RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL: A VOICE-CENTRED RELATIONAL INQUIRY INTO ACQUAINTANCE SEXUAL ASSAULT by DANIELLE BROEREN PALMER Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, McGill University, 2012 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN COUNSELLING PSCHOLOGY in the FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard …………………………………………………….. Janelle Kwee, Psy.D., Thesis Supervisor …………………………………………………….. Mihaela Launeanu, Ph.D., Second Reader & Research Coordinator …………………………………………………….. Allyson Jule, Ph.D., External Examiner May 28th, 2019 © Danielle Broeren Palmer, 2019 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL ii ABSTRACT By adopting a relational ontology, the present study challenges traditional approaches to psychological theory, research and practice. This complementary lens was used to explore women’s experiences of harm and healing in the context of acquaintance sexual assault. Six women participated in interviews using sandtrays, and the Listening Guide (Brown & Gilligan, 1992) was used to analyze transcripts. Voices of harm constricted participants’ experiences of being connected to themselves, others and the world, and consisted of denial, confusion, judgment, isolation and separation. Voices of healing emerged as expansive processes, identified as acknowledgment, knowing, acceptance, accompaniment and empowerment. These findings broaden current understandings of sexual assault, trauma and betrayal, and better equip counsellors, social supports, communities and cultures, to dismantle relational processes that stagnate survivors and promote those that foster growth. Key words: Sexual assault; relationships; Listening Guide. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 7 Adoption of a Relational Framework ..................................................................... 7 Current Understandings of Sexual Assault ............................................................. 9 Definition(s) of sexual assaults................................................................. 10 The prevalence and impact of sexual assaults .......................................... 13 The relational dimensions of sexual assaults ............................................ 15 Research relevant to the relational dimensions of sexual assault ............. 16 Conceptualizations of Sexual Assault as Trauma................................................. 21 The posttraumatic stress framework ......................................................... 22 Betrayal trauma theory. ............................................................................ 24 Sexual assault from a relational framework ............................................. 27 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 28 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD ....................................................................................... 30 Design ................................................................................................................... 30 Methodological and paradigmatic considerations .................................... 30 Rationale for sandtrays ............................................................................. 34 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL iv Rationale for Listening Guide .................................................................. 36 Participants and Recruitment ................................................................................ 38 Interviews ............................................................................................................. 41 Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 44 Transcription process ................................................................................ 44 Integration of sandtrays. ........................................................................... 45 Listening guide procedure ........................................................................ 45 Participant reflections ............................................................................... 48 Quality and rigour ..................................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.................................................................................................. 52 Introduction to the Polarities of Harm and Healing ............................................. 53 Introduction to Participants .................................................................................. 54 Brittany ..................................................................................................... 55 Charlie ...................................................................................................... 56 Sarah ......................................................................................................... 59 Margaret.................................................................................................... 61 Eliza .......................................................................................................... 64 Lucy .......................................................................................................... 67 Voices ................................................................................................................... 70 Denial........................................................................................................ 71 Acknowledgment ...................................................................................... 75 Confusion.................................................................................................. 80 Knowing ................................................................................................... 83 Judgment ................................................................................................... 87 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL v Acceptance................................................................................................ 90 Isolation .................................................................................................... 94 Accompaniment ........................................................................................ 97 Separation ............................................................................................... 101 Empowerment ......................................................................................... 106 Relationships between voices ................................................................. 113 Elements of Healing and Transformation in the Research Process .................... 122 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 125 Strengths and Limitations ................................................................................... 126 Theoretical Significance ..................................................................................... 130 Expanding understandings of trauma ..................................................... 130 Expanding understandings of betrayal trauma ....................................... 134 Methodological Significance .............................................................................. 138 Practical Significance ......................................................................................... 140 Informing our responses as counsellors.................................................. 140 Informing our response as friends, families and social supports ............ 141 Informing our responses as communities and cultures ........................... 143 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................. 145 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 147 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 148 APPENDIX A Recruitment Notice .............................................................................. 164 APPENDIX B Recruitment Email Script ..................................................................... 165 APPENDIX C Phone Screening Guide ........................................................................ 166 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL vi APPENDIX D Informed Consent................................................................................. 168 APPENDIX E Interview Protocol ................................................................................ 171 APPENDIX F Relaxation Script .................................................................................. 173 APPENDIX G Debrief Information ............................................................................. 175 APPENDIX H Resources for Participants.................................................................... 176 APPENDIX I Step Three I Poem Example, Sarah ....................................................... 184 APPENDIX J Step Four Essay Example, Sarah........................................................... 187 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Charlie's world: After. ....................................................................................... 74 Figure 2. Brittany's world: After..................................................................................... 118 Figure 3. Brittany's view................................................................................................. 119 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Voices of Harm and Healing .............................................................................. 54 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project was carried out on the traditional and unceded territories of the Katzie, Kwantlen, Nuxwsa'7aq (Nooksack), Semiahmoo, sc̓əwaθenaɁɬ təməxʷ (Tsawwassen), S’ólh Téméxw (Stó:lō), Stz'uminus, šxʷməθkʷəy̓əmaɁɬ təməxʷ (Musqueam), Tsleil-Waututh (səl̓ilwətaɁɬ), and W̱SÁNEĆ (Tsartlip/W̱JOȽEȽP, Tseycum/WSIḴEM, Tsawout/SȾÁUTW, and Pauquachin/BOḰEĆEN) Nations. “All my relations” RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION We tend to think of any one individual in isolation; it is a convenient fiction. . . . There is no such thing as a single human being, pure and simple, unmixed with other human beings. Each personality is a world in him/herself, a company of many. That self, that life of one’s own which is in fact so precious though so casually taken for granted, is a composite structure which has been and is formed and built up since the day of our birth and of countless never-ending influences and exchanges between ourselves and with others. . . . These other persons are in fact therefore parts of ourselves, not indeed the whole of them but such parts or aspects of them as we have had our relation with, and as have thus become parts of us. . . . We are members of one another. (Riviere, 1991: pp. 317-318) Psychological research, theory and practice have been historically oriented in paradigms that assume individuals are self-contained entities from which relationships emerge. Relational frameworks, however, conceptualize human existence and the experience of the self as inherently relational (Slife, 2004; see also Downs, Gantt & Faulconer, 2012; Gilligan, 1992, 1995; Gergen, 2009; Jordan, 1997; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Miller, 1986; Mitchell, Aron, Harris, & Suchet, 2007; Sullivan, 1981). This relational lens offers a complementary approach to traditional postpositivist research, one that values relationships at every stage of the research process and seeks to explore phenomena in the relational contexts in which they are embedded. The notion of an inherently relational existence seemed to be a soft seed already planted within me;1 I’ve long sensed that our “interconnectedness” has more to do with the experience of 1 The use of the first person is an intentional choice in order to maintain continuity with the relational paradigm and method described in Chapter 3. It is not consistent with the publication standards of the American Psychological Association (Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.), however, the use of personal pronouns serves to illuminate my voice in this project. As the primary RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 2 our existence than our “separateness.” This seed, though ready for germination, remained buried beneath cultural constructions of the “autonomous individual” and the “self-made man.” I had experienced pressures to be independent, surely not codependent; but what about interdependent? This idea began to sprout as I began reading the findings from Gallup’s (1970) research on self-recognition in primates. Gallup’s study utilized the “rouge test” on chimpanzees, a task designed to determine whether an animal is able to recognize a reflection in a mirror as its own. This is determined by observing how the animal reacts to its reflection after having a red dot painted on its forehead under anesthesia. After some exposure, chimpanzees typically spend more time gazing at their reflection in the mirror and will rub the red dot. This suggests that chimpanzee recognizes the reflection as belonging to its self and not of another chimpanzee. In contrast, other primates do not demonstrate self-directed behaviour even after 21 days of mirror exposure (Gallup, 1970). Three chimpanzees who were reared in isolation were given the same task but behaved similarly to other primates who do not exhibit self-recognition. The “isolates” appeared to be oblivious to the source of the reflection, as these chimpanzees did not touch the dot or spend increased time viewing themselves in the mirror. Then, two of these isolation-reared chimpanzees were given remedial social experience by housing them with peers for three months. After this social integration, the rouge test was performed again, and these socially integrated animals demonstrated signs of self-recognition in the mirror that had previously been absent. The third monkey, who remained in isolation, did not recognize itself (Gallup, 1970). It appears as if the recognition of the “self” was contingent on being “in relation to” others. Once isolation-reared chimpanzees had experienced themselves in relation to “others” they showed signs they recognized themselves as “individuals.” Thus, it seems that the experience of researcher, writer, and a fellow “survivor,” I accept that I am an actively engaged participant in the process of inquiry and seek to make my reflexive voice explicit throughout this document. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 3 existence as distinct or individual may be inextricable from the experience of being relationally embedded. This sprouted seed then took root in the fertile soil of relational ontology, a postulation that the most basic reality of the world is relationships (Slife, 2004; 2017). This framework for understanding rejects the “weak” relationality adopted by much of psychological science: the assumption that all things, including people, are first self-contained entities that then relate to each other. A “strong” or ontological relationality assumes that each thing, including each person, starts out and forever remains in relationships. Thus, our very existence and qualities stem from how they we embedded in a unique nexus of relations. We have the tendency to experience and describe ourselves and inner worlds as private and separate from their relations. A relational lens suggests that people experience themselves as separate and self-contained only as a result of being embedded in relations. The person, or the self, however, is distinct. It can be distinguished from its relations, just as any part can be distinguished from the whole. This view sees the part as existing “in relation to” and that its qualities still stem from its relations to the whole. Thus, no part, person, or phenomena can be fully understood apart from their relations. From this relationality, it is also posited that relationships, especially interpersonal ones, are the most crucial aspects of life and living (Slife, 2017; Slife & Wiggins, 2009). When relationships are seen as the basis of the self and reality in general, the “good life. . . is the life of good relationships, and the central imperative of psychotherapy is to help clients relate well and love completely” (Slife & Wiggins, 2009, p. 20). This relational lens has an implied morality, to enhance and protect virtuous relationships. In adopting Slife’s relational ontology (Slife, 2004; 2017), I pondered: If the goal is to help people relate well, then do they initiate therapy because they are not relating well? Is disconnection the origin of distress and despair? As relational beings, we not only exist “in RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 4 relation to”, we also have an inherent desire to feel what it is to be connected to ourselves and others. If the capacity to relate can be encouraged and developed in therapy, then it follows that this capacity for relationships may also be damaged, ruptured, or stunted: constricting our sense of being, in relation to ourselves, others and the world. This development of thought prompted me to question what happens when relationships go horribly awry? What happens when explicit or implicit trust is broken? How are relationships to self and others shifted by disruptions of “what should be” between people? Can the ways in which we experience our relationality undergo shifts? How does our capacity to be “in relation to” change? How do we become “cut off” from ourselves and others? How can we restore or form new relations with ourselves and others? Does relational harm open new pathways for relational healing? This led me to an examination of a type of relational harm that is both common and extraordinary, widespread, and yet, shrouded in silence: sexual assault. The construct of the sexual assault is widely regarded as wrong, repulsive, criminal, but in reality, the experience itself is much more complicated. Societies misunderstand it, cultures inadvertently condone it, and research, advocacy and activism have failed to adequately prevent or remedy the repercussions of it. Even in Canada, a nation that is considered civilized and progressive, women are sexually violated and victimized in epidemic-like proportions (Conroy & Cotter, 2017; Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008; Senn et al., 2014; Sinha, 2013). While the dominant discourse declares this sexual assault is wrong, the reality of experience says that sexual assault is acceptable. Despite the deeply relational, especially interpersonal, nature of sexual assault and its consequences, conceptualizations and approaches to healing are often focused on the distress of the individual. When sexual assault is considered a trauma, its harmful consequences are seen as clusters of symptoms that exist within the mind and body of the survivor. This type of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 5 conceptualization, however, can be pathologizing as it implies that the harm associated with the event is disordered and requires treatment or management on the part of the person who was assaulted. In their weak relationality, current conceptualizations fail to see that consequences of sexual assault cannot be understood apart from the relational contexts in which they are embedded. In the present study, individuals are viewed as inherently relational and this allows for new understandings of harm and healing to emerge. This relational framework is needed to understand how violation that occurs in relationships impacts the capacity to relate to the self, others and the world. The present study examines the relational dimensions of being sexually assaulted by a trusted acquaintance. By listening to women’s first-hand accounts, a better examination of the relational contexts in which the injuries of sexual assaults and the ripples of betrayal occur, can be obtained. Six women who identified as having been sexually assaulted by an acquaintance they trusted participated in semi-structured interviews facilitated by the use of “sandtrays”. Sandtrays are an intervention typically used in counselling whereby clients are asked to create scenes in a tray of sand using a variety of miniature figures. In this study, sandtrays provided a safe container for sexual assault survivors to access experiences that may have been fragmented or silenced and depict them in a way that is relational and experiential. Photos of the trays accompanied transcripts of the interviews and these transcripts were analyzed using the Listening Guide. Brown and Gilligan (1992) describe this qualitative method as “a pathway into relationship rather than a fixed framework for interpretation” (p. 22). This method was well suited to explore women’s experiences of sexual assault, given the method’s ability to tune into multiple layers of voice and pay attention to what was left unspoken. In keeping with the relational ethos of this project, the steps of analysis were carried out in the presence of various “interpretive communities,” so that researchers were actively dialoging in relationship when RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 6 examining the data. These findings were shared with participants and their reflections were collected and integrated with the results. This process resulted in the creation of a collection of ten “voices” or themes that illustrated five polarities of harm and healing experienced by the participants. It also became evident that elements of healing were present in the research process, facilitating a transformative experience for participants. This in-depth exploration of women’s relational harm and healing in response to being sexually assaulted by a trusted acquaintance helps broaden our understandings of trauma, betrayal, and interpersonal violations. This inquiry offers unique insights for counsellors, social supports, communities and cultures, equipping them to dismantle relational processes that stagnate survivors in their suffering and promote those that foster growth and healing. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter begins with an orientation to a relational framework: an alternate and complementary approach to psychological research, theory, and practice that emphasizes the relational nature of reality and human experience. By adopting this framework, a researcher is compelled to explore the relational dimensions of harm and healing. This positions the topic of inquiry of the present study: sexual assault. An overview of how sexual assault is defined, how often it occurs and how it impacts survivors, as well as the deeply relational nature of its occurrence is offered. Then, relevant empirical research on the relational dimensions of sexual assault is reviewed. Following this, a review of how sexual assault is conceptualized in psychological theory and research, as well as the implications of different conceptualizations are discussed. In closing this chapter, the rationale, purpose and research questions are outlined. Adoption of a Relational Framework The present study adopts a relational framework, drawing on Slife’s postulation that all things, including persons, start out and forever remain in relationships (2004; 2017). This strong, or ontological relationality is contrasted with a “weak” relationality. From a weak relationality, relationships are important, but are understood as the result of interactions between otherwise self-contained entities. People simultaneously influence and are influenced by relations but are fundamentally separate from what they are in relation to. On the other hand, a “strong” relationality, (hereafter, relationality) purports that entities are not self-contained, they are mutually constitutive. Thus, qualities cannot be understood by looking at what is “inside” entities, but by examining the unique nexus of relationships in which all things are embedded. This relational framework views relational embeddedness as the foundation of existence, and the qualities of these relations as vitally involved in the quality of existence. It assumes that relationships, especially interpersonal, are the most “crucial aspects of life and living” (Slife & Wiggins, 2009. p. 20). RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 8 Many academics and researchers have expressed similar discontent with the individualist tradition in psychology that sees the self as separate and views independence as a hallmark of healthy development. Gergen’s (2009) Relational Beings is a book that is immensely illustrative of the relational dimensions of our existence. Gergen (2009) suggests that we conceptualize ourselves not as “bounded beings” (discrete entities), but “relational” or “multi” beings, which are “socially embedded, fully engaged in the flow of relationship” (p. 137). Although his concept of humans as “relational beings” is not entirely synonymous with the relationality described by Slife (2004), it similarly challenges us to conceptualize individuals in a relational way, attending to interpersonal relations in particular. The complements and differences between Slife and Gergen’s approaches have been discussed elsewhere (see Gergen, 2011; Slife & Richardson, 2011a, 2011b). Additional perspectives that encourage conceptualizations from a relational lens include but are not limited to, the ethical philosophy of Emmanual Levinas (Downs, 2013; Downs, Gantt & Faulconer, 2012; Levinas, 2009); the American interpersonal tradition (Fromm & Funk, 1988; Sullivan, 1981); the British object relations tradition (Bowlby, 1969; Winnicott, 1958, 2006); relational psychoanalysis (Mitchell, 2014; Mitchell, Aron, Harris, & Suchet, 2007); and feminist approaches (Chodorow, 1986, 1989; Ettinger, 2006, Gilligan, 1982, 1995; Jordan, 1997; Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Miller, 1986). A particular feminist approach that aligns well with the centrality of relationships in Slife’s framework is Relational-Cultural Theory (Frey, 2013; Jordan, et al., 1991; West, 2005). This theory emerged from a core group of female practitioners, Judith Jordan, Alexandra Kaplan, Jean Baker Miller, Irene Stiver and Janet Surrey who began meeting regularly in 1977. Although originally developed to explain women’s psychological growth, their research and emerging theory have been extended to understandings of men (Frey, 2013). Relational-Cultural Theory is an alternative to previous individualistic theories of development which “rest on separation, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 9 independence, and the bounded autonomous self as a primary and necessary goal” (West, 2005, p. 102). Instead, Relational-Cultural Theory supports a paradigm that appreciates relatedness and interconnectedness, seeing participation in connection with others as the basic human motive (Miller & Stiver, 1998). Wellbeing results from increasing relational complexity rather than increasing separation and autonomy. Relationships that foster growth are characterized by: a.) mutual engagement and empathy, defined as mutual involvement, commitment, and sensitivity in the relationship, including a willingness to impact and to be impacted by another person while in the relationship; b.) authenticity, defined as the freedom and capacity to represent one’s feelings, experiences, and thoughts in the relationship, but with an awareness of the possible impact of this authenticity on the other person; c.) empowerment, defined as the capacity for action and sense of personal strength that emerges from the relationship; and d.) the ability to express, receive, and effectively process diversity, differences, and conflict in the relationship, and to do so in a way that fosters mutual empowerment and empathy (Frey, 2013). The absence of these characteristics, their distortion, or violations of relationships, are sources of distress that lead to isolation and other psychological difficulties (Miller & Stiver, 1998; West, 2005). The relational framework that is adopted in the present study challenges us to see people as inextricable from their relational contexts, and to understand that the capacity to be in relation is crucial to our wellbeing (Slife, 2004; 2017). This compels us to explore disruptions to interpersonal relationships or instances of “relational harm,” that have the capacity to impact how people relate to themselves, others, and other aspects of their relational context. A potent example of such, sexual assault, is examined in the next section. Current Understandings of Sexual Assault This section addresses definitions of sexual assault and reviews literature on its prevalence and impact. Then, the relational nature of the occurrence and consequences of sexual assault in general, and acquaintance sexual assault in particular is discussed. A review of the RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 10 empirical research concerning the relational dimensions of sexual assault is provided. This positions the focus for the current inquiry: women’s experiences of the relational dimensions of being sexually assaulted, specifically by someone known and trusted. Definition(s) of sexual assaults. Defining sexual assault is not a straightforward task. Neither is quantifying its prevalence or conceptualizing the harm done by it. Nonetheless, approximations are useful illustrations of a complicated phenomenon with significant implications. According to Section 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the general definition of assault applies to sexual assault. A person is considered to have committed an assault when: (a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly; (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs. (Criminal Code, 1985, p. 300) Consent is defined as “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question” (Criminal Code, 1985, p. 308). The Criminal Code explains that no consent is obtained where: (a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant; (b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity; (c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority; (d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 11 (e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity. (Criminal Code, 1985, p. 309). Prior to 1983, the Criminal Code of Canada included the terms “rape” and “indecent assault.” Amendments were made, however, in an attempt to reflect the violent rather than sexual nature of these offenses. The new definitions incorporate sexual offenses beyond forced penilevaginal intercourse (e.g., unwanted sexual touching) and to be gender inclusive (i.e., not all victims are female) (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). In Canada, the crime of sexual assault has been placed on a continuum of violence and is divided into a three-tier structure. Sexual assault level 1 (s.271): An assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim Sexual assault level 2 (s.272): Sexual assault with a weapon, threats, or causing bodily harm. Aggravated sexual assault (level 3): Sexual assault that results in wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. These classifications of violence are used to determine criminal punishment and are also important distinctions in the reports produced by Statistics Canada. For example, in 2009, 81% of sexual assault incidents against women involved unwanted sexual touching (level 1) and 19% involved sexual attacks (level 2 and 3) (Sinha, 2013). Additionally, statistics show that incidents of sexual touching are less likely to be reported to police than sexual attacks. This is perhaps because these incidents are considered less serious. In fact, the most commonly stated reason (58%) why victims of sexual assault did not report the incident to the police was because they felt it was not important enough (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 12 Simpler definitions of sexual assault could be adopted for the sake of ease in this writing. The United States Department of Justice (2016) defines sexual assault as “any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” It is my opinion, however, that legal definitions of sexual assault should be made known and the criminal nature of these offenses recognized. Data from the 1999 and 2004 General Social Surveys (GSS) on victimization and police-reported data derived from the aggregate Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) suggest that 91% of sexual offenses are not reported to police. Furthermore, in adult courts, sexual offences are less likely than other violent crime types to result in a finding of guilt (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). Using data from the 2004 GSS, Johnson (2012) determined that only 10% of sexual assaults reported to police result in a conviction. While sexual assault is considered a criminal offense, many instances do not end up being recognized as such by the legal system. Researchers in North America have found that many women do not recognize or acknowledge their experiences of unwanted sexual activity as assault (Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013), and often blame themselves for the event (Campbell, Dworkin, & Cabral, 2009). These are some of the factors that contribute to society’s failure to respond appropriately to the crime of sexual assault. When a person is sexually assaulted, the outcomes are influenced by previous history, current state, characteristics of the assault, relationship to the perpetrator, the responses of others, interactions with medical, legal, and mental health systems, and engagement with a sociocultural context that condones sexual violence. The interactions of these factors can stagnate survivors in their suffering or assist them in moving towards healing (for a greater appreciation of an ecological model of sexual assault, see Campbell, Dworkin, and Cabral, 2009). In light of these disparities and sobering realities, it is important to state that, recognized or not, reported or not, prosecuted or not, unwanted sexual activity is a crime. This emphasis is RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 13 necessary, but incomplete; we must also be critically aware that sexual assault is much more than an act of violent crime. As reflected in the words Mr. Justice Peter Cory: “It cannot be forgotten that a sexual assault is very different from other assaults. It is true that it, like all the other forms of assault, is an act of violence. Yet it is something more than a simple act of violence. Sexual assault is in the vast majority of cases gender based. It is an assault upon human dignity and constitutes a denial of any concept of equality for women. The reality of the situation can be seen from the statistics which demonstrate that 99 per cent of the offenders in sexual assault cases are men and 90 per cent of victims are women.” (R. v. Osolin. 1993) The prevalence and impact of sexual assaults. Analysis of a stratified random sample from the general population in the United States estimated that approximately 1 in 5 American women will experience sexual assault at least once in their lifetimes (Elliott, Mok, & Briere, 2004). It is a difficult phenomenon to accurately quantify. In Canadian research, it has been estimated that 91% of these crimes are not reported to police (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). According to the 2004 General Social Survey on Victimization (GSS) in Canada, there were about 512,000 incidents of sexual assault, representing a rate of 1,977 incidents per 100,000 population aged 15 and older. In addition, certain segments of the population are at a higher risk. Findings from the GSS indicated that victimization rates for females were almost 5 times the rate for males, and for Canadians aged 15 to 24 the rate was almost 18 times greater than the rate for Canadians aged 55 years and older (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). The results from a recent study at a Canadian university found that prior to their arrival on campus, almost 60% of female students reported experiencing one or more forms of sexual victimization since the age of 14 years. Alarmingly, among those who had been victimized, the average number of occurrences was 4.8 (Senn et al., 2014). Estimates of prevalence may still be conservative, however, as many RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 14 women do not identify their unwanted sexual experiences as assaults (Johnstone, 2016; Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013). Furthermore, unlike other violent offenses, rates of sexual assault in the general Canadian population have not decreased over the past 20 years (Sinha, 2013). The impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health is significant. A review by Campbell et al. (2009) found that among women who have experienced sexual assault, between 17% and 65% develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and many (13%-51%) meet diagnostic criteria for depression. Campbell et al., (2009) reported findings of studies that estimated 23% to 44% of survivors’ experience suicide ideation, and between 2% to 19% act and attempt to end their lives. Victims also experience significant psychological distress that is not necessarily considered ‘post-traumatic.’ This includes other manifestations of relational suffering: damaged sense of worth, feelings of objectification, and self-blame (Wasco, 2003). These impacts can be long-term, and the effects of the experience can never be entirely forgotten (Wiehe & Richards, 1995). Regehr and Marziali (1999) reported that in a sample of women with an average of 4.6 years since the sexual assault, 62% of women continued to suffer from PTSD and 79% from depression. The long-term effects of acquaintance sexual assault were examined in a group of women who had been violated 15 years prior. In this sample of survivors, women were 11 times more likely to be depressed and 6 times more likely to be severely fearful and anxious in social situations than women who had not been victimized (Kilpatrick, Best, Saunders, & Veronen, 1998). Harm to sexual and physical health is notable as well. Wasco’s (2003) review of research on post-assault consequences, reported that sexual assault has been associated with sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies and abortions, sexual dysfunction, reproductive problems, promiscuity, prostitution, further sexual victimization and/or abusive partnerships. One study demonstrated that rape victims were twice as likely than non-victims to report RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 15 medically explained health problems, including chronic diseases such as diabetes, arthritis, and asthma (Golding, 1994 as cited in Wasco, 2003). The relational dimensions of sexual assaults. Sexual assault has various relational dimensions worth attending to, such as the interpersonal nature of the event and its harm. Every occurrence of sexual assault is interpersonal, in that it can only occur in the context of two or more people. There is interpersonal harm in the sense that perpetrators assault autonomy, by denying victims their rights to choose what sexual acts to engage in. This interpersonal harm can also be conceptualized as moral injury, in the sense that perpetrators assault dignity, by expressing that the victim is of lesser or no moral worth (Miller, 2009). In more cases than not, victims are confronted with the jarring reality of being violated by someone they know. This adds an additional relational dimension to sexual assault. In Canada, surveys suggest that the majority (between 55% and 82%) of sexual assaults occur between people who are either friends or acquaintances (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). Findings from the National Health and Social Life Survey conducted in the United States indicated that strangers perpetrate only 4% of sexual assaults, and that 96% are committed either by someone the woman knew well, an acquaintance, or her spouse (Lauman, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994). These statistics are in opposition with the commonly held idea that a “typical” rape involves a deviant male stranger attacking an unsuspecting woman in public (Bufkin & Eschholz, 2000; Ryan, 1988). This commonly held but misinformed idea is part of a larger body of “rape myths” (Edwards, Turchik, Dardis, Reynolds, & Gidycz, 2011; Lonsway & Fitzgerald, 1994). The reality is, sexual assault often occurs between people who are known to each other. While all sexual assaults are interpersonal in occurrence and constitute abandonment of “what’s right” between fellow people, being sexually victimized by someone known adds an additional relational dimension. When sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known, it is likely they RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 16 occur in the context of implicit or explicit trust, where there is an expectation that the person would not disregard another’s autonomy or dignity. Being sexually assaulted by a trusted acquaintance is deeply relational. The consequences of sexual assault are also relational. Survivors of sexual assault are subject to additional interpersonal consequences when they encounter rejection or a lack of support from the community, society, family and friends after the assault. Symonds (2010) described these relational consequences as a “second injury” to sexual assault survivors. Miller (2009) has argued that the concept of relational harm is needed to understand the injuries of genocidal rape, but two of her points also help demonstrate the relational nature of the consequences of sexual assault in general. First, she illustrates that the meaning of harm is relationally constitutive, in the sense that harms can be mitigated or exacerbated by how family, friends and community respond to the violation. Second, she argues that harms inflicted interpersonally, such as sexual assault, can negatively damage relationships. Quantitative and qualitative inquiries discussed below have begun to shed light on the relational consequences of sexual assault in general and when sexual assault is perpetrated by someone known to the victim. It is worth noting that most studies exploring relational dimensions adhere to a “weak relationality,” meaning they conceptualize relationships as results of interactions between otherwise self-contained and separate persons. The relational framework that is adopted in the present study challenges us to see people inextricable from their relational contexts, and that the capacity to be in relation is the essence of human nature and crucial to our wellbeing. Research relevant to the relational dimensions of sexual assault. Research on sexual assault has suggested that when the perpetrator is known, victims are less likely to acknowledge the event as rape or assault and are less likely to disclose the event (Koss, Dinero, Sievel, & Cox, 1988). Koss (1993) proposed that there is a greater tendency to not believe or blame the victims RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 17 of acquaintance sexual assault compared to stranger assault; this may compound negative effects for those assaulted by someone they know. Patterns of disclosure as well as the associated impacts of it has been a major focus of sexual assault research. Many women do not tell anyone about being assaulted when it happens; less than half disclose within the first three days and up to a third wait a year before disclosing (Ahrens, Stansell, & Jennings, 2010). Silence is particularly common in cases of date or acquaintance assault (Hall, 1995, as cited in Guerette & Caron, 2007). It is estimated that two-thirds to threequarters of adult sexual assault survivors eventually disclose the assault (Ahrens et al., 2010). The majority (59-91%) of survivors turn to friends and family, rather than formal sources of support (Guerette & Caron, 2007). In an investigation of women who had been sexually assaulted by an acquaintance in college, the majority did not contact formal services (Guerette & Caron, 2007). These women cited self-blame, embarrassment and the desire not to define someone they know as a rapist as reasons for maintaining their silence. Additionally, mnay women who do seek help from legal, medical and mental health systems are frequently denied assistance or treated in ways that cause additional harm; this has been termed “secondary victimization” (Campbell, 2005; Campbell & Raja, 1999; Campbell et al., 1999; Campbell, Wasco, Ahrens, Sefl & Barnes, 2001). Research findings indicate that a general lack of social support impedes survivors’ recovery (Patricia, Dunn, & Vail-Smith, 1999), and greater levels of perceived social support are associated with less PTSD symptoms (Borja, Callahan, & Long, 2006). The protective effect of social support on PTSD has also been demonstrated in quantitative and qualitative reviews of PTSD after trauma in general (Brewin, Andrews, & Valentine, 2000; Ozer, Best, Lipsey, & Weiss, 2003; Wagner, Monson, & Hart, 2016). The results from a study of sexual assault survivors by Dworkin, Ojalehto et al. (2018) suggest that social support is longitudinally associated with decreases in PTSD. The relationship between social support and PTSD was also RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 18 explored by examining the daily diaries of sexual assault survivors with PTSD (Dworkin, Ullman, Stappenbeck, Brill, & Kaysen, 2018). These results suggest that social support was sought out after increases in PTSD, and when received consistently, might reduce symptoms of PTSD. The authors urge clinicians to consider ways they can help survivors of sexual assault increase access to social support. When specifically investigating the effects of disclosure, studies have found positive, neutral and negative associations with outcome measures of wellbeing. This is likely due to varied reactions that survivors receive upon disclosing, as different reactions are associated with various consequences. A review of empirical studies of social support and sexual assault found that negative responses, such as blaming the victim or treating her differently, show consistent and strong negative effects on survivors (Ullman, 1999). These negative responses are not uncommon from family members and romantic partners; few are adequately prepared to respond in a therapeutic way (Ullman, 2010). Survivors often receive a mixture of positive and negative reactions, making it difficult to distinguish how disclosures impact recovery. Nonetheless, various studies have found that negative social reactions have a far more profound impact on recovery than positive social reactions (Andrews, Brewin, & Rose, 2003; Campbell et al., 2001; Davis et al., 1991; Ullman, 1996, 1999, 2010; Ullman & Filipas, 2001 as cited in Ahrens & Aldana, 2012). Thus, strategies for social change that focus on reducing negative social reactions to disclosures have the potential to dramatically shift the landscape of healing in the context of sexual assault. A sample of 1863 adult sexual assault survivors were examined using path analysis to explore whether relationships between social reactions to disclosure and PTSD symptoms were mediated by perceived control over recovery and maladaptive, or adaptive coping strategies (Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014). Notably, the researchers distinguished between individual adaptive coping strategies and social adaptive coping strategies. Negative social reactions to RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 19 assault disclosure were related to greater PTSD symptoms through maladaptive coping strategies such as behavioral disengagement, denial, self-blame, and substance use. This is consistent with previous findings. Interestingly, while positive social reactions to disclosure were associated with more adaptive individual and social coping, only adaptive social coping strategies (such as trying to get help from others) predicted decreases in PTSD symptoms. This speaks to the distinct importance of relational healing in these sexual assault survivors’ recoveries. Positive social reactions to assault disclosure were also related to better perceived control over recovery, which was associated with less PTSD symptoms. Ullman and Peter-Hagene (2014) argue that if people can be taught how to respond more positively to survivors’ disclosures, then social supports can indirectly increase women’s perceived control over recovery and adaptive social coping and, in turn, potentially reduce PTSD symptoms. The body of research concerning impact of social reactions on sexual assault survivors’ wellbeing continues to grow. Less is known about how disclosure and reactions impact ongoing relationships. Research findings indicate that friends of sexual assault survivors experienced feelings of helplessness, inadequacy, anger, and frustration in response to disclosure, but it is not known how these responses affected relationships subsequently (Banyard, Moynihan, Walsh, Cohn, & Ward, 2010; Ahrens & Campbell, 2000). Ahrens and Aldana (2012) interviewed 76 rape survivors about 153 different disclosures they had made, classified by the quality of relationship (poor, friendly, close) rather than the type (friend, family, partner). Results indicated that positive support was more likely to be given in relationships that were considered close, and that most of such relationships either were strengthened or remained strong following the disclosure. Nearly a quarter of the relationships, however, were described as becoming more distant, becoming more strained, or even ending as a result of the disclosure. It is unsettling to imagine that in 1 of 4 cases, women felt that telling someone about what had happened to them RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 20 damaged the relationship. Disclosure in itself can be a daunting and difficult task for survivors, and harm can be compounded when this crucial part of recovery goes awry. Survivors who received entirely positive social reactions nearly always considered these reactions to be healing and survivors who received entirely negative social reactions nearly always considered these reactions to be hurtful (Ahrens & Aldana, 2012). Interestingly, when survivors received a mix of negative and positive reactions from support providers, as is often the case, it was the quality of the relationship pre-disclosure that determined the survivors’ response. In high quality relationships, negative reactions tended to be overlooked or minimized. This suggests that it is not just what the support provider says to the survivor, but who they are to the survivor. This highlights the complexity and nuance of relationships. Furthermore, following a qualitative inquiry, Dworkin, Newton, & Allen (2018) concluded that survivors vary in their perceptions of what are positive and negative reactions, and the context in which reactions occur affects how they are seen. To understand the quality of relationships and responses, we must go deeper than what words are exchanged within them and try to appreciate what elements and processes sustain them. Relationships are more than words and actions; they are dynamic processes that define our existence. A study conducted by Regehr and Marziali (1999) explored how relational capacity, the ability to sustain interpersonal relationships, relates to persistent PTSD symptoms. From their theoretical perspective, relational capacity is an intrinsic factor in human development. The authors emphasize the role of early attachment relationships with caregivers in creating mental templates for subsequent relationships. They hypothesized that those who have experienced close, harmonious relationships are more likely to recover successfully from trauma, while those who experience relational difficulties are more likely to suffer from chronic PTSD symptomology. Relational capacity was assessed using the Bell Objects Relations and Reality Testing Inventory (BORRTI; Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986) and the Inventory of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 21 Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz et al., 1988). The authors note that although any measure will be inherently inadequate in measuring the complexities of relational capacity, these two measures have been thoroughly tested for reliability and validity. Multivariate regression analyses found significant correlations between all subscales of the BORRTI and IIP and measures of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms. The subscales that predicted the greatest variance in symptoms were items that assessed difficulties in trusting others, expressing love towards others, and in forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships. This paints a picture of women whose challenges with trust and intimacy stagnate them in their suffering. The authors argue that while short-term crisis models of intervention may be sufficient for those with adequate relational capacity, they fail to address the relational difficulties of many sexual assault survivors. The studies reviewed above help illustrate the centrality of relationships in the wake of sexual assault. Sexual assault is both relational in its occurrence and subsequent impacts, and these dimensions of experience warrant further attention. While sexual assault constitutes a major relational rupture with significant relational consequences, these dimensions have been insufficiently explored, as approaches to understanding them have employed a “weak” relationality, in that relationships are seen as interactions between otherwise separate and selfcontained individuals. When relationships are seen as the basis for our existence, and our ability to relate as crucial to our wellbeing, a deeper understanding of the relational dimensions of sexual assault can be appreciated. Conceptualizations of Sexual Assault as Trauma In the literature, sexual assault is often conceptualized as a “traumatic event.” The implications of this framework, as well as advances in theory and research that move towards a greater understanding of the relational dimensions of sexual assault, such as betrayal trauma theory, are discussed below. