Astrid Lindgren about becoming spanked as a child…

Astrid Lindgren 16 years.

[Updated August 31, and slightly edited in the first part]. I have been on a course in the parts of Sweden where Astrid Lindgren was born, and found a book containing Astrid’s description of her childhood home, and thus also childhood, written to her nieces.

Astrid and her one year older brother Gunnar (dead already 1974 only 68 years) bought their childhood home together, and 1987 Astrid gave her part to her brother’s daughters Gunvor, Barbro and Eivor (of whom Barbro is mother to the author Karin Alvtegen, her home site).

Astrid and Gunnar also had two younger sisters, all siblings were married, but one sister never got any children I think. So Astrid had one heir and one heiress (a son and a daughter) but gave her part of the childhood home to her nieces nevertheless, of some reason.

I will try to translate what Lindgren writes later, so this posting will become updated this weekend hopefully.

I just want to remind eventual readers about Lindgren’s speech 1978 “Never violence.”

Earlier postings under the label “Astrid Lindgren.”

Addition August 31: In the book referred to above Astrid described how her childhood home at Näs looked like, and how it was furnished and she also describes some scenes from back then.

In the second part of the book she comes to the sofa in the living-room (what we called “sal”), a sofa which stands at the same place as it did when she was a child. On this sofa she and her brother got spanked the first time she writes.

The reason for this spanking was that she and her brother Gunnar had gone to “the murmuring ditch” (porlande dike) where Gunnar quickly climbed the stones, and Astrid of course followed him, with the result that she fell down between two stones in it. Gunnar ran home and told their maid Signe who went to the parsonage (prästård), where their mother was, something Astrid always thought was very stupid. Because their mother came fetching her two kids.

First she spanked Gunnar with the birch (riset), which Astrid thought was very funny to watch she writes, and then Astrid, something she didn’t think was fun at all,

“…when I for the first time in my life got spanked”

as she writes.

She didn’t become spanked again until she turned five or six when she had decided to move to the loo, from home (so at the first occasion described above she must have been smaller!!), because she had been unfairly treated of some reason (for what and how she had forgotten by then? She only rememered that she had been unfairly treated).

She was convinced that all should come running asking her to move home for God’s sake, but, no, they didn’t.

She bore being at the loo for five minutes, she thinks, and during this time her mom had taken the opportunity to offer sweets to the other people or kids. This was more than Astrid could stand, so when her mom came passing Astrid kicked with her foot, of course so she didn’t kick her mom, she only kicked at her mom as a sort of demonstration. But she shouldn’t have done that, because then she got spanked for the second time in her life as she writes.

The third and last time was when she and her younger sister Stina had been invited to a Mia (cousin?) in a nearby village. They had gone there on foot. Mom had said that they should be home by 7 that evening.

However, it was “unnaturally fun” at Mia’s. And Astrid had albuminuria (äggvita) and felt that she hadn’t the strength walking home. Their aunt Hardine (mother's younger sister) then said:

“I think you can stay, I take that on me!”

She took the responsibility on her. At this time there was no phone in this village, and they trusted aunt Hardine and stayed. But at 9 o’clock in the evening "their Pelle" (the farm-hand?) came and fetched them, and when they came home their mother met them at the yard saying:

“Is it seven o’clock?”

and walked further and fetched a birch with which Stina and Astrid got spanked, not on the sofa, but on their room one stair up. Astrid recalls this because

“…the birch laid frayed (trasigt) on the fireplace the next morning, where it was discovered by Signe (the maid) who said: ‘I think you are too big to get spanked!’”

The girls thought so too as Astrid writes. Astrid continues that

“That spanking I apprehend as abuse, although it probably was scarcely perceptible [wasn’t it??] because the birch was of such a bad quality that it got broken immediately [did it actually?? Or was the spanking so severe? So Astrid had to deny what she had been exposed to, including how extremely humiliating it had been?].”

So how rosy was this childhood actually? But Astrid and her siblings had witnesses around them? And the strictness wasn’t total?

Sinead O' Connor...

You made me the thief of your heart
I hope you're happy now...
...I could never make you so...
you were a hard man...
no harder in this world
you made me cold and you made me hard
and you made me the thief of your heart
Winter is cold...oh!
But you're colder still
and for the first time
I feel like you're mine
I share you with the one who will
mend what falls apart
and turn a blind eye
to the thief of your heart
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost all
you lost all
you lost all
I'll never wash these clothes
I want to keep the stain
Your blood to me is precious
nor would I spill it in vain
your spirit sings
though your lips never part
singing only to me
the thief of your heart
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost all
lost all
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost all
lost all

I liked the music, but what is the text about actually??

