Bosch on the creation of "safe places"...

calm and peace, photo taken June 15, 2007, on a bike-tour back to town.

Reposting an earlier posting (without editing it though)...

Bosch writes at page 99 and forward in her book "Redisovering the True Self":

“Many therapists also use the strategy of creating a ‘safe place’ when working with traumatized clients. The therapist helps the client to think up an imaginary place in which she feels completely safe where she can retreat to whenever she feels overwhelmed by her feelings.

Although this might sound nice to some readers, why would we need to have an imaginary safe place? We would only need such a place if we were not truly safe in the present and we were unable to change our situation. Such thinking implies it is possible that our feelings cold really hurt us, and that we could actually be overwhelmed by our feelings.

Both these ideas are explicit in the concept of the ‘safe place’. The ‘safe place’ concept prevent us from giving in to our worst childhood feelings while knowing that there is no actual danger, and therefore it takes away the opportunity to come out on the other side of the feeling unharmed [and the possibility to experience that this is actually possible. And possible again and again till we don’t need it any more, as many times as we maybe need. And the possibility of experiencing that it for each time gets a little bit easier and is a little bit less frightening].

Knowing that it is safe to feel all old feelings, that we won’t be devoured by them, that they will pass by eventually, and that they are not too much for us to feel, is an important part of the healing process. It can be painful and unpleasant, but we will come out unharmed and one step closer to being healed.”

Clients have been scared and thus hindered in their healing during history??? This is awful I think! And this because of the therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists and other helpers own fears for their own truths? Bosch means, and writes, that these fears is actually a defence the child once needed against the truth, defences adults doesn’t need any more, adults can survive those feelings even if it doesn’t feel so. These defences aren’t necessary any longer. The harm that we are so afraid of has already been done and can’t harm us any more. But it doesn’t feel so; it feels as we are in danger here and now… But nevertheless we can survive them… Many clients have been scared instead of helped to overcome this fear, and scared for their own truths… Even more scared instead of less. And have used a lot of energy on controlling these feelings and hold them in check, energy they could have used on much more constructive things!!!!!

She writes at page 98:

“Quite a few therapeutic schools reinforce this fear of feelings we carry with us. Most therapists do not recognize that the belief, about feelings being potentially harmful, is actually a defence we needed when we were children.”

No, they don’t even recognise this for themselves?

See also what Freyd has written about healing. That she doesn’t agree with Daniel Goleman (see that blogpost).

---

Bosch skriver på sidan 99 och framåt i sin bok "Redisovering the True Self" (min snabba översättning av texten):

”Många terapeuter använder också strategin att skapa ’säkra platser’ när de arbetar med traumatiserade klienter. Terapeuten hjälper klienten att tänka ut en inbillad/imaginär plats i vilken hon känner sig helt säker och dit hon kan dra sig tillbaka närhelst hon känner sig överväldigad av sina känslor.

Även om detta kan kännas trevligt för vissa läsare, varför skulle vi behöva en tänkt ’säker plats’? Vi skulle bara behöva en sådan om vi inte var verkligt säkra i nuet och var oförmögna att förändra vår situation. Ett sådant här tänkande låter oss förstå att det är möjligt att våra känslor verkligen kan skada oss och att vi verkligen skulle kunna bli överväldigade av våra känslor.

Båda dessa idéer är uttryckliga i konceptet ’säker plats. ‘Säkra platsen’ konceptet hindrar oss från att ge efter för våra värsta barndomskänslor samtidigt som vi vet att det inte finns någon aktuell fara och därför tar det bort möjligheten att komma ut oskadad på andra sidan av känslan [att verkligen få uppleva att det faktiskt är
möjligt. Och möjligt igen och igen, så mänga gånger som vi kanske skulle behöva. Och att få uppleva att det för varje gång blir en aning mindre skrämmande].

Att veta att det är säkert att känna alla gamla känslor, att vi inte kommer att bli förtärda av dem, att de slutligen kommer att passera och de inte är för mycket för oss att känna, är en viktig del i helandeprocessen. Det kan vara smärtsamt och otrevligt, men vi kommer att komma ut oskadade och ett steg närmare att bli helade.”

Klienter har blivit skrämda och på det viset hindrade i sitt helande under historiens gång??? Detta är fruktansvärt tycker jag! Och detta på grund av terapeuters, psykologers, psykiatrikers och andra hjälpares egna rädslor för deras egna historier?? Bosch menar, och skriver, att dessa rädslor i själva verket är ett försvar som barnet måste ha en gång mot sanningen, försvar som vuxna inte behöver längre, vuxna kan överleva dessa känslor även om det inte känns så. Detta försvar är inte nödvändigt längre. Skadan som vi är rädda för har redan skett. Men det känns inte så, det känns som om faran finns här och nu. Men vi kan överleva dessa starka känslor. Många klienter har blivit skrämda istället för hjälpta att komma över sin rädsla och rädda för sina egna sanningar… Ännu mer rädda istället för mindre. Och har använt en massa energi för att kontrollera dessa känslor och hålla dem i schack, energi som skulle ha kunnat användas på betydligt mer konstruktiva saker!!!

Hon skriver på sidan 98:

“Inte så få terapeutiska skolor förstärker denna rädsla för känslor som vi bär med oss. De flesta terapeuter erkänner inte att denna tro, att känslor är potentiellt farliga, faktiskt är ett försvar vi behövde när vi var barn.”

Nej, de erkänner det inte ens för sig själva?

Se också vad Freyd skriver om helande. Att hon inte håller med Daniel Goleman (se det blogginlägget).

another calm and peaceful place in the north of Italy, picture I got from my youngest brother today, taken and sent with his cell-phone.

Perfektionism...

a cold February-Day 2007.

[Updated January 29]. Såg ordet perfektionism i det förra blogginlägget, tråden som mynnade ut i ämnet gråt och sökte på detta nu av nyfikenhet och hittade detta och detta, samt två uppsatser på ämnet perfektionism här.

---

Saw the word perfectionism in the former posting and searched articles on it today and found the ones linked above (in Swedish).

Addition January 29:

"Unless you aren't perfect you won't get my love!?? And not until you are perfect I will notice you (but I don't promise anything)!"

"Until then you don't exist to me!"

"If I...? Then maybe?? If I try with this...? If I do this, then...? If I am well-educated,then...? If... then...?"

Women and children are less worth?? To some... Why?

"I am very fond of children!"

the man said to his coming wife. It's one thing what you say and another how you actually behave and what you actually do, she realized!?? Yes, there are many fine words, but living as one learns... That's difficult. I probably don't see things either...

