Healing in Relationship: Why We Can’t Always Go It Alone
Lately, I’ve been reflecting on the difference between healing on our own and healing in relationship with others. As someone who works with both individuals and couples, I see tremendous value in both paths. In the field of mental health, especially trauma work, we now have access to therapeutic approaches that didn’t exist thirty years ago. Back then, it was widely believed that simply talking about trauma would bring resolution. Today, we understand that true healing requires integrative, body-based, and relational methods.
We live in a highly individualistic culture in the United States – one that values personal achievement, independence, and self-reliance. I say this, not to imply that these traits are inherently negative – in fact, they can be incredibly empowering to our sense of mastery and purpose – but to underscore a universal default setting. One that when proven repeatedly as the only way to challenge threat to our survival, leaves us believing we can’t rely on anyone. We begin to develop a pseudo sense of security grounded in the belief system that we must shoulder everything on our own. The world feels hostile. Overtime, this self-sufficiency stops being a choice and starts to become our identity.
This past May, I had the opportunity to attend Boston’s International Trauma Conference, hosted by the Trauma Research Foundation and founded by renowned trauma expert and author of The Body Keeps the Score, Dr. Bessel van der Kolk. Among the pages of notes I took, one quote stood out:
“Trauma is not just about memory reconsolidation, it’s about your identity – who you become and how you organize yourself in the world.” - Bessel Van Der Kolk, Boston International Trauma Conference, 2025
How we learn to organize ourselves in the world begins with our early attachment figures – typically parents or caregivers. When trust is established in those early relationships, our mind is open to connection and learning. We can only truly learn when we feel safe, and when our reactions and behaviors are met with meaningful, attuned responses. Without safety, we develop rigidity – resisting relational learning and gradually distancing ourselves from community and intimacy. In this way, trust is fundamental to our sense of self. Without it, our ability to relate to others becomes compromised.
Relationships are central to the human experience. They are what we cherish most, yet are often the source of our deepest suffering. The hard truth is that we need connection with others. Not just romantically – platonic bonds, friendships, family ties, and professional relationships all matter. Community is a pillar of well-being.
British psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby, founder of attachment theory, proposed that we are biologically wired for connection. From the womb to the grave, we seek attachment – because connection is essential to our survival.
Rejection or criticism – especially when experienced in isolation – can be inherently traumatizing. Research shows that social rejection activates the same brain regions as physical pain (Eisenberger, 2003). Connection isn’t just emotionally significant – it’s biologically necessary. Chronic loneliness is a major source of stress, with risks comparable to cigarette smoking, hypertension, and obesity (Xia and Li, 2018). The link between heart health and heartfelt connection is real. Secure relationships help regulate stress, reduce depression, and even ease physical pain.
Attachment is especially critical in early life. During these formative years, children rely on feeling and adapting to their environment, a process governed by implicit memory. These early patterns of bodily sensations, perceptions, emotions, and actions become the building blocks of how we experience the world.
Another key element is meaning making. We assign meaning to our experiences, forming belief systems that shape our emotional responses. For instance, how a parent responds to a child’s fear or sadness can either reinforce security or introduce instability (Siegel, 1999). When safety is present, children develop a “secure base,” without it, children can become disorganized struggling to reconcile that their parent is the source of comfort and fear. These experiences – whether positive or negative – form what Bowlby called an internal working model – a blueprint for self and other.
This internal model asks two questions:
Am I worthy of love and attention?
Can I trust others to be there for me?
These internal working models are dynamic, continuously shaped and reshaped by our experiences. But when they become rigid or stuck, they lead to patterns we repeat – often without realizing it. This is where our survival strategies come into play – automatic reactions to perceived threats. Even subtle, everyday cues can trigger intense responses when they touch on old wounds. You’ll know it’s happening when your emotional reaction feels disproportionate to the situation.
In fact, about half the U.S. population has a non-secure attachment style. This might look like emotional immaturity, hyper independence, emotional outbursts or withdrawal, fear of abandonment, difficulty trusting others, or pushing people away when things get too close. These patterns often operate quietly but powerfully, influencing how we connect – or don’t – with others.
Some of this is temperament – our innate emotional wiring. Temperament is the foundation of our personality – it’s inborn, not shaped by experience. It reflects our natural predispositions and core emotional responses, and it drives the underlying motivations that influence how we engage with the world. While temperament is inborn, the rest of our personality is shaped by experience: how we were parented (wounded or not), our environment, and our cultural context. Together, these create our relational blueprint.
