance of pain, ACT invites us to organize our lives around values. Fear may still be present. Anxiety may still be present. The possibility of rejection may still be present. Yet we learn to choose actions that reflect who we are and what matters most. In this way, healing is not the elimination of discomfort, but the gradual alignment of our actions with our deepest values. Congruence emerges when we stop asking, "How do I protect myself from pain?" and begin asking, "How do I live as the person I want to be, even when pain is present?"

The narrator spends much of the song looking backward, grieving the distance between who she is and who she remembers herself to be. Yet the emotional turning point arrives when she remembers that the woman she is mourning was never perfect. She was "imperfect, but she tries." She gets hurt. She makes mistakes. She lies. She struggles. She is lonely. In other words, she is fully human.

Perhaps this is what the song understands so well. The woman being remembered is not flawless. She is “imperfect, but she tries.” She is lonely. She is messy. She gets hurt. She makes mistakes. Yet the song does not mourn her imperfections. It mourns her absence.

Somewhere along the way, many of us begin believing that love requires refinement. We imagine we must become less needy, less emotional, less complicated, less broken. We spend years trying to become worthy of belonging.

Yet the deepest forms of love seem to emerge in the opposite direction.

Not through perfection.

Through acceptance.

Not through self-improvement.

Through self-presence.

Not through becoming someone else.

Through becoming more fully ourselves.

Perhaps effortless love is not effortless because it lacks work. Relationships require honesty, courage, repair, and commitment. Rather, it is effortless because neither person is spending their energy pretending. There is no performance to maintain. No role to inhabit. No idealized self to protect.

There is only the freedom to be human.

To be imperfect and still worthy.

To be wounded and still lovable.

To be uncertain and still welcome.

To try and fail and begin again.

In that sense, being fully human may be the very space where effortless love becomes possible. We stop striving to become deserving of love and instead rest in the reality that our worth was never contingent upon perfection in the first place. We discover that intimacy is not built upon flawlessness, but upon the courage to be seen as we are.

Perhaps that is why the lyric lingers: “imperfect, but she tries.”

Not because trying makes her worthy. But because she already is.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how early adversity does not shape adult identity directly. It is organized through attachment, and that organization determines how coherent the self becomes. My research further explores moral injury related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

What if a healthy connection is less like cultivation… and more like growing where you are rooted?

It means becoming fully who you are, not a refined version shaped for approval, but someone abundantly alive in their own life. Outrageously yourself. Rooted in your values, your history, your voice, your way of moving through the world. Not waiting to be chosen before you bloom. Not shrinking to fit the space in front of you. But showing up as someone whose life is already in motion, already meaningful, already real. From that place, connection is not something you manufacture. It is something that either meets you there, or it does not.

You are not something that needs to be constructed. You are something that has emerged, formed by time, by story, by experience.

You are, in a very real sense, made of the same elements as the stars.
And somehow, here you are aware, feeling, capable of connection.

The earth, our mother, is a living organism. She nourishes. She teaches. She grounds. She holds both the beginning and the end without apology.

Everything returns to her. Seed and blossom. Root and decay. Birth and grief. Longing and release. And still, life rises.

This is what the wild teaches us: nothing real grows outside of relationship. The willow, the daylily, the dandelion, and we ourselves are held in an ecosystem of becoming. We are not separate from the ground that formed us. We are not separate from the stories that shaped us. We are not separate from the longing that keeps calling us toward connection.

To date in the wild is to remember this: you are not an object to be selected. You are a living being, rooted in a living world, carrying both tenderness and strength.

You are stardust that has learned how to love.

And love, when it is real, does not ask you to leave the earth of yourself behind.

That is not something to perform. It is something to live.

Native wildflowers do not force themselves into the soil. They belong to it. They grow in relation to their environment, drawing from what is already there, feeding pollinators, stabilizing the ground around them, and participating in a larger ecosystem they did not create, but sustain.

They are not trying to be chosen. They are becoming what they are.

If you have read much of my work, you may have noticed I am a bit enamored with willow trees, wild orange daylilies, and dandelions. You might wonder what these have to do with dating?

More than it first appears.

These are not just images. They are patterns of being.

Flexible, but rooted.
Visible, but not performing.
Resilient, but not hardened.

This is what holistic dating looks like.

Not a strategy.
Not perfection.
Not control.

But a life that can remain intact in the presence of another.

Flexible, but rooted (the willow)

The willow bends with the wind, but its roots hold fast. It responds to the environment without losing its center. Its strength is not in resistance, but in its capacity to move without being uprooted.

Across cultures, the willow has often been associated with water, emotion, grief, healing, and renewal. In European traditions, it appears near cemeteries, rivers, and places of reflection, as if the tree itself knows how to stand close to sorrow without being consumed by it. Medicinally, willow bark contains salicin, a plant compound historically connected to pain relief. Even its body carries the wisdom of tending pain rather than denying it.

In Chinese and other East Asian traditions, willow branches have also been associated with protection and renewal, sometimes symbolizing the ability to bend without breaking.

This is what emotional flexibility looks like in humanistic terms: the capacity to remain open to experience while staying grounded in one’s values. Not rigid. Not reactive. Responsive.

In dating, this means allowing yourself to feel what arises: interest, uncertainty, desire, disappointment, hope, fear, without immediately shutting down, overcorrecting, or turning the whole experience into a problem to solve.

The willow teaches that openness does not require self-abandonment. You can be moved by another person without losing your own shape. You can be touched by longing without letting longing uproot you. You can feel pain without making pain the architect of your future.

Holistically, this means your thoughts, emotions, body, and values are allowed to speak to one another. Attraction may say, lean in. Anxiety may say, slow down. Your body may notice ease, tension, warmth, or caution. Your values may ask, Is this aligned with the life I am building?

None of these signals needs to be silenced. They need to be listened to together.

Deep connection begins here: when two people can adapt to one another without either person disappearing. When there is enough flexibility to meet the moment, and enough rootedness to remain whole inside it.

Visible, but not performing (the wild daylily)

The daylily blooms openly, without arranging itself for approval. It does not perform for the garden. It simply expresses what it is. Its beauty is not an argument. It is presence.

Across cultures, the daylily carries associations with nourishment, emotional ease, and presence. In Chinese traditions, daylilies—often called “golden needles”—have been used both as food and symbol, linked to easing sorrow and softening the heart. There is something quietly instructive in that: a plant that does not demand attention, yet nourishes those who encounter it.

Each bloom lasts only a day. It opens fully, then releases. And yet the plant continues to produce, again and again, without clinging to any single moment of expression.

This is the congruence that humanistic psychology holds at its core: the alignment between inner experience and outer expression. What you feel, what you say, and how you show up are not divided into separate selves.

In dating, visibility means allowing yourself to be known in real time. Not everything at once. Not without discernment. But enough that the other person is meeting you, not a version curated for acceptance.

The daylily teaches that authenticity does not require permanence to be meaningful. A moment can be real without needing to last. A connection can be honest without needing to become everything.

This is where emotional vulnerability lives.

Not in oversharing.
Not in rushing intimacy.
Not in proving your depth.

But in honesty.

In allowing your presence to carry truth, even when it risks not being received. In expressing warmth without securing outcome. In letting your life be sourced from within, rather than from whether someone else affirms it.

Holistically, this means your inner and outer life are not split. You are not performing connection while privately feeling something else. You are not editing yourself into acceptability. You are participating as you are.

Connection deepens when there is less performance and more reality to meet. When two people are not managing impressions, but encountering truth. When the question shifts from, Am I being chosen? to, Can I be known here and still remain myself?

Like the daylily, you do not have to arrange yourself to be worthy of being seen. You only have to be willing to bloom where you are, and let that be enough for the moment it is given.

Resilient, but not hardened (the dandelion)

The dandelion returns, again and again. Not because it is unaffected, but because it remains alive to its environment.

Across cultures, the dandelion has long been understood as both food and medicine. Its leaves, roots, and flowers have been used in traditional practices to support digestion, fluid balance, and overall vitality. It grows where the soil has been disturbed, often one of the first to appear in places others avoid. What is dismissed as a weed is, in many traditions, recognized as something restorative.

The dandelion not only survives. It offers something.

Its leaves, roots, flowers, and seeds all carry purpose. It nourishes. It scatters. It returns. It takes what has been overlooked and turns it into persistence.

Resilience in a holistic sense is not emotional armor. It is not becoming unreachable so that disappointment cannot touch you. It is the ability to experience loss, rejection, or misattunement and still remain open to connection.

In dating, this is the willingness to take a chance without needing certainty first.

To say yes when something feels promising. To walk away when something is not.
To begin again without becoming cynical.

The dandelion teaches that usefulness and worth are not determined by who selects it. It participates in life regardless. It restores the ground it grows in. It gives without requiring recognition.

There is something deeply human in that.

You can be affected and still return.
You can be disappointed and still remain available to joy.
You can have boundaries without becoming bitter.

Humanistic psychology reminds us that growth requires risk: the courage to be known without guarantees.

Holistically, resilience means your inner world remains intact even as you move through uncertainty. You do not collapse into rejection, and you do not harden against possibility. You stay in relationship with yourself.

And this is where intimacy is formed: not in avoiding vulnerability, but in entering it with awareness and self-respect.

There is one more quiet truth the dandelion carries.

It is not only resilient. It is also transformable.

Across traditions, dandelions have been gathered and made into an earthy wine something simple, something overlooked, turned into something shared, something that carries a kind of quiet merriment.

Resilience is not only about enduring. It is about what you allow your experiences to become. In dating, disappointment, rejection, and endings are inevitable.
But they are not only losses. They are also material.

Material that, over time, can be integrated, understood, and even softened into something meaningful.

The dandelion reminds us that what is discarded by one context can still hold value in another. That what is ordinary can still become something rich. That what did not last can still contribute to your capacity for joy.

To be resilient, but not hardened, is to remain open enough for transformation.

To let experience deepen you, rather than close you. To allow even what did not work to become part of your wisdom, your presence, your ability to meet another with more clarity and care.

This is not forced optimism. It is aliveness.

And sometimes, that aliveness carries a kind of quiet joy, the kind that comes not from perfect outcomes, but from a life still willing to participate.

Not hardened.
Not naïve.
Still capable of becoming something more.

And this is where the question deepens.

If this is what it means to date as a whole person to remain rooted, visible, and alive, then what does it actually look like to meet another human being this way?

As a therapist, I often hear people describe dating as grim and overwhelming.

And yet, underneath that fatigue is something profoundly human: a longing for authenticity, for connection, for something real.

We fearfully and wonderfully created humans are wired for that.

But the environment we date in often trains us for the opposite.
To filter. To perform. To keep options open. To stay guarded.

So, when applied to human connection, mindfulness becomes more than awareness.
It becomes a return. A return not only to presence, but to posture.

What if we approached dating with a kind of abundant awe? Not naïve. Not unguarded. But open to the simple, human reality that sitting across from you
is another person with a history, a longing, a life unfolding.

Even if it is only one date. Even if it does not continue.

Not everyone will be a match. But everyone is worthy of the dignity that mindfulness brings.

To be fully present with someone to listen without scanning for the next move,
to notice without evaluating, to respond without performing this is already a form of connection.

It is also a kind of witnessing. Not passive. Not distant. But an intentional, attentive presence that allows another human being to be seen as they are fully alive, unfolding in real time.

To witness someone this way is to recognize that they are not an outcome to secure,
nor a role to fill in your life, but a person carrying a story, a history, a longing.

In humanistic terms, this is presence with dignity, meeting the other without reducing them, without needing to change them, without turning them into a projection of your own needs.

Holistically, it means you are not dividing your attention. You are there with your mind, your body, your awareness, able to take in not only what is said, but what is felt, what is held, what is becoming.

And if you allow it, there is something deeper still.

To witness another person fully present is, in some quiet way, to glimpse the imprint of something sacred in them, the handprint of the creator, the artist, visible in the texture of their story, in the way they speak, in the way they hope, even in the places they have been shaped by loss.

This is where awe can enter. Not because the moment is perfect. But because it is real.

And in that kind of presence, connection does not need to be forced. It is already happening.

There can be a quiet joy in it. Not because it leads somewhere, but because it is something.

A moment of real contact. Two lives intersecting without pretense.
A shared recognition: you are here, and so am I.

This is not about lowering standards. It is about raising presence.

To meet another person this way is to step out of scarcity and into participation.
To see dating not as a series of evaluations, but as a series of encounters, each one carrying its own meaning.

And sometimes, that shift alone is enough to restore what burnout has taken.

Because connection, even brief, when it is real, is never empty.

A return to longing. A return to presence. A return to the self that is capable of meeting another without disappearing.

The poet Oriah Mountain Dreamer, in The Invitation, gives language to this kind of meeting:

“It doesn’t interest me what you do for a living.
I want to know what you ache for and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart’s longing.”

This is the willow.

To know what you ache for is to be rooted in your own inner life. To dare to move toward it is to bend toward connection without losing yourself. Mindfulness here is contact with truth. Not performing desire. Not managing it. But allowing it to exist, even when it feels vulnerable.

She writes:

“I want to know if you can see Beauty even when it is not pretty every day. And if you can source your own life from its presence.”

This is the wild daylily. To see beauty beyond what is polished requires presence.
To source your life from within it requires congruence. This is not about chasing ideal chemistry. It is about noticing what the real tone, the effort, the subtle ways care either appears or does not.

To be visible without performing is to allow connection to form in reality, not illusion.

And she writes:

“I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.”

This is the dandelion. To return to yourself again and again, without hardening or collapsing, is resilience. This is what allows you to take a chance in dating
without needing the outcome to define you.

To remain open. To begin again. To stay alive to possibility. When these come together, something shifts. You are no longer trying to be chosen. You are no longer organizing yourself around strategy.

You are asking something deeper:

Can I stay rooted in my longing, present to what is real, and whole enough to remain myself no matter what unfolds?

Because this is the ground where intimacy grows.

Not in perfection.
Not in control.
But in the quiet courage
of humans willing to meet
as they are.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how early adversity does not shape adult identity directly. It is organized through attachment, and that organization determines how coherent the self becomes. My research further explores moral injury related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Burnout often begins when dating stops being human. The apps can train us to think in terms of timing, scarcity, pacing, and technique. But intimacy is not built by mastering rules. It is built on presence, honesty, and the willingness to be real.

But what is real?

Perhaps it begins here: learning to love your own life enough that you no longer enter dating as a beggar for affirmation. Learning to become someone you yourself could trust, enjoy, and choose. Would you date yourself as you are right now? Not because you are polished, but because you are honest. Because you are healing. Because you know how to be with your own heart without turning away from it.

Three patterns I’m noticing:

• Strategy instead of sincerity
  People start asking how long to wait, what to say, when to pull back, and how not to seem too interested. But a real connection cannot grow inside constant self-management. When dating becomes performance, the self begins to disappear.

• Gamification instead of discernment
  The problem is not only rejection. It is the slow way that apps can make people feel sortable, replaceable, and endlessly compared. This erodes the inner clarity needed to ask, not “How do I win?” but “What is true here?”

• Rules instead of relationship
  There is no perfect formula for safe attachment. No sequence that guarantees chemistry, effort, or emotional maturity. Healthier dating often begins when people stop following scripts and start paying attention to whether mutual care is actually present.

Strategy instead of sincerity

People start asking how long to wait, what to say, when to pull back, and how not to seem too interested. Soon every interaction is filtered through calculation. Desire becomes something to manage. Warmth becomes something to ration. Honesty becomes something to edit for fear of seeming too much.

But connection does not deepen through technique.

A real bond cannot grow where every word is being measured for effect. If you are constantly studying how to appear, you lose touch with how to be. The moment becomes less about meeting another person and more about controlling the outcome. Dating turns into choreography. You perform interest, restraint, confidence, mystery. And in doing so, you slowly lose contact with the part of you that actually knows what it feels.

This is one reason dating becomes so tiring. It is not only disappointment that wears people down. It is the labor of self-management. The repeated effort of shaping the self into something optimized, desirable, and unreadable enough to survive. But intimacy cannot take root where honesty is always interrupted by strategy.

When dating becomes performance, the self begins to disappear. The soul grows quieter. Discernment gets replaced by impression management. And instead of asking whether something is mutual, kind, and true, a person begins asking only how to keep the interaction alive.

Sincerity is not naivety. It is the courage to remain present without turning yourself into a product. It is the choice to let truth be more important than technique.

Gamification instead of discernment

The deepest problem is not only rejection. It is the slow and subtle way that the apps can train the heart to see people as sortable, replaceable, and endlessly comparable. A person becomes a profile. Desire becomes a pattern of swiping. Attention becomes a series of quick judgments made before anything human has had time to unfold.

This changes more than behavior. It changes perception.

When people are encountered inside this kind of structure long enough, they begin to feel interchangeable themselves. Not known, but ranked. Not met, but reviewed. Not chosen with depth, but briefly considered against a horizon of endless alternatives. The result is not only disappointment. It is disorientation. The inner life begins to lose the conditions it needs for clear discernment.

Discernment is slow. It listens. It notices. It asks what is happening beneath chemistry, beneath charm, beneath fear. It makes room for the truth to emerge in time. But gamification rewards something else entirely. It rewards speed, novelty, scarcity, and the illusion that more options will eventually produce more certainty. Instead of deepening wisdom, it often multiplies noise.

