nowing whom to trust, for social animals, is a critical survival mechanism. Interpersonal trust has been defined as a confident expectation that another individual is intrinsically motivated to take another's best interests into account, even if there may exist incentives to tempt otherwise.
Often, we tend to consider betrayal in the context of romantic relationships, but Buss and Shackelford opined that in all types of relational associations there are certain degrees of expectation. Expectation that each will care about the other’s welfare, and will support and help each other. Betrayal occurs when there is a failure to meet the perceived rules and expectations, and may occur in any kind of relationship context if one or other party violates salient expectations or “breaks the rules” in some way.
Theoretically, many types of transgression may be appraised as a betrayal, depending on the extent to which expectations and trust are violated. The most common acts of explicit betrayal involve either sexual or emotional infidelity, lies and deception. Value in life revolves around authenticity and the ability to reveal ourselves to others who can be counted on not to betray that trust.
Betrayal strikes a devastating blow to an individual’s sense of self-worth and need for emotional security, and as social animals, trust and security is a matter of survival, when all is said and done. The level of torment that can ensue is related to the degree of deception involved. At the very least, it’s a deeply distressing shock; a feeling of violation registered at a deep, visceral level. Pain and hurt are amongst the first and most acute emotional reactions, but at some point conscious, cognitive effort to figure out its cause and implication is the next sequence. And if the individual, to whom deepest vulnerabilities have been disclosed and entrusted, then appears not to care, feelings of rejection, abandonment, and aloneness are the natural outcome.
In terms of survival, betrayal disadvantages the victim relative to the transgressor or offender, who has put his or her own interests first and has discounted the needs and concerns of the betrayed party. When betrayal is accompanied by humiliation, what was once a level playing field in terms of personal power, is now upset giving the offender a “one-up” position over the victim that was duped and demeaned. It then becomes an all-important and critical step for the victim to respond to the act of deception by way of some direct dialogue or confrontation, in order to shift the power that the betrayal conferred to the offender.
Psychological research attests to a multitude of ways that individuals deceive one another, from simple non-disclosure, half-truths and white lies, to full-scale falsification and outright lies. Although it is suspected that the motivation behind deception is one of ill will, there are circumstances when lies and untruths told are not the core motivation of the offender in betrayal. Indeed, one predominant motive for deception by an offender is to avoid hurting another person, and to help maintain that individual’s self-esteem. While sparing hurt and impact on self-esteem may, indeed be a benevolent strategy, once the deception is revealed and the truth discovered it requires some sort of act of contrition, in order to reduce the long-term effects upon the victim.
Regardless, no matter how benign the motive, the response offered to confrontation can reduce the deep emotional impact of the transgression. The most mitigating type of response, naturally, involves conceding that an offence has been committed, along with a sincere expression of remorse, and perhaps an offer to make some form of restitution. A second, not quite so mitigating type, involves an admission of the offence, but with various kinds of excuses offered as purpose. Admission accompanied by justification, where the transgressor attempts to minimize the seriousness of the deception is, while less healing, much preferred over the fourth type of response which involves a denial or refusal of responsibility and one that does nothing to ameliorate the damage the victim has incurred. Absent any response, the result? Crushing.
Theoretically, many types of transgression may be appraised as a betrayal, depending on the extent to which expectations and trust are violated. The most common acts of explicit betrayal involve either sexual or emotional infidelity, lies and deception. Value in life revolves around authenticity and the ability to reveal ourselves to others who can be counted on not to betray that trust.
Betrayal strikes a devastating blow to an individual’s sense of self-worth and need for emotional security, and as social animals, trust and security is a matter of survival, when all is said and done. The level of torment that can ensue is related to the degree of deception involved. At the very least, it’s a deeply distressing shock; a feeling of violation registered at a deep, visceral level. Pain and hurt are amongst the first and most acute emotional reactions, but at some point conscious, cognitive effort to figure out its cause and implication is the next sequence. And if the individual, to whom deepest vulnerabilities have been disclosed and entrusted, then appears not to care, feelings of rejection, abandonment, and aloneness are the natural outcome.
In terms of survival, betrayal disadvantages the victim relative to the transgressor or offender, who has put his or her own interests first and has discounted the needs and concerns of the betrayed party. When betrayal is accompanied by humiliation, what was once a level playing field in terms of personal power, is now upset giving the offender a “one-up” position over the victim that was duped and demeaned. It then becomes an all-important and critical step for the victim to respond to the act of deception by way of some direct dialogue or confrontation, in order to shift the power that the betrayal conferred to the offender.
Psychological research attests to a multitude of ways that individuals deceive one another, from simple non-disclosure, half-truths and white lies, to full-scale falsification and outright lies. Although it is suspected that the motivation behind deception is one of ill will, there are circumstances when lies and untruths told are not the core motivation of the offender in betrayal. Indeed, one predominant motive for deception by an offender is to avoid hurting another person, and to help maintain that individual’s self-esteem. While sparing hurt and impact on self-esteem may, indeed be a benevolent strategy, once the deception is revealed and the truth discovered it requires some sort of act of contrition, in order to reduce the long-term effects upon the victim.
Regardless, no matter how benign the motive, the response offered to confrontation can reduce the deep emotional impact of the transgression. The most mitigating type of response, naturally, involves conceding that an offence has been committed, along with a sincere expression of remorse, and perhaps an offer to make some form of restitution. A second, not quite so mitigating type, involves an admission of the offence, but with various kinds of excuses offered as purpose. Admission accompanied by justification, where the transgressor attempts to minimize the seriousness of the deception is, while less healing, much preferred over the fourth type of response which involves a denial or refusal of responsibility and one that does nothing to ameliorate the damage the victim has incurred. Absent any response, the result? Crushing.
DF's betrayal had confirmed that I was regarded simply as an inanimate tool to his future plans and even if it were to turn out to be a completely benevolent and benign reason initially, some two years later and still without a response, "Doug's" choice to ignore me had simply affirmed the seed planted by DF. Yes, "Doug" in making no response had delivered a message that I am, indeed, "nothing".
Let me watch by the fire and remember my days
And it may be a trick of the firelight
But the flickering pages that trouble my sight
Is a book I'm afraid to write
It's the book of my days, it's the book of my life
It's the book of my days, it's the book of my life
And it's cut like a fruit on the blade of a knife
And it's all there to see as the section reveals
There's some sorrow in every life ~ STING
Apologies are both paradoxical and powerful. No matter how sincere, an apology can't undo what has been done, and yet the magic of the apology is derived from the submissive posture of the offender, and its implications for restoring the esteem of the injured party. The repair power of an apology lies in the very act and redresses the power imbalance between the two parties.
I hadn’t had contact with anyone since “Doug’s” abrupt departure in March 2004. He was the last person with whom I’d disclosed my deepest vulnerability and trust; the last individual to know of my existence, the last voice I had heard. I'd languished, unassisted, unsupported and unattended, for more than two and a half years. I’d been trapped in the labyrinth in which I’d been apparently and puposefully exiled. But why? What had I done that would warrant such treatment? An explanation from him for his actions and a request for his help to guide me out was the driving force behind my contact with “Doug” yet once more.
I drafted yet another email...
