Psychology Movie Review: Help for Violent Teens Assignment

Go to First Page

More book options

Teens Who Hurt: Clinical Interventions to Break the Cycle of Adolescent Violence

Hardy, Kenneth V.; Laszloffy, Tracey A.

Hardy, K. V., & Laszloffy, T. A. (2013).  Teens Who Hurt. Guilford Publications, Inc..  https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781462512423

CHAPTER 6

•  •  •  •  •  •  •

Adolescent Axioms

General Principles for Working with Adolescents

Many adults generally struggle with how to understand and relate to most teens, even those who are not violent. When an emotionally volatile issue like violence is factored into the equation, this only intensifies anxiety. Hence, we believe a brief discussion about working with adolescents in general is necessary before discussing violent adolescents. In our view, the work we do with adolescents who show some tendencies toward violence and aggression is an outgrowth of a set of baseline beliefs we hold regarding working with adolescents in general.

Our early work with adolescents, even in the most benign cases, was often fraught with anxiety, complications, and ultimately lots of mistakes. Our good intentions, no matter how well thought out or carefully executed, seldom rendered the results we wanted. It seemed virtually inevitable that we would say the wrong thing, do the wrong thing, do too much of this or not enough of that in most of our interactions with the adolescents with whom we worked. Our numerous well-intentioned but failed attempts “to connect with them” often resulted in one or both of us becoming more and more controlling. Predictably, the more we tightened the reins and made more authority-laced demands, the more they rebelled. The more they resisted and rebelled, the more we demanded and attempted to control, even in the face of compelling data indicating that our approach was not delivering the results we desired.

Over the years we have gleaned a number of valuable lessons from our work with adolescents. Most of these lessons, as we are suggesting here, were learned the hard way, whether it was through trying to force a willfully silent teen to speak or attempting to engage a typically skeptical youth with our “I’m cool” posturing. All of these experiences have resulted in a set of axioms that we use to guide our work with adolescents today. We often refer to these as our “adolescent axioms.” Since employing these, we have experienced a welcomed and dramatic shift in our work. While not a panacea, they have assisted us in thinking differently about adolescents and the nature of the work we do with them. No, the axioms have not entirely eliminated the rough spots, but they have helped a great deal. Our work nowadays is beset far less by the power struggles that too often characterized it during the early going. Embracing these axioms has helped us to step outside of our egos in regard to our work. We seem to have a better handle on the shortsightedness of viewing so much of what adolescents do as a personal affront to us as professionals and adults. We see the axioms, while obviously not intervention strategies in the purest sense, as a framework that helps us develop the type of approach with adolescents that makes effective and substantive work possible.

ADOLESCENT AXIOMS

1. Expect Madness, Badness, and No Easy Rides

From the perspectives of most adults, adolescents often exhibit bizarre vacillations between states of childlike innocence and adult sophistication—hence, a form of madness. Trapped somewhere between childhood and adulthood, adolescents frequently struggle to mediate their conflicting needs and desires. On the one hand, they crave to be free, independent, and self-sufficient young adults. On the other hand, they long for the safety and security typically associated with the world of childhood. The pressure and uncertainty that these competing needs create often lead to behaviors that seem quite maddening to adults. At other times, the rebellious, reckless actions of adolescents are what many adults describe as teen “badness.” Premarital sex, drinking, smoking, and deafening blasts of music are behaviors that are viewed as indications that a once sweet, lovable child has become a hellion. Whether it’s madness or badness, the bottom line for those of us interacting with adolescents is to understand that “there are no easy rides.” In most cases, some type or degree of hassle is inevitable.

The complexities, ambiguities, and apparent contradictions associated with teen madness were highlighted for us just the other day when we spoke with Mr. Mateo, an exasperated and bewildered parent. He was describing the seemingly bizarre behavior of his 16-year-old son, Carlos.

“It was the most unnerving experience. He begged me to take him out for another driving lesson. He can’t wait to take his driving test and get his license. I was busy that afternoon, but I made time to do it because I could understand how excited he was about having his first taste of freedom. The lesson went fine and then we come home, and an hour later I was shocked to find him in the basement playing with Legos! I think he would really benefit from therapy.”

Mr. Mateo’s story provides an example of the normal “madness” that often accompanies adolescence. It was alarming to Mr. Mateo to see how quickly Carlos lunged forward into his impending adulthood, only to retreat an hour later into the world of his childhood. Mr. Mateo’s response to his son’s developmentally appropriate “madness” was not unusual. He believed Carlos needed help for his strange and contradictory behavior. Mr. Mateo, like many parents we see in therapy, worried that his son’s insistence on playing with legos was a clear indication that he did not possess the maturity necessary for driving a car. He was convinced that he had all the information he needed to substantiate his belief that Carlos was a little immature and was probably better served by continuing to play with games at home than to be pushed into the adult world of driving prematurely. Obviously, Carlos disagreed! Furthermore, the different perceptions between him and his dad regarding this matter became a major source of tension, animosity, and conflict in their relationship.

In cases like these, it has been our experience that the adolescent axioms can be helpful as a guide to both professionals and parents. Axiom, for example, serves as a reminder to Mr. Mateo that the period of adolescence can often be considered a state of temporary and developmentally sanctioned insanity. It is helpful for parents, especially those experiencing an adolescent for the first time, to know that the vacillation between extreme behaviors is “normal madness” and not necessarily indicative of anything profoundly or uniquely dysfunctional. In taking such a stance, it becomes a little easier for parents like Mr. Mateo to keep in mind that their appraisal of the adolescent’s immaturity may be a little exaggerated, as is the adolescent’s appraisal of his or her maturity. For professionals, it can often help us to avoid the trap of colluding with parents about how “bad or mad they are” when we remind and empower ourselves to remind and empower parents to put the behavior into a developmental context. We are not suggesting that seeing the behavior in its developmental context will magically make it less annoying, repulsive, and/or objectionable to a parent. However, we do believe and have certainly found in our work that when parents can accomplish this feat (with lots of support from us) it changes how the parents respond, which ultimately helps to change nonproductive interactions.

Adolescents with acting-out, obnoxious, and rebellious behaviors are also lightning rods for most adults interacting with them. These behaviors are often associated with either kids who have gone bad or those who are a bit worrisome because their behavior flirts with crossing the lines of moral decency and respect. More often than not, parents, teachers, and other professionals working with adolescents are usually concerned with what is often believed to be the clear indicators of “badness.” Unfortunately, too many of us typically respond to the “signs” of the once good kids gone or threatening to go bad with increased coercion and control. For example, we routinely hear parents in therapy give their teens some variation of the message “It’s my way or the highway.” Ultimatums like this create a “lose–lose” situation for everyone. Many adolescents often feel forced to comply, lie, or say “bye.” In each of these cases, adult–adolescent relationships are strained, if not ruptured, over issues that more often than not are developmentally appropriate.

As we indicated earlier, there were times when we responded to the apparent “madness and badness” of teens by trying to either cure or control them. We gradually recognized that we had been assuming their behavior was somehow abnormal or problematic. We had our fantasies about “the good teen” eagerly waiting for us to bestow our wisdom, insight, and guidance on him or her. We were trying to find that adolescent who would see us as benevolent, caring adults and not merely as agents of social control or symbols of the establishment that threatened his or her freedom. In a sense, we were looking for “an easy ride.” We were looking for the type of teen who would make things easy for us. We now know that there are “no easy rides,” especially in the therapy room.

Embracing the “expect madness, badness, and no easy rides” axiom has been extremely helpful to us. It acknowledges the inevitable struggle and strife that most adolescents experience, and more importantly it reminds us of this during times we most often need a gentle reminder. This axiom normalizes the testing of limits that tends to occur during this stage of development. There is a type of peace that flows from accepting that the mantra many adolescents live by is to “make life miserable for adults.” Adults who embrace this reality tend to avoid making the unalterable decisions, ultimatums, and edicts that often result in no-win positions with adolescents.

One of the main advantages we have found to using this axiom as a guiding principle is that it has afforded many families small pieces of hope in the midst of situations that appeared hopeless. When parents are able to see badness and madness as normal within a developmental framework, it makes the task of coping and managing easier. It helps to know that this or that disturbing behavior is part of a phase of development rather than an indictment of one’s efficacy as a parent or, worse, the early signs of a malignant psychological condition. As family therapists, we often remind parents that “adolescence is like a bad virus for which there are no antibiotics—it simply has to run its course.” Accordingly, we believe it is unfortunate when otherwise healthy and meaningful parent–child relationships get strained during the adolescent stage and never seem to recover because of a failure to effectively negotiate the madness, badness, no easy rides axiom. Our clinical practices are inundated with 35-, 45-, and 50-year-old adults with unfulfilling relationships with parents, and most of these are the ultimate outcome of experiences that went sour during adolescence.

2. Invoke the PTA Rule

The PTA rule asserts that parents, teachers, therapists, and other adults must be “stronger” and “healthier” than the adolescents with whom they interact. PTA refers to parents, teachers, and adults. We use the terms “stronger” and “healthier” in a very specific way. Our definition of strength goes beyond the traditional notion of brute force. Instead, we think of strength as an emotional attribute that stems from having the capacity to appropriately manage one’s own emotions and another’s simultaneously. This “emotional skill” requires emotional health, which stems from having a sense of inner security and psychological wholeness. Maddy and her 15-year-old daughter, Sheila, were engaged in the classic parent–adolescent power struggle over rules and boundaries. During our third therapy session, Sheila told her mother that she wanted the freedom to go out Saturday night and permission to come home at 1:00 AM. Maddy refused. She said she needed to think about whether or not Sheila could go out at all, but—either way—she would not be allowed to stay out past 10:00 P.M. Sheila was livid.

“I hate you,” Sheila screamed. “You’re trying to ruin my life. All you want to do is control me. I hate you! I hate you and I wish you weren’t my mother!” The air in our small therapy room was thick with the emotional intensity that was raging between Sheila and her mother.

“You hate me? Well, guess what—I hate you too! You think I like having to waste my time with this bullshit conflict? Don’t you think I have better things to do with my time than worry about who you’re running around with and what trouble you’re trying to get into? I really regret the day I had labor pains to have you!”

Given Sheila’s attacking and hurtful words, Maddy’s response to her daughter was understandable. However, we have found that it is not terribly helpful to engage in an escalating game of “tit for tat” with adolescents. While it probably felt good at the moment to snap back at her daughter with equal venom and hostility, in the end Maddy’s response did little to help the situation. Instead, we believe it would have been more effective for Maddy to invoke the PTA rule. In so doing, we believe she would have been better able to see Sheila’s outburst for what it was: a tantrum from a frustrated young person who felt trapped and powerless and who was raging against the one person who seemed to be blocking her pathway to freedom. Admittedly, although not easy to do, the situation required Maddy to see beyond the “grenade-slinging outbursts” of Sheila and respond to her in a loving and reassuring way. To one-up her daughter with an anger-laced grenade-slinging outburst of her own did very little to bring mother and daughter closer. For a variety of reasons Maddy was unable to respond to Sheila, at least on this occasion, in a way that was productive and facilitative.

There are as many varied reasons for why it may be difficult for some parents to invoke the PTA rule, particularly when it is most needed. These reasons range from stress to poor parenting skills to varying philosophies regarding parent–child interactions. While we possess neither the space nor the knowledge to account for all the potential impediments there are to executing the PTA axiom, we would like to discuss one of the most common factors underpinning the difficulty that parents and other adults sometimes have in invoking the PTA rule.

Relational Contaminants: Unresolved Conflicts, Thoughts, and Feelings

Adolescents by the very nature of who they are have a unique ability to activate old (unresolved) conflicts, worries, or feelings that some adults have left over from their adolescence or earlier family experiences. When old thoughts, feelings, and conflicts (re)emerge in our contemporary interactions, they have a way of contaminating communications. In our therapy, we refer to the reemergence of these leftover issues, particularly those that block functional interactions, as relational contaminants. We think of them as contaminants because of the negative effects that they tend to have on relationships. The presence of relational contaminants makes it difficult for interactions in the here and now to remain in the present.

When adults like Maddy have difficulty in invoking the PTA rule, such difficulties often are rooted in unresolved issues from the past that involve unfulfilled needs and/or expectations, or relational contaminants. Ironically, it is not uncommon to note that relational contaminants can be unexpectedly activated in the midst of our daily efforts to live life under the most mundane circumstances. It does not take a major societal event or a key family event to set off a relational contaminant; it can and often happens benignly.

