This is extraordinary. Thank you. As an estranged parent for the past 10 years, having just read right through this, there is so much I recognize & so very much more I now understand. An incredible & comprehensive, compelling analysis.
Hi Larissa, This response offers a revealing case study in how Issendai’s core assumptions are deployed as ideological tools, and how their rhetorical framing continues to shape discourse even in more ostensibly open or reflective questions. Specifically, it reflects the mechanism outlined in Part 39: Issendai – Shaping the Narrative, which covers how their 2015 blog post “The Missing Missing Reasons” introduced a preloaded interpretive frame: that estranged parents are largely manipulative, self-pitying and incapable of growth or introspection. Despite never being backed by systematic research or qualitative methodology, Issendai’s portrayal is consistently repeated, paraphrased or assumed as common knowledge—often by users who may not have read her original piece but have absorbed its structure via platforms like Breakaway or Reddit.
Thanks Larissa—your follow up comment reinforces something I’ve been tracing in the series, especially in Part 39 on Issendai’s influence. That idea—that healthy parents leave support groups while unhealthy ones stay to play the victim—isn’t based on research, but it’s been incredibly effective at shaping how we interpret parents’ emotional responses. It creates a kind of preloaded narrative: if a parent expresses confusion or says they tried their best, they’re read as manipulative or in denial by default.
What this sets up is a strawman version of the parent—someone who claims they did “nothing wrong,” blames everyone else and refuses reflection. But in reality, many estranged parents are confused, grieving, and desperate to understand what happened. They might not get it right, but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of growth.
When the only way to be “heard” is to confess to wrongdoing, that’s not dialogue—it’s conditioning. And it quietly closes off any path toward shared understanding or relational repair, which I think most people, deep down, still hope for—even if it feels out of reach right now.
I've read a sampling of an adult childrens support group & 90% of the collective commenting was aggressive in the style of a pack mentality, self validating, closed minds & an echo chamber of all the pop psycho words bandied about in these times.
I too question your statement. For eleven years I followed Josh Coleman's support group, where the repeated advice from him and fellow followers was to listen to the EK's viewpoint. without protest or clarification, apologize for whatever you are accused of and take responsibility for it, even if it is baseless. There was often push back on this advice, but it was by far the most popular advice, the idea seemed to be that it would be worth eating a whole lot of humble pie for a chance to fix the relationship.
It doesn't matter what you think of that advice. You are not a therapist and have not had success with that advice, neither have the vast majority who have implented it. No matter how it sounds, it just doesn't work in 90 out of 100 cases.
Evidence of your claims please? Certainly NOT the experience I had participating for a year in Coleman’s FB group, quite the opposite in fact. The only subgroup with an agenda was the sock puppets, estranged kids pretending to be hurt parents. The rest of us were looking for knowledge and a path to peace and acceptance of our new reality.
Coleman FB group is moderated by other moms and his web consultant. It was less than perfect if sock puppets infiltrate, their primary purpose is to blame/shame parents as usual.
Hi Larissa, I appreciate your strong stance on the emotional seriousness of estrangement—it’s not something to be treated lightly, and I agree that love shouldn’t be about power in the traditional sense. But this is where I think the tension lies: while many adult children frame estrangement as a healing act, it often functions as a form of power assertion—not in the sense of revenge, but in the restructuring of relational dynamics in a way that disempowers the parent and removes the possibility of mutual repair.
As I explored in Part 3: The One-Sided Path to Redemption, the model promoted in many estrangement communities requires parents to submit to a fixed script of self-criticism, therapy and accountability, often without any clear path to reconciliation. This puts them in a permanent double bind: either accept all blame or remain cut off. There's no room for relational nuance, just compliance.
Then in Part 7: Claiming Power, I looked at how estrangement becomes the adult child's ultimate assertion of authority—setting boundaries, terms, and conditions without negotiation. The parent’s only option is to submit, apologise, and change according to standards they didn’t help define. That’s not mutual growth—it’s a retributive dynamic cloaked in therapeutic language.
You say “there is no place for power in a loving relationship,” but under the current framing, power is central. The withdrawal of relationship is often used as leverage: to punish, to test or to force transformation. That’s not healing—it’s coercive. And yes, that can look a lot like emotional blackmail. I would also point to Issendai's rather objectionable and entirely manipulative concept of "training" parents through repeated threats and cycles of withdrawal and reconciliation.
Estrangement might be necessary in some situations—but if we can’t talk about how it’s sometimes used to control rather than to protect, we risk leaving no space for parents who are ready to grow, love and repair.
Hi Larissa, I'm not sure you comprehend the nature of the no-win double bind parents are placed in by their estranging children, especially under strict "No-Contact" boundary setting as commonly advocated in the online forums and sites like Breakaway. This is just one of the aspects of the ideological phenomenon I have been exploring and elucidating in this series. The double bind issue is exposed in Part 20. The "No Contact" Double Bind for Parents, https://thestyxian.substack.com/p/estrangement-ideology-part-20-the?r=46g4sj
My kids learned about overcoming adversity by their teen years.
Contrary to your claims, people who cut off loved ones are often avoiding their own problems or under the pressure of a controlling spouse. Very common.
Survival meaning:
Adaptation and Resilience:
Organisms and systems that survive are often those that can adapt to changing conditions and exhibit resilience in the face of adversity.
Psychological Survival:
The ability to cope with trauma, stress, and loss is also a crucial aspect of survival, both physically and psychologically.
This is extraordinary. Thank you. As an estranged parent for the past 10 years, having just read right through this, there is so much I recognize & so very much more I now understand. An incredible & comprehensive, compelling analysis.
