A habit merits the term “addiction” when it costs you more than it’s worth; when you try to stop it, but find you can only put it “on pause” for a short while; and when you find your thinking (especially your judgment) is distorted by the high priority you place on repeating the habit. Another criterion is perhaps less important because it’s outside you, but it can be very important indeed: when multiple neutral or friendly people tell you they think you have a problem—especially if they haven’t spoken to each other about it beforehand. 

In an excellent book called In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction (2010), Gabor Mate argued that addictions have their roots in early trauma. He tells the story of the thousands of American soldiers who fought in the war in Vietnam, which at that time was part of the “golden triangle,” a geographical area that produced a large share of the world’s heroin supply. U.S. troops coped with horrific levels of combat trauma, including guilt/moral-injury; anxiety, uncertainty, and fear; bereavement and loss; the shock of seeing so much injury and death; and the various physical wounds, ruined health, lost limbs, and so on. Many became habitual heroin users. But when they came home, it turned out that for the most part, the soldiers who remained stuck in heroin addiction were those who had suffered childhood trauma, long before the war. The others were able to drop the habit, though heroin is perhaps the most addictive substance on Earth. 

Not every addict has a trauma background. But most do, and when you meet one who apparently does not, you can’t be certain they have (or have shared) a full knowledge of their own relevant personal history. While many different kinds of trauma can happen to a kid, the CDC lists a few of the big ones in its online material about Adverse Childhood Experiences (or “ACEs”):

Experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect.

Witnessing violence in the home or community.

Having a family member attempt or die by suicide.

Substance use problems.

Mental health problems.

Instability due to parental separation.

Instability due to household members being in jail or prison.

They add “not having enough food to eat, experiencing homelessness or unstable housing, or experiencing discrimination.”

This painful picture of deep human suffering should not be taken as a portrait of an “average addict,” since there’s no such entity. And what amounts to trauma is not actually the stuff that happens to somebody, but how it’s experienced. The mystery of resilience has to do with the kid’s temperament, circumstances, culture, and especially the interpersonal supports that did or did not keep the situation from being even worse. There are people who endured every ACE listed here, who have never been addicted to anything. And there are others who had only one or two of these to deal with, and in adolescence or adulthood became dependent on one or more substances or behavioral habits that cost them dearly. 

The difference is not a moral one, and there is no rational calculus about who had it worse, or who went on to put up the best fight against addiction or depression or anxiety. These pseudo-questions involve impossible apples-and-oranges comparisons and fictitious quantifications of how bad different childhoods were. The feelings are most important; the facts matter, too; but the measurements of them are largely illusory. The reality of trauma has to do with what happened inside the child: what the bad stuff meant to him or her. If parents are neglectful or abusive, a kid will infer that young person in the mirror is deeply flawed, and deserved the bad experiences. But if the same kid also has a benevolent art teacher, a well grounded mentor, a kind and wholesome uncle who is reliable and interested, sane and warm—the kid may be protected from drawing that toxic conclusion about the self, and grow up less susceptible to addiction, to cults, to swindles, to sadomasochistic attachments, and so on.

The trauma theory of addiction is the profound claim that we mammals, we primates, we human beings, have universal evolutionary needs for nurturance and protection, and when these go unmet, or are met with harm mixed in, addiction often results. The person seeks out whatever will soothe away the pain of neglect and/or abuse from long ago. Usually, it’s pain from very long ago: infancy is the first love relationship we ever have, the mother-baby dyad that sets the emotional foundation for the whole lifespan. Even if things don’t go relatively wrong until later in childhood, it’s the inner baby part-of-self within the older kid that’s most overwhelmed. Freud taught that each of us is all the ages he or she has ever been, so the baby who craves a substitute for the warm and milky breast is actually still active inside the active addict, running the show—which is why the addicted adult can be found making such poor decisions. A brilliant, short book by Abraham Twersky, Addictive Thinking (1997), spells out what that kind of cognitive distortion can sound, look, and feel like. 