Over the years we have found that adolescents, in particular, seem to be lightning rods for many of the unresolved issues that adults harbor within themselves. Hence, when adults come into contact with teens, they tend to be quite vulnerable to having their relational contaminants triggered during these interactions. When this occurs, adults suddenly find that they are no longer dealing with whatever the issue of the moment is but instead are caught up in feelings and sensations tied to the past. The triggering of unresolved issues from the past brings forth a flood of memories and emotions that makes it exceedingly difficult to invoke the PTA rule. We have identified two common sources of relational contaminants that commonly prevent healthy constructive adult–adolescent interactions, namely: family of origin; and peers and partners.

Family of Origin. Adults who have unresolved issues rooted in their family of origin can struggle with unfulfilled needs and expectations with respect to parents, siblings, grandparents, and/or any other relative. For example, in Maddy’s case, she could not be “stronger and healthier” than Sheila because of relational contamination involving her relationship with her own mother. Maddy had struggled her entire life with not feeling wanted or loved by her own mother. When she was 5, her mother had told her she never wanted her, that she was “an accident.” It was a devastating thing for a parent to say to a child. Maddy openly admitted that her mother’s disclosure had scarred her deeply.

When Maddy was 18, she married her high school sweetheart, and a year later Sheila was born. The marriage fell apart when Sheila was 4 months old, and Maddy became and remained a single mother. She was hurt and disappointed about the failure of her marriage but grateful that she had Sheila. She vowed to give her daughter all the love she felt she had been deprived of as a child.

“It’s always been hard for me to support both of us with no one else to help, but I always thought it was worth it because of the love between me and Sheila. Now, all of that has changed. She’s moody and selfish. All she thinks about now is wanting to go out with her friends. She is really selfish.”

Maddy’s need to derive love and affirmation from her relationship with Sheila impaired her ability to tolerate the natural stresses and strains of Sheila’s adolescence. Maddy interpreted Sheila’s normal inclinations toward individuation and autonomy as signs of rejection. Maddy responded to her hurt and insecurity by trying to control Sheila more strictly, which eventually led to the eruption in therapy. Maddy’s painful experiences with rejection made it exceedingly difficult for her to be stronger and healthier than Sheila. Instead of dealing effectively with both Sheila’s feelings and her own, she was consumed by her own pain and suffering. She lashed back at Sheila, which had the effect of creating further distance between them.

Peers and Partners.“Peers” refers to friends as well as acquaintances who usually, although not necessarily always, share membership in a common cohort group. Partners are those with whom one shares an intimate romantic relationship. Relational contaminants that stem from relationships with peers or partners involve unfulfilled needs and expectations related to one’s friends, acquaintances, or romantic partners.

Mr. Laven, a 10th-grade teacher in an inner-city high school, blew a fuse when Ricky, a student in his class, criticized his Hunter green golf shirt. In classic adolescent-like fashion, Ricky’s timing was impeccable. He and a group of his friends were in the gymnasium when Mr. Laven entered with three female colleagues. Ricky, after skillfully gaining everyone’s attention, began to make a series of wisecracks about the shirt. His cracks generated raucous laughter that echoed throughout the gymnasium. Mr. Laven’s face turned beet-red.

“You think you’re funny, don’t you, Ricky? Well, look at whose talking? You’ll probably have to repeat 10th-grade English again. You can barely string together two grammatically correct sentences. The one thing around here that seems laughable is the thought that you might ever graduate from this school and make something of your life.”

Ricky’s smile vanished. The sound of laughter was quickly transformed into a tomb of silence. It was obvious to everyone looking on that Ricky was deeply wounded by the comment. Mr. Laven now looked smug and content.

Suddenly Ricky’s eyes squinted, and he stepped forward, saying: “Hey, fuck you, man, with your rich-boy preppy attitude!”

Mr. Laven was enraged all over again. “What did you say, you little punk? Who the hell do you think you’re talking to like that—your father? Oh, yeah, you probably don’t have a father. That must be your problem. Get down to the office now!”

This interaction quickly escalated into a bitter conflict that spiraled out of control. Because Mr. Laven failed to invoke the PTA rule, what started out as a teenager trying to tease an adult quickly degenerated into a much more vicious encounter that resulted in a 2-day suspension for Ricky.

It would have been helpful for Mr. Laven to understand the deeper motive behind Ricky’s behavior. Perhaps Ricky’s comments were purely benign, intended in as spirit of good fun. Or maybe he really wanted to hurt and humiliate his teacher. Even if the latter were the case, why did Ricky need to do this? Was he angry with Mr. Laven for something? Had his teacher hurt or offended him in some way? If so, it would be much more helpful to deal with these issues rather than getting into an increasingly nasty game of verbal one-upmanship. Because Mr. Laven wasn’t able to check his own emotions long enough to try to understand the emotional roots of Ricky’s wisecracks, he missed an opportunity to deescalate the situation and repair whatever strains obviously existed in his his relationship with Ricky.

In fairness to Mr. Laven, it is much easier to discuss the PTA rule as an abstract concept than it is to execute it in the midst of difficult human interactions. When we explained our position to Mr. Laven, he replied that he had handled the situation with strength: he met Ricky head on and showed him that “I’m not going to take his crap.” Obviously, our definition of strength differed from Mr. Laven’s. To him, strength involved demonstrating to Ricky that he could beat him at his own game. For us, strength resided in Mr. Laven’s ability to endure Ricky’s criticism long enough to get to whatever was at the root of the behavior. Our notion of strength would have been for Mr. Laven to have accomplished this task without lashing back in a vengeful and retaliatory fashion.

Upon closer examination, what we discovered was that when Mr. Laven was an adolescent he suffered greatly with the pain of social isolation and rejection from his peers. He felt utterly alone, unable to fit in with any of the kids his age. He spent most of his time alone reading or building model planes. Far from developing a positive sense of identity, his sense of himself was that of a social misfit—an outcast. Following completion of high school Mr. Laven attended college. Because he was a good student he succeeded academically, but his social and emotional distance from peers persisted. Eventually he earned his masters degree, and shortly thereafter he began teaching math at the same high school where he still teaches today. Outwardly Mr. Laven seemed to have developed a successful life in spite of the awkwardness and pain of his adolescence.

Although he had a reputation as a stern—sometimes too stern—disciplinarian, Mr. Laven also was well known for his high standards and academic excellence. It was easy enough to recognize that, underneath it all, Mr. Laven was still the emotionally insecure, easily hurt, socially awkward young teenager who felt rejected by his peers. The only difference was that in his role as an adult and teacher he had access to power that allowed him to hide his vulnerabilities in a way he could not as a youth. He now had ways of protecting himself that were not available to him 20 years earlier.

Whenever Mr. Laven was faced with a teenager like Ricky who triggered such painful memories from his past, he found himself reliving the humiliation and rejection from peers that had wounded him during his adolescence. All of his excruciating insecurities came flooding back, and his instinctive reaction to pull away and protect himself was overwhelming. He was incapable of reflecting upon what might be going on for someone like Ricky, because in those moments he wasn’t relating from the perspective of an adult but rather that of an adolescent. As such, Mr. Laven could not fathom containing his feelings long enough to respond appropriately to Ricky’s baiting comment. He was too overwhelmed by his own emotions. This is a classic example of how relational contaminants related to past peer relationships can interfere with effectively invoking the PTA rule.

In the next chapter we will provide a specific tool that can be used to facilitate invoking the PTA rule during volatile situations. We believe that utilizing the PTA rule enables those of us interacting with adolescents to refrain from sliding down the same slippery slope that so many teens are sliding down when they feel frustrated, hopeless, disrespected, and increasingly out of control. Whether tied to experiences with one’s family of origin, peers, partners, or some other significant other, we believe it is important to identify and find ways to address one’s relational contaminants. We believe this is particularly vital to do since there is a very strong connection between the presence of relational contaminants and the degrees of difficulty experienced in invoking the PTA rule effectively.

When adults are able to invoke the PTA rule, they can respond like Ellen, a mother of three, when her 14-year-old son Robby screamed: “I hate your guts! You’re nothing but a loser!” Appearing momentarily unbalanced, Ellen took a deep breath and then answered: “Well, I can understand how you feel. There were times when I was 14 that I hated my parents too. I just want you to know that I still love you.”

Ellen’s response to Robby was a good example of how to invoke the PTA rule. Invoking the PTA rule means that the adult recognizes that it is his or her responsibility to find the strength, courage, and patience to respond in ways that deescalate conflict. Put-downs, especially by those in authority, often incite rather than reduce conflict. While an adult might derive momentary catharsis from counterattacking, whether by direct hostile engagement or by passive (punitive) withdrawal from the interaction, this does little to strengthen an already stressed relationship.

Challenges Faced by Therapists and Other Professionals Invoking the PTA Rule

For therapists and other professionals working with adolescents, invoking the PTA rule can also be challenging for a variety of reasons. First, as professionals, we are certainly susceptible to the same relational contaminant difficulties and blindspots that plague those we treat in therapy. Unfortunately, much of our work often occurs in a context where what we say is not always subject to close scrutiny. Hence, our inappropriate or ill-advised comments or responses to adolescents may either remain undetected or be dismissed or catalogued as a professionally grounded response based on clinical expertise. The case of Mrs. Moody provides a good example of the point we are suggesting here.

Mrs. Moody was a counselor in a residential treatment center for “emotionally disturbed” and “adjudicated youth.” She had been employed for 18 years at the same facility and was very well respected by her colleagues as well as by many of the youth in her unit. During one of our consultation visits to the facility, we had the opportunity to observe Mrs. Moody in the midst of an acrimonious exchange with 13-year-old Tawanna.

“I’m gonna ask you one time and one time only, Tawanna, to get the hell out of my sight! I can’t stand to look at you for even a second, I am so pissed and disgusted with you . . Leave now before I mess around and get locked up for doing something I might regret,” Mrs. Moody angrily said to Tawanna. She had just discovered that the teen was 4 months pregnant. Tawanna seemed stunned by Mrs. Moody’s enraged response. She stood frozen, seemingly unable to flex a single muscle, with tears quickly forming and streaming down her face. She seemed hurt and embarrassed. Mrs. Moody, on the other hand, seemed unfazed by Tawanna’s obvious signs of devastation and emotional unraveling. In a harsh and scolding voice, she continued to repeat: “LEAVE! “I SAID, LEAVE!”

This was a painfully difficult interaction to observe. When we discussed the interaction with others in the facility, we were amazed by the feedback we received. Mrs. Moody’s colleagues expressed a range of reactions not just to the Tawanna interaction but to her style in general. There were many who considered her to be a little too harsh and at times abusive with the kids; however, none of them had ever discussed this with her. Many of her colleagues stated some variation of the following theme: “She gets results, and who am I to question or confront her? . . . She has spent most of her life here, and she has an approach that works for her and the kids . . . These are the lessons you learn after working in a place like this for as long as she has.”

When we spoke to Mrs. Moody, she admitted that she “had lost it a little bit.” She explained she loved Tawanna as she would a daughter and that she had “preached to her a million times about not getting caught up in the teen pregnancy trap,” a life she herself had learned about the hard way, as a single-parent teenaged mother. In retrospect, Mrs. Moody believed that her love and concern for Tawanna’s wellbeing justified her reaction. As she stated to us repeatedly, “I have been doing this work for 18 years, and you don’t stay at a place like this for this long by kissing up to these kids . . . They only respond to toughness . . . If they sense you are weak, they take advantage of you.”

We highlight this vignette regarding Mrs. Moody, her colleagues, and Tawanna for several reasons. We believe it again puts a spotlight on how difficult it is to implement the PTA rule and that this is true for professionals as well as nonprofessionals. We believe it underscores some of the inherent challenges that those of us who work with adolescents must face not only in executing the PTA but also in detecting our failure to do so. Mrs. Moody’s professional stature and years of service, made it virtually impossible for her and those with whom she worked to consider that perhaps there was a better way in which she could communicate with the adolescents. She was revered and extolled among her peers for “the respect she demanded from the kids.” Yet, the respect that they often spoke of, to our outsiders’ eyes, too often seemed like fear.

We had numerous opportunities to observe Mrs. Moody’s work, and we were consistently impressed with her dedication to “my kids,” as she referred to them. She had excellent rapport with most of the adolescents in the facility, which was no small feat. Yet, in spite of all the ways in which she worked well with the youth, she, perhaps like all of us, had some rather serious blindspots that seemed to interfere with her ability to be more nurturing and emotionally available to the likes of Tawanna. This, to us, was unfortunate, since the desire for nurturance and having someone there for them was an insatiable hunger that most of her “kids” craved.