Excellent article! It describes exactly how Breakaway theory works! So scary, there’s no way out…
Hi Larissa, This response offers a revealing case study in how Issendai’s core assumptions are deployed as ideological tools, and how their rhetorical framing continues to shape discourse even in more ostensibly open or reflective questions. Specifically, it reflects the mechanism outlined in Part 39: Issendai – Shaping the Narrative, which covers how their 2015 blog post “The Missing Missing Reasons” introduced a preloaded interpretive frame: that estranged parents are largely manipulative, self-pitying and incapable of growth or introspection. Despite never being backed by systematic research or qualitative methodology, Issendai’s portrayal is consistently repeated, paraphrased or assumed as common knowledge—often by users who may not have read her original piece but have absorbed its structure via platforms like Breakaway or Reddit.
Thanks Larissa—your follow up comment reinforces something I’ve been tracing in the series, especially in Part 39 on Issendai’s influence. That idea—that healthy parents leave support groups while unhealthy ones stay to play the victim—isn’t based on research, but it’s been incredibly effective at shaping how we interpret parents’ emotional responses. It creates a kind of preloaded narrative: if a parent expresses confusion or says they tried their best, they’re read as manipulative or in denial by default.
What this sets up is a strawman version of the parent—someone who claims they did “nothing wrong,” blames everyone else and refuses reflection. But in reality, many estranged parents are confused, grieving, and desperate to understand what happened. They might not get it right, but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of growth.
When the only way to be “heard” is to confess to wrongdoing, that’s not dialogue—it’s conditioning. And it quietly closes off any path toward shared understanding or relational repair, which I think most people, deep down, still hope for—even if it feels out of reach right now.
I've read a sampling of an adult childrens support group & 90% of the collective commenting was aggressive in the style of a pack mentality, self validating, closed minds & an echo chamber of all the pop psycho words bandied about in these times.
I too question your statement. For eleven years I followed Josh Coleman's support group, where the repeated advice from him and fellow followers was to listen to the EK's viewpoint. without protest or clarification, apologize for whatever you are accused of and take responsibility for it, even if it is baseless. There was often push back on this advice, but it was by far the most popular advice, the idea seemed to be that it would be worth eating a whole lot of humble pie for a chance to fix the relationship.
It doesn't matter what you think of that advice. You are not a therapist and have not had success with that advice, neither have the vast majority who have implented it. No matter how it sounds, it just doesn't work in 90 out of 100 cases.
Evidence of your claims please? Certainly NOT the experience I had participating for a year in Coleman’s FB group, quite the opposite in fact. The only subgroup with an agenda was the sock puppets, estranged kids pretending to be hurt parents. The rest of us were looking for knowledge and a path to peace and acceptance of our new reality.
Coleman FB group is moderated by other moms and his web consultant. It was less than perfect if sock puppets infiltrate, their primary purpose is to blame/shame parents as usual.
nah.....https://news.osu.edu/study-examines-what-makes-adult-children-cut-ties-with-parents/
Hi Larissa, I appreciate your strong stance on the emotional seriousness of estrangement—it’s not something to be treated lightly, and I agree that love shouldn’t be about power in the traditional sense. But this is where I think the tension lies: while many adult children frame estrangement as a healing act, it often functions as a form of power assertion—not in the sense of revenge, but in the restructuring of relational dynamics in a way that disempowers the parent and removes the possibility of mutual repair.
As I explored in Part 3: The One-Sided Path to Redemption, the model promoted in many estrangement communities requires parents to submit to a fixed script of self-criticism, therapy and accountability, often without any clear path to reconciliation. This puts them in a permanent double bind: either accept all blame or remain cut off. There's no room for relational nuance, just compliance.
Then in Part 7: Claiming Power, I looked at how estrangement becomes the adult child's ultimate assertion of authority—setting boundaries, terms, and conditions without negotiation. The parent’s only option is to submit, apologise, and change according to standards they didn’t help define. That’s not mutual growth—it’s a retributive dynamic cloaked in therapeutic language.
You say “there is no place for power in a loving relationship,” but under the current framing, power is central. The withdrawal of relationship is often used as leverage: to punish, to test or to force transformation. That’s not healing—it’s coercive. And yes, that can look a lot like emotional blackmail. I would also point to Issendai's rather objectionable and entirely manipulative concept of "training" parents through repeated threats and cycles of withdrawal and reconciliation.
Estrangement might be necessary in some situations—but if we can’t talk about how it’s sometimes used to control rather than to protect, we risk leaving no space for parents who are ready to grow, love and repair.
Hi Larissa, I'm not sure you comprehend the nature of the no-win double bind parents are placed in by their estranging children, especially under strict "No-Contact" boundary setting as commonly advocated in the online forums and sites like Breakaway. This is just one of the aspects of the ideological phenomenon I have been exploring and elucidating in this series. The double bind issue is exposed in Part 20. The "No Contact" Double Bind for Parents, https://thestyxian.substack.com/p/estrangement-ideology-part-20-the?r=46g4sj
They need to rethink "survival" and mature.
That is a rude remark.
My kids learned about overcoming adversity by their teen years.
Contrary to your claims, people who cut off loved ones are often avoiding their own problems or under the pressure of a controlling spouse. Very common.
Survival meaning:
Adaptation and Resilience:
Organisms and systems that survive are often those that can adapt to changing conditions and exhibit resilience in the face of adversity.
Psychological Survival:
The ability to cope with trauma, stress, and loss is also a crucial aspect of survival, both physically and psychologically.