Toxic Parents: Overcoming Their Hurtful Legacy and Reclaiming Your Life [Paperback]

First, the strengths of the book. Forward uses alot of vignettes to illustrate her points. This technique is helpful for readers because it demonstrates that, despite what some of her critics have suggested, she doesn't consider every parent who has ever raised his/her voice to a child to be a toxic parent. She does know what real abuse is, and she provides good definitions, including some good checklists, to help determine it. Some of her advice is very practical, such as the need for counselling, and the use of techniques such as role play and letter writing. The book is fast paced and easy to understand.

So why such a low grade? Forward is stuck on blaming parents for their mistakes. She wants to label all abusive parents as monsters, and many aren't. At times, Forward seems to have an understanding of family systems theory, but she then fails to utilize it to have some empathy for the conditions that created the abusive parents in the first place. I don't think her level of anger is particularly useful to victims. Anger can only get a person so far; eventually there must be healing. I also disagree, based on solid research, with her stance against forgiveness. Eventually, if victims don't forgive, they will remain under the control of the abuse/abuser. I don't think Forward really understands what forgiveness is - it has nothing to do with letting the abuser off the hook, or saying what they did was ok. To a lesser extent, I also disagree with Forward's assertion that confrontation is necessary in all cases. I think in some cases, just admitting to oneself what happened and acknowledging that you are not to blame is not only enough, it is the smartest, most productive course of action.

I realize that the majority of my criticisms of the book are based on my particular theoretical orientation as someone who works with children/families. Normally, I wouldn't necessarily take marks off in a rating based on that. The reason I've done so is because I think this book is marked toward people who are coming to grips with childhood abuse, and, depending upon where a person is in their process, I believe that Forward's approach could actually do damage. This is a book that, if it is to be read at all, should be read by therapists, counsellors, family support workers, child and youth care workers, and social workers should read, take what they consider to be of value, and use that information to help adults.

All the way through the book I was aware of a feeling of pure rage and hatred emanating from the text. Just my imagination? I don't think so. Check this giveaway passage (from a "fairy tale" created by one of the author's patients) on page 287:

'Ivy [for Incest Victim] panicked. "But there's no way over the river,'" she cried. "Yes there is," cooed Susan victoriously. "You may *ride on my outrage*. It has carried me far, and it will carry you too." '
(emphasis added)

What a powerful, and revealing, description that is!

This constant harping on anger and rage is not simply aesthetically unappealing - it is bad psychology. In Chapter 9 - "You Don't Have to Forgive" - the author tells us quite categorically (page 187) that:

'One of the most dangerous things about forgiveness is that it undercuts your ability to let go of your pent-up emotions.'

Firstly, forget the "most cherished religious, spiritual, philosophical, and psychological principles" that the author rejects. The fact is that we have plenty of hard scientific evidence that holding a grudge will upset your body's chemistry resulting in significant physiological damage such as ulcers, heart problems and/or other stress-related illnesses.

Indeed, the whole claim (page 185) that:

'... it is not necessary to forgive your parents in order to feel better about yourself and to change your life!'

rings pretty hollow as far as I can hear.

Secondly, if the author thinks it so important that victims hang on to this raw edge in order to be able to let go of pent-up emotions, what sense can we make of the following description of a therapy group for incest victims (page 277):

'Every time a new member is initiated, group members must repeat what has long been unspoken. The more often this happens, the more everyone in the group is desensitized to the shame and guilt.'

If simple repetition is really so successful in dealing with shame and guilt - which are presumably amongst those "pent-up emotions" - why is it necessary for victims to refuse to forgive? Do different emotions have to be dealt with in different ways? Will the anger and rage still persist after the shame and guilt have (allegedly) gone?

Indeed, can we even take seriously this idea that repetition provides an effective way of clearing negative emotions? Again, the practical evidence is that repetition does not *clear* bad memories. Rather it literally *fixes* them more firmly in your brain. We may be "desensitized" on the surface, even as all hell breaks loose at the subconscious level.
This is, in fact, a good example of how being a victim or a "survivor" becomes an essential element of someone's core identity.

("Victim" and "survivor" are actually very similar roles in that they both keep us looking backwards, chained to the past, instead of allowing us to let go of the past and move on.)

Nor was I reassured by this passage on 'confronting your aggressor' (page 294):

'1. ... If the aggressor claims not to remember, ask him to acknowledge that even though *he* doesn't remember, it must be true because *you* remember.'

Has the author never heard of false memory syndrome?

Both America and Britain have seen major child abuse witch hunts take place based on nothing more than this simple assumption - that everything a child says it remembers is bound to be a TRUE memory. (Not forgetting the overenthusiastic care workers who "help" the children to "remember" non-existent events.)

The fact is that many children can VERY easily be talked into remembering things that never happened at all. Getting a child to mis-interpret an essentially innocent event - to favour one side or the other in a custody battle, for example - is just as easy, if not easier.

Despite the claim that this is the route to "reclaiming your life" I strongly suspect that whilst, superficially, it may *appear* to bring benefits, it is *actually* more likely (at a deeper level) to perpetuate the destructive effects of the initial abuse.