Attempting to invoke the PTA rule in therapy sessions can also be challenging at times. Family therapy is particularly a challenge in this regard, because it is not uncommon to have multiple participants in the consulting room, all with competing needs and agendas. We have experienced on more than one occasion that when adolescents in therapy say things to us that seem belligerent or inappropriate, parents frequently are irritated when we do not respond in a punitive manner. At times, each of us has received lashings from parents that rival the lashings we received from their adolescents. In these instances, we usually learn firsthand what it’s like to be an adolescent in these particular families. The criticisms we have received on these occasions all point toward the same theme: “we should fight fire with fire.” Unfortunately, we know this strategy is doomed to failure. For all the fortitude and might it requires to respond nonreactively while being verbally assaulted, we are quick to remind parents that we’ve already tried getting tough with teens who were tough with us. It never helped.

It’s only through accumulated experiences that we have learned the wisdom of invoking the PTA axiom. It has been infinitely more helpful to disarm verbal bombers with empathy and validation. When Molina, a 16-year-old girl, shouted in therapy that we (referring to her parents as well as the two of us as her therapists) could all “go burn in hell!” it was tempting to lash back at her. Instant rage registered on the faces of her parents, who clearly wanted to counterattack. Her parents were obviously insulted and embarrassed. Before they could respond verbally, we said to Molina: “You seem really angry with all of us right now, which if you are is quite understandable.” Shocked by this seemingly “soft reply,” Molina’s father bellowed: “What do you think you’re doing? You’re condoning my daughter’s filthy mouth and her miserable attitude. This is not what I brought her to therapy for. If you can’t deal with an out-of-control adolescent, we’ll find someone who can.”

Our response to Molina was disappointing to her father. He wanted, and certainly thought that her outburst warranted, a more assertive response from us. Our failure to provide it triggered an ultimatum from him and the threat to fire us as his family’s therapists. In situations like these, which are fairly common in treatment, we have found that a PTA-type response from us to the father is most helpful. We have found it useful to avoid critical, confrontational responses to parents even when they have been critical and confrontational with us. This stance is predicated on our firm belief in the PTA rule. In other words, not only do we believe that parents and adults have a responsibility to promote and maintain healthy interactions with young people rather than strained and destructive ones; but also assume that therapists and other professionals should ensure that we maintain meaningful, productive relationships even with frustrated, irate parents who challenge our clinical judgment and expertise.

While our experiences with adolescents have confirmed the benefits of invoking the PTA rule, we try to remain ever mindful of the ways that inner hurts, insecurities, and fears can make it difficult to invoke this rule. Adults with unresolved issues from their own past, especially their adolescence, sometimes struggle to access the inner strength and health that are needed to disarm a verbal bomber through validation and compassion. For this reason, a salient aspect of our work with adults who interact with adolescents involves encouraging them to do their emotional homework. It is important for all of us, as adults, to heal the hurts that haunt us so that we can be strong and healthy enough to “rise above” the errant verbal missiles that teens so often send our way.

3. Be Suspicious of Memory

This axiom is predicated on the notion that so many of us often rely heavily on the memories of our glorified past as a reference point for working with and understanding today’s adolescents. We cannot count the number of times that we have heard form parents and professionals about “the way we were.” And it is usually not just the way we were but how the way we were was so much better. “We were never as disrespectful as today’s kids . . . We had things we feared . . . cared about . . . In my day we had more self-respect than to walk around with our underwear showing—and the girls are as bad as the boys are today—it wasn’t that way when I was a kid” and so on. These are the types of assessments that we make of today’s adolescents based on our memories about the glorified past. Our memories, reflections, and comparisons usually leave many of us concluding that today’s youth are among the worst ever. Because they are bad kids who are among the worst ever, we believe we need more control, more children criminally tried as adults, more prisons, more detention centers, more sedative drugs, and ultimately more punishment and restraints.

While we would be the first to argue that it is crucial for us to remember that we too were once adolescents, we think it is also prudent to be a little suspicious of our memories. A common trap that many adults working with adolescents slip into is to use the memories of their adolescence as a reference point for judging and evaluating the experiences of today’s youth. There is little that is problematic about these types of memories, especially if we are also “suspicious” of the purity of our recall. We have found that memories of the glorious days become problematic when they become fixed unscrutinized points of reference. When this happens adolescents get locked into a set of expectations based largely on fantasy. The danger this poses lies in the selective nature of memory. Especially as we grow older, memory is prone to becoming increasingly kind and generous to many of us. Each of us has had experiences in our respective lives that have been slightly rewritten, perhaps a little embellished over the course of time. We remember some small seemingly insignificant detail as we had hoped it was rather than as it really was—for example, the dance recital that was executed to perfection when we recall it decades later, or the pure raw talent that was consistently displayed during a distinguished little league career that probably has far more luster now than it did three decades ago.

I (TAL) had an experience that underscored the highly subjective character of memory. A number of years ago, my sister and I, who are 2 years apart in age, were talking casually. At that time we were each in our early 20s. My sister, Joyce, mentioned that we seemed to be so much less competitive with each other now than we were growing up. I was stunned by her comment because, as I could recall, I had never been competitive with her. While I believed she had always felt competitive with me, I was convinced it was a one-way competition.

“No offense, Sis,” I said with amusement, “but I’ve never felt competitive with you. I remember times when I know you tried to compete with me, but I never bought into that with you. I just never felt that way toward you.

I was too concerned about trying to be supportive of you.”

With a tinge of irritation Joyce responded by saying, “I’ll admit I competed with you, but you competed with me too. I’m not saying that was bad—it was a sister thing—but please don’t try to tell me now that you were this little angel.”

“I know I wasn’t angelic, but neither was I competitive with you. The fact is: to compete, I would have had to believe you had something I wanted, or that you were going to get something I wanted. I’m telling you: I never felt that with you. I am positive about this.”

Needless to say, Joyce was annoyed by my assertion that I never competed with her. I certainly did not want to insult her, but I was absolutely convinced that I was right. To this day I would still be convinced that my memory of our childhood together was serving me accurately had I not found a journal entry I had written when I was 11. The entry read as follows:

“Every time my sister and I are talking to someone or being introduced, the same thing happens. Everyone calls me “the dancer,” but when they talk about Joyce, they say everything from she’s going to be a political genius (President is what they mean to say), to she’s an electronics wizard, she a meticulous house cleaner, a talented entertainer, a fantastic writer, a stupendous cook, a brilliant photographer, and even a great tractor driver. Is there anything she isn’t good at? What should I do? It’s not that I’m against Joyce. But what about me? How many times have I been dancing and then I’m rudely interrupted by my talented, entertaining sister who takes over the whole show. Everyone thinks she is so great—and she is great—but why does she always have to be the center of everyone’s attention? And then, of course, not to mention how many times have I worked on a project for months and then suddenly along she comes and suddenly starts the same project. Of course, she only works on hers a few days, but everyone raves about her.”

I was horrified when I read this journal entry, because it revealed a part of my past that I had completely forgotten or repressed. Had I not read my words written in my own hand, I would never have believed it. I still find it difficult to accept that I wrote those words or, more to the point, that I had these feelings. But there it was—my intense competition with my sister, which my memory as an adult had conveniently selected out. I had no recollection of any of the stories or feelings mentioned in my journal until I stumbled across it a dozen years later. It demonstrated for me beyond a doubt just how suspect memory truly is!

While memory, and its susceptibility to innocent distortion, is essentially harmless, it can be potentially inflammatory when used as a barometer for judging adolescents. Whether conscious or not, intentional or unintentional, it is common for adults to use their adolescence as a reference point for making all types of judgments about today’s adolescents. We believe this is not only difficult but dangerous as well. When we fail to critically examine and reflect upon our adolescent-age experiences, we can unwittingly set standards and have expectations that are unrealistic for many youth today. It may very well be that “kids today are more disrespectful and violent” than were their counterparts of any other generation, and it is equally possible that times have changed so dramatically that it is difficult to judge today’s youth by yesterday’s mores, values, and standards. Having taken this position, we are not suggesting that the wisdom and knowledge we gained from our adolescence is worthless. Instead, we are suggesting that is useful for each of us to simultaneously remember that we were once adolescents and that our respective memories are suspect and should be scrutinized. When this feat is accomplished, we are all reminded, as Mike and the Mechanics sang in “Living Years,” that “every generation blames the one before.”

We use the “be suspicious of memory” axiom in therapy in several useful ways. As a matter of common clinical practice with adolescents and their families, we routinely ask parents to reflect on their childhood and adolescence. Then we invite them to examine and discuss how their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors were regarded by their parents and other adults. This discussion is often followed by inviting their parents, siblings, or other significant family members to the next session. The extended family session is a significant one because among the many therapeutic things that occur are poignant reminders of why we should be suspicious of memory. Invariably during this session, there are recurring debates about the details of a memory—either varying recollections or interpretations. This process provides a much needed foundation for a series of conversations that we have with parents about the purity of the memories that they rely upon in parenting their adolescent. We believe that when memories are scrutinized they can be used to liberate interactions with adolescents, and when they are not they tend to promote a kind of interpersonal incarceration. Scrutinizing the memory of one’s adolescent years allows parents to focus on the process issues associated with the developmental period such as the importance of peer acceptance, changes in one’s body, and so on. When memories remain pure, there is a tendency to innocently exaggerate the way it used to be.

4. Differentiate between Style and Substance

It probably wasn’t some breathtaking, pivotal moment in therapy that led to our undying and unwavering commitment to this axiom. Instead, it was probably something altogether more personal. For example, in my (KVH) case, I believe it was probably the unrelenting, highly alarmed voice of Clarence Hardy, my father, that highlighted the salience of this axiom for me. Undoubtedly, it didn’t really happen in the way I am about to report (since memory is suspect), but this is how I remember it some three decades later.

During my adolescence, Afros, which required long, untreated hair, were an integral part of the uniform of my generation. Peers issued merit points for “the brother or sister” who had the longest, best-shaped, and best-groomed “fro,” as they were commonly called. The merit points issued by admiring, attractive girls made wearing the fro even more appealing—at least it did for me. I wore a fro that was both a source of attention and distraction. But, as anyone from that generation knows, what good was a decent fro without all of the other aesthetic generational trappings? So, in the spirit of my generational norms, my fro was often accompanied by at least 20 silver snake-headed bangles on my wrist and a 4-inch-wide silver medallion of a scorpion (my Zodiac sign) attached to a leather rawhide cord that hung around my neck. I wore multicolored, flared bell-bottom jeans bearing the names of my girlfriend, peers, and statements reflecting my political views on issues ranging from capital punishment to the War on Poverty. By my standards, my carefully groomed and well-orchestrated presentation to the world affirmed what my peers frequently proclaimed: “Kenny’s cool.”

However, to my father my carefully cultivated look was a warning sign that his lovable, decent son was on a perilous downward spiral to nowhere. “I never thought I would see the day when a son of mine would have more hair than his mother!” he once exclaimed in a state of utter disbelief.

Although some aspect of my generational uniform seemed to earn the scorn of parents, teachers, and clergy, it never once deterred my inclination or my ability to do well academically. Sure, it took me an extra 20–30 minutes in the morning to get the fro perfectly symmetrical, but I never missed school. Whatever sleep I lost by having to get up a little earlier to get it all together was a small price to pay for the rewards bestowed upon me by admiring peers. For me, it was a nobrainer! Yes, it did make wearing a baseball cap nearly impossible, but it didn’t prevent me from being an avid baseball fan and player. The errors I made on the field were unrelated to the length of my hair or how high I wore my socks.

Sometimes I think we forget that every generation has a uniform, a style of dress, a way of speaking, and an approach to hair that are markers of an era. And although these uniforms may be outrageous, disgusting, and embarrassing to adults, for many adolescents they constitute a source of pride, a declaration of one’s membership in a given generation. Thus, our axiom is that it is best to appoint adolescents as the superintendents of style and have parents worry about the substantive issues. Whether a child goes to school is a matter of substance, while the decision to wear a belt is a style issue. Whether an adolescent does drugs, drinks and drives, or glorifies violence are all salient substantive issues. Wearing Dad’s boxers to the mall—although troubling for many parents who relate to them only as underwear—doesn’t qualify in our book as a substantive issue in isolation.

In our work it has been helpful for us to continually draw critical distinctions between style and substance. Doing so has enabled us to refrain from the inevitable mistake of imposing myriad stylistically based preconditions that adolescents have to meet in order for therapy to occur. “Please sit down” . . . “don’t swivel in the chair” . . . “Take off the sunglasses” (and on and on) are all nonsubstantive issues that could create a gulf between the therapist and the adolescent in therapy—but only if you let them. Even before our caseloads began to shift toward working with more aggressive adolescents, we began to realize that having the opportunity to impact young people didn’t require us to be the experts on style. Whether one sits or stands in therapy seems to have absolutely no effect on the outcome of therapy! How we respond to it, on the other hand, does.