This is why people begin asking the wrong questions. Not, What is true here? but, How do I keep their attention? How do I stand out? How do I avoid being discarded? Once dating begins to feel like a contest, sincerity is replaced by positioning. The heart starts adapting to a system built on repetition and comparison, and slowly forgets how to recognize what is grounded, mutual, and real.

The tragedy is that this can happen without anyone fully noticing it. A person can remain hopeful and still become shaped by the logic of the app. They can still want love and yet begin moving through dating as if it were a marketplace. And the soul grows tired there, because the soul was never made to measure human worth this way.

To choose discernment is to step out of that current, even if only inwardly. It is to remember that there is no victory in being selected by someone who cannot truly see you. It is to ask instead whether a connection carries honesty, steadiness, kindness, and room for your full self to remain present. Discernment does not ask, How do I win? It asks, What is true here, and who am I becoming as I stay in it?

Rules instead of relationship

There is no perfect formula for safe attachment. No sequence can guarantee chemistry, effort, or emotional maturity. For all the advice people absorb about timing, pacing, and restraint, love does not arrive because someone followed the script correctly.

And yet the search for rules is understandable. Rules promise protection. They offer the comfort of order in a space that often feels uncertain. They let people imagine that if they could only say the right thing at the right time, reveal themselves in the right measure, or wait the right number of days, they could secure the outcome they long for. But relationship does not emerge from control. It emerges from encounter.

This is why so much modern dating feels disorienting. People are taught to follow patterns that may help them appear desirable, while paying less attention to whether care is actually unfolding. The script becomes louder than the soul. Instead of asking whether something feels reciprocal, honest, and steady, people ask whether they are playing the part well enough to keep the connection alive.

But the deepest questions cannot be answered by rules. Does this person make room for truth? Can they tolerate vulnerability without withdrawing or dominating? Is there consistency between what they say and how they show up? Is care growing here, or only anticipation? These are relational questions, and they require presence to answer.

Healthier dating often begins when people stop organizing themselves around performance and begin paying attention to reality. Mutual care is not a theory. It becomes visible. It can be felt in steadiness, in accountability, in the absence of coercion, in the simple relief of not having to calculate every move. Where care is present, the nervous system is not constantly scrambling to interpret mixed signals. It can settle enough to perceive clearly.

There are no rules that can make another person ready. There is no script that can create emotional maturity where it does not exist. There is only the slow and sacred work of noticing what is true. And often that is where freedom begins.

Vulnerability instead of control

When you step back, the patterns begin to converge. Strategy replaces sincerity. Gamification replaces discernment. Rules replace relationship. Each one is an attempt to stay safe while still reaching for connection.

And this is where vulnerability becomes a difficult word.

For many, it does not feel like openness. It feels like exposure. Like standing without protection. Like risking the familiar ache of being unseen, misread, or left. So the instinct is to adapt. To become more careful. More measured. More controlled. To learn how to stay in the interaction without fully entering it.

But intimacy cannot grow in partial presence.

Vulnerability is not reckless disclosure. It is not giving everything too soon or ignoring your own boundaries. It is something far more grounded. It is the quiet refusal to turn yourself into a strategy. It is the willingness to let another person encounter you as you are becoming, without constant editing, without performance, without disguise.

This is what makes it both necessary and frightening. Because once you are truly present, the outcome can no longer be managed. You cannot control whether someone stays. You cannot optimize your way into being chosen. You can only reveal enough of yourself to discover whether mutual care is actually possible.

And that is the turning point.

Because the goal is not simply to keep a connection going. It is to recognize whether it is real. Vulnerability makes that visible. It shows you whether someone can meet you with steadiness, honesty, and respect, or whether they retreat, deflect, or take without giving. Without vulnerability, those truths remain hidden behind surface-level interaction.

So while vulnerability carries risk, it also carries clarity. It allows you to stop asking how to win and start asking what is true. It shifts the focus from being chosen to choosing wisely. And in that shift, something begins to settle. Not because the risk is gone, but because you are no longer abandoning yourself to avoid it.

True intimacy is not built by avoiding vulnerability. It is built by entering it with awareness, pacing, and self-respect. And when it is mutual, it does not feel like losing control. It feels like finally no longer needing to.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how early adversity does not shape adult identity directly. It is organized through attachment, and that organization determines how coherent the self becomes. My research further explores moral injury related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

This week, different lives seemed to circle the same question: Why doesn’t this end? Again and again, I found myself sitting with people who were not “failing to move on,” but were instead carrying bonds that had not ended. I saw grief that had nothing to do with weakness and everything to do with love. I saw people grieving not only the death of those they loved, but also the versions of themselves they had lost, the families that had ruptured, the homes they could not return to, the histories they inherited, and the ache of living in a world that itself feels wounded. I kept returning to the same realization: grief is not only about absence. It is also about presence. It is about how those who came before us continue to live in memory, in body, in ritual, in identity, and in the stories we cannot stop telling.

As I turn forty-eight tomorrow, one truth feels clearer to me than ever: impermanence is as much a force in our lives as gravity. Nothing stays. Not people, not roles, not versions of ourselves, not even the world as we knew it yesterday. And grief is what it feels like to love something that changes or disappears. In The Myth of Closure, Pauline Boss names something our culture resists: many forms of loss do not resolve neatly, and the demand that they should often deepens suffering rather than relieving it. She challenges the fantasy that the goal of grief is closure and instead points us toward capacity the ability to stay present to what does not resolve without shutting down, collapsing, or forcing an ending that is not real. That distinction has stayed with me. Capacity is not toughness. It is not stoicism. It is not “handling it well.” It is the widening of the soul so that we can live alongside what remains unfinished.

I recently spoke with someone whose mother died more than thirty years ago. He told me that every day he still holds an object that once belonged to her. Not once in a while. Not only on holidays or anniversaries. Every day. And there was nothing pathological about it. Nothing frozen, nothing obsessive, nothing in him that seemed unable to move forward. There was simply love. There was continuity. There was a daily, quiet honoring of relationship. What struck me most was that nothing in him was asking for closure. He did not need to declare that chapter finished in order to keep living. His mother was no longer alive in body, but she was not gone from his life. She lived in gesture, in memory, in ritual, in the small repeated act of remembrance. The object was not the point. The relationship was. And that, to me, is what capacity looks like: not the elimination of sorrow, but the ability to carry someone forward in a new form.

I have come to believe that one of the most harmful dimensions of grief in our culture is the insistence that it should end neatly. We are told to close the door, turn the page, finish the chapter, and move on. But grief rarely obeys that script. Love does not obey that script. And so many grieving people suffer not only because of the loss itself, but because they have been taught to feel ashamed when sorrow remains. They begin to believe something is wrong with them because they cannot let go of what still lives within them. They carry the loss, and then they carry the judgment too.

I have been doing ancestral research for some time now, and something unexpected has happened: I have begun to fall in love with people I have never met. Great-great-grandparents. Names that once felt distant now feel intimate. Lives that once seemed abstract now feel somehow known. I find myself asking how this can be, and I know some would dismiss it as strange. But we accept the opposite all the time. People learn to hate strangers they have never met. They reject entire lives, histories, and communities without encounter. So why is it harder to believe that love can move across time, across distance, across generations? Why can I not love those whose lives made mine possible? Perhaps what I am discovering is not fantasy, but a kind of remembering.

The more I sit with grief, the more I notice that it does not obey time. We speak as though loss belongs safely to the past, as though clocks and calendars should create distance. But that is not how grief is lived. A person can be gone for thirty years and still be felt as if they just left the room. A name from more than a century ago can feel startlingly close. So what does that say about time? We measure time in years and dates and generations, but human experience of time bends. Not in a physical sense, but in a relational one. Love bends it. Memory bends it. Grief bends it. There is a level of consciousness—call it soul, presence, awareness—that is not confined to strict linear sequence. It allows us to feel the past as present, to carry the dead as living, to encounter those we have never met as if in some deep way we know them. This is not irrational. It is how connection works. Impermanence does not mean that everything disappears into nothing. It means that everything changes form. And what changes form does not stay where we left it in time. It moves. It lives differently.

This is something that does not require faith to accept. There is something deeply grounded about it. Physics tells us that matter and energy are not created or destroyed; they change form. What exists does not simply vanish. It becomes something else. And we are not separate from that reality. Human beings, like all of creation, are matter held together for a time in one form and then transformed. That does not prove every spiritual claim we might wish to make that lives in the realm of faith, but it does remind us that disappearance is not the same thing as annihilation. Change is not the same thing as nothingness. Grief lives in that tension between what was and what is now, between the form we knew and the form that remains.

All week I have been watching the orange daylilies those wildflowers I love because they remind me of my childhood begin to inch up through the ground. Every day the stems are a little taller than the day before. Quietly, almost imperceptibly, until suddenly they are simply there. My aunt reminded me yesterday that my grandfather used to watch for his forsythia to bloom and then proclaim that spring was near. He knew what to look for. Not because it stayed, but because it returned. And that is what spring teaches us. Not permanence, but impermanence. Everything disappears. Everything returns differently. The flowers from last year are gone, but something of them remains in the soil, in the cycle, in the unfolding of what comes next. Spring does not undo winter. It does not restore things exactly as they were. It reveals something deeper: life is not held in what stays, but in what continues. And perhaps that is why grief and hope can coexist. What we love may not remain in the same form, but it does not simply vanish. It changes. It returns. It lives differently.

This is why the practice of tonglen feels so fitting here. Pema Chödrön, in Welcoming the Unwelcome, teaches again and again that the spiritual task is not to flee uncertainty, pain, and change, but to stay present to them. Tonglen, the practice of “sending and receiving,” asks us to breathe in suffering and breathe out compassion. It does not ask us to fix pain, explain it away, or close it neatly. It asks us to remain with it. To witness. To stay at the threshold rather than run from it. In a culture obsessed with closure, tonglen becomes an act of resistance. It teaches us that grief that does not end cannot be solved; it can only be accompanied. We breathe in grief, fear, helplessness, and the ache of impermanence. We breathe out mercy, spaciousness, and blessing. Not because breath magically resolves the wound, but because it keeps the heart open long enough to hold what changes, what breaks, and what cannot be returned to its former shape. Compassion, in that sense, may be the only kind of closure we were ever meant to have.

And grief, of course, is larger than the death of a person. It is also the ache of living on a wounded planet in a web of life from which we are not separate. We grieve forests cut down, waters poisoned, species vanishing, seasons shifting, and the quiet violence of watching the earth bear more than it should have to bear. We grieve not only what has died, but what is dying, what is threatened, what feels fragile in real time. Because we belong to creation, this grief does not remain abstract. We feel it in our bodies, in our nervous systems, in the subtle knowledge that something is wrong even when we cannot fully name it. The planet is not “out there.” We breathe with it, eat from it, depend upon it, and live inside its great interdependence. So when the world is wounded, something in us knows. To grieve the planet is not melodrama. It is evidence that we have not gone numb, that we still understand our entanglement with soil, water, weather, creatures, ancestors, children, and those not yet born. It widens grief beyond private sorrow into something communal, even sacred. The wound travels. The blessing does too.

And that is why meaning-making, storytelling, and ritual matter so much. Human beings are meaning-makers by nature. We tell stories, keep objects, light candles, return to places, repeat names, and mark time because we need a way to hold what cannot be resolved. We do not heal by forgetting. We heal by giving what we carry a place to live. What we carry does not disappear when we refuse to look at it. It waits. It presses. It returns in the body, in memory, in the moments we cannot outrun. So the work is not erasure. The work is placement. Where does this belong in me? Where can it live so it does not have to take over everything? This is why we tell the story again not because we are stuck, but because we are integrating. Each telling places the memory differently. Each telling softens the edge, not by removing it, but by locating it within a larger whole. The story becomes less like a wound that interrupts and more like a thread that runs through. This is why we create ritual. We light the candle. We hold the object. We say the name out loud. We return to the place. Not because we cannot move forward, but because we refuse to abandon what mattered. Ritual says: this belongs, this has a place, this will not be lost simply because time has passed.

And maybe this is what healing actually is. Not closure. Not resolution. Not an ending. But a reordering—a quiet, often unseen shift in how we live with what remains. A way of being in which love is not erased simply because something has changed, and loss is not denied simply because it cannot be resolved. A way of living in which what we carry is given dignity, space, and form. Because what we carry is not the problem. It is the proof. Proof that something mattered. Proof that someone mattered. Proof that we are still capable of connection.

I am currently preparing a liturgy, a ritual of return.

In it, I will take a small amount of earth from the graves of my great-great-grandparents, Sándor and Zsuzsanna, and carry it back to Hungary to the land where their hearts first broke and where hope, rooted in desperation and love, compelled them to leave in 1914.

They left only weeks before the First World War. They departed Hungary, boarded a ship in Germany, and arrived in the United States not knowing that the journey was one way. They could not have known that they would never return. More than that, they could not have known that the Kingdom of Hungary they left behind would itself be torn apart, and that the homeland they carried in memory would never again exist in quite the same form.

That is part of the grief here.

They did not simply leave a house, a village, or even a country. They left a world, people they loved, friends and family and by the time history had finished with it war, borders, fracture, loss that world was gone.

So this liturgy is not only about ancestry. It is about impermanence. It is about exile, rupture, and the strange holiness of return. It is about carrying back, in my own hands, something of the lives that were carried away across the sea. It is about standing where they once stood one hundred and twelve years later and naming the truth: that what was broken was never forgotten, that what was lost was never unloved, and that what could not be returned in their lifetime may yet be remembered, restored, and rejoined in mine.

In bringing earth from their graves back to Hungary, I am not undoing history. I am not pretending that the wound never happened. I am honoring the truth that love continues across distance, across generations, and even across death. I am making visible what has always been true: that their story did not end when they left, that their lives continued in those who came after them, and that now, more than a century later, one of their descendants is able to return and say what they could not:

You are remembered.
You are carried.
You are home.

So breathe in what hurts, and breathe out compassion.

Not to fix it.
Not to make it go away.
But to hold it.

Hold it long enough that it can be known.
Speak it so it does not remain hidden.
Write it so it can take form outside of you.
Make it ritual so it has a place to live.

Bless it.

Not because it was good,
not because it should have happened,
but because it is here and it matters.

Name it.

Name what was meant to destroy.

And watch, slowly, over time, as something shifts.

What was meant to destroy does not disappear,
but it is transformed.

It becomes a wound—yes
but not only a wound.

A beautiful wound.

A place where love flows in and out.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

Listen to this post

Substack now allows many posts to be listened to as well as read. If you prefer audio, simply press the ▶ Play button that appears at the top of the post. Substack will generate an audio version so you can listen while walking, driving, or resting your eyes.

Sometimes reflection lands differently when we hear the words aloud. Feel free to press play and listen.

When Belonging Collapses

When the relationships that once held us together collapse, human beings enter a space of grief and disorientation in which identity itself must be reconstructed. We are not only wounded by the loss of a person, a family, or a community. We are also shaken by the loss of the structures that once helped us know who we were. Human beings rely on relationships and communities to provide a basic sense that life is stable, meaningful, and coherent. We come to know ourselves because we are known. We find our place in the world because someone recognizes us, names us, responds to us, and reflects back to us that we exist.

That is why relational rupture can feel so destabilizing. When belonging disappears, the pain is not merely social. It is existential. The self begins to feel unmoored. In sociology, Anthony Giddens used the phrase ontological security to describe that deep sense that life is predictable enough, continuous enough, and held enough to make meaning possible. That security is formed through stable relationships, shared narratives, and communities that recognize our identity. When those structures fracture through loss, rejection, betrayal, conflict, or structural disruption, people often experience anxiety, confusion, and a kind of existential vertigo. Something fundamental has been disturbed.

Part of the pain, I think, is that most of us do not enter relationships empty-handed. We carry images of how belonging is supposed to feel. We imagine families that always understand us, friendships that never rupture, communities that reflect our values, relationships that validate us completely. In Life Together, Dietrich Bonhoeffer writes something unsentimental and deeply wise: the greatest threat to real community is the dream of ideal community. That line has stayed with me because it names how often our suffering is intensified not only by what has happened, but by the collapse of what we believed should have been. Reality intrudes. Someone disappoints us. A difference emerges. Conflict breaks open. And in that moment, we are grieving not only the rupture itself, but the loss of the ideal we had projected onto the relationship.

In my work as a therapist, I keep seeing that people do not suffer only because relationships end or communities fail. They also suffer because the mind moves so quickly to explain the rupture in totalizing ways. I was never lovable. I do not belong anywhere. Everything has fallen apart. I will never be held again. In Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, this is part of what we mean by fusion. The pain is real, but then the mind fuses with a story about the pain and begins to build an entire world around the wound. The original grief is real enough. But it is often accompanied by a flood of meanings that harden suffering into identity.

What I love about Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is that it gives me a language for healing that does not depend on pretending the rupture did not happen. It does not ask people to replace one fantasy with another. It does not promise the immediate restoration of certainty. Instead, it invites people into the slower and more honest work of making room for grief without being consumed by it. It teaches that sorrow, disappointment, anger, and disorientation are not signs of failure. They are part of what it means to be human in the aftermath of loss. Healing, in this framework, is not the same thing as feeling better quickly. It is learning how to stay present to pain without allowing pain to become the final definition of the self. It is remembering that thoughts are not always truth, feelings are not always prophecy, and collapse is not the end of identity.

