Introduction
This article examines the role of solidarity during times of crisis through the lens of the “righting reflex,” a concept frequently discussed in motivational interviewing literature. While well-intentioned, the tendency to correct or direct an individual can often weaken their subjective experience and epistemological security. This study, drawing on theoretical frameworks such as psychological reactance (Brehm), cognitive dissonance (Festinger), validation theory (Linehan), and logotherapy (Frankl), argues that effective support in times of crisis is not about directing, but about creating psychological space.
What Do You Need and How Can You Safely Achieve It?
Approaching someone amidst challenging life experiences with the intention of providing support is undoubtedly invaluable. Making the person feel they are not alone means fulfilling one of the most basic emotional needs. Sometimes this support might involve offering concrete solutions, while other times it might simply be about being seen and heard. In this context, it is essential to help someone in need of support without further burdening them and by providing them with the space to realize their potential.
Approaching someone going through a sensitive period with a “righting reflex” attitude can make their life even more difficult. Especially in processes involving violence, manipulation, and reality testing, external suggestions and advice, if they do not align with the person’s current needs and priorities, become a burden rather than a healing aid. No one wants to cause more harm to someone they care about. Therefore, it is important to be aware of our own or others’ vulnerabilities and to develop the ability to navigate those areas when they are going through difficult times.
Righting Reflex and Psychological Reactivity
The righting reflex, frequently emphasized in the Motivational Interviewing literature (Miller & Rollnick), is the helper’s desire to quickly correct the “mistakes” in the other person’s life and show them the “right” path. However, the greatest need for a subject in crisis is the validation of their own decisions and perceptions. For example, if someone says, “I need to completely sever my connection with this environment,” even the most indirect or weak suggestion to “maintain the connection” can be a setback in their efforts to repair their perception of reality. Life is not just about what is visible. Underlying wounds and traumas, not immediately apparent, are just as vital as physical ones.
During a crisis, patiently providing space for the individual to confront their emotions, such as anger and sadness, and to navigate through the experience, is sometimes the best form of support. As an alternative approach, let’s consider Jack Brehm’s theory of psychological reactance. When an individual feels their freedom of choice is diminishing or a solution is being imposed upon them, they may develop resistance, no matter how “logical” the suggestion may be. Because at that moment, the real issue is not “financial logic,” but “existential security.” Persistent suggestions can push the individual to become defensive even towards those trying to help them, exhausting their energy by constantly having to explain themselves.
The Need For Distance and The Test Of Reality
In a phase where physical and psychological violence occurs, the subject’s most fundamental need is to regain epistemic security (the trust in the validity of their own knowledge). This is achieved through “distance.” Approaching this through Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, the individual attempts to protect their own truth against those who try to rationalize the violence they are subjected to by labeling it as an “illness.” In other words, protecting a perpetrator who puts the subject in dangerous situations, both mentally and physically, and downplaying the feelings of the victim, can be an arrow shot in the opposite direction of healing.
Of course, sometimes silently accompanying the person’s experience, and sometimes offering solutions, is beneficial. However, the fine line here lies in avoiding the trap of making decisions and judgments on behalf of the subject. Healthy solidarity is not about approaching the person’s decisions with suspicion, it’s about building a logistical framework to help them implement those decisions in the safest way possible. So, if someone’s actions seem risky, instead of saying “no, don’t do that,” focusing on the question “how can we manage these actions most safely?” is rational support that centers the individual’s needs. A person who feels safe will eventually find the willpower to make sound decisions and take firm steps.
Six Levels Of Witnessing and Validation
In Marsha Linehan’s dialectical approach, “validation” is not simply agreeing. At the highest level, validation is accepting that the person’s response, given their past and present circumstances, is the “only meaningful response.” If the person sees taking all their belongings and leaving as the only option, solidarity is seeing the “meaning” in that decision. Trying to persuade them of another possibility depends on the person’s capacity and intentions. It signals a lack of confidence in one’s own abilities.
Logotherapy Perspective: Meaning and Responsibility
We can conclude this article with Viktor Frankl’s fundamental principle: “A person can only answer the questions life poses to them by taking responsibility for their own life.” Accordingly, support is not about making decisions for the person, but about creating the space necessary for them to carry out their own “act of meaning.” The will to completely break free from a stagnant situation and build a new life is precisely what Frankl calls ‘the defiant power of the noetic‘. It is not a mystical force, but the ontological capacity to take a stand against one’s own circumstances.”
Sometimes the most powerful support phrase is: “I’m here. I hear you. I’ll be there for you however you want to proceed.” True solidarity is possible not with obstacles to this resilience, but with companions who clear the stones in its path. Solidarity is not a competition of “giving advice,” but the art of making a person feel that they are the author of their own life story and the architect of their own liberation.
Ejder Atlas Akmaner
Reference
-
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
-
Festinger, L. (1957/1999). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
-
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
-
Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.
-
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. Guilford Press.
-
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2023). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (4th ed.). Guilford Press.