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 22 The posttraumatic stress framework. Sexual assault is commonly considered a “traumatic event” that is often accompanied by the repercussions of posttraumatic stress disorder. In acknowledging the significance of sexual violence, the trauma framework offers legitimized clinical explanations for post-assault reactions, rather than the victim-blaming explanation of “hysteria”(Wasco, 2003). This framework has limitations, however, in the implications it offers survivors of sexual assault and in its ability to accurately capture the harm of this phenomenon. In the trauma model, the event is considered the root of distress. In the case of sexual victimization, the event of assault itself is undoubtedly injurious. The harm, however, does not begin or end with the event. The high incidence suggests that the problem extends beyond the wrongdoing of individual perpetrators and points to a process that is inextricably linked to social and cultural contexts. The endorsement of rape myths (Burt, 1980) and the proliferation of a culture that minimizes harm, blames victims, and makes perpetration “not that big of a deal,” is injurious before and after sexual assault, not just during. It has been noted, that the negative social reactions women receive in response to their disclosures of sexual assault can cause “secondary victimization” or “second injury”, additional wounding associated with increased distress and poor adjustment (Symonds, 2010; Ullman, 1996). Wounding, in this framework, is conceptualized as clusters of symptoms that exist intrapsychically and healing is conceptualized as the alleviation of these symptoms. The language of this approach can be pathologizing as it implies that distress in response to a traumatic event is an illness or disorder (Gómez, Lewis, Noll, Smidt, Birrell; 2016). The event was interpersonal in nature; however, the impact of the relational event becomes a problem to be managed or fixed by the person experiencing it (Gilfus, 1999). The posttraumatic stress framework also insufficiently captures the harm that can occur from traumas such as sexual assault. The DSM-5 notes that “feelings of detachment or RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 23 estrangement from others” (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013, p. 272) may occur in PTSD, but this a shallow illustration of interpersonal consequences of trauma that requires elaboration. The trauma model also fails to adequately capture the impact of sexual assault as not all reported consequences fall within our concepts of posttraumatic responses. While failing to account for responses that fall outside the PTSD criteria, this conceptualization may imply that alternate responses are “abnormal” or less legitimate than more classic distress reactions. Traditional notions of what constitutes a traumatic event emphasize threat to life, severe physical injury or being exposed to the death, life threat, or injury of others (Green, 1990). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) current defines trauma as exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. While sexual assault can be conceptualized as an act of violence, it is not always experienced or labelled as such due to the absence of life threat, physical injury or forced penetration (Kahn & Mathie, 2000). The DSM-5 distinguishes that for children, developmentally inappropriate sexual experiences without physical violence or injury are still classified as violent. It does not make the same distinction for adults who are sexually victimized in ways that are not considered physically violent. Briere and Scott (2015) contend that by excluding events such as these, by virtue of the lack of life threat or injury, the use of the DSM-5 undoubtedly underestimates the extent of actual trauma in the general population. Those who experience extreme emotional abuse, major losses or separation, degradation or humiliation, and non-violent sexual victimization are excluded from diagnostic definitions of trauma (Briere & Scott, 2015). Conceptualizations of trauma are broadening, however, while interpersonal trauma has been an area of great interest to clinicians and researchers, adequate revision to formal definitions are still needed, as is dissemination of relevant information. The DSM-5 does not make a distinction between noninterpersonal (e.g., natural disaster) and interpersonal trauma RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 24 (e.g., assault) in the categorization of events. A line to the PTSD diagnostic features has been added that alludes to the significance of interpersonal harm. It reads “The disorder may be especially severe or long-lasting when the stressor is interpersonal and intentional” (APA, 2013, p.275). While there is greater recognition that trauma inflicted by one person on another is especially harmful, an understanding and appreciation of the depth of relational dimensions of trauma has not been achieved. Betrayal trauma theory. The introduction betrayal trauma theory by Freyd (1994, 1996, 1999) and the subsequent program of research has made significant advancements in how the relational dimensions of some traumatic events and their sequelae are understood (Freyd, DePrince & Gleaves, 2007; Martin, Cromer, DePrince, & Freyd, 2013). Betrayal trauma theory (BTT) delineates two distinct dimensions of trauma: life-threat or fear and social betrayal and posits that they are associated with different post-traumatic outcomes. When compared with lowbetrayal trauma, studies have associated high-betrayal trauma with worse physical health (Goldsmith, Freyd, & DePrince, 2012), increased memory impairment (Freyd, DePrince, & Zurbriggen, 2001), heightened risk of revictimization (Gobin & Freyd, 2009), alexithymia, (Goldsmith et al., 2012), dissociation (Goldsmith et al., 2012), shame (Platt & Freyd, 2015), anxiety (Goldsmith et al., 2012), and avoidance (Goldsmith et al., 2012). Freyd explains that betrayal trauma occurs when people or institutions on which a person depends on for survival (such as a caregiver or university) violate him or her in significant ways. When victims are dependent on the perpetrator, instead of confronting the perpetrator or severing ties, they must ignore the trauma that has occurred in order to preserve the relationship (1996, 2001). A phenomenon referred to as betrayal blindness may occur, where victims may forget or ignore the trauma in order to maintain their attachment relationship (Birell, Bernstein, & Freyd, 2017). RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 25 Various studies of betrayal trauma employed The Brief Betrayal Trauma Survey (BBTS; Goldberg & Freyd, 2006) in order to create comparison groups of high and low betrayal. This instrument asks respondents to indicate the frequency in which they have experienced various traumas. Traumas with high betrayal include being “deliberately attacked severely by someone with whom you were very close”, being “made to have some form of sexual contact, such as touching or penetration, by someone with whom you were very close (such as a parent or lover)” and being “emotionally or psychologically mistreated over a significant period of time by someone with whom you were very close (such as a parent or lover).” Of note is that these survey items do not probe whether or not the victim was dependent on the perpetrator or not, but only the degree of felt closeness. It is plausible that one could be dependent on a caregiver for basic needs (food, shelter) but not feel close, or even trust to him or her. Conversely, one could feel close to a lover and yet have no degree of dependence on them. Traumas that are considered to have less betrayal include items such as being “deliberately attacked severely by someone with whom you were not close” and being “made to have such sexual contact by someone with whom you were not close.” There appears to be a binary imposed of “very close” and “not close” that cannot adequately capture or reflect the degrees of felt closeness, trust, or reliance between people. These inadequacies do not invalidate the findings of the betrayal trauma studies, as these distinctions of high and low betrayal have clearly and consistently illuminated meaningful differences in posttraumatic outcomes. They do, however, illuminate the need for research that can more adequately explore how the dimensions of trust, closeness and dependence impact survivors of trauma. Betrayal trauma theory has been extended to institutions, with the assumption that individuals are “dependent” on institutions, such as universities (Smith & Freyd, 2013). Institutional betrayal includes failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals (e.g. sexual assault) committed within the context of the institution (e.g., university RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 26 community). Using the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire (IBQ; Smith & Freyd, 2014), participants are asked whether or not they felt the institution played a role in their experiences of sexual victimization in seven potential ways (such as creating an environment in which this type of experience seemed common or like no big deal and making it difficult to report the experience). Multiple linear regressions revealed that women who associated the institution with their unwanted sexual experience reported increased levels of anxiety, trauma-specific sexual symptoms, dissociation and problematic sexual functioning. Smith and Freyd conclude that institutions have the power to cause additional harm to assault survivors by failing to protect and adequately support those entrusted to them, Researchers of betrayal trauma theory are providing valuable findings that demonstrate the significance of relational and social dimensions in post-traumatic outcomes. Betrayal is referred to as violation of trust or wellbeing by a person or institution the victim relies on for survival (Freyd, 2008). The evolutionary importance of the attachment relationship makes a compelling argument for the high level of dissociation reported in participants who have experience caregiver abuse. Dissociating from, or “forgetting” the abuse, allows the child to maintain attachment with a caregiver who is simultaneously feared and necessary for survival (Freyd, 1994). As discussed above, studies on betrayal trauma have not necessarily tapped into the degree of dependence between perpetrator and victim as the defining factor in the betrayal. Instead, there is a possibility that the experience of betrayal is not contingent on dependence, but perhaps closeness or trust. Furthermore, betrayal trauma theory contends that individuals depend on caregivers and institutions but this does not sufficiently address the multitude of other relationships that occur between and beyond these two levels. Researchers in nursing have employed betrayal trauma theory to describe adolescent dating abuse (Burton, Halpern-Felsher, Rankin, Rehm, & Humphreys, 2011). Contending that adolescents place a high value on relationships, and girls in particular are encouraged to sustain RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 27 positive relations, betrayal trauma theory provides an explanation for the harm incurred in dating abuse situations. I contend, however that as relational beings, who exist in relation and strive to be meaningfully connected, that the traumatic experience of betrayal can occur at any age, for any gender, and in any type of relationship. The experience of it is contingent on context and particulars, and ultimately whether or not the person in relation felt betrayed. At its core, betrayal is ‘a mismatch between what ‘should be’ (e.g., people do not intentionally harm one another) and what is (you have been harmed by another person) (DePrince & Freyd, 2002, p. 84). The unexpected violation of trust inherent in betrayal is relationally injurious. When our existence is contingent on our relations, and thenwe are unexpectedly harmed by others, our experience of our existence can be dramatically altered. It can be argued then that the experience of being sexually assaulted by someone whom one knows and trusts constitutes a major betrayal, and this relational dimension of sexual victimization has vital implications for both harm and healing. Furthermore, survivors of sexual assault have the potential to be harmed further if and when the people and institutions they rely on fail to respond appropriately. Thus, while betrayal trauma theory has legitimized the dimension of interpersonal betrayal as a distinct contribution to the experience of trauma, a relational framework is still needed in order to explore the various relational dimensions of betrayal and its consequences. Sexual assault from a relational framework. From a “strong” relationality, relationships are seen first, and individuals are seen as embedded and inextricable from these relationships. From this lens, the harm of sexual assault is interpersonal, and more. A relational framework posits that there are other relations where harm can be observed, such as the intrapersonal, how one relates to him or herself, and the corporeal, how one relates to his or her body. There are also non-personal relations worth considering such as how one relates to institutions, divine presences, and historical and cultural contexts. Interpersonal relations are given much weight, as they are “vitally involved in the quality of individual character” (Slife RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 28 2017, p. 6). Other relations, however, are not exempt from examination. The ripples of sexual assault reverberate throughout each person’s unique nexus of relationships. Furthermore, a relational framework seeks not only to identify “what” relations are impacted, but also to explore “how” these shifts in relations are experienced. This means examining relational contexts as the landscapes not only for harm but healing as well. From an ontological perspective, harm and healing exist in relation to each other. Examining one, but not the other, would be a distortion of ontological reality. Thus, this study seeks to explore the relational dimensions of both harm and healing in response to sexual assault. In order to explore these dimensions of harm and healing, the experience of being sexually assaulted, specifically by someone known and trusted, was selected for the present study. While all sexual assaults are relational in nature and impact, being assaulted by someone known and trusted contributes additional relational dimensions that serve to illuminate the phenomena of interest. Understanding acquaintance sexual assault from a relational framework also requires research grounded in a relational framework. In order to understand the relational dimensions of sexual assault, a methodological approach that valued relationality and experientialism was employed and is described in chapter three. Conclusion When women are unexpectedly sexually violated by someone they know they are affected relationally. From a lens that views humans as relational beings, and the capacity to relate well as central to wellbeing, this relational harm is worth attending to. In order to do this, we must stop talking about, and speaking for survivors of sexual assault, and instead listen to their first-hand accounts. By engaging with women and their stories of acquaintance sexual assault, a better appreciation of the relational harm and healing they experienced can be gained. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 29 This understanding is needed in order to adequately respond to the violation of sexual assault, as counsellors, but also as friends, family members, communities and cultures. This research seeks to explore the relational dimensions of acquaintance sexual assault. It specifically aims to generate an understanding of how women experience relational harm and healing in response to instances of sexually assaulted perpetrated by a trusted acquaintance. Furthermore, this study was designed to provide opportunities for women to share their lived experiences and participate in research in ways that promoted their healing. There is also an emphasis of bringing the voices of survivors to the literature and social discourse and challenging existing understandings of sexual assault, trauma, and betrayal. The primary research question that has guided the present study is: How do women experience the relational dimensions of acquaintance sexual assault? More specific inquiries are separated into sub-questions. How do women experience relational harm in response to sexual assault? How do women experience relational healing in response to sexual assault? And what do women yearn for relationally after sexual assault? RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 30 CHAPTER THREE: METHOD This chapter opens by outlining the design of the present study along with the methodological and paradigmatic considerations. Rationales for the method used in this qualitative inquiry, the Listening Guide and the incorporation of sandtrays are provided. A detailed examination of procedures for recruitment, sampling, and data collection will follow. The chapter closes with an in-depth explanation of the processes of data analysis. Design This qualitative study relied on participants’ creation of sandtrays as a way to access experience combined with semi-structured interviews to generate and collect information. Data analysis followed Brown and Gilligan’s voice-centred relational method, the Listening Guide, which serves as “a pathway into relationship rather than a fixed framework for interpretation” (1992, p. 22). This innovative design aligns with Merten’s (2009) description of a transformative paradigm, which is consistent with the values and metaphysical assumptions of a strong relationality. Methodological and paradigmatic considerations. The domain of scientific inquiry has long been dominated by individualistic and abstract notions of experience, often deemed ‘the scientific method’ (Ponterotto, 2005). In this post-positivist paradigm, it is assumed that researchers and their subjects are separate. This division is encouraged, as the chasm is meant to create ‘observable objectivity’. If the relations between the researchers and the subjects are not managed and minimized, then the belief is that the researchers’ values, beliefs and expectations risk contaminating the reality that is meant to be examined. Subjectivity is reduced in order to attain objectivity. It has been suggested, however, that all methods of research are laden with values, assumptions about what is real and what is valuable (Gergen, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Slife 2008). The pursuit of ‘value-free’ inquiry is paradoxical as it rests RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 31 on certain values: beliefs about what is real, what is possible, and what is important. It rests on the assumption that the world is “dualistic” and can be separated into objective and subjective realms (Richardson, Fowers, & Guignon (1999) as cited in Slife (2008)). Methods also attend to selective aspects of the world, such as observables over unobservables (materialism), unchangeable and universal realities (reductionism), and laws that predict behaviour (determinism). These assumptions are based on certain values, and methods governed by them do not discover sorts of independent phenomena, but, describe phenomena from the lens of these values (Gergen, 2009). It does not mean that the findings are distorted, but rather they are selective and therefore incomplete (Slife, 2008). These traditional methods reinforce the notions of individualism, or weak relationality. They also create a hierarchy that favours the knowledge of the researcher, over the subject who can be known only through objective observation. This allows the researcher to dismiss the knowledge claims of subjects as biased, and therefore not a meaningful reflection of the objective reality being ‘discovered’ (Gergen, 2009). From a strong relationality, a “rich or thick sense” of relations or meanings is pursued (Slife, 2004). Instead of reducing away from context and subjectivity, phenomena are best understood as relationally tied to other things. The particulars of everyday experience, the knowledge of the subject, and the relation between researcher and subject are valued and explored. Indeed, the observable subject becomes a “participant” who is actively engaged in epistemology. Research will always be subject to some abstractions as it is communicated through words which are bound by limitations of language. It is highlighted though, that the descriptions of experiences are not considered real, but simply a move towards a richer, more relational description of experience. This complimentary approach is necessary in order to better grasp aspects of experience that have been overlooked by post-positivist inquiries. Rather than focusing on what is observable apart from context, or constructs operationalized in RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 32 individualistic ways, language is used to refer to something more fundamental and real: “the concrete, situated, and engaged actions of ourselves and others” (Slife & Wiggins, 2009, p. 20). Knowledge then, can only be known through values, interpretations and abstractions. The aim then does not become to remove values from research, but to align methods and paradigms whose inherent values illuminate the phenomena of interest (Slife, 2008). If relational experience is of interest, then methods that value relationality and experientialism are appropriate. Rather than conducting research on and about people, research becomes a process with and for people. Minimizing the relationship between researcher and subject constitutes a distortion of ontological reality. Instead, the quality of human relations in the research setting is considered inextricably connected to the validity of knowledge gleaned or constructed (Kirkhart, 2010). As discussed, research from a strong relational perspective seeks a “rich or thick sense” of relational phenomena (Slife, 2004). Rather than attempting to remove context for the sake of “objectivity”, a relational researcher seeks to understand experience in a way that is contextbound and makes the values inherent in its inquiry explicit. It is not that the knowledge gleaned from post-positivist research is misguided or distorted, but simply that it aligns with its values of individualism, materialism, reductionism and determinism. Given that all processes of inquiry are laden with values, the task becomes not to “remove” values, but to select methods and paradigms whose inherent values are suited to illuminate the subject at hand (Slife, 2008). An interest in relational harm and healing in the context of sexual assault calls for qualitative inquiry as it is poised to explore contextual experiences and their meanings in an indepth manner (Mertens, 2015). The face-to-face nature of semi-structured interviews honours the sensitivity of the topic and the trust needed to explore it, while legitimizing the knowledge of the interviewee and acknowledging the collaborative process of information generation. In addition to a relational understanding of epistemology, I also seek to take a survivor-centred stance. This involves “…the acknowledgment of the survivor as a complete human being, with a cultural and RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 33 historical context, capable of expert knowledge, who is a subject in her or his own right, to be viewed through a lens of loving perception” (Gilfus, 1999, p. 1253). It is important to ground theory, including trauma theory, in the understandings of survivors themselves, as survivors’ perspectives can challenge assumptions inherent in some current conceptualizations of trauma that can be pathologizing, such as the notion that posttraumatic stress constitutes a disorder to be managed or treated. Combining this with an intentional exploration of the relational contexts in which trauma occurs, we are able to broaden our understanding of posttraumatic responses, seeing them as reasonable responses to relational processes rather than indicators of intrapsychic disorder. While a relational ontology may be considered its own approach to research, it is not a recognized paradigm. Furthermore, there are aspects of the present study that align with the values and characteristics of the transformative paradigm as described by Mertens (2009, 2015). This project specifically inquires into the marginalized experience of sexual victimization perpetrated by someone known to the victim. As power and oppression are integral parts of the relational context, this research may shed light on how these factors stagnate survivors in their silence and suffering. Also consistent with the aims of the transformative paradigm, this project carries the goal of improving the lives of those studied. Participation in research has been demonstrated to have benefits for survivors of sexual assault (Nielsen, Hansen, Elklit, & Bramsen, 2016), and survivors of trauma in general (Griffin, Resick, Waldrop, & Mechanic, 2003; Newman, Walker, Gefland, 1999). The process of participation in this study has been intentionally designed to provide participants with opportunities for personal healing and transformation. A deep respect is given to participants’ voice, at every stage of the research process, and care was taken to ensure participants feel heard, understood and honoured. Sexual victimization can create a sense of powerlessness; power is restored to participants in the process of research by giving authority to RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 34 their voice. Not only are they considered experts of their experiences, they are also given opportunities to make choices and have them be upheld. At the systemic level, the results are tied to social justice as the dissemination is intended to foster a greater understanding of the phenomena of sexual violence. Furthermore, the findings can be used inform counsellors, social supports, communities and cultures on how to respond to acquaintance sexual assault and other interpersonal violations. Beyond the academic project of the thesis, I also plan to speak publicly about this research at institutions, organizations and community settings. One such event occurred in September 2018 when the research supervisor Dr. Kwee and I gave a public lecture on “Beyond #metoo” as part of Trinity Western University’s Gender Studies Institute. The results from this research informed our description of a more intentional approach to healing and change in the wake of staggering statistics of sexual violence. Furthermore, a deeper understanding of the relational context of acquaintance sexual assault may not align neatly with currently accepted notions of trauma and posttraumatic responses. The lived experiences of survivors may not be congruent with reified conceptualizations, challenging us to expand our understandings of sexual assault: how it happens, how it harms, and how those who have suffered experience healing. Rationale for sandtrays. Sandtrays (STs) are a method of therapeutic intervention, often used within the context of play-based therapies (Mitchell & Friedman, 1994). They involve asking people to build scenes in a miniature sandbox using a diverse variety of small figures (toys or other objects that can be used to represent salient aspects of a client’s world). The box itself can be a variety of shapes and sizes, but some experts have recommended dimensions of 30 inches by 20 inches and 4 inches deep as this captures a person’s full scope of vision (Garett, 2013). The box can be made from wood, plastic or metal and is filled with sand or rice. The client is invited to use the medium (sand or rice) and the figures, typically toys or objects that RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 35 represent of people, places, feelings, meanings, and so forth, to create a scene. This enables clients to use nonverbal expression and their inherent creativity to explore and share their world. Once a scene has been completed, it is typically processed verbally during the therapy session. While widely recognized as a valuable tool for therapeutic exploration (Garrett, 2013), sandtrays can also add unique value to research inquiries, especially those that investigate traumatic experiences. Sandtrays can naturally bring issues from the subconscious to be expressed at a visual and therefore conscious level (Garett, 2013). How this occurs in the context of traumatic memory goes beyond Freudian speculation, as it has been elucidated by contemporary neuroscience. The field of neurobiology has demonstrated that traumatic memories are usually encoded differently than everyday events (Badenoch, 2008; Schore, 2003; van der Kolk, 2015; van der Kolk & Fisler, 1995) When a person experiences an event that is inescapable and overwhelming (i.e. traumatic), it appears that the influx of stress chemicals as well as the mind’s tendency to dissociate under extreme stress creates implicit, rather than explicit memories. The recall of traumatic events and their consequences are organized not as coherent narratives but in fragmented sensory and emotional traces (van der Kolk, 2015). Trauma is “remembered” in the implicit imprint of these sensory and affective elements of the experience, not the logical details of it. It is plausible that sandtrays provide the safety and space for the emergence of implicit memories, and in a fashion that allows the coherent integration of them. The fragmentation, dissociation and silencing of experience has been noted specifically in reference to betrayal and relational trauma (Birrell & Freyd, 2006; Platt & Freyd, 2015). When violation occurs in the context of relationships, the experience of being connected to another person is damaged. This results not only in the tragic disconnection from others, but also in a disconnection from oneself and what one knows. In order to survive, Birrell and Freyd (2006) explain that a victim of betrayal must silence parts of themselves and their experience. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 36 Maintaining silencing can be adaptive when relationships with perpetrators are ongoing, as consciously knowing or disclosing details may cause direct or indirect harm to one or more relationships. Healing, however, ultimately requires the surfacing of these “silenced knowings” (Lorenz & Watkins, 2001 as cited in Birrell & Freyd, 2006). What has been silenced and kept out of conscious awareness is not lost, and it may emerge and be realized in the context of a safe, supportive, environment. Sandtrays allow for the spontaneous emergence of implicit knowings that may not surface through verbal expression. It is also a medium that can do so in a safe and contained way. The symbolic representation of experience creates a sense of distance that can prevent feelings of overwhelm, and the physical contact with sand can be a soothing or even a relaxing experience (Homeyer & Sweeney, 2011). The tray itself also provides a literal safe and contained space, and this helps people keep their experiences within manageable limits. Sandtrays are also well suited to explore and understand relational aspects of experiences. Various components of a person’s world, such as people, places and parts of self, can be symbolically represented through figures, and relationships between these figures can be displayed in a three-dimensional landscape. Location and proximity of objects can change, elements can enter or exit the tray, and sand can be used to build, bury, or destroy. Going beyond the verbal allows for visual exploration of traumatic experience that can be powerfully visceral for both the creator and observer, while remaining safe and contained. This allows for a more indepth understanding of relational harm and healing in the context of acquaintance sexual assault. Rationale for Listening Guide. The Listening Guide (Gilligan, 1992) provided a thorough and uniquely attuned method for data analysis as well as a relational framework to guide the process of the study as a whole. This approach to qualitative data attends to the interplays of voices, the dynamics of research relationships, and cultural settings to provide a contextual framework for transcript analysis (Gilligan, 1992; Gilligan, 2015; Gilligan, Spencer, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 37 Weinberg, Bertsch, 2003). The Listening Guide was created in response to the androcentrism in psychological research and theory in the 1980’s and the constraints of current binary coding approaches to qualitative data. It consists of a series of sequential readings, referred to as “listenings” to emphasize the attention and receptivity needed by researchers to hear and understand participants’ stories. Each listening is “designed to bring the researcher into relationship with a person’s distinct and multilayered voice by tuning in or listening to distinct aspect of a person’s expression of her or his experience within a particular relational context” (Gilligan et al., 2003, p. 159). Designed to access and understand the complexity of marginalized, experiences, with an emphasis on entering relationship to understand people in their relational contexts, the Listening Guide is well suited for the present study. The Listening Guide is positioned to explore experiences that are not well understood through its unique focus on voice: who is speaking and to whom, telling what stories about relationship, in what societal and cultural frameworks (Brown & Gilligan, 1992). Many systems for coding data reduce the complexity of human expression into placement in single static categories. The reiterative listenings of this method, however, allows multiple “voices” to emerge, and examines the relationships among them. One segment of text may contain more than one voice, and the voices that emerge may be in harmony or contrast with each other. It also requires the researcher to examine societal and cultural frameworks and his or her own affective response to the stories and voices that are identified. It is also sensitive to how voices emerge, and what remains unspoken, potentially due to internal process of dissociation and/or external force of oppression. This is accomplished through listening to associative streams in narratives and listening for a voice that knows implicitly but has not emerged explicitly. This is of particular relevance in the context of acquaintance sexual assault and betrayal, where aspects of experience may be kept out of awareness in order to preserve relationships. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 38 Gilligan (1992) also urges that researchers take responsibility for creating space and safety for participants, enabling them to share their stories with someone that feels trustworthy. She proposes that the way of listening created by this voice-centred, relational method instills trust; the sort of trust that enables people to speak truthfully about their experiences, knowing that the researchers will bring their voices into the research literature with integrity and authenticity. This is due, in part, to the call on the researcher to open themselves to the experience of the interview. Instead of pursuing distance and neutrality in the research relationship, depth and subjectivity can be windows into information. Researchers are required to note their social location in relation to each participant, their subjective responses to what is heard, their own voices, and then to reflect on, and be challenged by how this might impact their understanding of the persons and the stories being told. The Listening Guide provides a framework for analysis that is structured and rigorous, while remaining flexible and artistic. Gilligan says, Like love, art has the power to cross boundaries and open doors that have seemingly been nailed shut. What happens when we replace judgment with curiosity? Rather than putting ourselves in the shoes of the other, we would do better to put on our shoes and go to the other to learn from them about their place. (2014, p. 104) The Listening Guide approach to analysis is complementary to the access to experience from sandtrays in that both are nuanced explorations of the complex interplay of inner and outer relational worlds. Participants and Recruitment Participants were recruited via a social media post on my personal Facebook page that was subsequently shared by various colleagues and friends (Appendix A). This resulted in a combination of participants that I was acquainted with and those who I did not have any prior contact with. The decision to invite participants with whom I had prior relationship or familiarity RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 39 with was made based on the relational ethos of this project and the belief that the trust that the interviewee felt with the interviewer would enrichen rather than distort the data. Participants who had a relationship with myself prior to the interview were asked to consider and reflect on how their participation may pose risks to them and affect their relationship with me and the settings in which we knew each other afterwards. The posting included a picture of a sandtray and explained that the general purpose of the research was to shed light on the relational impacts of being sexually violated. Given that many women do not acknowledge or explicitly label their experience as “sexual assault” and may find this term incongruent with their personal experience (Johnstone, 2013, 2016; Orchowski, Untied, & Gidycz, 2013), the term “unwanted sexual experience” was used in recruitment materials. In addition, a nuanced series of queries such as “Have you ever felt pushed into or unwillingly involved in sexual acts?” were used to help potential participants identify their experience as relevant. Women ages 19 years and above who have had one or more of these experiences and were interested in sharing about this experience during a 1.5 - 2 hour interview were invited to contact the primary researcher, myself, over the phone or by email. Over e-mail, eight women expressed a desire to participate and were sent a follow-up message (Appendix B) that re-iterated the procedures and purposes of the study and asked for suggested times to schedule a follow-up phone call. Participants were screened for participation during the phone call (refer to Appendix C for screening questions). Inclusion criteria required that participants be adult women who had experienced at least one acquaintance sexual assault between the ages of 15 and 24 years old. The particular range is of interest as the rate of sexual assault for Canadians aged 15 to 24 was almost 18 times greater than the rate recorded for Canadians aged 55 years and older (Brennan & Taylor-Butts, 2008). The onset of adolescence has also been identified as a time when relationships take on particular importance to girls (Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Burtonet al., 2011). RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 40 Additional inclusion criteria required that participants were sexually assaulted by someone they knew, an acquaintance (classmate, colleague, romantic partner, etc) but not a family member. Participants were also asked if they trusted the perpetrator before the event, in the sense that they explicitly or implicitly assumed the perpetrator would not sexual assault them. As the relational dimension of betrayal is conceptualized as a violation of trust, or a mismatch between what was expected and what occurred, only women who reported they were surprised that the assault occurred were included. Criteria also required that women had ongoing relationships with perpetrators in the sense that they encountered, or there was a chance they would encounter them, in social settings after the assault (such as work, school or otherwise). This was part of inclusion criteria as it specifically selected experiences where the perpetrator remained an active part of the participant's relational context after the assault. This has important relational implications that were desirable to examine in the present study (i.e., how do participants handle their perpetrator’s proximity as opposed to being assaulted by a stranger or someone who was never seen again). During the follow-up phone call, I asked respondents questions about past and current mental concerns and resources for coping. This was done to assess whether participation may pose greater risk than benefit. Exclusion criteria included the self-identification of severe substance abuse in the past three months, recent hospitalization for mental health concerns, and the absence of social support. Respondents were also asked to reflect on why they would like to participate what it would be like to share their story. Respondents were also informed I was interested in the impact of the unwanted sexual experience rather than the particulars of how it happened, and that they were not required to recall these details (although they were welcome to provide them if they wished). This was done to structure safety into the interview process. I did not want any RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 41 participants to assume they would be required to talk about the event itself in detail, but rather be given permission to discern for themselves what they would like to share during the interview. One respondent did not meet inclusion criteria as she advised she did not trust the perpetrator prior to the event and was not surprised when it happened. I offered and completed an interview with this woman, nonetheless, as a way of honouring her experience even though her data was not included in the present study. Another respondent advised she would need to contact me at a later time in order to schedule an interview but did not. The remaining six women scheduled interviews, and these were included in the data set. Four of these women were familiar with me though social or school settings and two had no prior relationship with me. In consideration of the rigour of the method, a sample size of six was chosen to allow the best study possible within the researcher’s time constraints and the scope of a thesis. The sample size would be considered sufficient if during the data analysis process, “saturation” was reached, and we agreed a research team that further data collection would only yield similar results and not spark any new theoretical insights (Faulkner & Trotter, 2017). Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted at Fraser River Counselling Centre located on the Trinity Western University campus. This facility provided a counselling room with a large collection of figures visually displayed on wall shelves that could be used for sandtrays. I read the consent form (Appendix D) to each woman and invited them to ask any questions. Each woman consented to wearing a chest-mounted GoPro video camera in order to capture the creation of their sandtrays, having their trays photographed by me, as well as being audio recorded for the purposes of the research. I explained that, in addition to speaking about their experiences, participants would be asked to create various scenes in the sandtray using the tray, the sand and the figures on the wall. Participants were reminded that there was no right or wrong way to create scenes and they could RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 42 do so in whatever manner they like. They were also invited to change their scene at any time during the interview if they desired. An interview guide is provided in Appendix E. The interview process took an average of 1.5 hours for each participant. In the first directive, women were asked to show how they experienced their world before the unwanted sexual experience. This was aimed at capturing a retrospective view of the participants’ relational life prior to the sexual assault: the people, places, activities that were part of their world as well as how they viewed themselves in relation to their world. In the second directive, women were asked to show what happened when the sexual experience took place and how they were impacted by it. The purpose of this directive was to capture how womens’ experiences of their worlds and themselves were altered in response to the sexual assault. At this time during the interview, I expressed that this was an opportunity for women to share about their unwanted sexual experience in as much or as little detail as they wished but I reminded them that they were not required to speak about the particulars of the event. I wanted women to choose whether or not to discuss the details of their assault experience, so that those who had the intention of telling their story had the opportunity to do so, but that women who preferred not to could have their experiences validated nonetheless. It was important to give women a sense of agency and control of their stories, which was also achieved through women’s creation of their sandtrays. The third directive was to show how their world feels now. This sought to illuminate what shifts have occurred as well as the lasting impact of sexual assault on their lives. The last directive asked women to look at their current tray and consider whether there as anything they wish were different and to reflect that in the tray by adding, removing or changing the positions of figures. This gave women an opportunity to consider and demonstrate any yearnings as well as concluding a potentially distressing reflection on the past with a focus on current circumstances and an orientation towards the future. