Estrangement Ideology – Part 23. Resistance and Change: Why Won’t They "Do the Work"?
Estranged Adult Children often seem mystified by their parents' apparent unwillingness to "do the work"—it's about power and the right not to be changed.
This is number twenty-three in a series of articles concerning Estrangement Ideology. Key concepts are introduced in Part 1. Tenets, Goals and Methods; Part 2. Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values; and Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption. Other parts can be found here.
Many Estranged Adult Children express deep frustration over their parents’ perceived inability or unwillingness to “do the work.” They interpret this resistance as a refusal to take responsibility, a failure to acknowledge past harm or a sign of “emotional immaturity.” Within Estrangement Ideology, this frustration often stems from an expectation that parents should not only accept blame but also undergo a fundamental transformation in behaviour and mindset to align with the adult child’s emotional needs and therapeutic framework.
But one of the eternal truths of human nature is aptly expressed by Peter Senge as follows:
“People don’t resist change; they resist being changed.”
As Senge suggests, what is often framed as resistance to change may actually be resistance to being changed—to having a unilateral demand imposed upon them, often without discussion, negotiation or recognition of their own emotional complexity.
This resistance to being changed is also linked to a concept in power relations espoused by Michel Foucault, which is the idea that:
“Where there is power, there is resistance.”
For Foucault, there is an inherent relationship between power and resistance, suggesting that resistance is always present within power dynamics. According to Foucault, resistance is not external to power but is internal to it, meaning that resistance is a natural response to power relations. This concept is illustrated in various contexts, such as political oppression and social movements, where individuals or groups challenge the existing power structures through different forms of resistance.
The power dynamics inherent in Estrangement Ideology were discussed in Part 7. Claiming Power. Paradoxically, the adult child’s claim to “autonomy”—reflecting a rejection of what may be termed patriarchal power—can be seen in to set up a mirror power structure, where the adult child’s exercise of power is resisted by the parent. At the heart of these ideas lies the issue of “autonomy” and “agency”—two concepts that Estrangement Ideology champions for adult children but often denies to parents. When parents hesitate or push back against the imposed self-reformation, their reluctance is not considered a valid “personal boundary”, but rather further evidence of their dysfunction, reinforcing the estrangement narrative rather than allowing space for mutual understanding.
Forced Change vs. Voluntary Change: The Unilateral Nature of “Doing the Work”
As Senge’s aphorism highlights, change is not inherently resisted, but people resist being forced to change by external pressures—this is particularly so when the change is imposed without their input or consent. In the context of estrangement, the expectation that parents must "do the work" reflects precisely this top-down imposition.
Estranged Adult Children often demand that parents not only acknowledge their perceived failures but undergo a fundamental transformation in their behaviour, mindset and emotional framework. The punishment for not complying is withdrawal of love, connection and support—essentially, a form of emotional blackmail. Rather than being an organic, reciprocal process of relational repair, this demand functions as an ultimatum, reinforcing a power imbalance where the parent is given no real agency. The one-sided nature of this is discussed in Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption.
Forum example:
"My parent keeps saying they want to talk, but they refuse to DO THE WORK. Until they show real accountability, they don’t deserve to be in my life."
Here, "doing the work" is framed as a precondition for re-engagement, but with no clear criteria for what constitutes "real accountability." Parents are thus trapped in the sort of lose-lose situation described in Part 20. The "No Contact" Double Bind for Parents, where their attempts at change may still be dismissed as insincere or insufficient.
The Psychological Burden of Being Ordered to Change
The demand that parents “do the work” is inherently framed in therapeutic jargon, reinforcing the retributive justice model in which the parent must undergo a prolonged process of emotional penance. However, this framing fails to acknowledge a crucial reality: change is most effective when it comes from within, not when it is externally enforced through coercion or guilt.
Leveraging Senge and Foucault it is clear that:
People resist being changed because forced change implies a lack of agency, autonomy and respect
Where power is exercised, it will inevitably lead to resistance
If a parent is handed a rigid blueprint for “acceptable change”, their resistance is not necessarily a refusal to grow, but a rejection of control over their own transformation.
Forum example:
"I sent my mom a long letter outlining exactly what she needs to do. She says she’s 'working on herself,' but honestly, if she were serious, she’d have changed by now."
This highlights the frustration adult children experience when their parents do not immediately conform. However, real change does not work on imposed timelines—especially when the terms of change are dictated unilaterally.
The Hypocrisy of Unilateral Change Demands
Estrangement discourse often stresses “respecting boundaries” and “honouring individual experiences.” However, the demand for parental change contradicts these principles by failing to afford parents the same “autonomy” that the Estranged Adult Children claim for themselves.
An alternative formulation to Senge’s which holds that—"People don’t hate change; they hate BEING changed"—is particularly illuminating in this regard:
Adult children expect parents to reconfigure their emotional responses, communication styles and beliefs in ways that conform to contemporary therapeutic frameworks
At the same time, any push-back or expectation that the Estranged Adult Child should likewise change or self-reflect is seen as manipulative or invalidating.
This double standard reinforces Estrangement Ideology’s one-sided nature: parents must submit to change, while the adult children remain unquestionable in their perspectives.
Forum example:
"I spent years being the one to compromise. It’s THEIR turn to change. Why should I have to do any work?"
