Against the Myth of Adaptation: When Existence Is Captivity
A reflection on how the language of adaptation erases insidious coercion.
We’ve been taught to believe that every human endurance is a triumph — that the ability to keep going under impossible conditions must mean we have “adapted.” Psychology repeats this endlessly: “You survived. You learned to cope. You adapted.” But what if that language is not just wrong, but violent? What if endurance itself is sometimes the mark of a system’s success, not our own?
This essay challenges the moral vocabulary of adaptation — and asks what it means to exist without gain, without choice, without the illusion of purpose.
The Migration of a Biological Concept
In biology, adaptation has a precise meaning. It refers to a modification that increases the organism’s fitness within a specific environment — its capacity to survive and reproduce. Adaptations emerge through selection, operate by feedback, and demonstrate functional gain.
When this term migrated into psychology, it was converted into metaphor. Analysts began to speak of psychic adaptations to trauma, emotional survival strategies, and behavioral accommodations to abuse.
The metaphor was seductive because it seemed to translate the neutrality of natural science into human psychology. But metaphors are not evidence.
When Endurance Isn’t Adaptation
If an individual’s psyche develops within a coercive or abusive environment, and this development produces no gain in safety, well-being, or freedom, then it cannot truthfully be described as adaptation.
To adapt is to achieve a better fit between organism and environment. To be shaped without awareness into compliance is not adaptation but predetermination.
It is the difference between a plant bending toward light and a plant twisted around a fencepost because the light was withheld.
The Circular Logic of “Survival”
Psychological language often collapses this distinction by treating endurance itself as proof of function. The reasoning is circular: because the person survived, their formation must have been adaptive.
This is a philosophical error, not an empirical insight. Existence is not evidence of adaptation. Organisms persist under poison, under radiation, under oppression. Life is obstinate, not necessarily strategic.
Continuity does not always mean competence; sometimes it simply means there was no other option.
The Architecture of Coercive Formation
When a child grows inside a structure of domination, what emerges is not a set of adaptive behaviors but a configuration of constraint.
The formative environment installs its logic inside the subject before self-reflection becomes possible. The child’s “choices” are not responses to commands but enactments of pre-scripted conditions.
There is no conscious negotiation of gain; there is no insight into the coercive field. To call this “adaptation” is to credit the system for the distortions it produced.
The Moral Alibi of Adaptation
Academia’s survivalist vocabulary — adaptation, coping mechanism, resilience — offers a moral alibi for the social order.
It translates injury into ingenuity, exploitation into intelligence. The abused child becomes “remarkably adaptive”; the marginalized group becomes “resilient.”
What disappears from view is the original violence of the conditions that made such endurance necessary. Adaptation-talk redeems the system by aestheticizing its effects.
Not Every Continuity Is Survival
Not all life-forms of endurance are adaptive. Some are the hollow continuations of a life whose terms were fixed before recognition.
In these cases, what persists is not survival but captivity. The structure endures through the body and language of the person, repeating itself under the mask of autonomy.
There is no “gain,” only the illusion of agency operating inside an inherited design.
The Ethics of Refusal
To contest this is not to deny that humans improvise under pressure or that some modifications are indeed adaptive.
It is to insist that adaptation is not universal. Some continuities are not responses but residues. Some behaviors are not clever negotiations with reality but the imprint of its violence.
To describe them as “survival strategies” is to confuse endurance with mastery.
Existence Is Not Adaptation
The refusal to see this distinction has ethical consequences. It converts victims of structural domination into examples of human flexibility. It sanctifies suffering as a lesson in resilience.
It tells the enslaved that their endurance proves their strength rather than exposes the system that trapped them. The language of adaptation becomes the language of praise — a linguistic trick that protects the abuser and disciplines the survivor.
To reclaim truth from this distortion, one must separate existence from adaptation.
Existence is the basic persistence of form; adaptation is a modification that increases autonomy or possibility.
Many people exist without ever adapting in this functional sense. They are maintained by systems that use their endurance as a resource. Their so-called “coping” is the system’s replication, not their own transformation.
Structural Capture, Not Adaptation
A more accurate framework might speak of structural capture instead of adaptation.
In structural capture, the organism or psyche does not evolve toward better fit but becomes a vessel for the environment’s logic. It continues not because it gains, but because it cannot stop.
The form that appears stable is not adaptive equilibrium but a stasis of control.
In such cases, survival is not a victory; it is a symptom. To live under coercion without recognition of coercion is not to adapt but to be reproduced by it.
Closing Reflection
The myth of adaptation comforts those who need to believe that everything painful has meaning. But some experiences do not “teach.” Some endurance does not “transform.” Not every scar is a sign of healing.
When we insist on calling every survival “adaptive,” we mistake the persistence of life for the triumph of agency. We turn the evidence of harm into proof of humanity’s genius for resilience.
But the truth is dimmer:
Often the self that survives is not the self that could have been — only the self that was permitted.
Ex Silentio in Continuum
Extended essays on original inquiries in neurodevelopmental psychology, psychopathology, cognitive frameworks, and related fields are available to paid subscribers.
Your patronage is not simply support; it is an investment in intellectual freedom—the very condition required to develop and disseminate frameworks that offer answers to those who have found none. It directly contributes to the creation of therapeutic models for people left unrecognized by existing regimes of knowledge and practice.
Soon, my Patreon page (patreon.com/CristinaGherghel) will also feature video explorations of lived experiences across the Aneurothymia Spectrum, Panthropic Abuse, Schrödinger Cognition, OMES, and beyond.
Further Resources
My published work—spanning memoir and analysis—engages themes such as narcissistic abuse, trauma, personality disorders, toxic relationships, communism, immigration, C-PTSD, and more. The full collection is available here: Cristina Gherghel on Amazon.