Barndomen och dess effekter (senare) i livet…

[Lätt redigerad på kvällen, samt 22 augusti med länkar i slutet, för min egen skull]. Mitt i jobbstart med tusen saker i huvudet… Ville bara få ur mig detta.

Ju mer man är i förnekande desto större konsekvenser får den misshandel man blivit utsatt för, för en själv och andra. Jag tror att Alice Miller har rätt:

“Feeling and understanding the causes of our old pain does not mean that the pain and the anger will stay with us forever. Quite the opposite is true. The felt anger and pain disappear with time and enable us to love our children. It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to [and which gives us all sorts of troubles]." (Alice Miller in an answer to a reader’s letter May 24, 2008, relating to a talk between Andrew Vachss and Oprah Winfrey)”

Översatt blir det något i stil med:

”Att känna och förstå orsakerna till vår gamla smärta betyder inte att smärtan och vreden kommer att stanna för evigt. Motsatsen är snarare sann. Den vrede och smärta som vi har känt [medvetet, eller så medvetet vi förmår] försvinner med tiden [och inte tvärtom] och gör oss förmögna att älska våra barn [oss själva, andra barn och andra vuxna människor]. Det är den smärta som lagrats i vår kropp, som vi undviker och förnekar, som driver oss att upprepa vad som gjorts mot oss.”

Och det är de som är minst benägna att erkänna dessa sidor i sig själva, som är i största (kanske det mest totala) förnekandet, som söker sig till maktpositioner (för att slippa ta itu). De man i psykohistorien kallar de efterblivna psykoklasserna (efterblivenheten har inte med gener att göra eller kan inte förklaras med psykoanalytiska idéer. Idéer som för övrigt förnekar och döljer/skyler över sanningen eller gör en i värsta fall totalt oförmögen att komma i kontakt med sanningen. Ville helt kort tillägga att jag inte påstår att jag har skådat sanningen, min egen sanning. Kanske bara vagt, vagt anat den?? Jag påstår heller inte att jag inte spelar ut mitt egna alls, tyvärr gör jag kanske det fortfarande hur mycket jag än skulle vilja att jag inte gör det).

I dag fanns en debattartikel i DD med rubriken ”Mobbare riskerar att hamna i missbruk och kriminalitet.” Där stod:

”Undersökningar visar, (Dan Olweus med flera) att mobbare som inte får hjälp med att komma ifrån sitt destruktiva beteende, löper fyra gånger så stor risk som andra, att så småningom hamna i missbruk och kriminalitet. Eller på annat sätt uttryckt. Fyra av fem av våra ungdomar som sitter på kåken, har varit mobbare under sin skoltid som inte fått hjälp./…/

Vilka barn och ungdomar är det då som terroriserar sin omgivning? Det finns inga starka allenarådande karaktärsegenskaper som kännetecknar mobbaren. Även om det finns en del att peka på./…/

Orsakerna till att en ung människa börjar att mobba andra står ofta att finna i hur barnet behandlas hemma. Om föräldrarna inte sätter tydliga gränser för barnets aggressiva beteende så kommer det sannolikt att fortsätta, till någon annan orkar att sätta gränserna.

Den främsta åtgärden vid all slags oönskat barnbeteende är, att en vuxen med kärlek omedelbart, korrigerar det felaktiga beteendet.”

I senaste lärartidningen står det också om mobbning. En skolpsykolog säger om hot om att flytta mobbaren att skolan då

”…använder sig av mobbarens eget språk och lär ut mobbarens egna strategier.”

Jag kunde inte låta bli att reflektera över allt detta sammantaget: För att verkligen komma tillrätta med existerande våld av alla slag räcker det inte med att se de ytliga orsakerna till detta våld. Vi borde (måste) gå till de yttersta rötterna. Och våga se dem klart och tydligt? Utan att göra detta kan vi aldrig hitta de åtgärder som ger mest effekt. Eller de åtgärder som alls ger riktig effekt.

Men då måste vi våga börja se var dessa rötter finns.

