No Contact with NON-abusive Parents, Family? (The Nerve with Maureen Callahan)

[00:00]
The discussion opens with the introduction of Professor Sam Vaknin, a psychology expert, invited to The Nerve to explore complex family dynamics and psychological phenomena relevant to interpersonal relationships. The initial focus was intended to be the “golden child versus the scapegoat” family dynamic, but the conversation begins with the controversial and growing trend of “going no contact” with family members for reasons that extend beyond abuse.

[01:08]
The host clarifies that the discussion about going no contact excludes cases involving serious abuse (sexual, physical, emotional, psychological). Instead, the focus is on estrangement over relatively minor disagreements, such as political views or unwanted advice. A viral video featuring Oprah Winfrey moderating a panel of people who have chosen no contact with family members is referenced, highlighting the increasing normalization and even celebration of this choice. A Cornell University study is cited, revealing that about one-third of Americans are estranged from a family member.

[02:25]
Professor Vaknin explains that he originally coined the term “no contact” in the 1980s, defining it as a set of 27 strategies designed specifically for coping with abusive family members. Importantly, he stresses that no contact is a legitimate clinical strategy only in the context of abuse, not for reasons of disagreement or discomfort. He distinguishes no contact from estrangement, which is described as a broader, less finite condition involving a refusal to invest in maintaining relationships, including with intimate partners.

[04:23]
Estrangement is characterized by Vaknin as a form of self-indulgence and entitlement, often masking narcissism. It involves withdrawing from relationships to avoid accommodating others’ quirks, demands, and vulnerabilities. This withdrawal is framed as a power play, where disengagement serves as a manipulative tactic to assert moral and ethical superiority, rejecting compromise as weakness.

[05:43]
Vaknin identifies two cultural trends fueling the rise of no contact and estrangement:

• A culture of narcissism, amplified by social media bubbles and echo chambers.
• Political polarization, particularly after the 2016 election of Donald Trump, which intensified divisions and justified estrangement as moral defense.

This manifests as certain individuals or advice columnists endorsing no contact with family members because of political disagreements, e.g., refusing to share Thanksgiving dinner with a Trump-supporting relative, equating such association with moral contamination.

[07:25]
The conversation introduces the concept of pro-social or communal narcissism, where selfishness and entitlement are cloaked as socially commendable behavior, reinforcing estrangement as a form of externalized aggression. In addition, atomization—the increasing self-sufficiency enabled by technology—allows people to perceive others as burdens, fueling detachment.

Vaknin elaborates on “malignant tolerance”, a term describing hypervigilance where individuals scan social interactions for potential slights or injuries, interpreting even innocent acts as attacks. This clinical phenomenon aligns with pathological narcissism and has been idealized into a social ideology or “religion,” leading to political correctness and self-isolation.

[09:16]
Malignant tolerance has two effects:

• It inhibits speech, creating taboos where expressing dissent or taboo opinions is equated with immorality.
• It encourages self-isolation to minimize exposure to perceived attacks, fostering paranoia and withdrawal.

[10:21]
Technological advancements have made it possible for individuals to live almost completely isolated lives, even without leaving their homes, a phenomenon not feasible in past decades due to interdependence necessities.

The COVID-19 pandemic, despite causing profound isolation, did not seem to rekindle social connectedness post-lockdown; instead, people retreated further into isolation, sometimes engaging more with AI or chatbots than humans. This raises concerns about the future of human relationships.

[12:02]
Vaknin emphasizes that humans are inherently social animals (dating back to Aristotle’s “zoon politikon”), yet modern tendencies favor isolation. Collective cooperation historically arose from scarcity and necessity, but now technology enables choosing aloneness. Pew Center data show that about 42% of adults prefer isolation, which may stem from a pre-existing desire for solitude rather than technology causing it directly.

[13:24]
Contrary to popular belief, Vaknin argues technology is responsive, not causative, to human needs. The desire for aloneness preceded technological solutions that now facilitate it. For example, many refuse to return to office work not merely due to external pressures but because of reluctance to face colleagues or social environments.

[14:22]
Social connectedness has deteriorated sharply over the decades:

This decline reflects a broader withdrawal from both forced and voluntary socializing, including family ties.

[15:47]
The trend toward estrangement is linked to a glorification of aloneness as empowering, allowing individuals to control their environment without compromise or irritation. This is coupled with a rise in infantilization, where adults display immature, self-focused behaviors resembling those of children, lacking empathy and cooperation.

[16:56]
This infantilization is tied closely with narcissism, as pathological narcissism includes arrested development. Societal changes (working fewer hours, prioritizing leisure and entertainment over hard work) contribute to this regression. Terms such as “Peter Pan syndrome” and “piraus” (eternal adolescent woman) capture this phenomenon, which reduces adults’ capacity for mature interpersonal relationships.

[19:15]
Combining infantilization, atomization, technological self-sufficiency, and narcissism leads to a culture that glamorizes being alone, though it distinguishes between aloneness (neutral or positive state) and loneliness (negative psychological condition linked to early mortality).

Vaknin critiques public figures like Oprah Winfrey for endorsing no contact as a valid choice even when the grievance is minor, describing this as a “dark message” feeding into societal narcissism and fragmentation.

[20:41]
The conversation shifts to the golden child versus scapegoat family dynamic, a common but complex sibling rivalry often orchestrated by parents. This dynamic is dramatized by the classic film East of Eden (1955), where James Dean’s character Cal is the scapegoat and his brother Aaron is the golden child. The film illustrates themes of parental favoritism, rejection, and sibling conflict.