But acute or chronic trauma need not be the only reason for addiction, and often there is a very useful significance to the person’s particular “drug of no choice,” as it’s sometimes called in twelve step culture. For example, with or without the expectable ACEs, people who have uncontrolled habits of excessive sexuality may be trying to prove to themselves that they are indeed attractive sexual beings, capable of evoking erotic participation from others. Boys who were repeatedly rejected by the girls they hoped to kiss—and that’s most boys, who mature more slowly than girls tend to do—can grow up with a lot to prove. Many spend their late teens, twenties, and even their thirties struggling to establish that they are not icky “involuntary celibates” who will never find a mate (even if the guy himself is now the only person who sees him that way). If they can do this without deception, and without heaps of gender-based resentment, and without excessive risks to physical and mental health, they may manage to accumulate enough sexual experience to falsify their own worry about it. They can be fortunate enough to realize one day that they have indeed established what they were so desperate to establish. Now they are free to let go of the pattern that looked like, or really was, “sex addiction.”

Shopping addiction can be like that, too. I’ve said “people with uncontrolled habits of excessive sexuality may be trying to prove to themselves that they are indeed attractive sexual beings.” Well, people with uncontrolled habits of excessive consumerism may be trying to prove to themselves that they are indeed successful participants in the world of consumption, including the spells cast by advertising. Ads comprise a powerful technology of conscious and unconscious persuasion that links people’s self-esteem to their capacity to get hold of whatever product or service is being defined as beautiful, validating, and necessary. If I succumb to this, my identity will be bound up with my ownership of the bag, the boots, the car, the designer version of whatever I’ve been convinced I need.

Insofar as this is true of somebody in particular, that person’s sobriety will have a lot to do with identity: achieve an internal locus of value, and you can also build up an internal locus of control that defeats the addiction. When a person suddenly comes into a sum of money, a lot can be learned by watching how they spend it: the speed of the spending, but more importantly, the buying choices they make. If you are making large purchases of “designer stuff,” you might be an erudite connoisseur of fine handbags and their nuanced history since the year 1588. But it’s more likely you are buying an Hermes bag for $9,850 because that is what the surrounding culture told you was important, valuable, and above all, validating for the identity of the buyer. It is, ultimately… a bag.

A designer purse like that “says” plenty, but just what it says depends on the wisdom of the beholder. The message can range from “look, I am successful, you would be fortunate to share sex, love, friendship, or business with me” to “look, I cannot think for myself, and remain profoundly naive about the available better uses to which money can be put.” Those uses include appropriately limited altruism, where you get good feelings by helping others who need help; buying experiences (especially travel, but also course-taking, conference-going, skill-building, etc.) rather than things; connecting to the past and to the globe by acquiring works of art that speak to you; funding ambitious projects that you find fascinating and beneficial to the communities of which you count yourself a part; and so on.

I know brilliant, beautiful, accomplished people who collect high-end designer handbags. I see it as an expression of their aesthetic enjoyment of these exquisite objects. I also see it as a mechanism of compensation for early experiences of having to do without the goods that other kids had. If your peers in elementary school and middle school and high school all wore flashy stuff and drove expensive bikes, while you wore hand-me-downs and walked to school without wheels, you might well benefit from disproving the worry that they are blessed and deserving while you are deprived and unworthy. And the collectors I’m thinking of are at least as psychologically sophisticated as I am; they know all about their own formerly unconscious motivations for spending “real money” on glam and bling. But they do it anyway, and apparently it serves them well. Rather than judging anybody for buying or selling luxury goods, I am commenting on some of the common underlying dynamics that contribute to habitual choices which can come to feel quite unfree.

And that’s the issue with therapy for troublesome habits: is the habit a free and informed choice? Is it an addiction, or would we get better results framing it as a mere habit that needs tending? The more it costs you—in money, time, opportunity, relationships, access, etc.—to continue with the habit, the easier it is to decide that you must stop. The less it costs you, the more reluctant you or I will be to use the term “addiction,” or recommend 12-step programs, or insist that only abstinence will constitute recovery. Mild addictions to substances or behaviors can be addressed with a commitment to “harm reduction.” Someone who drinks a few times a week but does not lie about it, nor have blackouts, nor have a Jekyll-and-Hyde personality change when they’re intoxicated, is probably a person who can reduce drinking by, say, 65% without too much struggle. But if it turns out to be a big struggle, then the language of addiction might be very useful for getting hold of the habit and changing it.

