Self

Self-inflicted Pain in Religious Experience
“Seek Pain, seek pain, pain, pain!” – Rumi
In cultures across the globe and
throughout time, people have been inflicting
painful body rituals on themselves as a method
of exploring religious experience. What are the
religious and psychological motivations for
such actions? It can be suggested that pain
within ritual context fulfil certain psychological
needs in humans. What are these needs and
do such rituals affect them? Does the use of
pain reflect a love of endorphins, a deeper
experience or a psychological imbalance? This
paper seeks to discuss ritualised self-inflicted
pain and explore potential answers to these
questions.
Pain is a broad category within religious
ritual and is perhaps the most taboo in
Western society. Despite this, rituals involving
pain can be found cross culturally in many
different faiths from around the world, often
among ascetics. Some are inflicted by others,
many are self-inflicted. One well-known
example of religious masochism is the piercing
performed during the Plains Indians’ Sundance
(Bolelli). Other examples could be found in the
practices of Hindu yogis like Kavadi and fire
walking (Wulff 89), Christian flagellants,

Muslim Shi’ite self-injury (Esposito 113) and
body scarification among African tribal
religions. There is Buddhist lore of Zen
students achieving enlightenment after being
injured by their masters (Horgan 134). All of
these actions share a common thread of
valuing pain as important to religious
experience.
On a biological level, all pain is virtually
the same. What takes place in the body is
universal among humans, though reactions are
often heavily dependant on the context
(Glucklich 15). The American Medical
Association describes pain as an “unpleasant
sensation related to tissue damage” (11).
When a human feels pain, the body will release
adrenalin into the blood stream, raises heart
rate and respiration, as well as flooding the
blood stream with sugars and redistributing
blood within the heart, lungs and limbs and
away from organs (71). This is known as the
“fight-or-flight” response, evolving in humans
as a means of survival (70, 72).
However, there is more to the
experience of pain than the physiological
responses by the human body. There is
evidence to suggest that the feeling of pain is
often minimised or completely ignored if there
are more pressing circumstances present. This

is often the case with soldiers who experience
severe injuries and report feeling no pain until
they are removed from danger (Wall 137). The
importance of context suggests that the mind
plays a large role in the way pain is felt and
interpreted (Glucklich 52). This can also be
seen by comparing the reactions of car
accident victims and soldiers who experience
the same injury; research shows that the
accident victim will often report higher levels of
pain and emotional damage, while the soldier
will account much less pain and view it in the
positive context of a “lifesaver” (59, 88).
Ascetics have long acknowledged the
value of placing pain in the appropriate
context. It is exactly the psychological effort of
placing their sufferings into a context they feel
is relevant and important that many can
endure their self-injury (or even natural pains).
Catholic Saint Maria Maddalena is one such
example; for much of her life, Maria inflicted
severe torture on herself in an effort to
“transform her mind into an instrument of
Jesus.” However, when Maria become severely
ill, she found the pain of her illness unbearable
until she learned to place that, too, into a
context of value that brought the pain meaning
and made it “desirably sweet” (Glucklich 83).
To fully understand the value of pain

within body ritual, one must examine the
models by which pain has been historically
used within ritual. Despite the fact that pain is,
on a biological level, always the same (c-fiber
excitation), people have used within many
different paradigms of faith.
Ariel Glucklich outlines five relevant
ways in which pain is approached within a
religious context. The Juridical model describes
ritual pain that is approached from the
perspective of punishment. Glucklick offers the
example of the flagellant, hurting themselves
as penance for their sins. He also suggests that
this pain has the advantage of removing fear
of punishment from a greater source (God or
karma) or one’s own guilt. (16-21). The
military model is compared to a battle against
an enemy. Though most would view pain as
the enemy, Christian and Muslim writers often
have viewed the embodied soul as the enemy.
From this, pain actually becomes the weapon
by which the enemy is fought; hurting the
flesh is used to liberate the soul. John Calvin
was one famous Christian theologian who held
to this perspective. Ascetics who subscribe to
this psychology of pain highly value the pain
they wreak on themselves, and often natural
pains they may suffer from. Simeon the
Stylite, a Catholic saint, is said to have literally