One of the effects of high demands (and demands on perfectionism?) is the use of medicine for for instance Alzheimer patients in not sick people to improve their intellectual capacity, a form of doping in fact. Which was discussed this morning in the morning-sofa... Phew! What's the risks they wondered... And what does this mean for even more raised demands on people to achieve?? And an increased stress... The message you aren't good enough, a feeling you have with you (sometimes denied?) from early?

A parallel to doping in sports!?? Risking your health and maybe even future life?? Behaving self-destructively in fact! One of many ways in behaving self-destructively... (some are more socially accepted? And not viewed in the same way as for instance anorexia, where anorexia, alcoholism etc. are seen as diseases...).

A Swedish brain-researcher thought the effects are marginal compared to side-effects. And it would be better to take care of our brains in other manners, by for instance sleeping one hour more each night (if we can)... There were a lot of texts (articles) on his home-site, which I haven't read, but I skimmed the headings. One was about ADHD and damp (actually a book he has written a conrtibution to), another about biologism, another about why we have become as we are "Ett oskrivet blad - därför blir vi så" *... His published papers here.

The nature has fixed the balance between forgetting and remembering during human beings development for hundred thousand of years he said... My thoughts: Now we are challenging this. Aren't we abusing and violating this actually? If one should come back to and use the terms abuse and violation! And why are we doing his? What's this about?

And it was this with biomedical scientists and empathy deficits too... They are just developing their intellects (even more? Or?)... And what are they actually trying to prove? That troubles, diseases etc. of different kind aren't parents' fault?? They really need to prove this, both to themselves, but the whole world - and their parents? They desperately need this?? (probably of understandable reasons, but what do they actually bring about for the rest of the humanity). Honoring their fathers and mothers by their achievements?? Too many are like that? Martin Ingvar's father was brain-researcher he too!

And intellect is more valued than emotions... The "intellectual" more valued than the "emotional"... But many also react with insecurity if one start to talk about emotions? At least in some circumstances? And some (many) are afraid of "strong" women??

That about having both IQ and EQ and strong broad-bands between them... But is emotional intellegense the same as true empathy? With this not said at all that I should be some sort of virtuoso on this at all...

See Bosch and Freyd on Daniel Goleman here.

And their training and the whole milieu they come to work in many times strengthens this too?? They are being brainwashed, even more!?

Other themes that struck me (things in general, not only connected to this posting): the need for power and control, the need for superiority, the need to exercise these things... The need to sit on others... Does this create closeness or nearness though??
* Där står bland annat:

"Varför är vi som vi är och varför utvecklas våra barn som de gör? Den snabba kunskapsutvecklingen inom genetik och hjärnforskning gör det åter aktuellt att föra diskussionen om arvets och miljöns betydelse för människans och samhällets utveckling. Diskussionen är nödvändig, det märks inte minst på hur ämnet diskuteras i media och i politiken. Vågorna i debatten har gått höga under lång tid. Är det bara mammas och pappas fel att det blir som det blir? Är det samhällets fel?

Egentligen är det förvånande att det fortfarande är kontroversiellt att säga att våra beteenden också har en genetisk och biologisk bas. De flesta accepterar att en ko beter sig som en ko eftersom den har en kos gener och inte enbart för att den härmar andra kor. Om det inte var generna som styrde skulle kon likaväl kunnat härma en häst. Trots det framkallar påståenden om att människans personlighetsutveckling och beteende har ett genetiskt underlag fortfarande motresonemang som tidvis blir våldsamma."

Jo, fast jag tror också att en kos beteende påverkas av hur den blivit behandlad, liksom andra djurs beteenden påverkas av hur de blivit behandlade... Jag har ju faktiskt vuxit upp bland en massa djur och vi har haft djur. I och för sig kanske detta inte innebär att jag sett en massa saker eller förstått eller kanske ens förmått ta in... Fast jag tror faktiskt barn kan se en hel del, innan de kanske blir ännu mer avtrubbade, eller kanske helt avtrubbade!??

Se också Harry Harlows apor och det med deprivation!? Uppsatser om deprivation här. Harry Harlow.

And see these two videos: "Harry Harlow & Rhesus Monkeys – development" and "Abuse". About the last video it stood:

"Examines violence both in tribal and modern societies and explores Dr. Prescott's S-SAD theory, both the cross-cultural and the neuropsychological aspects. Video documents that palecerebellar decortication eliminated pathological violent behaviors including self-mutilation and permits positive prosocial, affectional and alert behaviors in the adult mother-deprived monkey that was not possible before surgery, thus confirming Dr. Prescott's SSAD theory that the cerebellum has a major role in the regulation of emotional-social behaviors, particularly depressive and violent behaviors. -1976"

Interesting: there are connections between aggression/violence and depression!!??

See "The Origins for Peace and Violence –Deprivation of Physical Affection as a Main Cause of Depression, Aggression and Drug Abuse."

Childhood abuse (not or less processed) results in either directing things out and/or in!? You direct things, act things out either at others and/or yourself?

Crying...

sleeping baby, and not sleeping in a parent's arms...

[Updated in the end January 28]. I thought further on the former topic when I did other things and wondered if Ingeborg Bosh hadn't written anything about perfectionism. I didn't find anything on that though (skimmed the book very swiftly), but I found something else, instead; about crying (at page 132 in her book "Rediscovering The True Self"). And about honoring all feelings and letting our children express their feelings. She writes that:

"There are no exceptions. When they feel pain, are frightened, confused etc. it is important to listen to them, let them fully express their feelings, and then, see if a solution can be found together, if the child so desires. Be sure to allow enough time so that the feeling can be fully experienced by the child and not stopped before it has run its natural course. Never try to make children stop crying! It's the crying in the presence of an empathic adult that has a healing effect on children."

And then it stands about crying:

"Crying is the only way a newborn or small baby has to communicate its distress and it should be taken very seriously. It is as terrible for he baby as it sounds. Often young parents will say: 'Well we pick her up when she cries, but not immediately. We let her cry for 15 minutes or so. Sometimes a little longer. We can't react to her every whim.'

Harvard researchers Commons and Miller show how devastating this treatment can be to the young child. Alvin Powell write about this research: 'Instead of letting infants cry, American parents should keep their babies close, console them when they cry, and bring them to bed with them, where they'll feel safe, according to Michael Simmons and Patrice Miller, researchers at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry.

The pair examined child-rearing practices here and in other cultures and say that the widespread American practice of putting babies in separate beds - even separate rooms - and not responding to their cries may lead to more incidents of post-traumatic stress and panic disorders among American adults.

