Estrangement Ideology – Part 3. The One-Sided Path to Redemption

Therapy and self-reflection are mandated for parents—all very Maoist Cultural Revolution self-criticism and indoctrination.

This is the third in a series of articles concerning Estrangement Ideology. Part 1 focuses on the Tenets, Goals and Methods. Part 2 focused on Transgressions, Moral Certitude and Traditional Values and Part 3. is concerned with the ideologically prescribed one-sided path to redemption. Other parts in this series can be found here.

Estrangement Ideology frequently pathologises parental behaviour, framing traditional values and persistent efforts to reconnect as “toxic” or “controlling.” Combined with the emphasis on therapy and self-reflection as prerequisites for reconciliation, this approach establishes rigid conditions for restoring contact that may exacerbate conflict rather than resolve it. The one-sided framework established disproportionately places responsibility for reconciliation on parents, aligning with several ideology tenet violations.

One-Sided Pathologisation of Parental Behaviour

Parents’ actions are often interpreted through a lens that frames traditional parenting behaviours—such as persistence, emotional stoicism or hierarchical expectations—as inherently harmful or controlling.

As discussed in Parts 1 and 2, the critique of past and present parental behaviours is usually based on violations of one of more of Estrangement Ideology’s core tenets. For instance, under the Validation of Lived Experiences tenet, the adult child’s perspective is prioritised exclusively, while the parent’s intentions, cultural influences or struggles are dismissed; under the Cultural and Normative Transformation tenet the framing rejects traditional norms without fully contextualising their origins or benefits, instead labelling them as outdated and harmful; and under the Emotional Empowerment tenet, the adult child’s empowerment is preferenced at the expense of relational balance, with the parent’s ability to assert their perspective being marginalised.

Pathologisation of parental behaviour heavily relies on the adoption of therapeutic and counselling terms to frame traditional parental actions as harmful or deficient. Phrases like “emotional immaturity”, “gaslighting”, “toxic behaviour” and “failure to validate” are frequently employed to reinterpret common parenting styles or generational norms through a lens of psychological dysfunction. This language serves to elevate the adult child’s perspective as inherently valid while positioning the parent’s actions as symptomatic of deeper emotional or relational failings. By leveraging therapeutic concepts, estrangement ideology lends an air of professional credibility to its critiques, which can discourage alternative interpretations of parental behaviour or relational dynamics.

For instance:

• In response to a reasonably balanced, if slightly estrangement favourable, article in The New Yorker titled “Why So Many People Are Going “No Contact” with Their Parents” one Reddit contributor writes: “I'm so tired of this "you both need to work it out" mindset. BS. That's the enabler's anthem, it really is. My mom would rage/stomp/scream/throw my stuff in the trash, and my dad would just sigh and say, "You should both apologize to each other." Like, your wife is abusing your kid. Wake the fuck up. I also heard a bunch of, "Oh that's just mothers and daughters" "You need to give her some grace." A house built on lies will collapse eventually. My mom is a soulless monster who only cares about herself. I am very familiar with the lies she tells others to gain sympathy. I still struggle with being NC because guess what, I DO want a mom. But she is so unbearable that I'd rather self-orphan and I'd rather my own child doesn't have a grandma. This isn't my ideal situation, it's just the healthiest option.”

• A Vox article titled “Family estrangement doesn’t have to be forever”, which uses a strawman alcoholic father as a centre piece example of parental abuse, likewise places the onus on parents to prove their ability to turn their behaviour around: “I say that the purpose of this therapy is to really demonstrate to your adult child if you’re capable of taking responsibility and then understanding why they felt [estrangement] was the healthiest thing for them to do.”

• An article from Psychology Today titled “6 Things Estranged Parents Must Do Before Reconciliation” contends that: "Adult children are likely to demand a visible change in parental behavior and treatment and set 'rules'."

While admitting that some parents can be problematic, this stereotypical pathologisation oversimplifies complex relational dynamics, reducing parents to perpetrators of harm while minimising the mutual contributions to familial conflict resulting in:

• Erosion of Empathy: By pathologising behaviours, the ideology discourages empathy for parents, framing them as emotionally immature or toxic rather than as individuals shaped by their own experiences and limitations.

• Reinforcement of Estrangement: The one-sided framing deepens the divide, as parents may feel mischaracterised and alienated, making reconciliation less likely.

This pathologisation of parental behaviours and actions and use of counselling language further reinforces a power imbalance, where parents exclusively are expected to engage in self-reflection and reparative actions based on standards they may not fully understand or accept. In contrast, there is rarely any requirement on the adult children to engage in self-reflection or therapy as part of the reconciliation process, their perspectives are taken as absolute truth.

Therapy and Self-Reflection as Mandated Conditions

In Reddit posts and discussions and in various articles, such as those referenced above, restoration of the relationship is often made contingent on parents undertaking to engage in therapy or self-reflection as evidence of their commitment to reconciliation. This requirement frames change and growth as one-sided responsibilities, with the assumption being that therapy will lead parents to recognise and rectify their perceived emotional immaturity or harmful behaviours.

For instance:

• From the Psychology Today article we get: “Examine why you want to reconnect. The reasons parents pursue reconciliation are as various as the reasons adult children estrange to begin with. A parent’s motivation is undoubtedly the key because it will determine pretty much how you will act and react”

• The Vox article: “You might need to … deepen your understanding of how your behavior impacted your child, even if it’s at odds with your own recollections of what happened in the past.”

In following the core tenets of Estrangement Ideology, demonstration of accountability is a prerequisite for the parents, with accountability being framed as unidirectional, so that parents bear the entire burden of repair. It is evident that this one-sided requirement undermines the shared accountability necessary for meaningful reconciliation. While much focus is placed on the adult child’s boundaries, the emphasis on therapy can be seen to disregard or even violate the parent’s boundaries, particularly if they view the demand as coercive or misaligned with their values. The one-sided accountability framework also disregards traditional views of reconciliation, which often emphasise mutual effort and unconditional familial bonds.

