In my research on SCHARP Behavioral Center I came across the concept of “radical acceptance”, which is often associated with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and its descendant, dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These are both “symptom management” therapies, and make no attempt to change character or personality structure.
Neither is “radical” at all. The radix, i.e., the root of the problem producing the symptoms, is deeper, and that problem will persist even if symptoms are managed or mitigated.
Yes, harm reduction is a worthy goal, and of course it should be done to mitigate symptoms, and interrupt acts of compulsive self destruction. But it must never be all.
And here is where an unqualified “caseworker/clinician” at SCHARP might mumble something about accepting emotions, thoughts and circumstances that are out of your control.
The Doctrine
From a therapist at Hopeways:
Radical acceptance is a distress tolerance skill that is designed to keep pain from turning into suffering.
While pain is part of life, radical acceptance allows us to keep that pain from becoming suffering. By accepting the facts of reality without responding by throwing a tantrum or with willful negligence. In other words, it is what it is.
Radical acceptance is NOT approval, but rather completely and totally accepting with our mind, body and spirit that we cannot currently change the present facts, even if we do not like them. By choosing to radically accept the things that are out of our control, we prevent ourselves from becoming stuck in unhappiness, bitterness, anger and sadness and we can stop suffering.
Sounds reasonable, no? But let’s do a thought experiment. Would you recommend radical acceptance to Harriet Tubman? Does it make any sense at all? What is the problem with it, exactly? Did Harriet not accept the facts of ℝeality?
Here is another gloss on the same problem with a slightly different emphasis: “Radical acceptance does not mean that you agree with what is happening or what has happened to you. Rather, it signals a chance for hope because you are accepting things as they are and not fighting against reality.”
Should Harriet not have fought against ℝeality?
There is a persistent conceptual slippage regarding ℝeality. Is the problem that one is denying the facts of ℝeality, or that one is fighting ℝeality? Which is it?
Good Angels
Let’s not be resentful. No, let us instead extend the greatest credit to the advocates of radical acceptance. Let us hear it from a healthy perspective.
“Yes, some bad things happened in the past. Those bad things caused you pain, and your denial of the causes created longlasting suffering in which you acted self-destructively and hurt other people. It is too late now to do anything about those bad things—even the things you did. You should accept that they happened, and that you did wrong, too, and starting today, grow and change so that those things never happen again, and so that you no longer behave self-destructively. The person who did those things to you is still in your life? OK, starting today, you have to decide whether they can still treat you like that. You cannot change what happened before, but you can change what happens starting today. If you decide that they can still treat you like that, that is bad for you. Their mistreatment of you was the cause of your suffering. You should, starting today, demand better treatment. If they will not treat you better, you have to leave them alone. If you do not, that is bad for you, and will put you back into a cycle of suffering. You must accept the old facts, but you must also accept that you have the ability to create new ones, and that you do not have to accept such treatment, from them or anyone else.”
This is a message of empowerment rooted in forgiveness of self and other, after judging the facts. A fresh start.
Bad Angels
Let us hear “radical acceptance” from a disturbed perspective: “You can’t change anything that happens, and you should just accept that. There’s reality, and there’s you. You’re a part of reality. You have emotional problems and coping mechanisms, and you need to just accept that. Starting today, you need to decide to keep living and loving life, no matter what pain you have suffered. Don’t focus on the past, and don’t dwell on any pain you may have caused. Keep moving, but stop fighting. Focus on yourself and your well-being going forward. You might be here again, having to radically accept some more things tomorrow, and that’s OK, too.”
Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
This is just about the worst pro-illness enabling ideology possible. I can think of nothing more harmful for someone discouraged with themselves and despairing of their ability to cope without compulsive self-destructive behaviors. There is no judgment, because there are no facts, because reality is still an undifferentiated mass of confusion and pain.
Judgment
“Radical acceptance” will be taken as deadly poison by those who need it the most, and heard as ageless wisdom by those who need it the least. It’s a Gestalt figure-ground illusion as therapy.
Like the ℝeality it demands we accept, the doctrine is a morass of confusion that can only proliferate in a space of economically suspended moral judgment, i.e., in Marketworld, the main lobby and central atrium of the Grand Hotel Republic, where you have to go to work later today and your PPO won’t pay for your talk therapy this morning. Out of network. ℝeality requires therapeutic intervention that avoids recommending or even validating moral judgments about actions by patients or those in their lives, because they are unhappy working at immoral enterprises, failing to enjoy spectacular consumption, failing to maintain family relationships, and suffering every moment they are awake.
Sure enough, here is a comment from a disturbed individual responding in precisely the wrong manner: “I have been going through a rough 2+ years. Multiple doctors, multiple treatments and multiple facilitators. As can be imagined, I am ‘fighting’ my illness for too long. I know fighting it is not the way to go., I appreciate your video and worksheets to help me. My main symptom is ‘judging myself…”
“Radical acceptance” has been taken to mean ceasing to fight one’s illness, relinquishing the battle for substantive change and health.
This sort of therapeutic intervention is deadly, and can inspire “normally” fragmented personalities to choose narcissistic strategies built around the minimal, momentary, instantaneous, atomic, sharklike self that radical acceptance addresses.
Forgiveness
At least one DBT practitioner has attempted to forcefully distinguish radical acceptance from forgiveness, so that forgiveness is only for others and so that radical acceptance is left as the analogous operation for the self. “Some people might think that forgiveness and radical acceptance are the same thing. In fact, they are very different. Forgiveness involves extending an act of kindness to the other person whereas radical acceptance is the extension of an act of kindness to yourself.” This is both medical and philosophical malpractice.
To avoid further confusion, let me explain what forgiveness is, and how it includes both self and other.
Forgiveness is simply love projected into the past. That subsumes whatever is useful and good in “radical acceptance.”
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, is it not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”1
Projected into the past, love dissolves resentment. To dissolve resentment is to relinquish the claim to emotional compensation for wrongdoing, pain, or suffering. To erase the record of wrong. To cease tallying and tabulating.
This does not mean to immediately trust the wrongdoer—even yourself—or to pretend that nothing happened. It is to drop the claim to compensation. It is to be able to act toward that person today without that debt of grief, pain and anger in mind. It is to be able to act with love toward that person today.
To forgive those who have hurt us most and deepest is one of the most liberating experiences a human being can have. Truly.
The Greatest
“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”2
I believe it is clear that forgiveness as retrospective love is superior to Law, Vengeance, Wrath, Justice and all the other masculinist management techniques of the Grand Hotel Republic, as discussed in Barbie and Samson. It should also be clear that “radical acceptance” is a nihilistic half-measure far short of love, and far too dangerous for clinical use.
13 Corinthians 1 4–7.
13 Corinthians 1 13.