05/22/2026
Probably the best article I've read this year. It explores how our experience of and responses to power imbalances in childhood shape our entire adult existence. It ties this to parenting and to the narrative of original sin, then articulates what healing means--not an overcoming or escape of that experience, but a reinterpretation and re-learning of the possibilities of relationship in a space where power imbalances are not violent or coercive.
It's a lengthy read, but well worth it. (Or you can listen, if that works better).
This is what I most appreciate about coaching--the creation and exploration of a shared space where we can be both big and small, whether through movement, through other practices, or simply talking and relating to each other. Learning to change our size and shape without losing our structure and integrity is a vital skill in which we never achieve perfection.
"If adults relate to their children predominantly through the lens of their own unresolved childhoods, the child’s task is impossibly complex: they must grow a self beneath the weight of someone else’s fantasy. Inevitably, a child who is repeatedly treated as overwhelming starts to feel that way, even if some part of them instinctively resists. Or a child who is responded to as innately disobedient begins to feel that they are, in fact, difficult. And a child who is confronted with fear, contempt or moral scrupulousness learns to feel that there is danger in their own impulses, even long before they can describe them.
Because children rely entirely upon adults for survival, they usually cannot allow themselves to see that important adults are distorted or defensive. They simply assume that adults are correct. This is a primitive emotional safeguard. The emotional logic here is this: if my caregiver is wrong, I am unsafe; but if I am wrong about myself, I can be fixed, forgiven and even loved. In this context, the child pursues the only workable option: turning the adult’s projection inward.
We should not conceive of this inward turn as passive; it is creative and adaptive. Over time, the child actively constructs an internal image of themselves that is largely based on the reactions of important adults, and then organises their behaviour, expectations and emotional life around that image. If the caregiver experiences neediness as an irritation, the child will tend to suppress need. If the adult casts curiosity as threat, the child will often minimise their exploratory drive. If the adult feels that dependence is suffocating, the child will find ways to hide their longing. These accommodations feel like safety to the child, and safety feels like love, even when moments of protest or defiance break through."
"By the time we reach adulthood, the internalised asymmetries of childhood no longer feel like adaptations. They are our personalities. What started as a creative adjustment to the adult’s projections becomes ways of relating, an irresistible pull toward repeating certain patterns of love, authority, closeness and self-regulation. The child who found ways to circumvent criticism now strives for perfection. And the child who felt like too much now keeps their needs small. The child who felt responsible for other’s feelings is now exquisitely attuned to every feeling around them.
Some escape the feeling of smallness by compensating and developing (or projecting) authority and achievement. For them, power becomes a bulwark against the vulnerability of dependence. Others go in the opposite direction, moving toward submission and finding a strange relief in giving up agency before it can be taken away from them. For still others, the pattern oscillates: a wish to be held closely is followed by a fear of being overpowered, with moments of assertiveness trailed by guilt or self-reproach."
"Original sin could be seen as a doctrine about smallness, about our fundamental inadequacy before something that is larger than we can imagine. A child brought up in this tradition received more than just an adult’s projection about their deficiency; they also received a metaphysical verdict. The inner badness that Young-Bruehl and Phillips cast as a residue of relationship is here a fact of creation. This adds a quality of inescapability. You can, in principle, disappoint a parent and later repair the damage. But you cannot revise what God has determined about the nature of children. In a sense, the whipping and the sermon are continuous: both inform the child that their impulses are corrupt and that the adult’s correction flows from love. Emotionally, this is awfully hard to metabolise, because the aggressor is not just an important person but an entire moral order."
Nobody quite recovers from being a child: the asymmetry of power between parents and children always leaves a trace