If you’re dealing with repeated behaviors that you suspect are costing you too much in money, time, peace of mind, or otherwise, consider booking a session with me. We can join forces to help you figure out your relationship to the habit in question, and find the best ways to change for the better—guided by your values and goals.

Email me through the contact form on this website, or call 917-873-0292.

At the job interview, the people asking the questions are usually searching for a particular experience they want to have with an applicant in the interview itself. The one who can give them that experience usually gets the job. What they want is an interaction, but it’s also a display. They want to have a conversation in which their specific, actual questions really reach the new person (that’s the interaction part). The questions evoke answers presented with a calm exuberance that’s a pleasure to watch (that’s the display). In music, the Italian phrase con brio means “with spirit, with vigor.” This kind of animated, engaged demeanor arises when the applicant has both confidence and expertise—a combination that usually comes from work experience, so it tends to count as evidence of work experience. Resumes, too, are evidence of work experience, but not everyone who has done a job has also learned from it, internalized its procedures and its ethos, and achieved good feelings about their ability to do it well in the future. Those are what the people doing the hiring are looking for in the interview, and the best evidence for it are answers that match the interviewers’ questions; that are focused on the concrete content of the job’s actual entailments (rather than abstractions about what kind of job it is), but aren’t entirely limited to that; and that show some degree of enjoyment from the applicant that springs from the pleasure of being both interested in something and good at it.

Applicants for teaching jobs are often advised, wisely, to treat the interview like a lesson, and to teach the interviewers about the way the job works and how to do it well. But this advice can apply to many other kinds of work, too—not just jobs in education. The teaching frame of mind, the Teacher role, can take you out of your ego-driven worry about how you’re being perceived, because it helps you to focus on the material at hand and the communication process. Value judgments and the fear of embarrassment, imaginary comparisons of yourself to others, worry about rejection or failure—these should be crowded-out by the enjoyable business of sharing what you know. One of the best indicators of your likely success is that the interview was fun. If it wasn’t, you might not like the job itself, either, in which case you’ve “dodged a bullet” by not getting it. The capacity to enjoy the interview not only bespeaks a confidence that comes from competence, it also suggests you’ll enjoy the work itself, which is associated with better performance. A hiring is a contract between employer and employee, and the enjoyment of an interview is a good sign that both parties may well benefit. If you feel qualified, stay in touch with your desire for the job, with your knowledge of the field, and with the pleasure you take in excelling at this particular type of work. It will probably show.

People cheat when they feel cheated. They lie when they feel lied to, and they steal when they feel robbed. Some of that springs from a need for cosmic balance, where I pay-forward whatever I suffered that should not have been my fate. But some of it is a communication, where my behavior is meant to inscribe on the walls of the universe: this thing I do to others, is what was done to me.

Compulsive shoplifting, for example, can be a kind of broadcast to the world, silently announcing that I have been deprived of my due. Typically, the stolen good was not a material object but a form of experience, some crucial, human relational need that I now despair of ever meeting. Why the despair? Because of too many failed attempts to get hold of that primal good, and because the critical period has passed, in which the needful thing could have found its mark, by meaning just what I needed it to mean: that I am a good-enough person, in a good-enough world. If I can believe this belief, then a good-enough life-of-my-own can feel both permissible (fate will allow it) and feasible (I can manage it). If I doubt my own goodness and/or the goodness of people in general, it will be much harder for me to build an ongoing good experience of being myself. So, whence comes this necessary faith in the human good?

According to Heinz Kohut, what children need are parents who can supply two crucial developmental resources: first, a mother (figure) who mirrors our childhood grandiosity and affirms it for us, and second, a father (figure) whom we can idealize and look up to, identifying with him in an aspirational way. Kohut saw these two needs as ordered, both chronologically and in their relative importance. He also saw childhood and youth as eras that often afford us second chances to get what we need, or, if things go poorly, a new round of trauma (from deprivation or other emotional injury). A step-parent, say, can step in and make things much better, or much worse.