From that perspective, the collapse of a relational world can become more than a crisis. It can become an opening. When the old structures no longer hold, deeper questions begin to emerge. What remains true about me now? What do I want my life to stand for, even here? What kind of belonging is sturdy enough to survive disappointment? ACT does not answer those questions in the abstract. It asks us to live them. It invites us to take values seriously, to choose what matters, and to begin building a life that is not dependent on ideal conditions in order to be meaningful. Healing rarely comes through replacing what was lost with another perfected image of community. More often it comes through mourning honestly, relinquishing the fantasy that belonging must be flawless in order to be real, and discovering relationships capable of holding truth, limitation, conflict, and repair. In that sense, healing is not a return to innocence. It is a movement into maturity.

This is also why human beings are not meant to live in isolation. Our minds, our bodies, and our identities are relational from the beginning. Developmental psychology has long observed that the self does not emerge in a vacuum. The infant learns who they are because someone else sees them. Someone soothes them, mirrors them, names them, and responds to them. That relational structure does not disappear in adulthood. We continue to need forms of recognition that stabilize the self. Families, friendships, communities, and institutions help answer the deepest human questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? What does my life mean? Without those forms of recognition, identity becomes harder to hold. Isolation does not simply make people lonely. It can make them feel unreal.

Even the nervous system bears this out. Human beings are co-regulated creatures. Our bodies calm in the presence of someone attentive and safe. We learn empathy, forgiveness, accountability, and repair in the context of a relationship. Character is not formed in isolation. It is formed in an encounter. Even conflict, when it is survivable and honest, can become part of how a mature self is shaped. To be cut off from all meaningful connections is not simply to lack companionship. It is to be deprived of one of the primary conditions through which human beings become fully themselves.

And yet connection itself is more flexible than we sometimes imagine. It is not limited to one place, one form, or one medium. Human beings have always found ways to remain in relationship across distance and time. Long before the internet, people sustained one another through letters, stories, rituals, songs, and shared texts. A letter sent across miles or read decades later can still carry recognition. It can still say: I see you. I remember you. You are not alone. In our own time, digital communication has expanded the range of connection even further. Online communities can offer genuine forms of recognition and belonging, especially for people who might otherwise remain isolated by geography, stigma, illness, or circumstance. These forms of connection may not replace embodied presence, but they are not unreal simply because they are mediated. Someone responds. Someone listens. Someone reflects back that we exist.

Human beings also form connections beyond interpersonal relationships. Sometimes belonging returns through contact with the wider world with landscapes, animals, music, art, architecture, ritual, or silence. We often call this connection with nature, but I do not think nature has to be narrowly defined as untouched wilderness. For some people, it is the ocean or the woods. For others, it is a city park, a garden, a library, a cathedral, a museum, or some thoughtfully made human space that quiets the mind and steadies the body. The essential question is not whether a place is purely natural or artificial. It is whether the experience helps a person feel grounded in a world larger than their own fear. Sometimes belonging begins again in the presence of beauty, pattern, quiet, or awe.

That matters because the reconstruction of identity after a relational rupture rarely occurs in a single dramatic moment. More often, it happens through small acts of reconnection. A conversation with a friend. A message sent across a distance. A walk outside. A piece of music that gives language to grief. A ritual that reminds us we are still part of a larger story. These things may seem small, but they help rebuild the relational ground beneath the self. They remind us that healing does not always come through replacing what was lost. Sometimes it comes through allowing ourselves to be gently held again, in whatever medium becomes available.

So this week, I want to encourage people to do something simple and very human. Get out a pen and paper and write three letters. Send them to a friend, to a family member, or to someone living in a nursing facility who may rarely receive personal mail. If you want, you could even sign up for a pen-pal site like Global Penfriends or Love For Our Elders and write to someone you have never met. The point is not perfection. The point is connection. Sometimes, belonging begins again with something as simple as a handwritten letter.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

This deep dive takes you on a profound narrative journey through the fracture and healing of modern relationships, based on the clinical insights of Harvey Cottrell. The narrative arcs through four essential movements:

• The Rupture at the Divided Table: The story begins where so many of us find ourselves—at the “divided table,” where political and ideological differences have quietly fractured family belonging. The narrative explains that these arguments are rarely about actual policy; rather, they are existential struggles over meaning, dignity, and the authority to define shared reality.

• The Mechanics of Disconnect: The deep dive then descends into the “why” beneath the rupture. It introduces the visceral ache of cognitive dissonance, an embodied disturbance that happens when a relationship and a belief pull in opposite directions, forcing the mind to frantically protect its identity. It then exposes the unseen guest at every table: the algorithm. You will hear how this attention-driven machine trains our nervous systems, hijacks our emotions with moral outrage, and builds silos where nuance feels like betrayal and the “other side” looks like madness.

• The Inner Architecture of Repair: As a turning point, the narrative shifts from diagnosing the problem to equipping you with philosophical and clinical tools to build an inner architecture for repair. It explores Occam’s Razor to help you find the simplest truth of how words impact you, Stoicism to help you establish steady boundaries and govern yourself rather than trying to control the outcome, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) to help you step out of the trance of constant activation.

• The Quiet Power of Ethical Communication: Finally, the story resolves by redefining what it means to heal. True repair is not about forcing an agreement or staying silent to keep the peace. Instead, it is the discipline of speaking with dignity, releasing the need to manage the other person’s reaction, and maintaining your own integrity. Using the beautiful metaphor of the steady, patient web in Charlotte’s Web, the deep dive illustrates how true therapeutic change comes from being a steady witness for one another, allowing truth to be spoken without demanding sameness.

An Invitation to Listen If you have ever left a conversation feeling exhausted, misunderstood, or quietly heartbroken over a widened divide with someone you love, this deep dive is for you. It offers not just understanding, but a tangible, ethical framework for surviving this era of chaos without losing your conscience. I invite you to put your headphones on, take a deep breath, and listen to this journey into how we can stop performing, stop litigating, and finally stay human in the room.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

In Hungarian, we have a phrase: ezüsthíd — the silver bridge.

It describes the path of moonlight stretching across the surface of water. When the night is still, and the moon sits low, the light forms a narrow ribbon across the lake or river, shimmering like a bridge made of silver.

Of course, it is not a bridge you can walk across.

It exists only in reflection. And yet the image feels meaningful because it points to something real: the mysterious way light cuts through darkness, touching the water's surface and revealing a path that was invisible a moment before.

In the language of the contemplative tradition, there is a stage often called the dark night of the soul. Psychologically, it is less about despair than about disorientation. The familiar ways we once held ourselves together, achievement, control, certainty, even spiritual ideas, no longer work the way they used to. The mind searches for explanations, the body carries a quiet heaviness, and the heart feels suspended between what was and what has not yet come into view. It is a season when the self can feel fragmented, when meaning seems dim and the path ahead unclear. Yet many therapists and spiritual writers recognize that this darkness can also be a form of reorganization. What once sustained us begins to fall away so that something more honest can take shape. In that sense, the dark night is not the absence of growth but its hidden beginning, the slow clearing in which the heart, stripped of its old defenses, can begin to find its way toward alignment again.

Spring is coming—yes, I promise. Even now, while the earth still looks frozen and quiet, something is already happening beneath the surface. In the dark soil, seeds are splitting open. Bulbs are pressing against the cold ground, beginning the slow work of pushing upward. None of it is visible yet. From the outside, the landscape still appears dormant, even lifeless. But the hidden work of transformation has already begun. Growth often starts this way: unseen, fragile, and buried in darkness. The breaking of the seed is not destruction; it is the beginning of emergence. And so it is with the inner life as well. What feels like silence or stagnation may in fact be the quiet labor of becoming, the slow preparation for a new season that has not yet reached the surface.

There is a haunting Hungarian folk song whose melody is often spoken of as if it had always existed in memory: “Szól a kakas már, majd megvirrad már.” The rooster is crowing now, soon the dawn will come. The rooster’s cry is not the sunrise itself. It is the sound that announces that night is loosening. So too with the inner life: sometimes healing begins not with resolution, but with orientation. A truthful word. A clean sorrow. A body no longer braced for war. A soul remembering where to face. That is the beginning of alignment, the first sound of dawn within us.

There is a practice of contemplation that I return to from time to time. For me, Friday evenings have become a natural moment for it. The week begins to settle. The noise softens. Lighting candles in the darkness creates a small space for reflection. In that quiet, I let the week come back to me not as a list of accomplishments or failures, but as a series of moments: where I felt most alive, where I felt tension or unease, where I moved toward honesty and where I pulled away from it.

In the Ignatian tradition this practice is called the Examen, a gentle review of one’s inner life. It is not meant to be an exercise in self-criticism, but an act of awareness: noticing where love, truth, and alignment were present, and where something inside us tightened or turned away. In therapeutic language, Carl Jung might have described something similar as facing the shadow the willingness to look honestly at the parts of ourselves we would rather keep hidden, the impulses, fears, and defenses that shape our behavior without our full awareness.

What I find helpful about this practice is that it invites curiosity instead of judgment. Rather than asking, Was I good enough this week? It asks a quieter question: Where was my heart aligned, and where did it drift? Over time, that kind of attention begins to reveal patterns. It helps us notice where we are living in congruence and where disintegration has begun to take hold. And in that noticing, something subtle shifts the possibility of returning, again and again, toward a more rightly aligned heart.

A friend recently introduced me to a Greek phrase that has stayed with me all week: ὀρθὴ καρδία — orthē kardia. It can be translated quite simply as “a rightly aligned heart.”

Not a perfect heart.
Not a heart that has never known fear.
Not a heart that has never been divided.

A heart that is beginning to turn in the right direction.

In therapeutic language, I find myself connecting this phrase to the work of ACT. A rightly aligned heart is not one that has eliminated pain, uncertainty, or unwanted thoughts. It is one that is learning not to be ruled by them. ACT reminds us that there is a difference between the passing content of our experience and the deeper place within us that can notice that experience. Sometimes called self-as-context, this is the anchoring awareness that can hold fear, grief, longing, and confusion without becoming identical to them. We are more than the thoughts racing through the mind, more than the sensations moving through the body, more than the old stories that get activated when we feel threatened. In that sense, healing begins when the self becomes less fused with fear and more grounded in presence.

From there, alignment also requires values clarification. A rightly aligned heart is not simply calmer; it is oriented. It begins to ask: Who do I want to be in the midst of this? What matters most here? What kind of person do I want to become? Values in ACT are not goals we complete and check off. They are chosen directions, ways of living that give shape to a life. When the heart is misaligned, we often live reactively—organized around avoidance, control, or protection. When the heart begins to align, we become more able to choose our direction consciously.

And then, of course, there is action. Alignment is not only an inward feeling; it becomes visible in the small, concrete steps we take. A truthful conversation. A boundary spoken clearly. A moment of staying present instead of fleeing into distraction. A decision that reflects what we value, even if fear is still present. That is what I love about this phrase: orthē kardia is not about perfection or purity. It is about the slow integration of awareness, values, and action. A heart turning in the right direction, and a life beginning, however imperfectly, to follow.

This has been a heavy week. The news has carried more images of war, more stories of death, more reminders of how quickly hatred can take hold of the human heart. Terrorism, antisemitism, Islamophobia—old wounds reopening in familiar ways. When the world feels like this, it can seem as though all the darkness is suddenly visible at once, as if the worst parts of human nature have stepped fully into the light.

And yet, even in moments like this, I find myself returning to the old line from the Hungarian folk song:

“Szól a kakas már, majd megvirrad már.”
The rooster is crowing now, soon the dawn will come.

It is not a denial of the night. The rooster’s cry happens while the darkness is still present. The fields are still shadowed, the sky not yet bright. But the sound carries a promise: the night does not have the final word. Something has already begun to turn.

Perhaps this is what a rightly aligned heart — ὀρθὴ καρδία — orthē kardia looks like in times like these. Not a heart that refuses to see suffering. Not a heart that pretends the world is simpler than it is. But a heart that refuses to let hatred dictate its orientation. A heart that can face the reality of violence and grief without surrendering its commitment to dignity, compassion, and truth.

In the language of therapy, we might say this is the work of returning to the anchor of the self and the clarity of our values. The world may be turbulent, but we can still choose how we stand within it. We can still refuse the dangerous games of contempt and dehumanization. We can still act in ways that reflect the kind of humanity we believe is possible.

The rooster is crowing.

The dawn is not fully here yet.
But something in the world—and perhaps something in us—has already begun to turn toward the light.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Release is not the end of relational courage. It is what makes a deeper form of relationship possible.

Once we stop managing other people’s reactions, another question rises beneath the conversation itself: what now? If I can speak clearly and allow you to have your response, how do we remain in relationship when our interpretations diverge? What happens when honesty does not bring agreement, when clarity does not produce repair, when the distance between us remains?

This is the terrain most conversations eventually reach. Not the moment of speaking, and not the moment of reaction, but the quieter stretch that follows: the space where two people must decide whether difference itself is survivable.

Many relationships falter here because we have been taught to treat agreement as the proof of connection. When someone sees things differently, interprets events another way, or holds a meaning that unsettles us, it can feel like a fracture in the bond itself. We begin to read difference as rejection, misunderstanding as betrayal, disagreement as threat.

So we try to close the distance.

Sometimes we do it through persuasion, continuing the explanation until the other person finally arrives where we hoped they would land. Sometimes we do it through appeasement, softening the truth until the tension subsides. Sometimes we do it through withdrawal, deciding that if agreement cannot be reached, relationship itself must end.

All of these strategies share the same hidden assumption: that connection requires sameness.

But mature relationship asks something far more difficult than sameness. It asks whether we can remain present to one another while holding different meanings about the same moment.

This does not mean abandoning truth. It means abandoning the demand that truth must function as a bridge to agreement in order to be legitimate.

Two people can share a relationship without sharing the same story.

And that possibility changes everything.

The Courage to Stay

Remaining present across difference requires a particular kind of courage, because the moment disagreement appears, several powerful impulses wake up inside us.

One impulse is collapse.
We begin questioning our own clarity, wondering if we should retract the statement, soften the boundary, or dilute what we meant in order to restore harmony. Collapse sacrifices integrity for connection.

Another impulse is contempt.
When someone cannot see what feels obvious to us, frustration can harden into dismissal. We begin to treat the other person not as someone with a different interpretation, but as someone deficient in judgment, intelligence, or goodwill. Contempt sacrifices dignity for certainty.

A third impulse is control.
We search for the right explanation, the perfect argument, the clarifying sentence that will finally bring the other person into alignment with our understanding. Control sacrifices relationship for victory.

None of these impulses are signs of cruelty. They are signs of anxiety. Difference makes the relational field feel unstable, and the nervous system reaches for whatever strategy promises stability again.

But stability achieved through collapse, contempt, or control is fragile. It restores calm only by distorting the relationship itself.

The deeper courage is quieter. It looks like remaining present while allowing difference to exist.

It sounds like this:

I see that you understand this differently.

I hear that your meaning is not the same as mine.

I can stay in this conversation without forcing the gap to close.

This is not resignation. It is relational maturity.

It recognizes that understanding is not something we can command. It unfolds slowly, sometimes not at all. But the presence we bring to one another in the meantime still matters.

When Repair Is Not Immediate

One of the hardest truths about relationships is that repair does not always arrive on the timeline we want.

We often imagine that once the truth is spoken and reactions are released, the next step will naturally be reconciliation. Someone will reconsider. Someone will apologize. Someone will see more clearly. The distance will narrow.

Sometimes that happens.

But many honest conversations do not end that way. The room quiets, the words settle, and the relationship enters a period of unresolved tension. No one storms out, but no one fully agrees either.

In those moments, the temptation is to treat the absence of resolution as a failure.

But resolution and integrity are not the same thing.

Sometimes the most faithful form of relationship is not immediate repair but sustained honesty across time.

You remain in contact.
You continue to recognize one another’s dignity.
You refuse to rewrite your truth in order to make the tension disappear.

The relationship becomes something slower and more spacious than resolution. It becomes a place where two people can coexist with different meanings, trusting that time may do work that persuasion never could.

Some differences eventually soften.
Some misunderstandings eventually clarify.
And some remain part of the relationship’s landscape permanently.

Remaining human inside that uncertainty is the real discipline.

When the Conversation Involves a Violation of Human Dignity

There is an important distinction to make here.

Not every difficult conversation is simply a clash of interpretations between two people acting in good faith. Some conversations involve racism, abuse, coercion, dehumanization, or violations of basic dignity. In those moments, the call to remain present across difference must never be confused with a requirement to endure harm. Ethical communication does not ask anyone to stay inside what is unsafe. Safety is not the opposite of love. It is one of the conditions that makes any honest relationship possible.

This matters because language like staying present, holding space, or remaining in relationship can be misunderstood. It can sound as though maturity always means continued access, continued availability, continued conversation. It does not. Sometimes ethical communication means remaining open where safety is intact. Sometimes it means creating firmer limits, narrowing the terms of contact, or ending the exchange altogether. When human dignity is being violated, presence without protection is not virtue. It is exposure.

There are examples of people who have chosen to remain in conversation with those shaped by hatred, and sometimes that work has led to change. Daryl Davis, for example, spent decades in conversation with Ku Klux Klan members and has said that more than 200 people left the Klan after engaging with him; accounts of his work describe a long practice of listening, relationship, and persistent dialogue rather than argument alone. But that example should be read carefully. It is an example of one person’s vocation and risk tolerance, not a universal moral obligation. His work does not mean that those targeted by hatred are required to stay available to it. It does not mean every harmful person is safe to engage. And it certainly does not mean that ending unsafe communication is a failure of courage.

