Throughout my study of trauma I have noticed my own resistance towards the current frameworks and their application within somatic psychotherapy. I have also noticed a deep curiosity because trauma seems to be like a great aquifer below us; it runs at the far reaching depths of humanity, impacting many people to different degrees. As I studied the various frameworks for understanding trauma (Levine, 2010; Odgen, 2006; Van der Kolk, 2014), a stark difference arose between them and the complexity of my client’s devastating experiences. These models attempted to organize the unorganizable. What was clear, logical, and intellectual on the page and in trainings, was anything but in my sessions with folks. I was struck, like lighting, by the enormity of their suffering, which is desperately complex, dynamic, and vast.
In the presence of these huge forces, the models seemed inadequate, but have given me something to hold onto. The “window of tolerance” (Siegel, 2012) is one such framework and I would like to explore its relevance, as well as its shortcomings, in understanding how the human body organizes overwhelming traumatic experiences. By investigating both its brilliance and its limitations, I aim to honor the dynamic nature of the human organism as it relates to trauma and begin to propose a more nuanced understanding of how autonomic arousal impacts wellbeing and functioning.
Window of Tolerance Defined
Before moving forward, it is necessary to define the window of tolerance and provide additional background about its application in somatic psychotherapy. As Odgen (2006) has summarized, the autonomic nervous system is constantly working to modulate the arousal of our bodies in order to meet our needs and address our environments as needed. The regulation of autonomic arousal has three main zones: hyperarousal, optimal arousal, and hypoarousal (Odgen, 2006). Hyperarousal occurs when people experience too much activation, while hypoarousal occurs when there is not enough activation (Odgen, 2006). According to Siegel, we all have a window of tolerance “in which various intensities of emotional arousal can be processed without disrupting the functioning of the system” (p. 281, 2012). This is considered the optimal arousal zone where information coming from internal or external sources can be processed and integrated into our sense of self and committed to memory (Siegel, 2012). In this sense, the window of tolerance describes the different “gears” of the autonomic nervous system and provides a framework to locate the different states people may be experiencing.
Unfortunately, people who suffer from trauma-related disorders are more susceptible to the dysregulatory states found outside the window of tolerance. They often find themselves in hyper or hypo arousal, and while these responses may be adaptive in certain circumstances (running away from an attacker or dissociating when something is too much to handle), they become problematic when they persist in nonthreatening situations (Ogden, 2006). When people are chronically outside their window of tolerance, their ability to process incoming information and form memories is severely impacted (Ogden, 2006). This state-driven hijacking of the autonomic nervous system creates memory fragmentation and disrupts the wholeness of the human organism, which in turn negatively impacts overall wellbeing and functioning (Van der Kolk, 2014). Not only is the sense of self disrupted and devastated, but other health issues may arise from this level of dysregulation (Van der Kolk, 2014). Understanding these impacts, I have found the window of tolerance to be a useful theoretical framework for working with traumatic experiences. It gives me a map to gauge what may be happening with my clients and even provides a compass for where to go next.
The Window of Tolerance In Action
Given the importance of states when it comes to wellbeing and functioning, many theorists and practitioners in the trauma field have adopted the window of tolerance as a way to describe and work with clients’ experiences (Kain & Terrell, 2018, Odgen, 2006; Siegel, 2012). In fact, regulation has become an essential starting point for working with traumatic material. The window of tolerance is a map for understanding people’s range of regulation, as well as locating the edges where more resources and stabilization are needed to prevent retraumatization (Kain & Terrell, 2018; Ogden, 2006). Using various techniques to help clients regulate and stabilize, therapy can expand people’s windows of tolerance. This is one goal of treatment when working with traumatic experiences.
From this theoretical vantage point, the window of tolerance is foundational to navigating peoples’ states and processing disturbing material. However this foundation may have its limits within its simplicity and emphasis on just three zones of arousal. Whereas people are complex and a territory onto themselves, the window of tolerance is simple and just a map. In my own work with trauma survivors, I am constantly in awe of their reliance and the dynamic nature of their psychologies, as well as their physiologies, which are far more nuanced than how the window of tolerance has defined their experiences. In recognizing this, I would like to examine a few critiques of the window of tolerance as they relate to a more refined understanding of how humans do and do not organize traumatic experiences.
The Window of Tolerance Meets Its Limits
Although the window of tolerance is a highly applicable and insightful framework for understanding what happens physiologically, as well as psychologically, as the autonomic nervous system modulates arousal, there are at least three ways it fails when it comes to actually working with people and their complex lives. I will spend the remainder of this post outlining these critiques and then begin to suggest another framework that builds upon the window of tolerance but takes into account the more subtle nature of how the body orients toward arousal and traumatic material. The goal of these critiques is not to discount the usefulness of the window of tolerance, but rather advance and mature its application.