In the best of circumstances, distinguishing between style and substance would be simple, clean, and clear-cut with no shades of gray. Unfortunately, there are always some cases in which the distinction between style and substance is somewhat murky. For instance, we continue to struggle around the process of body piercing and tattoos. Our work with violent adolescents has made this an even more critical, much harder, call. There are approaches to piercing (and tattooing) that suggest it is a necessary accessory to the uniform of today’s generation. On the other hand, there are versions of the very same behavior that seem less style-oriented and much more diagnostic of serious substantive issues (Selekman & O’Hanlon, 2002). The extent to and conditions under which adolescents engage in piercing, along with the motivations that underpin it, must be carefully examined within the context of this axiom to distinguish between style and substance.

In clinical settings and with families alike, this axiom provides all of us who interact closely with adolescents with a framework to help us better pick the struggles that we believe are worthy of haggling over. In therapy we typically surrender the issues of style to the adolescent, and we strongly urge parents to do the same. On the other hand, we are far more likely to “dig in” where the “life-and-death” substantive issues are concerned.

5. Recognize How Adolescents Are Similar Yet Different

While adolescents share much in common, they also have many differences between and among them. For example, all adolescents are faced with the same developmental tasks (i.e., establishing an identity and finding a way to achieve a healthy balance between the forces of separation and connection), but each young person finds unique ways of negotiating these tasks. Although Keanna, age 17, and Taniqua, age 15, are sisters, their parents, Benita and James Jordan, were amazed by how different their daughters are from each other.

“We raised them in the same family, but they turned out so different,” said James.

“Keanna has always been extremely responsible, maybe over-responsible,” Benita explained. “She always loved school and always got straight A’s. She couldn’t care less about socializing with friends. She’s wanted to be a doctor since she was 6 and has read about every book in the library. She is very family-oriented. She spends a lot of time around here helping with my mother, who’s quite old and needs a lot of care. Taniqua, on the other hand, is totally the opposite. She doesn’t know what she wants to do with her life. First she wanted to be a dancer, then a singer, photographer, gymnast, writer, and now she’s thinking maybe she’ll just move to New York City when she graduates from high school and will explore different things. She’s always been eager to go out and explore the world. She can’t wait to leave, and Keanna would be content never leaving. In fact, Keanna’s enrolling at a college in the area and living at home.”

The Jordans’ descriptions of their daughters reveal how both Keanna and Taniqua are dealing with similar developmental tasks. Each is striving to seek out, define, and assert her unique identity, and each is wrestling with how to balance the competing forces of separation and connection. Yet, the pathways each has chosen are quite different. Keanna has a clear vision of her future and what she wants to do with her life. She also is extremely connected with her family. What is less clear is how she will find a way to retain her strong family ties while also taking steps toward greater independence and autonomy.

Taniqua’s search for her identity seems less focused and clear than Keanna’s. She is searching to find her niche in the world; however, she seems very open to the process of exploration. Unlike her sister, Taniqua seems much more comfortable with not having everything laid out in front of her. Moreover, she seems eager to fly away from “the nest” and establish her autonomy. In Taniqua’s case, there is little doubt that she is capable of separating from her family. However, only time will tell how she will manage to forge her independence while also retaining a meaningful connection with her family. The Jordan sisters wonderfully illustrate the importance of recognizing how adolescents are both similar and different. For example, Keanna was born into a family where there were no other children present to inexperienced, highly anxious first-time parents. Her sister, on the other hand, was born into a family where from birth she had a sibling as well as parents who were a little more experienced. We believe these small, subtle differences are huge and often account for the otherwise unexplainable differences that exist among siblings.

To some, this point may seem obvious, but we have heard numerous perplexed parents who have said things like “Why did this child turned out so differently from the others. They all grew up in the same family . . . We loved them all the same, so why did this one go astray?” The point that is often overlooked in situations like these is that no two children grow up in precisely the same family. The simple fact of one’s birth order may create vastly different experiences of one’s family.

Adolescents also share certain features in common that make them distinctly recognizable as a group. For instance, they tend to share a common language, codes of dress, mores, and values. In a sense, adolescents have their own culture. And yet, despite their shared membership in the culture of adolescence, significant variations and diversity exist among members of this group. These differences are shaped by “informants” that may include—although they are not necessarily limited to—race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, regionality, ethnicity, family constellation, and exposure to and experiences with technology. We use the term “informants” because we believe these factors “inform” how adolescents interpret, negotiate, and work toward the resolution of a host of developmentally appropriate tasks.

Tiffany Wellington and Mi Ling Young are both 17. They attend the same high school and have been friends for 3 years. They wear each other’s clothes, exchange CDs of their favorite musical artists, and communicate in a “language” that is completely foreign to their parents and teachers. However, Tiffany and Mi Ling are by no means carbon copies. Tiffany’s family traces its history in the United States back to the Mayflower. Her ancestors grew to enjoy the benefits of great wealth, but the family fortune was lost during the stock market crash of 1929. Since that time her family has struggled economically. Mi Ling’s family immigrated to the United States from Taiwan when she was 7 years old. Her family is financially successful and has never had to worry about money.

Both families want their daughters to establish a secure future for themselves in terms of money and marriage. Tiffany is the youngest child, with two older brothers. Her parents saved for years to send her oldest brother to college, and her younger brother enlisted in the army. Her parents’ hope for her is that she will marry a financially successful man thereby establishing an economically secure base for herself. Tiffany finds this insulting. Although she is a heterosexual and wants to marry a man one day, she objects to her parents’ notion that the only way for her to succeed in life is by marrying a wealthy man. “I understand my parents’ concerns about money. I don’t want to live by just getting by for the rest of my life, but I don’t want to have to get hitched right after high school and become a housewife just for the bank account.” Instead, Tiffany wants to move to Hollywood after high school and try to make it as an actress. She has been very direct with her parents about her plans in spite of their protestations.

As an only child, Mi Ling’s parents have invested all their hope and dreams in her. They expect that she will attend college to become a doctor. They also expect that she will meet and marry a man of comparable educational and career status. Mi Ling shares her parents’ career goals for herself. “I have always wanted to be a doctor since I was a little girl. Also, as an Asian American, I have had to face a lot of racism and discrimination, which have inspired me even more to want to work hard and become a success as a doctor.” However, she does not know how to tell her parents that she is a lesbian and will never have the heterosexual relationship they want for her. She suffers greatly holding this secret inside, fearful of the reaction her parents would have if she were to tell them the truth about herself.

Despite the bonds of friendship and generation, informants such as race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, class, and family constellation underpin a variety of salient differences between Tiffany and Mi Ling. Therefore, while it is true that all adolescents share a common experience in the sense that they are faced with similar developmental dilemmas and are members of a distinctive cultural group, the lives and experiences of all adolescents are not equal or the same. In our work, we believe it is essential to examine the relationship between these informants and adolescent development and behavior.

CONCLUSION

These adolescent axioms have proven to be enormously helpful to us over the years. Irrespective of the personality of the adolescent or the issues he or she is dealing with, these axioms have provided us with a practical, no-nonsense foundation for our work. They offer a basis for understanding the nature of adolescence in general and for recognizing the typical triggers that “get in our way” and have the potential to undermine our interactions with teens even when violence is not an issue. So many of the clinical strategies we employ with violent and aggressive youth draw heavily on these axioms. They have been a solid foundation upon which our work has rested, yet so much more is needed when working with violent and aggressive youth. In subsequent chapters we will discuss our work with violent youth more specifically.

CHAPTER 7

•  •  •  •  •  •  •

Counteracting Devaluation

Devaluation is a major force shaping the lives of violent adolescents, and it is critical to assume an active role in willfully counteracting it. As stated earlier, devaluation assaults a person’s sense of humanity, dignity, and worth. Even situations when the experience that led to devaluation is long over, the emotional effects of the assault, if untreated and unhealed, persist. For those young people who suffer from devaluation, they share in common an underlying emotional injury and a susceptibility to messages that are disparaging, shameful, or rejecting. Consequently, counteracting devaluation in the lives of violent adolescents must consist of providing high doses of affirmation, nurturance, and consideration for the person’s dignity and humanity. Both the messages that are sent and the styles of interaction that are utilized must repair and fortify adolescents’ sense of themselves. To assist with this objective in this chapter we present several strategies that can be used to counteract devaluation in the lives of violent teens.

THE VCR APPROACH

Unfortunately, many of us unintentionally find ourselves contributing to, rather than counteracting, devaluation in the lives of young people. Whether it’s their innocent antics or their insidious antisocial acts, adolescents who act out tend to provoke “C” reactions from adults—challenging, confronting, criticizing, and correcting. While these types of reactions are understandable, they are rarely helpful. Rather than leading to a corrective experience, a barrage of C reactions typically results in adolescents tuning out: they turn a deaf ear. They hear the C reactions as evidence that adults just don’t get it. From their perspective, these messages serve as further proof that adults are more concerned with ruling rather than relating, and with lecturing rather than listening. The problem of jumping in too quickly with a C reaction is that it almost always results in perpetuating devaluation. For adolescents, drowning in a sea of devaluation, C reactions intensify their sense of shame and worthlessness, which ultimately undermines the broader objective of redirecting misguided adolescent behavior.

When conducting workshops, we always emphasize the pitfalls of moving too quickly to challenge and criticize adolescents for their wrongdoings. Inevitably, some portion of the audience always has an immediate negative knee-jerk reaction. They explain that they are disturbed to hear us advocating for what, in their minds, is anarchy. As one participant once said to us, “Are you suggesting that when kids do crazy things we should just let them? I think this is terribly irresponsible of you. I know that kids don’t like it when we have to be the heavy and lay down the law, but if we don’t, then they think they can just keep doing wrong, and then they never learn.” This comment is representative of those we receive from many adults with whom we speak. We understand the sentiment and believe that there is considerable validity to the concern. We agree that acting-out adolescents require adult intervention and guidance so they can learn more effective ways of coping with life. Our point is simply that how one intervenes is of critical significance. Often the good intentions of adults working with adolescents don’t always produce the desired results. In fact, depending upon the vulnerability of the adolescent in question, and the severity of the intervention that is used, it is possible to cause more harm than good.

Through our work with violent and aggressive adolescents, their parents, and other concerned adults, we have developed a strategy for redirecting misguided behaviors and counteracting devaluation. We call this strategy the VCR approach. Although we commonly use and refer to the VCR as a technique or strategy, it is purely neither. At one level, the VCR approach really represents a worldview, a kind of philosophy about human beings, especially kids who commit horrible acts of violence. When the VCR is considered much more broadly than a technique or strategy, it asserts the position that all human beings—even bad kids—possess redeemable qualities that are of value. We believe that embracing this perspective enables us to fully appreciate that bad kids can commit good deeds and that good kids on occasion do in fact commit misdeeds. Our task, as those who have been designated, appointed, or are dedicated to work with violent youth, is to find the “good” in all youth. Utilizing the VCR approach is one of the cornerstones to counteracting devaluation. At its core, the VCR approach is principally concerned with restoring value. By value, we refer to those attributes that are central to our humanity and sense of self as human beings. Once one’s sense of dignity, respect, and personal worth has been assaulted or depleted, the process of restoring is often very slow for all involved.

The Three Steps of the VCR Approach

The VCR approach consists of three steps. Briefly stated, the first step involves validating, which is followed by the second step, challenging or confronting. The successful implementation of these steps paves the way for the final step, requesting.

Step 1: “V” for Validation

Validation means that whatever adolescents say or do, first, before anything else, they need to be validated. This means sending a message that conveys “I understand your perspective—I recognize where you’re coming from.” Validation consists of sending a message that acknowledges a strength or a goodness in the young person in question. It is important to note that validation is not synonymous with agreement. It is entirely possible to validate someone’s perspective without agreeing with it. Validation consists of sending the message “I understand,” which is not the same as saying “I agree.” One can understand a certain point of view without agreeing with it. By recognizing this critical distinction, it becomes much easier to offer validation.

Step 2: “C” for Challenging

After adults have appropriately and adequately validated adolescents, it then becomes possible to challenge all those troubling teen thoughts and/or behaviors. Moreover, adults who started with the “V” buy themselves a few chips that they can now cash in during the transition into challenging/confronting. However, it is important to point out that how one challenges/confronts is critical. Effective challenging does not and absolutely should not assault the humanity of the adolescent in question. It is possible and necessary for the challenging to happen in a way that preserves the dignity of the adolescent. In fact, the most effective form of challenging weaves in and builds upon the earlier messages of validation. With Timothy, one aspect of our validations of him focused around what a strong leader he was, how smart he was, and how deeply loyal he was to his friends. When we were finally ready to move to the C we softly challenged his cruelty toward his brother, pointing out that he was the type of person who stuck by friends even when they let him down and even when they irritated him. Because he knew his friends looked up to him, and because he was a good leader, he didn’t give up on them. He was loyal and patient, and yet how sad it was that he was unable to extend the same loyalty and patience to his own brother. We pointed out how sad it was that he could give more loyalty to his friends than to his own flesh and blood.