tortured himself to death for love of pain (23-
24). There is athletic pain, which involves
using pain as a tool for training the body as
common with yogis (24-25). A magical model
for pain is characterised as a transformative
occurrence often experienced by mystics (25-
28). Lastly, Glucklick discusses
psychotropic/ecstatic pain, which is used to
stimulate euphoric states or altered levels of
consciousness, which he also attributes to
ascetics of various religions (30-31).
It is vital to understand the way our
bodies react to pain to understand why people
have historically used it as a tool for religious
and mystical experience. Ralph W. Hood Jr., a
sociologist who has conducted experiments on
the body under stress, has suggested that the
mind can turn stress in the body into bursts of
ecstasy, in an effort to temporarily relieve the
tension. Simply reversing the norms that the
body experiences – causing the body to act
and feel sensations that are not common
within daily life – can create a temporary high
within the individual that can bring a feeling of
transcendence (Ellwood 141).
Endorphins also play a heavy role in
pain-induced religious experiences. Feeling a
sensation of pain, the body reacts by secreting
a pain-relieving chemical that can also induce

feelings of euphoria. Research shows that
during periods of prolonged physical activity
(including pain) within humans, there is a
physiological response of an increased heart
rate, lowered blood pressure, reduction of
stress hormones and release of these
endorphins. Together these can create an
altered state of conscious and a temporary
“high” (Wulff 88). The attraction of self-inflicted
pain ritual may be closely tied to this.
Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili
classify the pain method of religious experience
as “bottom-up.” In this method, the religious
experience being sought is achieved by
“exploit[ing] the arousal component of the
autonomic system, which triggers the body’s
fight-or-flight response, causing adrenaline to
be pumped into the bloodstream, boosting
heart rate and respiration” (Horgan 74). In
Robert Ellwood’s polarity of techniques in
mystic experience, pain falls at one end of the
“Hard-Easy” class, as it often involves going
through physically difficult and strenuous
experiences in order to reach the goal (86).
It is important to note that the
association with physiological reactions within
the body and mystical experiences does not
imply that reducing these occurrences to
purely physical states is an accurate

representation. It would be logically fallacious
to assume that because altered brain states
can be simulated or induced within the
laboratory through pain usage (or, more
frequently, meditation or drug use), that there
is nothing “beyond” those states. It is possible
that these altered physiological states simply
make the mind more receptive to the
metaphysical. William James himself argues
strongly against this assumption of medical
reductionism (15). Likewise, Andrew Newberg
also emphasises that an experience cannot be
judged solely by the neurological event that
may be its basis; having a measurable
biological difference does not invalidate any
such experiences (Horgan 82).
From aforementioned models, one can
see the various perspectives by which pain is
viewed within a religious context. But what
value does pain bring to those who use it
within their rituals? There are several primary
values that mystics and users of pain ritual
have claim: for emotional release, for relief of
guilt or payment for sins, as a means of self-sacrifice,
or to experience an altered state of
consciousness or connection with the divine.
Often pain is used as a way to achieve a
great emotional release, as the stress on the
body from the pain can produce emotional

responses that might not otherwise have been
accomplished. A Lakota man suffering from
many problems and accompanying depression
tells of his experience receiving chest piercings
at the Sun Dance ceremony, “I felt pain, but I
also felt that closeness with the Creator. I felt
like crying for all the people who needed my
prayers. . . it brought tears to my eyes”
(Glucklich 148).
Another value found within religious
pain is that of relief of guilt or pre-emptive
payment for sins done wrong, which falls with
the aforementioned juridical model. Many
psychoanalysts, including Freud, share a
similar perspective towards pain usage
(Glucklich 86). This is often the reason found
within the motivations of Christian saints and
martyrs. In some instances, punishing the
body can be viewed as a way for the person to
“pay” for their committed sins, serving to both
relieve guilt and anxiety towards the justice
they believe will be served at death. Obviously,
this can hold a positive psychological value to
the person who chooses to inflict pain on
themselves for this reason (17).
Pain is also can be used as a mode of
self-sacrifice. Sacrifice for one’s religious
community, God, ancestors or religious figure
has the value of a surrendering of the ego and

symbolically showing one’s appreciation for the
object of their action. This can be clearly be
seen within the act of the Sun Dance of the
Plains Indians, who pierce and tear their flesh
as an act of physically honouring one’s
ancestors and communities (Bolelli), as well as
with the Muslim flagellants who injure
themselves in mourning for Hussein and the
massacre at Karbala (Esposito 113). Cal Jung
sees this sort of self-sacrifice as a constructive
surrender of the ego (Glucklich 84), but it can
also be seen as a positive way of strengthening
the ego and revitalizing the essential goals of
the person as a whole (109).
Lastly, pain is frequently used as a
means of achieving a mystical experience,
either a connection with the divine or an
altered state of consciousness within oneself.
This form of pain is found in both the magical
and psychotropic models of pain. This can be
(and often is) achieved by using pain to over-stimulate
the senses to cause a change in level
of consciousness (Wulff 75). This can be seen
in many ascetical practices and also within the
contemporary movement paradoxically named
“modern primitivism” which often uses painful
body ritual for spiritual or psychological
advancement (Pitts 125). Through the use of
pain, an over stimulated body will react by

