Ep 2: "Hurt People Hurt People." Great.
Now Let's Talk About Accountability.
You've seen it everywhere. On social media, in the comments, maybe even from people who should know better. Hurt people hurt people. And look, the spirit behind it is solid.
But (and it's a big but) somewhere along the way, it became a get-out-of-jail-free card. And that's where I have a problem with it.
In this episode, I unpack why understanding someone's pain and excusing their behaviour are not the same thing, and why conflating them is harmful. I make the case that accountability isn't the opposite of compassion, it's actually part of it.
This one might make you rethink some relationships. It might make you rethink your own behaviour. Either way, it's worth hearing.
In this episode:
-
Why the spirit of "hurt people hurt people" is good — and where it goes wrong
-
The difference between understanding behaviour and excusing it
-
When empathy without accountability becomes enabling
-
Why holding people responsible is empowering, not punitive
-
The two types of upbringings that make people vulnerable to this collapsed logic
-
How these dynamics show up in relationships — and why certain people find each other
If you've ever felt like you weren't allowed to be upset because there was a reason someone treated you badly, you'll find this helpful.
Transcript
What the Trauma Nerd Podcast is about
Hurt people hurt people" has been floating around social media a lot lately. It probably has been for a long time, but I don't actually use social media that much, so I haven't really noticed it before now. But I've seen it around a fair bit and it's generally fine. But some of the ways I've seen it applied recently basically inspired this podcast -- I think it's an important topic to discuss, especially on a trauma podcast.
Hello, my name is Helen Billows and this is the Trauma Nerd Podcast. I'm a registered psychologist, EMDR therapist -- if you don't know what EMDR therapy is, I've done a previous podcast on that. I'm also an EMDR supervisor, so I help teach other therapists how to do EMDR, and I also run a trauma-focused private practice in Adelaide, South Australia doing trauma therapy.
What "hurt people hurt people" actually means -- and what it gets right
You have likely heard this phrase before: hurt people hurt people. It sounds compassionate and psychologically informed, and it is. The spirit behind it is actually really solid.
The intended message is something along the lines of: when I have hurt others, it doesn't mean I'm a bad person. It means I was hurting. I was in a bad way. I wasn't behaving from the best version of myself.
I have no issues with that. I actually think that's a really lovely way to cast a self-compassionate lens over past behaviour that we don't feel good about, that maybe we're carrying some shame or guilt around.
When we say "hurt people hurt people," we're effectively separating our behaviour from our character. We're saying: my behaviour was bad, but I'm not a bad person. We can retain our good character while acknowledging we behaved badly -- which is really important because in most cases, when we behave badly, we're still good people. We've just done something bad, and all humans do bad things.
So it allows that reflection without the toxic shame that we're fundamentally bad.
Where "hurt people hurt people" goes wrong -- and why it matters
The place where I have a problem with this statement is when the wires get crossed. And wires are absolutely getting crossed -- because I'm seeing this applied incorrectly and in ways that are, in my opinion, very unhelpful.
I've seen this happen a lot on social media, but I've also seen it in mainstream media. Recently, internationally, I believe government representatives -- definitely people in the media -- talking in this way, which is very concerning because these people have actual influence and rather big audiences.
So I'm here to set the record straight on "hurt people hurt people."
First of all, let me be very clear. Trauma-informed and psychologically informed thinking is fabulous. We're definitely on the right track here. The spirit, like I said, is good.
The problem is this is being applied incorrectly -- where we are not appropriately balancing empathy with personal responsibility. We need those balanced. Empathy and responsibility.
But when empathy overtakes accountability on the scales, we've got a really big problem.
Does trauma excuse bad behaviour? -- why psychological context doesn't cancel responsibility
Psychological context does not negate your personal responsibility for your behaviour.
Understanding someone's pain does not automatically make their harmful behaviour acceptable or excusable.
These two concepts are separate.
Some examples of what this collapse of logic can actually sound like in practice: we're basically saying "it's not my fault because of the circumstances." So I'm justifying and excusing behaviour because I had a bad day, or I'm stressed, or you said something that upset me.
Some common things are when parents lose their cool, flip their lid in anger, and have an outburst and say: well, I only did that because you did this. Or: I only did that because I've been really stressed lately and that's why I did it.
Sure -- what they're providing there is context for their behaviour. But we're missing the responsibility element entirely.
The difference between empathy without accountability and accountability without empathy
All empathy and no responsibility sounds like: they hurt me, but they were going through a lot, so it's not really their fault. They can't be held responsible for their behaviour. That removes accountability and it doesn't work. That's in the bin.
All responsibility and no empathy sounds like: I don't care what you've been through. You did something wrong. End of story. That also doesn't work. That's in the bin.
What we're aiming for is both at the same time -- responsibility for harm alongside understanding and empathy. That balance is the whole point. That's the Goldilocks version.
From a psychological standpoint, most behaviour is understandable. We can make sense of it when we consider and integrate somebody's history, their personality style, their temperament, their attachment patterns, their trauma exposure. We can generally make sense of how someone has arrived at a particular behaviour. That is one of the basic ideas of clinical psychology.
But understanding is not the same as accepting. And empathy is not the same thing as exoneration.
In practice, in therapy -- whether you're with a therapist, a psychologist, or a counsellor -- your context and history should never be used to excuse or even reduce your responsibility and accountability for your behaviour.
Why trauma can explain bad behaviour but never excuses it
A history of trauma, pain, and adversity can explain behaviour. Absolutely.
But it doesn't absolve anybody of responsibility for their behaviour -- and especially for the harm they cause. Heavy on the harm.
Because what's going on here is we're collapsing two truths that need to stay independent and coexist. The first is that pain, suffering, and trauma influence behaviour. The second is that people are responsible for their behaviour. These two things are true simultaneously.
How low-accountability family dynamics create this pattern in adulthood
I suspect there are a group of people for whom this collapsed logic mirrors the emotional logic they grew up with in their family environment.
For example: a parent who lashed out because they were stressed. A caregiver whose behaviour got excused because they had a hard life. An adult whose feelings always came first, even when they caused harm.
In these environments, even when the perpetrator causes harm and suffering, the child's feelings are ignored, dismissed, or minimised -- because the adult's circumstances are framed as exonerating them of responsibility.
So the message becomes: it's not my fault because there's a reason I did it.
How trauma bonding forms around low-accountability relationship dynamics
In adulthood, these people tend to find each other.
You've got person one who grew up believing they are not allowed to be angry when people treat them badly. And you've got person two who grew up believing their feelings and circumstances justify their behaviour.
So these two people agree on something: my feelings are more important than yours, and you can't be mad when I treat you badly because there's a reason for it. That is a trauma bond.
When empathy replaces responsibility, several things happen. Empathy shifts away from victims and towards perpetrators. Harm begins to be framed as inevitable. Understanding becomes confused with forgiveness.
If we're using somebody's pain -- including our own -- as an excuse, we're enabling bad behaviour.
Why accountability is empowering, not punitive
Accountability is not punitive. It's empowering.
Responsibility gives us agency and power, and it makes change possible.
Your trauma, suffering, and adversity matter. They deserve compassion and empathy. But compassion and empathy must always be balanced with personal responsibility.
Understanding behaviour and taking responsibility for behaviour must coexist.
Signing off
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of the Trauma Nerd Podcast. If this resonated, share it with somebody -- maybe even send it passive aggressively to someone who needs to hear it.
Please send your questions and future topics through to the website. I love hearing your ideas on what to explore next.
Thank you so much and I'll see you next time.