Step 3: “R” is for Requesting

After validating and challenging, the third and final step of the VCR approach involves making a request. Here is where the greatest corrective opportunity exists. This stage of the approach allows adolescents to translate the feedback they’ve received into positive, concrete action. This is especially important in terms of counteracting devaluation, because this last stage allows adolescents to feel some hope about their potential to do things in a more positive way. With Timothy, we wondered if there was any way he could relate to his brother by using the same loyalty, patience, and good leadership skills he used with his friends. We acknowledged that, like his friends, Robert was annoying and sometimes pissed him off. But also, like them, Robert revered him, and needed someone like Timothy to show him the way. We wondered if Timothy could show at least as much loyalty and patience toward his blood brother as he did with his friends. That was our request of him, and this request was very much grounded in a combination of the validating and challenging messages we had presented Timothy with over the course of several weeks.

Guiding Principles for Using The VCR Approach

The VCR is predicated on several essential principles that facilitate its use. These guiding principles provide a framework for how we use the VCR in our work with violent youth. The principles are as follows:

1. The process of validation must precede any form of challenge or confrontation. When working with angry, aggressive, and violent youth, one has neither the right nor the license to challenge, confront, or criticize an adolescent until he or she has been appropriately and adequately validated. As a society, we seem to be more adept at giving, receiving, and defending criticism than we are at giving and receiving affirmation. We see this repeatedly in therapy, where it seems far easier for a parent to express criticism of a teenager than it is to tell him or her something they really appreciate about them. Usually our effort to extract even the most benign act of validation often results in lots of giggling and paralyzing levels of discomfort. We typically hear statements like “She knows what I think!” or “ I have told him before in my own way.” Interestingly, most youth, while craving validation and affirmation privately, also seem to work exceedingly hard during these moments to distract or discourage their parents from following through with what is often considered our mushy request. It seems too hard and uncomfortable for everyone involved. Thus, it is our belief that in most human interactions, if there is a natural position of default during high-intensity, potentially explosive experiences as well as during calm moments of intimacy, we believe it is toward challenging, confronting, and/or criticizing. Even when there is a not an overt expression of criticism, there is an absence of validation or affirmation. This natural tendency is magnified during interactions between adults and violent youth. It is something about the demeanor, voice tone, posturing, and overall behavior of these youth that invite spontaneous challenge and critique by adults.

2. The purpose of this principle, and the VCR approach in general, is to help us to replace spontaneous challenge/criticism with spontaneous validation in our work with violent and aggressive adolescents. Our premise is that providing validation requires mindfulness and a great deal of practice. We believe giving good, consistent, and authentic validation often involves doing that which is counterintuitive. We believe very strongly that there are no circumstances where it would be necessary to challenge an adolescent prior to offering validation. It is the act of validation, especially where devaluation is prevalent, that ultimately makes a viable challenge or critique possible.

3.

4. 2. The recipient of the validation (the adolescent), not the dispenser (therapist/adult) determines when it has been sufficient. In our work with violent youth, we often operate from the perspective that validation is the best possible medication for devaluation. It is validation that gradually restores one’s sense of value and worthiness. Thus, it is very difficult for any one of us, whether as therapist, teacher, or parent to know exactly how much validation is needed to make a difference in the life of an adolescent whose sense of worth has been assaulted. We believe that it is important for those of us working with aggressive and violent adolescents to be relentless dispensers of validation, and to not expect it in return nor get trapped into making independent expert assessments about whether or when we have given enough. We believe that the assessment regarding “how much” and “how often” ultimately should be determined by the adolescent.

5.

6. Often we are asked, “How will you know when you’ve validated enough and that it’s okay to move on to the ‘C’ part?” Our response is always “The person receiving the validation determines when it’s enough.” For some adolescents, only a few validating sentences are necessary before they feel sufficiently acknowledged and safe enough to hear a more challenging message. For others, it may be necessary to hold off on the C messages for weeks, maybe even months. For teens whose sense of devaluation runs especially deep, and who find it exceedingly difficult to trust, much preparation has to be done before they will be at a place where they can absorb and integrate a challenging message. Such teens are so accustomed to hearing only critical remarks that they build a tough defensive wall around themselves as a form of protection against the pain of criticism. Whenever an adult speaks to them, they assume it will be a C message, so they quickly move to “tune out.” In such cases it may take weeks before a teen starts to relax and trust the validation. But when the teen eventually begins to trust the affirmation, he or she will begin to send cues indicating that they could tolerate hearing a C message.

7.

8. As a general rule, we believe that one should continue to validate as long as the adolescent responds with a challenge—an act of defiance, volatility, or apathy. When the basic interpersonal posture of the adolescent remains rigidly fixed, we interpret this as an invitation for more validation. Ironically, it has been our experience that most therapists find this very difficult to do. The more hostile, defensive, or uncooperative the adolescent behaves, the more likely the therapist is to either not validate him or her or to do so but withdraw the validation prematurely. This is a trap that many parents fall prey to as well. After parents are painstakingly convinced to try validating their adolescents more, it is very difficult for them to sustain it. We are told over and over again, “I tried it and it didn’t work!” Actually it doesn’t work when any of us validate, expect immediate behavioral change, and then resort to challenging and criticizing. For any child, regardless of age, who has been profoundly devalued, it may take repeated acts of validation in the face of some fairly horrific behavior before a challenge of any magnitude can be received. These are the situations where it becomes extremely useful for us to keep the PTA rule uppermost in mind.

9.

10. 3. The validation, challenge, and request messages must all be centered around the same topic or theme. When validation is given in response to one behavior and followed by a challenge directed at an unrelated issue, it undermines the VCR approach and efforts to counteract devaluation. The unattached challenge often invalidates the validating message. Generally, when the focal points, or subjects, of the validation, challenge, and request are disconnected from one another, it makes the validation appear insincere. Any challenge that is not properly buttressed by strong and authentic validation is prone to being perceived as nothing more than an unwarranted criticism or a personal attack. We have found that one of the most effective ways to chisel away at devaluation is to take a strength-based approach that accentuates the positive attributes of an adolescent. Once these are embraced, it makes it a lot easier to encourage the adolescent to see how a given behavior can be both a strength and a weakness. The following vignette from a group therapy session with violent youth offers an example of this principle.

11.

12. This was the first session following the drive-by shooting of Brian’s best friend, Kevin (who was not a client). Appearing a bit solemn, distraught, and generally overcome with emotion, Brian could only access and express anger and outrage. He sat quietly but appeared restless. Staring at the ceiling in a trance-like state, he seemed ready to explode. After sitting for almost a half-hour, he finally broke his silence after he was asked by one of us to share his thoughts and feelings with the group.

13.

14. BRIAN: I know all y’all know what went down last week . . . It’s totally messed up, man.

15.

16. There was an unusually eerie silence that pervaded the room, although several group members nodded affirmatively, conveying to Brian that they had heard the news. After a few moments of silence, Brian began to speak again. It was unclear whether he was speaking to the group directly or whether his thoughts were escaping through his lips unbeknownst to him. His words were slow, rhythmic, but cold and raw.

17.

18. BRIAN: But that’s allright ’cause we know who did da’ shit and there will be a price for somebody to pay . . . I guarantee you that! Somebody gots to show these punk ass hoes that we mean business . . . Where I come from, I believe in an eye for an eye . . . I’ll show them that we ain’t gonna be played and that two can play this game.

Brian’s comments were loaded and were stated with a chilling sense of calm and resolution. We were very concerned about the potential for violence. Our thoughts and worries were magnified by the fact that several members of the group seem to have subtly and nonverbally reinforced Brian’s apparent thirst for revenge.

THERAPIST (KVH): Brian, I am sorry about Aaron’s death . . . I know that the two of you were pretty tight. I really appreciate how honest and open you have been with us here today. You have said a lot of very powerful things that brought goose pimples to my body. I know that Aaron would be happy to know that he meant so much to you and that you got his back. I mean, it sounds like you want to stand up for him . . . protect his honor as a loyal and dedicated partner.

BRIAN: It wasn’t no damn death . . . it was straight up, cold-blooded murder. That’s what it was, murder, and there ain’t no other way to look at it.

Brian was right. It was murder. Although the therapist said a lot, the use of the word “death” instead of “murder” seemed to have made it difficult for Brian to hear anything else. In some ways, the therapist’s feedback had the unintended consequence of aggravating Brian’s sense of agitation and rage.

THERAPIST: You are absolutely right, Brian. It was murder and I should have stated that, I am sorry. Even though I screwed up with my words, I am blown away by your undying commitment to Aaron. I think your loyalty as a friend is incredible. I totally understand how and why your loyalty would make you want to get revenge . . . to hurt or pay back those who are responsible for murdering your friend.

Brian didn’t say a word as he sat motionless. The veil of sadness that hung over his face was getting more difficult for him to conceal or conquer.

THERAPIST: I thought when you correctly pointed out to me how my use of the word “death” probably dissed Aaron in a way, was again the action of a loyal friend seeking justice. I admire that about you.

Brian continued to sit without uttering a single word. He did manage to force a very partially developed smile in response to the therapist’s statement “I admire that about you.”

THERAPIST: I see you as a courageous and loyal friend. Those traits are really important to me as well. I would feel lucky to have a friend like you who would be so willing to have my back. And yet, I am really worried. I am worried that you will be loyal to Aaron in a way that will require you to be disloyal to yourself and maybe others who feel about you the way you feel about Aaron.

BRIAN: I’m not feelin’ you, Doc! I don’t know what you are saying?

THERAPIST: Well, it’s like when I messed up with the stupid “death” comment . . . you stopped me, made sure I got it right for Aaron and you didn’t use your hands, or a piece. That’s what I am saying. You were loyal to your loyalty . . . you made sure I did the right thing, and you didn’t have to hurt or dis yourself in the process. That’s what I am talking about. Are you feelin’ me?

There are several points that are noteworthy in this truncated description of the interaction with Brian. However, we will limit our discussion to the points that are most germane to the principle regarding the importance of the V and C messages focusing on the same theme. Throughout the interaction with Brian, the therapist chose to focus on loyalty as an attribute. It is also worth noting here that at no time during the interaction did Brian ever challenge or refute the notion that he was loyal, or that this was anything but an admirable trait to possess. The therapist’s view of Brian as someone who was fiercely loyal was consistent with Brain’s view of himself. Once there was consensus between Brian and the therapist, moving to the challenge message became a little easier. In essence, Brian was praised for his tremendous loyalty while simultaneously encouraged to critically examine the ways in which it also obscured his judgment.

4. “And”—in lieu of “but”—and “I messages” are important communication techniques to use to increase effectiveness of the VCR. The transition from validation to challenge can be a difficult and delicate one. We believe that the transition can be greatly facilitated by using “and” as the connector between the validating message and the challenge. For example, “I think it is great that you are such a loyal friend, and I am worried that your loyalty is going to lead you do something that will get you into a lot of big trouble. I really don’t want that to happen to you” When “but” is used as the connector between a validating message and a challenge, it inadvertently negates the validation—such as “I think it’s great that you are such a loyal friend but I don’t want you get into a lot of big trouble. I really don’t want that to happen to you.” The subtle distinctions between these two statements are significant. In our view, the second message, in a very understated way, either undercuts or completely negates the significance of the loyalty issue. This does not occur with the first message.

In addition to using “and,” we believe the use of “I messages” are also vital to effective implementation of the VCR. The effectiveness of using “I messages” has been well documented in the literature (Nunnally & Moy, 1989). For the sake of a quick review, “I messages” in human communication are important because they facilitate the speaker being transparent about his or her thoughts, feelings, wishes, or nonwishes. In this regard, “I messages” enable the speaker to avoid using “you” messages, which essentially leave the listener feeling blamed or criticized. The use of “I” messages is critical to VCR because they help to fortify validating messages.