In the 1970’s, psychologist Urie Brofenbrenner made an observation which has often been quoted, and deserves even more notice today: “In order to develop normally, a child requires progressively more complex joint activity with one or more adults who have an irrational emotional relationship with the child. Somebody’s got to be crazy about that kid.” This Somebody need not be the original parent (biological or adoptive) or a step-parent; it can be, say, a relative, a guidance counselor, or a teacher — often an art teacher, perhaps because art is nearer to the emotions than most other subject areas taught in schools. But the changes in institutional culture of the past two decades have made it more risky and difficult for teachers to show special interest in troubled students who may need it. Among the religious, clergy can be well placed to show this kind of individualized interest, but they, too, have become understandably risk-averse as the stakes of being misunderstood have sharply risen. Librarians sometimes took on this kind of role in children’s lives, with often wonderful results, but smartphones and the internet have so fully replaced books that librarians are fading from view.

If a community is in sufficiently rough shape, an idealistic nonprofit might come along and offer a program that pairs at-risk youth with ethically ambitious adults who help them along in caring ways. But those programs don’t always appear, and not all childhood neglect or abuse happens in poorer cities and towns that are in obvious trouble. Much of American literature is about the family traumas of the middle class, and even the wealthy are often very desperate people — in part because they already have the money that everyone else assumes is the solution to every problem, yet their pain continues. “Spoiled,” remember, does not just mean “pampered.” It means a kid has been given everything except what’s most important: wholesome loving care. It is, after all, a metaphor about rancid milk — because material abundance paired with emotional scarcity can spoil a person’s capacity to believe that real love (which psychoanalytic language symbolizes as the breast milk of a loving Mother) exists anywhere.

Some kids who are deprived of one or more of Kohut’s two essential relational supplies (a mirroring mother figure and an idealizable father figure) become hyper-competent, fiercely independent adolescents. Later in life, they can have trouble coupling-up, because romance involves giving what they never received, and because the offer of love feels strange and dangerous to them. By contrast, some other deprived kids remain dependent for decades, relentlessly hoping the caregivers they need will come along, or indeed, that their own feelings and behaviors will eventually transform the attachment figures they do have into the wise and generous ones they still crave. Then there are those who combine elements of each, presenting as adults with impressive professional success while remaining lonely and emotionally entangled with their withholding parents. These people are ahead of their peers in the outside world, but behind them on the inside.

Much trouble can be avoided if several afflicted kids find each other in time to form a group, where they can do their best to raise one another. But this is hard, because independent kids are reluctant to depend on anyone, including peers; dependent kids may welcome fellowship, but their resentments can get displaced and wreck the very friendships they have loaded with meaning and value. An adolescent friend group, with its intense attachments, passions, and impulses, can work wonders or exacerbate personal trouble, depending which personality elements get validated within it, and how the larger world responds. Plenty of movies are about the various storylines that such a group can be found living through, though it’s rare that a clique of teenagers manages to learn, from a film, how to avoid the pitfalls in its path. Art might seem to promise lessons of useful prudence, but it mainly offers us a deeper understanding of those losses and mistakes we’ve already endured.

The benefits of therapy derive from insight on the one hand, and the therapeutic relationship on the other. Between the two, it’s usually the relationship that does the most good — but it’s a relationship built on a series of conversations whose main ingredients are the patient’s stories of the past and the recent past, expressions of feelings in the present, and interpretations that come from the therapist or from the patient (in other words, insight). Some of what gets illuminated and reframed is the experience of not-getting what we needed. It might seem like a waste of painful effort, to recount what you already know about old yearnings and losses. But it often turns out that the telling is itself a healing process, when someone is listening with consistently reliable respect and empathy. The teller and the listener can then reshape what the story means, shifting control of that meaning from the outside world of the past into the inner world of the present.