releasing chemicals such as endorphins that
can lead to altered physiological and
psychological states (Ellwood 141). It is here
that people often may experience a connection
with the divine or an altered mental state
within themselves.
While self-inflicted pain within a
religious context is not a common topic for
writings within psychology, one can find
writings discussing pain using object-relations
theory and from the psychoanalytical view
(particularly Freud and Jung) and William
James’ functionalist perspective.
Freud and Freudian psychoanalysts hold
the perspective that self-inflicted religious pain
is the ego’s reaction to feelings of guilt,
stimulated by issues entrenched within the
superego.” Glucklich gives the example of the
Christian mystic who wears a corset embedded
with nails; Freudian psychoanalysts would see
this as evidence of a psychological conflict of
trying to repress the seductive nature of flesh
(41). Freud’s interpretation sees self-inflicted
pain as serving a negative function or role
within the religious person’s life (89). From this
perspective, the function of pain is the
appeasement of the psychological struggle to
deal with the relations between the ego and
the superego, often in the context of religious

guilt of a sexual nature. Masochists of this
nature are very often associated with sexuality
within psychoanalytical writings, eroticising
pain as a means of controlling guilt (86).
Though Freud did not, Carl Jung differentiated
between pathological neurosis and self-sacrificial
forms of religious pain, the former
being destructive and the latter being a
positive surrender of the ego (84). Later
psychoanalysts expanded their evaluations of
the use of pain to extend past sexual feelings
to other cultural issues. The focus shifts to
viewing the object as a means of affirming
self-worth or an extension of one’s identity
(101).
Object-relations theory, an offshoot of
psychoanalysis, also provides a similar means
of exploring the function of religious
masochism. This theory views human
psychology as a world of relationships, rather
than drives. From this perspective, common
objects can become what is called a “self-object,”
an extension of one’s self-image
(Glucklich 103). In this aspect, one finds the
value of pain within the tools used in religious
self-hurt from the relations by which they are
associated. The nail-studded corset may be
associated with the mother, for example, or
the razor blade with the father. The symbolism

of an object when used to inflict pain may act
as a tool for affecting one’s cognitive self-identity
(104).
William James, a forefront in American
psychology, viewed self-inflicted religious pain
from a functionalist perspective. James offers
several theories on the usage of pain in
religious context. He supposes it is possible
that they are due to pessimistic feelings about
the self, a way of escaping later suffering in
the afterlife, or even the result of a distortion
of the senses that allows the body to interpret
pain as pleasure (252). Though James is
critical of the usage of pain as excessive (304),
he also believes that it can serve a role within
religious faith. James believes that conversion
experiences in religion are most common when
the body or mind experiences a dramatic
event; he writes that the “sick soul” has the
greatest prospective for experiencing a
connection to the divine (Glucklich 127) and
cites cases with experimental psychology in
which there is a large association between
painful activities and spiritual experiences
(128).
It is evident that self-inflicted pain has
been frequently used within religious contexts
and often with great value to the practitioner.
Use of religious pain has been demonstrated to

have a variety of motivations, from the
religious explanation to that of the
psychologist. Neither science nor religion can
tell whether self-inflicted pain is something
simple, like neurosis or endorphin addiction or
a complex and intricate mechanism for altering
one’s consciousness or even making a
connection with a greater reality. While there
are few answers and many questions
remaining, this information brings up many
valid points and provides for a future of
interesting exploration into the psychology of
religion.
Self-Injury and Pain
Information Provided by Melissa Flores, Pitzer College
For the most part, people try everything that they can
to reduce pain. Throughout this semester, I have
learned about the biological, psychological, and cultural
aspects of pain. It seems that within most cultures,
biology and psychology are used to explain pain so that
it can be reduced. Because most people seem to try
whatever they can to reduce pain, I thought it would be
interesting to look at pain that is self-inflicted. The
following pages are an attempt to understand self-injury
in different historical and cultural contexts, to
understand the psychological and biological aspects of
deviant self-mutilation and the recent phenomena of the
modern primitive within the US.
If you would like to find information on a specific topic,