5. Avoid asking questions, especially in cases involving high levels of anger and rage. The VCR works best when feedback is interpreted and shared. We try to avoid, at all costs, asking questions, because they tend to be exceedingly problematic. Questions tend to alter the course of interactions with adolescents in unhealthy and nonfunctional ways. The major problem with questions is twofold. The first difficulty is that questions, especially those asked by therapists and other human service providers, are often disguised challenges. When questions serve this purpose they become a little lethal because they fail to make the therapist’s views and opinions clear in a way that communicates and engenders respect. The response is often extreme guardedness or defensiveness. Secondly, adolescents tend to interpret all questions from adults as challenges, no matter how low-key or innocent they seem to you. It has been our experience that even adolescents who have had no brushes with the law or flirtations with violence detest having to answer questions. With violent youth, we have not found anything that incites anger, rage, or reactive withdrawal from interactions as quickly as does the asking of questions.

EXAMPLES OF THE VCR IN ACTION

Joey

During a routine school consultation at a high school we spent several weeks conducting classroom observations. On one of these days, we found ourselves in a 10th-grade English class where the teacher, Ms. Roundi, was presenting a lecture on the play “Julius Caesar.” Mrs. Roundi had been discussing the scene in which members of the Senate, led by Brutus, turn on Caesar and brutally assassinate him. She asked several questions related to this scene. Several students raised their hands, and Ms. Roundi called on them to answer. This pattern persisted, but all the while we noticed that there was one boy, Joey, who, despite eagerly extending his hand, was never called upon. Finally, Ms. Roundi asked, “What do you think about the course of action Brutus took?” Unable to contain himself any longer, Joey shouted out, “I think he’s an asshole, and he should be taken to the Coliseum and chopped up alive into little pieces and fed to the lions.” Immediately the class burst into laughter, and Joey looked quite pleased with himself. Clearly he reveled in the affirmation of his classmates’ laughter. Unfortunately, Ms. Roundi was not nearly as amused. In fact, her expression was one of shock and anger. Seemingly disgusted by Joey’s profanity, impulsivity, and graphic statement, she shot back, her eyes blazing, “Joey, I am offended! I do not appreciate your outburst or your foul mouth, and your making comedy out of violence.”

Suddenly the twinkle in Joey’s eyes was gone. After slumping slightly in his chair, he shrugged his shoulders and then he giggled. But it was an uneasy, half-hearted giggle, the kind people make when they’re trying to save face, the type of giggle that’s supposed to say “This isn’t bothering me, it’s funny.” But it was clear that it bothered him.

We share this story because it provides a wonderful “teaching moment.” As observers of this incident, we agreed with the teacher that Joey’s outburst was inappropriate. We also believe he needed some type of corrective intervention from Ms. Roundi. But where we differ from Ms. Roundi is with respect to how we believe this intervention should have occurred. From our perspective, she would have been more effective had she employed the VCR approach. Had she opted to do this, she might have responded to Joey in the following way.

1.  V: “Joey, I can see that you’re eager to participate. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and your willingness to get involved. This is wonderful. It also sounds like what Brutus did really bothers you, and you think he should be punished for that.”

2.  C: “Even though I know you’re really excited about participating, I do need you to wait until I call upon you to speak. Also, while I love that this topic has really got you worked up, and you have some very creative ideas about what should happen to Brutus, I’m not comfortable with your using profanity in the classroom.”

3.  R: “So, what I would like from you is to please hold on to all that enthusiasm that you have, and next time could you please raise your hand and wait until I call on you, even if it seems like a long time. Also, I am intrigued that you proposed a violent solution for dealing with violence. This would be a good topic to further explore, so I want to ask you to lead the class in a discussion about when and if violence is ever justified.”

If Ms. Roundi had engaged Joey using the VCR approach, we believe she could have successfully intervened and redirected him, but more importantly she would have avoided the devaluation that Joey clearly experienced in that moment. It also is important to share that in this particular classroom Ms. Roundi and about two-thirds of the students were white, while the remaining third, including Joey, was African American. This piece of the context is critical, because we believe the racial dynamics in the room contributed to the interaction that unfolded and the effect it had on Joey, in particular. While we can never know this, we believe that to some extent Joey’s apparent invisibility to Mrs. Roundi—that is, until he did something wrong—was influenced by the fact that she was white and he was African American. It was rather amazing the number of times Joey’s raised hand went unnoticed while several other students, all of whom were white, were acknowledged. It would be impossible to argue that she did not see him, as he was sitting almost directly in front of her. So, why was it so hard for her to really “see” Joey? Why did he remain so invisible despite his obvious visibility? And why is it that Joey was only able to capture her attention once he acted out? How many children every day in our homes and schools struggle with the same dynamic of going virtually unnoticed until they act out, at which point they are labeled “bad kids” (conduct-disordered) or “sick kids” (those with attention-deficit disorder)?

Given the disproportionate number of African American students in comparison to white students who are diagnosed with conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or some type of learning disability, it seems hard to dismiss racial bias as an intervening variable. But, even if we gave Ms. Roundi the benefit of the doubt and conceded that race was not an organizing principle in her treatment of Joey, even still, race was significant to Joey. In several conversations we had with Joey, it was clear to us that he was aware of the fact that he was an African American in a predominantly white school. Moreover, he already harbored decisive feelings about how he often felt alienated and rejected as a black person. So, when Joey was publicly scorned by his teacher, part of him was experiencing this as an African American youth in front of his mostly white class and white teacher. Not only had Joey been devalued as an individual, but here was yet one more instance in his young life where he was devalued as a black person in a white world. Even if race had not been an organizing principle in Ms Roundi’s treatment of Joey, shouldn’t it have been? Should she not have had enough racial sensitivity to realize, in spite of her own intentions, how sensitive Joey might have been to any criticism or shame as one of the few black kids in this largely white classroom?

Bobby

Mr. Valoz had two sons, Bobby, 13, and Peter, 11. Father and sons were sitting together in their family room one Sunday afternoon. Mr. Valoz was watching TV, and the two boys were playing on the computer on the other side of the room. Mr. Santos just happened to glance over in the direction of the boys in time to observe Bobby punching Peter, who started to cry. Mr. Valoz intervened and asked Bobby why he had hit Peter. “Because he took another turn on the game, and it was my turn,” Bobby replied. To his credit, Mr. Valoz first responded to Bobby by validating him.

1.  V: Mr. Valoz said to Bobby, “Well that wasn’t very nice of Peter. I’m sure that must have made you mad. I know how important fairness is to you, and that you think it’s very important for people to treat each other with consideration. I can understand why you would be upset at Peter for doing something that must have seemed so inconsiderate and unfair.”

Mr. Valoz was validating Bobby for his perspective. He was letting Bobby know that he understood his point of view, and he was acknowledging one of Bobby’s strengths, namely, his strong sense of integrity and commitment to fairness and consideration. The value in his validation is that it allowed Bobby to feel understood, and it helped him to trust that his father could see something good in him.

After having validated Bobby, thereby putting him at ease and gaining a piece of trust, Mr. Santos was in a better position to challenge him.

2.  C: Mr. Valoz challenged Bobby in the following way: “It’s not considerate to take something that’s not yours. It’s also not considerate to hit and punch other people. It just makes me sad that the way you chose to teach Peter a lesson was by being inconsiderate and unfair back to him. It’s just that I know that’s not the type of person you are.”

While Mr. Valoz presented Bobby with a challenge, he was careful to do it gently, in a way that allowed him to retain a piece of dignity. This is a critical point. Often, when we endeavor to train people in the use of the VCR approach, they assume that once they have validated, this gives them license to be brutal when they get to the challenging part. Unfortunately, this assumption can be very damaging. The main function of validation is to earn a little piece of trust and provide a foundation for restoring value. If an adult is able to secure this trust through validation, it becomes a tragic miscalculation to follow up by then slamming the adolescent with a harshly critical message. Instead, the challenge must be carefully presented in such a way that it preserves, rather than assaults, the humanity of the person is question.

Having validated and challenged, Mr. Valoz completed the VCR approach by making a request of Bobby.

3.  R: Mr. Valoz made the following request: “Because I know you are a considerate and fair person, and that you’re very smart, I bet you could have thought of other ways to teach Peter that what he did wasn’t very nice. In fact, let’s think now of three ways you could have done this without hitting and punching.”

Hence, Mr. Valoz sent Bobby a powerful message that he viewed him as a considerate, intelligent person who was committed to fairness. He also let him know that in this case, unfortunately, he may have betrayed his own principles when he hit Peter. Finally, he gave him an opportunity to “right his wrong” by using his sense of fairness, consideration, and intelligence to explore alternative ways of responding to Peter that would allow Bobby to remain true to his ideals.

Jason

When we first met Jason, it was like déjà vu. Jason, who was 15 at the time, had suffered the loss of his best friend, Hank. In a gang-related incident, Hank had been shot to death; he’d been hit with three bullets in the chest and one in the head. Jason and Hank had been extremely close friends since third grade. Now, after his tragic loss, Jason was obsessed with revenge: “I know the punk who took Hank out, and you can best believe he’s gonna get what’s coming to him for what he did.” Interestingly, Jason was in the same therapy group with Brian (whom we referred to earlier in this chapter). In many ways, their lives were mirror images of each other. Tracey was the lead therapist for this session. It was our very first session together. Our instincts told us that his comment was referring to something extreme, so we probed further to get clarification about what he was planning.

“Hey, he smoked Hank, so he’s gonna get the same. I owe it to Hank. He’s never gonna get to do everything he dreamed of. Never. And that is so wrong. If it’s the last thing I do, I’m gonna do right by him.” Jason was determined to live by what he referred to as “Jason’s golden rule”: “do unto others as they have done to you.” A rival gang member had taken out his best friend’s life, and Jason was gonna’ strike back and take the life of Hank’s murderer. Hearing the resolve in Jason’s voice was unnerving. It certainly sent a chill up our spines, because we could see from the hardened, unflinching expression on Jason’s face that his threats were more than rhetorical—he meant what he was saying. We desperately wanted to stop Jason from following through with his deadly revenge, but we also realized that how we responded to him was critical. We also understood that an obsession with revenge is a common reaction of adolescents who have lost loved ones to random violence. This reaction is so commonplace that we not only expect it but also consider it a fundamental part of the grieving process for violent youth.

Every fiber in our bodies was screaming at us to jump in and quickly reprimand him for even considering such a senseless and brutal reaction to Hank’s death. We wanted to point out to him that revenge wouldn’t bring Hank back and that most likely it would only result in further violence and/or his incarceration. We wanted him to see the pointlessness of striking back. We wanted him to exercise saner, more rational, judgment. And if he wouldn’t listen to reason or to our impassioned plea, we wanted to scream at him and berate him into listening to us. And yet, despite our strongest desire to respond like this, we also had learned along the way that such approaches rarely, if ever, produce the desired result. Instead, we knew that Jason would merely tune us out, write us off as clueless adults who simply could not understand. He would feel misunderstood and alienated by such an approach. Yet, we also knew we had to find some way to deter him from exacting his revenge. Consequently, we used the VCR approach.

1.  V: I (TAL) began by saying to Jason, “I can really see how much you loved Hank and how close the two of you were. We can’t even begin to imagine how intense your loss and pain must be. I know you probably feel like you have to hold it all together now and be strong. Seeing how much you obviously loved him, you must really be hurting inside. I can also see that Hank was lucky to have you as a friend. Obviously you are a deeply loyal friend. It’s hard to come by true friends—those who love you enough that they would risk their own lives for you. It seemed like you and Hank had that type of special bond, and we really admire your devotion to your friend. And because you loved him so much and must be really hurting over his loss, I can understand why you would feel compelled to want to remain loyal to Hank even in death. It makes sense that you would want to strike back against the person who hurt him and hurt you.”

As my comments revealed, my initial approach with Jason was focused solely around validation. I validated the significance of his relationship with Hank and the pain he must have been feeling in response to his loss. I also validated Jason for being a loyal friend. The hardest part of my validation involved conveying that I understood why he would want to kill the young man who murdered Hank. But even as I conveyed understanding for Jason’s perspective, the careful observer will recognize that my message was not one of condoning violence. I never agreed that committing murder was the right thing to do; I only expressed that we (obviously speaking for Ken) could understand why he would want to take this course of action. I expressed understanding for his feelings.

After spending a sufficient amount of time with Jason validating his feelings and his perspective, the next step was to move toward challenging him.

2.  C: I challenged him by saying: “I know how important loyalty is to you, and how devoted you were and still are to Hank. After all, if you take out this other guy, his buddies will probably have to do the same to you. I know your commitment to Hank is so strong you would sacrifice yourself. I do not doubt your willingness to die for him—I just doubt whether it’s the best way to honor him. After all, if you die, Hank will die with you. No one knew him like you did, and no one understood his dreams like you did. If you die there will be no one to carry on for him.”