The early stress due to separation causes changes in infant brains that make future adults more susceptible to stress in their lives. Parents should recognize that having babies cry unnecessarily harms the baby permanently (italics by author). It changes the nervous system so they're sensitive to future trauma."

I came to think of the small baby, the sixth, to a mother that was near 40... The mother had had five children earlier, was "experienced", and felt she needed her sleep?? So the baby was put in another room, though next to the parent's (but not with doors between the two rooms). At bedtime the small baby started to cry. Now she was going to be left alone? The house had become silent. No noise of people - no signs of any kind of living human beings near!? Alone in the world? So the baby started to cry.

The mom picked her up and sat in a rocking-chair in the hall outside the two bedrooms. The other two bedrooms (for the four oldest) lay one stair up together with a TV-room in a hall between the bedrooms.

The fifth child in line slept in her own bed in the parents' bedroom.

The mom put on some music on the recorder, a special song which was popular that time, and sat there with the baby which calmed down and stopped crying.

The other children got calm too?? Because it was distressing for them too to hear the small baby cry?? And it disturbed their sleep too?? And they should get up early and go to school too... And the baby was put back in her bed in her own room. And fell asleep of pure tiredness?

This went on for the baby's first three months I think...

Later this child grew up to an adult with high demands, fairly easily stressed, yes, with anxiety and perfectionist problems... Problems with her stomach, often ache in it...

I know her... And met her yesterday, newly operated... What help has she got to process this, or even to decipher this?? With the reservation I may be wrong in my thoughts, that I am rewriting a history? But am I? I was there. I was 12, 5 years then...Thus not so small... I get so angry, because this woman has been in therapy a lot for her self-awareness sake (gestalt-therapy). And, yes, a period she got panic-attacks...

What did the older children experience in this way?? Yes, they were all separated from the mother directly after birth, taken away to be bathed. The second in line cried so much after his birth that the mother still remembers it. And the fist child was blue at birth... And when she was bathed she was thrown down to her mom with the words:

"I have never seen such a blue baby!!"

This baby had an enormous fontanel. Was it something wrong with her?? Was she hurt, damaged? Did she have"water in the brain" (Hydrocephalus)?? It showed she wasn't. She was not unintelligent, maybe the opposite... The next child, a boy also had, as the fourth, also a boy. But b then the mom (very anxious mom) this was nothing to be afraid of.

---

About Michael Commons' and Patrice Miller's (I am not 100 % sure I ave linked the right persons) findings see the article "Cry it out". And "Children Need Touch and Attention" here and here. The same text though an all these sites??

In the second text it stands for instance:

"The pair say that American childrearing practices are influenced by fears that children will grow up dependent. But they say that parents are on the wrong track: physical contact and reassurance will make children more secure and better able to form adult relationships when they finally head out on their own.

'We've stressed independence so much that it's having some very negative side effects,' Miller said."

And in the second (my italics below):

The way we are brought up colors our entire society, Commons and Miller say. Americans in general don't like to be touched and pride themselves on independence to the point of isolation, even when undergoing a difficult or stressful time. /…/

‘There are ways to grow up and be independent without putting babies through this trauma,’ Commons said. ‘My advice is to keep the kids secure so they can grow up and take some risks.’

Besides fears of dependence, other factors have helped form our childrearing practices, including fears that children would interfere with sex if they shared their parents' room [but if parents bond better and ore with their children they are better protected from harming them in any way?? Including sexually abusing them??] and doctors' concerns that a baby would be injured by a parent rolling on it if it shared their bed, the pair said. The nation's growing wealth has helped the trend toward separation by giving families the means to buy larger homes with separate rooms for children.

The result, Commons and Miller said, is a nation that doesn't like caring for its own children, a violent nation marked by loose, nonphysical relationships.

‘I think there's a real resistance in this culture to caring for children,’ Commons said. ‘Punishment and abandonment has never been a good way to get warm, caring, independent people.’”

But I don’t think only Americans have those childrearing practices. And this way of handling a child is a fear of spoiling the child, and what might then happen!??

Addition January 28:
But see earlier postings about what Bosch writes about respecting physical integrity (and touch) and about emotional needs (and their essential role for survival) from last summer. None of these postings are edited... I have only skimmed them now... I let them stand there as they are, at least for now... As spontaneously written as they were then.

Also see earlier posting on Kirkengen and boundary violations.

"I feel so angry, sad, and disappointed!!"

"But you shouldn't! Look... Maybe it can be so or so..."

Told what to think and feel is abuse according to Pia Melody. And when I hear such things I don't get less angry, but more!! :-) As if it is forbidden to feel, and feel strongly!!?? And forbidden to feel negative, difficult feelings!! I think people view me as grounded in the earth and calm?? But there are a lot of feelings under the surface... Maybe they also see that!??

Before I was somewhere round 33 years I didn't want to be seen, so I dressed fairly "gray" struck me again this morning...

My youngest brother skied MarciaLonga in Italy yesterday, around 70 km on around 4 hours... I haven't spoken with him though. He turns 49 years in June.

Our relative physical "strength" seen to that we are short, small people does it come of an inner fury I have thought sometimes... And what is this fury about?

Some expressions struck me when I took a shower now: "corrective measures", by telling another person what to feel, think, how to react... Strong feelings, emotions and expression are dangerous - and threatening?? Yes, hasn't Miller written about artistic expressions as socially accepted expressions (though with limits they too)? Even highly regarded! People with artistic talents are often enormously admired?? But does anyone want to know what's behind these expressions? If there is something behind them?

Yes, that about socially accepted expressions and behaviors again... And how shamy it is if a person is imperfect sometimes...

Helpers of all kinds, as therapists, psychologists and other sorts of "healers" (and gurus??) also believe and rely on corrective measures (only)??? That people just need to change, be relearned, need better models and that is the solution?? Maybe it is or feels so? But what has actually changed? If they just start behaving functional instead of dysfunctional, then they are cured?? Or?

What are the healer, therapist doing actually??

Yes, I use to train relaxation with programs (on the mp3-player in my cellphone for instance) and such things... But there is a but... This is only about trying to survive the best way possible... Minute by minute... But what and how much does it actually resolve?

And all those corrective measures, as retraining and relearning what message do they pass forward?? Very ironically... That here is something wrong with you!!?? And the healer, helper doesn't want to know more!!?? Does he/she?? There must really be something dangerous here?? Something that is forbidden to mention and touch upon!!?? Things that already are filled with fear... The healer signals (if not consciously so unconsciously) that this is really something dangerous?? What does this mean? For the one seeking help...

Jenson (and maybe also Bosch) writes about what the idea about "safe places" can imply. As if they are needed!!?? What scary things are then below?