please click ahead to any link.
Self-Injury Through History and in Many Cultures
Defining Self-Injurious Behavior
Research in the Causes of Deviant Self-Injurious Behavior
The Link to Suicide
Gender and Self-Injury
The Modern Primitive Movement
Links to Resources on the Web
References
Self-Inury Through History and in Many Cultures
Self-injury and multilation have been prevalent
throughout history and in many cultures today. Self-injury
in a cultural sense includes both acts of injury towards
oneself and willingly allowing others to inflict pain or
injury. In many cases, self-injury is related to religious
beliefs and practices. The practice of self-injury may be so
prevalent because it is part of many creation myths. For
example, in the Indian myth Rigveda, the gods tie up
Purusa, sacrafice him, and divide his body into portions
(Favazza, 1996). Each part of his body becomes a different
part of the world. His eyes become the sun, his mind the
moon, and his head becomes the sky. His feet become the
earth. Creation myths full of bodily destruction are not
only prevalent in Eastern cultures. In a Scandinavian myth
about Prose Edda, it is believed that a cow and a giant,
Ymir, were both mutilated by the gods to create the world.

In this myth, Ymir's blood became the sea and lakes, his
flesh became the earth, his bones became the mountains,
and his teeth and jaws become rocks, and his skull became
the sky (Favazza, 1996).
The myth of mutilation may be what leads many cultures
to engage in rituals that seem barbaric according to
Western standards. In some cultures, enduring painful
rituals are a way to prove that one is worthy of a certain
position in society. In many cultures such as that of Siberia
and Australian Aborigines, it is believed that for one to be
become a Shaman they have to endure rituals that include
torutre and dismemberment, reduction of the body to the
skeleton by scraping away of the flesh, and a renewal of
blood. It is believed that these rituals will allow one to
spend time in hell and the ascend to Heaven after which
they will be able to heal others (Favazza, 1996).
Enduring pain and mutilation to gain a position in
religion is not common in Western religions today, but it
has been common in Christianity throughout history. Many
of the people viewed as martyrs and saints to do gained
their status by enduring some type of painful mutilation.
The very basis of Christianity is a belief that Jesus Christ
allowed himself to be nailed to a cross in order to save
people from their sins (Favazza, 1996). The idea that slef-injury
can be a form of repentance may stem from this.
The idea that pain must be endured in order to prove one's
faith can be seen in the story of Saint Potitus. Potitus was
stretched on a rack when he refused to denounce his
religion and for enduring this pain, he gained the status of a
saint (Favazza, 1996).
Examples of actual rituals involve self-injury can be

found in many cultures to this day. In Papua New Guinea,
it is common for men to injure their noses. Nasal
mutilation is practiced in initiation rituals of male
adolescents. In the coming of age ritual in the Gahuka-
Gana tribe in Papua New Guinea, boys are covered with
clay by their mothers before they are sent off to a river
where warriors wait for them. At the river, they insert
sticks and leaves up their noses to induce hemorraging.
Boys spend six weeks living with warriors, repeating the
ritual until their initiation into manhood is complete
(Hogbin, 1970). The reason for inducing nasal
hemorraging in these tribes is that it is a way for a boy to
cleanse himself and is related to female menstruation.
Finger mutilation is common in many tribes in Africa.
In one tribe, the Dugum Dani in New Guinea young girls
cut their fingers off as a sacrifice at funerals. In another
tribe, the Bushman of Africa, it is believed that sickness
can be cured by removing parts of the fingers. In this tribe,
part of a finger is removed for every sickness that someone
gets, started with the little finger (Favazza, 1996). The
Hottentot tribe removed parts of the fingers as a sign of
engagement or marriage. It was believed that in order to
remarry, a widow had to remove a finger to break the bond
between herself and her dead husband. In the Pacific
Islands, finger amputation is common as a sign of
mourning after the death of a close relative.
May other forms of culturally sanctioned self-injury exist
and rituals include injury of almost every body part. Self-injurious
behavior has been recognized by many fields of
study including anthropology, suicidology, criminology,
psychiatry, biology, and psychology to name a few (McKay