Our method in challenging Jason involved building upon the very qualities and points we had identified and emphasized when we were simply validating him. I tried to use a frame that was meaningful to Jason, namely, one of loyalty, friendship, sacrifice, and brotherhood. Some of these same themes were highlighted with Brian, who also had an insatiable thirst for revenge. I tried to take the things that were important to Jason and give him a different way of thinking about them, one that would challenge his current thinking about the best way to respond to the tragic loss of his friend.

Finally, I made a request of Jason that wove together the validating and the challenging parts of my message to him.

3.  R: I made the following request: “I know the most important thing to you is being loyal to Hank, and we know you have the courage to die for him. I hope that you have enough courage to live for him. I hope there is a way you could find the strength to resist the temptation of striking back violently and instead commit your energy toward doing the things Hank was never able to do for himself. Could you carry on in his honor, in his footsteps, so his life won’t be truly lost forever? I know it’s a harder path to take because it doesn’t have a quick ‘payoff’ or sense of immediate gratification, but could you love Hank enough to hang in there and deal with the tougher path for his sake?”

What I attempted to accomplish with this last stage in the VCR approach was to make a request of Jason that oriented him toward something concrete that he could do to fulfill both his need and my need for him. Hence, I asked him if he could find a way to resist revenge as a way of showing his loyalty. I asked him if he could explore a different way of showing his love, one that would allow him to keep the memory of his dear friend alive. So far, Jason has managed to stay violence-free.

Lena

Lena had been sexually abused by her stepfather from the age of 6 to 13. At that point her mother divorced her stepfather, and at last the abuse ended. But Lena’s trauma wounds remained raw. The shame of the abuse had inflicted a deep sense of profound devaluation. She stated, “I feel like I am the most disgraceful, worthless human being alive. I wish I could just crawl out of my skin and never have to look myself in the mirror again.” The abuse also had disrupted her sense of community at the primary level, because it left her feeling as if “home” was not a safe place. Moreover, because she feared her mother’s reaction, she kept the abuse a secret. At the extended community level, Lena’s stepfather, who was deeply controlling and possessive, discouraged her from socializing with friends. In a way Lena didn’t object because she often felt uncomfortable around other kids, fearful that if she got too close to friends they might be able to see how disgraceful she was. Because no one knew about the abuse (or at least, no one acknowledged knowing), Lena’s pain and loss were unacknowledged, which meant her loss essentially had been dehumanized.

When Lena was 14, the school nurse had noticed suspicious scars on her legs. They appeared to be cuts that had been inflicted by a knife or a razor. When the nurse first asked about the cuts, Lena said she didn’t know how she had gotten them. The nurse was suspicious and gently persisted until eventually Lena confessed that she had inflicted the wounds herself. The nurse realized that Lena needed help, so she referred her to the school psychologist, who consulted with me (TAL) on this case.

Eventually Lena confessed the abuse and explained to the psychologist that “I cut myself because it helps to relieve the hurt I feel inside. It’s like a moment of relief when it all just oozes out. I have to do this, or else I don’t know what I would do. I might go crazy otherwise. I would lose it, and I can’t let that happen, because I don’t want my mom to be upset. She has suffered enough. Please, you can’t tell my mom about this.”

Lena was a clear example of a young person who had internalized her rage that had been transformed into violence against herself. She elected to target herself rather than directing her violence outwardly, because she believed this would be the least selfish way of handling her emotions. The psychologist employed the VCR in her work with Lena.

1.  V: The psychologist said to Lena, “I find it amazing how after all that you have suffered you still find a way to care about others. It’s moving to see how much you love your mom, even to the point that you would choose to suffer alone rather than see your mom suffer. In addition to your willingness to make sacrifices for your mom, it also is clear to me that you are very strong. It’s got to take a lot of strength to have survived your stepfather’s abuse, and to endure your pain now in silence.”

The psychologist was affirming Lena for her love and commitment to her mother and her strength with regard to her ability to make sacrifices and endure suffering if she believed it was for the sake of others.

2.  C: The psychologist went on to challenge Lena by stating, “I really appreciate all the effort that you are willing to make in order to protect your mother, and I am thinking that keeping things from her won’t feel like protection to her if she ever finds out. I am scared and worried because cutting yourself is very dangerous. You could end up doing a lot of damage, and then imagine how your mom would feel.” I went on to further challenge Lena ever so gently by suggesting, “I am imagining that there might be other ways to protect your mom besides hurting yourself, although it’s possible that these other ways might seem harder at first. But then again, you’ve proven that you’re very strong and that you are willing to face hardships if it means protecting those you love.”

The psychologist was using the attributes she had used to validate Lena to also challenge her. First, she softly challenged Lena’s decisions by expressing doubt that her chosen course of action was the best way to protect her mom. She then suggested that if Lena wanted to protect her mother, maybe there was another way, a more effective way, of accomplishing this. She also drew upon the validation she had offered Lena about her strength, especially when it came to making sacrifices for others, so she could advance a challenge. Essentially, she proposed that there might be a better way for Lena to protect her mother, although it might be harder for her. And yet, since it already had been established that Lena was strong, and could be especially strong if it meant protecting her mother, she would probably be able employ one of these other, more effective, methods even if it were more difficult initially.

3.  R: The psychologist made the following request: “Even though this may seem harder, I think the best way to protect your mom is to be sure that nothing worse happens to you and to make sure that you will be okay. I think you need to do this for your mom’s sake. I know this is going to be really hard for you, but you’ve proven how strong you can be, especially when it comes to making sacrifices for your mom. So, I am going to ask you make a sacrifice here and tell your mom what has happened so that you can give her a chance to feel like a good mom by letting her help you. At the same time, it’s going to mean that we need to find another way for you to relieve your hurting. For now, whenever you think you need to cut yourself, you can come see me instead, or call me, or you can write me a note. I will give you these red envelopes, and any time you write me a note telling me about the hurt, I want you to seal it in one of these envelopes and mail it to me . . . in other words, I want you to send it off . . . send off the hurt and send it out and away from you. Let me hold it for you for now.”

In this way, the psychologist was giving Lena something specific and concrete that she could do to address her pain and suffering and to still protect and care for her mother. She accomplished this by building upon the initial qualities in Lena that had been validated.

The Challenges of Validating

There are a number of challenges that make it especially difficult for adults to validate adolescents. First, validation is often confused with agreement. Thus, there seems to be an understandable and pervasive fear that, if a questionable position or act of an adolescent is validated, this is tantamount to condoning it. We believe that it is possible to understand someone’s position without necessarily agreeing with it. For example, saying “I can understand why you want to punch him out—I think you have a right to feel angry” is not the same as encouraging the behavior. This message is one of validation, not agreement. Nowhere in the message is the speaker condoning punching. However, there is an acknowledgment of understanding regarding why one might want to do this. Once this distinction is recognized, the easier it becomes to validate.

Second, many of us find it difficult to validate adolescents because of our own reactivity to the things they say and do. On the milder side, many of us simply feel irritated by typical adolescent antics. On the more threatening side, some of us are overwhelmed by fear in response to the thoughts and behaviors some adolescents manifest. Our feelings of worry and fear are heightened when we are working with aggressive and violent youth. Their threatened or actual violence strikes a panic chord within us that not only compels us to react but frequently dictates how we react as well. In our experience, panic-driven reactions, more often than not, tend to be defensive responses that are counterproductive. Whether the panic-driven, defensive response is retaliatory, thus leading to an escalating sequence of attack–counterattack, or withdrawal that is the impetus for reactive cutoff, in either case meaningful effective communication is blocked.

When adolescents engage in ways of thinking and behaving that involve threatened or actual violence, it is imperative to closely monitor and manage our panic-driven, defensive reactions. Failure to do so only invites comparably defensive responses from the adolescents with whom we are interacting. In accordance with the adolescent axioms (see Chapter 6), those of us working with adolescents must be stronger and healthier than those with whom we interact. This means we have to be able to work around our own instinctual impulses—to develop the type of inner fortitude that will enable us to act rather than react. The ability to validate—even when faced with the most heinous and disturbing of circumstances—is deeply rooted in this inner fortitude. It requires enormous inner control and strength to respond in a validating way to an adolescent who is involved in threatened or actual violence. The concern, anxiety, and fear that we may feel in such instances often compels many of us to quickly intervene by using the C’s. Unfortunately, because the C’s tend to alienate adolescents and aggravate devaluation, we instantly undermine our own objective. Counteracting devaluation requires putting the C’s in “pause” mode while we validate, validate, and validate.

A third challenge that often makes validation difficult is when validation is delivered in a way that appears insincere or when it is used primarily as a technique. For validation to be effective, the dispenser (the person offering it) must be sincere and the feedback authentic. This is why earlier in this chapter we suggested that the VCR is more than a clinical technique. It is as much a way of looking at the world as it is a strategy or technique. It is difficult to affirm the good attributes of bad kids if you don’t believe the former exist. Thus, if a validating message is contrived, the receiver will realize this, and the spirit underlying the validation will be thwarted. Adolescents who are aggressive and violent are also among the most devalued, and they are exceedingly sensitive to, as they would call it, “being played,” or made to look stupid. When a validating message is stated insincerely, or is too sterile and clinical, adolescents tend to feel manipulated. I believe the first critical step to mastering validation is to change what we look for so that we can change what we see. If we look for pearls of goodness entangled in badness, we are very likely to find the good. If, on the other hand, we are limited to looking for badness, it is undoubtedly what we ultimately see.

As youth violence has been thrust to the forefront of society, one of the major societal responses to the epidemic has been to get tougher with (bad) kids. In the past several years we have seen the proliferation of “zero tolerance” programs in schools, an increasing number of middle school children tried as adults in the criminal justice system, as well as a host of other initiatives designed to get tougher. Consequently, as a society, our dominant response to youth who commit almost any type of transgression, minor or major, is punishment. Whether it’s the third grader who has just cheated on a quiz, the 13-year-old who just got caught drinking a six-pack with her best friend, or the 17-year-old who just robbed and beat a woman who was walking to her car in a parking lot. In each of these cases we have children and adolescents behaving badly. Feeling a sense of outrage, dismay, and grave worry in response to each of these incidents is understandable. Unfortunately, however, as a society we seem hopelessly stuck in our instinctive desire to punish young people like these for their transgressions. We believe that the orientation toward punishment makes validation tough to implement. It is very difficult to validate a violent youth when we are increasingly oriented toward punishment. Consequently, we shame, shun, label, lock up, lock down, isolate, alienate, berate, and banish those who defy our codes of morality and laws of order.

Whenever we conduct workshops on the orientation toward punishment, we inevitably get the attention of those who believe that our seeming unwillingness to hold bad kids “accountable” is precisely what has gone wrong with today’s youth. They are always worried that the tenor of our comments regarding punishment is a pitch for sentimental, bleeding-heart liberalism. To the contrary, the point we wish to make is that when kids act up and act out, if our only response is punishment, we do very little to improve much of anything. Consider for a moment what the purpose of punishment is—namely, to make sure than the perpetrator of an offense suffers. Ironically, our orientation toward punishment is not fundamentally different from Brian and Jason’s desire to exact revenge upon the perpetrators who killed their best friends. The goal appears to be to make perpetrators hurt for their crimes rather than to repair the damage that led to the crime in the first place.

According to James Garbarino (1999), an expert in the area of youth violence:

The greatest danger comes when the crisis of perceived impending psychic annihilation is melodramatically merged with the idea of addressing intolerable injustice with violence. The two go together, because in our society the idea of retribution through violence is a basic article of faith. Vengeance is not confined to some small group of psychologically devastated individuals. It is normal for us. A fact of value in our culture. (p. 133)

Garbarino is challenging us to recognize several critical points. First, he reminds us that much of the violence adolescents commit is a response to some injustice that they perceive—injustices that are intolerable to them. Second, Garbarino is asserting that, as a society, we are no different from these kids (even though most of us claim not to understand them). We, like them, believe in retribution through violence. When we feel we are the victims of an injustice, we too support the use of violence as a means of coping with our pain. Is this not the basic underlying message associated with the death penalty, or our response to the September 11 acts of terrorism? Hence, as individuals and as a society, we need to recognize our own hypocrisy with respect to how we respond to adolescent violence. While it may be true that the so-called injustices that provoke many adolescents to violence hardly seem justified to reasonable people, nonetheless the model they are using to respond to their pain is one that we have taught them. It’s a model that some of us defend ardently even while we claim not to understand adolescents who become violent.

Moreover, some critical reevaluating of the punishment model that we rely on to deal with injustice and pain is crucial. When we use brutal methods to deal with violent teens, we betray ourselves in so many ways. Punishment may feel good to us (just as it feels good to teens who use aggression to strike back at their tormentors), but it does very little to counteract devaluation, or to promote positive change and healing. By relying solely on punishment as our dominant response to violent youth, we merely reinforce rather than reform their violence. In a perverse twist of irony, we become the embodiment of the very thing we are punishing them for.

