How Therapy Could be Influencing the No-Contact Trend
One in ten Americans is estranged from a parent or child. When simply describing a “close relative,” that number grows to one in four, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article. A Talker Research survey suggests nearly forty percent of Americans have cut off communication with a friend or family member.
The trend, known as going no-contact, has increased dramatically over the past couple of years. As it has become more prominent in the cultural conversation, people are asking why.
When surveying parents of children who initiated a no-contact policy, the WSJ found that one in three believe their child did so at the recommendation of a therapist.
That idea does not seem to be merely parental intuition. Therapists on both sides of the no-contact debate agree that perspectives on the practice have changed in recent years.
Whitney Goodman, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Tampa, told the Wall Street Journal that she recommends the practice to adult clients who describe their parents as abusive and or emotionally immature. Goodman has 660,000 followers on TikTok. Gen Z is the generation most likely to follow advice to go no-contact, according to Talker Research. Sixty percent of Gen Z have implemented the policy with a family member or close friend.
William Doherty, a therapist and professor emeritus of family social science at the University of Minnesota, described an environment in which our culture has become increasingly fragile, leading to unclear and broadening definitions of trauma and the inability to cope with it. Talker Research highlights preferred behaviors in line with this theory, stating 73% of young adults admit they would rather avoid a loved one than address concerns outright.
Still others suggest that when adults seek therapy for mental health concerns, cutting off their perceived source of stress does not properly diagnose the root of the issue. Among those who have gone no-contact, the top three (self-reported) reasons include:
Disrespect (36%)
Concerns about mental health (29%)
Chronic negativity (27%) (Source: Talker Research).
Worldview Roundup
Christians taking a careful look ought to consider the root of the issue. Several underlying worldview questions are at play in the growing practice of going no-contact.
First, there is the concern raised by therapists who urge caution. Young adults in particular are facing a severe and multifaceted mental health crisis. Encouraging someone to go no-contact based solely on an initial description of a difficult relationship, particularly when the person is seeking help for their mental health, may be unwise counsel. It can neglect a careful examination of the underlying issues while encouraging struggling individuals to cut off what may be their strongest sources of support. It also raises an important question for Christians: If our desires and perceptions are marred by sin, should they be the sole guide to a solution? Feeding our desire to isolate while struggling can be folly (Proverbs 18:1).
Second, there is the question of how we define trauma. Stories of individuals who have gone no-contact vary widely in the severity of the circumstances that prompted the decision. For decades, therapists have advised clients to seek safe environments in the face of true danger. What appears to be increasingly common, however, is the decision to go no-contact over circumstances that would not traditionally be considered traumatic, or where the trauma is not clearly attributable to the parents. Some who have made that decision have later expressed deep regret. If the growing no-contact trend is, at least in part,dependent on an increasingly broad or malleable definition of trauma, that underscores the importance of defining terms carefully, and considering the long-term consequences of the ideas we embrace.
Last, Christians considering this issue cannot neglect the practice of forgiveness. An approach to difficult relationships that treats no-contact as the default can remove distinctively Christian categories from the conversation. Three of those categories are repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation.
When a therapist recommends going no-contact based on limited or one-sided information about the severity, frequency, or underlying causes of a conflict, there may be little opportunity to encourage careful thought about these categories. Not every relationship will be restored, and forgiveness does not mean ignoring genuine harm or remaining in an unsafe situation. But removing the possibility of repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation obscures a vital part of the Christian vision for human flourishing, and the way God designed us to live in relationship with one another.
For more on the topic of forgiveness, check out Krista’s teaching series, Fixing Our Distortions About Forgivness.