Some people struggle with a compulsive need to save money. Even when their income is more than adequate, they feel as if any expense on present desires would be reckless. They see their peers fail to save for the future, and it redoubles their resolve. Some of them aspire to an early retirement, socking away their earnings in pursuit of a specific number that means “safety,” or “success,” or “freedom”—forgetting that retirement (especially an early one) tends to cause a crisis of meaning, when the intrinsic rewards of working are suddenly subtracted from life.

Of course, there’s much to be said for financial prudence, but what I’m talking about is the extreme version, where the saver begins to suffer from money anxiety, far beyond what the real circumstances impose. This can take the form of missing out on too many things, but it can also involve a partner’s distress—not just because the person won’t buy gifts or take vacations, but because they inflict too much criticism about the other person’s spending habits. In a relationship, constant penny-pinching can build resentment. And if one partner always takes the role of money saver, the other will have a hard time avoiding being cast in the role of money spender. When the saver talks as if spending and wasting were the same thing, the spender will be at risk for shame and guilt. Those are bad for the relationship.

The proverbial phrase “penny-wise and pound-foolish” is useful here (a Britishism, where a pound is worth a hundred pennies). But suppose the miser is prudent on both levels, saving money in matters both large and small. There is still a sense in which the phrase applies, because most expenses are less important than the emotional well-being of yourself and those closest to you—especially if you have a partner, and even more so if you have children. If you’re managing money well enough that your income covers your expenses and permits you to save or invest some of each paycheck, it might be penny-wise, but pound-foolish, to refuse to take your partner out on a date. That’s because the relationship is worth pounds, not mere pennies, and paying for shared pleasant experiences in the present is a form of investment in the relationship’s future.

Not only that, but the present is, strictly speaking, all we have. Aside from the fact that we might somehow die tomorrow, the present is the living flame of experience, where we are, and its claim on our resources inheres in the truism that this, too—not just the future we’re so worried about—is life itself.

Suppose you are struggling with excessive frugality, to the point where your partner feels nagged and demeaned by your bids for total financial control. You find yourself commenting on their every purchase, even though you realize the pain and anger this tends to cause. How can you stop yourself from saying this kind of stuff?

Well, here’s an exercise that may help. Imagine yourself one year in the future. You’ve now made about a hundred more remarks concerning your partner’s spending habits, their specific purchases, and their ideas about money, remarks that sprang from your anxiety and impulsivity. You rationalized your behavior by focusing exclusively on the fact that the money you were trying to save is, ultimately, for the both of you (for your family, whether it’s just the couple, or more). But now, one year on, you can plainly see how much accumulated suffering this has caused, how much distance it has put between you and the other(s) whom you love. You wish you had a time machine—you see where I’m going with this—to undo the piteous waste of closeness and harmony that you squandered in all that worrying. Well, here you are, back in the present, with those twelve months still stretching out ahead, unspoiled by any thoughtless utterance or grim withholding. How will you use this second chance?

Of course major purchases and big-ticket decisions will still require some discussion, some ambivalence, and some math. But in the small matters that crop up so frequently—stuff that costs less than 1 or 2 percent of a paycheck—you have a richesse of opportunities to let go, stay quiet, and smile on the process. For example, suppose your partner has just a brief moment free (between work and school, or childcare and eldercare, or housework and rehearsal, etc.) to grab a few necessities, and buys them at a big box store, instead of the 99 cent shop you’re sure is much cheaper. They could have spent $7 less and gotten the same stuff. Well, that $7 is not going “out the window.” It’s being invested in the relationship. You make the investment by giving up this one little nugget of control, and prizing the other person’s effort over your own vision of perfect prudence. As you watch yourself respond (rather than react), choose gratitude for the labor they did running errands, not anxiety about the price tag. Getting the job done should count for more than doing it perfectly.

When was the last time you took your beloved out to dinner? Can you afford to? If so, remember that this moment, too, is life. The present counts at least as much as the future will. And though you must save some for tomorrow, you should also spend some for today, lest it be remembered as a time of anxious austerity that could have been better, but wasn’t. Live your life, not your fears.

If this post resonates with you, consider booking an appointment with me at 917-873-0292, or email Jamey@drjameyhecht.com. Sessions are available in-office in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and remotely in NY, NJ, TX, and CA.