Traumatic experiences that leave a deep mark on a person's life are not only remembered at the moment they occur, but also re-emerge emotionally at specific times thereafter. Even years later, certain dates, seasons, or similar circumstances can rekindle the emotional weight of these experiences. In psychoanalytic literature, this phenomenon is referred to as an anniversary reaction. An anniversary is not merely a date marked on a calendar; it represents an unconscious re-enactment of the traumatic event.

Loss is one of the most common domains in which anniversary reactions manifest. The grieving process that follows the death of a loved one requires a reorganization of both past relationships and future expectations. However, this process does not follow a linear trajectory; on certain dates or during specific moments—especially anniversaries—the impact of the loss becomes emotionally prominent again.

Anniversary reactions can manifest on emotional, cognitive, and somatic levels, even years after the loss. They may present as restlessness, withdrawal, recurring dreams, bodily symptoms, or tension in interpersonal relationships. At such times, the anniversary transforms from a mere chronological marker into a threshold where past and present intersect at an unconscious level.

To understand this phenomenon, Freud’s concept of repetition compulsion is particularly relevant: feelings related to the loss resurface on anniversaries in an unprocessed, unconscious form. Melanie Klein’s object relations theory also offers insight, emphasizing that loss is not merely the absence of an external figure, but a disruption within the internal object world. As such, anniversaries can make visible to what extent the individual has reestablished a sense of internal security or where emotional vulnerability persists.

Anniversary reactions are not limited to the individual level; they may also emerge in the context of transgenerational transmission. For instance, a person who lost a parent at a particular age may experience similar anxieties upon reaching that same age themselves—or may feel heightened concern when their own child reaches that age. This highlights an intergenerational dimension of anniversary responses.

Individuals who are able to acknowledge and integrate their loss tend to experience anniversaries in a more cohesive and manageable manner. In contrast, for those who deny or repress their grief, anniversaries may provoke more fragmented and intense emotional responses. Therefore, the presence of supportive spaces where loss can be symbolically processed becomes essential. Memorial rituals, shared expressions, or therapeutic settings can transform anniversaries from occasions of recurring pain into opportunities for meaning-making and emotional integration.

In conclusion, anniversary reactions reveal the prolonged impact of traumatic experiences and losses over time. Although the loss itself may not be left behind, the individual can revise their relationship with it and continue with life. These recurrences not only reproduce the pain but also reflect the continuity of mourning and the potential for inner reorganization.

Bibliography:

Dönmez, S.  (2019). Anniversary of Bereavement: Phenomenology of Anniversary Reactions on Traumatic Loss of a Loved One [Master's Thesis, Istanbul Bilgi University]. Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu Tez Merkezi database.

Boundaries are often seen simply as saying “no,” stopping a behavior, or creating distance.

In reality, they are much more than that. A boundary is not merely about setting a rule; it is about providing a safe framework for the relationship, preserving trust, and being able to accompany someone through difficult emotions.

This is where resilience truly comes into play. A person learns to cope with challenging emotions only when they have someone by their side who remains present, attuned, and willing to share the weight of those feelings.

Boundaries Are More Than Just Saying “No”

“I’ve told them so many times, but they still don’t understand” is a familiar frustration in relationships.

Often, this happens because the boundary is set solely in response to behavior, without addressing its emotional context.

A boundary is most effective when it is established within the relationship and in a way that acknowledges the other person’s feelings.

This is just as true in adult relationships: simply saying “I don’t want this” is not enough; we must also express why, while remaining mindful of the emotional impact.

Resilience Grows Through Holding, Not Suppressing

A strong and flexible inner self is not developed by being left alone with painful feelings.

Instead of stepping back with a dismissive “You’ll get over it,” it is far more powerful to say, “I’m here with you; I will stay with you through this.”

In relationships, this approach offers both the safety of the boundary and the reassurance of emotional support.

Resilience flourishes when there is a combination of secure connection and emotional accompaniment.

Positive and Relational Boundaries

Positive boundaries are not about punishment; they exist to protect the relationship and maintain trust.

In this approach, even when we say “no,” the connection remains intact, the reason behind the boundary is explained, and space is made for emotions.

For example:

Saying “You can’t talk to me like that” alone may not be enough.

Instead: “What you’re saying is hurtful to me. When I feel this way, I can’t continue the conversation.” This both sets a clear limit and creates space for emotional expression.

Resilience in Adult Relationships

In romantic partnerships, friendships, and professional settings, boundaries strengthen trust when they protect rather than sever the relationship.

In secure relationships, people can be close and also take healthy distance when needed.

Resilience is not only about standing strong alone; it is about being able to carry difficult emotions together with others.

The presence of someone who says “I’m here” is far more healing than the demand to face hardship alone.

Staying in Touch With Our Own Emotions

Setting boundaries is not only about the other person; it is also about our own emotional process.

How we respond to someone’s anger, how we react to their need for closeness, or why we are uncomfortable with distance; these are often rooted in our own past experiences.

When we can name and understand our own emotions, we are better able to hold space for the emotions of others.

This is the foundation of both personal and relational resilience.

Conclusion: Connection and Boundaries Go Hand in Hand

Setting boundaries is a way to protect trust, respect, and emotional connection within a relationship.

Boundaries that are emotionally attuned, non-cutting, and grounded in safety both nurture the relationship and strengthen resilience.

Because resilience is not only about standing strong. It is about carrying difficult emotions together.

A Reflection on Relational Structures from Parenting to Politics

The Silent Geography of Power: Invisible Configurations in Relationships

In parenting, social relationships, and of course politics, a deep understanding of the concept of “power” is of great significance. The way power is positioned is closely linked to hierarchy, generational differences, boundaries, and constraints. Both parents and states occupy a superior position in the hierarchical structure when compared to children and citizens, respectively. This position inherently carries a responsibility. However, the responsibility that comes with power can also present the risk of misuse or abuse.   The abuse of power by those “above” in the hierarchy—whether individuals or institutions—is often easier to recognize and, to some extent, predict. However, how those “below” may abuse or distort power is more complex and requires careful consideration. Importantly, such misuse is frequently shaped—whether by negligence or intentional guidance—by those in higher positions. No level of hierarchy functions entirely in isolation from the others.

The Ontology of Boundaries: The Role of Limitation in Individual Development

For instance, not fulfilling every desire of a child, and the occasional confrontation with limits and restrictions, is necessary. It is essential not only for the child’s psychological development but also for their social integration. Some parents, however, attempt to fulfill all of their child’s desires, thereby trapping them in a fantasy world rather than helping them build healthy boundaries. In such cases, the parent offers not only a role but also a reflection of their own powerlessness.

The Crisis of Directionless Power: The Disintegration of Inner Authority

Just as a politician who fails to question the direction and quality of their power—or a group that views itself as hierarchically superior to others—can ultimately harm society, the world, and themselves, so too can a parent who is unable to define direction in the relationship with their child, or who fails to build a distance between desire and reality, fall into a similar impasse.  In such scenarios, the child does not merely become the stage upon which the parent enacts their quest for gratification; the parent too becomes incapable of bearing the weight of their position. One who cannot manage or shape their power eventually drifts away from their own inner authority. Thus, abuse is not only directed outward—it also turns inward, toward the bearer of power, resulting in a subtle, disorganized, yet profound loss.

Conclusion: Bearing Power, Constructing Boundaries

No hierarchy functions in a single direction. Power is continually shaped through the interplay between those above and those below. The crucial question is: to what extent is this shaping a conscious process?