As many will be aware, I have been hard at work on my research about family estrangement. As a part of my research I do what every good researcher does … I trawl Google looking for other writers, books, people who share the interest. As such I was pretty stoked when I found an article in Psychology Today, tagged estrangement. The article was doubly interesting to me as it was written by Mark Sichel, a psychologist who has written one of the very few books available about family estrangement, Healing from Family Rifts. I clicked the link, and up popped the article, Once a Parent, Always a Parent: One Mother’s Resignation by Literary Defamation: Children are off limits when writing about personal experiences.
My social worker ’spidey’ senses tingling, heart sinking, I began reading.

The Reader’s Digest version of the article is, writer, Julie Myerson is accused of writing about her children, thusly denying them both respect and privacy. She is accused of betraying love, intimacy and motherhood by various rabidly angry critics and Mark Sichel, rather than taking a more objective, principled high road, throws a few more sticks on Myerson’s pyre in the town square. He states that Ms Myerson, “resigned from her job as Jake’s mother“, after asking her 17 year old son to leave the family home for his drug abuse and chaotic behavior. A strategy known to many parents as “tough love“.

Mr Sichel might have chosen to explore the historical context of tough love, and how various people have experienced this parenting strategy as both powerfully positive and also horribly horrific. He may have wanted to look at the sorts of advice parents are given from family, friends and so called ‘experts’ about how to manage an ‘out of control child’. He might have looked at how very often mothers are blamed for children being ‘out of control’ and how the responsibility to manage these ‘out of control’ children resides with the mother. He may have chosen to look at the social constructions of motherhood, mother blame and ‘good enough’ parenting as presented by psychologist Donald Winnicott. He may have wanted to acknowledge that Myerson is hooped either way she fights the fight: Allow her son to remain in the family home, exposing the larger family to the chaos of a drug abusing teen – or ask him to leave … either way, she will be criticized as a mother, as a woman.

Sichel criticizes Myserson’s decision as an abdication of parenthood and frames it in the context of Myerson’s estrangement from her own father. There is a suggestion here that Myserson has somehow failed to ‘learn the lesson’ inherent in her own experience of parental estrangement . Sichel however, does not go on to explore the very frequent pattern of inter-generational family estrangement, or to consider how Myserson may have been profoundly shaped by her experiences. There is little of compassion in Sichel’s criticisms of Myerson, a quality I consider as primary and central to the family estrangement discourse.

Sichel points out that Myerson may have used her son’s period of abstinence ‘as a stepping-stone to repairing the rift
between Jake and his family‘ and seems to freeze this possibility as a one off opportunity, now missed – due to the fact Myerson broke the Golden Rule, Thou Shalt Not Write About Thy Children. It should be said that even after a fairly vigorous search for this literary ‘rule’ I have seen no evidence of it. The world is full of books, blogs, magazine articles of people writing about their kids. It is not until we see mothers, speaking of their experiences of parenting in less than glowing terms, that the ‘mommy police’ come out of the woodwork. [see my recent post, Bad Mommy]. Had Sichel included even a brief mention of this phenomena, I’d have been appeased. But no.

“Julie chose to publicly expose her child’s drug problems and the related behavioral problems caused by the drug abuse. Now that, in my opinion, is off limits, indecent and obscene.” So says Sichel. “Any parent with respect for their child and human decency, love and kindness would not be critical of their child in their writing and publicly humiliate them for their own glorification as a writer.” Suddenly Myerson is without decency, love or kindness and has behaved ‘obscenely’. There is no room given for Myerson to write about her obviously very difficult experiences as a parent, no question about the truth of her experiences having equal validity, no room for Myerson to be central to her own story.

In Sichel’s opinion, “Julie Myerson, however, made two indefensible moves: she not only publicly defamed her son but she never, at least in public, reflected on her role in her son’s problem.” Is it defamation to speak truthfully, openly, passionately about how Myserson as a mother was impacted and influenced by her child’s behavior? I say no, no it is not. I have read excerpts from Myerson’s book, ‘The Lost Child: a True Story’ and no offense to her, she is perhaps more literary than some, but it’s nothing that I haven’t read in numerous places (books, blogs, articles) from other parents and mothers who have parented through a teen’s crisis. I would argue that Myerson’s choice to write at all about her children may be viewed as an effort to make sense of her experiences as a mother, and is nothing if not a reflection of her role in her son’s difficulties and broader life.

All this leaves me wondering what is it about Myerson that brought the “mommy police’ out in all their rampant glory? As I ask that question, I am quite cognizant that it doesn’t have to be much, luck of the draw, wrong place, wrong time, one ‘hostile bystander’. Why Myerson, remains however a valid question.

I’d like to see Julie Myerson’s choices as a writer considered both from a place of gendered analysis and also framed in context to larger research about family estrangement. Hell, I’d like to see Julie Myerson’s choices as a mother considered from the same places. I dare say the article would read considerably different from that of Mark Sichel, a publicly acclaimed psychologist and an “expert” in family estrangement.

I am so very grateful that I did not find my way to Mr Sichel’s office to address my family estrangement issues. Shame on you Mark Sichel.