Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Patricia Murphy's avatar

Our gratitude for your exemplary work is immense. As a daughter who experienced estrangement from her parents; and as parents of a 33 year old daughter who seemingly espouses the tenets you describe, your detailed and comprehensive series is a most welcome addition to our decades-long exploration of estrangement. Our sincere thanks! Best wishes to you as you move on elsewhere.

Expand full comment
Steven Howard's avatar

Author’s Note on Framing, Limits and Strategic Clarity

===================================

This series began as a personal response to something emotionally destabilising—my own estrangement experience—and developed into a long-form investigation of how estrangement now functions not just as a personal event but as a fully articulated ideological system.

Over time, the work has grown in both scope and sharpness. It maps recurring rhetorical patterns, tracks ideological reinforcement mechanisms, and pushes back against the idea that cutting ties is always an act of growth, or that emotional discomfort is synonymous with abuse. For some, that alone is enough to disqualify me—especially if you’re reading through the lens of an adult child who's internalised the belief that any parental perspective is manipulation by default.

However, this series isn’t a call for forced reconciliation. It’s not a demand for loyalty, or a defence of perfect parenting. It’s a refusal to let therapeutic ideology, online groupthink and psychologised identity scripts be treated as morally neutral ground. If that sounds like an attack to you, it’s probably because the ideological framing you’re using doesn’t tolerate scrutiny. And that’s the point.

That said, I also want to acknowledge the broader critique this series may attract from philosophical corners—especially postmodern thinkers and critical theorists from the Frankfurt School.

From a postmodern perspective, this whole project might look like just another attempt to stabilise meaning. They may well argue I’m offering a new master frame, just as loaded as the ones I’m critiquing—only sharper, colder and more syntactically coherent. They’d ask: “Who gets to decide what’s ‘ideological’ and what’s not?” And they’d be right to ask.

From a Frankfurt School lens, particularly someone like Marcuse, the critique goes deeper: that by structuring this as a methodical series—offering patterns, categories, and language maps—I risk participating in the same logic I’m critiquing. Not liberation, but refinement. Not emancipation, but intellectual formatting inside a culture that rewards critique as long as it remains inert.

And I take that seriously. I don’t claim to stand outside ideology. This is a conditioned response. A conscious reframing. A counter-instrument. I’m not building a new belief system—I’m mapping the one that already exists but refuses to name itself. The one that wraps emotional absolutism in self-care language, frames disconnection as maturity, and turns unresolved pain into identity performance.

To estranged adult children who may feel personally attacked by this series: I get that this won’t sit well. But discomfort isn’t harm, and scrutiny isn’t abuse. If your story can’t survive inspection, it may not be your story—it may be someone else’s script, handed to you by therapists, influencers or forum moderators who needed you to play a role. That doesn’t mean your pain isn’t real. It means your conclusions deserve to be examined—not just echoed.

To readers seeking clarity, not comfort: this work is for you. Not because it will tell you what to think, but because it offers a frame for what’s happening around (and often through) you. It’s not the final word—it’s an interruption.

Thanks for reading—and for thinking beyond the script.

—S.H.

Expand full comment
17 more comments...

No posts