In a hurry to work, making food, planning the day, taking a walk... Hmmm, how was it now with stressing??

Can anyone forbid one to feel neither this nor that actually? Less if you are grown up?! And isn't it as Miller says: it's not the feelings and emotions that are dangerous in themselves, but the actions they can lead to?? So feelings can't harm as long as you don't act them out (destructively or self-destructively), as long as you just feel them, which can be difficult enough...

"But you don't have to..."

As if one has to be protected against feelings (and pain)? As if one is so weak, maybe too sensitive for such things!? Even over-sensitive?? ("Yes think if I am???"). Yes, Miller writes about a woman in upper middle-age, who was protected by her husband... She suffered from severe depressions, but he thought she wouldn't survive processing her childhood experiences. But it showed to be different... To his astonishment (what I referred to in the posting about that love isn't the only thing needed for healing, despite this woman was surrounded by a loving family: husband and daughter, this didn't heal or made her less depressed). But love probably contributes in a positive way!! Makes it easier to face eventual truths!? And I don't believe at all in any truth-telling or other brutal ways of bringing people to enlightenment...

And, yes, does a disconsolate crying baby/child make us feel insecure and worried?

Kvinnan tige i församlingen...

Paul the Apostle in the eyes of El Greco respective Rembrandt.

När jag satt och skrev om annat kom jag att tänka på begreppet "Kvinnan tige i församlingen"... Enligt "Bevingade ord ur Bibeln" är detta citat hämtat ur 1 Kor 14:34.

---

Loudly thinking… More about womens' voices (and all people 's voices in the lengthening???).

When I was writing about other things I suddenly recalled the mode of expression and what Paul said about women’s’ role in the church (congregation?), not allowed to raise their voices, they should keep quiet… With this followed renewed thoughts about silencing and censoring forces… And the methods for censoring and silencing… And who let themselves be silenced? And censored? Who don’t care? Who gets the encouragement and support?

“The cat on the rope…” An (un)conscious need to exercise power? To protect oneself against shame-feelings – and the underlying pain? But whose responsibility is that? And how do one handle those things? Especially if one has been silenced and censored , and kept on silencing and censoring oneself? You have to do a hard and tough work? And try to face the pain..? Not easy...

And women behave in this manner too against each others... Women silencing and censoring other women... Maybe not least the last am I thinking of. What triggered this blogpost actually. Quite sourish.

I grew up with two brothers and three sisters... Boys were valued higher I think... (very quietly).

I see a child exploring language, trying new words, using expressions wrong and the reaction in her parents, a look of shame and contempt (contempt for the child and its imperfection, "ofullkomlighet", "icke perfekthet" in Swedish)... Which the child noticed... And experiences like this held the child back step by step? Till it was a doll, as superficial as a doll too!? But intelligent enough to play her role so many got fooled? That about masks... Putting on a mask. Not being ones true self, not being allowed to be ones true self, not good enough if one was ones true self!!?? And still one isn't good enough if one is ones true self? What one true self is?

Miller writes somewhere about parents shame for their children...

It starts early?I am probably blind to a lot, but I come to think of a 6-year-old Emelie... And her look sometimes, of wonders and shame, or what? She plays with a small boy, a boy fixing a lot of things (with two elderly brothers and ambitious parents and grand-parents), a boy fixing more than small boys use to fix.

"Am I good enough? Do I fix this as fast as I 'should'?"

Of course she does. And she is firmly resolved?? :-) Her mother said after she had taken part of her first mini-concert this fall (after only around 6 lessons) that the parents wonderedif she should want (and dare) to play. Oh yes, she should play!! And she did! Bravely! Was in a class of her own when it comes to age. In a room filled with people, more people than I had expected!

And I am also thinking of all sudden side-tracks! :-) What they have done at school, a tooth that is about to get loose... :-) The eagerness to tell (and??? :-)).

What am I mirroring? Her and/or me??

I can also see the small intelligent child being laughed at, and imagine very, very weakly how that felt... Not being taken seriously. Not being good enough. The humiliation...

See further (in Swedish) here and here.

Using the voice you have. What voice you have. And it was a time when we didn't have any words at all either... What did we do then? And it was a period (over several years) when we conquered he language; how was this done?

Why have I chosen this work? I could have gone in my dads path... I am interested in that too... What is this interest for all and everything about too? Is it the true me? And it also struck me again; dad took lessons in singing when he studied to agronomist...

I got the language early!! Started to talk early it is said... And learned to read with no difficulties, and spelled right early. Read and wrote a lot. Together with a lot else... So it isn't a matter of lack of that sort of language!?

Now a cup of tea and a walk in a wonderful winter-day with presentiments of spring!?? And then some work! Hmmm...

PS. Back after a nice walk; told how to dress, how to have it at home, that the photos she has taken was a bit unsharpened, told this and that... From some. I was good at drawing once, I thought of being architect (and also got a place on that program, despite I didn't work hard at the gymnasium)... And when one later doesn't think one is good enough, than that's wrong too... Strange...

Quite ironic...

More on corporal punishment and other forms of abuse - and possible outcomes of this...

from a walk just before lunch.

Loudly thinking... Actually I should practice and a lot else (should and should??). Am going to a birthday celebration 48 km (almost 30 miles, is that right??) away, and have taken a walk (needed). There's a lot working. I would like to scream!!! In protest over things, over all and everything. I long for the time when I can sit on my balcony, have the door open out there, not being forced to put on all these cloths. As comfort I have ordered new spring-cloths!!

Now some thoughts. Abuse is more than spanking. Does spanking result in another sort of suppressed anger than other forms of abuse, or is it a question of different forms of abuse? That takes its expression in aggression and brutality, in wars and other forms of violence? Together with self-destructiveness of different kinds (for instance more successful suicide-attempts?). While other forms of abuse more result in self-destruction, self-harm of different degrees, but not as much in aggression and brutality? The former in acting out and the latter in acting in? Generally?

Maybe this can explain (be one explanation) why suicide-rates are so high in Sweden, a country with a ban on corporal punishment? We act things in to a higher degree, and of some reason? While other societies are more violent?? I.e. people act things out there??

What am I trying to say? In countries and states with "acceptance" to corporal punishment you tend to behave more aggressively or at least some tend to behave in that way (earlier this behavior was "reserved" for men)… Women (and children) resorted to submissiveness?? In general?

With other forms of abuse the outcomes are (a bit) different??