& Ross, 1979). The many terms used to refer to self-injurious
behavior include such terms as self-aggressive
behavior, parasuicide, symbolic wounding, self-mutilation,
self-destructive behavior, and deliberate self-harm among
other terms(McKay & Ross, 1979). Terms used to discuss
self-injurious behavior bring with them different
connotations of what the behavior means or entails. For
instance parasuicide makes one think that the self-injurious
behavior is related to some suicide intent when in fact
many researchers believe that self-injurious behavior does
not correlate with suicidal behavior. The many fields that
study self-injurious behavior also have different takes on
what the behavior can mean. These issues make the study
and definition of self-injurious behavior difficult and are
part of the reason why research on the problem of self-injurious
behavior has not been prevalent until recently.
Back to Table of Contents
Defining Self-Injurious Behavior
In a review by Favazza (1998), he found that self-injurious
behavior has been described throughout history
and that it is found in many cultures around the world. In
many cultures, self-injurious behavior is used in many
religious rituals and most commonly in coming of age
rituals (Favazza, 1998). In the Hindu culture, people pierce
themselves to make themselves more appealing to the God
Murugon. In the Aztec culture, they anointed sacred idols
with blood from their penises as a sign of devotion. The
type of self-injurious behavior that is culturally sanctioned
is not viewed as a form of deviant self-injurious behavior.

The cases of self-injurious behavior that will be
discussed here are all viewed as a deviant form of self-injurious
behavior, although the definition differs among
researchers. Research on deviant self-injurious behavior
began in the late 1960’s and focused on wrist cutting
behavior. In a study by Graff and Mallin (1967) the typical
wrist cutter was portrayed as “an attractive, intelligent,
unmarried young woman, who is either promiscuous or
overtly afraid of sex, easily addicted and unable to relate to
others…” Early studies on self-injurious behavior were
faulted as they focused only on one type of behavior, wrist
cutting, which they linked to suicide. They excluded
individuals who injured themselves in different ways
(Favazza, 1998).
It was not until Kahan and Pattison (1983) put together a
prototype model for deliberate self-harm syndrome that
they derived from 56 published reports that self-injurious
behavior was taken to be a disorder that was separate from
suicide. Their syndrome was described as multiple
episodes of low lethality self-injurious acts such as cutting
and burning. The acts were characterized by a sense of
relief and there was no conscious suicidal intent in self-injurers.
The behavior usually endured for several years.
The distinction between self-injury and suicide is made by
more recent researchers who believe that the behavior is an
attempt to feel better whereas suicide is an attempt to end
all feeling (Favazza, 1987; Tantam & Whitaker, 1992;
Rosen & Walsh, 1988).
Deviant self-injury is broken into three main types of
before. The first is major self-injury. It consists of
infrequent acts in which a great deal of tissue is destroyed,

usually by castration or amputation. This type of behavior
is associated with psychotic or intoxicated states.
Stereotypic self-injury consists of fixed, often rhythmic
patterns such as head banging, eyeball pressing, and finger
or arm biting. It is most commonly associated with autism
and mental retardation. Superficial or moderate self-injury
is the most common form of self-injury. It is usually a
significant indicator of emotional stress and usually is of
low lethality. It is usually sporadic and repetitive. It seems
to have an addictive quality and is most common in the
form of skin cutting or burning. The research that will be
reviewed here is based on superficial self-injury.
Research on the Causes of Deviant Self-Injurious Behavior
Once researchers had some sense of a definition of self-injurious
behavior, the next step was to try to understand
what causes the behavior. Much of the research has shown
that there is a correlation between self-injurious behavior
and childhood events. The belief is that self-injurious
behavior occurs in people who endure stressful situations in
childhood such as physical or sexual abuse, neglect by
parents, loss of a parent in childhood due to death or
divorce and other stressful situations. Other researchers
believe that self-injurious behavior may be learned by
children who endure physical types of abuse because of the
chemical released in their bodies during abuse. Still other
researchers think of self-injurious behavior as a symptom
of other disorders such as personality disorders or bipolar
disorder (Favazza, 1996).