The first critique that I will offer has already been alluded to; the window of tolerance framework ignores the unique and highly dynamic responses different humans have to different situations and all the factors that relate to their responses. These factors vary from temperament, to experiences that formed meaning, to the amount of sleep a person had the night before a particular event. Siegel (2012), who is credited with coining the concept, did acknowledge that the width of the window of tolerance varies from person to person, yet did not go so far as to say it varies from situation to situation, relationship to relationships, and moment to moment. From my own personal experience and clinical work, it does oscillate and change rapidly. In calling the framework the window of tolerance, a certain stagnate, architectural quality is implied, which completely ignores the living, undulating, rippling quality of the human subjective experience and how the autonomic nervous system constantly works to modulate arousal based on internal and external inputs. Ignoring the dynamic, living quality of the human experience is disrespectful at best and ignorant at worst.
While the first critique could have more to do with semantics and the articulations of the concept, the second critique is political in nature. As currently defined, taught, and used, the window of tolerance suggests there is a correct, ideal state of regulation that we should all be working towards. This ideal window ignores very real, systemic reasons for being outside it or developing a very different “normal;” these very real reasons have to do with systematic oppression and make the ideal window perhaps unattainable for certain people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or level of ability. As originally formulated, the window of tolerance does not take into account the forces of oppression on the autonomic nervous system and therefore the subjective experiences of people who are seeking wellbeing and functioning in a culture where safety may not be available. To frame maintaining the window of tolerance as the goal, another layer of oppression is imposed. Although this may not be the field’s intention, it is imperative to watch for the idealization of certain states, which may have cultural implications lurking in bias. Watching for these cultural assumptions must also be a part of work, especially as it relates to the treatment of trauma.
Thirdly, the window of tolerance can be used to pathologize responses that are outside the ideal of majority culture. I work from the belief that our responses always have a purpose and they are doing something for us. In this sense, responses outside the window of tolerance may in fact be adaptive and necessary to a person’s healing and growth. Said in another way, people sometimes need to communicate what their reality is and that means going outside the window of tolerance. With so much emphasis put on staying within this window, there is a risk of not letting people define for themselves what is tolerable and adaptive for them. Going back to critice two, this is another form of systematic oppression that therapists should make an effort to understand in themselves and their work.
Concluding Thoughts and The Range of Identity
Based on the aforementioned limitations of the window of tolerance and my clinical grounding in Formative Psychology (Keleman, 1987), I have started to think about what I call the “range of identity,” which is my attempt to reconcile the first critique and honor the unique, dynamic nature of the human organism. The range of identity comprises the various intensities of arousal that are synonyms with an individual’s identity and are considered familiar for their functioning. Those intensities of arousal that are not familiar and are outside the range of identity result in an individual’s experience of trauma. In other words, the range of identity focuses on the states of arousal that are known to each individual and comprises both their physiological and psychological understanding of themselves. When operating outside the range of identity, whether due to traumatic internal or external stimulus, the individual is in unfamiliar territory and is therefore unable to function within their typical range of physiological and psychological wellbeing as previously established by their life experiences and the ways they have functioned. Rather than suggesting there is one, ideal range of functioning as the window of tolerance does, the range of identity acknowledges the unique nature of the human organism and how each of us functions differently at different times according to the living, dynamic nature of our lives (Keleman, 1987).
Although this concept is in its infancy, I feel it is important to refine and grow the frameworks available to us. This is essential given my initial resistance trauma frameworks, where things were made simple in theory and yet their realities were exceedingly complex. With the above critiques in mind, I hope to keep refining my understanding and approach to working with traumatic experiences. As Keleman so beautifully articulated, “The essence of being human is the ability to interrupt an intended form of behavior and to make another one. Shaping something pertinent to the present is different than being on automatic, a continuation of the past.” (p. 76). With his words in mind and the range of identity taking shape, I look forward to growing and refining the ways in which I work with clients so I honor the complexity of the human orgasim and help people form relationships with themselves that are based on the present versus just the past.
References
Kain, K., & Terrell, S., (2018). Nurturing Resilience: Helping Clients Move Forward from Developmental Trauma. Berkley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Keleman, S., (1987). Embodying Experience: Forming a Personal Life. Berkeley, CA: Center Press.
Levine, P., (2010). In An Unspoken Voice: How the Body Releases Trauma and Restores Goodness. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.
Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C., (2006). Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Siegel, D., (1999). The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press
Van der Kolk, B., (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Release of Trauma. New York, NY: Penguin Books.