So I believe it’s a good start to ban corporal punishment, do that sort of marking. But the next step is to acknowledge that there are other forms of abuse too, not least emotional and acknowledge the consequences of this form of abuse too!? And maybe also that sexual abuse occurs more often than we want to admit??? If not in real intercourse or such things, but in more subtle, but not less harmful ways. Maybe that we realize that what we as grown ups maybe see as harmless actually isn’t?? And that even "harmless" form actually aren't harmless, but harming. See Kirkengen and boundary-violations (in general and sexual in particular).

We have to start somewhere. Banning corporal punishment can maybe contribute to a raised awareness on other forms of abuse. Hopefully. The Norwegian doctor Anna-Luise Kirkengen writes about boundary violations in general and their consequences for (the latter) health and life-quality. She thinks as V. Felitti (ACE-study) that openness about those things can help many patients and maybe is the only needed help. Physicians should ask for the early childhood history when they are taking up the anamnesis, especially when it comes to unexplainable illness, but probably when it comes to other sorts of bad health?

And traumatic child-births, which wasn’t processed, contribute to later behavior… It has been shown that even experiences in the uterus can result in self-blame (and connected later tendencies to suicides)… See Bosch.

Swedes are seen as individualistic, with no tight ties to friends or family... People seem to think. (what are healthy ties? The question being too dependent or with no dependence-needs, see Pia Melody. See earlier postings with the label Pia Melody). It's little people on a big area (9 million on 450,000 km² or 174,000 sq mi, more facts about Sweden here), we can afford to have a lot of space around us!? It has been a fairly wealthy country the former decade at least, so we haven't been dependent on each others in the same manner as people in other countries?? We haven't been in war for 200 years, so not even there we have had needs for other people in a similar way as people in war? But what have we lost?

With this said I don't advocate challenges in form of worse security-nets... That war should be something good!!! Or that people need to be challenged (and hardened) through difficulties! "For their on good!!" I want to underline.

Swiftly written with all what that means...

PS. It's not only a friend that suddenly died, but a near relative is newly operated, so my thoughts are spread in different directions... Or how one shall express it?

Raised awareness...

from a morning-walk January 23, 2007.

[slightly updated January 26]. Swiftly: there's a lot I am digesting and thinking on. Many themes.

In the shower this morning I came to think about something I brought up with an American friend (we have only met by email!): that a female doctor and gestalt-therapist said once to me that she thought some sort of therapy or counseling wouldn't be wrong in a teacher's education. This friend "passed this off" with saying that he didn't want the government (or anyone like that) should come and tell anyone to do that (or other things?)...

Another one also opposed to that a government should ban corporal punishment of children (but are we allowed to punish other adults corporally??!) reacting in a similar way, that he didn't feel comfortable with a government interfering (if I interpreted this right)...

In the shower I thought about the former case: but therapists have to go in learning-therapy!! Should this be more wrong when it comes to those handling children (teachers for instance), the most valuable (are they???) we have? But it's also true that I doubt the therapy-help that is offered, that's for sure... See earlier posting about a female and male therapist in training, Brigitte and Henry...

See also earlier postings on abuse in therapy again.

---

Tillägg på kvällen: saker på jobbet fick mig att reagera och fundera... Jag skrev ner några korta meningar i onsdags. Jag tror att detta fenomen liksom också min reaktion kan ha något med tidiga upplevelser att göra och uppfostran. Att man uppfostrar pojkar och flickor olika och effekterna av detta ser vi senare i vuxenliet. Bland annat i arbetslivet.

Jag skrev: Män "får" ta lätt på saker, rycka på axlarna! Och då anses det vara något bra, berömvärt!! (eller hur man ska uttrycka det?). Men får kvinnor detta (detsamma)? Får de missa saker, göra saker sisådär? Medan samma saker (missar, mindre bra jobb från kvinnor) släpps igenom för män!? Ja, tolereras, knappt noteras, ja, kanske till och med viftas bort!?

Medan en kvinna kan få höra (när hon reagerar!?):

- Du ska inte ta så allvarligt på saker! Ta det med en klackspark!

Men jag funderade; om man verkligen gjorde det, hur skulle det då egentligen tas?? OM hon verkligen reagerade som män (om man nu ska generalisera). Tanken slog mig plötsligt av någon anledning. Om hon reagerar då är DET inte bra men om hon INTE reagera då är inte DET bra!!?? Om hon är jätteambitiös och har skyhöga krav då är inte det bra (och nej, det är det ju inte, inte minst för henne! Men VARFÖR är hon sådan? Hon ska bara tvärt ändra sig!!!?? Men såra någon och antyda att denne är okänslig...), men om hon tar saker med en klackspark (på liknande sätt som män tillåts ta saker med en klackspark) så är inte det bra!?

Det där med dubbelbestraffning ("Damned If You Do And Damned If You Don’t")!?? Och härskartekniker. Varför har man behov av att härska?? Vart detta behov än uppträder och i vilken skepnad eller form det än uppträder? Hur subtilt det än är...

Manipulation...

taken yesterday at work.

Some thoughts thrown down just before work, when I moved between work-places now before lunch. In my excellent and fantastic English (I wonder if you ought to be quiet, k!!?? You ought to realize your limitations!? To be honest!? Quite ironic).

A method to punish a child is to surround it by silence, meet it with silence. And I think this is more horrible than we can imagine… A grown up needing to demonstrate his/her power in this manner… Grown ups can be met with this too!?

You can act old things out in different manners, aggressiveness in destructive or self-destructive behaviors. Some people (or all more or less) use both methods to different degrees?

And abuse is more than spanking. But does spanking result in another sort of suppressed anger? That takes its expression in aggression and brutality? Together with self-destructiveness of different kinds (for instance more successful suicide-attempts?). While other forms of abuse more result in self-destruction, self-harm of different degrees, but not as much in aggression and brutality?

On my way to the first school (on bike, icy roads):

You can manipulate in other ways too, not only with silence (ignoring the child till it changes) if “necessary”!? By instilling shame in children, for their natural needs, for their imperfection (they should realize their utter, enormous imperfection!!?? Taken out of the delusion that they are perfect!? Realize their utter limitations?), their reactions, thoughts, behaviors, way of expressing themselves, in all: their ways of being, how they are!?

All this is done in different manners, more or less subtle, some of these measures are aware and some aren’t aware? Both consciously and unconsciously done?

You can do this to other grown ups too!? Of shame on behalf (!!!) of them try to change them, or not even reply to what they say? You react to how they say it, not actually WHAT they are saying in some cases). What is this shame about?? What does it awoke? Honestly I don’t think I want to understand THEM (the ones feeling shame and needing to change one), but to understand the mechanisms and roots.

Is this for instance about feeling superior? Maybe even powerful, knowing, capable!??? And maybe this is entirely unconscious? But does this mean that you aren’t responsible for what it can cause??