Annars kommer problemen att fortsätta kvarstå i samma grad (och kanske till och med öka i grad och omfattning). Och vi kanske ovanpå allt tillskriver dess existens gener för att alls kunna förklara varför beteendet fortsätter trots allt vad vi "gjort".

Och orsakerna till våld, och det handlar inte bara om fysiskt (inklusive sexuellt) utan också om emotionellt våld, ligger tidigast i livet; hur vi blev behandlade som barn. Och det handlar inte bara om uppenbart våld, utan inte minst (eller kanske framförallt) subtilt våld. Kanske sådant som vi förnekar medvetet och omedvetet (hån, förödmjukelser, ringaktning osv. osv. osv.).

Men dess effekter är kanske så allvarliga att vi inte borde bagatellisera eller förminska dem! Dess effekter är kanske sådana som de flesta av oss inte kan ta in. Vi ser dem förmodligen (utan att se dem) i politiken på allra högsta nivå, med allt vad det kan innebära för oerhört många människor. Vår förmåga att se dem kanske är så skadad, så att vi är så blinda att vi inte ser saker som för en oskadad skulle vara glasklara?

Olweus (som verkar rätt okej) tror dock att

”…att vi har fått fler barn som är aggressiva hänger ihop med en försvagning eller urvattning av föräldrafunktionen.”

PUST!!! säger jag. Men vad är en "bra" föräldrafunktion?? Se tidigare inlägg om "hur komma tillrätta med det tilltagande ungdomsvåldet och det påstådda behovet av föräldraauktoritet"!!! Vad för sorts auktoritet egentligen?

Och en annan skolpsykolog i Lärartidningen (än den i artikeln ovan) menar att barn och ungdomar måste lära sig impulskontroll och vikten av att kunna uttrycka känslor av sorg, glädje och ilska. För övrigt gillar jag inte riktigt chefredaktörens idéer och en viss underliggande ton i denna tidning. Som jag om jag ska vara riktigt ärlig reagerat oerhört start EMOT! Det finns något auktoritärt, patriarkalt i de åsikter han förmedlar känns det! Någon slags klappa-på-huvudet-tendens hos honom och kanske tendenser att slå sig för bröstet?

"Jag minsann!"

Något jag reagerat på oerhört starkt i alla fall...

Se också Olweus ovan om att sätta tydliga gränser, i detta fall för barns aggressiva beteende. Men vad handlar gränslöst beteende om hos barn? Har detta gränslösa beteende kommit ur intet? Vad sätter man egentligen gräns mot? Vad är det för impulser ett barn måste kontrollera? Ett människobarns natur? Undrar jag oerhört ironiskt!

Och jag kan hålla med om det senare; om vikten av att kunna uttrycka sorg, glädje och ilska.

Vilket kanske var just DET som det riktigt lilla barnet (läs spädbarnet) fick lära sig att INTE göra?

Se också artikeln "Mobbning är ett övergrepp, inte en konflikt." De två första artiklarna finns också här.

Tillägg 22 augusti: se "Om (o)förmåga att godvilligt erkänna misstag - samt psykopati..." (om prestige), "Ledarskap och föräldraskap..." (om bland annat vad övergrepp och misshandel egentligen är, dvs. att det inte minst finns känslomässig misshandel, som kan vara nog så skadande, kanske oerhört skadande och förmodligen långt mer skadande än vi inser eller vill inse), "Att vara en äkta auktoritet eller inte...", De som har det bra redan tjänar mest på Reinfeldts politik… (om auktoritär uppfostran).

Alice Miller videos...

By Alice Miller

Why spankings, slaps, and even apparently harmless blows like pats on the hand are dangerous for a baby?
1. They teach it violence.
2. They destroy the absolute certainty of being loved that the baby needs.
3. They cause anxiety: the expectancy of the next attack.
4. They convey a lie: they pretend to be educational, but parents actually use them to vent their anger; when they strike, it's because, as children, they were struck themselves.
5. They provoke anger and a desire for revenge, which remain repressed, only to be expressed much later.
6. They program the child to accept illogical arguments (I'm hurting you for your own good) that stay stored up in their body.
7. They destroy sensitivity and compassion for others and for oneself, and hence limit the capacity to gain insight.