This rigid dynamic prevents relational healing because it eliminates the possibility of mutual transformation, which is essential for reconciliation.
Conclusion
Both Senge and Foucault underscore the critical difference between choosing change and having change imposed. Estrangement Ideology disregards this distinction by framing estrangement as a moral purification process, where the parent must undergo a prescribed journey of self-improvement, apology and acceptance of blame before they are deemed worthy of a relationship.
This unilateral expectation contradicts the principles of authentic, lasting change:
Change is most meaningful when it is voluntary, not coerced or conducted under what can be interpreted as emotional blackmail
True relational repair is reciprocal, not one-sided
Parents deserve the same autonomy and agency that their adult children claim for themselves.
Ultimately, Estrangement Ideology’s approach to "doing the work" can be seen to be not so much about fostering healthier relationships as it is about control and adult child imposed retributive justice. Parents, like all individuals, have the right to personal growth on their own terms, rather than being forced into a predefined mold under threat of permanent estrangement.
Thus, the real question remains: Does the demand for parental change—or, “doing the work”—come from a place of genuine healing or is it simply another mechanism of power and retribution?
Note: This article was developed with assistance of ChatGPT, used as a structured analysis and writing tool. All ideas, interpretations and final outputs were authored, verified and edited by me. The model was conditioned to reflect my reasoning, not to generate content independently.
Outstanding ! This has been my disappointment with this whole situation. My daughter actually knows I’m somebody who is very easily willing to compromise except responsibility, change in any level of request requested change by anybody I’m always willing to bend to other people’s ways…. Except in the situation where I have to assume responsibility for things I didn’t do. I will absolutely assume responsibility for a lot of things. I didn’t even know I did if they’re true…., And there are a lot of those I wasn’t aware of
But I will not absolutely not accept responsibility for outrageous claims of things that weren’t remotely true -and there’s a lot of evidence to back up that perspective.
Disappointment that these children are expecting parents to take so much responsibility, accountability and blame and we’re even willing to do it but there’s no dialogue because they really don’t wanna see the parents change. They don’t wanna see the parents except responsibility because that would mean they would have to accept Responsibility and accountability for being cruel to their parents.
One cannot say that “unintentional mistakes” are wrong and need to be accepted and accept responsibility in all of that, and at the same time say
“ purposeful and intentional infliction of severe trauma on the parents” is fine because it’s just “setting a boundary”
No, these are not similar
The unintentional acts of a parent who did not spank or hit or even discipline a child who rarely said no to anything, and who devoted their lives to their kids, but made unintentional mistakes , even if those unintentional mistakes caused their children hurt and pain… if the same parents are willing to accept all that responsibility and shame, and blame being transferred to their shoulders
That is holy different than the adult children inflicting with purpose, and intention, significant and serious trauma onto their parents by blaming them for all of these things, and then persecuting them and torturing them by withholding, love, emotional relationships, grandchildren, time with their children and purposely hurting their parents
The adult children want blame placed on the parents for anything wrong in their life, but except no blame to themselves for the trauma they’re causing
Since they can’t reconcile that they cut everybody off and then they block all contact because that way they can live in their own bubble that it’s all the parents fault
As an adult child, I agree that expecting anyone to “do the work” as a condition for having a relationship can quickly become coercive or transactional. Genuine transformation cannot be demanded—it must arise from a personal desire to grow, not from pressure or performance. People change because they want to, not because they are commanded to.
That said, there is an important distinction between demanding deep psychological work and asking for a basic acknowledgment of harm. Expecting a parent to engage in therapy or fully unpack their generational trauma may be unreasonable for some. But asking for a sincere apology and some ownership of past behavior—especially when that behavior was harmful—is not an unrealistic demand. It is a relational necessity for many when trust has been repeatedly broken.
Remorse, accountability, and a willingness to repair are not signs of weakness or submission. They are the foundation of reconciliation in any relationship. To suggest that even minimal acknowledgment of harm is too much to expect shifts responsibility away from the one who caused the injury and places it on the one who was hurt. That dynamic only perpetuates silence and dysfunction.
It may be true that for many parents, the guilt and shame of facing the damage caused—especially to their own children—is overwhelming. In some cases, apologizing may require them to face the painful truth that they themselves never received the love, safety, or emotional nourishment they needed growing up. That realization is heartbreaking and may feel unbearable.
Older generations, shaped by war, depression, addiction, and survival-based parenting, often operated in environments where emotional awareness was not cultivated or even valued. In many cases, they never had the opportunity to move beyond basic survival, which limits emotional resilience and introspection. When adult children, raised in relatively safer conditions, begin to seek emotional healing and relational repair, it can feel foreign—or even threatening—to their parents.
That’s why compassion, grace, and mutual understanding are essential. But so is honesty. Adult children must do the work of healing, reparenting themselves, and not making their recovery dependent on their parent’s growth. At the same time, parents are not exempt from the call to humility, even late in life. Reconciliation, when possible, is a two-way street—requiring both courage and tenderness from all involved. Putting humility and relational repair on the adult child embraces the very harm that was done to the child all along- making the child responsible for their parent’s happiness and emotional needs, a backwards form of parenting.
Thanks for the intriguing read.