Sometimes, the most ethical response to dehumanizing communication is not deeper dialogue but a boundary. Not every conversation should be continued. Not every relationship should remain equally accessible. Not every person is entitled to your openness simply because they demand it. If a conversation becomes abusive, threatening, manipulative, or spiritually corrosive, it is fully ethical to pause, leave, or end contact. In such moments, withdrawal is not always avoidance. It may be wisdom. It may be protection. It may be the clearest way to honor the dignity the conversation itself refuses to recognize.

So the question is not simply: Can I stay in this? The deeper question is: Can I stay in this without betraying my safety, my dignity, or the truth of what is happening here? If the answer is no, then stepping back may be the most ethical form of communication available.

Staying human across differences is a real form of courage. But so is refusing unsafe contact. So is naming harm without softening it. So is ending a conversation that has ceased to be a conversation at all.

The Relational Life That Becomes Possible

When we release the need to control reactions and the need to secure agreement, a different kind of relational life becomes possible.

It is a life less organized around persuasion and more organized around presence.

In that life, conversations do not have to end in victory or defeat. They can end with two people still standing in their own integrity, still able to recognize one another as human beings rather than adversaries.

Dignity remains intact because neither person has been reduced to a problem to solve.

Integrity remains intact because neither person has abandoned what they know to be true.

And release remains intact because neither person is responsible for manufacturing the other’s conclusion.

This kind of relationship is quieter than the ones we are often taught to admire. It does not rely on perfect understanding or constant emotional harmony. Instead, it rests on something sturdier: the ability to remain recognizable to one another even when agreement is incomplete.

It is the difference between a relationship built on alignment and one built on respect.

Alignment feels comfortable.
Respect is durable.

Respect allows two people to say:
We do not see this the same way, but we will not dehumanize each other in the process.

Staying Human

At the heart of every difficult conversation lies a simple question that no framework can answer for us:

Who will I become in this moment of difference?

Will I collapse to keep the peace?
Will I harden to secure my certainty?
Will I try to control the other person’s meaning?

Or will I remain human in the room?

To remain human means something surprisingly modest. It means staying oriented toward dignity even when disagreement sharpens the air. It means allowing another person their interior world without trying to conquer it. It means trusting that the truth we speak does not have to erase difference in order to matter.

Staying human is not the end of conflict.

But it is the refusal to let conflict strip us of our humanity.

The Quiet Power of Ethical Communication

Across these three reflections, we have traced a path that moves through three forms of courage.

Part I asked what ethical communication requires before we speak: truth, necessity, and kindness. It explored the commitments of dignity, release, and integrity as the ground beneath our words.

Part II turned toward the discipline of letting others have their response without collapsing into rescue, litigation, or emotional management. It named the grief inside release and the freedom that comes from no longer performing for the verdict.

Part III asks what becomes possible after that release: whether we can remain in relationship across real difference without surrendering either dignity or truth.

Because communication does not reach its deepest purpose when everyone agrees.

Its deepest purpose appears when two people can face one another honestly, remain ethically intact, and leave the room still human.

Sometimes the most faithful outcome of a difficult conversation is not resolution.

It is the quiet knowledge that you spoke with clarity, listened with respect, allowed the other person their humanity, and walked away still recognizable to yourself.

And in a world where disagreement so often turns people into enemies, that may be one of the most courageous forms of relationship we have left.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

In a Recent Podcast, The Deep Dive Discussed My Paper

Grieving a namesake, rebuilding identity, and the long work of meaning reconstruction

In a recent podcast, The Deep Dive discussed my paper, Grieving a Namesake: Identity, Legacy, and Meaning Reconstruction Following the Death of a Grandfather, which examines what happens when a young person loses not only a beloved grandfather, but the grandfather whose very name he carries. The paper argues that this kind of bereavement is not only a relational loss. It is an identity event, shaped by sudden traumatic death, adolescent development, family instability, and the lifelong work of meaning reconstruction.

My grandfather, Harvey David Cottrell, died in a workplace accident on April 7, 1993. I had turned sixteen eleven days earlier. At the time, I was living with my paternal grandparents after my parents’ divorce. My mother and siblings were temporarily living in a single bedroom at my aunt’s apartment, and earlier that same year my great-grandmother had also died. These were the first two deaths I had ever experienced, and they occurred within three months of one another.

That context matters because grief never enters a vacuum. Loss arrives inside a developmental stage, a family system, and an existing structure of stability or instability. In my case, the death of my grandfather did not interrupt a settled life. It came in the middle of rupture. The strongest adult male I knew, whose name I carried, was suddenly gone, and the world I had assumed to be stable no longer made sense.

One of the most important ideas discussed in the podcast is that contemporary grief theory no longer treats bereavement as something a person simply “gets over.” Meaning reconstruction theory understands grief as a crisis of meaning. When someone central to our lives dies, the assumptive world can shatter: the quiet, implicit beliefs that life is predictable, that relationships are secure, and that our personal story has continuity. Grief, from this perspective, is not only sadness. It is a cognitive and existential rupture that demands narrative reorganization.

That language is deeply resonant for me because it names what I lived before I had the words to describe it.

At sixteen, I had very little grief literacy. My first experience of loss was not organized around theory, reflection, or meaning. It was organized around sound, shock, fear, disorientation, and the sense that reality had split open. I heard my uncle tell my grandmother that my grandfather was dead. I heard her scream. I stayed in my room, unable to cross the threshold into the kitchen because doing so would make the event irreversibly real. Only later, with adult language and adult reflection, did the deeper meaning of the loss become available to me.

The paper argues that adolescence is a particularly important lens here. Identity at sixteen is still under construction. Adolescents rely on parents and grandparents not only for care, but as stabilizing figures and living templates for adulthood. My grandfather was not merely someone I loved. As both a primary male figure and my namesake, he functioned as a symbolic reference point for masculinity, continuity, and selfhood. His death removed not only a beloved person, but a developmental anchor.

That is what makes namesake grief especially complex.

To lose the person whose name you carry is to encounter grief in a uniquely identity-linked way. The loss is lodged not only in memory, but in the very structure of your self-introduction. The podcast captured this well: the shared name changes the paradigm of the loss. It is not simply that you remember the deceased. You continue to bear a daily symbolic bond with them in every signature, every document, every family story, every time your name is spoken aloud.

This is why older grief models built around detachment feel so inadequate. The idea that healing requires severing ties with the deceased does not hold up well in lived experience, and it especially fails in the case of a namesake. Contemporary grief scholarship offers a better framework in the language of continuing bonds. The task is not to end the relationship, but to revise it into a new form that can coexist with present life. For a namesake, the bond is not optional. The question is not whether the bond remains, but how it will be carried.

The podcast also explored the effect of sudden and traumatic death. Unlike anticipated loss, sudden death leaves no time for preparation. It intensifies shock, destabilizes the sense of safety, and forces an immediate confrontation with mortality. In my case, the strongest man I knew was crushed by the very machine he commanded. At sixteen, I could not cognitively reconcile that reality. The event shattered not only my sense of security, but my assumptions about strength, protection, and control.

For much of my adult life, I have described myself as feeling psychologically suspended between Good Friday and Easter. That phrase appears in the paper because it remains one of the most truthful descriptions I know for traumatic grief. You are no longer in the first moment of impact, yet you are not restored. You live in the long middle. The old world is gone, but the new one has not fully formed.

And yet the paper does not end in suspension.

Its central claim is that healing is not emotional erasure, detachment, or “closure.” Healing is the gradual work of reauthoring a life story that can hold both the reality of the loss and the ongoing need for meaning, purpose, and connection. Grief does not become morally acceptable. The tragedy does not become good. But the bereaved person can come to live in a world permanently altered by loss without remaining permanently disorganized by it.

In my own life, that has meant that grief eventually became one of the places where vocation was forged.

The podcast traced that trajectory with striking clarity. The frozen sixteen-year-old hiding in the bedroom did not remain the final version of the story. Over time, reflective engagement replaced avoidant coping. I gained new language, new tools, and new ways of revisiting the loss. I became a therapist, a trauma professional, a seminarian, and a family historian. None of those identities emerged separately from grief. They were, in many ways, part of the meaning reconstruction itself.

That may be one of the deepest truths in this whole project: grief can become not only what wounded us, but also what shaped our capacity to accompany others.

As the paper concludes, the loss of my grandfather did not simply mark a moment of devastation. It became part of the long formation of a life. It shaped how I understand trauma, legacy, ritual, and care. It taught me that mourning is not just about surviving absence. It is about learning how to carry forward love, identity, and memory in a changed form across the lifespan.

That is why this conversation matters to me.

In a recent podcast, The Deep Dive discussed my paper as a case study in grief, identity, and intergenerational meaning. But for me, this is more than theory. It is part of my own life story. It is part of how I have come to understand that some losses do not end. They evolve. They ask to be interpreted again and again as we grow, as our language deepens, and as our lives take shape around what once felt impossible to bear.

We do not heal by forgetting the dead.
We heal by learning how to carry them forward without losing ourselves.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Subscribe now

There are some writers we do not merely read. We return to them. Their words meet us differently as we change, and what once felt beautiful later feels piercing, necessary, almost diagnostic. Oriah Mountain Dreamer is that kind of writer for me.

A Canadian author, poet, and spiritual teacher, Oriah is best known for her prose poem The Invitation and for books such as The Dance and The Call. What I love about her writing is that it refuses superficiality. She is not interested in status, polish, or the carefully managed self. She writes toward the deeper questions: what we ache for, whether we can remain present to joy, whether we can survive disappointment without closing, and whether we can still say yes to life after failure.

When I first encountered The Invitation, I heard it relationally. I read it as a set of questions for a future partner, a friend, or someone I hoped might know how to love deeply. But over time, the poem has changed in me. Now it feels less like a list of questions I am asking of others and more like a mirror being held up to my own life.

Not simply: Who can love me this way?
But also: Am I becoming someone who can live this way?

That is why I return to this poem. Not because it flatters me, but because it calls me inward. It asks whether my life is congruent. It asks whether I am telling the truth. It asks whether I am willing to become someone capable of the love, presence, and depth I say I want.

The first line that arrests me is this:

“It doesn’t interest me what you do for a living. I want to know what you ache for and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart’s longing.”

There is a difference between the life we can describe and the life we actually inhabit. One can sound impressive while the other remains starved. Titles, roles, credentials, and responsibilities may tell the world what we do, but they do not always reveal what is most alive in us. They do not tell the truth about longing.

And longing matters.

Because beneath performance, beneath productivity, beneath all the careful ways we explain ourselves, there is often a quieter question waiting: What do I ache for? Not what am I supposed to want. Not what will make sense to other people. Not what would look respectable from the outside. But what does my heart reach toward when it is honest?

That question can be unsettling, because it exposes the distance between survival and aliveness. Many people know how to function. Many know how to endure. Many know how to become excellent at meeting expectations. But to name one’s longing is another matter entirely. Longing asks more of us than competence. It asks for truth.

To ache for something is to admit that success alone cannot save us. It is to acknowledge that there are desires in us that are not shallow, not performative, not decorative. They are often tender, ancient, and a little frightening. To speak them aloud risks disappointment. It risks change. It risks confronting the ways we have built a life around duty while quietly abandoning what is most sacred within us.

And yet this is where the inner life begins to deepen. Because the question is not only whether we have a longing. The question is whether we dare to meet it. Whether we dare to imagine that the deepest thing in us might deserve attention. Whether we dare to believe that our lives are not meant to be lived only in reaction, only in obligation, only in exhaustion.

From there, the poem moves somewhere just as demanding:

“I want to know if you can be with joy, mine or your own; if you can dance with wildness and let the ecstasy fill you to the tips of your fingers and toes without cautioning us to be careful, be realistic, remember the limitations of being human.”

Most people know how to brace for pain. Far fewer know how to stay present to joy.

Pain, for all its difficulty, often feels more familiar. We know how to anticipate loss, prepare for disappointment, and protect ourselves from being caught off guard. Joy can feel far more vulnerable. It asks us to unclench. It asks us to stop managing the moment long enough to actually inhabit it. And for many of us, that is harder than it seems.

There is a particular kind of self-protection that rises whenever joy gets too close. We temper it. We qualify it. We interrupt it with caution. We tell ourselves not to get our hopes up. We remind ourselves to be realistic. We reach for restraint before we have even fully received what is beautiful. Sometimes this comes from wisdom. But often it comes from fear — fear that joy, if welcomed too openly, will be taken away.

And yet joy is not naïveté. It is not denial. It is not the refusal to acknowledge how fragile life can be. In fact, real joy often belongs to those who know fragility very well. It belongs to those who understand sorrow and still remain capable of wonder. It belongs to those who have suffered enough to know that delight is not something to dismiss lightly.

To be with joy is a form of courage.

It means letting goodness touch you without immediately shrinking it down to size. It means allowing delight, pleasure, beauty, laughter, relief, and aliveness to move through the body without apologizing for them. It means resisting the inner voice that says, careful now, don’t feel too much, don’t celebrate too soon, don’t become too alive.

And maybe that is part of what love asks too: not only, Can you sit with my pain? but also, Can you bear my joy? Can you stay open when life becomes luminous? Can you rejoice without controlling the moment? Can you let beauty be beauty without immediately reducing it to what might go wrong next?

Then the poem moves again, into territory even more sober and, in some ways, more holy:

“I want to know if you can live with failure, yours and mine, and still stand at the edge of the lake and shout to the silver of the full moon, ‘Yes.’”

This may be one of the hardest questions in the whole poem.

It is one thing to say yes to life when things are unfolding as hoped. It is easier to remain open when the path feels coherent, when effort is rewarded, when love is returned, when the story still seems to be moving in the direction we imagined. But failure changes the atmosphere. It humbles us. It exposes us. It confronts us with the limits of control and the ache of being human.

And not only our own failure.

Part of maturity is learning to live not only with the ways we have fallen short, but also with the failures of others. The disappointments. The fractures. The places where trust did not hold, where good intentions were not enough, where people we loved could not become what we needed them to be. To live with failure is not to excuse harm or deny grief. It is to stop insisting that life must be flawless before it can still be called meaningful.

That kind of yes is not naïve. It is not the yes of denial, or optimism without substance, or forced gratitude spoken too quickly over unhealed pain. It is something stronger than that. It is the yes that comes after disillusionment. After the collapse. After the moment when the fantasy dies, reality remains. It is the yes of a person who has seen enough of sorrow to know that beauty is not the absence of brokenness, but the refusal to let brokenness have the final word.

So taken together, these three movements of the poem begin to feel like one integrated invitation.

First: What do you ache for?
Then: Can you stay open to joy?
Then: Can you still say yes after failure?

Longing. Joy. Failure.

These are not separate spiritual tasks. They belong to the same becoming. Because to tell the truth about what we ache for requires courage. To remain available to joy requires vulnerability. To still say yes after failure requires a deeper kind of faithfulness — not to fantasy, but to reality. Not to perfection, but to aliveness.

And this is where the poem becomes a full mirror for me.

Because I can read these lines and think about partnership. I can read them and think about friendship, family, community, or the people I hope will walk beside me with honesty and depth. But if I stop there, I miss the sharper question.

Am I able to name what I ache for, or have I become too practiced in performance?
Am I able to receive joy without suspicion, or do I keep interrupting beauty before it can reach me? Am I able to live with failure — mine and others’ — without collapsing into cynicism? Am I becoming the kind of person who can hold what I long to be given?

Maybe that is the real invitation.

Not merely to seek a love that is deep, steady, joyful, and true.
But to become more capable of offering it.
Not merely to ask whether someone else can meet me there.
But to ask whether I am willing to meet myself there.

And that may be the deepest turn in all of it. The poem does not leave me with romance. It leaves me with responsibility. It leaves me with the quiet and searching work of self-honesty. It leaves me with the question beneath all the others, the one I cannot ask of another person without also asking it of myself:

“I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly like the company you keep in the empty moments.”

That is the mirror.
That is the question.
And today, it is the one I am still learning how to answer.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

But a harder moment often comes after the words leave our mouth.

Someone reacts.

They misunderstand.
They become defensive.
They grow quiet.
They push back.

And suddenly the room fills with something we didn’t plan for.

One of the clearest images of this comes from Brené Brown’s reflection on empathy: the difference between climbing down into the hole with someone and standing above it trying to make the pain disappear. That distinction matters because, in hard conversations, many of us do not actually know the difference between presence and repair. The moment a feeling enters the room, hurt, embarrassment, disappointment, anger, defensiveness, we become uneasy. We want to help, but often what we call help is really an attempt to reduce discomfort as quickly as possible. We reach for reassurance, explanation, reframing, silver linings, anything that might move the feeling along. Not always because we are insincere, but because another person’s distress can stir our own.

This is where compassion and control begin to separate. Compassion says, I can see this is hard for you. It stays close without taking over. It does not turn away from pain, nor does it rush to clean it up. It allows the other person to remain a person with feelings, not a problem that must be solved, so the room can feel manageable again. Control sounds gentler than domination, but it is still control. It says, I need to make this easier, faster, smoother, and less uncomfortable. It may wear the language of kindness, but underneath it is often driven by anxiety. It wants to change the feeling, redirect the moment, restore equilibrium.

Many of us learned this pattern honestly. If we grew up in environments where tension meant danger, then someone else’s reaction can feel like an emergency. We learn to over-explain, soften boundaries, abandon clarity, or rush into repair before the truth has even had time to breathe. But empathy does not ask us to erase difficulty. It asks us to remain present inside it. It says: I am here with you, but I do not have to take over your inner world in order to care about you. That is a very different posture from emotional management.