In a study of childhood origins of self-injurious
behavior, Herman, Perry, and van der Kolk (1991), studied
seventy-four subjects with personality disorders or bipolar
II disorder over an average of four years. Subjects were
monitored for suicide attempts, self-injurious behavior and
eating disorders. A self-report of childhood trauma,
disruptions of parental care, and dissociative phenomena
were obtained. Dissociative phenomena are defined as
feelings of numbness, feeling “dead” or “unreal”.
Childhood trauma and disruption of parental care were
obtained with the Traumatic Antecedent Questionnaire.
Self-destructive behavior was broken into seven
categories, including suicide attempts, cutting, other self-injurious
behavior such as head banging, picking or
burning, suicide attempts plus self-injurious behavior,
binge eating, anorexia, and risk taking. Correlations were
run on the type of behavior and type of disorder, type of
trauma experienced in childhood and dissociation. Of the
disorders that the subjects were diagnosed with, borderline
personality pathology was the only one related to suicide
attempts, cutting, and other self-injurious behavior
(Hermann et al, 1991). Childhood trauma scores were
related to suicide attempts, cutting, other self-injurious
behavior, and anorexia. Sexual abuse was most strongly
related to all forms of self-destructive behavior.
Witnessing domestic violence was highly correlated to
suicide attempts. Dissociation scores were correlated with
cutting behavior and anorexia. An important finding in this
study also showed that subjects who reported histories of
sexual abuse and those with severe histories of neglect and
separation were the most likely to continue self-destructive

behavior during the follow-up phase of the study even if
they were in therapy (Hermann et al, 1991).
A study by Anderson, Herbison, Martin, Mullen, Phil
and Romans (1995) focused on the relationship of sexual
abuse in childhood and deliberate self-injury. Their study
was based on the conclusions found from such studies as
those by Herman et al (1991). In their study, they focused
on community samples rather than samples of individuals
diagnosed with disorders. They selected a random sample
of women who had reported having been sexually abused
as children and a similar group that did nor report abuse
(Anderson et al, 1995). Women who were originally
selected for the control group who later reported incidents
of sexual abuse in childhood were included in the
experimental group. Of the women interviewed, only 23
(4.8% of the entire study population) reported a history of
deliberate self-injury. Of these 23 women, 22 reported
sexual abuse in childhood. 91% of the women who were
interviewed who had histories of sexual abuse in childhood
did not engage in deliberate self-injury. The individuals
who did engage in self-injurious behavior differed from
other subjects in that they tended to have other negative
childhood influences including physical abuse by a parent,
neglect by parents, and loss of a parent to separation or
divorce. The findings by Anderson et al. suggest that
although sexual abuse seems to be a factor involved in self-injurious
behavior, it is not a predictor of that behavior
(1995). The findings suggest that a combination of
stressful childhood experiences lead to these types of
behavior.
Another approach to understanding causes of self-

injurious behavior are based on a biological model. Most
of the research on episodic and repetitive self-injury has
focused on chemical levels in subjects. In one study,
Coccaro, Klar, and Siever (1989) tried to show a relation
between serotonergic system functions in the brain and
self-injurious behavior. They found a relationship between
low serotonin and increased impulsive aggression against
others and oneself. The findings failed to show why some
individuals showed aggressive behavior towards others and
some show aggressive behavior toward themselves
(Coccaro et al, 1989).
A more reasonable chemical explanation of self-injurious
behavior is given by Russ (1992). It was found that there
were increased levels of enkephalins in the blood plasma of
habitual cutters. These self-cutters stated that the cutting
was painless and that they performed the act in order to
provide temporary relief from dissociation. Russ believed
that the behavior may be related to an addiction to
enkephalins. He explained that an individual may become
addicted to enkephalins in the same way that one becomes
addicted to other opiates such as heroin. As the levels of
enkephalins lower in the body of a self-cutter, they have to
repeat the behavior to avoid withdrawal symptoms.
Although Russ's theory explains why many self-cutters
may continue the behavior, it fails to explain what triggers
the behavior.
The Link To Suicide
Studies using biological models are helpful in trying to
understand the chemical components of why self-injurers

continue behavior, but they do fail to acknowledge the
psychological aspects of self-injury and they tend to link
the behavior to suicidal tendencies. Many researchers have
suggested that self-injurious behavior should not be
referred to as attempts of suicide. Some researchers
suggest that the behavior is actually an alternative to
suicidal behavior. Farrand and Solomon (1996) believe
that it is imperative to separate self-injury from a definition
of suicide if researchers truly want to understand the
behavior.
Farrand and Solomon criticize such individuals as
Fredman, Lucey, and Reder (1991) who assume that all
self-injury is an attempt to show others that a crisis is
beyond an individual's control and that individuals are on
the way to suicidal tendencies (1996). Farrand and
Solomon believe that the behavior is often not used to
communicate with others, especially since many people
who engage in self-cutting or self-burning behavior do so
in private and hide the injuries from others. They suggest
that the behavior is more a way for an individual to gain
control for themselves. They interviewed four young
women who engaged in self injurious behavior to show that
the behavior is not related to suicidal intent.
The first girl interviewed, Helen, began self-injuring at
11 and continued until the time of the interview ten years
later. She explains her self-injuring as a form of coping, a
way of transforming emotional problems into more
manageable physical pain. Helen emphasized the fact that
she chooses to self-injure as a way to keep herself from
feeling the need to commit suicide. Another girl, Sue,
explains that she uses self-injury as a way to deal with