What long-term lessons does the baby retain from spankings and other blows?
The baby learns:
1. That a child does not deserve respect.
2. That good can be learned through punishment (which is actually wrong, punishment merely teaches the children to want to punish in their own turn).
3. That suffering mustn't be felt, it must be ignored (which is dangerous for the immune system).
4. That violence is a manifestation of love (fostering perversion).
5. That denial of feeling is healthy (but the body pays the prize of this error, often much later).

How is repressed anger very often vented?
In childhood and adolescence:
1. By making fun of the weak.
2. By hitting classmates.
3. By annoying the teachers.
4. By watching TV and playing video games to experience forbidden and stored up feelings of rage and anger, and by identifying with violent heroes. (Children who have never been beaten [or treated badly in other manners, my addition] are less interested in cruel films, and, as adults, will not produce horror shows).

In adulthood:
1. By perpetuating spanking, as an apparently educational and effective means, often heartily recommended to others, whereas in actual fact, one's own suffering is being avenged on the next generation.
2. By refusing to understand the connections between previously experienced violence and the violence actively repeated today. The ignorance of society is thereby perpetuated.
3. By entering professions that demand violence.
4. By being gullible to politicians who designate scapegoats for the violence that has been stored up and which can finally be vented with impunity: 'impure' races, ethnic 'cleansing', ostracized social minorities, other religious communities etc.
5. Because of obedience to violence as a child, by readiness to obey any authority which recalls the authority of the parents, as the Germans obeyed Hitler, the Russians Stalin, the Serbs Milosevic.

Conversely, some become aware of the repression and universal denial of childhood pain, realizing how violence is transmitted from parents to children, and stop hitting children regardless of age. This can be done (many have succeeded) as soon as one has understood that the causes of the 'educational' violence are hidden in the repressed history of the parents.

Manipulation...

From an email from a friend this morning: With the help of specially trained psychologists the advisers of Acta are taught how they shall win the full trust of their clients.

There is no doubt that psychological competence can contribute to the training of sellers.

"There has been a lot of research on how to influence other people, without the influenced noticing that she/he becomes manipulated,"

a psychologist says.

He has seen how sellers use psychological competence.

“With technical language this technique is called neuro-linguistic programming, or NLP. In the clinical psychology such techniques are used without the patient being clear over this [not clear over what's happening]. You try to bring peoples' thoughts, and create feelings, in certain directions. But then [in this circumstance] they are used with a good aim [but is it better in this or any other circumstances?]. It is unethical using these techniques in selling businesses, [especially] when they are exclusively used in winning purposes [gaining money!?]”

this psychologist means. He thinks it’s important that people are aware that techniques like these exists.

“You need to have counter-knowledge, so you are better prepared in meetings with trained sellers,”

he says.

I wonder what Alice Miller has written about NLP and manipulation once again… Maybe I will look for this later. See articles by and about Miller and her ideas here, here and here.

Creativity…

In the car home from work I had a lot of thoughts… We discussed a “new” form of cooperation at work. Initiated by us piano teachers originally. The discussion didn’t become especially “hot”, people looked or felt moderately interested.

We (the piano teachers and colleagues from other instrument groups) think people are working in many different, separate music schools. We would want to work more over the borders, for our own and our pupils' sake. At the same time we (on the whole workplace) have spoken about creating we-feeling.

It started to boil inside when nobody seemed to be interested, all sat there quiet. I felt very provoked. Of course you can wonder why I felt provoked, but this is another question and post I think.

I thought a lot for myself sitting there. This “we-feeling” we try to create by quite superficial means, as having parties and “funny” games. The rebellion in me was awoken?? Forced fun isn’t fun; funny games aren’t funny if they are forced on you! And this forced fun can become humiliating for some too?

And in the car I thought further… Are many of us so stressed and tired? And this stress and tiredness makes us less creative? We get stuck in certain thought-patterns and are incapable of thinking in other and/or new? And at the same time many maybe also feel they OUGHT to be creative, much more creative. Which rather add to the stress instead of lessens it! People can land in a viscous circle.

And I also came to think about the topic stimulation: neither over nor under stimulation are good. None of them are good in long term. Maybe short term stimulation (in form of stress for instance) can make you create big things, but you don’t if the stress and press continues year after year. And who knows what happens during this time either? If your life and relations are stable you can manage a longer time, but what makes sure nothing will happen?

Under stimulation is bad too! People also need to use their powers…

And on top comes the tricky things with balance… And we have to be allowed making mistakes!

I got an email this morning from a friend, about manipulation... Would want to write a separate posting about this, a brief one. But now I think I am going to take a bike ride first. Then home for some supper and maybe some more writing.

