New Meaning After Betrayal Trauma

Originally published in the January/February, 2020 San Gabriel Valley Psychological Association Newsletter, Analyze This!]

“Betrayal trauma” is the term used to describe the deep relational wounding that follows the discovery of infidelity. For this discussion, I will define “infidelity” as an act that violates a consensual agreement of emotional and sexual boundaries involving a partner or partners. Betrayal of this sort is a harrowing experience, as trauma responses of pain, panic, or freezing can begin from the moment of discovery. After seeing an incriminating text message, email, bank statement, or lipstick mark, the pain can be both emotional and visceral as secrets are revealed or suspicions are confirmed. In Stefanie Carnes’ discussions of research surrounding betrayal, she has specifically noted that people discovering infidelity demonstrate similar PTSD symptoms to individuals surviving sexual assault. In this way, betrayal can be conceptualized as a uniquely relational and sexual wound.

In working with clients and couples desperate to heal after such events, putting language to the gut-wrenching pain of betrayal is an important part of the work. In doing so, I have found helpful guidance from the concept of fragmented meaning systems. As outlined by Crystal Park and colleagues, we all have internal structures that help us “make sense” of the world around us. People have global systems of meaning that inform them of the “big picture” by providing governing principals for how the world works. “The world is just,” “good things happen to good people,” or “people are not to be trusted,” are some examples of meaning frameworks people might adopt based on their experience of the world, their upbringing, and personal history.

In addition to these global systems, humans have more concentrated situational systems of meaning by which we make sense of individual interactions with the world. “I do (or do not) deserve this good thing” and “I am safe here in my house” are a few examples of these smaller systems.

When any kind of trauma happens, meaning systems are shaken, sometimes shattered. Park describes the process of meaning- making as being driven by perceived discrepancies, indicating that the felt sense of distress in trauma arises from a chasm opening between global and situational assumptions. Having your home burglarized despite locking the door, becoming an assault victim despite being cautious, or contracting a debilitating illness despite a careful diet exemplify a few ways that safety expectations can be abruptly violated, opening cracks in a person’s existing systems of meaning.

In betrayal trauma specifically, the most intimate systems of meaning that a person has can be shattered, sometimes beyond repair. Mainstream society tends to make global sense of relationships in black and white terms, such as “good partners uphold commitments” or “good partners look after the well-being of the other.” Situationally, individuals can make sense of their relation- ship by receiving affection, communicating openly, or assuming safety with a trusted partner. Now consider how safety expectations are turned upside down when episodic or serial infidelity tears holes in these meaning systems. Whether in a matter of moments or over a grindingly slow period of time, when the truth of infidel- ity is confirmed, distress arises because there is a discrepancy with the old global system, which worked to feel existential security. Much like with assault, betrayed partners can then experience a sense of violation that they might try to relieve through self-blame.

So what does a couple in crisis do when trust has been bro- ken? According to Park’s Meaning-Making Model, new meaning must be made, and in the examination of post-traumatic growth, there is evidence to show that new meaning can in fact be created. New “meanings-made” can emerge from even the most harrowing of experiences, creating more fortified resilience to navigate life’s turbulence moving forward.

In some cases, couples who choose to recover together might come to see the crisis as an opportunity to achieve even greater emotional intimacy than before the betrayal. Honesty and trans- parency might then be improved, allowing new experiences of depth and emotional closeness to emerge. This can give rise to new global meanings, like “honest communication is an impor- tant task in partnerships,” or new situational meanings, like “I feel closer to my partner right now because we are actively engaging in transparent discussion.”

While there can be beauty in these new meanings, there can also be beauty in the meaning that may arise when once-partners choose to recover apart and start over. By removing the pain and healing the wound, a person might get to create a new, fulfilling experience of self in the world. Neither choice is easy to make, nor is either journey free of pain, but both can be pathways for newness. Though trauma may create the darkest and most crooked parts of a narrative, the character (or characters) that develop as the plot continues can be radiant with renewal.