anger. She says that when she is angry and cuts herself, it
immediately calms her down. Carol also uses self-injury as
a way to deal with anger. She believes that her anger is a
result of sexual abuse by her father while she was growing
up. Carol, unlike the other girls described does have
suicidal tendencies along with her tendency to self-injury.
She does make a distinction between the state of mind she
is in when she self-injures and the state of mind that she is
in when she tries to commit suicide. Liz, the last girl
interviewed, uses cutting herself as an alternative to being
depressed. She says that it helps her deal with stress. Liz
makes a distinction between suicide and self-injury, the
same way that Carol does, although she does say that it
becomes hard to explain that to other people. Liz said that
her attempts at suicide included overdosing rather than
cutting, her form of self-injury. She explains that even if
her self-cutting is not an attempt to commit suicide, if other
people asked her if she was trying to kill herself she would
probably say yes. She explains that the self-injury and
suicide intent become blurred in her mind because of other
people's perceptions of her behavior. Liz's sentiment make
it clear that a distinction between self-injury and suicide is
hard to make but that it is imperative to understanding the
two different behaviors (Farrand & Solomon, 1996).
Although Farrand and Solomon's study was based on
interviews with girls known to self-injury, the types of
answers given by the girls for why they self-injure are
similar to the answers given by women in another study.
Williams and Wilkins (1994) looked at patients suffering
from bipolar disorder and personality disorders. In their
study, they looked at methods of self-injury, privacy vs.

exhibitionism, impulsivity vs. premeditation, and pain vs.
analgesia for pain. They also provided a question for
participants about the main reasons that they self-injure.
Wilkins and Williams found that cutting/scratching (80%)
was by far the most common type of self-injury. They also
found that 51% of their participants reported feeling no
pain when self-injuring as opposed to 29% who reported
feeling pain often. Participants reported the behavior being
more impulsive (51%) than premeditated(29%).
The most important findings by William and Wilkins
relate to the reasons that patients gave for self-injury. The
number one response (59%) for why they self-injured was
"to feel concrete pain when the other pain I am feeling is so
overwhelming and confusing that I can't grasp it"
(Williams and Wilkins, 1994). The second highest answer
(49%) for why they self-injured was to punish themselves
for being "bad" or feeling angry. One other reason that was
given by many participants (39%) was that they used self-injury
to reduce anxiety and despair that they felt they
could not otherwise control (Williams & Wilkins, 1994).
None of the participants said that they self-injured as an
attempt to commit suicide and only 7% of the participants
said that the self-injury helped to keep them from acting on
suicidal feelings, suggesting that there is a difference
between suicidal behavior and self-injurious behavior.
Overall, it seems that the main reasons that people self-injury
is due to a need to control emotion that they feel they
can not otherwise control.

Gender and Self-Injury
Among researchers on superficial self-injury, there
seems to be a consensus that more females engage in this
type of behavior than males (Conterio & Favazza, 1986;
Farrand & Solomon, 1996; Favazza, 1998). In their 1986
survey, Conterio and Favazza found that 97% of
respondents were female, and they compiled a "portrait" of
the typical self-injurer, similar to the portrait put together
by Graff and Mallin (1967). They believed the typical self-injurer
to be female, in her mid-20s to early 30s, engaging
in the behavior since her early teens. They believed she
would be from middle- or upper-middle-class families,
intelligent, well-educated, and from a background of
physical and/or sexual abuse or from a home with at least
one alcoholic parent. Eating disorders were often reported.
In Favazza's latest review of research on self-injury, he
maintains the same portrait of the typical self-injurer
(1998). It seems that in thirty years not much has changed
in terms of the type of people who self-injure.
Research on why women engage in self-injurious
behavior more often than men is not very common
although the reasons for it have been speculated by many
researchers. Several thoughts on why women tend to self-injury
more often than men do revolve around aggression
and gender socialization. Miller believes that women are
socialized to internalize anger and men are taught to
externalize it (1994). This explanation is based on the
belief that it is more acceptable for a women to hurt herself
than to express anger towards others. It may also be that
men are taught to repress emotions so they may be able to
keep emotions inside without them becoming