​​Lastly, imposition of self-reflection or therapy, while valuable for many, may not align with the cultural or personal values of many parents for who may not see or acknowledge being subject to any psychological malady or even view the therapeutic model as valid science or in alignment with their spiritual norms and values. Additionally, by requiring therapy as a prerequisite, the framework positions parents as the sole parties needing to change, effectively absolving adult children of similar self-reflection or compromise.

Maoist Self-Criticism and Indoctrination

The injunctions resulting from Estrangement Ideology directed toward estranged parents in the various forums and articles examined bear striking parallels to Maoist practices of self-criticism, particularly in their function as tools for re-education and ideological conformity.

Maoist self-criticism sessions were mechanisms designed not only to elicit confession and self-examination but also to align individuals with the state’s ideological goals, often through self-denial, public humiliation and the suppression of dissent. In the context of estranged parents, the directives for reconciliation reflect a similar process of self-transformation toward an external idealised narrative that includes:

Confession and Acknowledgment of Faults: Posts on the various forums and articles repeatedly stress that parents must:

• Acknowledge their failings without defensiveness

• Accept their children’s grievances as valid and cease to justify their past actions, regardless of context

• Avoid framing conflicts as mutual, insisting instead on a unilateral focus on the child’s perspective.

This aligns with Maoist self-criticism’s emphasis on confessing deviations from the ideological standard, irrespective of whether the confessions reflected reality.

Self-Transformation: Estranged parents are urged to:

• Abandon deeply held beliefs about their role as parents, such as the notion of being “owed” respect or gratitude by their children

• Internalise the estranged child’s narrative, even if it conflicts with their own experiences or sense of justice.

This resembles Maoist practices where individuals were expected to redefine their identity to conform with state-sanctioned ideals, effectively reprogramming their worldview.

Public Demonstration of Conformity: While Maoist sessions often involved public self-criticism, the modern equivalent is found in forums, therapy, or reconciliation attempts where parents must visibly demonstrate their willingness to change and accept blame. These performances signal compliance with a broader cultural narrative, much like Maoist loyalty demonstrations.

A similar example of this form of public shaming and re-education for conformity with official narratives is demonstrated in the well publicised injunction that psychologist Jordan Peterson complete social media re-education for comments he made on Twitter and the Joe Rogan podcast: “The CPO [College of Psychologists of Ontario], which oversees practicing psychologists in Ontario in order to protect patients from professional misconduct, ordered Peterson to complete a mandatory “Specified Continuing Education or Remedial Program” to “review, reflect on and ameliorate [his] professionalism in public statements,” according to a lengthy list of requirements from the college that Peterson shared on Twitter.””

Self-Brainwashing Through Internalised Guilt

The self-critical framework prescribed under Estrangement Ideology for estranged parents involves a form of self-brainwashing, where guilt becomes a tool for ideological compliance:

• Parents are encouraged to view their past actions exclusively through the lens of their children’s grievances, fostering a narrative of unworthiness or failure

• They are discouraged from challenging these narratives or framing their estrangement as part of a broader, reciprocal relationship dynamic

• By continually rehearsing their faults and adopting the estranged child’s perspective, parents reinforce an internalised narrative that aligns with societal ideals, even when these contradict their lived experiences.

This process mirrors Maoist practices, where individuals were compelled to adopt a state-prescribed narrative of their own shortcomings as part of ideological re-education.

Suppression of Dissent

The broader cultural framework around Estrangement Ideology actively discourages parents from resisting these injunctions:

• At least one estranged child forum on Reddit explicitly prohibits parents from participating or voicing alternative perspectives—this being under the guise of promoting emotional safety

• Expert advice and forum comments stress that reconciliation is impossible without full compliance from the parent, leaving no room for mutual accountability or critique of the estranged child’s actions

• Support groups for parents caution against any narrative that could be perceived as "child-bashing" or encouraging efforts aimed a reconciliation or re-establishing contact, effectively silencing dissent.

This suppression of alternative views resembles the Maoist rejection of counter-revolutionary thought, ensuring that the dominant narrative remains unchallenged.

Conclusion: Ethical and Relational Implications

Apart from the Maoist brainwashing implications discussed above, the mandating of therapy and pathologising behaviours under Estrangement Ideology risks overstepping into areas of personal or cultural values, imposing a universal standard of emotional health that may not be applicable to all families. By pathologising parents’ actions, the framework invalidates their lived experiences, including the systemic or cultural factors that may have influenced their behaviours.

Relational consequences include the entrenchment of estrangement where the one-sided emphasis on therapy and accountability can reinforce cycles of alienation, as parents resist demands they perceive as unfair or unidirectional. The rigid focus on therapy as the sole path to reconciliation also disregards alternative relational dynamics that could foster mutual growth and understanding.

Shifting from a one-sided model to one that features mutual accountability and exploration of the roles both parents and adult children have had in creating the estrangement situation would encourage self-reflection on both sides, address power imbalances and foster greater understanding. Encouraging therapy or introspection for both parents and adult children could enhance relational growth while maintaining respect for individual agency. Incorporating cultural, generational and relational contexts into the framework would reduce the risk of pathologisation and encourage empathy for diverse familial experiences. Offering multiple avenues for growth and accountability beyond therapy would make the framework more inclusive and adaptable to varied family dynamic.

Lastly, it is my contention that promotion of the therapeutic model as an exclusive model for resolution of relationship differences risks commercial exploitation of the situation by some therapists and counsellors who may see the situation as a potentially profitable business model—more to be said on this in Part 4. The Therapist.

---

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.