Validation through Giving

One of the great misconceptions that exist about validation is that it is achieved primarily through receiving. While it may indeed be validating to be the recipient of gifts, kind words, loving gestures, and other types of positive commodities, the greatest form of validation is achieved through the act of giving. When people have something to give, they are validated in the highest way. Having something meaningful to offer others, something that others regard as a valuable commodity, validates the giver in the deepest of ways. Perhaps the major difference between the validation derived from giving versus receiving is that in the case of the former there is a sense of empowerment associated with the “doing” aspect of giving, which stands in contrast to the more passive, potentially disempowering stance associated with receiving. This may in fact help to explain why acts of charity, while benevolently motivated, often leave the receiver feeling ashamed and powerless. At first glance, receiving charity should be validating, because the unstated message is “you are valued enough to warrant this act of kindness.” And yet, being in a position of having to rely on others for acts of kindness defines the receiver in a subordinate position to the giver, which ultimately is antithetical to the experience of validation. Hence, it is through having something meaningful to give to others that people experience the greatest form of validation.

In our treatment of violent youth who have been profoundly devalued, we spend an inordinate amount of time deliberately searching for the gifts of giving that we believe they inevitably possess. We believe that the process of discovering their gifts of giving is one of the most pivotal moments of therapy, especially with regard to counteracting devaluation.

I (TAL) once saw a young man in therapy named Shariff. At the tender age of 17, he already had been stabbed in the chest (narrowly missing his heart), had his nose broken, and had suffered three cracked ribs and a concussion as a result of numerous altercations with his enraged girlfriend, rival gang members, and a boy at school who had insulted his hair style. Shariff was most at ease when he was involved in some type of fight. Whenever he felt disrespected, no matter how slight, the response was almost always to threaten or act out violently. The more time I spent with Shariff, the more apparent it was that he suffered from a profound sense of devaluation. There had been the rejection in his primary community when his mother abandoned him when he was 10, leaving him with an aunt (he had no idea who his father was). He also had felt devalued at school, where he was labeled learning disabled (not coincidentally also when he was 10, just a few months after his mother’s abandonment, but a connection that nonetheless went unrecognized by anyone in his school) and was placed in a special education class that left him feeling “like a stupid idiot.” Being biracial (his mother was African American and his father white), he also felt racially devalued by both whites and African Americans. “Most white folks believe that if you have any color in you at all, you’re just a nigger, and for most black folks I guess I’m just not black enough.” When Shariff was 13, he joined a racially mixed gang, which provided him with the only sense of acceptance and community he had ever known. But even with the gang and in some ways because of it, he suffered with feeling like an outsider. He still carried the pain of his many unhealed losses and the corresponding rage that led him to want to beat up anyone who dared to look at him questioningly.

When Shariff began his court-ordered therapy sessions with me, one of the goals that I knew I had to achieve was to find ways to counteract his sense of devaluation. In spite of all the crazy—even downright disturbing—things he had done, there were ways in which Shariff made it easy for me to validate him. He was extremely bright (which in my opinion certainly called into question the learning disability he had been diagnosed with). I also eventually discovered that he had an amazing knack for troubleshooting electronics equipment. I discovered this one day when one of our video cameras was on the blink. Shariff volunteered to take a look at it, and within minutes he had disassembled portions of it that, from my perspective, seemed amazingly confusing and intricate. But Shariff moved with a grace and confidence that was startling. Within 10 minutes he had fixed the video camera, and we subsequently had no trouble with it at all. We were extremely grateful to him, because we had struggled with this camera for nearly a year, unable to diagnosis or repair it ourselves and too busy to seek out the expertise we needed. And here, in a matter of minutes, our problem had been solved! And quite by chance I had also solved another dilemma I had been struggling with—how to counteract devaluation in Shariff’s life. While I knew that Shariff had grown to trust and respect me, I never completely felt that I had been able to penetrate the layers of devaluation that he seemed buried under—that is, until the video camera episode.

After Shariff successfully repaired our video camera, my relationship with him changed profoundly. Suddenly he had something valuable to offer me. Suddenly I was no longer the only one with the expert knowledge. This incident established his expertise in an area where I clearly had none, and it allowed him to give me something we very much needed and appreciated. The pride Shariff felt was evident. He enthusiastically offered to fix anything else that needed to be repaired.

In the case of Shariff, it just so happens that his gift for giving involved something very concrete—his practical knowledge of electronics technology. However, most of the gifts for giving that are highlighted in our work are far less tangible. Often they involve unrecognized or untapped personal attributes that are most commonly minimized. For anyone daring to look more deeply at Brian and Jason, the two hot-headed, vengeance-thirsty threats to society, even they had gifts for giving. In each case, these two adolescents possessed the gift of undying loyalty. They were loyal to the point that it gave them something to both live and die for—what a precious gift to have to offer! Our task as their therapists was to identify their capacity for giving and to help them recognize, actualize, and maximize their gifts. Our goal is always to help the Brians and Jasons of society find socially sanctioned vessels for their gifts. After all, it is our view that “giving” denied expression is validation denied.

The power of validation through having something to give has taught us that when working with adolescents, especially those prone to violence, it is extremely helpful to identify their capacity for giving. The giving can be almost anything—teaching a younger brother, sister, or neighborhood child how to improve their jump shots, tutoring a fellow classmate in a favorite subject, sharing the wisdom they gained about how to get out of a gang with other adolescents who are still struggling to get out, helping a parent with a younger sibling or chores around the house, picking up groceries for an elderly relative, volunteering at a nursing home or youth center, or caring for a newly acquired pet. The list of possibilities is limitless. The important thing is to explore the unique strengths and interests of each adolescent. It is our view that any failure to uncover an adolescent’s gift is the result of our not looking closely enough, our not seeing all the possibilities, or our not believing strongly enough.

Badges of Ability

Badges and gifts for giving are related but different. We believe that gifts are usually unconscious—or at least they are usually outside of the everyday awareness of most of us. Also, gifts are strengths or attributes that require the act of giving. If a gift is recognized but not given, it may very well be a badge.

Lillian Rubin (1992) developed the concept of “Badges of Ability” in her landmark study of working-class families. Badges of ability are strengths that individuals possesses that they proudly identify and display to the world. It is a positive attribute that they can “pin” on their shirts like a badge for others to observe and validate. As adults who work with adolescents, we believe that it is important for us to be able to identify and validate at least one badge of ability in each and every adolescent with whom we interact. Ideally, we believe it is useful to identify and begin affirming these badges early on in our relationships with these kids to establish a foundation that we can continue to refer to and draw upon throughout our relationship. If we cannot identify a single badge of ability that an adolescent has, we firmly believe we are missing a salient opportunity to connect with and promote that young person’s optimal potential. It is worth mentioning that when we talk with adolescents we never use the term “badge of ability.” This term is most certainly not very “cool” and hence is likely to be greeted somewhat unfavorably. Hence, while the term provides us with a useful framework to guide our work, when we talk with teens we use phrases such as “a strength of yours” or “one of your special skills or qualities.”

As a first step toward identifying badges of ability in adolescents, we recommend asking oneself the following questions about each adolescent one has a relationship with:

1.  What is at least one badge of ability that this adolescent has?

2.  How can I use this badge to facilitate this person’s growth and learning?

3.  In what ways can I continue to recognize and validate this badge?

4.  What are the possible factors that may be preventing me from identifying at least one badge of ability for this adolescent?

If one is unable to identify a single badge for a particular adolescent, this is usually an important indicator of an area that warrants further attention. Moreover, if one has been remiss in validating and capitalizing upon an identified badge, this is critical (self) feedback as well. We recommend looking closely at self-of-the-therapist factors with regard to all of these issues, because working with violent and aggressive adolescent is a demanding challenge for even the best of us.

Cultural Translators

We believe that those of us who work with children and adolescents have a new role that has been defined by the world we live in today. We live in a confusing society. In a world that is increasingly shaped by technology, terrorism, and trauma, it can prove to be a very difficult place for most young people today to fully grasp. The technological advances of society have helped to create a microwave-age society where the efficacy of what we do is typically measured by the rapidity with which it is accomplished. Our children—even those who have had all of the so-called right experiences—are growing up in a world where they live with a powerful but faceless message that demands everything be done in record speed. As a result, they must learn to talk, walk, date, and marry—all with deliberate speed. Their world is one of electronic gadgets and machines—Gameboys, Xboxes, iPods, cell phones, and computers. Playing and interacting with others directly has become as antiquated as the black-and-white television set. The world as we know it, and as young people experience it, is one that is rapidly paced and increasingly impersonalized. We all have become frighteningly proficient at communicating cryptically worded messages via voicemails and e-mails in a nanosecond. Conversation and dialogue—once the centerpiece of relationships—are now skill-based academic courses, while remaining inconspicuously absent from our personal lives. Our world is one in which too many of us live our lives vicariously through myriad “reality shows” that permeate our existence. And, just think: some of us, with righteous indignation, have the audacity to ask, “What is wrong with kids today? . . . They don’t seem to care about anything anymore.” In our opinion, it is a tough, confusing world for most kids to understand.

Each of us who works with young people today has a moral responsibility to take on the role of cultural translator. This role is one that must be integrated with the capacity in which we interface with the lives of young people, particularly those prone to violence. The cultural translator is an interpreter of cultural norms, conflicts, contradictions, and ambiguities. The complexity and perversity of today’s world demands interpretation and deconstruction. In this vein, those of us who are therapists can ill afford to simply see our work as that which deals with the intrapsychic and the interpersonal—we must also wrestle with the cultural. Our therapeutic conversations must be expanded to explore traditionally unexplored territory. It is crucial that we remain curious about potential connections between annihilating quickly moving animated objects in popular videogames and killing other kids, or potential connections between terrorism in society and terrorism in the home. These are merely two examples of what we believe constitute the vast domain of the cultural translator. Above all, we believe that the cultural translator role demands that we, in the words of adolescents, “keep it real.”

With respect to counteracting devaluation, the role of a cultural translator is to help adolescents deconstruct and resist the countless cultural messages they are exposed to every day that assault their sense of humanity. For example, adults can and should play a central role in helping teens to sort through prejudicial and derogatory messages about underrepresented groups based on race, gender, sexual orientation, class, or religion. As one teen said to us during a consultation we did with at her school: “It’s hard being a female, because everywhere you turn people are saying things are better now for women and we’ve become equal with men. But when I watch TV or look in magazines, or even listen to how boys talk to me, I don’t feel very equal. I don’t even feel respected. It’s still messed up out there being a girl, but everybody seems to be trippin.”

This young woman was struggling with the mixed messages she was receiving about gender, and what she desperately needed was an adult who could act as a cultural translator. She needed someone who could affirm her perceptions and assure her she wasn’t crazy. She needed someone who could help her appreciate that, while women have made important strides in the past several decades, there is still a long way to go. Most importantly, she needed someone she could talk to about the ways she feels devalued as a female so that she can eventually begin to separate how some people (males) look at and treat her, versus who she actually is. Without the help of a cultural translator, in all likelihood this girl will graduate into adulthood convinced that there is something wrong with her. She will never feel like anything more than just a male plaything, but at the same time she won’t feel justified in feeling disrespected or even angry about her sense of devaluation as a woman.

Cultural Transformers

Cultural transformers are people who use their power to challenge broader social conditions that contribute to devaluation. Such persons actively use themselves to resist the forces of racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism/homophobia, and all other “isms” that lead to the systematic denigration and oppression of certain groups within society. If each of us were to assume a position of social activism in this regard, think how radically different our world would be today! Think how much we could accomplish in terms of counteracting the devaluation that so many adolescents today experience by virtue of their membership in a particular racial, gender, sexual orientation, class, or religious group!

CONCLUSION

We have identified several strategies to counteract devaluation in the lives of violent adolescents. The first of these is the VCR approach, which provides adults with a clearly identifiable set of steps they can follow to talk with adolescents about complex and potentially volatile issues. Since the mot immediate antidote for devaluation is validation, the VCR begins by affirming the positive aspects of a teen’s behaviors and/or personality. Once the teen accepts the validation, the approach shift to challenging whatever the troublesome behavior or belief is, but even this occurs in a manner that builds upon and reinforces the initial validation. Finally, the VCR ends with a request that enables the teen to translate the feedback he or she has received into some concrete doable action that has the potential to “turn things around.” The challenges associated with validating were discussed, and several other strategies for counteracting devaluation were examined, including the use of badges of ability, validation through giving, and roles that adults may assume as cultural translators and cultural transformers.