overwhelming. Men may also have more opportunity to
express anger they might feel towards themselves in violent
acts that are not related back to their feelings. For instance,
if a man is upset with himself or depressed, he may pick a
fight with another person without realizing that the
aggression stems from his personal feelings (Miller, 1994).
Miller's explanation seems to be acceptable given the
reasons that many women in the studies reviewed here gave
for why they self-injure. Farrand and Solomon found in
their interviews of girls that self-injury is often a reaction to
feelings of anger (1996). In Williams and Wilkins study,
they found that a high percentage of women self-injure
because they think they have been "bad" for feeling angry
(1994). It seems that the way that women are socialized
not to be outwardly aggressive may have an effect on their
aggressive behavior towards themselves.
In the past thirty years since deviant self-injurious
behavior became of interest to researchers, much has been
learned about the type of people who are at risk for this
type of behavior. Psychological studies have shown that
traumatic events in childhood, especially sexual abuse, are
related to self-injurious behavior later in life. Biologists
have tried to explain how chemical differences in people
who self-injure may lead to the behavior. Despite all the
studies that have been done, superficial self-injurious
behavior is still highly misunderstood. The one point that
most researchers seem to agree on is that self-injurious
behavior is separate from suicidal behavior and should be
treated as such.

The Modern Primitive Movement
In the discussion of self-injurious behavior, the focus has
been on cultural practices in primitive socities and the form
of self-injurious behavior that has been viewed as deviant.
It is important to note the trend of self-injury that has
become accepted in Western societies including tattooing,
body piercing, scarification and branding. The movement
of the modern primitive is a fairly recent phenomena,
gaining power in the late 1980's. Many forms of body
modification have become mainstream in Western Society
(Favazza, 1996), especially body piercing. The term
modern primitivism was coined by Fakir Musafar who is an
adamant endorser of body piercing, skin stretching, and
other such pratices. Musafar publishes a magazine based
on his ideas of body modification called "Body Play". The
interest in body modification can also be seen in the many
web pages devoted to it. For more information on body
modification, please see some of the following links.
Body Modification Information
Body Play by Fakir Musafar
Urban Primitive Body Design
Body Modification Ezine

The Association of Professional Piercers
Self-Harm Information
Selfharm.com
Self_Injury, Secret Shame
References
Anderson, J., Herbison, G, Martin, J., Mullen, P., Phil,
M., & Romans, S. (1995). Sexual abuse in childhood and
deliberate self-harm. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152,
1336-1342.
Coccaro, E., Klar, H., & Siever, L. (1989). Serotonergic
studies in patients with affective and personality disorders:
Correlates with suicidal and impulsive aggressive behavior.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 587-599.
Conterio, K. & Favazza, A. (1989). Female habitual
self-mutilators. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 79, 282-
289.
Farrand, J. & Solomon, Y. (1996). Why don't you do it
properly? Young women who self-injure. Journal of
Adolescence, 19, 111-119.
Favazza, A. (1996) Bodies Under Siege: Self-Mutilation
and Body Modification in Culture and Psychiatry.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Favazza, A. (1998). The coming of age of self-mutilation.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
186, 259-268.

Fredman, G., Lucey, C., & Reder, P. (1991) The
challenge of deliberate self-harm by young adolescents.
Journal of Adolescence, 14, 135-148.
Graff, H & Mallin, R. (1967). The syndrome of the wrist
cutter. American Journal of Psychiatry, 124, 36-42.
Hemann, J, Perry, C., & van der Kolk, B. (1991).
Childhood origins of self-destructive behavior. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1665-1671.
Hobgin, H. (1970). The Island of Menstruating Men.
Scranton, PA: Chandler.
Kahan, J & Pattison, E. (1983). The deliberate self-harm
syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 867-872.
McKay, H. & Ross, R. (1979). Self-Mutilation. Toronto:
Lexington Books.
Miller, D. (1994). Women Who Hurt Themselves: A
Book of Hope and Understanding. New York: BasicBooks.
Rosen, P. & Walsh, B. (1988). Self-Mutilation: Theory,
Research, and Treatment. New York: Guildford.
Russ, M. (1992). Self-injurious behavior in patients with
borderline personality disorder: Biological perspectives.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 64-81.
Tantam, D. & Whitaker, J. (1992). Personality disorder
and self-wounding. British Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 451-
464.
Williams & Wilkins. (1994). Phenomenology of self-injury
among inpatient women with borderline personality
disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 182,
524-526.

Self

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Self

Similar to Self (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (11)

Self