And that difference matters because control often disguises itself as love. We tell ourselves we are being thoughtful, peacemaking, and compassionate. Sometimes we are. But sometimes we are simply trying to regulate the discomfort in the room so that we do not have to feel it ourselves. Real compassion can sit beside grief, anger, misunderstanding, or disappointment without collapsing into strategy. It does not need to engineer a better feeling in order to stay connected. It can acknowledge the pain without surrendering the truth.

To remain compassionate without becoming controlling requires restraint. It means being able to say, I see that this hurts. I respect that this is difficult. And I do not need to abandon what is true in order to rescue you from the experience of hearing it. That is not indifference. It is not coldness. It is mature love. It is the discipline of caring deeply without taking possession of what does not belong to you. And in difficult conversations, that discipline is part of what keeps us human.

But this kind of restraint is difficult for another reason too: release always asks us to give up something we secretly hoped to keep. We do not just want to speak clearly. We want to be understood. We want our intention to be recognized. We want the other person to say, Oh, I see what you meant. We want the conversation to end with some visible sign that the truth landed cleanly and the relationship remains intact. So when that does not happen, when someone stays hurt, or defensive, or disappointed, or convinced that we are wrong, something in us grieves.

Release carries a quiet grief. When we stop managing reactions, we also lose the comforting illusion that everyone will eventually understand our intentions. We have to face the harder truth: some people will leave the conversation with a meaning we did not want them to make. Some will hold onto their version of events. Some will remain certain of our failure. Some relationships will shift, not because we were cruel, but because clarity itself can rearrange a room.

This is where many people get pulled back into litigation. We begin making our case again. We restate, refine, qualify, and defend. We search for the sentence that will finally secure acquittal. We want to prove we are not what they think, that our motives were cleaner, that our meaning was better, that their interpretation is unfair. But difficult conversations rarely become more human once we turn the exchange into a courtroom. The more we litigate, the less we relate. We move from presence to argument, from truth to strategy, from clarity to self-justification.

Sometimes release means letting people be wrong about you. Sometimes it means letting them feel right without surrendering your own integrity. It means accepting that not every misunderstanding can be corrected, not every judgment can be overturned, and not every disappointment can be repaired on demand. This is not passivity. It is not an agreement. It is the refusal to spend yourself trying to control another person’s conclusion.

There is a great deal of freedom in no longer needing to win the internal trial. You can say what is true. You can clarify once, maybe twice, if the moment genuinely calls for it. But after that, you do not have to keep returning to the stand. You do not have to cross-examine their reaction. You do not have to build a closing argument for your own humanity. You can let the words stand. You can let the other person have their judgment. And you can leave the conversation still recognizable to yourself.

That, too, is part of release: allowing other people the dignity of their own interpretations, even when those interpretations are painful, limited, or wrong. It is grieving the loss of perfect resolution. It is accepted that truth does not always produce agreement. And it is trusting that your task was never to control the verdict, only to speak with dignity, remain intact, and refuse to turn the relationship into a war of explanations.

Brené Brown writes, “Empathy has no script. There is no right way or wrong way to do it. It’s simply listening, holding space.” That insight matters because so much of what makes difficult conversations hard is our belief that we must somehow perform them perfectly. We think there must be a precise sentence, a flawless tone, or a sequence of words that will finally make the other person feel what we hoped they would feel. But empathy does not work like that. It is not a formula for securing the right outcome. It is not a tool for controlling the room. It is a posture of presence.

To listen and hold space is much harder than it sounds. It means staying with another person’s disappointment, grief, anger, or confusion without rushing to edit it. It means resisting the impulse to fix, rescue, soften, or litigate. It means allowing the other person to remain fully themselves in the moment, even when their response is painful, incomplete, or not what we wanted. This is where empathy and control begin to separate. Control wants a script because control wants predictability. It wants to know what to say to calm the feeling, close the gap, restore the relationship, or secure a better verdict. Empathy has no such guarantees. It listens. It makes room. It stays.

And that is exactly why release can feel so costly. When we stop trying to manage the reaction, we also surrender the fantasy that there is one perfect explanation that will finally make everything come out right. We have to face the grief inside that surrender. We may not be understood. Our intentions may not be fully recognized. The conversation may end without resolution. The relationship itself may shift. Empathy does not erase that ache. It simply refuses to build a courtroom inside it.

There is a quiet maturity in no longer needing to win the explanation. You can tell the truth. You can clarify what genuinely needs clarifying. And then you can stop. You do not have to keep building your case. You do not have to defend your humanity into existence. You do not have to force someone else into a different conclusion before you are allowed to leave the room with your integrity intact. Sometimes empathy looks less like finding the perfect words and more like refusing to turn the conversation into a war of explanations.

Release does not promise peace. It does not guarantee repair, agreement, or even mutual understanding. What it offers is something quieter: the freedom to stop performing for the verdict. You can say what is true, let it stand, and leave the room without abandoning yourself. Sometimes that is the deepest form of integrity a hard conversation can hold.

Part I explored the ethical ground of communication itself: how to speak in a way that remains truthful, necessary, and kind; how to let words pass through the deeper questions of dignity, release, and integrity before they ever leave our mouths. It asked what it means to communicate without manipulation, to stop over-explaining, and to remain recognizable to yourself even in charged moments.

Part II moved into the harder work that begins after the words are spoken. It examined the discipline of letting people have their response without collapsing into control, rescue, or self-defense. It is named the grief inside release: that we not only want to speak clearly but also to be understood, affirmed, and rightly interpreted. And yet mature communication sometimes means allowing disappointment, misunderstanding, or even misjudgment without turning the conversation into a courtroom. Release does not guarantee peace; it offers something quieter, the freedom to stop performing for the verdict.

Part III will ask what becomes possible after that release. If we can speak clearly and let others have their response, how do we remain in a relationship across differences? What does it look like to stay human when there is no easy resolution, no shared interpretation, no immediate repair? The final piece will turn toward the courage of staying present without collapse, contempt, or control and toward the kind of relational life that can hold truth without requiring sameness.

I am fully present in my body, embracing the sensations that guide my emotions. In moments of stress, I choose to respond with mindfulness and compassion. I let go of emotions that no longer serve me, creating space for peace and joy. My thoughts are gentle companions, leading me back to the present moment. I recognize my distractions and take steps to minimize their impact, inviting clarity into my life. I cherish the connections I cultivate, nurturing my relationships with love and authenticity. I embrace forgiveness as a powerful tool for healing and growth, allowing love to flow freely within me and towards others. I transform my fears into motivation and honor my true self, expressing my unique strengths and passions. I practice radical acceptance, align my choices with my core values, and cultivate gratitude in all that I do. I am a beacon of love, compassion, and authenticity, leaving a positive legacy as I journey through life. Today and every day, I honor my true self and the beauty I bring to the world

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

Before the shout, the shove, the missile, the bomb, there is almost always a story inside someone’s nervous system:

I was wronged.
I was ignored.
I was made small.
Someone must pay.

Revenge is the psyche’s promise of restoration. But it is a false promise.

In Foundation by Isaac Asimov, the Galactic Empire is collapsing. The Foundation is small, vulnerable, and militarily weak. It cannot win through force.

Salvor Hardin understands this.

Instead of building armies, he builds leverage:

• diplomacy

• technological dependency

• psychological insight

• strategic timing

The neighboring kingdoms can use violence. The Foundation cannot. So it must outthink them. Hardin’s statement is not naïve pacifism. It’s strategic realism.

Violence, in the novel, represents the failure of imagination. If you reach for force, you have already failed to understand the larger system.

Psychologically, Asimov’s line suggests something profound: Violence often emerges when complexity overwhelms capacity.

When someone:

• cannot regulate their emotions

• cannot tolerate ambiguity

• cannot negotiate

• cannot think systemically

• cannot delay gratification

Force becomes the shortcut. In this sense, violence is not strength; it is a collapse of higher-order functioning. Under stress, the brain shifts from the prefrontal cortex (reason, planning, moral deliberation) to limbic dominance (fight/flight). The capacity for nuance shrinks. Violence becomes appealing precisely when one cannot tolerate complexity.

Most people think violence is simply the moment a hand strikes, a weapon fires, or a body is harmed. That definition is clean and legal, and it matters. But it is also incomplete. If we only call something “violence” when blood is visible, we miss the long chain of force that often comes first, and we misunderstand how violence actually grows.

Violence is the use of force to dominate, injure, silence, or diminish another. Sometimes that force is physical. Sometimes it is verbal. Sometimes it is psychological. Sometimes it is built into the structures we all live in. And often, long before it becomes action, violence begins as an interior posture, an aggressive story the mind repeats until the heart hardens.

Physical violence is the most obvious form: the shove, the strike, the destruction, the bodily threat. It is what we measure most easily and condemn most readily. But physical violence is rarely the first expression of aggression. It is usually the last expression of something that has already been rehearsed first in emotion, then in language, then in justification.

Verbal violence comes next, and it is not “just words.” Anyone who has been threatened, mocked, humiliated, or systematically shamed knows that speech can function like a weapon. When language is used to intimidate, degrade, dehumanize, or terrify, it becomes force. It is an attempt to collapse another person’s dignity under the weight of contempt. A body may not bruise, but something inside the person absorbs the blow: safety, confidence, belonging, identity.

Then there is psychological or emotional violence, the kind that doesn’t need raised voices to be destructive. It shows up as coercion, manipulation, chronic belittling, gaslighting, control, punishment through withdrawal, isolation from support. It creates an environment where another human being cannot relax into reality, cannot trust their own perception, cannot move freely without fear of consequences. This is violence as domination of the inner world. It erodes a person’s sense of self from the inside out.

And beyond interpersonal harm, there is structural violence: the kind that no single person can point to in a heated moment, because it is embedded in systems. It is the quiet, ongoing harm created by policies and institutions that restrict access to healthcare, safety, housing, education, dignity, and opportunity. No fist is thrown, and yet life expectancy shortens. Suffering concentrates. Certain groups carry the cost of arrangements they did not design. This, too, is violent harm distributed through architecture rather than rage.

But if violence has these outward forms, it also has an inward beginning. Aggressive thought is not the same as aggressive action, but it often becomes the pathway toward it. When the mind returns again and again to fantasies of humiliation, revenge scripts, dehumanizing labels, righteous contempt, when it rehearses the story that “they deserve to suffer,” something important happens. Empathy narrows. Moral imagination shrinks. The other becomes a symbol instead of a person. The inner world becomes a training ground for the outer world.

Because violence almost always begins as a story: a narrative of superiority, victimhood, entitlement, or moral certainty. It is a way of making complexity disappear. It turns pain into permission. It turns fear into righteousness. It turns a human being into an obstacle.

Seen this way, violence isn’t only an act. It is a posture toward reality, a willingness to use force, in whatever form, to make another person smaller so the self can feel larger, safer, or more justified. And the reason this matters is simple: if violence is more than physical injury, then prevention is more than stopping fists. It is tending what happens before the fist forms the speech that hardens, the thoughts that dehumanize, the systems that quietly crush, the stories that make cruelty feel like clarity.

Violence against children rarely gets named as violence. It gets renamed. It gets softened into “discipline,” “tough love,” “respect,” “what my parents did,” “what works.” But a child’s body does not hear those euphemisms. A child’s nervous system hears only the truth of the moment: I am not safe.

When a child is hit, the lesson is not simply “don’t do that again.” The deeper lesson is about power. The child learns that the strong can use force to get what they want. They learn that authority need not explain itself. They learn that fear is an acceptable teaching tool. And because a child depends on caregivers for survival, they can’t make sense of it in adult terms, “my parent is dysregulated” or “this is about their stress.” A child almost always turns it inward. Something must be wrong with me. I must deserve this. My feelings must not matter.

That is how violence becomes formative. Not just as an event, but as a worldview.

In homes where punishment arrives without explanation, where the rules shift with mood, where the adult’s anger is unpredictable, the child becomes a vigilant interpreter. They learn to read footsteps, tone, and the angle of a door closing. They learn to scan for danger because danger has lived in the place that was supposed to be safe. Obedience becomes less about values and more about survival. The body becomes trained in compliance, not because the child understands what is right, but because the child has learned what happens when they are wrong.

And this is the part many adults miss: fear can produce compliance, but it cannot produce maturity. It can make a child quiet. It cannot teach a child how to regulate themselves. It can stop behavior in the moment, but it does not build an inner compass. It does not teach repair. It does not teach empathy. It teaches threat.

Over time, that threat shapes the developing brain. A child raised under intimidation may grow up with a nervous system that is always slightly braced, ready to defend, hide, fight, or freeze. The mind that should be learning nuance and problem-solving learns something else first: stay safe, avoid pain, don’t get noticed, don’t make the wrong move. The body stores the curriculum.

Then the child grows into an adult. The hitting may stop. The fear may become invisible. But the template remains.

Some people respond by becoming what hurt them. This is how identification with the aggressor forms: if power was terrifying, then power becomes the thing you chase. If dominance kept you safe, you learn to dominate. If no one listens to you, you learn to control the room so you will never be that small again. This is one pathway by which childhood violence becomes adult violence: the body learns that the world is secured through force.

Others respond by disappearing. They become agreeable, quiet, unable to assert needs, trained to please, trained to endure. They learn that conflict is dangerous and that their voice creates consequences. They may look “well-behaved” on the outside while living with anxiety, shame, and a chronic sense of being unsafe. And sometimes, after years of suppression, the body can no longer hold it, and rage bursts out sideways at partners, at children, at strangers, at the self.

Either way, the original violence reproduces itself. Not always as hitting. Sometimes, as intimidation. Sometimes as control. Sometimes, as contempt. Sometimes, as a life lived braced for impact.

And then we have to widen the lens.

Societies are made of nervous systems. Cultures are built out of early lessons about authority, safety, and dignity. When large numbers of children are raised with humiliation and fear as the primary tools of correction, violence becomes familiar. The logic of domination becomes normal. The belief that “the strong don’t have to explain themselves” migrates outward from the home into classrooms, workplaces, churches, and governments.

That’s how broken systems spread like fire. Fire doesn’t need a complicated plan. It needs fuel and repetition.

When a child is treated as less than fully human when their tears are mocked, their fear is weaponized, their body is struck, their questions are met with “because I said so,” we are not only shaping that child. We are rehearsing a model of power that will later take larger forms. We are training future citizens in the emotional grammar of coercion: I get compliance through fear. I get respect through force. I maintain order through intimidation.

And what begins as “discipline” becomes a worldview that justifies violence in society: against the out-group, the enemy, the criminal, the sinner, the immigrant, the “problem people.” The story is the same, only scaled up: they are not fully human, they do not deserve explanation, they must be controlled, and pain will teach them.

The tragedy is that children do need limits. They do need correction. They do need boundaries that keep them safe and help them become wise.

But boundaries do not require terror. Authority does not require humiliation. Consequences do not require cruelty.

There is another way of wielding power, and it begins in the smallest rooms. It looks like adults who stay regulated enough to teach rather than be discharged. It looks like consequences that are consistent and explained. It looks like a repair after rupture. It looks like firmness without contempt.

Because what children learn most deeply is not what we demand, but what we model.

If a child learns, “Power can be protective,” they grow up less hungry to dominate.
If a child learns, “Mistakes can be met with explanation,” they grow up less reactive to shame. If a child learns, “Conflict can include repair,” they grow up less addicted to revenge.

In the end, reducing violence in society is not only about laws and institutions, though those matter. It is also about what we normalize in childhood. Because whatever we practice on the powerless becomes the blueprint for how we treat power later.

And if we want a world less ruled by violence, we have to start by refusing to teach it to children as love.

Nonviolence is not first a public stance. It is a discipline of the inner life.

If violence is the use of force to dominate, diminish, or discharge pain onto another, then nonviolence begins wherever that impulse first stirs in thought, in speech, in posture, in the nervous system.

It is not passivity. It is a regulated strength. And it must be practiced deliberately.

1. Nonviolence in Thought

Every act of violence begins as a story.

A story that says:

• They are the problem.

• They deserve this.

• I am justified.

• I am morally superior.

• They are less human.

Nonviolence in thought does not mean suppressing anger. It means examining it before it hardens into dehumanization.

When you notice hostile rumination replaying the argument, imagining their humiliation, rehearsing the clever takedown pause.

Ask:

• What am I actually feeling beneath this?

• Am I ashamed?

• Am I afraid?

• Do I feel powerless?

Most aggressive thoughts are armor around vulnerability.

Nonviolence in thought means refusing to strip another person of complexity, even when they have hurt you.

It means holding two truths:
They may have caused harm.
They are still human.

That stance protects your own humanity first.

2. Nonviolence in Speech

Speech is often where violence becomes social.

Contempt, sarcasm, humiliation, and exaggeration are forms of force. They may win arguments, but they erode the connection.

Practicing nonviolent speech requires slowing down before words leave the mouth.

Before responding, consider:

• Am I trying to understand, or to win?

• Am I naming impact, or attacking character?

• Am I speaking from pain, or from dominance?

Nonviolent speech sounds like:

• “When that happened, I felt…”

• “I need…”

• “I disagree with this idea because…”

• “Help me understand…”

It does not sound like:

• “You always…”

• “You’re ridiculous.”

• “What’s wrong with you?”

• “People like you…”

Nonviolence in speech is not weakness. It is precision.