And the one exposed to this sort of (conscious or unconscious) power game

Need to be very self-aware!? But how many are?

Yes, shame for others what is that actually about?

And why does a child behave in the way he behaves? What would a “natural” behavior be if the child wasn’t abused at all, or hardly at all??

And why does a grown up behave as he/she does? And if that person isn’t harming anyone… What’s the problem? Or does this person harm just by her/his way of being?? By instilling shame in its poor environment??

Where has Miller written about her experiences with the Wall of Silence?? I would like to come back to that, but now I don’t have time to look for that book. I believe it is in “Breaking Down Walls of Silence” (“Riv tigandets mur”)!? But the forum ourchildhood.int doesn’t live up to this? Miller approves of how people are treated there? People are me with silence, they have to figure out on their own why contributions are rejected, and in first hand also why they are rejected, when they are rejected. People aren’t informed about why they are rejected, and don’t get any opportunity to defend themselves… Miller also writes about our wish for an open, genuine communication…

Don't anyone wonder why people maybe are objecting and reacting? If there may lie something behind?

So who is manipulative?

And what is actually manipulative?

Jenson and Bosch on shame (and guilt). About the different expressions of Walls of Silence, or the theme Walls of Silence, see earlier postings here and here.

The text above was very swiftly written in a pause in work...Franz Kafka.

Addition in the evening: I found the text I thought of, where Miller writes that she experienced the Wall of Silence already in her childhood. Her mother used to meet her with silence for days in a row to demonstrate her absolute power over the small girl and force her to obedience. The small girls' needs, questions and suggestions were taken aback against this wall without forcing her mother to defend herself for this sadism, at all. The mother saw this attitude as a fair and well-earned punishment for offenses the small girl had done, as her duty to give the child a lesson. "For her own good!!"

As in Franz Kafka's "penal colony" the small child wasn't informed about her punishable offense(s). In this omission there was a message; if the child didn't even understand for what she earned this punishment she had no conscience!! Oh, horrible!! If she didn't understand then she had proved her badness!!

The child was pushed away, had to seek, do her utmost till her conscience (hopefully?? with a lot of iron) told her what guilt she had drawn upon her. Not until then she could TRY to apologize and dependent on the mood in the one in power, if she was lucky, maybe be excused!!

The child then couldn't realize that this was actually a (extremely) cruel and even sadistic behavior/treatment. She couldn't realize this on her own, no. She needed a grown up who could help her to see, at all see, even if she didn't get the help to question it and see it as unfair. She couldn't take the truth in with her feelings on her own for what her mother actually had showed (lack of love), instead she questioned her own feelings and natural (and adequate) reactions, than questioned her mother and her behavior, that what she did was wrong and unfair (to what extent it was wrong and unfair), that she in fact showed despise and contempt for the small child.

The child was left in "the/a prison of confusion" as Miller writes!!

Bosch is talking about a defense she calls the Primary defense (det första eller ursprungliga försvaret), in which the child blames herself...

See also Arthur Silbers Miller-essays where he often mentions not only Denial but also obedience (that the child is learned to obey from earliest in life) here and there in these essays (in my feelings) and what it results in later, in life and in the society!!

---

Miller skriver på sidorna 23 och framåt i sin bok "Riv tigandets mur" i kapitlet "Ur förvirringens fängelse":

"Tigandets mur [The Wall(s) of Silence] upplevde jag redan i min barndom. Min mor brukade möta mig med tystnad hela dagar i sträck för att på så sätt demonstrera sin absoluta makt för [och över!!??] mig och tvinga fram min lydnad. /.../ Den lilla flickans behov, frågor och förslag studsade tillbaka mot denna mur utan att min mor behövde försvara sig för denna sadism. Hon betecknade sin attityd som ett rättvist och välförtjänt straff för förseelser jag begått, som sin plikt att ge mig en 'läxa'. /.../

Liksom i Kafkas 'I straffkolonin' blev nämligen den lilla anklagade aldrig upplyst om sin straffbara förseelse I denna underlåtenhet låg ett budskap: 'Om du inte ens vet vad du har förtjänat detta straff för har du ju inget samvete. Sök, forska, ansträng dig tills ditt samvete säger dig vad det är för skuld du ådragit dig. Först då kan du försöka urskulda dig och beroende på makthaverskans humör kan du, om du har tur, kanske få förlåtelse."

Guruer, helbrägdagörare och ledare...

from a walk January 23, 2007, taken with my cellphone camera.

Slog mig plötsligt vad Alice Miller skrivit om guruer och ledare, se bland annat sidan 157 i ”Vägar i livet”:

”Med ledare och guruer är det svårt att säga var det medvetna upphör och det omedvetna börjar manifestera sig. Mången guru drivs av krafter som han själv inte är medveten om. Annars behövde han inte bygga upp ett så komplicerat system åt sig att han endast med destruktiva medel kan vidmakthålla det. /…/

Bland sekternas grundare finns många paranoida och megalomana [storhetsvansinniga] psykotiker som i mängden av anhängare söker skydd mot den egna ångesten, i det att de erbjuder sig som hjälpare eller helbrägdagörare./…/

…de vill undkomma sin barnsliga vanmakt och bekämpa denna på det symboliska planet samtidigt som erbjuder de sig som räddare, eftersom de genom sina anhängares lovprisningar äntligen känner sig mäktiga istället för vanmäktiga. Men så fort de fruktar att bli genomskådade tvingar de med hotelser sina lärjungar att tiga. Självmord är en extrem form av tigande.”

Tänker på vad Ingeborg Bosch skriver om hjälp- och maktlöshet (dvs. om vanmakt). Om försvaren falsk makt vrede och falsk makt förnekande av behov (False Power Denial of Needs)… Försvar som ger oss en falsk känsla av makt och som är verksamma även idag som vuxna i den mån vi inte har bearbetat det som var upphovet till dessa försvar.

Tidigare postningar under kategorin powerlessness, power, power abuse, the need for power och the need for power and control. Se också om backward psycho classes.

Tror vi kan möta detta hos både ledare av olika storlekar (dvs. på lika nivåer), hos terapeuter och andra hjälpare (både profesionella och även på det privata området) m.m.

Men försvaren mot hjälplösheten då kan också yttra sig på andra sätt, helt motsatta mot (den oemotståndliga) driften och enorma behovet att skaffa sig makt tror jag...