We tend to attract what feels familiar – even if that familiarity is harmful. If chaos or disconnection is what we’ve known, we may unknowingly recreate it. This isn’t about blame. If this resonates, it likely means your childhood was shaped by loss or unmet needs. You didn’t cause it – you inherited it. And now, you’re left navigating the aftermath.
The purpose of my work is to make education and awareness accessible. To help you recognize patterns, reclaim agency, and make choices aligned with the life you want. Therapy isn’t just about finding answers – it’s about empowerment. My role is to help you access your own.
Attachment in Conflict: The Pursuer and Withdrawer
In couples therapy, two common achetypes often appear in conflict: the pursuer and withdrawer. If you’re familiar with attachment theory, you’ll recognize how these roles often reflect anxious (pursuer) or an avoidant (the withdrawer) attachment stance. The most important piece to understand is that both roles are driven by fear – activating our stored survival mechanisms that fuel our behaviors.
Evidence also suggests that these dynamics can be applied to a variety of relationships – including monogamous, same sex, polyamorous – and across many different cultures. For simplicity let’s focus here on monogamous couples.
The Pursuer seeks connection, validation, and emotional engagement. Their actions often look like protest—loud, insistent, demanding.
The Withdrawer seeks distance to regulate overwhelm. Their withdrawal is an attempt to reduce emotional intensity.
The cycle can look like this: the more I pursue (complain, demand, instruct, criticize) > the more dangerous you appear, so I move away (shut down, defend, dismiss) > the more you move away the more dangerous you appear (uncaring, inaccessible) the more I try to get through to you > the more you try to get through the more I shut down, go away, withdraw.
You can think of these as adult versions of early attachment behaviors. And when viewed through this lens, protest behaviors aren’t irrational – they’re actually logical. The brain, wired for survival, seeks shortcuts – it’s job isn’t context – it’s protection.
Not all couples follow the pursuer-withdrawer pattern. Some are pursuer-pursuer (when I react, you react, the more you attack the harder I lash out), others withdrawer-withdrawer (the more I hold back and shut down, the more careful and guarded you become, the more guarded you become the less safe I feel, so I disengage). But the underlying emotional needs – and the disconnection cycles – are similar.
Couples who feel stuck don’t have to stay there. Emotional connection & intimacy can be rebuilt. The first thing you need to do is call out the cycle.
A Case Study: Quinn & Taylor
Take Quinn and Taylor, a couple together for 10 years. Taylor took a demanding new job and often comes home late, leaving Quinn to manage the household and eat dinner alone. Taylor, exhausted, wants rest. Quinn wants connection. One evening, Taylor is late again and forgets to text. Quinn, hurt and angry, lashes out. Taylor shuts down.
Quinn and Taylor are caught in a pursuer-withdrawer cycle. Those are their survival strategies – their learned behaviors. At the core of this cycle is a deep attachment need. For Quinn, it’s feeling like he matters, is important, and seen by Taylor. For Taylor, it’s feeling accepted by and safe with Quinn. Unfortunately, this attachment need becomes completely buried by perceptions and reactive emotions. Instead of understanding that Quinn feels invisible and alone, Taylor sees anger and criticism. She feels like a disappointment. Instead of Quinn understanding Taylor feeling rejected and like a failure, he sees her as self-centered and feels unimportant. Because of this, Taylor withdraws, leaving Quinn feeling more alone.
Moving Forward
Emotions move quickly. It's so easy to get caught up in this cycle. I, myself, am a recovering pursuer. Meaningful change happens when we name the pattern. When we understand that our reactions are rooted in survival – not malice – we can begin to respond differently.
Change comes through corrective emotional experiences – from being willing to be vulnerable with your partner – to being willing to surrender feeling like you must shoulder everything alone. When you show up for each other differently – when you take emotional risks – you rewire the cycle. The way forward isn’t through blame or defensiveness, but through intention, compassion, and curiosity. Because you can’t change what you’re unaware of – or what you’re unwilling to face.
In healthcare, we emphasize preventative care. Mental health should be no different. Sadly, many couples seek therapy only when they’re on the brink. But what if we didn’t wait? What if we viewed therapy not as a last resort, but as a proactive investment in connection?
Because the self alone doesn’t heal wounds – the self + connection does.
References:
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. Guilford Press.
Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134
Xia, N., & Li, H. (2018). Loneliness, social isolation, and cardiovascular health. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, 28(9), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2017.7312