It keeps dignity intact, yours and theirs.

3. Nonviolence in Deed

Nonviolence in action requires the regulation of impulse.

When you feel the surge of heat in the chest, the tightening of the jaw, the urge to retaliate, your nervous system is preparing for discharge.

The practice is simple and difficult:

Pause long enough for the prefrontal cortex to re-engage.

Breathe deeply and slowly.
Ground yourself physically.
Delay response if needed.

Sometimes nonviolence in deed looks like:

• walking away

• setting a boundary without humiliation

• choosing silence instead of escalation

• protecting yourself without degrading the other

It is not about avoiding conflict.

It is about refusing to become what hurt you.

4. Nonviolence Toward the Self

This is often overlooked.

Many people practice violence internally:

• harsh self-talk

• chronic self-criticism

• replaying shame

• denying rest

• punishing mistakes

If your inner voice is contemptuous, it becomes easier for your outer voice to be so.

Practicing nonviolence toward yourself means:

• correcting without shaming

• acknowledging mistakes without annihilating identity

• allowing rest without calling yourself lazy

The nervous system that feels safe inside is less likely to attack outside.

5. The Systemic Dimension

Personal nonviolence does not ignore injustice.

It does not require passivity in the face of harm.

It means pursuing justice without dehumanization.

You can resist policies.
You can confront abuse.
You can demand accountability.

But if you do so by stripping others of humanity, the cycle continues.

Nonviolence insists that how we fight matters as much as what we fight for.

6. A Daily Practice

Try this as a discipline:

At the end of each day, ask:

• Where did I feel the urge to dominate?

• Where did I rehearse contempt?

• Where did I protect my dignity or someone else’s?

And tomorrow, choose one moment to respond more slowly.

Nonviolence is not achieved in a single heroic act.

It is built in micro-moments of restraint.

7. The Deeper Truth

Violence promises relief.

Nonviolence builds strength.

Violence narrows the field.

Nonviolence expands it.

To practice nonviolence is to cultivate the capacity to hold anger without weaponizing it, to hold power without abusing it, to hold pain without exporting it.

It is not softness.

It is disciplined humanity.

And every time you refuse to discharge your wound onto someone else, you interrupt a lineage older than you.

That is how systems change.

One regulated nervous system at a time.

Here is a good resource to continue this education:

If you are serious about practicing nonviolence, not just as an idea, but as a lived discipline in thought, speech, and action, the work of the Center for Nonviolent Communication is an excellent place to begin.

The Center teaches Nonviolent Communication (NVC), often called “the Language of Life.” At its core, NVC is built on a simple but transformative premise: every behavior is an attempt to meet a human need, and conflict can shift when we learn to identify and speak from those needs rather than from blame or judgment.

Their approach helps people:

• connect across differences

• transform conflict one conversation at a time

• replace accusation with curiosity

• replace punishment with understanding

• replace domination with dialogue

The Center for Nonviolent Communication is an international nonprofit peacemaking organization grounded in the belief that everyone’s needs matter and that dialogue can resolve differences peacefully. Each day, they support learners, trainers, and change agents around the world in creating environments where dignity, empathy, and mutual understanding are possible, even amid deep disagreement.

Their mission is clear:
They unite and support people who learn, share, and apply Nonviolent Communication worldwide.

If we are exploring how violence begins in thought, becomes sharp in speech, and expands through systems, then learning a language that interrupts that cycle is not optional; it is essential.

Nonviolence is not simply the absence of aggression.
It is the presence of skill.

And learning that skill is a practice.

Harvey Cottrell is a licensed therapist and trauma specialist writing at the intersection of faith, grief, justice, and the human nervous system. His work explores forgiveness, moral injury, and what it means to stay tender in a violent world. Through The Deepest Yes and The Inner Room, Harvey offers reflections for those carrying more than they show, where theology meets lived experience, and truth is held with compassion.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

Powerful communication does three things at once: it respects the other person’s dignity, releases you from responsibility for their reaction, and keeps you ethically intact. Ethical communication begins with the speaker’s orientation, not with control of the outcome.

George Bernard Shaw named a trap many of us fall into:

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

Are you under a similar illusion?

Many people are not misunderstood because they lack clarity. They’re misunderstood because they mistake delivery for connection. They assume that because a message was spoken well-phrased, reasonable, even kind, it must have landed. But communication doesn’t complete itself at the moment of speech. It completes itself only when meaning is actually made.

The illusion shows up when:

• We speak and move on without checking understanding.

• We repeat ourselves louder instead of slower.

• We interpret resistance as defiance rather than missed meaning.

• We assume intent overrides impact.

Ethical communication asks more of us, not control over others, but humility about the limits of our words. It invites a pause long enough to wonder: Did I speak clearly, or did I just speak? And am I willing to learn what actually arrived, without defending the version I meant to send?

That question alone dissolves the illusion—and brings us back into the room.

There’s another trap that follows close behind: personalization.

How other people react is usually not about us. It reflects their internal context history, stress load, threat sensitivity, and the meaning they make in the moment. But we so often read their reaction as a message about our worth or safety, and we dysregulate. Then we communicate from urgency: over-explaining, fixing, arguing, often escalating the very thing we were trying to prevent.

So what do we do when the room gets hot, and our system starts sputtering?

We slow the moment down—on purpose. Not to control the other person, but to re-enter our own body and return to an ethical stance. Before we add more words, we check our orientation: What’s driving me right now—truth, or threat? This is where a simple framework helps. I use two: the Three A’s (Awareness, Authenticity, Audacity) and the Three Gates (Is it true? Is it necessary? Is it kind?). Together, they keep communication from turning into performance, and help us say what we mean cleanly without litigating it.

When my system starts to sprint, I try not to add speed. I add discernment. Before I speak—especially in charged moments—I let the sentence pass through three gates:

Is it true?
Not “is it perfectly phrased,” but: Is this what I actually mean? Or is this fear, image-management, or retaliation dressed up as honesty? Sometimes the truest words are the simplest: I don’t know yet. I can change my mind.

Is it necessary?
Not “do I have the right,” but: Does this need to be said now, by me, in this way? Some truths are real but poorly timed. Some truths are real but don’t serve a purpose. Necessity is where wisdom lives.

Is it kind?
Kind doesn’t mean soft. It means non-dehumanizing. Kind can still be a boundary. Kind can still be “No.” Kind simply refuses contempt as a communication style.

If it can’t pass these gates, it might still be true, but it isn’t ready to be spoken.

Once the sentence passes the gates, the question becomes: How do I deliver it without losing myself? This is where the Three A’s guide me.

Awareness: What’s driving my urge to speak?
Am I trying to be understood or to be safe? Am I offering clarity or trying to control the room?

Authenticity: Can I say this in a way that keeps me recognizable?
Not louder. Not longer. Not sharper. Simply true.

Audacity: Can I tolerate the consequences of honesty without chasing approval?
This is where we release the outcome. We stop managing reactions. We stop bargaining for peace.

And then—one last discipline:

Don’t litigate. Say what you mean and move on.
Over-explaining is often just anxiety reaching for a microphone. If the words are true, necessary, and kind, you can let them stand without a closing argument.

Techniques help. Frameworks slow us down. But underneath every communication skill is a deeper question:

Who am I choosing to be in this moment?

Powerful communication rests on three commitments not strategies, not tactics, but ethical orientations.

To communicate with dignity is to refuse to treat the other person as a problem to solve or a reaction to manage.

This is where manipulation often hides, not in cruelty, but in polish.
In phrasing designed to sound reasonable while steering the outcome.
In kindness that is really control.

Dignity says:

I will speak to you as a person, not as a variable.

It means listening without rehearsing.
Naming without humiliating.
Disagreeing without reducing.

Dignity does not require agreement.
It requires recognition.

Every difficult conversation contains a moment of choice:
Will I speak my truth—or will I manage their response?

Release is the willingness to let others have their reactions without chasing them, fixing them, or defending against them.

This is not indifference.
It is ethical restraint.

Release sounds like:

• saying the thing once

• resisting the urge to clarify it into submission

• allowing disappointment without rescuing

When we release the outcome, we stop confusing responsibility with control.

Other people are allowed to misunderstand you.
They are allowed to disagree.
They are allowed to show you who they are.

Integrity is not about being right.
It’s about being whole.

After the conversation ends, can you recognize yourself?
Did you stay present—or did you disappear, perform, or harden?

Integrity asks:

Did I say what was true for me without abandoning myself to keep the peace?

Sometimes integrity looks like speaking.
Sometimes it looks like restraint.
Sometimes it looks like leaving the conversation unfinished.

Integrity allows you to say:

This is where I am right now.
This is what I can offer.
This is where I need to stop.

1. Dignity without release becomes control.

2. Release without integrity becomes avoidance.

3. Integrity without dignity becomes harm.

But held together, these three create communication that is both clear and humane.

They let you speak without manipulation, listen without collapse, and leave the conversation still yourself.

And that, perhaps, is the quiet power of ethical communication—not that it guarantees understanding, but that it allows you to remain human in the room.

Communication doesn’t fail because we lack words.
It fails because we forget who we are while using them.

When conversations get charged, the temptation is to perform: to manage reactions, secure agreement, or rush toward resolution. But ethical communication asks something quieter and braver. It asks us to stay oriented to dignity, to release, to integrity, even when the outcome is uncertain.

You can speak your truth without controlling how it lands.
You can listen without disappearing.
You can stop talking without abandoning the relationship.

Powerful communication is not measured by persuasion or peacekeeping, but by recognizability. When the conversation ends, are you still yourself? Did you relate without manipulation, let the other person be who they are, and leave the room ethically intact?

Sometimes the most faithful act is to say the thing once truthfully, necessarily, kindly, and then let it stand.

In Part II, we’ll go deeper into what makes that last step so difficult: how to release responsibility for other people’s reactions without becoming cold or detached, and how to stay in a relationship without carrying what was never yours to hold.

Read Part Two Here:

I am fully present in my body, embracing the sensations that guide my emotions. In moments of stress, I choose to respond with mindfulness and compassion. I let go of emotions that no longer serve me, creating space for peace and joy. My thoughts are gentle companions, leading me back to the present moment. I recognize my distractions and take steps to minimize their impact, inviting clarity into my life. I cherish the connections I cultivate, nurturing my relationships with love and authenticity. I embrace forgiveness as a powerful tool for healing and growth, allowing love to flow freely within me and towards others. I transform my fears into motivation and honor my true self, expressing my unique strengths and passions. I practice radical acceptance, align my choices with my core values, and cultivate gratitude in all that I do. I am a beacon of love, compassion, and authenticity, leaving a positive legacy as I journey through life. Today and every day, I honor my true self and the beauty I bring to the world.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

I heard a story on NPR this Sunday that stayed with me all week: a psychologist describing why it’s so hard to live up to our idea of being a “good person.” The argument was disarmingly simple: when “good” becomes an identity we must protect, it can quietly keep us from becoming better. “Good-ish,” she said, is often more honest less defensive, more teachable, more willing to learn. (NPR (Ted Hour)

That landed uncomfortably close to home.

Because I spend my days with people who are trying — sincerely — to be decent, loving, ethical humans. And I also spend my days watching how quickly the idea of being good collapses under pressure: when harm is named, when power is questioned, when repair is required.

The problem isn’t that people fail.
The problem is that we confuse goodness with exemption.

So I found myself asking a question — not rhetorically, not romantically, not as self-assessment theater — but as a way of testing the story I tell about myself:

Would I date me?

Not would someone want me.
Not do I meet the criteria.
But: Would I choose the way I live?

A lot of the people I walk alongside in therapy are asking a version of that same question, even when they don’t have words for it yet. I listen as they tell the stories of relationships and partnerships that end some mutually, some gradually, some devastatingly, some with the worst kind of surprise. And underneath the details who said what, who left, who stayed too long I keep hearing the same throughline, spoken plainly or whispered between sentences: Can I survive this? Am I good enough? What does this mean about me?

It’s never just grief over a person. It’s grief over the self-story that was attached to them. The rupture doesn’t only take the relationship it threatens the identity that was built around being chosen, being safe, being loved, being “good.” And this is where the question sharpens: not Was I a good partner? but Am I a good person? Not What happened between us? but What verdict does this leave on me?

That’s the moment I recognize, again and again, how quickly “goodness” becomes a courtroom. And how desperately we reach for a moral label good, bad, worthy, unworthy when what we’re really trying to find is something steadier: a way to stay human when the story collapses.

Which leads me to another question—one that feels almost too direct to ask out loud:

Am I a good-ish person? Would I choose me as a partner?

It’s a fascinating question, because it refuses the usual escape routes. It doesn’t let me hide behind credentials or public goodness or the comfort of being “the helper.” It’s not a question about being impressive. It’s a question about livability about what it would actually feel like to share a life with the person I am when no one is watching, when I’m tired, when I’m afraid, when I’m defensive, when I’m ordinary.

And yes—there’s a sharp edge to it: If I wouldn’t choose me, why would anyone else?

But the point isn’t to corner myself into shame. The point is to tell the truth without turning it into a verdict. Because so many of us were formed inside systems that confuse being seen as good with being accountable, and being chosen with being safe to choose. That confusion is not accidental it is structural.

As a white man, I don’t get to ask this question without also asking how power travels with me. How maleness, whiteness, and professional authority can soften the consequences of my missteps, widen the benefit of the doubt I receive, and insulate me from the kinds of scrutiny others live with daily. White supremacy doesn’t only show up in hatred or overt violence; it shows up in the presumption of innocence, the ease of being believed, the habit of being centered, the expectation that harm if it occurs will be forgiven quickly or reframed gently.

So when I ask whether I would choose myself as a partner, I’m not asking whether I am “one of the good ones.” I’m asking whether I am actively interrupting the forms of power that could make closeness unsafe. Whether I notice when I take up too much room. Whether I can hear “that hurt” without defensiveness. Whether I know how to step back instead of doubling down. Whether my tenderness is paired with restraint, my insight with humility, my care with consent.

This question isn’t about moral purity. It’s about relational ethics. About whether I am practicing the kind of accountability that makes intimacy possible across difference. About whether the life I’m building is one that doesn’t require someone else to disappear, accommodate, or explain themselves into exhaustion in order to belong.

And maybe that’s the real measure not whether I am “good,” but whether I am becoming someone whose presence does not depend on inherited power to be tolerable. Someone who is learning to be chosen without entitlement, to be trusted without coercion, to be loved without needing to dominate the terms of love itself.

Perhaps there is a deep human lesson in all of us asking a simpler, braver question:

Would I want a partner like me?

Not a partner who looks like me, votes like me, believes like me, or performs goodness the way I’ve been taught to recognize it but someone who moves through the world the way I do. Someone who handles conflict the way I handle it. Someone who listens the way I listen. Someone who apologizes the way I apologize. Someone who carries stress, power, desire, fear, and responsibility the way I do.

It’s a disarming question because it sidesteps comparison. It doesn’t ask whether I’m better than others, more healed than others, or more enlightened than the people I’ve loved or lost. It asks whether the life I am practicing is livable in proximity.

And the lesson isn’t that the answer has to be yes.

For many of us, the honest answer at least at certain seasons is not yet. Not because we are unlovable or broken, but because we were shaped inside systems that rewarded coping over connection, certainty over curiosity, dominance over mutuality. Systems that taught us how to survive, achieve, perform, and endure but not always how to stay present, accountable, or emotionally available when it matters most.

So this question becomes a mirror, not a verdict.

It invites us to notice where we withdraw instead of repair. Where we explain instead of listen. Where we confuse being needed with being chosen. Where we lean on old power gendered, racialized, relational to steady ourselves rather than learning how to be steady without it.

And maybe that’s the deeper invitation: not to become better people, but to become more choosable lives. Lives that make room for another person’s fear without trying to manage it. Lives that don’t require silence, shrinking, or loyalty to our unfinished healing. Lives that can hold joy and conflict without making either someone else’s job to carry.

In that sense, asking Would I want a partner like me? isn’t a test of self-worth.

It’s a practice of ethical imagination.

It’s how we begin to live in ways that don’t depend on being rescued, admired, or excused but on becoming safe enough, honest enough, and present enough that love no longer has to work so hard to survive us.

So how do I tell?

How do I know whether I’m a green flag or a red flag not in theory, not in how I present online or in public, but in the lived texture of relationship?

That question matters, because most harm isn’t caused by people who think they’re villains. It’s caused by people who are convinced they are good, reasonable, well-intentioned and therefore exempt from further self-examination.

The problem is that we often mistake virtue for safety.

Being kind doesn’t automatically make someone safe. Being educated doesn’t mean someone can tolerate disagreement. Being trauma-aware doesn’t guarantee accountability. Being “nice,” “spiritual,” or “deeply reflective” can still coexist with avoidance, control, or emotional unavailability.

So maybe the question isn’t Am I good?

Maybe it’s: What happens to people when they get close to me?

Green flags tend to show up after rupture

Not in how I make first impressions, but in what I do when something goes wrong.

• Do I become curious when I’m confronted or defensive?

• Can I tolerate someone’s disappointment without rushing to explain myself?

• Do I repair, or do I retreat and call it “boundaries”?

• Am I willing to be impacted by someone else’s experience, even when it unsettles my self-image?

A green flag isn’t someone who never causes harm. It’s someone who doesn’t require denial to stay in relationship.

Red flags tend to hide inside unexamined power

Especially for those of us shaped by maleness, whiteness, education, or moral authority.