---

Struck me yesterday all of a sudden about what Miller has written about healers (of all kinds, in form of therapists, both educated and not) and about gurus and leaders of all kinds, and quoted a passage in Miller’s book “Paths of Life” from page 157 in the Swedish edition. A passage where it stands that gurus and leaders of all kinds (even in the form of helpers) at last feel (or can feel or are given the opportunity to feel) powerful (potent) instead of powerless (impotent!?) when and if they get power (over a "weaker")... But as soon as they fear being seen through they force their disciples to silence. And suicide is the extreme form of silence Miller writes.

Above I have linked to earlier postings about these topics and connected topics.

On Miller's web it stands about "Paths of Life":

"How do our first experiences of pain and love affect our future adult lives and our relationships with others? This is the key question which runs through the seven 'life stories' collected here. Each scenario is a fictional account of a damaged past and the repercussions it has in later life. The narratives explore the suffering and loneliness felt in the individual's formative years. For some, the pain and inner isolation has dominated their adulthood and prevented them from enjoying fulfilling relationships despite the desire and need for contact and communication. For others, old fears and defensive patterns have been conquered, enabling them to enter into healthy relationships and find contentment."

from one of two places where I use to write.

I just got the message that a friend and former colleague of mine, a 46-year old (jazz-)pianist has died! He was rehearsing in Stockholm on Tuesday and got a bleeding in the brain. And died yesterday. He left a family with a 5-year-old son.

I haven't quite understood this!?

See here, here and here.
What a birthday present...

Respekt...

”Emil och Alfred tar ett kvällsdopp i Katthultsjön efter en sommardag full av lek och hyss. Solen börjar sänka sig över skogarna när Emil säger till Alfred:

– Du och jag, Alfred.

– Ja, du och jag Emil, svarar Alfred.”

About Emil at Wikipedia. And earlier postings about integrity violations and effects of integrity violations.

Close Every Door To Me...

Close Every Door To Me...

Näring för själen…

from a bike-tour to work, a late summer's day.

Ledare av Göran Greider igår fick mig att börja fundera… Om behov... Finns inte på webben, men jag kanske skriver mer om vad som står i den senare...

Greider inledde den med orden:

"Jag häpnar alltid över hur litet det behövs för att plötsligt känna sig hoppfull. En förmiddag läser jag ett tunt urval av ny kinesisk poesi och tycker med ens att ett kikhål i den kinesiska muren öppnar sig."

Jag reagerade med en väldigt spontan och stark känsla:

"Ja, själen behöver också näring!!!"

Och detta gav upphov till en räcka med ytterligare tankar. Om behov, förnekande av behov. Om surrogat... Om det Stettbacher kallar perverterade behov. Om andra uttryck behov tar sig. Om icke fyllda behov. Om utnyttjande (av både människor och natur). Om att försöker man ändra sin terapeut eller (alla) andra terapeuter så är misslyckandet ofrånkomligt. Jag tror inte heller att det att ändra ett dysfunktionellt beteende till ett funktionellt heller helar. Att bara handlingen leder till befrielse, även om det kanske kan kännas väldigt skönt och befriande till en början...

”Jamen, nu vet du ju! Nu är det ju bara att bete sig på ett annat sätt, tänka på ett annat sätt osv.!!! (Vad, varför gör du inte et??? Varför går du inte ut i livet och gör det???).”

Jag tror inte på diverse tekniker, det där med manipulation, manipulativa koncept… Jo, de hyfsat intelligenta kan nog både det ena och det andra!!! Alla duktiga pojkar och flickor klarar nog det - en gång till och en gång till och kanske ytterligare en gång... Men vad har ändrats i slutänden? Och återigen jag att inte vi kan ändra en enda terapeut!!! Jo, skulle vilja skriva om detta med terapi, guruer, makt...

Och tänkte återigen på det där med att tysta röster… Om det där att

”...om du inte kliver upp där och uttrycker dig perfekt och mer än perfekt – fulländat… Inte förr får (bör) du upphäva din röst!!”

Du får inte börja upphäva den om du (ens) har små skavanker!!?? Använda den röst du har just här och nu, prova den röst du har, som du börjar utveckla och just genom övning erhålla färdighet!??? För när någonsin får manfärdighet? Finns den bara där helt plötsligt? Är den kanske medfödd? Så att du bara stiger upp där och kan??

För det är ju ganska genant om du inte gör det (tillräckligt) perfekt!? Något som i sanningens namn nog inte bara kommer från en själv utan också från (vissa) i omgivningen!??

Och hur många röster har därför aldrig höjts (hur många miljoner genom århundradena, ja, årtusendena?)?? Hur många har därför aldrig ansett sig värdiga att artikulera eller yttra sig?? Och, jo, är det inte så att vissa röster tystas (hur omedvetet det nu än sker)?? handlar det inte om översittar-, härskartendenser öäven på den allra lägsta nivån, även mellan dem som kanske egentligen har ganska liten makt och inflytande i samhället, håller inte även de på med detta (som någon slags kompensation, om än kanske omedveten)? Även av så kallat "upplysta"!!??

Det där att leva som man lär... Som nog är svårare än vi tror, ibland??

”Varför är så många människor besatta av den makt och kontroll över andra som rikedom (eller våld) kan ge? Varför finns det så mycket strider och hat i vår värld? Varför dödar medlemmarna av en viss religiös eller etnisk grupp medlemmar av andra grupper? Varför får så många människor diagnosen depression? Varför är det så stor efterfrågan på stämningshöjande medicin?

Det är uppenbart att vi inte är riktigt ’tillräkneliga’. Någonting djupt inom oss har inte blivit tillfredsställt. Jag tror att ’någonting’ är spädbarnets behov av kärlek. Det barn du var kan aldrig få den kärleken – igenting tillfredsställer detta djupa behov. Men sörjandet har kraft att läka oss – det kan göra oss hela igen och låta oss återerövra våra liv.” (Jean Jenson i ”Att återerövra sitt liv" s. 172-173).”

Men, nej, detta sker inte lätt... Det finns inga quick fixes, hur trevligt det än skulle vara...

---

Some silent thoughts after a bike-tour: on needs, surrogate needs, perverted needs. The expressions it take on different levels... A leader yesterday triggered a lot of thoughts...

Yesterday at work, after three meetings (awaking feelings, emotions, thoughts...) when I waited for my first pupil I threw some words down... What is worth living for?? What am I striving for? Saving the whole world, or what? Taking the risk that the whole world will collapse?? Let it happen!? “God’s will be done!?” Taking all and everything on my small, tiny shoulders?? Who should I rescue first??? And who can I rescue (and not least: who wants, and needs, to be rescued??? Honestly! And maybe; who needs to be rescued most?)?

What holes d we try to fill? What needs do we try to fill?

About silencing forces again... Who has been silenced? And who keep on raising their voices? Who did never speak up? Because they never thought they did it good enough for instance, their way of speaking up wasn't good enough?