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 43 After participants created a scene in the sandtray, I invited them to share about their scene and then queried about the various figures included, and the feelings that existed between the figures. I also oriented the participants towards their current experience, asking them what they noticed in terms of their thoughts, emotions and somatic responses, as they looked at their scene or a particular element of their tray. I purposely focused my questions on what participants displayed with the intention of honouring their control over their narrative during the interview process. Questions regarding contextual details were kept at a minimum except when needed to clarify an aspect of the participant’s experience that was unclear. This was done to provide an atmosphere of nonjudgmental listening, conveying that the particulars of how participants were assaulted or how they acted during or afterwards were not relevant to whether or not they had been harmed. Various participants commented afterwards how this aspect of the interview helped them feel safe. At various times during each interview, I also disclosed elements of how I was being impacted in the here-and-now by participants’ scenes. These disclosures consisted of authentic affective and somatic responses that would reasonably be believed to be helpful and not harmful to the participant (such as “I feel a heaviness in my chest when I look at…...”; “I notice I smile when you….” or “It makes me angry when….). This was done to model an orientation to the here-and-now experience of the interview as well as convey to participants that their stories were taken seriously and felt personally in the relational context of the research setting. For each scene, participants were also asked to change seats with myself so that they looked at their scene from a different viewpoint. I took bird’s eye view photographs of the scene during the switch before proceeding to ask the participant to reflect on the tray again from this new angle. When the participant advised that there was nothing else they wished to share about their last scene, I concluded the interview with an expression of appreciation for the participant’s RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 44 willingness to share their story and summary of how I had been impressed upon during the process. My hope was to convey that the participant’s voice had been valued and that her story was impactful. I then asked women about their experiences of the interview so that I could improve how I conducted interviews in the future. I asked them to note if there was anything particularly good or bad, anything I should have asked, not asked, or would be helpful to ask other women, anything that could have made their experience better, and if there was anything else they wished to share. In general, participants were satisfied with the interview process and did not have much in the way of suggestions on how to improve it. Their responses, however, highlighted what aspects of their experiences they had a desire to be asked more questions about, prompting insights into the yearnings aspect of the research question. The debrief questions are included as part of the interview protocol outlined in Appendix E. Lastly, participants were given the option of being guided through a 5-minute visual relaxation exercise (Appendix F). To conclude the interview, I read a letter of appreciation out loud to each participant (Appendix G). Each participant was also given an information packet with various resources adapted from the resources provided to participants in Johnstone’s (2013) study with sexual assault survivors (Appendix H). Participants were also invited to contact me by phone or email if they had any questions, comments or concerns after the interview. Data Analysis In this section, the procedures for transcription, data analysis and the integration of sandtrays are discussed, followed by an examination of quality and rigour according to Tracy’s (2010) criteria. Transcription process. Audio and visual recordings of interviews were reviewed by the primary researcher and verbatim transcripts generated. Utterances such as sighs, cries and laughter, as well as changes in tone and volume of participants’ speech were recorded. Sustained silences and halts and hesitations in speech were also included, as the Listening Guide method RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 45 asks that we listen to what remains unspoken. To prevent deductive disclosure, identifying details such as names of people, places, institutions were changed to pseudonyms or redacted immediately. Photographs of the sandtrays were included in final transcripts as well as written descriptions of any additional modifications made to the trays during the interview. Integration of sandtrays. The inclusion of sandtrays as part of the interview was a novel methodological procedure, and as such no guidelines exist for how they are to be integrated in the analysis process. Sandtrays in this study were used as an “access to experience” rather than a “tool for analysis.” Their purpose was to facilitate the interviews by providing participants with a medium in which to express their experience. Meanings that arose from the scenes in the trays were generated during the interviews by participants and not from those conducting the analysis. Photographs of the sandtrays were included in final transcripts as were written descriptions of any additional modifications made to the trays during the interview. This provided sufficient clarity when analyzing the transcripts. Listening Guide procedure. Data analysis was comprised of multiple readings, considered “listenings” to reflect the active engagement needed to hear each participant’s narrative. Each listening attuned to a different aspect of the text, either harm, healing, or yearning, and these sequential listenings created a “trail of evidence” for later interpretations. As the text was read through, relevant information was underlined in different colours, and notes and summaries are written at each step. Congruent with the relational lens of this research, the first three steps of the Listening Guide occurred in the context of an “interpretive community” which was comprised of myself and at least one additional “listener.” These additional listeners, or co-researchers, were comprised of graduate psychology students or professionals in allied fields who had an interest in sexual assault. For each participant, an interpretive community was formed, so that their transcript could be analyzed by at least two people. The purpose of the interpretive community RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 46 was to create a larger relational space wherein the “words and the silences, the stories and narratives of other people” (Brown & Gilligan, 1992, p. 22) could echo and resonate differently with different people. This allowed us to compare and contrast our findings with each other, illuminating potential biases or short-sightedness and ultimately creating a richer more nuanced exploration of the data. Taylor, Gilligan, and Sullivan explain that “it is precisely our differences that lead us to interpretations that lead us forward” (p. 29) In order to assess our relational posture towards each other and the data, each listener would “check-in” before beginning analysis and share how they were presently feeling. Step one: listening for the plot. This step asks, “What are the psychological features of this terrain?” with the accompanying goal of illustrating the stories being told and the researchers’ responses to them. In identifying the plot, the listeners tuned into the story: what is happening, where, when, with whom, and why. Images, metaphors and themes were noted, as well as contradictions and absences, and the identification of the social context. Each listener wrote summaries of the plot and also noted their responses to the story: what feelings and thoughts emerged when listening and where and how they felt connected and disconnected to the participant. We shared our summaries and responses to the stories with each other, identifying our own voices as separate from those of the participants’ in an effort to avoid ventriloquizing our participants. This process also challenged us as researchers to be aware of how our own responses might influence our understandings of the person and the stories being told and examine how other listeners may come to the same or different conclusions. Step two: listening for the I or “I Poems”. The second step of the Listening Guide is unique. It asks, “How does the first person move across this terrain?” by tuning into the voice of the participant (the “I”), how she speaks about herself and how this shifts. Through this process, the researcher is asked to listen carefully to what the participant knows about herself before trying to speak for her. This was done by underlining every first-person “I” in the text, along RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 47 with the subsequent verb and seemingly important accompanying words. These underlined sections are then placed sequentially in new lines, like poems. This created a poetic cadence that follows the associative stream that is weaved throughout the narrative. Stanza breaks are often created when it appears the “I” shifts direction. “I Poems” were read and discussed in the interpretive communities following our discussion of the plot. An example of a complete I poem is provided in Appendix I. Step three: listening for contrapuntal voices. This step consisted of a series of iterative listenings that asks, “What voices inform the research question(s)?” The goal was to identify different voices emerging from the transcripts that speak to relational experience of harm, healing and yearnings. The concept of contrapuntal comes from musical form of counterpoint, in which two or more melodic lines are played simultaneously. The voices are like melodies, they move in relationship to one another and may exist in harmony, be complimentary, contradictory or even cacophonous. The text was read through multiple times, listening for voices of harm and healing, and specific colours were used to underline the appearance of each. After each listening, the interpretive community analyzed the text line by line, discussing each example of harm, healing and yearning we had heard. Then the various voices that spoke to harm and healing were described and markers that indicated their presence were identified. For example, markers of the voice of “confusion” were hesitancies or halts in speech, a lack of understanding or awareness (statements of “I don’t know”) or questioning one’s own voice or ability to know (“I guess”, “Maybe”, “But, who’s to say?”). This resulted in the identification of five voices of harm and five parallel voices of healing. Then, the text was read through another time to listen for yearnings. These iterative readings helped illustrate the context in which different voices emerged in and how they emerged in relation to each other. The process of reading and then dialoguing as a interpretive community continued until we agreed that all elements of harm and healing in the text had been fully represented by the voices. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 48 Step four: composing an analysis. The final stage asks, “What has been learnt about the research question(s) through the process and how has it come to be known?” In this step, the trail of evidence (notes, summaries, underlined transcripts, and I poems) were synthesized to compose an essay. I printed an additional copy of each transcript, and then read through it an additional time, comparing the various transcripts and notes from the interpretive community, and using a separate colour to represent the ten voices that had been identified in step three. This transcript provided a visual representation of how these voices moved in relation to one another. Interviews from multiple participants were explored in relation to one another, revealing similarities and differences and at times sparking new insights that prompted a return to step three, additional listening to clarify voices. For each participant, I wrote a summary of the narrative, depicting their shifts in relational harm and healing by including the accompanying voices in parentheses (refer to Appendix J for example of a participant’s composite step four essay.) Participant reflections. I shared the analysis process and outcomes with each participant to ensure it felt congruent with her experience but also to be open to any new findings or insights that occurred from our dialogue. I explained the process of the analysis, shared physical transcripts and sandtray photos and then read the step four summary to each participant. Participants were invited to ask questions or provide feedback at any time. Every participant agreed that the summary had captured her experience accurately and no changes to the voices or impressions were made. More nuanced understandings of experiences were created however as participants relayed new aspects of their story to me. I then shared a summary of the common themes that had occurred across the various participants stories, locating how the participants story had been similar to others but also highlighting how her narrative had contributed uniquely to our understanding of relational harm and healing in the context of sexual assault. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 49 Quality and rigour. Specific criteria for quality and rigour have been established for different methods and different paradigms. In an article published in Sage’s Qualitative Inquiry journal, Tracy (2010) proposed eight “big tent” criteria for excellence that could be universally applied while still appreciating the complex difference amongst various paradigms. In addition to rigour inherent in the Listening Guide methodology, Tracy’s criteria will be used to demonstrate the quality and rigour of the present study. The first criterion for excellence is whether the topic of research is worthy: is the topic relevant, timely, significant, interesting or evocative? Inquiry into sexual assault is needed given its jarringly frequent occurrence and its devastating impacts. Furthermore, research from a deeply relational perspective is needed to challenge, and/or expand on the taken-for-granted assumptions and well-accepted ideas that accompany and arise from reductionist paradigms. Tracy’s (2010) second focus is rigour. This concerns the researcher’s familiarity with theoretical constructs, the adequacy of the data, and the time and care given to data collection and analysis procedures. A window into the primary researcher’s theoretical knowledge has been demonstrated in the literature review, and the intensive nature of data analysis procedures have been described. Tracy borrows the concept “requisite variety” (Weick, 2007) from cybernetics. It refers to the necessity of a sensing device that is adequately complex to register what is being studied. In qualitative research, Tracy (2010) describes this is akin to a researcher who is well versed in theories and has the rich and abundant data required to see nuance and complexity. I would also expand this concept to the rationale for integrating sandtrays in the methodology, as their three-dimensional and dynamic nature are well suited to register the complexities of the relational world. The third criterion is sincerity which reflects the researcher’s responsibilities to be selfreflexive about values, biases and inclinations and transparent about the method and challenges. The Listening Guide demands explicit self-reflexivity, and this has also been pursued through the RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 50 use of personal pronouns (the writer’s voice) in this text. Furthermore, I kept a research journal that described the development of my understandings and challenges encountered during the process. The fourth criterion concerns credibility (or trustworthiness). This was achieved through the thick descriptions generated by the Listening Guide. These descriptions also include tacit knowledge, an examination of what is communicated but not said. Ellingson’s (2008 as cited in Tracy, 2010) concept of crystallization is also fulfilled through the use of two methods of data generation (sandtrays and interviews), and because data analysis requires perspectives from the “interpretive community.” The use of multiple researchers/listeners with different sociocultural backgrounds, life experiences and a diversity of theoretical familiarities created a more complex and in-depth understandings of the research questions. Sincerity is also pursued through multivocality: multiple and varied voices in the qualitative analysis and report (including the voices of researchers and various voices of participants). Participants were also asked to review and discuss the findings from data analysis in the member reflections. The word reflections is used in lieu of checks, as the purpose was not to simply to confirm whether the researcher “got it right” but to generate new data and insights and help illuminate answers to the research questions. Fifth is resonance, which is the ability of research to affect an audience by promoting empathy and reverberation. I endeavour to present this research in various venues, but always in a way that encourages readers and listeners to “feel, think, interpret, react or change” (Tracy, 2010, p. 845). This is bolstered through the aesthetic merit of sandtrays, as exposure to scenes created by the participants can evoke audience responses, giving them a glance into how it feels to be in the participant’s world. Transferability may also occur wherein readers have vicarious emotional experience. Even for those who have not experienced sexual assault, many if not most people have experienced relational betrayal. I hope that readers can relate to the fragility and RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 51 resilience of human life, and the shared essence of our relational nature. Consistent with Polkinghorne (2004), Stake and Trumbull (1982) argue that the feeling of personal knowing and experience is what leads to improved practice, rather than formally situated “knowledge.” Thus, readers may experience naturalistic generalizations, an intuitive process that changes the way we respond to our world. This is especially relevant to counselling psychology, as the findings from this study can explicitly and implicitly inform how to work with survivors of sexual assault and other interpersonal harm. The sixth criterion evaluates whether the research makes a significant contribution. The theoretical, methodological and practical significance of the present study are discussed in the fifth. The seventh criterion concerns ethical considerations. These have been discussed throughout the current chapter and are also inherent considerations in the relational and transformative approach of this project. The final criterion of Tracy’s (2010) model is meaningful coherence. This will be fulfilled by the study achieving what it purports to be about, providing a deeply relational exploration of women’s experiences of acquaintance sexual assault and betrayal. This occurred through the use of methods and procedures that are sufficiently complex, multifaceted and sensitive to honour the relational nature of experience and capture aspects of experience that have not been heard before. Furthermore, the findings will be located coherently within the literature that was reviewed: demonstrating the utility of relational perspectives in research and practice and the necessity to expand current conceptualizations of trauma and posttraumatic responses. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 52 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS When sexual assault is conceptualized as a relational event with consequences that extend beyond the personal to the interpersonal, the rippling effects of betrayal can be observed. At the core of betrayal is a mismatch between what is expected and what occurred. In this context, sexual assault is a violation of the relational ethics we expect others to uphold: that individuals have the freedom to choose what sexual acts to engage in, and that those choices will be respected by others. The first-hand accounts of survivors in this research demonstrate that betrayal in the context of sexual assault extends far beyond the violated relational ethic between survivor and the perpetrator. Through engagement with women’s stories, it is clear that betrayal occurs at multiple levels: when survivors engage with friends, families, and the institutions and communities they belong to. At every level and in every instance of relationship, there are expectations of how we ought to respond to one another and these expectations create opportunities for both harm and healing. These expectations are not the product of rules, laws, and regulations, merely reflected in them. I believe they arise from an intrinsic ethic, inherent in our relational existence. If our existence is contingent on our relations, then the experience of our existence must also stem from the ways in which these relations are created, sustained, broken and healed. In many instances of betrayal, what is needed to sustain or expand existence is absent or denied, and instead unforeseen circumstances that constrict the experience of existence are encountered. These unforeseen relational circumstances are unfathomable to the betrayed, leading to an experience of overwhelm that can fragment the sense of existence. What is needed in the wake of betrayal, then, is the reorganization or reintegration of our experiences into a new way of being. This present study explored how women experience these shifts, the relational dimensions of harm and healing in response to the betrayal of acquaintance sexual assault. This chapter opens with an introduction to the polarities of harm and healing that were heard during RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 53 analysis, followed by summaries of each participant’s story. Then the voices, and the relationships between them, are explored in-depth using examples from the participants. Lastly, reflections on the healing elements present during the interview process are shared. Introduction to the Polarities of Harm and Healing The voices that emerged when we (I, the primary researcher, along with the members of various “interpretive communities”) listened, encountered, and dialogued with each participant’s transcript and sandtray photographs, fell along polarities that illustrated women’s experiences of harm and healing. These polarities represent harm at one end of the spectrum, and healing at the other. They do not represent a binary or dualistic category, rather they capture directions, or movements towards either contraction or expansion. Harm was understood as a process of contraction, a dynamic that constrained, limited or disconnected participants from themselves, others and the world. Healing, on the other hand, emerged as a process of expansion, allowing participants to become more connected to themselves, others and the world, Harm and healing are not mutually exclusive, and participants’ stories often illustrated the interplay between these two processes, shining light on what is needed to move towards healing, and what processes can stagnate survivors in suffering. Each voice, and the various relationships between them, will be explored and described using examples from participants’ interviews, photos of their sandtrays, and segments of I poems. The first polarity of voices is denial and acknowledgment. Denial is a voice of turning away or cutting off from oneself or one’s experience. Acknowledgment is turning towards one’s experience, allowing oneself to be impacted. The second polarity is confusion and knowing. Confusion is a voice that doesn’t know, can’t understand, or isn’t sure. Knowing is a voice that speaks with confidence, clarity and coherence. The third polarity is judgment and acceptance. Judgment conveys that there is something wrong with me, or how I acted, and implies something should be different. Acceptance allows all parts of me to exist just as they are and is RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 54 accompanied of a sense of peace. Isolation is the experience of feeling alone, or being separate, unseen or unsupported by others. Accompaniment is the experience of feeling a part of, or being connected, safe with and supported by others. Separation is a voice that speaks of loss, powerlessness and fragmentation. Empowerment is a voice that speaks of restoration, agency and feeling at home with one’s self. The voices are presented in Table 1 below for clarity. Table 1 Voices of Harm and Healing Harm Healing Denial Acknowledgment Confusion Knowing Judgment Acceptance Isolation Accompaniment Separation Empowerment Introduction to Participants All six participants identified as cisgender heterosexual females and were between the ages of 22 and 51 years at the time of interview. Four identified as having some variation of a Judeo-Christian spiritual belief and practice, one identified as Muslim, and one identified as having no specific spiritual orientation. The participants reported their sexual assaults had occurred between the ages of 16 and 22 years, and every participant advised that they trusted the perpetrator before the assault occurred. Additionally, each participant advised that they encountered, or there was a chance that they would encounter, the perpetrator in social settings after the assault occurred. Summaries of each participant’s interview will be provided below, followed by descriptions of the voices that emerged during the analysis process. Each participant chose a pseudonym to be used in order to protect her confidentiality. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 55 Brittany. Brittany was a 24-year-old woman in a relationship at the time of interview and was 20 years old when an older student she was dating sexually assaulted her. In Brittany’s world before the assault, she had just begun university and expresses that this was a time full of learning, growth and hope. She chooses a bird to represent herself, identifying with both its gentleness and the strength. At the time, she explains how there was intense conflict between her divorced parents and that she felt pressure to take care of her mom. Her best friend at the time had aligned with Brittany’s father behind her back, rupturing trust between Brittany and her friend and deepening the divide between Brittany and her father. Brittany had been dating an older student at her school, describing him as charismatic, popular and athletic. She explains that her best friend seemed to be upset with the amount of time Brittany spent with the student she was dating, and that the friend retaliated by telling Brittany’s dad that the student had sexually assaulted Brittany. As these were false accusations, Brittany vehemently defended the student she was dating. In Brittany’s next tray, she explains “then the assault did happen.” The student she was dating sexually assaulted her, but Brittany feels that she can't tell anyone. She fears that if she discloses what has happened, it would validate her dad and her friend, and “give them more cause to do harm” to her and her mom. She selects a column of mirrors and places it in the tray around herself (the bird), and then proceeds to bury it with sand. She reflects “this was my denial box – just reflecting back to the world that nothing’s wrong, that nothing happened.” She also explains how approximately a month later, she booked a trip as she needed to “air lift myself out and go away.” As she continues, Brittany describes how she initially blamed herself for the assault, feeling like “an idiot for not seeing through him” and questioning why she didn’t fight more. She also compares her experience to a friend’s; whose assault was violent and perpetrated by a RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 56 stranger. Brittany explains that “if only, he had hit me, or been much more aggressive than I would be strongly able to say - this wasn’t my fault.” Brittany recalls that for a year and a half she continued to say “I’m fine. Nothing happened” until she eventually broke down during a session with her therapist. Brittany expresses that she felt “shame through the roof” for having been dishonest with her therapist in denying that that the assault occurred. She explains that disclosing the assault was the hardest thing she had done in her life. Her therapist responded with total acceptance, forgiving Brittany for any perceived missteps and expressing sentiments of love and care. Brittany recalls how the therapist’s words hit her “like a wave” and that this was the first time she truly experienced God. Brittany illustrates how this moment was transformative. There was profound relational healing and spiritual healing in the fact that it was the first time I was willing to be seen kind of exactly who I was, with my stuff. And so, from there, in taking kind of that first step to share with someone and to be met with such love, um, that kind of opened the door for me to start sharing with other people. In Brittany’s depiction of her current world, she mirrors that represented her denial box are replaced by a circle of animal figures that represent “the best community of friends that I could ever ask for.” She explains that all of her good friends know about the assault but notes that her parents still don’t know, and that’s why they are placed further from her in the tray. She expresses that the cathedral figure that represented God in earlier trays has been replaced by a new figure of a building that feels much more like “home.” When asked if there is anything she wishes were different, Brittany initially expresses “No, I’m good” but then moves the figures representing her parents closer to the centre of the tray where she and her community are located. Charlie. Charlie was a 51-year-old divorced and single woman at the time of interview and was 16 years old when an older student sexually assaulted her. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 57 In Charlie’s first tray, she explains that when she was 14 years old, her parents unexpectedly separated. Shortly after, she and her sister moved from the United Kingdom to Canada to live with their cousins, and later their mother joined them. Charlie recalls feeling angry for a long time as a result of being “ripped away” from the security and connection of her school, her friends, and family. Charlie was put two grades ahead and was only 16 during her senior year in high school. She expresses that she “felt like an alien” who just wanted to belong. Despite being a good student in the past, Charlie explains she became “very self-destructive” and did not have sufficient credits to graduate at the end of the year. The school let her participate in the graduation ceremonies nonetheless, so Charlie made preparations with her cousin to attend the prom event. She mentions that her date for prom didn’t show up and she didn’t know why. Later she finds out that he died in an accident, but no one told her or her classmates about it until after graduation. The evening of the event, the quarterback of the football team asked her to “hang out,” and Charlie questions whether the way she said no to him “came off in a bad way.” Later that night, he pulled her into a room alone and started kissing her. Charlie explains that she didn’t know what to do; she didn’t like what he was doing and knew something bad what was going to happen, but she was afraid to “look uncool.” When the perpetrator forces his hands down her pants, Charlie tells him to stop, but he responds with anger, pushing her to the ground. As she tries to get up, he pushes her back down and then sticks a lit cigarette into her cheek. She explains how she screamed and tried to get away, which seemed to enrage him. He tried to penetrate her vaginally but struggled to do so. He was aggravated and burnt her with a cigarette in her vagina. She explains how he seemed to enjoy hurting her, laughing when she would scream. She explains that she couldn’t figure out why nobody was coming to help her and wanting it to stop but not knowing how. Eventually he leaves her, and she explains that she just wanted to get back to the grad party. She doesn’t remember who she spoke to, or what she said, but it was clear her cousin who attended grad with her knew that something had happened, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 58 especially given the cigarette burn on her face. Charlie recalls that there were no ambulance or police involved. She remembers her mother taking her to the hospital, and the doctors explaining that she had been drinking, and her hymen was intact. Charlie explains that she didn’t go back to school after the assault, she felt too embarrassed that the whole school was talking about her. She explains that “I’d be burned, people knew,” but that nobody said anything, “It was sort of these whispers, right?” Then she explains that she “sort of got on with that” and didn’t think about the assault for a long time. To demonstrate how she experienced her world at the time, Charlie removed all the figures in her tray, and placed a skeleton in a coffin in the centre of it. She expresses “That’s how I felt. That’s it. Nobody else knew it. That’s how I felt.” She expresses anger and sadness, as she picks up sand from the tray and buries the skeleton, saying that this is “what everybody did. . . . It’s all just going to go away. . . . It’s okay. It doesn’t matter.” She laments: “when everyone else had done this, I did it too.” She describes thinking she was a “screw up” and getting “completely disengaged” by drinking and partying in her twenties. Charlie recalls a recent phone call she had with her closest friend, someone who knew her well in her twenties, although he did not know about the sexual assault. She describes how she cried when he expressed his love for her at a time when she did not like herself. I always knew who you were on the inside. . . . I loved you, and I loved you then, and I love you now. You always knew how to make a difference, and you just didn’t see how much a difference you made in my life and the people’s lives around you. Charlie notes that she has difficulty receiving his response as she struggles at times with self-loathing. She then goes on to reflect about how is strange it is that she feels “I have to forgive myself, for something that was not in my control.” She expresses how she logically knows the assault was not her fault, but that she still struggles to believe this. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 59 In her tray of her current world, Charlie creates a scene with sixteen figures all facing the centre. The figures represent the communities she built after her divorce, from school, work, social, spiritual and other settings. She expresses that she chooses the people she surrounds herself with, specifically admiring their conviction in how they stand and what they do. She describes her communities as “Selfless. Adaptive. Dynamic. Strong. Empowering. Good. Safe. Accepting. Including” which is a sharp contrast to the relational environments she experienced prior to and after the assault. She feels that she finally belongs, and has transitioned from someone who felt ugly, unloved and bad to someone who sits proudly, and is grateful and joyous. She also reflects that she is able to be apart from her communities without ever feeling that she isn’t a part of them. When asked what happened to the skeleton and the coffin from her previous tray, Charlie explains that they’re no longer buried, but they don’t need to be part of her world anymore. When asked if there is anything she wishes were different, Charlie moves several items in the tray closer together and expressed “I think I would still be a family. But not necessarily married to my ex-husband.” She describes her husband leaving her as the biggest betrayal of all and notes how profoundly affected she and her daughter were by it. She explains how she recovered after her divorce by re-formulating her communities, noting “I know one thing, without community, I flounder.” Sarah. Sarah was a 32-year-old single woman at the time of interview and was 22 years old when an older man she was dating sexually assaulted her. In her first tray, Sarah depicts how she was in an abusive relationship with a man fourteen years older than her. She explains that she used to see herself as strong, and in charge of her decisions but this changed as found herself in a relationship that no longer respected her boundaries. Sarah recalls feeling confused and trapped in her abusive situation, not knowing RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 60 what to do or where to go. She explains how she feels both sadness and anger for being taken advantage of, and from not having anyone to help her through it. In Sarah’s second tray, she uses a carousel figure to represent how her “life was spinning out of control” and a cave figure to represent how she felt “isolated and kind of hidden away.” She recalls how the man in her former relationship, leveraged paying for vacations to take her choice away from her. She reflects that she didn’t she didn’t want to have sex and she didn’t feel safe but that due to his physical and verbal abuse, “it was either go along with it, or be afraid you’re going to get hurt.” She expresses it’s something others don’t understand and will ask “why didn’t you fight back?” Sarah reflects that she used to be a person who asked that question, but having been in an abusive situation, understands it differently now. Although Sarah wanted to leave the relationship, her perpetrator stalked and blackmailed her, and she was afraid that if she left, something would happen to her, her family, or her friends. Sarah eventually tells her mom parts of what has been happening in her relationship so that they can go to the police. She notes that she didn’t tell her mom, and she hasn’t told anyone, everything, because she fears people will pity or feel sorry for her. Sarah explains that when she told her mom, they “didn’t talk about it, she just drove me to the police station and that was it.” The police give her the option of a filing a restraining order or a “do not contact order.” Sarah notes the lack of empathy she felt and that it “would have been nice to feel like they actually cared.” She explains that she had to quit her job and rearrange her life in order to get away from her perpetrator. Sarah explains that it was several years before she understood that what happened to her was considered rape, as her experiences did not match her beliefs about rape happening with a stranger, as a one-time thing, or as a party. She expresses that she feels she should have been able to do more to stop it, but also realizes at the time there were limited resources and fewer people willing to talk about sexual violence. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 61 Sarah explains that after she got free from her relationship, she used partying and alcohol to try and forget everything for a while. She describes wanting to be loved and cared for, but because she had lost a sense of safety and trust in relationships, she was afraid of letting others in. She realizes that she isolated from people who were trying to help. She explains how she pushed people away because she didn’t know “how to deal with the emotions.” When Sarah creates a tray to represent her world now, she chooses a tree to show how much she’s grown and a treasure chest to represent how everything that had been closed is now open is able to heal. Sarah then adds additional figures to the tray to represent people in her life. She describes how she has made a lot of good friends, and that but that she is working on letting others in and trusting they are not going to hurt her. When asked what she wishes were different, Sarah moves one of the figures closer to the figure representing herself and comments “A relationship would be nice. Someone to rely on. Be there when you need them, so you don’t have to do everything on your own.” Margaret. Margaret was a 51-year-old married woman at the time of interview and was 16 years old when an older male relative sexually assaulted her. In Margaret’s first tray, she places a female “Barbie” figure to represent herself, and a male figure to represent her father. They are both positioned near the centre of the tray, but have their bodies turned away from each other at a 45-degree angle from the centre. Margaret recalls that when she was eight years old, her mother died. Her father and his girlfriend later married, and a few years after they had a baby. She explains that she didn’t really like her stepmom, and so it felt like it was still “me and my dad.” She expresses that it felt like her dad was “hands off” and “clueless,” leaving her “a little bit adrift, by myself. I didn’t really have an anchor.” Margaret explains her world was “school, and friends, and activities” and that she intentionally spent a lot of time outside the family home. She also describes why she chose a “Barbie” figure, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 62 because at the time she felt it was important to be perceived as attractive and desirable, especially due to feeling like she didn’t have an anchor. During discussion of her second tray, Margaret recalls that she spent a lot of time at her aunt and uncle’s house, especially given that her mom had died. Margaret recalls how she was sleeping over at her aunt and uncle’s, and a distant relative of theirs, who was “cool” and “older,” took an interest in her. She recalls how they spent time alone downstairs, but that when she wanted to go upstairs to bed, the perpetrator “didn’t take no for an answer.” Margaret swaps out the figure representing the perpetrator from a GI joe to a black cloaked figure with a red face. She swaps out the Barbie figure representing herself, for an Alice in Wonderland figure. She recalls being in shock and feeling bewildered, “I didn’t scream or anything. I just kind of froze.” She can’t remember what the perpetrator said but she imagines he probably said something like “I must have really wanted him to, because I was flirting so much or whatever.” Margaret begins to cry, and she describes something that “still really hurts and really stings me to this day.” She explains how she felt close to her aunt and uncle, and that she had looked to her uncle as a sort of protective father figure She remembers going from thinking “What do I do, what do I do?” to a developing a plan. So, I have to say something. I’m going to tell my aunt, and she’ll tell my uncle. And he’ll just like lose it. And he’ll be like, I don't know, go beat him up, or you know, at least ban him from ever coming to their house again. And my uncle would come to me and say, “You never have to see him again!” you know “What he did was terrible. That’s unacceptable. Instead, Margaret explains “Nothing ever happened.” She recalls that when she first told her aunt, her aunt was “shocked, and upset, and sympathetic and all of that.” Afterwards, however, “she didn’t say anything more about it, she kind of withdrew, she didn’t offer any comfort after that, and we’ve never spoken about it again.” It is never confirmed whether the aunt speaks to RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 63 the uncle, but Margaret feels certain that her aunt must have. She quietly acknowledges that over the years she has thought about bringing this up with her aunt, but she never has. The figure that represents Margaret’s father is off in a corner, facing the walls of the tray, while the rest of the figures are in the middle. When asked about her father, Margaret responds that she never told him about the assault and that he remained “totally oblivious.” As Margaret and I switch seats, Margaret expresses that after the assault she didn’t want to tell anybody else, she just wanted her aunt and uncle to talk to her, and there to be some kind of consequences for her perpetrator. She reflects “I don’t know for some reason I feel, I felt, like it would have made it all better.” As Margaret builds a scene of her world now, she includes figures to represent herself, her husband, her two children, two sisters, her dad, her friends, her faith, and her “happy place.” And she begins to explain the scene, she begins to cry and remarks “I don’t know why it’s making me feel sad. Cause I’m surrounded by love and I feel I’m in a good place.” She acknowledges a desire to have less distance between the figures, especially her children. She reflects that maybe she feels sad as she is adjusting to her children having grown up and moved out of the family home. She remarks that her dad is “on the sidelines,” not really involved, but that the “sidelines are better than wandering off somewhere else.” She notes that she’s come to “kind of be okay with that,” realizing that if she couldn’t accept what her dad is able to give her, then they wouldn’t have a relationship at all. Margaret notes that she has a few good friends that she knows she can count on. She perceives herself as not being good at maintaining her friendships but remarks this is something she is getting better at. She reflects that representing these friendships in the tray was “kind of a big step” for her and symbolizes “an invitation” to them to be part of her life. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 64 When I ask about her “happy place” figure, Margaret explains it is the travelling she does with her husband. When I probe about what that does for her, she cries and says “That’s what keeps me going. That’s the way I recharge my batteries. And how my husband and I connect.” After a probe about the figure representing her faith, Margaret explains that her relationship with God “grounds her.” She reflects that the figure is not moving and she can go there when she needs. She explains how she used to believe that God was critical and harsh. She now understands that God just wants to love her and is okay with being on her terms right now. When Margaret is told the last directive is to look at the scene and see if there is anything she wishes were different, she shifts the figures in the tray closer together. After realizing it feels “claustrophobic” she repositions them, moving the people figures back to their original positions but allowing her happy place and faith figures to remain close. She expresses that her husband has always known about the assault and would have been more than willing to go beat up her perpetrator. She explains that she felt some affirmation because of how he responded, but also that she felt judged when he questioned why she didn’t tell anyone else after she was assaulted. Eliza. Eliza was a 36-year-old married woman at the time of interview and was 19 years old when a male friend sexually assaulted her. In Eliza’s first tray, she places a Pocahontas figure in the centre of the long edge of the tray, facing in towards the middle. She explains that she chose this figure because during this season of life, at 19 years old, she was feeling empowered, strong, confident, capable and content. She expresses how she had recently made some choices that made her feel renewed and determined. Eliza then chooses to add another female figure to the tray, close by, facing her, and positioned with outstretched arms. She explains how the wife of the youth pastor at the church she had grown up in was a prominent figure in her life. Eliza recalls how at that time she was choosing to be sexually active with various partners. When she told her youth pastor’s wife about RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 65 her enjoyment of sex, Eliza recalls how she was received with “zero condemnation.” Her friend and mentor expressed that “Of course it feels amazing! It’s sex!” but warned her that sex outside of a marriage context could put her heart at risk for damage and injury. Eliza explains how she felt deeply cared for without any shame, and that this allowed her to embrace this guidance. Eliza recalls how she made a decision to change her behaviour with respect to sexual relationships, choosing abstinence in order to protect and honour her heart In her second scene, Eliza brings in a new male figure, explaining that he was the son of the associate pastor of her church, and that they were really good friends. She explains how she and he had spent a lot of time together, and in the past they had engaged in a consensual sexual experience. On another occasion, after Eliza had decided to remain sexually abstinent, she and her friend were hanging out at her home when he asked if she wanted hook up with him again. She recalls how she told him she didn’t want to, she was abstinent, and she was happy this way. She recalls how he progressed from giving her a back massage, to putting his hands down her pants, to going down on her. Then, she says, “he guilted me into going down on him.” She expresses how frustrated she felt, that someone she considered a close friend acted as if he had no regard for the person she was. She puts his figure face down in the sand, and adds a new redfaced, black cloaked figure in, expressing “instead of being prince charming (figure) here, I really felt like he had completely betrayed me.” Eliza adds a figure resembling a Barbie to represent herself now, explaining she “felt like a Bimbo. Like somebody that doesn’t really matter” and a childlike figure to the tray saying “Yeah, and I felt small.” The Pocahontas figure is laying down in the sand, adjacent to the Barbie and child figure. When I probe about this, Eliza expresses “I mean, she’s, she’s destroyed. She’s definitely, she doesn’t really exist anymore. Like that confident, and empowered, and strong capable woman, she’s, she’s temporarily gone.” RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 66 Eliza recalls that 6-9 months later, she spoke to a fellow volunteer at an event, who was also a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. She remembers thinking “What am I supposed to do about this? Like, this happened. And I’m not okay with it.” He informed her that addressing sexual assault within the criminal justice system is often frustrating and unproductive. Instead, he suggested a “Healing Circle”: a meeting between her and the perpetrator, mediated by a third party. Eliza felt this process may provide her some closure and selected the lead pastor of her and the perpetrator’s church, who was also a psychologist, to be the third party. Eliza explains that during the “Healing Circle” it took a few hours for the perpetrator to realize what he had done, and how it had impacted her. She explains that when he understood how disappointed she was in him and how she had been harmed, she felt a sense of relief and release, and a return to her more confident self. Nonetheless, she still feels frustrated, disappointed, and resentful, that “someone who was so good could become so bad.” Although the Healing Circle led to her perpetrator’s acknowledgment of the harm, it did not hold him accountable for his actions or require a commitment for him to change his behaviour in the future. In Eliza’s scene of her world now, she returns Pocahontas to the middle, adding a new male figure, her husband, beside her, and three small figures to represent their children. She puts the perpetrator’s figure in the corner, explaining that “this is still a lurking thing in the background.” She explains how unwanted sexual experiences seem common and pervasive, a reality she cannot escape. This gives her some uncertainty as to how to parent her daughter so that she doesn’t have an experience like this, or how to prepare her daughter to handle the fallout when it eventually does. She explains that she and her husband are “on the same page, working together, supporting each other, and very closely knit” and recalls telling him about the assault when they were dating. Witnessing him feel upset over how she had been harmed made her feel safe and validated but that he may have also been disappointed that she had “experienced this brokenness, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 67 like ‘damaged goods.’” She also adds that she honestly doubts that “if it even crosses his mind anymore, we don’t talk about it”, alluding to a yearning that her husband would continue to acknowledge her experience in some way. The figure that represented Eliza’s mentor is still in the tray, this time closer to Eliza. Eliza reflects how she hasn’t seen this person for over ten years, yet her influence is still very strong in her life. When asked what she wishes were different in her tray, Eliza puts the perpetrator figure on the shelf, explaining “I obviously wish that this never happened. . . . So yeah, I mean things would be so much better if that was not even part of the picture.” She also moves her mentor’s figure close to her and her family, stating she would “definitely prefer for her to be closer and more involved” and expresses to a desire to reconnect with her in her current life. Lucy. Lucy was 26-year-old woman in a dating relationship at the time of interview and was 20 years old when an older student she had previously dated sexually assaulted her. In Lucy’s first tray, she depicts how she was away at university, competing on a highlevel athletics team. She includes her family members: mother, father, and sister, in the tray and reflects on how far away she was from them. She acknowledges feeling sad due to the distance from her family, especially her father with whom she was very close. When asked about the feelings between her and her teammates, Lucy explains that, although they were a team, it “never felt like I was necessarily one of them.” She says that she also feels powerful because she is around big things and big people at university and can hold her own. In the context leading up the sexual assault, Lucy describes a previous relationship she had with a fellow athlete. She was under the impression that they had been dating for several months when she started to hear rumours that he was sleeping with other people, although she herself had not slept with him. When Lucy confronts him, he says that he would never actually date her due to her Caucasian ethnicity. Lucy admits she is heartbroken over the loss of what she RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 68 considered a dating relationship but speaks with acceptance as she says, “I can’t stop being white, so there’s just no way this is going to work.” When Lucy returns to school after the summer, she explains that the guy is dating a new girl on the team, which is initially upsetting but becomes more upsetting as this girl stalks, harasses and spreads rumours about Lucy. She explains that she reported this to her coach, who she represents using a wizard figure in the tray, “not because he’s wise or mystical, but because he is a master of illusions and not giving a shit.” Lucy explains that he told her “I don’t want to hear about your problems” and “You shouldn't let it bother you, toughen up.” Lucy accumulates evidence of the other girl’s inappropriate behaviour and reports it to the university administration, who she describes as lackadaisical because they “did nothing” and “didn’t give a crap.” Although they did say that the other girl would be suspended from the team if she contacted Lucy outside of team business, “it was basically a slap on the wrist given what she had done.” Lucy explains how her reputation had been ruined and represents her teammates in the tray as having turned their backs to her. Lucy speaks about how she had been represented as an “obnoxious bitch” and “filthy whore” and that she had been criticized for not trying hard enough to be part of the team. Lucy knows that she is not the person she has been portrayed to be and decides to go to a party her teammates are attending. She hopes it will improve the friendships with her fellow athletes. At the party, she goes upstairs to use the washroom and encounters the athlete she had formerly dated. She then explains how he put her in a chokehold, ripped her clothes off and penetrated her digitally (using his fingers). She believes that he would have raped her but that he wasn’t physically able to get an erection due to his steroid and drug use. She recalls his bicep pushing on her airway and thinking “I can’t fight this right now.” After the event, she can’t remember if she “cried or anything.” The next day, Lucy recalls texting the perpetrator saying, “that could be called assault” and “that wasn’t okay.” She describes how he turned it on her saying things like “you were RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 69 wearing shorts and a tank top, you were asking for it” and “don’t pretend like you didn’t like it.” Lucy expresses “it wasn’t sitting right” and recalls taking further action. She tries to explain to her coach that the perpetrator is “not a good guy” but that he responds with telling her “I don’t want to hear it.” Lucy explains that she told the coach the perpetrator put her in a chokehold, and “that wasn’t enough to prompt action from anyone.” Aside from this matter, Lucy advises that her coach had been verbally abusive and negligent in many ways, prompting her to report him to the athletic administration. Although she was told her coach would be fired, Lucy explains that, at the end of a two-year investigation, he “conveniently announced his retirement.” She expresses how challenging it was to be part of a community she contributed to but that didn’t support her in return. Furthermore, Lucy witnesses the university praise and celebrate her perpetrator and her negligent coach as “accomplished” men for their contributions to sport. Lucy expresses that, she when she disclosed the event to her coach and the university administration, she “didn’t have the guts to tell them he’d actually completed the assault. I just said, he put me in a chokehold and I managed to get away.” She explains that while she was away at university, she couldn’t tell her parents. She expresses that it took long time for her to be able to actually admit to herself that what she had experienced was sexual assault. She explains that if she would have embraced that, she would not have been able to handle what was happening around her. Lucy recalls that telling her mom about the assault after graduation, and her sister shortly thereafter. She notes that “they’ll never really understand it I don’t think, but you could tell that their hearts broke a little bit.” She expresses that she could never tell her dad because it would devastate him. She mourns that she no longer feels like the “little girl” he was so proud of. Lucy expresses that she has recently started a romantic relationship that has been healing and transformative for her. She recalls feeling embarrassed when she explained to her boyfriend that she might get triggered by him due to her experience of sexual assault. Lucy shares “I think RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 70 that was the last piece of grieving, getting over the shame and discomfort of telling my boyfriend.” In Lucy’s tray of her current world, she explains that she has started a degree at a new university. She feels frustrated with the unanticipated challenges the university presents and reflects that they feel like hoops she must jump through. She expresses how she wants to get past school, and into her imagined future. She envisions having moved out of her parents’ home, having a family, and enjoying financial security. In the tray, she includes her boyfriend, reflecting on the validation, emotional support, hope and direction he provides. She contrasts this with the lack of support she felt during her university experiences and with her family. She starts to cry when she says, “He stands up for me” and notes that he offers to fight alongside her in the challenges she faces. When asked what she wishes were different in her current tray, Lucy removes the figures that represent the obstacles at school, which are placed in between her and her imagined future. She expresses that she is dealing with elements similar to her prior school setting: a frustrating athletic coach, judgmental peers and family, a lackadaisical school administration, and ultimately an institutional system that is failing her. She acknowledges how much more relaxing the scene feels without the obstacles in the middle of the tray, and that without these elements she feels like she could “easily make it through.” Voices The first step of the Listening Guide helped the members of the interpretive communities, or “listeners” get acquainted with each participant’s story, and our own personal responses to them. In the second step, the I Poems were read and discussed. This shed light on how the participants spoke about themselves and drew our attention to moments where there appeared to be meaningful shifts in participants’ experiences. These first two steps prepared us for the third step, when the voices of harm and healing were identified and described through a series of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 71 readings or “listenings.” The transcripts were read iteratively, until the interpretive community agreed that every instance of harm, healing, and yearnings had been captured by the voices. In the fourth step, the “trail of evidence” for each participant (plot summaries from Step 1, I poems from Step 2, transcripts, photographs of trays and written notes from Step 3), was synthesized into an essay. These essays described what had been learnt about the research questions during the analysis process, with particular attention to the voices that had been identified. The voices created a framework in which relational harm and healing in response to acquaintance sexual assault could be understood. Yearnings were identified when participants displayed implicit or explicit desires for elements of healing that had been captured by the voices. The following section examines the voices at each end of their respective polarities, and the interplays between them. Then, the synergistic relationships between voices are explored, followed by a summary of the elements of the research process that may have been healing or transformative for the participants themselves. Denial. Denial is a voice that turns away from experience, refusing to encounter what occurred and the impacts it had. It is a posture of protection via the minimization, invalidation or suppression of one’s experience: either the sexual assault didn’t happen, or it wasn’t that harmful. Denial occurs when people lack the confidence to face their circumstances in the aftermath of being violated. In the context of sexual assault, confidence, the feeling or belief that one can rely on oneself or others, can be easily destroyed. Survivors are rendered powerless in the act, and any notion of their personhood as equal and agentic is disregarded. When we can no longer trust ourselves and our fellow persons to keep us safe, how do we venture further into the confusion and painful consequences of what has occurred? It became apparent that participants needed to engage in denial in order to survive the overwhelming nature of their experiences. At times, the impact on a survivor was too much to take in at a time, especially in contexts where denial was part of the social fabric, and where survivors lacked sufficient safety in their RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 72 relationships to experience the harm of what had happened. There was also an element in which participants forced themselves to deny what they knew and felt, in order to maintain harmony and minimize harm in relationships. In other words, their contexts lacked the relational safety required for them to encounter and express the truth of their experiences. Lucy uses the figures in her tray to illustrate how she maintained her denial. She discusses how a part of her, represented by a child figure in the tray, held the sadness of what had occurred, but that in order to survive her circumstances at school, she had to be another figure instead. It took a long time for me to, in my head, actually call it an assault, because I think if I had of fully embraced that, I would have been this (small child figure) versus (red hair female figure). Um, so that sadness (child figure) was there, I just couldn’t, I couldn’t handle all of this (scene) if I was this (child figure), so I had to be strong and shut everything down (red hair female figure). In Brittany’s story, we see her encapsulate herself with a “denial box” that reflects back to the world that “nothing happened.” Brittany explains that she felt forced to deny the assault, because acknowledging it would fuel the conflict in her family. She describes, “I just couldn’t, I couldn’t acknowledge what had happened. So, I just didn’t and went on as if things were normal.” In Brittany’s reflection, she shared that having to lie to herself and others about the assault was more upsetting than the assault itself. She lamented that protecting herself from her parents, vicariously protected her perpetrator. In this example, we see how damaging and isolating it is when survivors’ lack safety in their relational contexts to admit and express that harm has occurred. In Charlie’s narrative, we see denial as part of the familial and social fabric. Charlie describes the heartbreak of moving to a new country without her parents, and in the wake of their separation, but without any apparent acknowledgment from those around her of the difficulty of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 73 these major transitions. Then the principal tells Charlie’s mom Charlie won’t graduate high school. There is an absence of inquiry into why Charlie is struggling and what can be done about it. There is a yearning present when Charlie describes this, as she notes “But they didn’t. Back in that time maybe they didn’t understand.” Although she doesn’t articulate what “they didn’t” do, she alludes to a sense that there should have been a response that wasn’t there. Through her narrative, Charlie mentions various tragic events that no one in her community appears to acknowledge as harmful: her prom date didn’t show up because he had died in an accident, her best friend was murdered, and her cousin had died. She reflects: “Not one event was going to be so powerful that it was going to impact me.” Thus, when Charlie is sexually assaulted, it is not surprisingly that her response is denial. She illustrated this is in the tray by removing all the elements of her previous tray and replacing them with a skeleton in a coffin figure. I almost want to bury, put this under the sand, because that’s what everybody did (starts to cover the skeleton in the coffin in sand). Just did this. And it all just going to go away. You know, my mum did, my family did, everybody just kind of did this. It’s okay, it’s all… it doesn’t matter that Charlie didn’t graduate. Whatever, there, that’s it. That’s exactly how it felt…. I didn’t even know, and when everyone else had done this (burying the skeleton in the sand), I did it too. Charlie feels that her experience was buried by the people around her. In their denial, they refused to acknowledge any of the pain or injustice Charlie was experiencing. Instead, they acted as if everything was “okay.” Charlies explains that, without even knowing it, she buried herself too. Charlie placed a figure of a glass bottle at the base of the buried skeleton, explaining that drinking and partying helped her get “completely disengaged from that event.” This denial contributed to a major sense of isolation for Charlie. When asked about the skeleton, Charlie explains “Nobody else knew it. That’s how I felt. Nobody else knew that that’s how I felt.” RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 74 Photographs of the trays mentioned are provided below in Figure 1. Figure 1. Charlie's world: After. Participants also engaged in denial in order to maintain relationships. Gilligan (2014, p. 92) describes this as a “false choice” between having a voice and having relationships. This was most apparent in Margaret’s story. She describes the failure of her aunt and uncle to respond to her disclosure as “What still really hurts and stings me to this day.” She also spoke of a desire to bring it up with her aunt one day, and then quietly admitted “But I never have.” Later in her interview she states how there have been additional instances where she has felt betrayed by them. She then expresses she’ll never really trust them but that’s “okay”: “they’re still my family, and I still love them.” Although her words seem to be speaking about acceptance, it seems more likely Margaret is silencing expressions of harm in order to maintain harmony in her relationships. If Margaret were to say what she was thinking or feeling, she puts her relationships RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 75 with her aunt and uncle at risk. But by not giving voice to her thoughts and feelings, she keeps herself out of authentic relationship with her aunt and uncle and is disconnected from herself. Either way, she would lose connection. When I shared this impression with Margaret during her reflection, she noted it was “spot on” and shared how she is now learning to “allow distance” rather than pretend she hasn’t been hurt. Acknowledgment. Acknowledgment was the opposite of denial in that participants turned towards their experiences, and allowed themselves to be impacted. It is the process of noticing and feeling aspects of experience, some of which had been kept out of awareness. This voice was apparent when survivors recalled the truth of their experience without minimization and admitted how they had been affected. During the debrief process of Brittany’s interview, she reflects on shifting from denial to acknowledgment. So, when I was like denying the whole thing, I felt, like I felt, more confident. Like if I saw him around on campus, it was like “Doesn’t matter! Didn’t happen!” Um, and then once I reported it, tons of fear. Like tons and tons of fear. Like I’d notice my body would get really tense if I saw him or had to interact with him, or even see him comment on a friend’s Facebook. Brittany’s example shows how denial preserved a sense of safety for her. Once she acknowledged her experience as assault, she turned towards the feelings she had cut off from and silenced. What is inherent in the nature of trauma, is the experienced of being overwhelmed. While denial can serve as a useful initial protective mechanism, healing requires moving towards acknowledgment of one’s experience. But if the experience overwhelms us, we must question what capacity we have to explore it. In Brittany’s narrative we see denial temporarily provided her with confidence but that acknowledgment made her feel more vulnerable. In being present with her pain, Brittany felt fear that she had previously been disconnected from. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 76 This voice of acknowledgment was also a prominent part of the interview process. Participants were asked to literally turn towards and gaze upon the representations of their experiences in the sandtray, and then encounter and express the thoughts, emotions and physical sensations arose as they did. Danielle: Are you aware of any feelings coming up for you? Lucy: Am I? …. I’m a little bit tight chested. I think because I’m kind of reliving a bit of that, fear. Through the interview process, the creation of trays as well as probes into immediate emotional, cognitive, and somatic experience created opportunities for women to have new encounters with their experiences. By bearing witness to their stories, a greater relational space was created so that participants could feel and communicate aspects of their experiences. As participants explained their sandtrays, they identified feelings of sadness, anger, fear, frustration and weariness in response to being sexually assaulted. In listening for this voice, we also learned when others acknowledged how they had been impacted by the participants’ experiences, participants were able to move towards greater acknowledgment of their own experiences. When people in the participants’ worlds were willing to be changed by the survivors’ experiences, rather than responding with minimization or invalidation, this created safety. From this safety, participants could engage in aspects of their experience that they had distanced themselves from. From a relational perspective, the overwhelm that leads to denial can also alert us to our reliance on others. When experiences feel beyond our capacity to comprehend or handle, a bigger container can be created by encountering our experience in the presence of others. Eliza recalls what it was like to witness her husband's response when she disclosed she had been assaulted. Danielle: What was it like to see him be upset because you had been hurt? RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 77 Eliza: Yeah, it was really, like I felt, I felt safe. And I felt like validated, that you know, that it would make him so upset, that something like this happened, and that it happened to me, and I was someone that he cared about so deeply that he would be so upset that I had had this experience. Margaret reported a similar experience, wherein her husband’s anger at her perpetrator felt affirming. Both women, however, spoke about feeling judged or being seen differently. Eliza explains: “I think, that he was also like disappointed that I was kind of like, that I experienced this brokenness, like ‘damaged goods.’” Margaret shared in her reflection that she appreciated witnessing the emotional impact her disclosure had on her husband but that he also asked, “How could you have done not something?” The sense that Margaret had erred in the way responded to the assault, and Eliza’s fear that she seen was damaged highlights that acknowledgment is important, but that conveying a sense of acceptance is also needed. The value of others’ acknowledgment was also influenced by their perceived capacity to handle the survivor’s experience. Brittany and Lucy both spoke about protecting their parents. Brittany fears telling her mom because “she is just too fragile to take in anything” and Lucy believes telling her father would “devastate” him. In Charlie’s experience, her mother was impacted by her experience, but gave the impression that the harm had occurred to her rather than Charlie. Charlie recalls a distinct memory of her mother phoning her brother, and not Charlie’s dad. In mentioning the absence of the call to her father, Charlie displays a yearning for the people who care for her to be made aware of and be present with the harm she encountered. Instead, Charlie remembers her mom saying, “I can’t believe this happened to me [emphasis added] on top of everything else.” The absence of acknowledgment appears to propel Charlie towards denial, as immediately after narrating this memory she says, “But then I just sort of got on with that.” RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 78 When others have willingness and ability to be present with pain, and they are able to be impacted without being consumed or overwhelmed by it. These mutually shared experiences validate survivors’ own pain and creates the space they need to continue to encounter their experiences. The absence of acknowledgment was also heard in Charlie’s story when she recalls “There was no ambulance involved. I think because everyone was scared that everyone was going to get in trouble.” She illustrates how her assault was not treated as an emergency, and how the needs of others were superior to hers. She also mentions that “There was no police that was involved.” We hear a voice that yearns for the others in the relational space to turn towards the pain of Charlie’s experience; to acknowledge it as an emergency and as a crime worth responding to. After her assault, Charlie does not return to school. She explains “And the fact that I’d been burned, people knew. But nobody said anything. It was sort of these whispers, right?” Charlie illustrates a confusing reality, wherein people know about the harm, but do not reflect it in their responses to her. This diminishes the space survivors have to encounter their own experiences. Immediately after that statement, the voice of denial resurfaces in Charlie “Yeah, so now I haven’t thought about it for a long time.” Sarah also spoke with a voice that yearned for others’ acknowledgment. When she recalls telling her mother, she says “So we didn’t talk about it, she just drove me to the police station and that was it.” Although Sarah’s mother acknowledges that the violence and stalking Sarah has experienced in her relationship is worthy of police attention, the utterance of “that was it” creates a sense that something needed was missing in this encounter. Interestingly, during the debrief process when women were asked what I should have asked, or what would be helpful to ask other women, Margaret, Charlie and Brittany each suggested I should have asked more questions about how the assault impacted them. Although participants were invited to depict the impact of the assault in the sandtray and were aware that I RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 79 had asked about the impact during the interview, three participants mentioned that additional probes into the impact would have been helpful. Brittany explains: Not that it wasn’t given enough weight, but I could probably use like a little bit more pushing, because there’s still fragments of me that are like “I don’t want to talk about it” I don’t want to- You know, be, that exposed maybe? But I, like I, I know that I can do it and it’s fine. Margaret recalled a similar experience, feeling like she didn’t want to talk about it while at the same time, another part of her wanted to be asked more questions about her feelings towards her perpetrator. This illustrates there is a delicate balance of how women manage the precipice of their experiences. It also highlights how survivors yearn for the invitation and space to encounter the parts of their experience they have pushed aside to survive. Interplay of denial and acknowledgment. Participants demonstrated how denial and acknowledgment both require energy. In denial, Sarah explains “It’s just so draining, it just drains you. There’s so much more effort to block all of that then there is to accept it.” After Brittany explains how she was in denial and “not wanting to be seen” and then follows this with explaining that “not even a month” later “I just booked a trip and left.” Perhaps Brittany was needing space, where she had the safety to be herself without the exertion of denial. Acknowledgment is also difficult; it can feel unbearable and exhausting. Margaret discusses how facing her perpetrator in the tray brings difficulty: “I just, I still, I can hardly even look at him. I still, all the feelings are there, I still hate him for what he did.” Charlie says her body feels “slumped” when she looks at the tray depicting the impact. Lucy explains how it was exhausting trying to prove to her institution that here was a problem. Brittany discusses how overcoming her denial and disclosing the assault was the hardest thing she has ever done. The difference is that denial stagnates survivors, whereas acknowledgment creates movement. What became apparent is that acknowledgment is easier when there is another person RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 80 present who is willing to acknowledge the survivor’s experience and be impacted by it. Brittany describes a poignant moment in her interview. I noticed that when discussing other people represented in the tray, Brittany had used their first names. When she spoke about the perpetrator, she repeatedly omitted his name. I shared this reflection and added that she didn’t need to say his name, but if she wanted to, his confidentiality would be protected. During the debrief, Brittany explained how this interaction had similar echoes to her experiences in the past. I didn’t like saying his name, but you know what, once I said it, it felt a bit relieving. And you, and its, when you gave me permission to not protect his identity, that was just kind of like a repeat of what happened in real life. Where I didn’t need to protect him. Acknowledgment can feel scary, unpleasant, and confusing. Fortunately, doing so in relational safe and space with another, seems to expand our capacity to encounter what we have been keeping at a distance. Inviting and allowing others to encounter the truth of their experiences, helps us both expand and move forward with greater clarity. Confusion. The voice of confusion was heard frequently as it was common for participants to relay feelings of bewilderment in the wake of their sexual assaults. Many participants struggled to make sense of their experiences, which is not surprising given that the hallmark of betrayal is a mismatch between our expectations and reality. This loss of predictable reality was deeply disorienting and left women with a sense of not knowing what to do. This stagnated them, leaving them feeling directionless and on their own. How confusion is related to isolation will be discussed later in this chapter. When recalling the assault, most participants spoke with a sense of confusion: why was this happening and what am I supposed to do? Eliza recalls: And yeah, I didn’t fight back! Because I was just so blown away that this guy, that I considered to be my “best” guy friend, was doing this to me, after I had made it clear [emphasis added]- I thought I had made it clear that I didn’t want this. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 81 In this example, we see how Eliza questions whether or not she had made it clear to her perpetrator that his advances were unwanted, even though she knows she did. It also describes the shock of being assaulted by someone that she trusted. The impact of this confusion lasted. And then after, after it was, yeah, it was a real struggle. Like I don’t really, have very many vivid memories of like time, after that, yeah, I don’t know! I would say that I was definitely in a funk for a long time. And I’m trying to remember…. The disruption to her predictable reality, and the sense of having her personhood disregarded, shrouded Eliza in a type of fog, where she feels distant from herself, and likely distant from others. Margaret similarly explains being in a “daze” afterwards. Sarah describes feeling like she was “weaving in and out of trees, trying to make my way through it, and it was confusing, and I didn’t know what to do or where I was supposed to go, or how to get out of it.” Brittany explained that part of her confusion about the assault was that it didn’t match with her perpetrator’s reputation as a “great Christian guy.” She expresses “I was just so confused that what had happened to me, didn’t actually, match kind of like how he looked.” Furthermore, she compares her experience to her friend’s: But hers was different. It was like a stranger rape, someone she didn’t know. And like she was beat up, and, um, yeah like at knifepoint and left for me, in kind of like an alley and somebody found her the next morning. And so, I’ve always compared what happened to me to her, and for me there was so much, there, like, there was so much more relational but it was confusing. Brittany’s examples help demonstrate that our sense of knowing is disrupted when our experiences conflict with the knowledge held in our relational contexts. Confusion is not just a personal process, it erupts when we are confronted with experiences that conflict with commonly held ideas about people and assault. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 82 When we believe that someone cares for us, but they respond to our suffering in a way that makes us feel insignificant, we struggle to reconcile: what is safe and unsafe, and what is real and what is not. If our expectations for how people will treat us in moments of vulnerability are not accurate, how can we trust any of our judgments? It is almost impossible to move forward, or expand in any direction, when we have lost our sense of ourselves in the world. We must locate ourselves before we can know what to do. If this disorientation occurs as a relational consequence, then re-orientation may occur in relationships as well. Margaret’s interview began with a resonance of unknowing; she is not sure how to speak about the scene she has created and asks me if I have some questions about it. It seems as though she is asking her relational context, the interviewer, to orient her and provide a frame in which she can step into her knowing. In her tray, her world is represented by a figure for herself and a figure for her father, both positioned near the centre of the tray but with their bodies and gazes turned away from one another. I ask her to share what was going on in this time of her life. She explains that her mother died when she was 8 years old, and although her father remarried when she was 12, at 14 she says she “still felt like it was kind of me and my dad, but my dad was pretty hands off. He didn't really know what to do with me.” Margaret speaks uncertainty, frequently using utterances like “pretty much,” “kind of,” and “a little bit.” The voice of confusion intensifies when she is assaulted, and she expresses feeling bewildered and being “in shock.” When she moves past questioning what to do, she decides she will tell her aunt, and encounters the most confusing aspect of her experience. So, I have to say something. I’m going to tell my aunt, and she’ll tell my uncle. And he’ll just like lose it. And he’ll be like, I don't know, go beat him up, or you know, at least ban him from ever coming to their house again. And my uncle would come to me and say, “You never have to see him again!” you know “What he did was terrible. That’s unacceptable.” All those kinds of things, and, nothing ever happened. My aunt, I think, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 83 I’m sure she told my uncle. Um, but then life just went on as usual. Nobody said anything. Nobody did anything. I don't know if he ever said anything to the guy, or not. I kind of think he didn’t. And that for me was just huge. That was the real betrayal for me. Margaret knows what she wants from the people in positions to care for her, but when they do not respond, she is not only devastated, she is lost. She replaces the figure in the tray that represented her to an Alice in Wonderland figure. When asked about this choice, Margaret explains. I don’t know, I just liked her, because everything got turned upside down. Nothing made sense anymore. I mean, I had felt alone before, but I felt even more alone then. Kind of wandering around in this world trying to make sense of things, where things didn’t make sense. The coupling of love and indifference conveyed by Margaret’s aunt and uncle is inconceivable to her. This illustrates how disruptions in relationships do not simply alter our perceptions of those relationships, they have the potential to turn our worlds “upside down”: altering our perceptions of our entire reality. Knowing. Knowing was a voice that had a distinct resonance. Women spoke about their experience with certainty, confidence or a sense of peace. It became apparent that the voice of knowing frequently surfaced after the participant encountered and acknowledged an aspect of her experience. In Brittany’s interview, knowing emerged in the midst of her acknowledging sadness and fear. Danielle: what feelings come up when you try to look at that bird? Brittany: [long pause] I feel like a lot of sadness for the bird [said quietly]. But I also “get” the bird, I get the bird, I totally get the bird. I get why she doesn’t want to be seen. To just reflect that everything is normal, and just that, I kind of feel the fear and wanting to hide. And then just fear. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 84 Clarity comes from encountering herself, being in the context of a nonjudgmental other, and connecting with the feelings that emerged. In Sarah’s interview, after we switch positions, I ask her what she notices about her tray. Sarah: It feels different on this side. Danielle: It does Sarah: It feels…. Stronger. Yeah, I didn’t mean to point her (princess figure) in that direction, but it makes sense [laughs]. Danielle: What do you think she (princess) is wanting? Sarah: She’s saying “Get out of my life. I don’t want you here. You’re not welcome.” Sarah realizes that she did not intend to place her figure facing the figure representing her perpetrator, but that this positioning “makes sense”. She laughs as she says this and it’s as if she is encountering something both familiar and new at the same time. As Sarah encounters her tray and notices how it feels, a sense of knowing emerges and she is able to speak confidently about what she was wanting. Knowing also appeared to be grounded in participants’ experiences of their bodies. Sarah speaks about a sense of trust that everything will be okay. When asked where that trust comes from, Sarah explains that it is feeling that comes from listening to her “gut.” After Lucy’s assault, she questions whether she was “asking for it” but then resists this narrative and by saying, “It took me a long time to realize, no of course not, that’s why I feel sick to my stomach.” For both women, their sense of knowing arose from connection to their bodies. Although knowing can be felt in our bodies, if our sense of events is not reflected in our social contexts, we may be left confused or have to choose to disconnect from what we know. Sarah: I didn’t know at the time that it was considered rape, if you were with a boyfriend or significant other, until years afterwards. And it was like no, it wasn’t, it wasn’t okay. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 85 Just because you’re in a relationship with someone it doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want to them. Danielle: And that was something you learnt later? Sarah: Years later. I knew it didn’t feel right at the time, but I didn’t know there was a term for it, I guess. Rape was something that happened with someone you don’t know. Or at a party with a bunch of drunk people. A one-time thing, not something that repeats. Sarah knows that violation occurred because of how the assault felt, but because her experience did not match her ideas about sexual assault, it takes years for her to fully know that what happened to her was not okay. What we know may emerge from a felt sense, but it is dependent on what we perceive as commonly held knowledge. For example, in the midst of Charlie’s denial, she notes that her assault was significant because it was her “first sexual experience.” She is not able to identify it as significant because it was an assault, as those around her did not respond as if it was a crime, emergency or violation. She is, however, able to know it was significant due to a sense most people would agree that any “first” sexual experience would be impactful. Having what one knows actively reflected in another person also provided an expansive experience. Eliza discusses confronting her perpetrator during the Healing Circle. But it, it was still really hard because he still totally didn’t, it took a while, it took a couple hours for him to just like finally realize what he had actually done. And, and how that had actually impacted me. Um, yeah. And after that I definitely felt like, relief. And release. And like a return to my more confident self Her perpetrator's acknowledgment and knowing appears to create more space for Eliza to know what she knows rather than have to disconnect from it because it doesn’t fit her relational reality. She experiences relief and restoration, but a confusing dynamic also exists, wherein the intention of the Healing Circle seems to be reconciliation, not justice. The perpetrator now RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 86 knows what harm he has caused, as does the third party mediating the interaction. They all share knowledge that a serious violation has occurred, but her perpetrator is able to continue with no apparent “social consequences.” Interplay of confusion and knowing. At times it was apparent that participants were shifting between the polarities of confusion and knowing. In the example below from Margaret’s interview, we witness her knowing as she speaks with confidence and clarity about she wanted (underlined text segments). She gives voices to a yearning for her aunt and uncle to acknowledge the harm of her assault and to step in by offering their accompaniment. Then, confusion creeps in and Margaret becomes uncertain (italicized text segments). Yeah, I remember thinking, um, I wanted my aunt and uncle to apologize for his behaviour, to have some kind of consequences. Like I didn’t ever expect, I wasn’t going to go to the police or anything like that, but um, and I didn’t want to tell my dad. I didn’t want to tell anybody else. I just wanted them to talk to me and you know, like I said, say like “We’ll never have him in our house again.” And “You’ll never have to see him again!” and “We’re so sorry that this happened.” I don’t know for some reason I feel, I felt, like that would have made it all better. Even though it wouldn’t have. But, yeah, there’s a part of me still feels like that would make, would have made it so much better. Maybe I was just fooling myself, but that's what it felt like at the time. Margaret’s knowing disappears and is replaced with a voice that doesn’t know and doubts itself. She questions the validity of her yearning: would it really have been healing or helpful to receive that response from her aunt and uncle? It seems as if Margaret wonders whether she is allowed to want what she wants. The interplay can also be seen in the way that Margaret switches tenses, saying “I feel, I felt” and “would make, would have made it so much better.” It is almost as if she is correcting herself. The part of her that feels that this still matters, is being silenced by the doubt that says that her yearning was only valid in the past. Furthermore, because her yearning RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 87 for the relational response from her aunt and uncle was not reflected in her reality, Margaret questions her permission to feel and express it. Knowing may surface internally; participants feel and know what was wrong and what would have been right for them. This knowing, however, becomes clouded by confusion and uncertainty when internal knowings fail to be reflected in our external worlds. The shifts in this polarity revolve around relations: knowings emerge out of connection to the self but can be silenced and doubted when they do not have a relational world outside of the self. Judgment. The voice of judgment was heard in women’s explicit or implicit questioning of whether an aspect of themselves or how they had responded was wrong. It carried the implication that they, or something about themselves, “should” be different. Many participants assessed their level of resistance based on whether they had “fought” back. Margaret mentions “So I mean I didn’t scream or anything, I just kind of froze.” Eliza recalls “And yeah, I didn’t fight back.” Brittany questions “Why didn’t I fight as much?” Sarah describes how others will ask “Why didn’t you fight back?” Charlie explains she told others she had fought her perpetrator back but that she didn't actually “do anything” and “wasn’t very assertive.” Lucy explains how she knew she “couldn’t fight this.” All participants seemed to have an expectation that the appropriate response to being assaulted is to “fight” back in some way, and that their lack of fight response may have invalidated the legitimacy of the harm they experienced. This expectation is harmful and misguided, as a common response to assault is “tonic immobility,” a temporary state of involuntary motor and vocal inhibition (Möller, Söndergaard, & Helström, 2017). This inability to move or speak is a defense mechanism elicited in the context of inescapable threat and perception of entrapment (Kalaf et al., 2017). Participants assigned blame to themselves for their lack of active resistance, when in reality, their paralysis was resistance in the sense that it was their best attempt at survival. A new understanding of what resistance is in the context of sexual is assault is needed so that survivors can honour, rather than question and RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 88 critique, their responses to assault. Indeed, there is not any “correct” way to respond to being assaulted. We need to upgrade our understanding to realize that however a person responds to the act of being sexually assaulted, is an act of resistance. This also creates an opportunity for listeners, those who survivors disclose assault to, to recognize and reinforce resistance. This means letting survivors know that however they responded, is not only permissible, it was an attempt to survive. Various participants questioned whether they were to blame for the assault, and assumed that others would have seen them as responsible. Lucy momentarily questions whether she was “asking for it” and Eliza wonders why she didn’t “see it coming,” but they both resist these narratives. Lucy knows through her feelings, a sense of something not “sitting right” and a sickness in her stomach, that she did not ask, or ever consent to her perpetrator’s advances. Eliza questions why “we’ve been conditioned” to blame ourselves for not knowing an assault was going to occur, and asks “Why does something have to happen? Especially when someone says no.” Sarah recalls that she feels like she “should have been able to do more to stop it.” She also affords herself some acceptance when she reflects that at the time of her assault there were less resources available and less people willing to talk about sexual violence. Brittany describes her experiences of self-judgment and “not wanting to be seen.” And I didn’t want to really be seen by God either, because I felt so dumb, and ashamed. This (the mirrors) I think it looks like a shame tower to me, not wanting to be seen at all. But I felt like such an idiot for not seeing through him (male figure representing perpetrator). And then kind of like self-blame, um, yeah, a lot of self-blame, of you know not even um, not, I felt like I didn’t even respond appropriately to him after this. Like I somewhat cut him out, I still saw him on campus- like “Hi how’s it going?”. Yeah, there was just so much denial. I just couldn’t, I couldn’t acknowledge what had happened. So, I just didn’t and went on as if things were normal. And yet also feeling a lot of self-blame. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 89 It was apparent that women were aware of a sense of judgment in their social environments. Charlie recalls how the doctors at the hospital relayed to her mother that Charlie had been drinking, and that her hymen was intact. Charlie does not make any explicit detail of how the hospital experience impacted her, but as an interpretive community there was a collective revulsion felt as the contexts of Charlie’s assault seemed to take priority over the harm that occurred to her. There was also a glaring absence of any mention of the perpetrator or his culpability. Was is the relevance of her hymen? Does her alcohol consumption invalidate her right to consent and choose which sexual acts to engage in or not? This environment does not allow Charlie to grieve what has happened to her or to assign responsibility where it is due. Instead, it appears to push Charlie into “self-loathing” and feeling responsible for the assault. Margaret was also aware of judgment in her relational context, especially fears of being seen differently due to the assault. After the assault she feels “ruined,” like “damaged goods” and does not tell her father as she fears he might be “disappointed” in her. She also assumes that the lack of response from her uncle is due to him believing that she “did something to deserve it” or was “making it up.” Eliza similarly recalls telling her husband, but fearing that he may see her as, what Margaret had also said “damaged goods.” Lucy, explains she could not tell her father as it would devastate him that “his little girl got violated.” Brittany shares that an additional reason she did not disclose the assault to her parents was her fear that they would see or treat her differently as a result. Sarah recalls that she has never told anyone the whole story of her experiences with sexual assault, as she does not want others to “pity” or “feel sorry” for her. Interestingly, all of these participants experienced and anticipated a sense of judgment from others, even in the absence of harmful comments being made. Participants assumed that others would see them as responsible and would see and treat them differently afterwards. For Eliza, even though her husband responded to her disclosure in a way that made her feel safe and validated, she still mentions a fear of being seen as “damaged.” This highlights the importance of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 90 explicitly conveyed acceptance to survivors. In the absence of acceptance, there is ambiguity, and in the ambiguity, survivors assume what others think and feel towards them, unfortunately in a negative light. Acceptance. Acceptance was a voice that conveyed all parts of me, and my experience are allowed to exist just as they are. There was a sense of peace about the past, current, and future, and a lack of desire for one’s self or the circumstances to be different. In Charlie’s interview, when she initially spoke about her use of partying to disengage, it echoed with judgment as she refers to herself as a “complete waste of space.” When we switch seats, and she views her tray from the other side, she sees herself in a new light. That even though I partied a lot, I also did enjoy myself. It wasn’t all bad, in fact, it was a lot of fun. Um, and on this side, I wouldn’t change anything. For me, when I look over, I think, those experiences, whether they were good or bad, they shape who you are so, you have to embrace those In the tray of her current world, Charlie places a small metal object in the tray, explaining it is “something that’s fallen from an alien planet.” In her initial tray, an alien figure represented a strong sense of not belonging, but in the tray of her life now, she calmly explains the rock is the “pieces of my life that have gone together in a positive way.” It is as if all parts of her experience belong. Even the painful elements of her life fit together in a way that comes with a sense of peace. When reflecting on her tray of her current world, Margaret also discussed her struggles with wanting things to be different and coming to a place of acceptance. The only thing I can think of is that, even though it’s not perfect, like I’ve always had this thing about “There’s a right way and a wrong way. And my life has to be a certain way. And everything has to be perfect.” I feel like I’ve gotten past that, and yeah, I’m happy with this. Even though, sure, there are some things I would change slightly. Like I said, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 91 maybe move the friends closer, the circle smaller, or that kind of thing. But I look at it, and I’m like, nope, this is good, like I’m happy with this. Sarah discusses the difficulty of moving forward in her life after being sexually assaulted. She recognizes she now has difficulty trusting others, but she also sees herself as “stronger.” When I mention that my eyes keep being drawn to her figure in her first tray, she speaks about herself with acceptance “She needed the time to heal. And that you can only blame yourself for so long.” She also speaks about her experience with acceptance, acknowledging it was harmful, but also that “it’s not consuming my whole life, it’s part of my life, but not as big.” There is room for her experiences to exist as they are, and for her to exist as she is. Sarah also reflects on what it has been like to return to school and make new friends: “Trusting that not everyone is there to hurt you. Forgiving even though you don’t want to. If you can forgive you can move forward. And trusting everything will be okay.” Forgiveness in this context is not about Sarah condoning the actions of the perpetrator, but letting go of the hope that those actions had been different. In the wake of her assaults, Sarah’s mention of forgiveness fits the voice of acceptance, as she is attempting to allow her experiences to exist as they are, moving forward with hope for the future rather than a desire to change the past. Participants also spoke about experiencing a sense of acceptance from others. For Margaret and Brittany, they both discussed initially seeing God as critical and judgmental but transitioning to a sense of feeling accepted by God, amidst the harm they were experiencing. Margaret explains, “I believe that God is seeking relationship with me, and he’s patient, and forgiving, and he’s okay with, kind of being on my terms right now, and he just wants to love me.” Although Margaret feels a little guilty that she is not closer with her friends, her family, and God, she has a sense that God is okay with the distance. Brittany similarly recalled a feeling that God was okay with the way she responded to her assault, not judging her, but loving her exactly where she was. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 92 Brittany, Eliza, and Charlie, spoke meaningfully about experiences of feeling accepted by others. For Brittany, she describes her interaction with her therapist as the “first time I was willing to be seen kind of exactly who I was, with my, with my stuff.” In Eliza’s interview, she recalls that her youth pastor’s wife was a key friend and mentor in her life at the time of the assault and was a person who accepted her with “no condemnation.” Even though Eliza has not had contact with her friend and mentor for many years, she maintains the figure that represents her in her final tray, as her influence is “Still supporting. Still encouraging.” Charlie speaks about a friend that knew her well during her 20s when she was partying. Although he did not know about the assault, he conveyed his acceptance of her by telling her “I loved you then and I love you now.” This is striking to Charlie, she expresses “It was a bit reassuring, that when I disliked myself so much, that he didn’t.” For Brittany, Eliza and Charlie, they anticipated judgment from others, likely due to their own feelings of shame and self-blame, but instead they received acceptance that came without conditions. In receiving acceptance from others, whether it was a person or spiritual presence, and whether the interaction was tied to the assault or not, the common factor seemed to be a sense of love. This love existed even in the face of things the participant felt ashamed of. This love could also be described as the “permission to be” in that participants did not feel that they had to be any different in order to be loved. A yearning for this acceptance, or “permission” to be was also heard. Brittany recalls “If only, he had hit me, or been much more aggressive than I would be strongly be able to say, ‘this wasn’t my fault’.” She feels that she could release herself from self-judgment if only her experience matched our commonly held ideas of assaults being violent. It is also implied that she would be able to anticipate acceptance from others, if only she had been harmed in a way we could all agree she was not responsible for. Again, we see how the degree of violence and “fight” mediated women’s sense of what was acceptable. Lucy discusses how she told others about the RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 93 violent aspect of her encounter, being put in a chokehold, but does not disclose that “he’d actually completed the assault.” It appears that she knows that others will care about the harm that has occurred, if it is solely in the context of violence, but that the sexual aspect of the assault brings ambiguity about her responsibility in the matter. These women display yearnings to have their unwanted sexual experiences validated by others without having to change the details of what happened. Charlie recalls that she had lied through the years, by saying that she had “fought back.” She explains “And I’m comfortable with that now, but I obviously wasn’t back then. So, I’m actually sure I might have fabricated things to make it safe for me, bit yeah, no, I didn’t do anything.” It seems that Charlie is now experiencing acceptance for the part of her that yearned for acceptance from others in the past. She recognizes she only fabricated details in order to avoid being judged, creating relational safety for herself. That is not something Charlie needs to be ashamed of. Her response to being harmed, was an attempt at survival, something to be understood and empathized with, rather than judged. Interplay of judgment and acceptance. The voices of judgment and acceptance were often heard in the same segment of text. Participants’ perceptions of their flaws and inadequacies were often followed by expressions of acceptance, giving themselves permission to exist as they are. In the example below from Eliza’s interview, she speaks with judgment (identified by underlined text) when asked about the Barbie figure in her tray. This judgment is followed by the voice of acceptance (italicized text). Yeah, I feel, I feel bad. Like I feel, disappointed, that she was in that position, you know? That, I don’t know, like uh, how could she not see it coming? That this might happen. But at the same time, I don't want to put that kind of pressure on someone, because you don’t see these things coming. You don’t. And I don’t feel like there’s, I don’t feel like it’s reasonable to put expectations like that on people. But at the same time, I feel like we’ve been conditioned to be like- “You should have seen that coming! What were you doing?! RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 94 In your basement suite alone with a man. Of course, something’s going to happen.” But no! Why does something have to happen? Especially when someone says no? Eliza is tempted to participate in a narrative that says that she should have been able to prevent the sexual assault, and that by putting herself in a vulnerable situation she is at fault. She resists this narrative, however, recognizing that the self-blame does not from within her but is the result of cultural conditioning. Interestingly, when she speaks with acceptance, it is non-personal. She makes reference to how unreasonable it is to place expectations on others, and explains how “you” don’t see these things coming, although it is evident she is speaking about her own experience. Amidst external pressures to blame oneself, it is still possible for survivors to cultivate an internal sense of acceptance. Isolation. In the wake of sexual assault, women were confronted with a sense of feeling alone, unsupported, or being alienated from others. Many participants spoke about how the event impacted their social life, given that there was a chance they would encounter their perpetrators at school, work, or other social setting. Several participants spoke about how they attempted to avoid further contact. Sarah had to quit her job and rearrange her life in order to “get away from him.” Eliza would “deliberately plan to not attend any kind of large group events where he would be” and Charlie “never went back” to school after her assault. Lucy and Brittany desired space but were forced to encounter their perpetrators on university campuses. This caused them to deny aspects of their experience, pretending that they hadn’t been grievously harmed. This enabled them to handle interactions with their perpetrators and maintain a sense of normalcy at school. It is striking to witness how these victims of sexual assault rearranged their lives, or the experience of themselves, in the wake of assault. Their perpetrators, however, appeared to continue their lives with minimal or no consequences. The sense of isolation was not just reflective of alterations in the participants’ external social worlds, it also was apparent in their internal feelings of disconnection from others. For RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 95 Margaret, the voice of isolation was apparent in her world before the assault, and this isolation only intensified after she was sexually assaulted. Margaret describes how her mom died when Margaret was 8 years old, and although her father remarried a few years later, she still felt like it was just her and her dad. Her father, however, was pretty “hands off” and “didn’t know what to do” with her. Margaret describes “I felt like I was pretty much on my own. . . . I felt like I was kind of, a little bit adrift, by myself. I didn’t really have an anchor.” This loneliness can be seen and felt in the tray, as the figures representing her and her father gaze past each other, surrounded by empty space. When Margaret discloses the assault to her aunt, the lack of follow-up causes her to feel “even more alone.” Although her aunt seems to be sympathetic when Margaret disclosed what had happened, afterwards “Nobody said anything. Nobody did anything.” In the absence of a response, Margaret believes “there’s nobody else I can tell.” Those that she expected to protect her, responded in a way that seemed indifferent to her suffering. When our suffering is not validated by the people around us, how can we validate our own suffering? When others do not reflect our worthiness to be cared for, how do we muster a sense of inherent worthiness? Margaret’s experience illustrates what has been described as the terrifying and destructive feeling of “condemned isolation,” a sense of feeling locked out of the possibility of human connection (Miller, 1988, p. 1, as cited in Birell & Freyd, 2006). It is likely that additional experiences unrelated to the sexual assault contributed to Margaret’s sense of isolation, such as her mother’s death and other instances where Margaret said she felt betrayed by her aunt and uncle. Nonetheless, through Margaret’s interview, it is apparent how pervasive and damaging this sense of isolation is. In Margaret’s tray of her current world, she uses figures to represent her husband, two adult children, her two sisters, and some of her friends. Despite the appearance of community, there is a lack of closeness, trust and RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 96 connection. Margaret wishes there was “less distance between the figures,” yearning to feel more connected to her family and friends, but struggles with knowing how to make this a reality. The feeling of “not being able to disclose” the assault haunted various participants and cut them off from feeling connected to others. Brittany feels isolated in her “denial box” and “shame tower,” believing that she could not tell anyone what had happened. Charlie feels buried in a coffin; she does not even discuss the possibility of telling others. She advised that the interview was the first time she spoke truthfully to another person about the assault. Lucy spoke of feeling that “everybody’s backs are turned to me” as she repeatedly tried and failed to get assistance from her university’s administration for the harm she experienced at the hands of her perpetrator and her athletic coach. She also feels that those in her social world “fell through for her” and says at various times during the interview that “No one saw me.” In Sarah’s interview, she advises that she never told anyone the entirety of her sexual assault experiences, fearing they would “feel sorry” for her. The voice of isolation is also strikingly expressed when she discusses the lack of safety she feels in relationships after being assaulted by someone she trusted. Having someone take those choices and safety away from you, drastically changes how you see relationships. And how future relationships go...And I end up pushing people away who care about me because I don’t know how to deal with the emotions, cause you’re always thinking – “well this person said this last time and look what they did.” Sarah laments that when she encounters people who cares for her, she is overwhelmed by feelings of fear and mistrust. In her tray of her current world, Sarah depicts how she now has good friends around her, “people I know have my back” but that it’s still hard to let them in. She identifies that overcoming this sense of isolation is what’s needed now in her healing, “You have to let people help you. And that’s hard. [voices quiets] When you’ve been doing it all on your own for so long. To let people in. [cries softly] And to trust that they won’t do the same thing.” RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 97 Accompaniment. In the voice of accompaniment, the listeners heard participants speak with a sense of belonging and feeling connected to others they can rely on. In Eliza’s interview, the voice of isolation was heard only sparingly, perhaps due to a strong sense of being cared for and supported by her friend and mentor. The sense of accompaniment from this mentor was visually obvious, as Eliza kept the figure representing her as part of every tray, even though Eliza has not been in contact with her mentor for over ten years. Eliza comments on how the figures hands are positioned, “kind of like ‘come on in’ and almost prepared for an embrace.” There is a trust that Eliza has with this person that transcends time but is represented in space. It is a testament to the impact of having even one warm, supportive person to turn to. The sense of being close and connected with others is apparent in Eliza’s tray of her current world as she expresses how her family is “front and centre.” She describes her relationship with her husband as “on the same page, working together, supporting each, and very closely knit.” It is impossible not to wonder whether the accompaniment she experienced from her friend and mentor, scaffolded and allowed for the sense of intimacy and solidarity she now feels with her husband. Lucy also spoke about the specific impact of having one person on whom she was able to rely on. She describes the responses her mother and father have when she expresses her struggles, and then contrasts those with the response of her current boyfriend. Yeah someone said a phrase to me that struck so true- “battle weary.” I feel like I’ve been fighting since I was 11 or 12 and it hasn’t frickin’ stopped. And you know, I say that to my mom and she goes “Well that’s just life.” I say that to my dad and – “I’m sorry, that sucks. Here’s a hug.” – which is nicer. And then I say that to my boyfriend and he goes “I’m so sorry you have to go through that. You’re an incredible person to keep fighting, but can I fight alongside you?” Which is, oh my God, now I’m going to cry. Um, [voice cracks and quiets] which is so incredible. He stands up for me. I’m not saying he picks a RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 98 fight with my mom, or picks a fight with my university, but I have no doubt if I called him and I said I needed something, he’d be there in a heartbeat. Lucy describes how having someone she can “consistently turn to” broke down “many of those walls” for her after her assault. Furthermore, she explains that her relationship gives her a “hope and direction and fuels my purpose,” In the tray of her current world, she describes the difficulties of her current university program, but explains that having her boyfriend alongside her makes overcoming these difficulties seem possible. Brittany spoke of a sense of being connected to and supported by her community in the tray of her current world. This sense of accompaniment is not an afterthought; it is deeply felt and at the forefront of her world. And then I just have like the best community of friends that I could ever ask for. So that, my community, my church community and my friends, the people that I have in my life supporting me, like I just couldn’t imagine this scene without them, so they are just so, so, here. Charlie also celebrated her sense of community in her current world, saying “I know one thing, without community, I flounder.” She describes her communities as “Selfless. Adaptive. Strong. Empowering. Good. Safe. Accepting. Including,” various elements that were not present in her relational context at the time of her assault. Charlie explains that she is a part of many different group of communities, and “sometimes I’m not part of any of them. But I’m never not a part of them. I can be apart from them, but I don’t ever feel like I don’t belong to any of these communities I belong to.” Charlie speaks to a profound sense of belonging, that is reminiscent of the words of Maya Angelou (1989), “You only are free when you realize you belong no place — you belong every place — no place at all.” In Margaret and Sarah’s trays of their current worlds, they depict and describe being surrounded by important others. The voice of accompaniment, however, is stifled by their self- RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 99 identified difficulties with letting others in after their experiences of betrayal. It was also apparent in both their interviews how they yearned for the support of others in the wake of their assaults. In reference to her aunt and uncle, Margaret explicitly asserts “I just wanted them to talk to me, and you know, like I said, say like ‘We’ll never have him in our house again.’” Margaret yearns to feel that they are on her side and are willing to take action to benefit and protect her. Sarah illustrates her desire for support: I didn’t really have anyone I could talk to, or any kind of support before so there wasn’t any, anyone to give me advice or to help me – be like ‘ok are you sure this is what you want?’ – it would have been nice to talk to somebody. Sarah also says that she “needed someone to help” and how it would have been nice to feel like the police “actually cared” when she reported her perpetrator’s behaviour. When asked what she wanted in the aftermath of the assaults, Sarah admits “She wanted to be loved. To be cared for. By someone whose intentions didn’t have ulterior motives.” Lucy similarly displayed yearnings for accompaniment. She describes becoming exhausted in her venture of trying to get her university to respond appropriately to her allegations of harm. She describes how she was met with sympathy, but that “everyone just kept handing me off” saying “Oh that’s really terrible that happened to you, but it’s not my job to help you so I’m going to send you along.” She laments that no one said “I want to help you” or offered to advocate for her until it was too late and she was approaching graduation. She describes feeling “At the end of really hard days [cries]. I really wanted a hug.” It becomes clear that the assault itself was not the only disturbing aspect of her experience, it was also the lack of relational support afterwards. Lucy struggles in the wake of her assault to get others to respond in a way that demonstrates sincere care. She also advises wanting her mom to fight with her, and even though her father does not know about the assault, wishing it felt like he was “on her side.” RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 100 Yearnings for accompaniment were also heard when participants were asked if there were anything they wish were different in the trays of their current worlds. For all but one participant, survivors moved figures in their current tray closer to them in response to this directive. Charlie and Sarah both moved one figure alongside the figure representing themselves and expressed a desire for a romantic partnership. Brittany moved the figures representing her parents closer to herself. Eliza moved the figure representing her friend and mentor closer. Margaret moved all the figures in her tray closer before realizing it felt “a little too close for comfort” and then repositioned them in a way that felt more sustainable and could represent a “goal to strive towards.” Lucy, however, removed some of the figures in the middle of her tray that represented the unanticipated challenges she is facing in her current university context. A yearning to feel accompanied is not absent, however, as the removal of obstacles makes it feel like she could “easily make it through” to her imagined future, which consists of career success, independence from her parents, and the formation of a family with her boyfriend. By removing the obstacles, Lucy is better able to envision a future in a different relational context. The experiences of the participants interviewed for this present study were diverse, in their pre-assault contexts, the particulars of the assaults, and their journeys towards healing. What was perhaps the most unifying element, was each participant’s illustration of the importance of relationships in the aftermath of acquaintance sexual assault. Interplay of isolation and accompaniment. These two voices appeared together when participants were moving towards great connection and simultaneously feeling restrained by their lack of trust in others. This was apparent in Sarah and Margaret’s trays of their current worlds. When Margaret first describes her tray, she explains how the figures around her represent her husband, two adult children, dad, two sisters, friends. But then she starts to cry, saying “I don’t know why it’s making me feel sad. Cause I’m surrounded by love and I feel like I’m in a good place.” Her sense of isolation becomes apparent as she acknowledges “The only RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 101 thing that comes to me is I wish there was less distance between the figures.” Although she sees herself as being accompanied by others, she struggles to feel close and connected to them. During the last directive when Margaret is asked whether she wishes anything in the scene was different, she moves the figures closer, and after noticing this feels “claustrophobic” she moves them further away. Margaret dances with the possibility of deeper relationships but recognizes the reality of feeling that “the only one I can count on like 110% is me.” In the tray of her current world, Sarah choses a group of figures to represent “people I know have my back.” I reflect how the setup of the tray visually demonstrates this as well, as the figures are placed behind her, literally looking at her back. I wonder out loud why her figure is looking forward and not towards the others. Sarah shares “Maybe she’s not quite ready to trust them yet. Or thinks they’ll disappear. There’s still some of the past she needs to get through first.” In these examples we see that participants could feel connected and disconnected at the same time. Although supportive relationships were within reach, fears that others are unreliable prevented participants from feeling truly accompanied. Separation. Separation is a voice that appears to be a by-product of denial, confusion, judgment and isolation. It echoed, however, with a distinct tone, when participants spoke about a sense of loss, powerlessness and disconnection. Various participants described grief or feeling the loss of something important to them. Charlie was asked what she feels or notices when looking at her tray with the skeleton in the coffin. I think, when I look at that, I think I feel a mixture of sadness and anger. I think sadness because what happened robbed me of so many different things in my future. I just didn’t know it at the time RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 102 Charlie grieves what her life might have been like had she not experienced the assault. But more so, perhaps what would have been different had she had the relational safety and support to move towards her experience, understand it and experience acceptance for herself rather than being stagnated in her denial and confusion. She laments that due to her partying lifestyle in her twenties, she was a “complete waste of space.” Charlie reflects that the people she knows now that are in their 20s would have all sorts of elements in their trays. The absence of Charlie can be felt in the tray; she is dead, buried, and surrounded by empty space. In Sarah’s tray of her world before the assault, a figure represents the way she used to see herself: as strong and in charge of her own decisions. She speaks with a sense of loss as she explains it took a really long time to see herself this way again. In her second tray, of her world after the assault, Sarah uses a carousel figure to represent the “the innocence that I used to feel before the relationship, and wanting to get back to the way it was before, but knowing it will never go back the same way.” Sarah mourns the loss of how she felt before being betrayed and assaulted, and she senses this feeling will never return in the same way. In Brittany’s tray of her world after the assault, the first thing she notices about the scene, is that the tree figure, that represented “hope” in her first tray, is gone. She explains “It just didn’t feel like it fit in here anymore.” The voice of separation was also apparent when participants spoke about a sense of powerlessness, when they realized that their voices, choices, or actions no longer mattered. Margaret recalls that her perpetrator “didn’t take no for an answer.” Lucy recognized “I can’t fight this right now.” Charlie recalls “I didn’t scream for help. I only screamed when I was in pain. And I just wanted it to stop but I didn’t know how.” Sarah describes how her perpetrator, an older man she was dating at the time of the assaults, intentionally exerted his power and diminished her capacity for choice. Consent only RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 103 exists the if option to say “no” comes without any risk of penalty. Her helplessness is emphasized in the next quotation by the italicized words. We went on a couple vacations together and one was for Valentine’s day and he had rented a place for us on the beach, and I didn’t really feel safe with him, but because he paid for it he thought that he could do whatever he wanted, and so I didn’t want to have sex with him, but he took that choice away from me….He paid for it, so I was his. And, I didn’t get any choices as to whether, it was either go along with it, or be afraid you’re going to get hurt. Eliza is devastated after her friend coerced her sexually. She is shocked that her explicit desire to be abstinent could be easily ignored, especially by someone who she trusted. She explains “My choices don’t necessarily make a difference in my own life. That kind of autonomy is not guaranteed.” Her loss of agency can be seen and felt in the text. She tells her friend “‘No, I don’t want to do that again. Because I have made a decision to stop sleeping around, and to change my behaviour with respect to like, sexual relationships, and I’m happy. I don’t want, I don’t want to do that anymore.” She speaks with confidence, clarity and faith in her ability to choose what sexual acts she engages in. In the next four lines of the transcript, however, her first “I” perspective. Instead, there are multiple utterances of “And then he….,”as she describes the progression of her perpetrator’s sexual advances, and how he guilted her into returning them. The sense of powerlessness carries on in a new light later in Eliza’s interview. When discussing the tray of her current world, she admits that she struggles when thinking about parenting her children. How am I going to do parenting so that my daughter doesn’t have an experience like this? Or realistically, how am I going to prepare my daughter to handle the fall out when this eventually happens to her. Because I feel like things are not improving. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 104 There is a sense of resignation; if Eliza can not protect her own choices, then she must be powerless to protect her daughter. This powerlessness is also reflected when Eliza speaks about her perpetrator. He is in the position of power and he is the strong one and he is the one who’s in control of the situation. Making the decisions. And yeah, making choices that are not honouring to anybody else around him. An additional aspect of the voice of separation was a sense of being disconnected from self, or that parts of the self had been separated. In Eliza’s tray of her world after the assault, the figure that represented her in the initial tray, is knocked over in the sand. Eliza explains. I mean, she’s, she’s destroyed. She’s definitely, she doesn’t really exist anymore. Like that confident, and empowered, and strong capable woman, she’s, she’s temporarily gone. Not totally gone, but, I mean, she’s not buried underneath the sand completely dead. But she’s definitely knocked over. Totally crushed. Devastated doesn’t, yeah, she’s not around. Her perpetrator’s disregard of her autonomy has resulted in Eliza feeling that a part of her barely exists anymore. If who we think we are is not reflected in our relations, then how can we continue to believe that is who we are? And if our personhood is dismissed, invalidated, or rendered voiceless, do we still have permission to exist? Eliza’s existence in the tray is now represented by two other figures. A “Barbie” type figure which Eliza explains “I just felt like a bimbo, you know? Like somebody that just doesn’t really matter.” She also adds a child figure to the tray, symbolizing a part of her that felt “small,” “insignificant,” “disempowered” and “vulnerable. This fragmentation of self is harmonious with Gilligan’s definition of dissociation, “our ability to separate ourselves from parts of ourselves, to create a split within ourselves so that we can know and also not know what we know, feel and yet not feel our feelings” (2003, p. 20). RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 105 Gilligan’s research theorizes that in adolescence, girls internalize a patriarchal framework that creates pressures on them to regulate themselves according to its terms. This often requires having to silence their thoughts, desires and judgments in order to maintain relationships or appearances. In this silencing and separation, women lose connection with themselves and their voice in relationship and are left with feelings of sadness and isolation. We witness how Eliza becomes detached from who she thought she was; her confident self was disregarded in her relational context, and as a result, is “temporarily gone.” In every participant’s story, this disconnection was visibly illustrated in participants’ sandtrays that depicted what their worlds were like after the assaults. Margaret replaces her previous figure with an Alice in Wonderland figure to represent how it felt like she went “down a rabbit hole” and lived in “a world that didn’t make sense anymore.” Every figure from Charlie’s initial tray disappears and her existence now is represented by a buried skeleton in a coffin. Brittany’s figure stays the same, but it barricaded from the rest of her world by a tall column of mirrors representing her “shame box” and “denial tower.” To further emphasize her withdrawal, the separation of herself from what she knows and feels, she buries her figure in the sand. Sarah’s figure stays the same but is covered by a cave. She advises she felt “isolated and hidden away” and also that it was “easier for her to hide” than to risk relationship. She also added a cage, symbolic of the power she felt her perpetrator had over her, and the lack of freedom and autonomy she felt. Lucy’s initial figure is removed and replaced by an adult figure and a child figure. The adult figure was “strong and shut everything down” in order to continue functioning in the world, while the child figure holds the truth, carrying the sadness and “the weight of silence.” Lucy explains how she is both “proud and saddened” by the fact that she did not fall apart while at university. She recognizes she did not have the opportunity or safety to grieve, to connect with what had been lost, until she returned home. Lucy also explains how the assault “shut down so RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 106 many of the good, warm, accepting parts of myself” and depicted this by placing a heart shaped figure outside of herself. Interestingly, she places the heart next the figure representing her father and explains that “he protected the softest, feeling parts of myself that were hardened when I was away at school.” Parts that participants disconnected from may feel gone, but their absence need not be permanent, as Gilligan (2014, p. 96) explains. The brilliance of dissociation as a response to trauma is that what is dissociated, split off from consciousness and held out of awareness, is not lost. . . . Association- the stream of consciousness and the touch of relationship -can unlock dissociation, bringing what is out of awareness back into consciousness. When it does, we have the sensation of discovering something at once familiar and surprising. This process of reconnection or restoration will be addressed in the next section as it pertains to the voice of empowerment. Empowerment. The voice of empowerment emerged when participants spoke about restoration, agency and solidarity with self. A sense of belonging to oneself appeared to surface, partly due to experiences of acknowledgment, knowing, acceptance and accompaniment. Participants described coming back to themselves, appreciating themselves and being able to choose actions that are congruent with their thoughts and feelings. After the assault, Lucy shows how she is separated from her heart by placing it at the other end of the tray with her father, but she knows that it is not gone from her completely. It was tough getting to me for a while. Even getting back. Part of the reason why my heart is separate is because I had to find it again. I just remember being really cold. Yeah, I’d play the song “Elastic Heart” on repeat for about, for my entire walk to class, for each day, through the winter. Just to remind myself that I have it, and I will get back to eventually. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 107 She explains that her father is “the role model of what male-female relationships can look like” and that it “felt natural” to put her heart with him. Lucy cuts off from her heart in order to survive the post-assault context at her university, where she feels dismissed, judged and isolated. Amazingly it seems that even though her immediate environment does not enable her to remain connected to herself, she is aware of another relational context where she is able to be fully herself. In relationship with her father, his love and kindness afford her the space and safety to reconnect with her heart. In the tray of her current world, she says “I’m kind of getting back to who I was before the event. My heart is no longer separate, it’s right back in me.” In the aftermath of Eliza’s assault, the figure that initially represented her is knocked down, but when asked what that figure would have wanted to say, Eliza responds: “Don’t worry, you’ll get back there.” And just like I think that, like stuff happens, and the choices that we make matter and even when the choices that we make are not honoured, we can still choose again. And still find out way back to strength and empowerment and confidence. Although a part of her is “temporarily gone,” she remains connected to it, carrying a confidence that she will reconnect with that part and embody herself fully again. Brittany’s sense of hope, represented by a tree figure, disappeared after her assault. In the tray of her current world, she exclaims “My tree is back! And for me it goes right with the church (figure)” Not only does an element of her resurface, it returns with a greater sense of knowing and connectedness as Brittany confidently exclaims how her sense of hope is linked with her experience of God. Sarah’s tray of her current world also rings with empowerment, especially a feeling of restoration. And this (tree figure) represents how much I’ve grown. And it’s sparkly, and it’s pretty and its fun. And this (treasure chest figure) kind of represents what, how everything has RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 108 been closed and is now open, able to get out and to heal. And when you open it, there’s still so much treasure inside. That even though a lot of bad things have happened, there’s still hope. And growth. Not only does Sarah identify that integrating what had been closed is necessary for her healing, she describes the reconnection process as one akin to the discovery of “treasure.” Empowerment is also heard in the way she talks about her growth with enjoyment, noting that it is “sparkly,” “pretty,” and “fun.” Although she has had experiences of pain, confusion and shame, Sarah is now assembling an existence where all parts are her and her story can exist as they are and be held with appreciation. Brittany and Charlie also embodied the voice of empowerment in the trays of their current worlds. The voice of acknowledgment is present as they express the good feelings they encounter as they gaze at their scenes, as is the voice of knowing, as they speak with confidence about themselves. When Charlie is first asked about her scene, she says: I love my life! So, um, I, this, the reason I put that (green tree) in there is because there’s so many branches, so many colours and so many wonderful areas of my life. Um, I put these (white trees) in there because I’m all sparkle now and I, I do feel that way. Near the end of her interview, Brittany realizes that she has been holding on to an owl figure. She assumed she would use it to replace the other bird figure she had used in her previous trays to represent herself. Then she has a realization. Like it just, it just feels really good. And I’m aware that a lot of the other figurines have changed, like character, and I am still the bird! And you know what? I still like that bird! I like the bird, and, the reason why I didn’t switch the bird for, I was like, I’m going to put this owl (figure) in, it’s a stronger bird. But you know what? I don’t necessarily feel stronger. I feel more authentic...Yeah, so I feel like I’m okay with that bird just being as it is. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 109 Brittany illustrates how in her current world, she allows herself to remain as she is. She realizes she does not need to change any part of her in order for her to approve of herself. It is not surprising that prior to this realization, Brittany was describing how looking at centre of her tray, where her community is represented, felt “Full in a good way. So, like loved and satiated.” In order to be her whole self, Brittany needed to feel accepted and accompanied by others. In the fullness of her community, she embodies the fullness of herself. Contrasting with the powerlessness felt in the voice of separation, the voice of empowerment was at times imbued with a sense of agency, a belief in one’s ability to take action or make choices that are meaningful and effective. Unsurprisingly, agency was heard more frequently in relation to participants’ initial sandtray scenes, that depicted their worlds before the assault. In describing her first tray, Eliza explains how she had recently made some choices. Okay, so I chose Pocahontas (figure) because at this season of my life, before this happened, I had reached a place of strength, and independence, and resolve about like my own sexuality and choices that I had been making and I, I had, you know, made some changes and I was really pleased with them. So, I felt very empowered, and very strong, and maybe not independent, but confident and content. This sense of agency can be eroded, however, if our choices not upheld by others. This happened to a degree to every participant, as the perpetration of sexual assault disregards survivors’ right to choose whether or not to engage in sexual acts. Although each participant knew she did not want the sexual experience, she did not get to choose, and her actions became futile. Agency also eroded when vulnerable actions did not result in desired outcomes. In Margaret’s story, she works up the courage to tell her aunt about the assault, hoping her aunt and uncle will provide some kind of support. When she is confronted with their inaction, she feels she can not tell anybody else. If she can not trust them, who can she trust? And furthermore, can RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 110 she even trust her own judgments? Her best plan of action to address her harm was met with seeming indifference. How can she still have confidence in herself, her choices or her actions? In the wake of assault and being made to feel powerless, participants found other avenues where they could make meaningful choices and take effective actions. Lucy knows she does not have the evidence, or social power, to obtain justice for her sexual assault. Realizing this, she “modified” her target to her coach, knowing that she has evidence of his negligence and there is a greater chance the university will respond. Her coach, however, conveniently announces his retirement and the university allows him to remain as a volunteer coach. Where there is no acknowledgment of harm, culpability or consequences, it feels “pointless” and Lucy is left feeling “battle weary.” When the environment did not allow for suffering to be heard and responded to appropriately, participants sometimes exercised their agency by finding a new environment. Sarah, Margaret and Brittany all made mention of taking “trips” and used figures to represent travelling to a different place in their trays. Although trips could be seen as a method of denial disengagement, it appeared more likely that women were making choices in response to a felt lack a space. In their current environments, they felt constricted, having to deny aspects of their experiences in order to participate in the world around them. Thus, they use their agency to travel a place where they do not need to disengage from what they know and feel. This transitional process can be observed in a segment from Lucy’s I poem. She expresses the difficulty of encountering her perpetrator on campus, knowing how he has harmed her, but feeling unable to do anything about it. I don’t know what more I could have done I had to leave I couldn’t have stayed on that campus RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 111 I thought I would be free of him I had to I left Even though Lucy says she “had to leave” the reality is that she was not forced, she made a choice. In recognizing there was not sufficient space for her to exist as herself on campus, with the truth of the sexual assault, she leaves and gains new freedom. Agency also surfaced in participants’ trays of their current worlds. In Charlie’s tray, sixteen figures are used to represent the communities she intentionally built after her divorce. The voice of empowerment that resonates with agency is emphasized in italics. I choose the people I want to be with now, um, and everything that I do, and everything that I’ve been trying to do, is to say thank you, somewhere along that the line. And maybe, maybe, that’s what I was always meant to do, but I only know that I can do it now. I probably wouldn’t have been able to do that before. Yeah, that’s why this community, whoever they are, the people that are in my world, not just people, but decisions, everything, they, and I think this community as well. Trying to follow the precise thread that connects Charlie’s thinking in the above example is challenging, as she does not seem to arrive at a specific point. The voice of confusion present, but it does not obscure the voice of empowerment. Charlie knows what she wants, believes in her capacity, and is able to act accordingly. She chooses the people around her, intentionally selected ones who embody safety, selflessness, acceptance, inclusion and empowerment; relational elements that were not part of her previous trays. Charlie says it’s “not just people, but decisions.” It appears the two are inextricably linked, even though the significance of people and decisions are not elaborated on further. There is an intersection of feeling agentic and feeling accompanied. I would be curious to see if the voice of confusion would further diminish if RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 112 Charlie had additional opportunities to encounter her experience in the presence of others. In the wake of sexual assault, Charlie’s predominate response was denial. She explains that she did not even know that “it” had an impact on her. Her environment did not provide safe opportunities for Charlie to acknowledge the harm she experienced. I theorize that as Charlie explores the parts of her experience that she has pushed away and speaks truthfully about them in the context of relational safety, greater clarity and coherence would emerge. During Charlie’s debrief at the conclusion of her interview, she reflects that because she “had put it away” she does not know what impacts the assault still has on her. She is glad that she learnt that talking about the event didn’t “take her back to a dark place” or “take away the goodness” in her life. She yearns, however, to know more and wonders if the assault will impact future sexual relationships. She somehow comes to a place of resolve, accepting that “it might affect me, but not in a way that I won’t be able to handle it.” Even though Charlie does not have clarity, she has peace. And even though she knows her experience of sexual assault may continue to impact her, she feels confident in her ability to handle whatever arises. In the absence of a clear sense of agency, empowerment could also be heard when participants displayed solidarity with themselves. In solidarity, participants acted in congruence with their thoughts, feelings and values, even when it went against the status quo. Gilligan (2014) proclaims that voices that resist culture may be hushed or hidden, but that they hold transformative power. Lucy’s university fails to take seriously the allegations she brings forth about her perpetrator and her coach. Nonetheless, she continues to fight, staying true to the harm she’s experienced, saying “Look, this is a problem.” Eliza has a similar experience after her assault, expressing “This happened. And I’m not okay with it, and he’s out there living his life completely normal and unimpacted. And I’m still not okay.” Amidst the pressures of a culture that would prefer if she just “got over it”, forgetting what she knows and staying silent, Eliza refuses to surrender. Instead, she continues to take action that is in congruence with what she RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 113 knows and feels, and she seeks out a way to address the harm created by her perpetrator. Margaret confronts the belief she internalized that God was overly critical and judgmental, and rejects it declaring “No, that’s not true. That’s not accurate!” In these examples, we see how survivors of sexual assault actively resist the ideas and pressures of the cultures around them. They refuse to shut down or accept the status quo, and instead pave a new way that is more congruent with their own thoughts, feelings and values. Interplay of separation and empowerment. The interplay between these two voices was not as obvious as the interplays described above. This is perhaps due to the nature of these elements being larger processes that the other voices contribute to. At times though, hints of empowerment exist among the voice of separation, such as Eliza’s description that a part of her is “temporarily gone”, but not “totally gone”, and is “totally crushed” but “not completely dead.” The distance between separation and empowerment is perhaps wider than the distances between the other polarities of harm and healing. Thus, rather than an apparent back and forth interplay, it seems the interactions between these voices is subtler and more nuanced. Relationships between voices. It has been challenging to present these voices as discrete entities, as in reality, they exist in relationships to one another. These polarities were set along a spectrum from constriction to expansion, but this spectrum could also be considered to be symbolic of other movements, such as disconnection and reconnection or oppression and liberation. To oppress is “to crush or burden by abuse of power or authority” (Oppress, 2019). Experiences of harm stifled survivors by burdening them with denied thoughts, feelings and memories. It created disorientation that made it difficult for survivors to navigate their worlds. A voice of judgment caused women question to themselves, and ask had they done something wrong? Harm destroyed safety, separating survivors from the feeling of being close to and cared for by others. Women lost the ability to be themselves in the world, and in their relationships. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 114 Liberation on the other hand, is the restoration of freedom, wherein women have permission to encounter their experiences and the space and clarity to arrive at understandings. Survivors experienced release from the need to be different in order to be accepted and were able to feel meaningfully connected to others. In empowerment, survivors are free to be themselves in the world, with all of their uncertainties and painful emotions. Knowing that they can depend on others, survivors are able to stand in solidarity with themselves; they know themselves, approve of themselves, and can take action in accordance with themselves and in connection with others. Also, notable, is how the voices of harm compounded one another, constricting existence, and how the voices of healing amplified each other, illuminating a more expansive experience. These processes are synergistic in the sense that voices of harm elicit, interact with and reinforce one another, their combined effect is greater than the sum of their parts. Likewise, the voices of healing also beckon to each other, increasing what can be acknowledged, known, accepted and accompanied. Examples from the participants will be used below to illuminate these synergistic relationships. Synergy of denial and confusion. In denial, participants cut themselves off from their experiences, disengaging from or downplaying the assault and its impact. When our experiences are pushed out of awareness, how can we come to understand them? In the fragmentation of denial, we lack clarity, certainty and confidence. After Charlie is assaulted, she depicts herself as a skeleton in a coffin. She explains how it felt as if she was being buried in the sand when others said or acted as if “It’s okay” and “It’s all just going to go away.” The pressure to deny her experience was strong, and Charlie was not aware of her complicity in it, saying “I didn’t even know. When everyone else had done this, I did it too.” In the midst of this denial, Charlie experiences confusion as to how the assault impacted her. She knows she experienced harm, but without the space to encounter her own thoughts, feelings or memories of the assault, its effects are unclear, “I didn’t actually know ‘it’ RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 115 had done anything. I just thought I was a screw up. I didn’t have any idea whatsoever, that ‘that’ had any effect on my life.” The distance created by denial can be felt when Charlie refers to the assault as “it” and “that”; it is impersonal and unknown. Furthermore, in the absence of acknowledgment and knowing, Charlie is left to speculate. As harm breeds harm, the voice of judgment emerges as Charlie assumes she must be a “screw up”. She has not had the opportunity to be told otherwise, thus, perhaps the safest assumption is that she is somehow wrong, flawed or damaged. In the other direction, confusion can also breed denial. If our experience does not make sense, or fit with what we think we know, then we can resolve this mismatch and confusion by pushing the experience further from our awareness. Sarah was sexually assaulted on multiple occasions by a man she was dating, and although she “knew it didn’t feel right at the time” she does not acknowledge his actions as wrong, or understand her experiences as sexual assaults, for several years. She admits “I didn’t know at the time that it was considered rape, if you were with a boyfriend.” She has an inner knowing that it harmful, however, she has learnt from her external environment that sexual assaults are committed by violent strangers or occur at drunken parties. This mismatch and confusion lead Sarah towards denial, rather than acknowledgment. Feelings of uncertainty about the nature of the encounter, not knowing whether it was really assault, may lead to an increased tendency towards denial through the minimization of its impact. Brittany felt confused as her personal experience of her perpetrator did not match his public reputation as a “good, Christian guy” and is made more uncertain when she compares her encounter to her friend’s more violent assault. If our internal experiences do match what’s reflected in our relational worlds, then denial has appeal in its potential to artificially resolve this dissonance. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 116 Synergy of confusion and isolation. When we are confused, we can not make sense of ourselves and our circumstances. From this place, some people may reach out to others to help orient themselves. In the context of betrayal, however, relying on others can feel especially vulnerable. If others we trusted hurt us, how can we safely extend ourselves hoping this time will be different? In the present study, participants’ confusion propelled them towards isolation. Sarah explains that because she “doesn’t know how to deal with the emotions” she ends up pushing away people who care about her. Margaret reflects that she had no idea how to talk to her father about the sexual assault, and he is never told. In the landscape of relational harm, the safe harbour of isolation may be more attractive than navigating the seas of confusion with a companion. Isolation can also breed confusion. When we are only relying on ourselves, it can be difficult to come to understandings. This is especially true when our experience is overwhelming, as is the nature of traumatic experience. Trauma, in its inconceivability, stretches persons beyond their capacities, creating a demand for the assistance of others. When people are constricted in isolation, however, they are not able to access and the support of others in order to integrate their experiences. Margaret captures the meeting of the voices of confusion and isolation. In her initial tray she feels adrift and without anchor, but following her assault she feels “even more alone” and “adrift in a world that didn’t make sense…” Synergy of isolation and judgment. Participants also described how their isolation may be influenced by perceptions of their wrongdoings or inadequacies. Lucy described that the sense that fighting on her own “makes you feel like you are not enough.” When Margaret’s uncle does not say anything about the assault, she assumes his lack of accompaniment is due to his negative evaluations of her. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 117 I think, you know, because my uncle didn’t do anything, I felt like he was probably judging me. And thinking, you know, I did something to deserve it, or whatever. Or I was making, making it up even. Just, you know, like blowing it out of proportion or whatever. On the other hand, anticipating judgment from others led participants to isolate further. Sarah has not told anyone the full story as she does not want them to feel “sorry” or “pity her.” Margaret fears her dad would be “disappointed” in her if he knew. The antidote for these feelings of inadequacy however is found in relationship. It is through exposing our shame and fears in relationships with supportive others that we overcome the illusion we inhabit a “wrongness” that makes us unworthy of love and connection. Synergy of acknowledgment and knowing and acceptance. When we turn towards our experiences, we notice and feel, and a greater sense of knowing emerges. While initially there may be painful feelings and overwhelming confusion, we trust that as we wade through acknowledgment, a sense of things coming together will arise and the desire for things to be different can be released. As we gain more clarity and confidence, we are better equipped to turn towards and acknowledge other aspects of our experiences that have yet to be encountered. This is not a one-time event, but a rhythm of expanding and contracting, that is continued, as healing is a process and not a destination. This is how acknowledgment can yield greater knowing, and even acceptance. A sense of knowing reinforced the voice of acceptance when participants were able to “make sense” of their ways of being in the world. Brittany “gets” the bird, she understands why she didn’t want to be seen, and later she reiterates “And I’m okay with the bird being just as it is.” Margaret initially expresses guilt that she is not closer to some of the figures in her final tray. She acknowledges, however, that “due to a lot of the stuff that’s happened in my life”, she understands she has a tendency to “feel like the only I can count on like 110% is me.” While she RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 118 is tempted to judge herself, she affords herself some grace in realizing that her tendency towards relational distance makes sense given her experiences of relational pain and betrayal. In Brittany’s tray of her world after the sexual assault, she represents her relationship to God with a cathedral figure, explaining that God feel critical and intimidating, not personal or protective. Her figure is buried and enclosed by a column of mirrors that look like a “shame tower.” She explains “I didn’t really want to be seen by God either, because I felt so dumb and ashamed.” A photograph of this scene is included below, in Figure 2. Figure 2. Brittany's world: After. After discussing her responses to the scene, Brittany and I changed seats and I asked her to notice if anything stands out to her now. Honestly… it is so weird but just that tiny little cross (on the cathedral figure) that is in between the things [motions with hands to the steeples of cathedral], that is just really impacting me right now. Just, um, it is so weird that this (the mirror) blocks the cathedralness of God, and yet, maintains that tiny little bit of Christ, or faith, which I think is exactly how, or where God was at in my life at that time. Whether I knew it or not. But yeah, that’s the only, it’s just like BAM right now. That’s so weird! A photograph of Brittany’s view of this part of her tray is provided in Figure 3 below. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 119 Figure 3. Brittany's view. Brittany gazes at her tray from a new perspective and is invited to share her experience with me. She begins to discover something, new but also familiar. The voice of acknowledgment can be heard in her admission that she is being impacted, “right now”. A faint voice of confusion is heard in her expressing how “weird” this novel encounter is. Yet, this confusion does not stagnate her and she reaches a place of calm confidence. Brittany explains that whether she knew it or not at the time, she now knows that this was where God was in relation to her. Then I ask her what feelings emerge as she looks at it. Brittany: That he still loved me. Danielle: What’s that like? Brittany: It just reminds of that tree (figure), that kind of hope. And that he was okay with this (the mirrors) As Brittany is invited again to acknowledge her experience, she comes to realize that even though she feels shame about the assault and her response to it, that God loves and accepts her. She is released from the pressure to be any different, and in this place of relational safety, she invited me to share and be impacted by her experience. When I offered to take new photographs of her tray, she motioned me to her side and said “You’ll be able to see it for sure. You know what I mean? Isn’t that weird?” She invites me into an encounter, knowing that I will be able to acknowledge, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 120 understand, and appreciate aspects of her world. Her experience of herself becomes richer in these moments of shared connection with a trusted other. Synergy of acceptance and accompaniment. In many examples, the voice of acceptance appeared to lead to greater accompaniment. This is not surprising as, if one is feeling inadequate or flawed in some way (judgment), it is difficult then to feel worthy of and seek out supportive relationships. When participants spoke with acceptance, however, it seemed that this propelled them towards a stronger sense of accompaniment. This was especially true when someone in the participants’ relational context conveyed acceptance for them. This conveyed acceptance challenged participants’ negative thoughts and feelings about themselves, as someone else was able to accept them just as they are. When participants entertained the possibility that they may be acceptable, they were empowered to also entertain the possibility of being authentically cared for by others. In order to protect herself and protect her mother from additional conflict with her father, Brittany told others in her life that she had not been sexually assaulted and tried to act as if this was true. After a year and a half of denial, Brittany describes feeling “shame through the roof” when she discloses the assault to her therapist. In her reflection, Brittany clarified that she felt ashamed, not because she had omitted to tell her therapist about the assault, but because Brittany had on multiple occasions said, “he didn’t assault me.” Brittany explained that lying to her therapist violated her personal ethic of being honest in close relationships. Brittany felt ashamed that she had acted out of congruence with her values, in a way, betraying herself. Fortunately, in this place of shame and self-judgment, Brittany’s honesty and vulnerability were met with unconditional relational acceptance: “The first thing that she said to me was ‘Brittany I love you and I forgive you.’ And that moment changed my life. That was, it was like the words just hit me like a wave.” Brittany attributes her therapist’s conveyed acceptance for her as a catalyst that allowed her to be honest with others about the sexual assault. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 121 Um, and so in that moment there was profound relational healing and spiritual healing in the fact that it was the first time I was willing to be seen kind of exactly who I was, with my, with my stuff. And so, from there, in taking kind of that first step to share with someone and to be met with such love, um, that kind of opened the door for me to start sharing with other people. So, funnily enough, there’s lot of people that know in my life. I’ve been pretty open about it, a lot of people at school know, most of my good friends know, actually all of them know. Instead of engaging in denial, Brittany is able to tell others the truth about her experiences, and herself. In feeling accepted, she is also able to feel accompanied. In Brittany’s tray of her current world, she explains that she is surrounded by “the best community of friends that I could ever ask for.” In many cases the voices of healing seem to build on each other in a linear progression, from acknowledgment to knowing to acceptance to accompaniment. This, however, is not always the case, as their synergism allows them to reinforce each other in perhaps unexpected ways. For example, the experience of accompaniment can also be a catalyst for acceptance. In Charlie’s tray of her current world, she celebrates her community. That, um, which, you know, not only do these all represent my community, but they’re all pieces of who I am. Especially her (female figure), because I felt so ugly and unloved and bad, for so long. And I don’t anymore. And this is the person that sits proudly and is grateful and thankful and joyous now. And can hold her head up high Even though she has not had an opportunity prior to the interview to experience conveyed acceptance in respect to her sexual assault and her response to it, the feeling of belonging and solidarity she feels with others, seems to infuse her with a sense of self acceptance. She expresses how she chose to surround herself with people who “stand proudly” and “have conviction in what they do and what they are.” It appears that through witnessing the people in RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 122 her community accept themselves and feeling that she “belongs as much as everybody else,” she is empowered to accept herself. I predict that this acceptance would only grow in contexts where Charlie is able to encounter and share more of her experiences with supportive others. Elements of Healing and Transformation in the Research Process In the process of discovering and describing the voices of healing, the interpretive community became aware of how the interview protocol provided opportunities for participants to encounter these voices. In accordance with the transformative aims of this project, the process of participation was designed to be a healing experience for participants. What was unexpected, however, was how the voices of healing that were identified could also be used to describe the relationally transformative power of the interview. Participants were asked to create visual depictions of their experiences, and then asked to literally gaze towards them and encounter their thoughts, feelings, somatic sensations and memories. During this acknowledgment, participants were offered the space to sit with uncertainty and allow knowing to emerge. This occurred in a relational context where acceptance and accompaniment were conveyed through giving participants authority to tell their story the way they wanted, with as little or much detail as they were comfortable with, and limiting my questions to what was depicted in the trays and the here-and-now experience. Safety was also created through mutuality (Jordan, et al., 1991), by extending myself and being receptive to the impact of the other. During the interview, I occasionally shared something I was noticing in the tray, such as “I see she’s looking right at him” but suspended any interpretation. Instead, meaning was allowed to emerge from the participants’ own encounters in this relational space. I also intentionally remained open to be impacted emotionally and somatically, and at times shared with participants my immediate responses such as “I felt a wave a sadness when you placed that figure” or “My chest feels really heavy when I look at the space between them.” The transformative power in this responsivity, or “bearing witness” is that the RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 123 “willingness to be disturbed by someone's experience of suffering it is the opposite of indifference” (Kahn, 1999, as cited in Kahn, 2006). The crux of betrayal is the experience of indifference when one is expecting care. Through providing an intentional environment of relational safety, participants were invited into a process of transformation, whereby they could encounter and express their experiences and have them witnessed in the accompaniment of another person. Participants were reminded that their experiences and stories were of value, and that our research team was dedicated to representing them as well as possible. Shay (1994), an expert on combat trauma and moral injury, explains that the “healing of trauma depends on the communalization trauma- being able to safely tell the story to someone who is listening and who can be trusted to retell it truthfully to others in the community” (pp. 4-5). Evidence for the transformative aspects of the interview were apparent in participants’ responses to the debrief questions (Appendix G) at the end of their initial interviews. All participants shared that they felt the experience had been good and/or positive and some spoke about specific elements that were helpful. Eliza reflected on what it was like to share her story in this atmosphere: “I liked that I had the freedom to talk about it in whatever way I was comfortable with and that I didn’t have to go into exact details about everything. Yeah that definitely made me feel safe.” Lucy expressed similar sentiments: “It’s nice having a voice and having someone to hear. Because whenever I’ve had to share that story, it’s having to share it defense of myself.” She also expressed her appreciation for a “nonjudgmental atmosphere” where it felt like I was engaged in her “humanity” with her. When I met with participants to collect their reflections on the findings, it would have been helpful to explicitly ask them how they felt participation in the study impacted them. Gathering their perspectives on what had been healing and if anything was harmful would have added meaningfully to this research. Nonetheless, all participants spontaneously expressed that they were glad they had participated in the project and a few described relational shifts that RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 124 occurred for them since the time of the interview. Although a causal link between the interview and the shifts can not be ascertained, the emergence of these shifts is noteworthy, nonetheless. Sarah shared that since her initial interview, she has experienced the unconditional acceptance of others, and now feels much closer to her friends. Lucy shared that she has since disclosed the assault to her father, realizing that she is “allowed to tell.” She described being moved by watching how he was impacted by her experience. She expressed that because he didn’t question how she responded or treat her differently afterwards, she felt an alleviation of judgment and a new sense of freedom, stating “I can tell anyone now.” Charlie expressed that the interview was the first time she had spoken truthfully about her sexual assault to another person. Shortly after her reflection meeting, she informed me that she had since spoken publicly about her assault and shared her story with an auditorium of listeners. These shifts are worth considering. Even though they cannot be assumed to be causally linked to the transformative process of participation, they nonetheless demonstrate how survivors of sexual assault experience meaningful change; strengthening connection with others and restoring their connection with themselves. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 125 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION The present study provides an in-depth exploration of the relational elements of harm and healing women experience in the context of acquaintance sexual assault. While research literature acknowledges that sexual assault occurs interpersonally, and that social support and responses to disclosures are an important aspect of survivors’ recoveries, using a relational lens to listen to women’s’ first-hand accounts of their experiences has illuminated various ways in which the relational embeddedness of existence uniquely contributes to experiences of harm and healing. The capacity to relate to oneself and others was a process that was shaped as participants’ experiences of their relational environments shifted. Harm did not occur only in response to the particulars of the assault, it was also dictated by the relational context survivors navigated afterwards. For example, denial was a process mediated by relational safety. While denial may initially emerge from intrapsychic overwhelm, it was maintained in contexts where survivors had insufficient space to safely encounter and express their experiences. Suedfeld (1997, p. 850) defines a traumatic experience as “a very severe environmental challenge calling for the utmost energization of coping resources.” When there is an absence of relational resources, survivors were forced to cope by cutting off from themselves, denying their experiences, and ultimately feeling isolated from others. Furthermore, while denial may be an internal process of overwhelm, the overwhelm is a consequence of jarring relational experiences, in this case, being sexually assaulted by someone known and trusted. Thus, the realities of relationship are inescapable when exploring how women experience acquaintance sexual assaulted. Harm, then, can be understood as process that constricts experience. When participants lacked safety, space and autonomy to be themselves with themselves and others, they experienced denial, confusion, isolation and separation. These elements of harm worked synergistically, building on each other and stagnating survivors in their suffering. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 126 This research is hopeful, however, as it illuminates the transformative capacity of elements of healing, and their accessibility. Participants experienced healing, through the restoration, reconnection or creation of relations with aspects of themselves and with others. When survivors are given permission to encounter their experiences, and access greater knowing, they are empowered to turn towards others, feeling supported and releasing the need for them or their past to be any different. From this place of connection with self, and in solidarity with others, survivors are empowered to be in solidarity with themselves, allowing, appreciating and acting in accordance with what they know, feel and want. Acquaintance sexual assault was chosen for this study as an example of interpersonal violation, because of its particular capacity to disrupt relationality, and the disturbing frequency in which it occurs. This chapter will outline the strengths and limitations of this project, following by a discussion of the theoretical, methodological and practical significance of the findings. Recommendations for future research will be presented, followed by concluding remarks. Strengths and Limitations The adoption of a relational framework, an understanding existence and experience are inherently relational, informed not only the way data was analyzed, but also how this data was created and treated. In order to honour the relational nature of reality and the importance of relations to wellbeing, explicit care was given to the quality of relations in the research project. Women with pre-existing relationships with myself were included as participants, after being informed of the potential risks and complications of their involvement. The foundation of trust that existed between us, was theorized to provide the relational safety for these participants to safely tell their stories. This theory was supported via participants’ comments that their trust in me to hear, understand and then share their stories, was integral in their decision to participate. These participants had faith in myself to “communalize” their experiences of harm, a process that Shay (1994) argues is essential to healing from trauma. Excluding the participants with RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 127 whom I had pre-existing relationships would have excluded these stories from the research, failing to provide opportunities for silenced voices to contribute to the discourse. In the context of betrayal and interpersonal violations, relational safety is a necessity for the research setting. Including participants with pre-existing relationships to myself, serves to illuminate rather than obscure findings. Furthermore, many studies on sexual assault rely on treatment seeking samples which do not reflect sexual assault victims in the general population (Ullman, 1999). Although the small sample size does not allow the findings to be generalized, this project did bring voices of non-treatment seeking individuals to the discourse. The inclusion of sandtrays was a methodological innovation that honoured relationality. By providing a container for women to depict potentially traumatic and fragmented experiences, women were able to safely relay their experiences in a medium that also values experientialism. Dynamic scenes were created and could be changed at any moment to reflect shifts in participants’ experiences of their worlds. Rather than limiting the data to women’s verbal recollections of their experiences, participants were invited to physically show how they experienced their relational worlds, and then reflect on how their connections to themselves and others shifted in response to being sexually assaulted. An appreciation of relationality also informed the process of analysis. The interpretive communities that were formed for each participant, created an interpersonal reality in which emergent findings were examined in relationships. I was not alone in encountering the transcripts of the participants but engaged in dialogue with others that helped deepen and enrich our collective understandings of these stories. Our voices, being made explicit, helped inform our understandings of participants’ voices, without ventriloquizing them. The Listening Guide provided a rigorous framework in which to approach the data (Gilligan, 1992). Its consistency with the aims of this project to honour relationality, allowed multiple layers of experience to be attuned to and understood within relational contexts. This provided nuanced understandings of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 128 the processes of harm and healing; how they emerge, are maintained, and transformed. This process of analysis was also sufficiently sensitive to pay attention and give authority to what was left unsaid. Participants’ implicit yearnings, or unspoken desires, to feel accepted and accompanied by others, could be identified and given weight. This is especially important in the context of trauma, which can fragment the experience of self in the world and create a silencing of expression. Giving consideration to these “silenced knowings” (Lorenz and Watkins, 2001 as cited in Birrell & Freyd, 2006) is essential, as reconnection with what one knows and feels, is essential to connecting meaningfully with others, and ultimately the process of healing. In the context of sexual assault, women must be able to safely reconnect with aspects of themselves, in order to feel meaningfully connected, accepted and supported, by others. These relational experiences are needed in our understandings of interpersonal harm and sexual assault, so that our responses as counsellors, but also friends and communities, can be informed by the realities of survivors’ experiences. The present study is subject to the limitations inherent in qualitative research. As the findings emerged from the stories of six participants, the generalizability of them is limited. In a sense, as the voices speak to relational processes rather than specific consequences of sexual assault, it is conceivable that similar processes of harm and healing would emerge in other people’s experiences, and in response to different forms of interpersonal betrayal. Nonetheless, it must be conveyed that these understandings of harm and healing are specific to these participants, and that these participants experiences are specific to the time and context in which they occurred. While the findings may be illuminative of others’ experiences of relational harm and healing in response to sexual assault, and to other events, they are unmistakably incomplete. The findings must be approached with humility and an understanding that there are additional understandings to be discovered, expressed and informed by. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 129 This project also relied on participants’ retrospective accounts, which may be incomplete or inaccurate descriptions of what was happening at the time. Participants’ were asked to depict what their worlds were like before, and after, being sexually assaulted, but these depictions were undoubtedly influenced by the collection of memories they have accumulated since those times. A longitudinal approach, that examined the successive creations of sandtrays over time, may have resulted in a more complete understanding. Furthermore, the participants who sought to be part of the present study, self-identified as having experienced harm and healing in response to being sexually assaulted. This is of note, as not all persons would report experiencing the same degree of harm, or nature of harm, as these participants. Additionally, these participants also identified as having undergone some degree of healing since their sexual assaults and considered themselves as currently having the ability to reflect on these experiences. The interview protocol, while lending itself to relational safety by only discussing the contents of the tray and the emergent responses to them, may have been insufficient in its ability to capture all of the relational dimensions of participants’ experiences. For example, Eliza did not make any mention of her parents during her interview. A more systematic approach that specifically asked about the state of various relationships, may have yielded different or more complete understandings. If Eliza had been asked during her interview about her relationships to her parents, additional results would have emerged. Several participants reflected that being invited to share in as much or little detail as they liked and knowing that my probes during the interview would be limited to what they depicted in their trays, provided a sense of safety. It is unknown whether this safety could be maintained within a more systematic interview protocol. In the ethos of relational research, however, the felt safety of participants was privileged and given more weight than the desire of researchers to collect data in a systematic fashion. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 130 The sample was diverse in the sense that each participant had a contextually different experience of sexual assault. In the present study, sexual assault was defined the lack of consent obtained, not the degree of violence or the type of sexual contact. Thus, the experiences of assault shared by participants were varied in the level of coercion and nature of contact. Of note, the degree of harm conveyed by the participants did not appear to be related to these factors. Harm was understood as the constriction of the experience of self, in relation to self, others, and the world, as a result of relational experiences. These findings assert that harm is not contingent on the particulars of the assault, but the particulars of the relational context it occurs in. The sample, however, lacked diversity in that each participant identified as a heterosexual and cisgender female. Individuals who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB) are more likely to experience sexual assault than the general population (Rothman, Exner, & Baughman, 2011), and report significantly higher rates of institutional betrayal (Smith, Cunningham, & Freyd, 2016). Further research is required to include the voices LGB individuals and adequately understand these experiences. Theoretical Significance The findings of the present study, shine light on aspects of trauma and betrayal, that have not been sufficiently explored thus far by research and theory. They assist by broadening conceptualizations of trauma, pressing for less pathologizing approaches and more interpersonal approaches to treatment. The assertion that the quality of existence is dependent on relational embeddedness, expands the understandings gleaned from betrayal trauma theory by examining interpersonal violations in a multitude of relationships. Expanding understandings of trauma. The present study offers support for conceptualizations of trauma that emphasize the interpersonal dimensions of harm. Traumatic events need not be limited to exposure to actual or threatened death or injury. Relational events can also upset, overwhelm and impact individuals in a way that is consistent with our RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 131 understandings of the nature and consequences of trauma. Interpersonal violations, such as the sexual assaults experienced by the participants in the present study, did not threaten physical survival, but they did threaten or injure participants’ sense of existence. Participants reported feelings of being separated from themselves, disconnected from their worlds, and alienated from others. Without the relational safety for autonomy and authenticity to be upheld, participants’ senses of themselves in the world were constricted. Furthermore, the trauma of sexual assault, is not limited to the event itself. The relational contexts that allow for perpetration of sexual violence to occur in epidemic-like proportions is injurious, as are the contexts that stagnate survivors in their suffering. By examining how the context of events maintain and compound the harm of traumas, a richer understanding of ‘traumatic’ experiences is gleaned. In a posttraumatic stress framework, the wounding of trauma is understood as clusters of symptoms that exist within the individual. Even for interpersonal traumas, the impact is understood as the distress experienced by the individual. Instead of locating harm within the individual, this study explored how harm occurs “in-relation-to”. When participants experienced sexual assault, they were embedded in relational contexts, and it was their sense of being inrelation-to themselves, others and the world that was disrupted. From a relational perspective that views the self as emerging out of connections, it is not surprising that the harm identified in participants stories were processes that constricted, constrained or limited the experience of self, in relation to the self, the world and others. Denial was a process of cutting off from one’s self by silencing what one knows, wants, feels or remembers. This “intrapersonal” disconnection, occurred, however, because participants felt they could not exist as their wholes selves and exist in the world. Confusion was a result of unexpected relational circumstances that left participants feeling unable to make sense of their experiences. When experiences were beyond comprehension, participants were RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 132 disoriented, and unsure of how to navigate their worlds. Judgment was a process of experiencing the self as flawed or inadequate, and therefore unworthy of connection. Isolation was a process of becoming alienated from others, leaving participants feeling unseen and uncared for. These processes contributed to a further sense of separation; whereby participants communicated experiences of profound loss, disconnection from self, and feelings of powerlessness. These understandings are a non-pathologizing understanding of the harm experienced by survivors of sexual assault. Distress in response to a traumatic and interpersonal event, is not limited to the symptoms experienced in the minds and bodies of survivors, which can imply the existence of a disorder to be managed or treated. Instead, distress is viewed in the context of relationships, and understood as a reasonable response to one’s relational circumstances. Interestingly, when harm was conceptualized this way, we discovered that we could not intrinsically quantify it. As a research team, it was tempting to try to arrange participants on a scale from least to most harm. What we discovered, however, is that although we could hear different degrees and descriptions of harm, we could not ascertain which participants experienced more or less harm. The present study emphasizes that the quality of experience, rather than the quantity of certain types of experiences, is meaningful. Less pathologizing conceptualizations of harm also underscore the need for less pathologizing approaches to healing. In this study, healing was understood as processes that reconnected participants: to themselves through acknowledgment, their experiences and their worlds through knowing, to their sense of worthiness or adequacy through acceptance, and to others, through accompaniment. These expansive processes contributed to a sense of empowerment, whereby participants felt at home with themselves and in the world. These conceptualizations of healing processes underscore a growing argument for more relational approaches to trauma treatment. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 133 Acknowledged expert in the treatment of trauma, Briere (2002, as cited in Kahn 2006), has expressed that clients’ most frequent presenting problems are not their symptoms of PTSD, but their difficulties in relationships. The two are perhaps inextricably linked, however, as symptoms may cause difficulties in relationships, and difficulties in relationships may further exacerbate symptoms. Other researchers of sexual assault have argued that a viable target for reducing PTSD symptoms is improving social responses to disclosures of sexual assault. This was due to findings that positive responses were associated with more adaptive social coping strategies and predicted decreases in symptoms (Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014). Less social withdrawal has also been associated with less distress, due in part to its association with greater perceived control over the recovery process from sexual assault (Frazier, Mortensen & Steward, 2005). In the present study, perceived control over the recovery process may be akin to the sense of knowing and the sense of agency in empowerment. It would make sense then, that perceived control was connected to less social withdrawal, as this studied has theorized that, knowing and empowerment are processes that breed a greater sense of being accompanied by others. Perhaps the most poignant findings from the present study, were participants’ yearnings to feel connected to and supported by others in the wake of being sexually assaulted. Participants displayed explicit and implicit desires for others to acknowledge their experiences as harmful and respond with genuine care. They wanted to feel that there were others “on their side”; people they were able to be themselves with and to turn to for support. This is consistent with findings that social support is a protective factor against PTSD after sexual assault (Borja et al., 2006; Dworkin, Ojalehto et al., 2018; Dworkin et al., 2018; Ullman & Peter-Hagene, 2014) and trauma in general (Brewin, Andrews, & Valentine, 2000; Ozer, Best, Lipsey, & Weiss, 2003; Wagner, Monson, & Hart, 2016). On the other end of the spectrum, experiences of isolation compounded the initial harm of sexual assault, and denial, confusion and judgment often contributed to further isolation. This is RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 134 congruent with Regehr and Marizali’s (1999) finding that variance in symptoms of PTSD and depression in sexual assault survivors were predicted by items assessing difficulties in trusting others, expressing love towards others, and in forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships. When survivors of sexual assault are unable to trust others and feel supported in their relationships, they continue to face major difficulties in the wake of being sexually assaulted. Thus, intervening at the level of relationships and a person’s capacity to relate to themselves and others, may yield significant reductions in symptoms experienced by survivors of sexual assault. Thus, in trauma treatment, there is a shift whereby “the goal is connection, not repair” (Birrell, Bernstein & Freyd, 2017, p. 38). Approaches to trauma treatment that address the deeply relational context of harm and healing, such as relational cultural therapy (Kress, Haiyasoso, Zoldan, Headley, & Trepal, 2018; Miller & Stiver, 1998) offer less pathologizing avenues for survivors of sexual assault. How the present study informs our responses as counsellors, as well as social supports, and cultures, will be discussed in the section on practical significance later in this chapter. Expanding understandings of betrayal trauma. Researchers of betrayal trauma theory have made a compelling argument; as humans depend on social connections for survival, nurturance and meaning, experiences that threaten the ability to trust and depend on others, have felt experiences and consequences distinct from those from non-interpersonal traumas (Birrell, Bernstein & Freyd, 2017). Research on betrayal trauma has focused mostly on harm perpetrated by caregivers, and how harm can be compounded at the level of institutions. Researchers have argued that betrayal occurs at these levels, because people rely on both caregivers and institutions. This research, however, views people as being inherently reliant on multiple relationships, as the sense of self is inextricably linked to the experience of self in-relation-to. Participants in the present study, spoke about the role of caregivers (although they were not perpetrators) and institutions in the context of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 135 acquaintance sexual assault. Participants also spoke about relationships between and beyond caregivers and institutions, such as friends, other family members, formal supports, social and cultural contexts, highlighting the relational embeddedness of their experiences. Findings have successfully demonstrated how being harmed by someone the victim is close to or dependent on can result high degree of dissociation, at its most extreme form, amnesia of the traumatic event (Freyd et al., 2001). This dissociative process exists on a spectrum of “betrayal blindness” that also includes “remembering the events but having a more benign, normalized or self-blaming interpretation of what transpired” (Birrell, Bernstein, & Freyd, 2017, p. 31). This blindness similar to what participants voiced in the present study; engaging in denial to minimize or disconnect from their experiences (silencing expressions of harm), experiencing confusion due to the mismatch of their experiences (questioning whether it was really “assault”), and judgment in perceiving themselves as responsible (believing they should have prevented its occurrence.) In betrayal trauma theory, this dissociation is believed to be a protective mechanism whereby the victims can remain “blind” to the harm and therefore maintain relationships with perpetrators. In the present study, however, dissociative processes such as denial, were more related to maintaining harmony in other important relationships. It was not the dependence on the perpetrator, but a need to sustain the sense of self in connection with others that was important. For example, Margaret shuts off from her experience of being harmed after encountering the surprising absence of response from her aunt and uncle. Although she desperately yearns for their care, acceptance and protection, approaching her aunt and uncle and acknowledging that she felt hurt by their lack of response seems to be great a risk to her wellbeing. Instead, Margaret does her best to deny and ignore the harm she’s experienced. If the people who are meant to protect us, appear to be indifferent to our suffering, then perhaps it is better to deny our suffering then risk having it be ignored again. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 136 Disconnection also occurred as a way to protect other people participants were meaningfully connected to. Brittany fears that disclosure would upset her mother and contribute to conflict between her parents, thus, Brittany chooses denial silence. Lucy similarly reported a yearning to share her experience with her father but was stymied by fears that he would not recover from hearing about her assault. A lack of relational space to be fully oneself also contributed to processes of disconnection. Lucy explained that she could not acknowledge her experience of assault, feel the sadness of this experience, and “deal” with the world around her. Conscious awareness would have been overwhelming, not due to the threat to a specific relationship, but due to insufficient relational support. Lucy needs the accompaniment of others in order to be fully herself and navigate her world. In the absence of this, Lucy explains she shut down her “warm and accepting” parts, perhaps because connection had become too great a risk to take. Charlie also disconnected from the harm of her experience, but because “that’s what everybody else did.” When the social context fails to acknowledge harm and asserts that “it’s all okay,” survivors adopt the same response. In Eliza’s case, the voice of denial was not prominent, but a high degree of separation from self was. After her assault, Eliza feels that the confident and capable part of her no longer exists. This separation does not occur in order to maintain the relationship with her perpetrator. Instead, the experience of having her autonomy disregarded by someone she trusted, seems to invalidate the existence of that part of her. When her experience of self fails to be validated by the actions of others, or in this case, feels ignored and disregarded, she experiences the feeling that that part of her is gone, at least temporarily. Eliza can not embody and express the full presence of her being, because her relational context does not uphold it. A lack of awareness of the harm also appeared to be due to the mismatch of experiences participants encountered. When participants’ experiences were not consistent with the rape myths of sexual assault being perpetrator by a violent stranger were left feeling confused and doubting RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 137 the validity of the harm. Although Sarah intrinsically knows what her perpetrator did “wasn’t right,” it is years before she is able to confidently say so. This is because her experience does not match was the world has told her the nature of assault. Sarah perceives that the world, and her relational context, do not offer the space for her to fully embody her experiences. Furthermore, the self-blaming aspect of betrayal blindness, was explicitly expressed or alluded to by each participant in this study. Participants voiced judgment in expressing that they should have been able to prevent the assault, but again, this was a result of their relational embeddedness, rather than a need to maintain a specific connection with a person they depended on. This judgment was tied to fears of being inadequate or somehow unworthy of connection, and isolated participants from relationships. These findings suggest that betrayal is not specific to violations within attachment relationships. More likely, betrayal emerges from violations to “themis”, an internal moral compass we all carry, that reflects commonly understood social values, ethics and moral order (Shay, 1994). This internalized sense of what’s right and wrong is also reflective of the ways in which we expect and hope to be treated by others. We aspire to be fully ourselves, connected to all aspects of our experiences and representing ourselves authentically in relationships. When the risk of rejection, abandonment, or indifference is high, however, we may choose to silence ourselves in order to preserve harmony in our relationships. Or we may retreat from relationships, condemning ourselves to isolation because we fear the price of relationships is too high. Similar movements have been observed in infants with avoidant attachment, which is theorized to have developed as an adaptive defense against caregiver rejection. To silence the self is to “suppress expressions of negative affect” and to retreat from relationships is to “inhibit bids for proximity” (Birrell, Bernstein, & Freyd, 2017, p. 33). These movements require the sacrifice of connection, with us and with others. This relational pruning process constricts one’s sense of a meaningful, effective, and embedded existence in the world. Thus, by using a relational lens, the RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 138 present study illuminates another section of the spectrum of betrayal and its consequences. It captures broader processes rather than specific mechanisms, and understandings that are situated in time, culture, meaning and relationship. Ultimately, this research illuminates how as relational beings, it is not only our connections with those we are dependent on that are of significance. Our location within all of our connections forms our sense of existence, and this is the landscape where harm and healing occur. Methodological Significance The present research was the first known study to use sandtrays in interviews to enhance the access to and expression of participants’ experiences. The integration of a creative medium was congruent with a research lens that values experientialism and relationality. In the tray, participants were able to depict experiences, and visually display how these experiences shifted in response to events and over time. This dynamism, combined with an interview protocol that probed participants’ immediate cognitive, affective, and somatic responses, provided rich explorations of experiences. Furthermore, these experiences were embedded relationally, as participants were able to choose figures that represented different aspects of themselves, others, and their world that they were in-relation-to. These elements could be moved within the tray buried or built up by the sand, removed from the tray, or replaced by other figures. These factors enriched the data in a way that could be seamlessly woven into the Listening Guide procedure. Interview transcripts included written descriptions of the on goings of the tray (e.g., participant removes female figure) and clarifications of which figures participants were referring to when speaking (e.g., “She [female figure] was destroyed.”) Transcripts were also accompanied by photographic images of the sandtray scenes, so that the members of the interpretive community could reference them. We found that this provided sufficient clarity when analyzing the data; there was little ambiguity or confusion about the nature of the trays when reading the transcripts. At times, however, we experienced a yearning to witness how a participant RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 139 assembled a particular scene, and in these cases, the GoPro footage was reviewed. These methodological innovations provided a deeper and more nuanced exploration of relational experiences. Sandtrays also upheld the transformative aims of this project by creating an interview process that was inherently. The provision of a contained space, and the symbolism of figures, allowed participants to safely access and encounter experiences. Cohen, Barnes, & Rankin (1995) have proposed that the process of making art can help restore a sense of emotional safety and wellbeing to trauma survivors. Furthermore, the spontaneous feedback provided by participants, supports the notion of a transformative process. Participants were not explicitly asked about their experiences of using sandtrays in the interview, however, most participants chose to comment on them during the conclusion or debrief process of the interviews. Charlie’s words capture the healing elements she encountered in her use of sandtrays. I liked being able to share it this way. It kept my hands busy so that my head and my brain wasn’t focused on the “then” and also by doing this with the sand, I can see where my life is now. Similarly, Lucy commented on how witnessing the scenes of her last two trays, which were assembled without the figure representing her preparator was “big” for her. Margaret also reflected on the value of the final two trays. I think, I think, these last two trays are, any way for me, it feels like they were really, really helpful because um, I also expected after doing this, okay to be like, I’ll just going to be like, I’ll be toast. I’ll just be so emotional and totally drained and feeling horrible. And, look at this, makes me feel really happy! And kind of reassured and, I’m like “No! This has been awesome!” So, it’s nice to end on that note. Eliza, Sarah, Lucy and Brittany all alluded to how the sandtrays made it easier for them to put their experiences into words. In anticipation of recounting their stories, these participants RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 140 advised they had experienced some trepidation. They expressed, however, that the interview process was easier than they imagined and that the use of sandtrays were facilitative in this regard. In writing about the purposes of art, Jungian analyst and author Estés (1997, p. 14) expressed: Art is important for it commemorates the seasons of the soul, or a special or tragic event in the soul’s journey. Art is not just for oneself, not just a marker of one’s own understanding. It is also a map for those who follow after us. These words shed light on how the use of sandtrays was restorative for participants and informative for researchers, honouring the transformative aims and relational ethos of this research project. Practical Significance The present study provides a rich relational understanding of the contemporary problem of acquaintance sexual assault in ways that is helpful for survivors and those who support them. These explorations of the relational contexts in which harm and healing occur inform us as counsellors, social supports, and communities, providing insight into how to best respond to survivors of sexual assault. Informing our responses as counsellors. The results of the present study provide support for the use of relational approaches to therapy and the treatment of betrayal trauma. These approaches have been discussed elsewhere in the literature (Gómez et al., 2016; Kahn 2006; Miller & Stiver, 1998). Working with survivors’ relationality, means not only honouring therapeutic relationship, but also exploring and making use of the relational context in which survivors are embedded. The skills and expertise of a relationally informed counsellor may be an especially effective foundation for survivors’ healing. As discussed in the second chapter, negative social reactions to disclosure carry great potential to create additional harm, which was consistent with qualitative RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 141 findings from the present study. Furthermore, the absence of relational safety and resources also stagnated survivors. Thus, clinical counsellors may be an especially helpful resource for survivors, providing them without someone outside of their immediate relational landscape who is equipped to respond in a relationally appropriate way. Counsellors may be essential in helping survivors walk through denial, confusion, and acknowledgment, and in establishing a greater sense of empowerment. Through the restoration of the sense of self, participants are better prepared to navigate their relational worlds. By honouring relationality, counsellors help survivors obtain greater clarity on how and when to disconnect from harmful relationships, and how to approach and enrichen supportive relationships. As Gilligan (2003) wrote, “these cycles of break and repair build a growing vocabulary of love and trust” (p. 179). What appeared to be the most transformative experience for participants in this study was encounters of being cared for unconditionally by a reliable other. In a similar vein, the most evident yearning displayed by participants was to feel accepted and accompanied by supportive others. Thus, counsellors can engage in a dynamic process of assisting survivors build their relationships, in and out of therapy. Informing our response as friends, families and social supports. The findings from the present study highlight ways in which friends and family members, as well as other social supports, can be intentional in their responses to disclosures of sexual assault. I have assembled a collection of six relational elements or approaches, with accompanying meanings to convey to survivors, that can inform how we can respond to survivors’ disclosures. The first approach is nonjudgmental listening, conveying to survivors “I hear your story.” This means listening to survivors’ first-hand accounts of their experiences with openness, rather than doubting or rejecting fragmented and perhaps uncertain events as they are retrieved (Birell, & Freyd, 2006). This requires a willingness to be present with confusion and uncertainty, and the suspension of judgment. Inquiries into the contexts leading up the assault (e.g., what a person was RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 142 wearing or whether she or he they had been drinking alcohol), or afterwards (e.g., whether the assault was reported to police) are not necessary components of receiving disclosures. Furthermore, even if those inquiries emerge out of good intent, they can carry the connotation that the actions before and after the experience of the assault may invalidate the crime or harm that occurred. The second element is the recognition of harm, conveying to survivors “I hear your struggle.” This means allowing survivors to encounter and express the parts of their experience that were upsetting, overwhelming or confusing, and listening with empathy. Furthermore, it is recognizing that the absence of a perpetrator’s aggression, or the lack of “fight” in response, are not indicative of the absence of struggle. This goes hand in hand with the third approach, the celebration of resistance, through conveyance of “I hear your survival.” In this element, we trust that if a person could have done something to prevent or stop the assault from occurring, then they would have. We also trust that however a person responded to the sexual assault, was his or her best attempt at survival, and we celebrate the response as such. This may mean educating survivors or the realities of tonic immobility or “freezing” in response to trauma. We need to be explicit in explaining that attempting to be still, silent and small, is not consent, it is an attempt to survive. Personal acknowledgment is the fourth element, and the accompanying message to survivors is “I am impacted by your experience.” This requires being present with the other person as well as being attuned to one’s personal experience. This willingness to be changed by bearing witness to another’s suffering, can be a powerfully corrective experience, as it creates a powerwith dynamic that is at odds with the power-over dynamic inherent in assault. Instead of acting indifferent towards the other, the supporter is open to be influenced by other, and is willing to share how he or she has been impacted by listening. Acknowledgment is the communication of immediate experience, such as “I feel so angry when…” or “It makes me sad to hear….”. This helps reinforce that survivors’ experiences are real and meaningful, not something that can be RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 143 ignored. Conveying personal impact is not the same as expressions of being harmed or overwhelmed by the survivor’s experience, as these types of reactions are problematic as well. If one is faced with not knowing what to say to a survivor, reflecting “I wish I knew what to say…” or “I have no words to describe how I’m feeling…” is an authentic and appropriate relational response. The fifth aspect is unconditional acceptance, letting survivors know that “I am with you.” Even in the absence of explicit judgment, participants anticipated that others were negatively evaluating them, seeing them as “damaged” or at fault for the assault. Thus, it is imperative that survivors are told through words, and reminded by actions, that they are still the same person they were before the assault, and in no way are unworthy of connection and belonging. Lastly, there is standing with in solidarity, and asking survivors “What can I do to support you?” This is perhaps the most critical element in our relational responses, as the presence of absence of accompaniment in the wake of sexual assault was incredibly impactful for participants. It conveys a willingness to support, and fight alongside survivors, and provides opportunities for survivors to be agentic and voice how they want to be treated by us in the future. While many participants in this research yearned for greater connection for others, these desires often remained below the surface of expression. In the face of being harmed by another person, it feels perhaps too great a risk to ask for another for support and risk potential rejection, judgment or indifference. Thus, we must proactively and explicitly offer our support, and ask what we can do to stand in solidarity with survivors. Their responses may be “I don’t know” or “Just listening helps,” but the crucial aspect is that safety has been recreated through a conveyed sense of accompaniment. Informing our responses as communities and cultures. An interesting finding from the present study, was that pre-assault contexts shaped participants post-assault contexts, i.e., participants’ depictions of their worlds before they experienced sexual assault, were intimately tied to how they experienced their worlds afterwards. For example, Margaret’s initial tray had a RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 144 strong resonance of confusion and isolation and after the assault, these aspects of harm intensify. This is reflected in her words “I had felt alone before, but I felt even more alone then. Kind of wandering around in this world trying to make sense of things, where things don’t make sense.” In Charlie’s case, she lived amongst a social fabric of denial where painful occurrences (like the death of classmates and family members) went by without much acknowledgment by those around her. Furthermore, she described feeling like an “alien” that doesn’t belong. After the assault, her experiences of denial and isolation intensify. Thus, communities and cultures can work proactively to become relational contexts where elements of harm are avoided, and elements of healing are pursued. This means that acknowledging rather than minimizing harmful experiences is a norm. There is a collective willingness to turn towards pain and permission to be impacted by it. Relational contexts can also be strengthened by creating opportunities to create a greater sense of knowing. When a strong sense of knowing was heard in transcripts, it was accompanied by greater acknowledgment, accompaniment and empowerment. How this occurs is difficult to define and is culturally bound, but the principle is that people are given opportunities to encounter themselves and their experiences. This helps cultivate a sense of knowing that helps people navigate and make sense of their worlds, even in the midst of unexpected, negative events. Healthy relational contexts also allow people to inhabit a sense of belonging, by communicating that acceptance comes without contingencies. Lastly, accompaniment is pursued by demonstrations of solidarity. To be relationally healthy is to be relationally responsive; this means showing the members of our communities and cultures that people are willing to take meaningful actions in connection with each other. I predict that communities that pursue the elements of healing will foster a type of “relational resilience.” These communities will be better prepared to support survivors to heal from interpersonal violations, such as but not limited to, acquaintance sexual assault. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 145 Furthermore, these findings highlight a need for the realities of sexual assaulted to be communicated at the levels of communities and cultures. When participants experienced assault, they intrinsically knew that what occurred in the relationship with the perpetrator was wrong in some way and had resulted in harm. When these knowings were not reflected in the relational context, because participants experiences did not match rape myths, or commonly held ideas of sexual assault as involving strangers and violence, a dissonance occurred that stagnated survivors. Unable to authentically embody their experiences, participants cut off from themselves and others. It needs to become widely understood that that the legal definition of assault does not require violence, a lack of “fighting back” does not constitutes consent, and that most sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. This education can help overcome the damaging effects of rape myths that stymy the healing of survivors. Institutions are also implicated in the harm and healing of survivors of sexual assault, and this has been explored by researchers of betrayal trauma (Smith & Freyd, 2011, 2013, 2014). Lucy’s narrative, in particular, shed light on how her university’s responses compounded the harm she was experiencing. Institutions were not a specific focus of the present study, and as such, conclusions pertaining to them can not be drawn. Freyd (2018), however, has put forth a list of ten general principles that institutions can apply remedy institutional betrayal and instead pursue “institutional courage,” Recommendations for Future Research While this project was successful in providing an in-depth relational exploration of acquaintance sexual assault, I became aware of how further analysis may have enhanced the findings. The I-poems could have been expanded to include instances where participants referred to themselves as “she” (e.g., “she kind of looks like she’s throwing a punch” or “she is destroyed”). These third person references were likely due in part to the nature of sandtrays, as participants were often speaking about an aspect of themselves that was depicted in the tray. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 146 Participants also at times spoke about themselves from the perspective of “you” (e.g., “You have to let people help you”). These occurrences would have also been meaningful inclusions in the Ipoems and may have further elucidated shifts in how participants spoke about themselves. Additionally, a relational I-You poem that included my responses during the interview (e.g., “I feel”, “I notice”, and “You are”, You can”), in a separate column or colour from the participants’ voice, may have captured elements, such as transformative interactions and important movements occurring between the interviewer and participants. In a similar line of thinking, I realized that a different method of qualitative analysis, may have yielded additional understandings about the relational experiences of harm and healing. In particular, a method of analysis that was process-oriented or was attuned to the interactions between the interviewer and participant, may have reinforce the findings of the present study or shed light on additional relational processes. As the interview was designed to be transformative, a rigorous analysis of the healing elements unfolding during the interview process, would be worth attending to. The present study demonstrated the feasibility and significance of research approaches that honour a thick sense of relationality. This creates a call for additional research with a similar ethos, to provide relational understandings of experiences other than sexual assault. It will then be interesting to compare and contrast the findings of this project with other relational inquiries. Of particular interest to myself, is research on the experiences of perpetrators. Although it is tempting to believe that those who commit sexual assault are societies’ “bad apples”, it appears that in many cases, such as those of the participants in the present study, perpetrators are respected members of communities, and in positions of relative power (Gill & Orgad, 2018). Shifting the focus to how relational contexts (and patriarchal systems in particular) produce “bad fruit” from “good boys”, is a necessary. Thus, research that explores the relational landscapes of perpetrators may help us understand how such behaviour is produced, sustained and rewarded, RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 147 providing a more complete understanding of the problem of sexual assault. We must look beyond providing healing for survivors, to preventing perpetration. Conclusion The present study was unique in its use of a relational lens to examine women’s experience of harm and healing in response to acquaintance sexual assault. When the self is understood as inextricable from relational embeddedness, rather than a separate unit that participates in relationships, a richer and more nuanced description of experiences can be obtained. The methodological marriage of sandtrays as an interview tool with the analysis process of the Listening Guide help shed light on previously unexplored relational dimensions of harm and healing. Sexual assault and its aftermath are embedded in relational contexts that can stagnate survivors, separating them from their sense of connection with themselves, others and the world. It was evident how interactions within a relational world shaped the constriction or expansion of survivors’ experiences. The research is hopeful, however, as participants’ stories also illustrated that survivors of sexual assault can be restored, transformed and empowered through elements of relational healing. When women experienced the unconditional acceptance of others who offered their accompaniment, they were empowered to stand in solidarity with themselves: feeling whole, connected and agentic. In the absence of this, survivors expressed implicit and explicit yearning for this type of relational connection. Perhaps what is most exciting is the accessibility of relational healing. Given our relational existence, we all have the potential to “do relationships well,” as counsellors, but also as friends, families, communities and cultures. We have the ability to be intentional in how we shape our relational landscapes, dismantling processes that constrict or stagnate us and others and promoting those that foster expansion, connection and ultimately healing. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 148 REFERENCES Ahrens, C. E., & Aldana, E. (2012). The ties that bind: Understanding the impact of sexual assault disclosure on survivors’ relationships with friends, family, and partners. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation,13(2), 226-243. doi:10.1080/15299732.2012.642738 Ahrens, C., & Campbell, R. (2000). Assisting rape victims as they recover from rape: The impact on friends. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 959–986. doi:10.1177/088626000015009004 Ahrens, C. E., Stansell, J., & Jennings, A. (2010). To Tell or Not to Tell: The Impact of Disclosure on Sexual Assault Survivors’ Recovery. Violence and Victims, 25(5), 631– 648. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.25.5.631 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. Andrews, B., Brewin, C. R., & Rose, S. (2003). Gender, social support, and PTSD in victims of violent crime. Journal of Traumatic Stress,16(4), 421-427. doi:10.1023/a:1024478305142 Angelou, M. (1989). Conversations with Maya Angelou. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Badenoch, B. (2008). Being a Brain-Wise Therapist: A Practical Guide to Interpersonal Neurobiology. New York: Norton. Banyard, V., Moynihan, M., Walsh, W., Cohn, E., & Ward, S. (2010). Friends of survivors: The community impact of unwanted sexual experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(?), 242–256. doi: 10.1177/0886260509334407 Bell, M., Billington, R., & Becker, B. (1986). A scale for the assessment of object relations: Reliability, validity, and factorial invariance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42(5), 733741. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198609)42:53.0.co;2-c RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 149 Birrell, P.J., Bernstein, R.E., & Freyd, J.J. (2017). With the fierce and loving embrace of another soul: Finding connection and meaning after the profound disconnection of betrayal trauma. In E.M. Altmaier (Ed), Reconstructing Meaning after Trauma: Theory, Research and Practice. (pp 29-43). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-803015-8.00003-6 Birrell, P. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Betrayal trauma: Relational models of harm and healing. Journal of Psychological Trauma, 5(1), 49–63. doi: 10.1300/j189v05n01_04 Borja, S. E., Callahan, J. L., & Long, P. J. (2006). Positive and negative adjustment and social support of sexual assault survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress,19(6), 905-914. doi:10.1002/jts.20169 Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. I:attachment. New York: Basic Books. Brennan, S., & Taylor-Butts, A. (2008). Sexual assault in Canada 2004 and 2007. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Profile Series, 19, 1-20. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2008019-eng.pdf Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Valentine, J. D. (2000). Meta-analysis of risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,68(5), 748-766. doi:10.1037//0022-006X.68.5.748 Briere, J., & Scott, C. (2015). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bufkin, J., & Eschholz, S. (2000). Images of sex and rape: A content analysis of popular film. Violence Against Women, 6, 1317–1344. doi: 10.1177/10778010022183677 Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230. doi: 10.1177/10778010022183677 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 150 Burton, C. W., Halpern-Felsher, B., Rankin, S. H., Rehm, R. S., & Humphreys, J. C. (2011). Relationships and betrayal among young women: Theoretical perspectives on adolescent dating abuse. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67(6), 1393–1405. doi:10.1111/j.13652648.2010.05565.x Campbell, R. (2005). What really happened? A validation study of rape survivors' help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems. Violence and Victims Violence, 20(1), 55-68. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.2005.20.1.55 Campbell, R., Dworkin, E., & Cabral, G. (2009). An ecological model of the impact of sexual assault on women’s mental health. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(3), 225–246. doi:10.1177/1524838009334456 Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). The secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14(3), 261–275. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.14.3.261 Campbell, R., Sefl, T., Barnes, H. E., Ahrens, C. E., Wasco, S. M., & Zaragoza-Diesfeld, Y. (1999). Community services for rape survivors: Enhancing psychological well-being or increasing trauma? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 847–858. doi:10.1037//0022-006x.67.6.847 Campbell, R., Wasco, S. M., Ahrens, C. E., Sefl, T., & Barnes, H. E. (2001). Preventing the “second rape”: Rape survivors’ experiences with community service providers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(12), 1239–1259. doi: 10.1177/088626001016012002 Chodorow, N. (1986). Toward a relational individualism: The mediation of self through psychoanalysis. In S.A. Mitchell, & L. Aron (Ed.), Relational psychoanalysis, Volume 1: The emergence of a tradition (pp. 109-130). New York, NY: Routledge. Chodorow, N. J. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 151 Cohen, B., Barnes, M., & Rankin, A. (1995). Managing traumatic stress through art. Baltimore: The Sidran Press. Conroy, S., & Cotter, A. (2017). Self-reported sexual assault in Canada, 2014. Juristat, 37(1). Statistics Canada Catalogue 85-002-X. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842eng.pdf?st=S7RpA0wu. Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.46. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from https://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-46.pdf Downs, S. D. (2013). Levinasian insights into relational healing. AJOB Neuroscience,4(2), 1718. doi:10.1080/21507740.2013.782909 Downs, S. D., Gantt, E. E., & Faulconer, J. E. (2012). Levinas, meaning, and an ethical science of psychology: Scientific inquiry as rupture. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology,32(2), 69-85. doi:10.1037/a0027777 Dworkin, E. R., Newton, E., & Allen, N. E. (2018). Seeing roses in the thorn bush: Sexual assault survivors’ perceptions of social reactions. Psychology of Violence, 8(1), 100–109. doi:10.1037/vio0000082 Dworkin, E. R., Ojalehto, H., Bedard-Gilligan, M. A., Cadigan, J. M., & Kaysen, D. (2018). Social support predicts reductions in PTSD symptoms when substances are not used to cope: A longitudinal study of sexual assault survivors. Journal of Affective Disorders, 229, 135–140. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.042 Dworkin, E. R., Ullman, S. E., Stappenbeck, C., Brill, C. D., & Kaysen, D. (2018). Proximal relationships between social support and PTSD symptom severity: A daily diary study of sexual assault survivors. Depression and Anxiety, 35(1), 43–49. doi:10.1002/da.22679 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 152 Edwards, K. M., Turchik, J. A., Dardis, C. M., Reynolds, N., & Gidycz, C. A. (2011). Rape myths: History, individual and institutional-level presence, and implications for change. Sex Roles,65(11-12), 761-773. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9943-2 Elliott, D. M., Mok, D. S., & Briere, J. (2004). Adult sexual assault: Prevalence, symptomatology, and sex differences in the general population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(3), 203–211. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/pages/default.aspx Estés, C. P. (1997). Women who run with the wolves: Myths and stories of the wild woman archetype. New York: Ballantine Books. Ettinger, B. (2006). The matrixial borderspace. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Faulkner, S. L., & Trotter, S. P. (2017). Data saturation. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1-2. doi:10.1002/9781118901731.iecrm0060 Frazier, P., Mortensen, H., & Steward, J. (2005). Coping strategies as mediators of the relations among perceived control and distress in sexual assault survivors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 267-278. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.3.267 Frey, L. L. (2013). Relational-cultural therapy: Theory, research, and application to counseling competencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(3), 177– 185.doi:10.1037/a0033121 Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive response to childhood abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 4 (4) 307-329. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb0404_1 Freyd, J.J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Freyd, J. J. (1999). Blind to Betrayal: New Perspectives on Memory for Trauma. The Harvard Mental Health Letter, 15, 4-6. Retrieved from http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/traumapapers.html RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 153 Freyd, J.J. (2001). Memory and dimensions of trauma: Terror may be ‘all-too-well remembered’ and betrayal buried. In J.R. Conte (Ed.), Critical issues in child sexual abuse: Historical, legal, and psychological perspectives (pp. 139-173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Freyd, J. J. (2008). Betrayal trauma. In G. Reyes, J. D. Elhai, & J. D. Ford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of psychological trauma (p. 76). New York, NY: Wiley. Freyd, J.J. (2018, January 11). When sexual assault victims speak out, their institutions often betray them. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/when-sexualassault-victims-speak-out-their-institutions-often-betray-them-87050 Freyd, J. J., DePrince, A. P., & Gleaves, D. H. (2007). The state of betrayal trauma theory: Reply to McNally--Conceptual issues and future directions. Memory, 15(3), 295–311. doi:10.1080/09658210701256514 Freyd, J. J., DePrince, A. P., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2001). Self-reported memory for abuse depends on victim-perpetrator relationship. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 2, 5–15. doi:10. 1300/J229v02n03_02 Fromm, E., & Funk, R. (1998). The Essential Fromm: Life between having and being. New York: Continuum. Gallup, G. G. (1970) Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science, 167, 86–87. doi:10.1126/science.167.3914.86 Garrett, M. (2013). Beyond play therapy: Using the sandtray as an expressive arts intervention in counselling adult clients. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 5(1), 99-105. doi:10.1080/21507686.2013.864319 Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: beyond self and community. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 154 Gergen, K. J. (2011). Relational being in question: A reply to my colleagues. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 314–320. doi:10.1080/10720537.2011.593471 Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of sex and power: From the ‘sexualization of culture’ to #MeToo. Sexualities,21(8), 1313-1324. doi:10.1177/1363460718794647 Gilligan, C. (1992). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Gilligan, C. (1995). Hearing the difference: Theorizing connection. Hypatia, 10(2), 120–127. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb01373.x Gilligan, C. (2003). The birth of pleasure: A new map of love. London: Vintage. Gilligan, C. (2014). Moral injury and the ethic of care: Reframing the conversation about differences. Journal of Social Philosophy, 45(1), 89–106. doi:10.1111/josp.12050 Gilligan, C. (2015). The Listening Guide method of psychological inquiry. Qualitative Psychology, 2(1), 69–77. doi:10.1037/qup0000023 Gilligan, C., Spencer, R., Weinberg, M. K., & Bertsch, T. (2003). On the Listening Guide: A voice-centered relational method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design. (pp. 157–172). Washington: American Psychological Association. Gilfus, M. E. (1999). The price of the ticket: A survivor-centered appraisal of trauma theory. Violence Against Women, 5(11), 1238-1257. doi:10.1177/1077801299005011002 Gobin, R. L., & Freyd, J. J. (2009). Betrayal and revictimization: Preliminary findings. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1, 242–257. doi:10.1037/a0017469 Goldberg, L. R. & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Self-reports of potentially traumatic experiences in an adult community sample: Gender differences and test-retest stabilities of the items in a RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 155 Brief Betrayal-Trauma Survey. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 7(3), 39-63. doi:10.1300/J229v07n03_04 Golding, J. (1994). Sexual assault history and physical health in randomly selected Los Angeles women. Health Psychology, 13, 130-138. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.13.2.130 Goldsmith, R. E., Freyd, J. J., & DePrince, A. P. (2012). Betrayal trauma: Associations with psychological and physical symptoms in young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 547–67. doi:10.1177/0886260511421672 Gómez, J. M., Lewis, J. K., Noll, L. K., Smidt, A. M., & Birrell, P. J. (2016). Shifting the focus: Nonpathologizing approaches to healing from betrayal trauma through an emphasis on relational care. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 17(2), 165–185. doi:10.1080/15299732.2016.1103104 Green, B. L. (1990). Defining Trauma: Terminology and Generic Stressor Dimensions1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(20), 1632–1642. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1990.tb01498.x Griffin, M. G., Resick, P. A., Waldrop, A. E., & Mechanic, M. B. (2003). Participation in trauma research: Is there evidence of harm? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16(3), 221–227. doi:10.1023/a:1023735821900 Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluence. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative Research (3 ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. rd RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 156 Guerette, S. M., & Caron, S. L. (2007). Assessing the impact of acquaintance rape: Interviews with women who are victims/survivors of sexual assault while in college. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 22(2), 31–50. doi:10.1300/J035v22n02_04 Homeyer, L. E., & Sweeney, D. S. (2011). Sandtray: A practical manual (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,56(6), 885-892. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.56.6.885 Johnson, H. (2012). Limits of a criminal justice response: Trends in police and court processing of sexual assault. In. E. Sheehy (Ed.) Sexual Assault in Canada: Law, Legal Practice, and Women’s Activism (pp. 613-634). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. Johnstone, D. J. (2013). Voices from liminal spaces: narratives of unacknowledged rape (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.student.twu.ca:2396/openurl?url_ver=Z39.882004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&res_dat=xri:pqm&rft_dat=xri:pqdis s:NR98498 Johnstone, D. J. (2016). A listening guide analysis of women’s experiences of unacknowledged rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 275–289. doi:10.1177/0361684315624460 Jordan, J. V. (1997). Women’s growth in diversity: More writings from the Stone Center. New York: Guilford Press. Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women's growth in connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Kahn, A. S., & Mathie, V. A. (2000). Understanding the unacknowledged rape victim. In C. B. Travis, J. W. White, C. B. (Ed) Travis, & J. W. (Ed) White (Eds.), Sexuality, society, and feminism. (pp. 377–403). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 157 Kahn, L. (2006). The understanding and treatment of betrayal trauma as a traumatic experience of love. Journal of Psychological Trauma, 5(3), 57–72. doi:10.1300/j189v05n03_04 Kalaf, J., Coutinho, E. S., Vilete, L. M., Luz, M. P., Berger, W., Mendlowicz, M., . . . Figueira, I. (2017). Sexual trauma is more strongly associated with tonic immobility than other types of trauma – A population based study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 215, 71-76. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2017.03.009 Kilpatrick, D. G., Best, C. L., Saunders, B. E., & Veronen, L. J. (1988). Rape in marriage and in dating relationships: How bad is it for mental health? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 528(1) 335-344. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb42085.x Kirkhart, K. E. (2010). Eyes on the Prize: Multicultural Validity and Evaluation Theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 400–413. doi:10.1177/1098214010373645 Koss, M. P. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48, 1062-1069. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.48.10.1062 Koss, M.P., Dinero, T.E., Siebel, C.A., & Cox, S.L. (1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 1-24. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00924.x Kress, V. E., Haiyasoso, M., Zoldan, C. A., Headley, J. A., & Trepal, H. (2018). The Use of Relational-Cultural Theory in Counseling Clients Who Have Traumatic Stress Disorders. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(1), 106–114. doi:10.1002/jcad.12182 Lauman, E.O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Levinas, E. (2009). Emmanuel Levinas: Basic philosophical writings (A. T. Peperzak, S. Critchlet, & R. Bernasconi, Eds.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 158 Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. R. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x. Martin, C. G., Cromer, L. D., Deprince, A. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). The role of cumulative trauma, betrayal, and appraisals in understanding trauma symptomatology. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 52, 110–118. doi:10.1037/ a0025686 Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press. Mertens, D. M. (2015). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Miller, J. B. (1986). Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press. Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1998). The healing connection: How women form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Miller, S. C. (2009). Moral Injury and Relational Harm: Analyzing Rape in Darfur. Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4), 504-523. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2009.01468.x Mitchell, R. R., & Friedman, H. S. (1994). Sandplay. Past, present, & future. New York, NY: Routledge. Mitchell, S. A., Aron, L., Harris, A., & Suchet, M. (2007). Relational psychoanalysis. Mahwah, NJ: Analytic Press. Möller, A., Söndergaard, H. P., & Helström, L. (2017). Tonic immobility during sexual assault a common reaction predicting post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depression. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 96(8), 932-938. doi:10.1111/aogs.13174 Newman, E., Walker, E. A., & Gefland, A. (1999). Assessing the ethical costs and benefits of trauma-focused research. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21(3), 187–196. doi:10.1016/s0163-8343(99)00011-0 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 159 Nielsen, L. H., Hansen, M., Elklit, A., & Bramsen, R. H. (2016). Sexual assault victims participating in research: Causing harm when trying to help? Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 30(3), 412-417. doi:10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.017 Oppress. [Def. 1]. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 5, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oppress Orchowski, L. M., Untied, A. S., & Gidycz, C. A. (2013). Factors associated with college women’s labeling of sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 28(6), 940–958. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00049 Ozer, E. J., Best, S. R., Lipsey, T. L., & Weiss, D. S. (2003). Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and symptoms in adults: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,129(1), 52-73. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.129.1.52 Patricia, C. K., Dunn, S., & Vail-Smith, M. (1999). What date/acquaintance rape victims tell others: A study of college recipients of disclosure. Journal of American College Health, 47(5), 213-220. doi:10.1080/07448489909595650 Platt, M. G., & Freyd, J. J. (2015). Betray my trust, shame on me: Shame, dissociation, fear, and betrayal trauma. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 7(4), 398–404. doi:10.1037/tra0000022 Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126 Polkinghorne, D. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-based practice of care. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. R. v. Osolin, 4 S.C.R. 595 (2003). Retrieved from www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca Riviere, J. (1991). The inner world and Joan Riviere: Collected papers 1920-1958 (A. Hughes, Ed.). London: Karnac. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 160 Regehr, C., & Marziali, E. (1999). Response to sexual assault: A relational perspective. The Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 187(10), 618-623. doi:10.1097/00005053199910000-00005 Richardson, F. C, Fowers, B. J., & Guignon, C. B. (1999). Re-envisioning psychology: Moral dimensions of theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rothman, E., Exner, D., & Baughman, A. (2011). The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the united states: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12(2), 55-66. doi:10.1177/1524838010390707 Ryan, K. M. (1988). Rape and seduction scripts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 237–245. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00939.x Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect Dysregulation and Disorders of the Self. New York: Norton. Senn, C. Y., Eliasziw, M., Barata, P. C., Thurston, W. E., Newby-Clark, I. R., Radtke, H. L., & Hobden, K. L. (2014). Sexual violence in the lives of first-year university women in Canada: No improvements in the 21st century. BMC Women's Health,14(1). doi:10.1186/s12905-014-0135-4 Shay, J. (1994). Achilles in Vietnam: Combat trauma and the undoing of character. New York, NY: Scribner. Sinha, M. (2013). Measuring violence against women: Statistical Trends. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Profile Series, no. 85-002-X. Retrieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf Slife, B. D. (2004). Taking Practice Seriously: Toward a Relational Ontology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(2), 157–178. doi:10.1037/h0091239 Slife, B. D. (2008). Primer of the values implicit in counseling research methods. Counseling and Values, 53(1), 8–21. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2009.tb00110.x RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 161 Slife, B. D. (2017). Strong relationality and hermeneutic realism. In D. Goodman and B. Becker (Eds.), pp. 23-48. Dialogues at the edge of American psychological discourse: Critical and theoretical perspectives. New York: Palgrave. Retrieved from http://brentslife.com/article/index.php5?cat=13. Slife, B. D., & Richardson, F. C. (2011a). Is Gergen’s relational being relational enough? Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 304-313. doi:10.1080/10720537.2011.593470 Slife, B. D., & Richardson, F. C. (2011b). The relativism of social constructionism. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 24(4), 333-339. doi:10.1080/10720537.2011.593475 Slife, B. D., & Wiggins, B. J. (2009). Taking relationship seriously in psychotherapy: Radical relationality. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 39(1), 17–24. doi:10.1007/s10879-008-9100-6 Smith, C. P., Cunningham, S. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2016). Sexual violence, institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for LGB college students. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(4), 351–360. doi:10.1037/tps0000094 Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2013). Dangerous safe havens: Institutional betrayal exacerbates sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 119–124. doi:10.1002/jts.21778 Smith, C. P., & Freyd, J. J. (2014). Institutional betrayal. American Psychologist, 69(6), 575– 587. doi:10.1037/a0037564 Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1-2), 1-12. Suedfeld, P. (1997). Reactions to societal trauma: Distress and/or eustress. Political Psychology,18(4), 849-861. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00082 Sullivan, H. S. (1981). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: W W Norton. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 162 Symonds, M. (2010). The “Second Injury” to Victims of Violent Acts. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 70(1), 34–41. doi:10.1057/ajp.2009.38 Taylor, J. M., Gilligan, C., & Sullivan, A. M. (1997). Between voice and silence: Women and girls, race and relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. The United States Department of Justice. (2016, April 1). Office on Violence Against Women. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault#sa) Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative Quality: Eight “Big-Tent” Criteria for Excellent Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. doi:10.1177/1077800410383121 Ullman, S. E. (1996). Social reactions, coping strategies, and self-blame attributions in adjustment to sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 505-526. doi:10.1111/ j.1471-6402.1996.tb00319.x Ullman, S. E. (1999). Social support and recovery from sexual assault: A review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 4, 343-358. doi:10.1016/s1359-1789(98)00006-8 Ullman, S. E. (2010). Talking about sexual assault: Society’s response to survivors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12083-000 Ullman, S. E., & Peter-Hagene, L. (2014). Social Reactions to Sexual Assault Disclosure, Coping, Perceived Control and PTSD Symptoms in Sexual Assault Victims. Journal of Community Psychology, 42(4), 495–508. doi:1002/jcop.21624 van der Kolk, B. A. (2015). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind and body in the healing of trauma. New York, NY: Penguin Books. van der Kolk, B. A., & Fisler, R. (1995). Dissociation and the fragmentary nature of traumatic memories: Overview and exploratory study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(4), 505-525. doi:10.1007/bf02102887 Wagner, A. C., Monson, C. M., & Hart, T. L. (2016). Understanding Social Factors in the Context of Trauma: Implications for Measurement and Intervention. Journal of RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 163 Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,25(8), 831-853. doi:10.1080/10926771.2016.1152341 Wasco, S. M. (2003). Conceptualizing the Harm done by Rape: Applications of Trauma Theory to Experiences of Sexual Assault. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(4), 309–322. doi:10.1177/1524838003256560 Weick, K. E. (2007). The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 14-19. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.24160637 West, C. K. (2005). The map of relational-cultural theory. Women & therapy, 28(3-4), 93–110. doi:10.1300/j015v28n03_05 Wiehe, V. R., & Richards, A. L. (1995). Intimate betrayal: Understanding and responding to the trauma of acquaintance rape. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Collected Papers. Through paediatrics to psychoanalysis. Tavistock Publications: London. Winnicott, D. W. (2006). The family and individual development. London: Routledge. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 164 APPENDIX A Recruitment Notice How would you share your story? Participants needed for research on unwanted sexual experiences. Have you had sexual experiences you did not want? Events that happened without you saying “yes”? Did someone you know violate your boundaries sexually? Have you ever felt pushed into or unwillingly involved in sexual acts? Approximately 1 in 5 women have, and it often happens between people who know each other. This could include experiences with people who have used verbal pressure, or manipulation, or threats, or physical force to try to have some form of sexual experience with you. It could also include experiences with people who tried to have sexual contact with you when you were too intoxicated to resist. You may not have been given the opportunity to say yes or no. If you are an adult woman (currently aged 19 or over) who has experienced something like this with a person you knew (i.e., not a stranger), and it occurred between the ages of 15 and 24, than you may be eligible to participate. Your involvement is voluntary and you have the right to not participate or withdraw at any time, without penalty. Your participation will involve a face-to-face interview with the primary researcher, a graduate student in counselling psychology. Our research team is passionate about understanding how sexual violations impact a women’s ability to be in relationship: with herself, with others, and with God (or other divine beings if those are part of her world). The interview will take between one and a half and two hours; you will be given the opportunity to share how your experience of sexual violation impacted you relationally. We want to honour your experiences, and later you will be asked to take 15- 60 minutes review our findings. Should you feel that any of our findings are inaccurate, incomplete, or are in way not reflective of your experience, we would greatly appreciate your input. There are a limited number of interview spots available. If you are interested in participating in this study or for more information, please contact: Danielle Palmer, MA student in Counselling Psychology at Trinity Western University danielle.palmer@mytwu.ca , (604) 897- 5276 This research study has been reviewed and approved by the Trinity Western University Ethics Board [12/08/2016] RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 165 APPENDIX B Recruitment Email Script Dear _________, Thank you for your interest in this study on unwanted sexual experiences. I would like to tell you more about the purpose of this study and the nature of your potential involvement. Many women have had unwanted sexual experiences. This could include experiences with people who have used verbal pressure, or manipulation, or threats, or physical force to try to have some form of sexual experience with you. It could also include experiences with people who tried to have sexual contact with you when you were too intoxicated to resist. You may not have been given the opportunity to say yes or no. If you experienced something like this with a person you knew (i.e., not a stranger), between the ages of 15 and 24, than you may be eligible to participate in this research. When someone crosses our boundaries physically, it can impact us mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. The goal of this research is to better understand how women experience relational harm and healing in response to unwanted sexual experiences/sexual assault. Specifically, how does the experience of betrayal that accompanies some instances of sexual violation shift women’s relationships to themselves and others. By engaging with women who have had these experiences, the research team seeks to learn how to best respond to the violation of human bonds, as counsellors, friends, family members, and communities. In order to shed light on these topics, I am hoping to conduct personal interviews with women who are willing to share their experiences with me. Talking about these experiences can be difficult for some people, and I encourage you to consider how sharing your story may impact you. You are always in control of what you are willing to talk about and are not required to share anything you don’t want to. Involvement in this type of research can also be rewarding as it is an opportunity to express your experiences and have them listened to and valued. If you are interested, I would set a time for us to talk over the phone to discuss further participation. Remember, your involvement is voluntary and you have the right to not participate or withdraw at any time, without penalty. Please let me know what number to contact you and the best times for you to be reached. Thank you kindly for your time and interest, Danielle Palmer RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 166 APPENDIX C Phone Screening Guide Thank you for your interest in this research. (Share a bit about myself and my interest in studying unwanted sexual experiences). Tell me what interested in you participating. I have a number of questions to ask to determine whether you are good fit for participation. Remember that your participation is voluntary and you have the right to not participate or withdraw at any time, without penalty. This means you do not have to talk about anything you do not want to. 1. How old are you (in years)? This research is interested in women’s stories of unwanted sexual experiences with men they knew. We do not have to discuss the details of your experience, but I would like to ask you some questions about the encounter to determine whether you are eligible to participate. You may have had more than one unwanted sexual experience. If this is the case, choose one that sticks out to you to answer the following 4 questions. 1. How old were you when this happened? 2. How did you know the other person involved? 3. Did you trust this person before this happened? 4. Did you see this person afterwards, or was this a chance you would encounter them (for example, at work, school, at social gatherings?) The following six questions are about your mental health. Involvement in this study involves discussing sensitive and potentially upsetting topics. To decide if participation is best for you at this time, I would like to ask you some questions about mental health and wellbeing. Having past or current mental health concerns does not necessarily exclude you from participation, as many women face these challenges. I would like us to consider how participation may impact you. 5. Do you have any current mental health concerns? 6. Do you have any past mental health concerns? RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 167 7. Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition? a. Diagnosis – Date 8. Have you ever been hospitalized for a mental health problem? a. Yes/No - date 9. In the last three months, have you relied heavily on drugs and/or alcohol? 10. When you are having a difficult time, what do you do? (probe for self-care, coping strategies and social support) Thank you for your willingness to share. I have some questions about your interest in this study. 11. What would it be like for you to share your story? 12. Why would you like to participate in this research? 13. Do you have any questions or concerns? Practical 14. What is the best way and times to contact you? a. Phone number – dates and times available 15. When can we schedule an interview? a. Date and time + email resources to participants RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 168 APPENDIX D Informed Consent REB Approval Date: 12/08/2016 1 of 3 Trinity Western University Graduate Program in Counselling Psychology 7600 Glover Road, Langley, BC, V2Y 1Y1 Project Title: Ripples of Betrayal: A Voice-Centred Relational Inquiry into the Violation of Human Bonds Primary Researcher: Name: Danielle Palmer Email: danielle.b.palmer@gmail.com Department: Counselling Psychology Phone: (604) 897-5276 Supervisor: Name: Dr. Janelle Kwee Contact info: Janelle.kwee@twu.ca Department: Counselling Psychology Phone: (604) 513-2034 Purpose The goal of this research is to better understand how women experience relational harm and healing in response to unwanted sexual experiences/sexual assault. Specifically, how does the experience of betrayal that accompanies some instances of sexual violation shift women’s relationships to themselves and others. By engaging with women who have had these experiences, the research team seeks to learn how to best respond to the violation of human bonds, as counsellors, friends, family members, and communities. Study Procedures If you choose to participate in this project, you will be invited to participate in a personal interview, lasting up to 2 hours. This interview is an opportunity for you to share your personal stories about how you experienced relational harm in relational in response to sexual assault. You will be invited to share how you experienced shifts in your relationships: with yourself, the people in your life, the communities you have been a part of, to spiritual or divine presences, and any other aspects you feel are important. As part of the interview, will also be asked to convey your experiences nonverbally using ‘sandtrays.’ You will be asked build scenes in a miniature sandbox using a diverse variety of toys or other objects that can represent people, places, things, and meanings. This does not require any artistic ability; sandtrays are just a way of visually conveying experiences. Many people report that even without much conscious effort, they are able to explore and express their experiences in meaningful ways. Audiovisual recordings will be used during the interview to generate verbatim transcripts. The transcripts as well as photographs of the sandtrays will analyzed by the researchers in order RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 12/08/2016 169 2 of 3 to help us understand the experiences of relational harm and healing. You will be invited to review our findings and share your reflections with us. This requires 15-60 minutes and can be done in person or by phone (whichever you prefer). We want to honour your experiences and your input is valued. Should you feel that any of our findings are inaccurate, incomplete, or are in way not reflective of your experience, we would like to work with you to remedy them. Potential Risks and Discomforts As with any study, there are potential risks that come with participation. With this study, due to the sensitive nature of the topic of sexual assault, it is possible that personal and/or emotional information will be shared in the interview. Reflecting on these types of experiences can be distressing, before, during and after the actual interview. You do not have to answer any question or talk about particular issues that you are not comfortable with. Our aim is to listen to you in a way that you feel heard, validated, and supported. At the interview, we will provide you with relevant resources, such as local options for low-cost counselling, to ensure that you have access to the help you need. Potential Benefits to Participants and/or to Society A possible benefit of participating in this research project is learning from your own experiences. Reflecting on your story may help you better understand how you healed from, or overcome certain challenges. It may also help you identify ways in which you would still like to heal, or directions you would like to go. There are a number of possible insights that could arise that you may find helpful. The experience of having someone truly listen to you can also valuable experience. Our hope is that by caring about, listening to, and wanting to learn from your experiences, you feel that your voice is important. Lastly, your involvement has the potential to benefit other women who have had similar experiences, and those who support them. Sharing about your experiences will help counsellors and communities learn to dismantle relational processes that create silence and suffering, and promote those that generate growth and healing. This is a collaborative project and you are invited to ask questions or give feedback at any time. If you have any questions or desire further information in respect to this study, you may contact Danielle Palmer, (danielle.b.palmer@gmail.com or 604-897-5276) or Janelle Kwee (janelle.kwee@twu.ca; 604-513-2034). If you have any concerns about your treatment or rights as a research participant, you may contact Ms. Sue Funk in the Office of Research at Trinity Western University at 604-513-2142 or at sue.funk@twu.ca. Confidentiality Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. To protect your privacy, you will be asked to choose a pseudonym. Any other identifying details will be changed or redacted in transcripts or reports of the completed study. All files will be stored on an encrypted USB flash drive that will be kept in a secure location at all times. Data will be stored anonymously for a period of two years after the completion of the study and may RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 12/08/2016 170 3 of 3 be used for eventual publication. You will be notified in the event that this research is published. After this period, all data gathered from this study will be disposed of confidentially (i.e. shredding, deleting). The following are exceptions to your right to confidentiality. 1. If you pose a clear and imminent danger to yourself and/or others. 2. If I am made aware that you are abusing and/or neglecting a child or vulnerable adult, or report of someone else who is engaging in such behaviour(s). 3. If I am requested to release confidential information (e.g., interview notes) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or other legal matters authorized by law. Participant Consent By signing this informed consent form, I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary. I understand that it is within my own power and right to choose not to participate or to withdraw at any time during this study, without penalty. If at any time I choose to withdraw it is my responsibility to contact the primary researcher and communicate my choice in writing. Once the interview data has been anonymized and analyzed, I understand that there will be no way for the researcher to identify my responses and therefore I cannot withdraw after that point. Upon withdrawal, all information collected about you will be disposed of. I am also aware of the potential risks and benefits of my participation. I have been informed and understand my right to ask questions that I see as relevant and important to my participation in this study. I also acknowledge, understand, and accept that my responses will be kept confidential and in an anonymous form and be kept for further analysis after the completion of this study. ________________________________________________________________________ Your signature below indicates that you have had your questions about the study answered to your satisfaction and have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study and that your responses may be put in anonymous form and kept for further use after the completion of this study. Participant Consent: __________________________________ Research Participant Name (print) __________________________________ Date (MM/DD/YYYY) __________________________________ Research Participant Signature RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 171 APPENDIX E Interview Protocol Given the relational nature of the paradigm and the methods used, the interviewer is invited to conduct the interview with flexibility. The four directives for the sandtrays are required, but the follow-up questions will depend on what emerges in the interview. This includes prompts to explore relationships (to self and others, including institutions and communities), asking further questions when it appears content is relevant, and clarifying meaning. The interviewer is also encouraged to honour the deeply relational nature of this process. This means the interviewer may note and clarify conflict and intensity markers (e.g., furrowed brows, facial flushing), make comments to empathize or build rapport, and disclose here-and-now reactions that emphasis the connection between researcher and participant. This disclosure should only consist of authentic emergent personal responses (cognitive, affective, somatic) that would reasonably be believed to be helpful and not harmful to the participant (such as “I feel a heaviness in my chest when I see/hear….”; “My heart is really touched by how….”). Sandtray instructions: In addition to speaking about your experience, creating scenes in the sand is another way for you to express your story. You will be asked to make several scenes to convey how your experienced relational harm and healing in response to unwanted sexual experiences. Please use the tray, the sand, and the miniatures from the shelves to depict your experiences. Choose whatever figures you are attracted do and create the scene in whatever manner you like. There is no right or wrong way to do this. You may change the scene at any time during the interview. Directive 1: Show how you experienced your world before the unwanted sexual experience. This directive is aimed to capture a retrospective view of what the participants’ relational life looked like before they encountered sexual assault. Directive 2: Show what happened when the unwanted sexual experience took place. This directive is meant to capture how the relational world shifted in connected to the assault. Participants may choose to depict any window of time after the assault that they choose. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 172 Directive 3: Show what your world feels like now. This directive is meant to illuminate relational shifts that have happened. This will likely include elements of healing but will also contain aspects of relational harm as well. Directive 4: When you look at your tray, is there anything you wish was different? (This may mean changing the positions of figures, molding the sand differently, or adding or removing figures). This directive is designed to capture elements of healing that are still needed or yearned for. It also orient participants to the possibilities of the future, which may be helpful at the outset of a retrospective interview about a sensitive experience. Conclusion: Honouring of experiences. (Thank each woman for her participation with immediacy and intentionality. Share how I have been impacted and how the participant’s voice has been valued). I would like to ask you a few questions about being interviewed today. Understanding your experience can help me improve how I do things in the future. 1. What was it like to share your story? Was anything about it particularly good, or bad? 2. Was there anything you feel I should have asked? Or would be helpful to ask other women? 3. Is there anything else you would like to share with me? 4. Is there anything that could have made your experience better today? 5. Do you have any questions for me? Optional: Relaxation exercise. I have prepared a short 5-minute relaxation exercise that I can guide you through before you leave. This exercise can help ceremoniously conclude what has happened today, and help regain a sense of collectedness as you go. Would you like to try it? (Appendix E) RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 173 APPENDIX F Relaxation Script Get ready to relax your body and your mind. Settle into a comfortable position, and begin to turn your attention inward. Notice how you are feeling right now... mentally.... physically. Without trying to change anything, simply take note of how your body feels.... and notice how you are feeling mentally. Mentally scan your body now, looking for areas of tension. Where is your body the most tense? Notice now where your body is most relaxed. See that these areas of relaxation are slowly getting larger.... Now turn your awareness to your breathing. Simply notice your breathing, without making any effort to change your breathing in any way. Imagine breathing in relaxation.... and breathing out tension. Feel yourself becoming more relaxed with each breath. Focus in on areas of tension in your body, and imagine directing your breath to these areas. Feel the breath in drawing in relaxation.... and as you exhale, imagine the tension draining away from each area of tension. Allow your breathing to relax your body. Feel your body and mind becoming relaxed.... calm.... peaceful. Deeply relaxed and calm. Now begin to create a picture in your mind. Imagine a place where you feel completely at ease. This might be a favorite place you have been, or somewhere you have seen, or it might be completely imaginary. It's up to you. Picture this place where you feel happy and calm. Create the details about this place in your mind. Visualize the sights.... sounds.... and smells... of your place. Imagine how you feel physically. You are comfortable, enjoying the pleasant temperature..... enjoying being still and relaxing or doing whatever enjoyable activities you participate in here..... Enjoy the way you feel in this safe place. You feel calm and safe here. At peace with yourself. Remain in your peaceful place and breathe deeply. Listen to the following affirmations and repeat each one in your mind, if you like. I am valued. My story is important. I am worthy of love and connection. I am safe. I am capable. I am perfectly alright just as I am in this very moment. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 174 Think again about your peaceful place. Picture yourself enjoying this environment. Acknowledge any feelings you are experiencing. Accept any positive or negative feelings you are having. Allow yourself to feel calm and at peace. Know that you can return here to this peaceful place in your imagination any time to relax, and feel calm, comfortable, and safe. Take with you the feelings of acceptance of yourself, and the importance of your story. Now it is time to return to your usual level of alertness and awareness. Take a deep breath in.... and out. Breathe in again.... and out.... Continue to breathe smoothly and regularly, feeling your energy increasing with each breath. As you breathe, allow your body to reawaken. Feel the energy flowing through your muscles. Raise your shoulders as you breathe in, and lower them as you breathe out. Feel your muscles reawaken. Keep with you the feeling of calm and relaxation, while returning to a state of wakefulness. When you are ready, open your eyes and return to your day, feeling alert and calm. Adapted from the Inner Health studio website at www.innerhealthstudio.com. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 175 APPENDIX G Debrief Information I want to extend my sincere gratitude for your participation in this study. Thank you for your willingness to share your story and reflect on your experiences. I hope you feel that your voice has been heard and valued, and that it will contribute meaningfully to research on unwanted sexual experiences. Specifically, this research seeks to understand how women’s ability to be in relationship, with themselves, others, and possibly God, are impacted by these experiences. Understanding how women are impacted relationally will helps us determine how to respond as counsellors, friends, family members, communities and cultures. We want to promote relational processes that foster growth and healing, and dismantle those that stagnate survivors in their suffering. If you experience distress, or would simply like to speak with someone safe and supportive, I encourage you to reach out to trusted people in your life, and/or contact any of the resources I have provided. These include crisis lines which are available 24 hours a day, and counselling agencies that provide services at a reduced or no cost. Talking about unwanted sexual experiences can be difficult and emotional, but it can also be an important part of healing. I have also provided some information on ways to take care and be kind to yourself, as well as some common myths about sexual assault. You may not find all of the information relevant to your personal experience, but you may know a friend or other woman who may find it helpful. If you need additional referrals or resources, please do not hesitate to contact me. A paper copy of the interview transcript, or photographs of your sandtrays can be provided at your request. Additionally, if you would like to be notified of the results and any future publications, please let me know. If you have any questions or concerns following this study, you may contact me by telephone at 604-897-5276, by email at danielle.palmer@mytwu.ca Sincerely, Danielle Palmer RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 176 APPENDIX H Resources for Participants Mental Health and Counselling Resources If you experience distress, you are STRONGLY encouraged to contact one or more of these resources. Or you may want to speak to someone about anything that is causing you concern. Women Against Violence Against Women Rape Crisis Centre 604-255-6344 or toll free 1-877-392-7583 This toll-free, confidential Crisis Line is answered by empathetic and skilled support workers who are there to listen, to provide non-judgmental support and if needed, to provide information on available counselling services or referrals to other community programs and organizations. WAVAW offers one-to-one counselling and support groups to women who have experienced sexual assault. Their model for counselling enables women to cope with the impacts of violence ranging from anger and grief to issues around sexuality, intimacy, and trust. All counselling takes place in a confidential setting. To register for counselling services, please call the 24-hour Crisis Line at 604- 255-6344 or 1-877-392-7583. For general inquiries about the counselling program you can also email stv@wavaw.ca. http://www.wavaw.ca/ Fraser Health Crisis Line 604.951.8855 or toll free 1.877.820.7444 You can call the crisis line about anything that is causing you concern, worry or distress. When you call the crisis line you will be: ● Invited to talk about the situation and your associated feelings and concerns ● Helped to identify and explore options that might be helpful to you and your situation ● Assisted in sorting out what you might do to manage the situation and increase your ability to cope with it ● Offered information about other available community services that might be helpful to you. After calling the crisis line callers often report they feel less isolated or alone and are better able to cope. http://www.options.bc.ca/fraser-health-crisis-line/about-the-fraser-health-crisis-line Fraser River Counselling At Fraser River Counselling (FRC), TWU Counselling Psychology students provide a broad range of counselling services to the community. While under the supervision of professional counsellors and faculty, students see clients from all walks of life. FRC operates out of three sites: RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL ● ● ● 177 Langley - Main campus of TWU, 7600 Glover Rd. Langley- Nicomekl Elementary School, 20050 53rd Ave. Abbotsford- Sweeney Neighborhood Centre, 33355 Bevan Avenue Counselling services at all of FRC locations are available from late September to late July of the next year, generally on Mondays and Wednesdays. There is a $20 charge for counselling services per visit. In case of hardship this fee can be waived. To enquire about our service or to be put on the waitlist, please contact the FRC intake worker by phone at (604) 513-2113. The intake worker will conduct a brief phone interview in order to assess the suitability of the counselor-client match and will either refer you to an FRC counsellor at the location most convenient for you, or to an alternate counselling service that would be better suited to your needs. Please be aware that the intake counsellor is a student, and therefore, not a full-time employee. It is likely that you will reach our voice-mail service. It is always helpful to leave a number where the intake worker can contact you. You will generally be contacted within two working days. We appreciate your patience. Stopping the Violence Counselling Program (Langley and Aldergrove) The Stopping the Violence against Women (STV) counselling program provides services to women and independent female youth who have experienced violence in their intimate relationships, sexual assault, and/or child abuse. Ishtar’s STV program is accessible and welcoming to all women residing in the Langley and Aldergrove areas. All STV services are offered free of charge. STV services include: Short-term/Crisis Counselling If you are still living with an abusive partner, or if you have been recently assaulted, we have short-term (3-12 sessions) counselling available. We focus on safety planning and emotional stabilization with short-term counselling clients. Depending on the number of requests, there may be a brief waiting period before your first appointment. Individual Counselling We offer up to 50 private sessions over a two year period. STV counsellors work from a counseling model informed by feminist and trauma intervention theories. We focus on providing information to clients about abuse/violence against women, helping clients explore and understand how they have been impacted by abuse/violence, and helping clients regain a sense of safety and control in their lives. There is a waitlist for counselling, typically 3-6 months. Group Counselling The STV program offers various groups throughout the year. There may or may not be a waitlist for a specific group, depending which groups have recently been offered. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 178 How to access STV Services Contact the STV intake counsellor at 604-534-1011 to request an intake appointment. Every effort is made to return intake messages within 2 business days, and to schedule intake appointments within two weeks of first contact. For more information on this program please contact: Angela, STV Coordinator 604-534-1011 ext 225 http://www.ishtarsociety.org/programs-services/stopping-the-violence-counselling-program/ The Wellness Centre at Trinity Western University The Wellness Centre is located on the TWU campus, and provides counselling with reduced fees to all Trinity Western students, staff, faculty, and alumni. Currently enrolled TWU students will be charged $25 per session for the first 6 sessions with a Registered Clinical Counsellor, and $20/session for a Graduate student intern. From session 7 on, the fee increases to $35 per session ($25/appointment for a Graduate Intern). Staff, faculty, and alumni can also access counselling through the Wellness Centre for a $95 fee. They have five registered clinical counsellors as well as three graduate interns available. Counsellors are available for appointments Monday - Friday 9 a.m.-12 p.m. and 1-4 p.m. The Wellness Centre is closed on weekends and holidays. If you would like to schedule an appointment with a counselor, please fill out the intake form online, https://www.twu.ca/life/wellness/counselling/about-our-services.html Or, call 604-513-2100 for more information. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 179 Self-Care After Trauma Self-care is about taking steps to feel healthy and comfortable. Whether it happened recently or years ago, self-care can help you cope with the short- and long-term effects of a trauma like sexual assault. Physical self-care After a trauma, it’s important to keep your body healthy and strong. You may be healing from injuries or feeling emotionally drained. Good physical health can support you through this time. Think about a time when you felt physically healthy, and consider asking yourself the following questions: ● ● ● ● How were you sleeping? Did you have a sleep ritual or nap pattern that made you feel more rested? What types of food were you eating? What meals made you feel healthy and strong? What types of exercise did you enjoy? Were there any particular activities that made you feel more energized? Did you perform certain routines? Were there activities you did to start the day off right or wind down at the end of the day? Emotional self-care Emotional self-care means different things to different people. The key to emotional self-care is being in tune with yourself. Think about a time when you felt balanced and grounded, and consider asking yourself the following questions: ● ● ● ● ● ● What fun or leisure activities did you enjoy? Were there events or outings that you looked forward to? Did you write down your thoughts in a journal or personal notebook? Were meditation or relaxation activities a part of your regular schedule? What inspirational words were you reading? Did you have a particular author or favorite website, to go to for inspiration? Who did you spend time with? Was there someone, or a group of people, that you felt safe and supported around? Where did you spend your time? Was there a special place, maybe outdoors or at a friend’s house, where you felt comfortable and grounded? Meditation or Relaxation Exercises Relaxation techniques or meditation help many survivors with their emotional self-care. RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 180 For example: Sit or stand comfortably, with your feet flat on the floor and your back straight. Place one hand over your belly button. Breathe in slowly and deeply through your nose and let your stomach expand as you inhale. Hold your breath for a few seconds, then exhale slowly through your mouth, sighing as you breathe out. Concentrate on relaxing your stomach muscles as you breathe in. When you are doing this exercise correctly, you will feel your stomach rise and fall about an inch as you breathe in and out. Try to keep the rest of your body relaxed—your shoulders should not rise and fall as you breathe! Slowly count to 4 as you inhale and to 4 again as you exhale. At the end of the exhalation, take another deep breath. After 3-4 cycles of breathing you should begin to feel the calming effects. Adapted from: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/sexual-assault-recovery/self-care-for-survivors RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 181 Dispelling The Myths About Sexual Assault Our society’s understanding of sexual assault is complicated by myths. Many of these myths blame or shame the survivor of sexual assault, instead of holding the offender responsible for his actions. To dispel these myths we need to ask ourselves: Do I believe that ... 1. . . . women often provoke sexual assault by their behaviour or manner of dress? Fact: No behaviour or manner of dress justifies an assault. Such a belief takes the onus off the offender and places it on the survivor. A person should always ask to ensure his advances are wanted. The idea that women “ask for it” is often used by offenders to rationalize their behaviour. Offenders are solely responsible for their own behaviour. 2. . . . many people lie about sexual assault? Fact: Unlike other crimes of a violent nature, sexual assault is for the most part unreported (LEAF). Less than 10% of sexual assaults are reported to the police (Brennan, S. & Taylor-Butts, A. 2008; and Statistics Canada, Minister of Industry. June 25, 2014). This percentage is closer to 6% according to Toronto Police (Toronto Police Sex Crimes Unit, 2014). False allegations of sexual assault are not a common problem. 3. . . . when someone says “no” she/he secretly enjoys being forced, teased or coerced into having sex? Fact: No one enjoys being assaulted. “No” means “no”. It’s the law. When someone says NO to any form of sexual activity it is the responsibility of the other person to respect this. 4. . . . saying “no” is the only way of expressing your desire to not continue? Fact: Many offenders will rationalize their behavior by saying that because she didn’t actually say “no”, so they thought consent was obtained. The law is clear: without consent, it is sexual assault. Consent means saying Yes to sexual activity. In addition to saying No, there are many ways of communicating non-compliance. ● ● ● ● ● ● “I’m not into this right now” “Maybe later” “I’m not sure” silence crying body language (squirming, stiffness, shaking) In addition: ● ● If a person is too intoxicated to say No, there is no consent If a person is too scared to say No, there is no consent RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL ● 182 If a person is asleep or unconscious, there is no consent Misconceptions about the use of alcohol and/or substances and sexual violence shift the blame to the victim/survivor. This isn’t fair, and minimizes the perpetrator’s responsibility for obtaining clear consent. Any altered state that inhibits someone’s ability to say NO does not constitute consent. 5. . . . sexual assault only occurs when there is a struggle or physical injury? Fact: Many survivors are too afraid to struggle. They may freeze in terror or realize that the overwhelming size and strength of their attacker makes resistance very dangerous. In cases reported to police, 80% of sexual assault survivors knew their abusers (Statistics Canada, 2003, The Daily, 25 July). Acquaintances, friends or relatives are more likely to use tricks, verbal pressure, threats or mild force like arm twisting or pinning their victim down during an assault. Assaults may also be drug assisted. Lack of obvious physical injury or knowing the attacker doesn’t change the fact that sexual assault is violent and against the law. 6. . . . if it really happened, the survivor would be able to easily recount all the facts in the proper order? Fact: Shock, fear, embarrassment and distress can all impair memory. In addition to this, many survivors actively attempt to minimize or forget the details of the assault to help them cope with its memory. 7. … Experiencing sexual violence is not harmful in the long run. Fact: Sexual assault can have serious effects on people’s health and wellbeing. People who have been sexually assaulted feel fear, depression and anger. Sexual violence can have significant impact on victims, regardless of the physical details of the incident: a Canadian study notes that while few survivors report sexual assault to the police, “a single incident of assault or sexual assault…can be a life-shattering experience” and as a result, survivors can feel fear, guilt, shame and low self-esteem (Status of Women Canada. 2002. Assessing Violence Against Women: A Statistical Profile.). 8. . . . a person who has agreed to sex previously with the offender (for example, their spouse, an acquaintance, or a client who has paid for sexual services) cannot be sexually assaulted by that person? Fact: Sexual assault is any unwanted sexual activity forced on one person by another. Sexual assault occurs whenever a person does not want to have sex but is forced into the act, regardless of previous consensual sexual relations. The Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women found that 38% of sexually assaulted women were assaulted by their husbands, common-law partners or boyfriends. Although illegal in Canada since 1983, few of these assaults are reported to police. In addition, consent is active and ongoing. This means consent ceases to be present if someone changes his/her mind. This also means that person can say no to further continuance once any sexual activity has already begun. 10. . . .There is no such thing as a male survivor of sexual assault? RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 183 Fact: Men and boys can be sexually assaulted too. Women and girls are considerably more likely than men to be targeted; however for males, being under 12 years old heightens their vulnerability to sexual offences (Measuring Violence Against Women: Statistical Trends 2006, Statistics Canada). When adult men are assaulted they face stigma imposed by patriarchal views about masculinity. 11. . . if a someone - for example, a partner, date or acquaintance − buys dinner or drinks, gives a present, or does a favour, the recipient owes them sex? Fact: No one owes anyone sex. It cannot be assumed that friendliness and openness are an invitation to sex. 12. …if two people are married, or in a relationship, sex is an assumed part of the agreement? Fact: Consent to any sexual activity can only be given by the individual regardless of context. Spousal relationships, including arranged marriage or any other relationship that implies indebtedness does not constitute consent to sexual activity. Sexual activity cannot be expected or condoned in advance. 14. . . . once a sexual assault report has been made, the alleged offender will be prosecuted and found guilty? Fact: In fact, charges are less likely to be laid and conviction rates are lower for sexual offences than for other types of violent crime (Brennan, S. & Taylor-Butts, A. 2008; and Statistics Canada). Those cases that are reported are not always resolved through the criminal justice system. Due to the limits of the criminal justice system response, a small minority of those initially charged with sexual assault actually see convictions (The Learning Network) . Sexual assault is a difficult crime to prove as there are rarely witnesses, there is not always physical evidence of the crime, and sexual assault myths affect the efficacy of the criminal justice system. These contexts continue to deter survivor-victims from reporting sexual assault, in particular if their offender is known to them. Adapted from http://www.sexualassaultsupport.ca/page-535956 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 184 APPENDIX I Step Three I Poem Example, Sarah [her world before] I guess I saw I guess I thought I saw myself I feel like this I see myself again now I don’t really know I don’t know I see it I was I didn’t know I was supposed to I’m glad it’s over I was stuck I didn’t really have anyone I could talk to I guess I didn’t mean I don’t want I succeeded I was just about I was living I knew I didn’t care I needed to get out I dated I like I think I’ve only I think [when it happened] I feel I didn’t really feel safe I didn’t want to I was his I didn’t get any I used to RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL I met someone I end up pushing I don’t know how I took advantage I don’t know I guess I don’t feel I should I used to feel I felt trapped I left something I stayed I was just I guess I didn’t realize I’m like I was I mean I told I didn’t tell her everything I don’t know I ever told anyone everything I think I don’t want I needed I needed I had to I just had to I was given I mean I guess I think I try I need I’m looking I’m doing I didn’t know I knew it didn’t feel right I didn’t know I guess I feel I should I think I think I got free 185 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL I think it’s over I changed I didn’t want I didn’t want I don’t know I was glad I also missed I didn’t understand I felt I miss someone [her world now] I’m going I’ve grown I need I know I didn’t I wonder why I say I’m this strong person I’m not all the time I’m not close I have a lot I don’t know I do notice I feel like I have a hard time [what she wishes were different] I’d let him in I see I wasn’t so sure I feel a lot lighter 186 RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 187 APPENDIX J Step Four Essay Example, Sarah [before] In Sarah’s first tray, she explains how she was in an abusive relationship with a man 14 years older than her and identifies how she felt a loss of her agency and innocence [separation]. She explains that she thought relationships had boundaries, but that eventually changed and then says “it was no longer my decision” [separation]. She mourns how she used to see herself, as strong, and in charge of her decisions and emotions. She reflects that this is how she sees herself again now [acceptance, empowerment], but that it took a long time to return to this. She expresses the [confusion] she felt, being trapped, and knowing what to do or where to go. She [acknowledges] feeling anger, for being taken advantage of, and the difficulty of not having anyone to help her through it [isolation]. She comments “it’s not something you bring up in normal conversation], perhaps yearning for [acknowledge and accompaniment] in the midst of her confusion. She later adds, “it would have been nice to talk to somebody.” As we switch sides and I ask her what she notices, she [acknowledges] it feels “different” and then “stronger.” Then she adds, “it makes sense” [knowing] and identifies that she wanted at the time was to tell her boyfriend “Get out of my life. I don’t want you here. You’re not welcome” [empowerment]. I acknowledge what I notice about scene, and Sarah speaks with [acceptance] about the figure in the tray that represents herself- “She needed the time, to heal…. You can only blame yourself for so long.” She speaks with [knowing], reflecting that she likes sitting on this side of the tray better. She then [acknowledges] how this experience has impacted her relationships, noting that “it’s hard to trust people” [isolation]. When I probe her to notice her feelings in the moment, Sarah transitions to [acceptance], reflecting “it’s not consuming my whole life, it’s part of my life, but not as big” [when] In Sarah’s second tray, she speaks about the [confusion] of feeling life was spinning out of control, and uses a cave in the tray to represent how she felt “isolated and kind of hidden away” [isolation]. She recalls how the man in her former relationship, leveraged paying for vacations to take her choice away from her [separation]. She reflects that she didn’t she didn’t want to have sex [knowing] and she didn’t feel safe [acknowledgment] but that due to his physical and verbal abuse, “it was either go along with it, or be afraid you’re going to get hurt.” She expresses how others don’t understand [isolation], and will ask “why didn’t you fight back.” [judgment] Sarah reflects that she used to be a person who asked that question, but having been in an abusive situation, understands it differently now [acceptance]. When asked how she feels as she looks at the tray, Sarah [acknowledges] anger over the control the perpetrator had on her and the fear he created it her. She stands with herself [empowerment] as she exclaims that she should not have had to fear, that she was supposed to feel safe in a relationship. She also reflects on the appeal of [denial]: “it’s easier to hide then to deal with all of those feelings.” She then expresses her sadness, and notes how she wishes she could go back and change things, or erase that part of life and start over [judgment, denial]. (This part of Sarah’s story demonstrates the challenge of being with uncomfortable and overwhelming emotions, and the difficulty in acknowledging the impact trauma has had. It shines light on the temptation to withdraw and deny.) She then reflects on the difficulty she has now of opening up and trusting others [isolation]. When I ask what is coming up for her, she [acknowledges] that her experience is draining, “there’s so much more effort to block all of that then there is it accept it.” [denial] (We RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 188 see how Sarah yearns to move towards acknowledgement and acceptance of her experience, but lacks the [accompaniment] to do so. She feels alone and isn’t able to fully process this experience without the presence of a supportive other). She explains how she told her Mom, but that she didn’t tell her everything, in fact, she doesn’t know if she’s ever told anyone everything [isolation]. She expresses that after she told her Mom, she drove her to the police station and “that was it”. There is an evident yearning for [accompaniment] expressed- “I needed someone to help me. We didn’t talk about it.” I [acknowledge] that hearing her experience, and how she had to change her entire life to get away from her perpetrator makes me angry. Sarah then speaks with [acceptance and empowerment] “It did make me much stronger. To know that you can get through it. Even if you don’t think you can survive it.” She also [acknowledges] that when she looks at the tray, it doesn’t feel that the perpetrator holds the same kind of power he used to [acceptance]. She reflects that at the time, she didn’t know her experience was considered rape, because it occurred with a boyfriend [confusion]. Years later, she discovered that it was [knowing] and exclaims “It was like no, it wasn’t, it wasn’t okay. Just because you’re in a relationship with someone it doesn’t mean you get to do whatever you want to them.” [empowerment]. Sarah then describes the rape myths she struggled with. “Rape was something that happened with someone you don’t know. Or at a party with a bunch of drunk people. A one-time thing, not something that repeats.” She also notes that she feels she “should have been able to do more to stop it” [judgment]. She reflects that at the time when the assaults occurred, there weren’t the same resources there are available now, and suggests that people are more willing to talk about these things now [acceptance]. (Although there’s a part of her that wishes she would have responded different, she recognizes that she is the best she could at the time) Sarah expresses how she protected herself through [isolation], represented as a cave in the tray. She also reflects on how she used partying and alcohol to forget everything for a while [denial]. She also expresses the [confusion] she felt after ending her relationship with the perpetrator, while she was glad he was gone, a part of her still missed him. She [acknowledges] that she was wanted to be loved, and cared for, especially by someone whose intentions didn’t have ulterior motives. [Yearning for acceptance and accompaniment]. But she recognizes an unfortunate truth, that it was easier for her to hide in the cave [isolation] (This part of Sarah’s experience shows how crippling isolation is, that even though she is glad to be out of her abusive situation, she still yearns for relationship. And this is a time when she greatly needed another person to come alongside, support and accept her. She has clarity on what she needed, but isn’t able to access it) [now] When Sarah creates a tray to represent her world now, she chooses a tree to show how much she’s grown [acceptance] and comments on the aspects she likes about it [knowing, empowerment]. She also chooses a treasure chest to represent how everything that had been closed [denial] is now open [acknowledgment] is able to get out and heal. She also expresses that there’s still so much treasure inside “That even though a lot of bad things have happened, there’s still hope. And growth.” [acceptance, empowerment]. Sarah then adds additional figures to the tray, representing people in her life. She [acknowledges] the difficulty of letting people in. She describes how she has made a lot of good friends, and that she is working on trusting that others are not there to hurt her. I ask her if she knows where that sense of trust comes from and Sarah [acknowledges] it as “Just a feeling. Listening to your gut.” [knowing] She expresses that the figures in the tray are “people I know have my back. Have my best interests at heart. They’re not there to hurt me.” [knowing, accompaniment] RIPPLES OF BETRAYAL 189 [what she wishes were different] When asked what she wishes were different, Sarah moves one of the figures closer to the figure representing herself and comments “A relationship would be nice. Someone to rely on. Be there when you need them, so you don’t have to do everything on your own.” [accompaniment] She laments how in a past relationship, things could have been different if she had let him in more [judgment, separation]. When I ask if there is anything else she notices, Sarah expresses that looking at the tray makes her happier [acknowledgment]. She reflects that there is hope for the future, if you let people in [accompaniment]. Lastly, she [acknowledges] that she feels a lot lighter for having done this process. (It seems as if there is a tangible weight in the wake of sexual assault. A spinning mass of confusion that is too much for one person to walk through and understand. It seems that through sharing the experience with another who is able to be present amongst difficulty, listen without judgment and be impacted personally, this shared burden becomes lighter, creating space for the survivor to experience more of themselves personally and relationally- a greater sense of who they are, and what they want).