Comply to Survive: Fawn and the Polyvagal Theory

Fawn has officially been added to the growing list of Polyvagal Theory mixed states. I'll explain what fawning is and how the Theory interprets it to deepen your understanding of the Polyvagal Theory. My name is Justin Sunseri. I'm a therapist, coach, and the creator of the Polyvagal Trauma Relief System. Welcome to Stuck Not Broken, where I teach you how to live with more calm, confidence, and connection without the psychobabble.

So, yeah, the Polyvagal Theory has three brand new additions to the mixed states. We have appeasement, which I covered in the last episode of Stuck Not Broken. Fawn, which I'll be talking about in this one and intimacy, which I'll talk about in the next episode. Sadly though, in the new book, our Polyvagal world, there really is not much information on this. At all they have. Maybe two pages. I think it's more like one. But maybe two pages.

Uh, which is not just on fawn, but it's on fawn and appeasement. And they don't really talk about fawn in much detail whatsoever. It's really only like. A solid couple of lines where they really try to explain how it's different than appeasement. And I'm not going to quote it because I have the advanced copy and I don't know if it has changed. Since, uh, well, once it comes out, I don't know if the quotes will still be relevant or the, exactly the same. So I I'm, I'm not going to quote it.

Plus the advanced copy says don't quote it for publication. So, uh, I'm not going to do that. But there's not much there as of right now. There's not much there. Oh, by the way I do. Overall recommend the book. As of right now, I'll do a book review on that in the near future, but just so you know yeah. I think it's a good read. It's worth buying. And I'll have a link in the description for you. Again, review is coming soon.

So fawn is not the same as appeasement, at least through the lens of the Polyvagal Theory as I was researching fawn. It is confused with, or it is lumped together with appeasement and maybe they belong together. I think you could make an argument there. Maybe it's not a super important to distinguish the two, but. Porges believes or at least him and his son, Seth. Who co-wrote the book actually wrote the book. And then Dr. Porges gave it a stamp of approval.

At least Seth and Dr. Porges believe that they deserve to be distinguished. And actually Dr. Porges is in a, in a paper on appeasement in Stockholm syndrome. I believe separated the two as well. So for all intents and purposes, according to the Polyvagal Theory, fawn and appeasement should be distinct. I'm going to. We'll just leave it at that for now. Appeasement, as I mentioned last time. Involves the activation of all the Polyvagal states.

And as kind of a, I believe what they called, it was a super social engagement or a super co-regulation. With the. Uh, the evolutionary intent of deescalating or avoiding a life-threatening situation. For us humans, this would pop up most extremely in like a hostage situation or a domestic violence. One. And appeasement the appeaser is joining with their abuser or their captor. They are really aligning their values. With their captors and, uh, yeah, I'll, I'll leave it at that.

Cause I talked about it last episode. So go listen to that one. If you want a deeper dive into that. We are here for fawn though. Uh, fawna is very similar. I would argue with also the intention of deescalation or reducing the potential of life threat. But instead of through a pseudo co-regulation. Now it's through compliance instead of through. The quote-unquote super social engagement. Now it's through compliance. So it's not co-regulating appeasement.

To me as I'm understanding of this, it's more about invisibility hiding. Uh, existing in a very. Uh, numb state, I think. And subservience. Fawning is about surrendering your values and your agency in compliance to the dominant other that is really, um, Controlling the situation dominating. The situation. Fawning is about quietly attempting to please that other person. Uh, in order to extend those moments of deescalation. It's a very, I think very preventative kind of thing.

Fawning uh, involves preemptively anticipating their needs and really not trying to rock the boat. Although that individuals already in the situation that is extreme and, and, uh, potentially a life threat. This is very similar to appeasement. The potential evolutionary intent of fawning, is that the predator or in our case, the abductor. The or abuser, but the predator might lose interest. So if they're prey or if the captive. Or the victim of the domestic violence, uh, situation.

If they can anticipate the needs of the other and preemptively. Meet their needs or keep things at a, at a calmer level by surrendering their own values and empowerment. Then the predator might lose interests. In them, they might not see them as a threat whatsoever. And that might reduce the defensive activation or the aggressive. Activation the bullying or the abusive kind of activation.

Although, when I talked to Dr. Porges in my interview with him a couple episodes ago, he did say that fawning may lead to increase risk. And he's, he mentioned specifically murder and he said something, uh, something about things being more potentially severe. So I'm that kind of makes me wonder. Does the predator then in the face of the fawning, potentially amplify, does their state. Get amplified. Uh, thus worsening the situation. So maybe there are state.

As it, raises and boils over into a rage. It's going, has to be targeted toward it. Doesn't have to be, but their behavioral adaptation is to targeted towards somebody, someone that they can inflict their dominance on. So even though the fawner may successfully preemptively. Keep things at a minimum as far as risk. Eventually for that dominant, abusive captor, they eventually that, that stuck state doesn't really go anywhere.

Maybe it's, you know, simmered down enough to get through the day and get their needs met as far as the fawner but the dominant individual in the situation. They're stuck states. That I would, I would anticipate, I would guess. That intense, uh, hidden frozen. Explosive rage doesn't go anywhere. It's still there. So as it boils over eventually does get directed toward the person who is in more of a fawn state as best I can tell. Or as best I'm understanding it.

That boiled over rage ends up reinforcing the, to the person who's in a fawn state that they need to stay in a fawn, mixed state. They need to stay compliant. They cannot escape. They must continually, be subservient or submissive. To the other, the dominant one in this relationship. The biggest difference between fawning and appeasement might be that the person who was fawning. As I'm understanding it doesn't necessarily need to provide. Cues of safety.