Open, genuine, real communication... The longing for that... The search for that, the lack of it... Now some lunch here.

All earlier postings with the label Göran Greider (both in English and in Swedish).

Addition January 24: What is nourishment for the soul and what do we actually need?

The Swedish ban on corporal punishment...

On the Children's ombudsman's site you can read about the Corporal Punishment Ban. There it stands:

"Corporal punishment was first banned in the Swedish grammar schools in 1927.

Similar legislation was passed for elementary schools in 1958 and banned totally in 1962 in the Education Act. By 1966, parents and those responsible for children were forbidden from hitting their children.

A corporal ban Ten years later, a decision in a court case concerning a father assaulting his three-year-old daughter was widely discussed. The case initiated a number of private member´s bills in the Swedish parliament concerning the need for an explicit prohibition of chastisement, but it wasn’t until 1979 that the Swedish Parliament adopted a bill, with 256 MPs voting for and 6 MPs voting against. The arguments against were that the proposal was unnecessary and even dangerous.

By removing the rights for parents to chastise the child, many well-meaning parents would be stamped as criminals and many children would never learn to behave. But one of the MPs said; 'In a free democracy like our own, we use words as arguments, not blows. We talk to people and do not beat them. If we can´t convince our children with words, we shall never convince them with violence'.

This has become a rather famous statement in Sweden and one, of which it is not very easy to oppose. The ban is now an act within Chapter 6 in the Parenthood and Guardianship Code, which expressively forbids physical punishment and degrading treatment. 'Children are entitled to care, security and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to corporal punishment or any other humiliating treatment.'

The Criminal Code The Code of Parenthood and Guardianship in which one finds the law against chastising children is a civil law as opposed to the Criminal code. This means that the prohibition to use corporal punishment is not in itself sanctioned. It´s the Criminal Code that decides whether or not an offence has been committed, but also that it is judged under the same rules which apply when adults commits acts of physical violence to adults or other people´s children.

The Criminal Code states that anyone who causes another person physical injury, illness or pain or other harmful condition is to be convicted to a fine or prison up to two years. (Up to ten years if the crime is to be considered as severe, for example if the victim is a child).

When comparing figures from other countries, including the Nordic countries, we find that corporal punishment towards children is lower in Sweden. This seems above all to concern less serious and average forms of corporal punishment whilst more serious forms, such as blows with a blunt object may still be as common as in other Nordic countries.

Shifts in attitude We know that there has been a shift in attitude and opinion in Sweden on corporal punishment and that it started even before the law was effective. The Swedish Institute for Statistics has regularly investigated attitudes in the population towards corporal punishment.

In 1965, 53% were positive towards corporal punishment of children, 1968-42%, 1971-35%, 1981-26% and 1994-11%.

Hence, today in Sweden probably less than 10% are positive to the use of corporal punishment. The younger population is much less in favour of using physical punishment than elder generations. This shows that the ban is widely supported and well known in Sweden even amongst young children.

In 1979, a special brochure was sent out to every household in the country, explaining the anti spanking ban and how to bring up children with other methods than physical punishment. The brochure was translated into several different languages.

Statistics prove that corporal punishment as a way of upbringing has substantially decreased. When comparing figures in interviews with parents between the years 1980 and 2000, the results show, that corporal punishment has decreased significantly, especially in regard to striking a child with ones fist, with a blunt object or giving the child a so called 'good hiding'.

The figures are in accordance with results from two other studies on intermediate-level pupils and twenty year-olds submitted by the Parliamentary Committee against Abuse towards Children. This means, that forceful corporal punishment, which may potentially harm the child, also has decreased significantly.

On the other hand, concerning serious and unusual forms of corporal punishment, such as threats or the use of knives or firearms, the level shows no decrease. One reason could be, that malignant forms of corporal punishment, most often is part of a strong deviant behaviour in the adult as a result of mental illness or a case of abnormality or flaw in the character- personality features which are probably very little affected by general changes of attitude in society.

Uncertainty As more and more people tend to report child abuse, it has become somewhat confusing as to whether child abuse in Sweden in reality has increased during the last decades. We know that much of the violence, which was 'invisible' in the past, now has come out into the open, but thanks to education, information about the anti-spanking law and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, awareness has increased in society concerning children’s needs and violence towards children.

Today, institutions like schools and day-care centres including professional groups, which come into contact with children, have a mandatory obligation to report if they consider that a child is at risk and in need of support from the social welfare system. The conclusion therefore, is that the increase of reports of child abuse is an effect of increased awareness, rather than an increase of actual violence towards children.

Complex area This is a complex area that has to be put in its right context. The issue of child abuse and neglect is not only relevant to changes in legislation, but also to the changes in society that have occurred, during more than twenty years of existing legislation.

There are groups of children who are deprived and in vulnerable situations and families where child abuse and neglect is more or less a constant element. These kinds of families will probably occur in any society regardless of corporal punishment bans."

Someone wondered over our history; with the Vikings, the brutal robbers, traveling around the world frightening the life out of people... And now the change to the so seemingly peaceful Swedes...

No, Sweden hasn't been in war the last 200 years as someone else pointed out... But are said to be more suicidal than many other people. I don't know if this is true actually. But if so, why?

Things I think are grounded in child-rearing-practices. Are we more self-blaming? More prone to self-blame, what Ingeborg Bosch calls the Primary defence?

And the truth about the Vikings?? At the Historiska Museum in Stockholm site it stands:

“The Vikings are possibly best known as brutal robbers. Today there are many pictures and stories about the Vikings. They describe how they travelled around the world frightening the life out of people. This is not the true story of the Vikings.

The Vikings were mostly peaceful traders. However, most of the people who lived in the Nordic Countries during this period were not Vikings. They were farmers, hunters and craftsmen. The exhibition does include weapons, but it also includes thousands of objects which give a different picture, telling the story of everyday activities, religious beliefs and family life.”

In this program they talk about

“…a new, less barbarian image of the Norsemen based on recent archaeological investigations.”

“Who Were the Vikings?
For centuries—indeed, ever since Viking raiders savagely attacked England's Lindisfarne monastery in A.D. 793—the Vikings have seemed to many to have been little more than blue-eyed barbarians in horned helmets. But archeological investigations of Viking sites stretching from Russia to Newfoundland have revealed a more human (if not altogether humane) side to the Viking character./…/

William Fitzhugh, curator in the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, says the Vikings were far from simply brutish barbarians in horned helmets.”

Two more sites about the Vikings; The Viking Museum in Lofoten, Norway, and “Vikings – the North Atlantic Saga”.