Brainwash...

Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth.

The Swedish author Bodil Malmsten wrote on her blog about our current culture minister Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth who had said earlier this summer to one of our biggest newspapers that

"...to wash my brain I read detective stories."

Malmsten had given this blogposting the heading "Brainwash."

Video with George Galloway speaking in Seattle…

About him here, his unofficial home site here.

Galloway came home once and told his grandpa that one of his teachers had said that the sun never sets in the British Empire (the Empire was SO vast). The grandpa replied something in the style that:

“God would never trust the English in the dark."

The one posting the video above writes that:

"Multiculturalism is the only true benefit of empire. When will the far right stop using our history as propaganda."

And it was posted as a comment to this video.

About early empires here.

Why this need for power, creating big empires? This HUGE need for power! Can it be about False Power Anger and False Power Denial of Needs? Big boys with unlimited needs? With an immense, limitless need for power? And this wouldn't be a problem if it hadn't caused so much damage and troubles in the world.

Isn't it strange we haven't been able to deal with this better at this point?

And why don't more women react either? They not only suffer from the False Hope of changing the men (nearest them, by being kind, compliant etc.?), but they ALSO suffer from False Power Denial of Needs ("Oh, it doesn't matter! I don't need..."! How and where do they get THEIR unfulfilled needs met then? And if they have no children who can fill their needs... Where and how do these women fill THEIR needs?).

“Look up, Hannah!”

Schulz: Speak - it is our only hope.

The Jewish Barber (Charlie Chaplin's character): Hope... I'm sorry but I don't want to be an Emperor - that's not my business - I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible, Jew, gentile, black man, white. We all want to help one another, human beings are like that.

We all want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone and the earth is rich and can provide for everyone.

The way of life can be free and beautiful.

But we have lost the way.

Greed has poisoned men's souls - has barricaded the world with hate; has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed.

We have developed speed but we have shut ourselves in: machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little: More than machinery we need humanity; More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood for the unity of us all. Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me I say "Do not despair".

The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress: the hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people, will return to the people and so long as men die [now] liberty will never perish...

Soldiers - don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you and enslave you - who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you as cattle, as cannon fodder.

Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines. You are not cattle. You are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate - only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers - don't fight for slavery, fight for liberty.

In the seventeenth chapter of Saint Luke it is written " the kingdom of God is within man " - not one man, nor a group of men - but in all men - in you, the people.

You the people have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness.

You the people have the power to make life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy let's use that power - let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give you the future and old age and security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie.

They do not fulfil their promise, they never will. Dictators free themselves but they enslave the people. Now let us fight to fulfil that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men's happiness.

Soldiers - in the name of democracy, let us all unite!

Look up! Look up! The clouds are lifting - the sun is breaking through. We are coming out of the darkness into the light. We are coming into a new world. A kind new world where men will rise above their hate and brutality.

The soul of man has been given wings - and at last he is beginning to fly. He is flying into the rainbow - into the light of hope - into the future, that glorious future that belongs to you, to me and to all of us. Look up. Look up."

My work...

Some loud thinking again: Forced fun. Is that respectful? Can it become almost humiliating?

And I/we have heard:

“You ought to/shall talk!”

Because many people are said to be or keep quiet.

But some are told not to talk! Actually my (female) boss said I had been he one that had talked most on the meeting I am referring to below! I got dumb hearing this, and thought the more. But felt I didn't want to argue...

I who used to be most quiet of the quiet!!!

"People don't say what they think!!"

we have heard.

"They talk in the corridors instead!"

"I don't want corridor-talk!"

our former boss (a he) said once. I dropped my cheek. And thought for myself that:

"Does this have the opposite effect? Or people rather keep totally quiet and explode when they have built up enough inside? And if you can't create this sort of communication you can't order it!"

Actually I also asked a psychologist (needed to get permission from someone? with deep self-irony):

"Am I allowed to think that they are stupid???

The psychologist got dumb. Dropped HIS cheek. And then he said:

"Yes, you ARE!"

What my female boss above used wasn't it a Master Suppression Technique? First we are told to say what we think and then yo are told thatyou have spoken most of all on a meeting!

My piano-colleagues replied to this (when I told them later):

"And?? (what did she mean? What should you do?)"