• Do I assume my intentions should matter more than someone else’s impact?

• Do I subtly expect emotional labor, flexibility, or understanding from others that I don’t consistently return?

• Do I frame myself as “the safe one,” “the evolved one,” or “the helper” in ways that make disagreement risky?

A red flag often isn’t cruelty. It’s inaccessibility. The inability to be interrupted without collapsing or counterattacking.

Here’s a question that cuts through performance:

Do people feel more themselves around me or more careful?

Careful with their tone. Careful with their truth. Careful not to hurt me, overwhelm me, or trigger my defensiveness.

If people routinely feel they have to manage me in order to stay connected, that’s information not condemnation, but data.

Green flags are not identities. They’re behaviors under pressure.

Someone can be a green flag in one season and a red flag in another. Stress, grief, unprocessed loss, or untreated trauma can shrink our relational capacity without making us bad people.

So the work isn’t to declare ourselves safe.

It’s to remain accountable without self-hatred. To notice when our certainty hardens. To choose repair over reputation. To become the kind of person who doesn’t need to be labeled a green flag because the people close to us can breathe.

So maybe the question isn’t whether I’m a good person. Maybe it’s whether I am interruptible.

Whether I can be stopped without shattering.
Whether I can be told something true without needing to defend my worth.
Whether I can let another person’s experience matter as much as my intention.

In a world shaped by certainty, dominance, and unexamined power, being interruptible is a quiet refusal of supremacy. It says: I do not need to be right in order to stay in relationship.

Green flags aren’t declared. They’re revealed over time, under pressure, after rupture.

And maybe the deepest work isn’t becoming someone who never causes harm, but becoming someone who can be interrupted when harm is named.

That may be the most human kind of goodness there is.

So maybe the work is this:

Become the kind of person you would want to date.
Become the kind of person you would trust with your fear, your anger, your joy, your unfinished grief.

Not because you’re perfect, but because you’re present.
Because you can listen without needing to win.
Because you can be wrong without disappearing.
Because you can be interrupted and still stay.

After all, you are the person you will spend the most honest time with for the rest of your life. Every thought. Every choice. Every quiet moment when no one is watching.

Learning how to live with yourself—truthfully, gently, accountably—may be the deepest preparation for loving anyone else.

And maybe that’s what it means to be ready for relationship at all.

If you enjoyed this post you may also like:

I am fully present in my body, embracing the sensations that guide my emotions. In moments of stress, I choose to respond with mindfulness and compassion. I let go of emotions that no longer serve me, creating space for peace and joy. My thoughts are gentle companions, leading me back to the present moment. I recognize my distractions and take steps to minimize their impact, inviting clarity into my life. I cherish the connections I cultivate, nurturing my relationships with love and authenticity. I embrace forgiveness as a powerful tool for healing and growth, allowing love to flow freely within me and towards others. I transform my fears into motivation and honor my true self, expressing my unique strengths and passions. I practice radical acceptance, align my choices with my core values, and cultivate gratitude in all that I do. I am a beacon of love, compassion, and authenticity, leaving a positive legacy as I journey through life. Today and every day, I honor my true self and the beauty I bring to the world

.Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his dissertation research investigates how politically salient family conflict relates to moral injury–related distress and multidimensional forgiveness, and how psychological flexibility and perceived belonging shape pathways of relational repair.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

There’s a moment in Charlotte’s Web I keep coming back to.

The barn is ordinary. The threat is not.
A life is about to be decided by forces that feel inevitable.
And then—almost quietly—Charlotte begins to weave.

Not a speech. Not a protest. Not a campaign.
A web.

I’m both terrified of spiders and fascinated by them, like my body flinches while my mind leans in.

And maybe that’s why this scene feels like an entrance into the kind of work I’m trying to name: how something small and precise can hold a life steady, not by force, but by structure, thread by thread, anchored in relationship.

Because what Charlotte makes isn’t impressive in the way power usually announces itself. It’s quiet. Patient. Almost invisible until it’s already doing its work.

And it would be easy to mistake it for mere cleverness.

She can spin.
She can shape language.
She knows where to place the thread.

A technique.

But the web doesn’t hold because it’s ingenious.
It holds because it’s relationally placed.

Charlotte isn’t weaving in abstraction. She’s weaving inside a living system inside a barn full of fear and habit, gossip and hierarchy, affection and indifference. She understands the field she’s working in. She knows who needs to see the web, and when. She knows that timing matters as much as design.

That’s the part that feels most like therapy.

Therapy has techniques. It has frameworks, skills, and carefully learned ways of intervening. But what actually changes people isn’t technique alone.

It’s the web that forms between two people.

A structure of trust, pacing, attunement, and repair strong enough to hold what someone has been carrying alone.

A technique without a relationship is like a web with no anchors. It may look intricate. It may even impress. But it collapses the moment the wind shifts.

And in real life, the wind always shifts.

The web holds because it is attached to something

From Wilbur’s point of view, the danger isn’t abstract.

It isn’t philosophical.
It isn’t something you can think your way out of.

It’s embodied.

He can feel it in the tightening of his chest, in the way the barn sounds change, in the sudden sense that his ordinary life has an expiration date. The threat doesn’t arrive as information. It arrives as fear.

And fear doesn’t ask for explanations. Fear asks one question only: Am I safe?

What changes, Wilbur, isn’t that the danger disappears.

What changes is that something begins to hold.

The web doesn’t float. It’s anchored fastened to beams and rafters that were already there. It draws its strength not from brilliance, but from attachment.

For Wilbur, that attachment is everything.

Because fear doesn’t calm down when someone tells you you’re special.
It calms down when your body learns that you are not alone.

Charlotte doesn’t remove the threat before she builds the web. She doesn’t wait until Wilbur is calm, brave, or convincing. She attaches first.

And from that attachment, safety begins to form.

Safety, in this sense, isn’t comfort.
It’s not reassurance.
It’s not the promise that nothing bad will happen.

Safety is the experience of having somewhere to land while the danger still exists.

From Wilbur’s body, the web isn’t a message. It’s a signal.

A signal that says:
Something is here.
Something is steady.
You don’t have to hold this by yourself.

That’s how nervous systems actually change.

Not by being persuaded.
But by being met.

When fear has shaped your life, you don’t trust words easily. You trust patterns. You trust what repeats. You trust what doesn’t disappear when the moment gets hard.

From Wilbur’s point of view, the web holds because it stays.

It stays through the night.
It stays when the barn stirs.
It stays when the crowd gathers.
It stays even when Wilbur doesn’t know how the story will end.

This is why technique alone never settles fear.

A technique can be helpful.
A strategy can be smart.
A reframe can be true.

But without attachment, without something reliable to lean against, fear stays vigilant. It keeps scanning. It keeps bracing.

The web works because it is connected to something solid.

And for Wilbur, that solidity is not abstract safety. It’s relational safety.

Someone saw the danger.
Someone stayed.
Someone attached themselves to the problem rather than asking him to manage it alone.

That’s what allows Wilbur’s body to do something extraordinary:

It begins to rest without knowing the ending.

And that—more than the words in the web—is what saves him.

But the web still needs witnesses

Here’s the part that’s easy to miss.

The web alone doesn’t save Wilbur.

It has to be seen.

Fern notices first. Not because she’s trained, but because she’s willing to look without rushing past what she sees. She doesn’t argue Wilbur into worth. She simply recognizes it and stays close.

Then others begin to look too. The farmer. The townspeople. Even Templeton, reluctant and self-interested as he is, becomes part of the witnessing. The web slows the barn down just enough for attention to gather.

And attention changes things.

Not because it fixes the problem immediately.
But because what was once private fear becomes shared reality.

That’s what witnessing does.

It doesn’t erase danger. It creates a space where danger is no longer carried alone.

This is where therapy enters the story

This is the part of Charlotte’s Web that most reminds me of what it’s like to be a therapist.

A therapist is not the web.

The therapist is not the one who decides the outcome.

The therapist is a trained witness, someone who knows how to look steadily at what is true without flinching, correcting, rescuing, or turning away.

At first, the therapist witnesses for the client.

Not because the client is incapable but because fear makes self-witnessing almost impossible.

When you’ve lived inside threat, your attention is busy scanning for danger.
There’s no room left to hold your own truth gently.

So the therapist borrows their nervous system.

They hold the story when it feels too heavy.
They notice patterns without accusation.
They reflect back what’s already there but hasn’t yet become visible.

This is not an interpretation as authority.
It’s witnessing as safety.

Over time—slowly, almost imperceptibly—the client begins to do something new.

They start to look at themselves the way the therapist has been looking at them.

With steadiness.
With curiosity.
With less urgency to fix or flee.

This is the quiet work of therapy:

Teaching someone how to witness themselves
without collapsing into shame
and without escaping into distance.

Not to judge their fear.
Not to correct their story.
But to hold space for what is true.

That’s when the web becomes internal.

Not because the danger is gone, but because the person no longer disappears when it appears.

And this is where the story gets even more honest.

Because the web isn’t only what saves Wilbur.
It’s also what Charlotte gives herself to make.

A web is not a slogan. It’s labor. It’s expenditure.
Thread pulled from the body—fine, repeated, exacting.
Night after night, in a barn that does not become less dangerous just because something beautiful has been made inside it.

This is the part of Charlotte’s Web that feels most like the unseen work of a therapist.

Witnessing is not the same as watching.

Watching can stay at a distance.
Witnessing requires closeness—the kind of closeness where another person’s fear becomes real inside your own nervous system, where you can’t pretend it’s “just a story,” because you’ve felt the tremor of it.

But notice what Charlotte does with that closeness.

She doesn’t make Wilbur responsible for her.
She doesn’t ask him to carry her fatigue.
She doesn’t turn the barn into a stage where her goodness has to be praised.

She stays present without becoming the center.

That’s the discipline: to be real enough to be felt, and bounded enough to remain safe.

In therapy, the client should never have to hold the therapist.
So the therapist has to know where their own thread goes.

Not into the client’s lap. Not into the client’s caretaking.

Into the quiet places where a helper is allowed to be helped: supervision, consultation, friendship, prayer, rest, whatever keeps the work honest and sustainable. Whatever allows the therapist to return to the room steadily, without making their steadiness the client’s job.

Because the goal isn’t to make the therapist indispensable.

The goal is for something in the client to strengthen—slowly, patiently—until the web becomes internal: an ability to witness their own truth without punishment, to hold their own experience without disappearing.

Charlotte’s web does not remove the threat.
It changes what the threat can do.

It creates a structure of meaning strong enough to hold a life, long enough for others to see it—and for Wilbur, eventually, to believe it.

And maybe that’s the quiet miracle therapy offers at its best: not a technique applied to a person, but a relationship strong enough to make truth survivable thread by thread, anchored to something steady, until a frightened life can rest, even without knowing the ending.

I am fully present in my body, embracing the sensations that guide my emotions. In moments of stress, I choose to respond with mindfulness and compassion. I let go of emotions that no longer serve me, creating space for peace and joy. My thoughts are gentle companions, leading me back to the present moment. I recognize my distractions and take steps to minimize their impact, inviting clarity into my life. I cherish the connections I cultivate, nurturing my relationships with love and authenticity. I embrace forgiveness as a powerful tool for healing and growth, allowing love to flow freely within me and towards others. I transform my fears into motivation and honor my true self, expressing my unique strengths and passions. I practice radical acceptance, align my choices with my core values, and cultivate gratitude in all that I do. I am a beacon of love, compassion, and authenticity, leaving a positive legacy as I journey through life. Today and every day, I honor my true self and the beauty I bring to the world.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his research explores forgiveness, reintegration, and resilience among individuals wounded by trauma.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

Leave a comment

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

In Through the Looking-Glass, Alice asks this question while navigating a world that appears coherent on the surface but operates by an entirely different logic beneath the surface. The paths are offered confidently. The guidance sounds authoritative. And yet, the deeper problem isn’t choosing a direction; it’s realizing that the directions themselves can’t be trusted.

In our time, the algorithm answers Alice’s question all day long.

Not with a sentence you can debate, but with a sequence of offerings: Here—look at this. Now this. Now this. It feels like direction. It feels like orientation. It can even feel like discernment. But the guidance is not ordered toward truth. It is ordered toward attention.

That’s the inversion at the heart of the attention economy: a machine that cannot love you, cannot know you, and cannot tell the difference between care and contempt nonetheless becomes a kind of invisible compass. Many of us believe we are choosing the route—staying informed, tracking what matters, trying to respond ethically when in fact we are being directed: toward the emotions that keep us on the platform, toward the stories that hold us in place, toward the activation that makes us easiest to predict.

In The Divided Table, I kept naming the same distortion from different angles: this system doesn’t merely distribute information. It forms us. It trains the nervous system. It rehearses a posture of readiness. It quietly defines what “caring” looks like—then shames us when we can’t keep up.

The algorithm doesn’t need you to believe—it needs you to react

The algorithm is a prediction engine. It does not prioritize what is true; it prioritizes what will keep you there—scrolling, pausing, clicking, commenting, returning. Accuracy is not the currency. Engagement is.

That’s why anger and moral outrage rise to the top so reliably. Outrage is “sticky.” It’s hard to ignore. Pleasant content can be skipped. Nuance can be postponed. But perceived threat, humiliation, betrayal, or injustice demands an immediate response. Outrage narrows attention. It collapses complexity into an emergency. It makes you feel late—as if you don’t respond now, you’re complicit.

And the system learns your patterns with a cold intimacy: what makes you stop scrolling, what you watch to the end, what you replay, what you share “so others will know,” what you comment on “just to correct the record.”

Which leads to the cruelest trick: the machine cannot read intent.

If you watch a video because you love it, it registers: worked.
If you watch because it makes you furious, it registers: worked.
If you comment to correct a lie, it registers: worked.
If you quote-share to warn your community, it registers: worked.

It can’t tell the difference between engagement driven by love and engagement driven by contempt. It only knows that your attention was captured—and that capture is the product.

So we end up living inside a looking-glass economy where engagement feels like resistance, while often functioning like fuel.

What’s offered as endless information—limitless choice, limitless “freedom”—can become an albatross you don’t even notice you’re wearing. Not because you’re weak, but because it’s so normalized you forget it’s there.

And the weight isn’t only time. Its orientation.

The feed doesn’t just keep you busy; it can quietly anchor you to an idea—a storyline you begin to confuse with reality itself. You think you’re browsing. But you’re being moored: to a mood, to a tribe, to a posture of certainty. The algorithm hands you the comforting illusion of agency (“look at all these options”), while tightening the range of what feels thinkable, what feels safe, and what feels like “common sense.”

That’s how the albatross works: not as one dramatic chain you’d protest, but as a gentle, daily weight you forget to question until you realize you haven’t moved freely in a long time.

What makes the albatross so effective is that it isn’t mystical. It’s mechanical.

When we say “the algorithm,” we’re really talking about algorithms—plural. Interlocking systems of machine-learning models, each trained on massive datasets, each optimized for a narrow goal: maximize the probability that you will stay, react, and return.

They don’t know you in any human sense. They don’t need to. They work statistically.

Here’s how they “spin you like a top,” step by step.

1. Everything you do becomes training data

Every interaction that you pause on, how long you watch, whether you scroll back, what you like, comment on, share, save, or avoid becomes a signal. Even inaction is data. Scrolling past quickly tells the system something different than lingering for three seconds.

Over time, the system builds a behavioral profile, not of who you are, but of what reliably captures your attention. This profile includes:

• Emotional triggers (what activates you)

• Content formats (video, text, images, tone)

• Timing patterns (when you’re most receptive)

• Escalation thresholds (how intense content must be to hold you)

You are not categorized once. You are continuously updated.

2. Prediction, not persuasion, is the core task

The system is not asking, What should Harvey believe?
It’s asking, What is Harvey most likely to engage with next?

Machine-learning models generate thousands of probabilistic guesses per user per session. Each new piece of content is a test. Did you stop? Did you react? Did you stay longer?

When something “works,” it is reinforced. When it doesn’t, it’s discarded.

This is why feeds feel uncannily attuned and yet strangely flattening. The goal is not to expand you, it’s to reduce uncertainty about your behavior.

3. Emotional arousal becomes the strongest signal

From a data standpoint, emotionally neutral content is inefficient. Calm, nuanced material produces weaker signals: shorter watch times, fewer comments, slower feedback.

Anger, fear, disgust, and moral outrage produce clean data:

• Longer engagement

• Faster reactions

• More comments

• More shares

• Stronger return probability

So the system learns—without malice, without intention—that activated nervous systems are profitable nervous systems.

Once that learning is encoded, the feed subtly escalates. Content doesn’t just match your views; it sharpens them. It becomes more emotionally charged over time, because heightened arousal keeps prediction accuracy high.

That’s the “spin.”

4. Feedback loops replace exploration

Early on, the feed may feel exploratory. Later, it becomes confirmatory.

Because the system optimizes for reliability, it gradually narrows the range of content it shows you. Ideas that reliably hold your attention are repeated in slightly different forms. Over time, this repetition produces familiarity, and familiarity produces felt truth.

This is how you end up anchored:

• To a moral storyline

• To a sense of who the villains are

• To a perception of what is “obvious”

• To a belief that your feed reflects reality rather than a slice of it

The spinning stops feeling like motion. It feels like ground.

5. The system confuses intensity with importance

One of the deepest distortions comes from a simple substitution:
What activates you begins to feel like what matters most.