[24:21]
Vaknin introduces two key psychological concepts to explain these roles:

• Role Theory: In social units (families, friend groups), people naturally allocate emergent roles such as fixer, conciliator, golden child, and scapegoat.
• Projected Splitting (Vaknin’s own term): A combination of splitting and projection, primitive defense mechanisms where:
  • Splitting divides the world into all good vs. all bad (dichotomous thinking).
  • Projection involves attributing one’s unwanted traits onto others.

[27:06]
In projected splitting, a dysfunctional parent self-splits and projects their “good” parts onto one child (golden child) and “bad” parts onto another (scapegoat). This creates rigid roles within the family that are emotionally charged and difficult to escape.

[29:11]
Vaknin notes the paradox that being the scapegoat can offer some freedom to reject false ideals of perfection, while the golden child faces pressure to embody the parent’s virtues. The East of Eden example illustrates how parental self-hatred and unresolved trauma can fuel this dynamic.

[30:46]
The concept of projective identification explains why children comply with these assigned roles: the parent expects the child to confirm the projection (e.g., the “bad” child must behave badly to prove their role), linking love to role compliance. This performative love traps children in these roles, making rebellion less likely.

[33:08]
Exiting these roles is difficult unless the parent consciously reassigns them. Sometimes adult siblings can find common ground by recognizing they are both victims of parental dysfunction, potentially leading to reconciliation. However, siblings often replicate splitting by jointly vilifying parents, which is an unhealthy but common defense mechanism.

[35:46]
Healthy resolution requires moving beyond this black-and-white morality play to develop an integrated, nuanced view of parents, including:

• Forgiveness (which does not require forgetting)
• Empathy by understanding parents’ limitations and context
• Recognition that parents were limited, fallible individuals doing their best under constraints.

[38:39]
Vaknin stresses that many adults revert to childlike roles during family interactions due to internalized parental introjects—the voices and expectations of parents within their own psyche. These dynamics are deeply ingrained and can persist lifelong, making family gatherings challenging.

[41:14]
Neuroscientific research suggests that personality and identity are largely shaped by age nine, highlighting the deep roots of these family role dynamics. Therefore, rejecting parents or cutting contact is self-sabotaging and denies a fundamental part of one’s identity.

[42:52]
Vaknin refutes the idea that parental death resolves these issues, emphasizing that parents remain psychologically present inside individuals, embedded in episodic memories and internal dialogues.

[43:19]
A poignant anecdote is shared about an elderly woman dying, screaming for her mother, illustrating that the need for parental figures or the imprint of parental relationships never truly ends.

[44:21]
Vaknin calls parenting the most terrifying job, often undertaken without training or preparation. Many people become parents due to social expectations rather than readiness. Most parents live with constant fear of failure and are limited by their own upbringing, mental health, and circumstances.

[45:50]
Despite common failings, parents generally do their best, and adult children should temper anger and self-righteousness with understanding and forgiveness, recognizing that they too are limited and doing their best.

[48:03]
The host appreciates Vaknin’s insights as a counterpoint to cultural trends promoting no contact for non-abusive reasons, highlighting the complexity and emotional challenges many face during holidays and family reunions.

[49:01]
Vaknin concludes by reminding viewers that estrangement stems from an inability to accept otherness—the fundamental fact that people are different and make different choices. True tolerance requires embracing these differences even within families.

[50:44]
He emphasizes that no contact (except in abuse cases) is an act of externalized aggression and cruelty, likening it to antisocial narcissism and psychopathy. It severs family ties across generations, including relationships with grandchildren.

[51:52]
The discussion closes with a hopeful tone, encouraging understanding of family dynamics, forgiveness, and acceptance, while cautioning against the socially glamorized but harmful trend of no contact without just cause.

Key Concepts and Definitions

Timeline of Key Points

Summary of Core Insights

• No contact is a clinical tool intended primarily for abuse survivors; casual or ideological estrangement is a distinct, often narcissistically motivated phenomenon.
• Estrangement is often a power play rooted in entitlement and avoidance of interpersonal compromise.
• The rise of estrangement is fueled by narcissism, political polarization, atomization, and malignant tolerance (hypervigilance).
• Modern technology facilitates self-sufficiency and social withdrawal, but the desire for aloneness predates technological advances.
• There is a profound decline in meaningful social relationships and voluntary socializing, contributing to societal infantilization and narcissism.
• The golden child vs scapegoat dynamic in families arises from projected splitting and projective identification, with parents unconsciously assigning and enforcing roles based on their own psychological splits.
• Children comply with assigned roles because it ensures parental love and acceptance, making these roles entrenched and difficult to escape.
• Healing requires developing an integrated, nuanced understanding of parents, including forgiveness, empathy, and acceptance of their limitations.
• Family roles and dynamics are deeply internalized, influencing behavior well into adulthood and even after parental death.
• Estrangement without abuse is a form of externalized aggression that is socially glamorized but psychologically harmful, often severing vital familial and intergenerational bonds.
• The ability to accept difference and otherness within families is crucial for tolerance and relational health.
• Parenting is an incredibly difficult, often inadequately prepared-for role, and most parents do their best despite limitations and fears.
• The conversation urges reconsideration of cultural narratives that glorify cutting off family ties for non-abusive reasons, advocating instead for maturity, forgiveness, and relational complexity.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive exploration of the psychological, social, and cultural factors shaping family estrangement, no contact, and sibling dynamics, grounded fully in the transcript content.