If anything in these types of relationships, The person fawning. Probably needs to give no queues. Of safety or flight fight. They simply need to be. Hidden invisible subservient. They must relinquish all of themselves to the other person. In order for that person, the dominant one. To not explode in rage. I imagine that. If the fawning person did anything that was out of line of that. Relationship. That it would potentially trigger that explosive rage and the other person.

So any attempts to get out of the situation, any attempts to rationalize, talk to the person. Co-regulate actually may trigger that other person into, releasing the rage that explosive rage. In the relationships with appeasement, the dominant other one. Seems to the, the appeasement seems to work. So the appeaser seems to be able to provide cues of safety and not trigger the wrath of the other person. So a fawn in relationship. It seems like that.

Shut down, hiding invisible, kind of a flavor, And preemptively meeting the needs of the other one, as I'm understanding it, that seems to be the role of, of someone who's in a fawn mixed state. But anyhow, I think that's kind of maybe what Porges meant when he said that it might lead to increase risk, like murder.

Being in a fawn mixed state means that there is a heavy level of enmeshment with the other person's emotions and really being able, unable to distinguish the self from the other person. Being a fawn state is going to have a heavy dose of numbness and dissociation. They're going to. To be doing lots of self-sacrifice to try to fix the problems of the other person to blame themselves denying their own needs.

I look at this as pleasing versus appeasing appeasing, like we said, in the last episode, It's about joining with the other, like a captive who's assisting their captor with committing crimes maybe, or, evading authorities. And also providing, you know, cues of connection. Whereas with this pleasing of fawning, this is more about tending to the needs of the dominant other, and overly accommodating them and what they need or will need. At the expense of the self.

I kept reading that fawning probably has a lot to do with a history of childhood rejection. Shame neglect. And more. Uh, different types of abuse basically, but it probably has a lot, or it's very much connected to C PTSD, which is complex. Post-traumatic stress disorder, a heavy association with that. And with, uh, relational trauma, interpersonal trauma. You may remember from my Polyvagal. 101 series that there are two paths of trauma.

One of those is the acute life threat reaction where you go through a thing. That you survived and are left in a stuck defensive state. The other path of trauma. Really fits in more with the fawning, which is the, uh, chronic disruption of connectedness. And that would be more connected with C PTSD, in my opinion. This is definitely gonna result in a chronic defensive state. This could be really any chronic defensive state. Uh, the CPTSD in particular, I'll talk about fawn separately.

But C PTSD results from the impulse to connect chronically or consistently being cut off. Not only cut off, but rejected and shamed as well. So that person's connection impulses never completed. They don't ever actually get a healthy attachments with a safe other, which is unbelievably important for our foundations in life to be able to identify safety in others, but also within ourselves as well. Having a safe, other is the foundation that we use.

To build self-regulation and to provide a co-regulation to others in the future. So what then are the states of fawn since fawn is now a mixed state? In the book, it pretty much just says that it's flight fight and shutdown. I'm understanding this as the fight fighting state would be used for mobilization. But in this context, the person's not mobilizing to escape or be aggressive. Instead they're using that mobilization through hypervigilance.

And they're using that mobilization in order to meet the needs of the other person. But there's also, obviously I think obviously a heavy amount of shutdown. When it comes to fawn. The dissociation, they're surrendering the relinquishing of the self and one's power. Definitely comes from shutdown. So why would somebody fawn? Why would they stay in an abusive relationship? I think there's a common question.

So let's bring this back to what our biological imperative is, or maybe one of our biological imperatives. And that is. To find safety because being on our safety state, Is what allows us to optimize our resources for health and growth and restoration. So our bodies are compelled. To find homeostasis to find safety to self-regulate. But also yes. To receive co-regulation and give co-regulation as well. So the biological imperative is to find safety.

I think these fawning relationships don't really provide real safety, obviously, but there might be moments of feeling something like safety. There may be moments in between explosive rage episodes, where it feels like connection or a pseudo connection or close enough to connection. It may feel like protection. It may feel like, or may, maybe. Predictable. Just like with appeasement. Again, the goal is always safety to, to find connection. And appeasement brings. Kind of safety.

It's not actual safety, obviously. But it is some level of connection and that might do enough for the body to be able to reach some level of homeostasis and still use resources for health and growth and restoration at least enough. So with fawning, it's like a pseudo safety, not actual safety, obviously. There is a level of diminished threat and there probably is some level of predictability and predictability. In and of itself is kind of a cue of safety. But no, it's not actual safety.

So that's fawning and that's kind of how it could fit into the Polyvagal Theory. I have my questions. I have my doubts and I'm going to try to flesh those out. In an episode for you next. And then I will go into intimacy. But for now that's, that's it that's fawning through that lens of the Polyvagal Theory. I think it connects to flight fight and shutdown. I think shutdown, especially. I think that's a huge part of this.

And it also connects to the second path of trauma, which is the chronic disruption of connectedness that leaves somebody in a stuck defensive state. And when it comes to fawning, it's going to be more of that. I think, I think more of the shutdown stuck defense of state with. Some access to flight and fight. Thank you so much for joining me in this episode of stuck, not broken. Being stuck can show up in many different ways, not just fawning, but also anxiety. And anger and depression overwhelm.

Panic fear and more. You're probably well aware of this. I don't need to tell you. I know. So if you're ready to take the next steps on getting unstuck for yourself without spending a ton of money. I invite you to consider subscribing to stuck, not broken total access. You will gain exclusive access to the knowledge that you need through my Polyvagal trauma relief system. You'll also have the option of connecting with others and spending more time with me in the community.

Plus a bunch of other stuff. If you want to go even deeper. Into your untucking process. I'll put a link in the description for you to learn more about