Because the algorithm prioritizes what provokes a response, it trains your sense of salience. Issues that trigger strong emotion appear constantly; quieter realities disappear. This subtly reshapes your moral attention—not by argument, but by availability.

Over time, your inner compass is influenced less by reflection or values and more by what reliably produces arousal.

That’s not indoctrination in the old sense. It’s conditioning.

6. Why it feels like freedom while reducing it

From the inside, this process feels like a choice. You are clicking, selecting, reacting. The interface is full of options. But empirically, the system guides probability, not commands behavior.

You are free to move, but only within lanes that have been statistically optimized to keep you engaged.

That’s why the albatross is so hard to notice. It doesn’t yank you in one direction. It tilts the field until certain directions feel natural, urgent, and right—and others barely register as options at all.

And for the most part, this is how modern media works as well.

The difference is not kind, but in degree.

Traditional media—cable news, digital outlets, and even many legacy institutions now operate within the same attention-economy constraints. Revenue depends on clicks, views, watch time, subscriptions, and advertiser appeal. Which means the incentives increasingly converge: hold attention, provoke response, keep the audience coming back.

Editorial judgment hasn’t vanished, but it is no longer sovereign. It competes with analytics dashboards, A/B testing, real-time engagement metrics, and audience retention curves. Stories are selected, framed, and repeated not only because they matter, but because they perform.

And performance, empirically, favors the same things everywhere.

Conflict over context.
Speed over depth.
Certainty over ambiguity.
Emotion over explanation.

This is why headlines harden. Why panels polarize. Why “breaking news” rarely breaks open understanding. The system rewards stories that activate identity and threat perception because they elicit reliable attention.

Even when journalists are acting in good faith—even when reporting is factually accurate—the structure nudges content toward urgency and away from patience. Toward spectacle and away from repair.

The escalation problem

Once attention becomes the currency, escalation is almost inevitable.

What held attention last year won’t hold it this year. What once felt shocking becomes baseline. So tone intensifies. Language sharpens. Stakes inflate. Every issue is framed as existential. Every disagreement becomes a crisis. Every cycle must outpace the last.

This doesn’t require a conspiracy. It emerges naturally from feedback loops.

Audiences respond more intensely to conflict.
Metrics confirm conflict performs.
Conflict becomes central.
Calm analysis feels flat by comparison.

Over time, the media doesn’t just report polarization—it participates in it, because polarization is legible, clickable, and narratively efficient.

And just like with algorithmic feeds, repetition does its quiet work. The same frames, the same villains, the same moral scripts appear again and again until they begin to feel like reality itself.

Why does this feel informative but leave us disoriented?

One of the strangest outcomes of this system is that people can consume enormous amounts of news and still feel less oriented, not more.

That’s because information alone doesn’t create understanding. Understanding requires context, proportion, historical memory, and the ability to tolerate uncertainty. Those are slow processes. They don’t spike engagement. They don’t lend themselves to constant updates.

So instead, we get saturation without integration.

We know what to be outraged about today.
We are less clear about what to do with that outrage tomorrow.
And even less clear about how to live with one another after the cycle moves on.

The result is a public that feels informed but chronically unsettled—alert, reactive, and oddly powerless. Much like the algorithmic feed, modern media can leave the nervous system activated while offering little help in metabolizing what it delivers.

The convergence

This is the deeper problem: social media algorithms and modern media are no longer separate systems. They feed each other.

Media content is optimized to travel well on platforms.
Platforms reward media that travel fast and provoke a reaction.
Both learn from the same engagement data.

So the line between “the feed” and “the news” blurs. What trends become newsworthy? What is newsworthy trends harder. And the public sphere begins to run on the same nervous-system dynamics everywhere.

The albatross gets heavier—not because one source is lying, but because the entire ecosystem tilts toward activation.

Information, formation, deformation

In this ecosystem, the question is no longer simply, Is this true?
It’s also: What is this doing to me? And then, ethically: What is this making me more likely to do to other people?

That’s where the distinction matters:

Information is content that increases accuracy. It adds context, proportion, and verifiable detail. It can be unsettling, but it tends to leave you more capable of thinking, not less. Information expands your map.

Formation is what happens when repeated inputs shape your attention, your reflexes, and your moral imagination over time. Formation trains what you notice, what you dismiss, what you consider “normal,” and what you treat as urgent. Formation isn’t only about beliefs—it’s about posture: who you expect to be dangerous, what you assume is obvious, how quickly you move to judgment.

Deformation is a formation that bends you away from dignity. It narrows empathy, reduces complexity, and rewards contempt. It trains the nervous system to live in a state of bracing, the mind to live fused, and the conscience to confuse intensity with importance. Deformation doesn’t just make you misinformed—it makes you less free: less able to choose your responses, less able to see a whole human being, less able to tolerate nuance without feeling threatened.

Here’s the ethical test I keep returning to:

• Information increases my capacity for truth.

• Formation increases my capacity for wise action.

• Deformation increases my capacity for harm—often while convincing me I’m being virtuous.

And that last one is why this matters. The most dangerous content isn’t always factually false. Sometimes it’s content that is factually adjacent—technically “true enough” but delivered in a way that trains contempt, accelerates certainty, and erodes our ability to practice dignity in real relationships.

In other words, the question isn’t only whether the feed is lying.
It’s whether the feed is shaping you into someone you recognize—someone capable of repair.

This is why, whether a claim is true or not, a phrase like “fake news” is so corrosive. It doesn’t simply challenge accuracy; it upends trust itself. Once trust collapses, the question shifts from What is true? to Who do I believe?—and eventually to Is anything reliable at all? In that vacuum, orientation fails. We become easier to disorient, easier to spin, easier to exhaust.

This is the logic of what I would call the era of chaos politics: not the steady persuasion of ideology, but the deliberate production of instability. The news begins to feel like whiplash—one emergency replacing another before meaning can settle. Facts are shouted, contradicted, reframed, discredited, and re-shouted until discernment gives way to fatigue. It’s less like public deliberation and more like a twisted game of apocalypse bingo, where every square is catastrophic and nothing ever quite resolves.

And that exhaustion is not incidental. A disoriented public is a pliable one. When the ground won’t hold, people reach for certainty, for tribes, for strong emotion, anything that offers the relief of orientation, even if that orientation is illusory. In that sense, chaos doesn’t just undermine truth; it accelerates deformation, training us to live without shared reality while mistaking constant alarm for moral seriousness.

Why is this especially dangerous for children, families, and communities?

This kind of disorientation is damaging for everyone. But it is especially dangerous for children, families, and the social fabric that holds communities together because these are the places where orientation is learned, not just chosen.

For children, the danger is formative. Children learn how the world works by watching how adults relate to reality, conflict, and one another. When the information environment is chaotic, when truth feels unstable, authority feels suspect, and outrage is constant, children don’t just absorb facts. They absorb posture.

They learn:

• that urgency is normal,

• that contempt is an acceptable way to respond to difference,

• that attention belongs to whoever is loudest or angriest,

• that fear is a reasonable baseline.

A nervous system that is constantly activated has fewer opportunities to develop regulation, curiosity, and trust. Over time, this can shape how children relate to authority, difference, and even their own inner lives. The cost isn’t just confusion; it’s reduced capacity for steadiness.

For families, the danger is relational. Families rely on shared reality to function: shared assumptions about what matters, shared narratives about safety and care, shared ways of resolving disagreement. Chaos, politics, and algorithmic activation fracture that commons.

When each family member is being fed a different emotional universe—different threats, different villains, different urgencies—the household becomes a site of ambient tension. Conversations feel brittle. Misunderstandings escalate quickly. Silence starts to feel safer than speech. Repair becomes harder because people are reacting not only to one another but also to unseen forces that shape their interpretations in the background.

What’s lost is not agreement, but mutual intelligibility, the sense that even when we disagree, we are still speaking the same language of reality.

For communities, the danger is structural. Communities depend on trust, proportion, and the ability to tolerate difference without immediate rupture. When outrage becomes the primary signal of importance, local realities are crowded out by distant emergencies. Attention is pulled upward and outward—toward spectacle—while the slow work of care nearby goes unnoticed.

This weakens the habits that sustain communal life:

• listening without immediate judgment,

• disagreement without dehumanization,

• accountability without annihilation,

• repair without performance.

In a constantly activated environment, people don’t just become polarized—they become exhausted. And exhausted communities are easier to divide, easier to manipulate, and less capable of collective care.

The Greatest Risk

The greatest danger isn’t that people believe false things.
It’s that they lose the capacity to be oriented together.

When shared reality erodes, children inherit anxiety instead of grounding, families inherit silence instead of repair, and communities inherit suspicion instead of solidarity. In that vacuum, the loudest voices and the strongest emotions gain disproportionate power—not because they are wise, but because they offer relief from disorientation.

That’s why this isn’t merely a media problem. It’s a moral and relational one.

And why the work of resistance—slowing down, regulating, choosing dignity over activation, protecting shared reality in small, human-scale ways—is not optional. It’s how we safeguard the conditions under which children can grow, families can speak, and communities can remain communities at all.

What can we do?

There’s a moment many people describe now—not in clinical language, just in lived language—when they say something like: “I don’t even know why I’m so tense. I’m just scrolling.”

That’s often where Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) begins.

ACT is a form of therapy that focuses less on controlling thoughts or emotions and more on changing our relationship to them. Instead of asking, How do I get rid of this feeling? ACT asks, Can I notice what’s here, make room for it, and still choose how I want to live? At its core, ACT is about psychological flexibility: the capacity to stay present, even when things are uncomfortable, and to act in alignment with what matters most.

In the attention economy, that orientation is quietly radical.

ACT doesn’t start by arguing with the content of the feed. It doesn’t begin with fact-checking or moral positioning. It begins with the body. A clenched jaw. A shallow breath. A tight chest. ACT treats these not as failures of discipline, but as signals evidence that your nervous system is responding to a world that keeps pulling the fire alarm.

Instead of saying, “Calm down,” ACT says, “Notice.”

Notice that your mind is producing a story.
Notice that your body is bracing.
Notice the urge to react, correct, or escalate.

And then ACT introduces a small but powerful shift: space.

One of ACT’s central practices is called defusion—learning to see thoughts as thoughts, not commands. In an algorithmically activated world, this matters enormously. When the feed insists, This is outrageous. This is dangerous. You must respond. ACT helps you say, I’m having the thought that this is outrageous. The thought doesn’t vanish, but its grip loosens. You recover a bit of distance. Choice becomes possible again.

From there, ACT does something the algorithm cannot tolerate: it slows the moment down.

ACT doesn’t ask, What should I post?
It asks, What kind of person do I want to be right now?

This is where values come in—not values as slogans or positions, but values as orientation. Dignity. Care. Honesty. Courage. Repair. Values don’t tell you what opinion to hold. They tell you how to move when certainty is unavailable.

Sometimes acting on values means engaging thoughtfully.
Sometimes it means researching slowly instead of reacting quickly.
Sometimes it means stepping away and letting that be a moral choice rather than a failure. Sometimes it means choosing a real conversation over a public performance.

ACT is especially suited to this moment because it doesn’t promise relief through certainty. It builds capacity.

The capacity to feel anger without becoming cruel. Capacity to feel fear without letting it shrink your world. Capacity to stay present without being recruited into every manufactured emergency.

In families, this looks like adults who can pause rather than escalate—who name what’s happening inside rather than weaponizing it outside. In communities, it looks like choosing repair over righteousness, curiosity over contempt. For children, it looks like something quietly essential: caregivers whose nervous systems don’t abandon them when things get intense.

ACT doesn’t save us from chaos. It helps us not become chaotic ourselves.

And in a world that profits from our disorientation, that may be one of the most ethical acts available to us: staying present, choosing our values, and acting in ways that preserve dignity one regulated nervous system at a time.

If you read Alice closely, what finally helps her find her way home isn’t better directions. It’s a change in how she relates to the chaos around her.

At first, Alice does what any reasonable person would do in an unreasonable world: she argues with it. She tries to apply logic where logic no longer holds. She takes every rule literally, every demand seriously, every absurdity personally. And the more she tries to master Wonderland, the more disoriented she becomes.

This is where Acceptance and Commitment Therapy quietly mirrors her journey.

ACT would say that Alice’s early struggle isn’t that Wonderland is confusing; it’s that she keeps trying to make it stop being confusing. She wants certainty before movement. She wants rules before action. She wants reassurance before a choice.

But Wonderland doesn’t offer that. Neither does the attention economy.

What changes for Alice is not that the world becomes clearer, but that she becomes more flexible inside it.

She begins to notice instead of arguing. She pauses instead of panics. She grows curious about what’s happening in her as much as what’s happening around her.

In ACT terms, Alice learns acceptance, not approval, not passivity, but the willingness to stop fighting reality long enough to see it clearly. She stops insisting that things feel sensible before she moves. She allows the discomfort of not knowing where she is without collapsing into it.

She also learns defusion. The declarations of Wonderland—You don’t belong here, This is madness, You must do this now—lose some of their power over her. She hears them, but she no longer treats them as unquestionable commands. They become voices in the room, not the law of the land.

And crucially, Alice begins to act from values, even when the world remains absurd.

She chooses honesty over performance.
Curiosity over contempt.
Courage over compliance.

She doesn’t wait for the Queen to become reasonable before she refuses to be cruel. She doesn’t need the rules to make sense before she decides who she will be. This is ACT at its heart: choosing how to live with uncertainty instead of demanding that uncertainty resolve itself first.

By the end, Alice hasn’t solved Wonderland. She hasn’t fixed it. She hasn’t mapped it.

She’s simply no longer ruled by it.

That’s how she finds her way home.

Not by escaping chaos, but by no longer letting chaos dictate her inner posture. Not by silencing every confusing voice, but by recovering the ability to choose which ones deserve her attention.

ACT doesn’t give Alice a map.
It gives her back her agency.

And in a world—ours included—that constantly tells us which way to go, that may be the truest way home there is.

So what do we do with the dizziness?

If the algorithm has spun us until direction feels unreliable, the answer is not to spin faster. You don’t cure vertigo by running. You stop. You widen your stance. You let your inner ear recalibrate.

The dizziness many of us feel right now is not personal failure. It’s a directional injury. A nervous system asked to track too many urgencies, too many threats, too many “which way should I go?” questions at once—without any stable horizon.

So the work is not to find the right direction in the feed.
It’s to recover orientation outside it.

ACT offers a deceptively simple starting point: come back to where you are.

Feel your feet.
Unclench the jaw.
Lengthen the breath.
Name the weather in your body.

This is not retreat. It’s recalibration. You cannot choose wisely while dizzy.

From there, choose values over velocity. Values don’t tell you what to think about every issue. They tell you how you want to move when clarity is incomplete. Dignity. Care. Truthfulness. Restraint. Repair. These become your compass when the map won’t hold.

Then, make your world smaller and more human.

Read slower. Fewer sources. Longer pieces.
Talk to actual people, in real rooms, with real stakes.
Let some crises pass without your commentary.
Protect shared reality where you can—especially with children—by modeling steadiness rather than spectacle.

You don’t need to exit the world to do this. You need to stop letting a profit-driven system set the tempo of your conscience.

Alice doesn’t find her way home by mastering Wonderland. She finds it by no longer letting Wonderland master her. She stops chasing every demand. She stops arguing with every absurd rule. She recovers the ability to choose who she will be, even when the world remains strange.

That’s the invitation here.

When direction is unreliable, choose presence.
When certainty is weaponized, choose humility.
When outrage is rewarded, choose dignity.
When the ground keeps shifting, choose to stand still long enough to remember who you are.

You don’t have to know exactly where you’re going.
You just have to stop letting the algorithm decide how you walk.

And that—quietly, stubbornly—is how you find your way home.

What happens next isn’t just epistemological. It’s relational. When entire systems train us to confuse certainty with truth, those habits don’t stay online — they come home with us, into families, friendships, and moral life. I explored that human cost in a three-part series on moral injury and repair in politically charged family relationships. The series begins here: Part I — When Politics Fractures Family Belonging.

The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room

The Divided Table: When Politics Fractures Family Belonging

Read more

6 months ago · 2 likes · The Deepest Yes

I am fully present in my body, embracing the sensations that guide my emotions. In moments of stress, I choose to respond with mindfulness and compassion. I let go of emotions that no longer serve me, creating space for peace and joy. My thoughts are gentle companions, leading me back to the present moment. I recognize my distractions and take steps to minimize their impact, inviting clarity into my life. I cherish the connections I cultivate, nurturing my relationships with love and authenticity. I embrace forgiveness as a powerful tool for healing and growth, allowing love to flow freely within me and towards others. I transform my fears into motivation and honor my true self, expressing my unique strengths and passions. I practice radical acceptance, align my choices with my core values, and cultivate gratitude in all that I do. I am a beacon of love, compassion, and authenticity, leaving a positive legacy as I journey through life. Today and every day, I honor my true self and the beauty I bring to the world.

Harvey D. Cottrell, LCSW, earned both his Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) and Master of Social Work (MSW) from Monmouth University, with a clinical concentration in work with children and families and an emphasis on the neurobiological effects of trauma. He later deepened his focus on systems of protection and repair through a Master’s degree in Child Advocacy and Policy and a post-graduate certificate in Adolescent Advocacy from Montclair State University.

He is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in Integrative Social Work at Saybrook University’s College of Integrative Medicine and Health Sciences, where his research explores forgiveness, reintegration, and resilience among individuals wounded by trauma.

Share The Weight We Carry- The Inner Room