How the Culture of Cut-Off Is Influencing Resist–Refuse

We live in a time where psychological language is more accessible than ever.

Adolescents scroll through quick, compelling messages on social media telling them to “cut off toxic people,” “set boundaries,” and recognise “narcissistic,” “gaslighting,” or “unsafe” behaviour.

These messages sound empowering, and in the right context, they can be. Some relationships do require distance.

But increasingly, these ideas are being consumed without the depth needed. They are often stripped of context, proportionality, and developmental nuance. What young people are being handed is not always understanding, but quick relief from distress through simple scripts.

“This person is toxic. I need to cut them off."

This is concerning developmentally.

Adolescence is a period in which young people are learning that relationships are not always clean or simple. They are learning that someone can hurt them and still matter to them. They are learning that boundaries are not the same as disconnection. They are learning to tolerate mixed feelings, work through grief, and stay thoughtful when relationships become painful.

These capacities do not develop through slogans. They develop through experience, reflection, and support.

These trends become particularly relevant in resist–refuse cases.

But this cultural layer means that we are no longer only working with narratives created within the family system. We are also working with narratives supplied and reinforced by the wider culture.

That language can sound sophisticated and psychologically informed, which adds authority to the child’s position and can make it more resistant to nuance. It can interrupt the gradual process of working through a relationship so that a more integrated understanding can emerge.

This becomes more complicated when parents are consuming the same narratives. Parents may also use the language of toxicity, narcissism, abuse, gaslighting, and boundaries to organise their own hurt and justify their position. The family system can become more polarised, not only because of what has happened inside the family, but because the wider culture is adding its own simplified structure.

This is where our work is becoming more challenging, as we also need, as professionals, to resist mirroring the same polarity and stay curious about how the hurt is being organised, what meanings have been attached to it, and whether those meanings are helping the child develop relational capacity or closing that development down too early.

Because this is no longer just a family issue.

It is a societal one.