Yes, I don't know, maybe she could have tried to meet what I said? And discuss facts? Or?

Slowly I have realized it is like this she functions; things just slip out of her mouth, and maybe she even regrets what she has said... But having this trait can't it be a problem, create problems? Putting quite high demands on people around? (do all get the same understanding though?)

My boss also said about having a lecture in communication (later a piano colleague said that our boss and another colleague had been on a lecture about communication on Monday, the day before we started): Can you learn these things by reading about them or hearing about them on a lecture? Only? Some can? But can all? I doubt on the effectiveness. But information is better than nothing?

I sat in a small group this week discussing an inquiry about the psychosocial environment at our work. After this I was quite upset. Went home for lunch. Called a colleague to pour out a little of the frustration. And succeeded to calm down!

This time of the year, making our time-plans (with he pupils) is something we all think is one of the toughest, if not THE toughest, periods of the year.

Before we got on summer vacation we got a graphical oversight over measures we need to take to make more co-workers more satisfied with the psychosocial work environment.

On this meeting this week I tried to point out how important it is to try to engage ALL at our workplace in these questions/topics (if possible). Tried to put emphasize on that about participation and engagement. The less people feel engaged and participating the less they do in work (not that I want to force anybody to anything) – and the less they reply/answer to any inquiries of any kind. If they aren’t engaged in this work and/or inquiries of this kind things can’t lead to anything. Hmmm, my impatience has grown with the years?

Only 14 of 32 teachers had replied/answered to this inquiry! I wonder what this says (IF it says anything?). That people are satisfied, and/or don't really care? Only the less satisfied have answered? OR the most satisfied? Or it's he most passionate that have answered to the inquiry?

But I am not going to beat my head bloody in trying to change these things if they don’t get real support! And with a sigh and tired smile, I don’t think our (female) boss understands what I mean. She has no real sense for making people engaged and participating; despite she is such a social person as she is. Not afraid of talking, liking parties (and big parties), having a lot of social contacts (I think)... But does this automatically mean a person can handle other people?

If she, and nobody else, understands the work environment it can be as it is.

What do I have in my backpack, influencing me in these topics? Having grown up in a big family (with five younger siblings, coming close, being big sister out in the fingertips?) a father who worked as teacher the first 6, 5 years of my life, and as headmaster till his retirement. He in turn having difficulties to subordination? Having difficulties with women… Especially with strong women?

And I think my mom actually also had teacher-tendencies! Even though she worked as nurse…

After this sidetrack, back to the meeting this week: according to the results from the inquiry people weren’t really satisfied with the psychosocial work environment. And not with the atmosphere or cooperation, and they thought that it wasn’t clear who shall do this and who shall do that, i.e. the organization of the work could become better.

People also thought that the meaningfulness on our meetings isn’t what it ought to or could be. And they didn’t think that suggestions that are put forward are leading to concrete changes/improvements.

Another thing that we could explore the consequences of was the possibilities for development (in general?).

Hmmm, and the medicine against this, and something that is thought to transform the workplace and create understanding between individuals and groups and create a “we-feeling,” is parties and playing games… Having what I would call forced fun…

But I am no kid any more (but quite girlish, something I have mixed feelings about. Is this side a protection?)!! I am a grown up person (I HOPE!!) and I want to be treated like one!

This is a workplace not a kindergarten!

This doesn’t exclude that I can’t play with my pupils, and have fun with them, and also do such things with my colleagues! But if people are forced to this it can become disrespectful and almost humiliating!?

Yes, if we were treated with real, genuine respect of bosses capable of showing this – how would that be??

Would we behave differently too with our pupils/students, colleagues, parents etc.?

Spontaneously and temperamentally writing, pouring out! Yes, I work with artistic things (do I??? How artistic is what I/we do – actually???).

Alan Greenspan's personal side…

På svenska: det verkar vara den starkes rätt som gäller, kanske mer än någonsin? Se denna blogg apropå den starkes rätt (det där med arrogans igen och förakt för svaghet). Pippi Långstrump sa att "den som är jättestark måste vara jättesnäll." En kommentator på en annan blogg citerade den svenske poeten och biskopen Esaias Tegnér i följande dikt.

Väl formar den starke med svärdet sin verld,
väl flyga som örnar hans rykten;
men någon gång brytes det vandrande svärd
och örnarne fällas i flygten.
Hvad våldet må skapa är vanskligt och kort,
det dör som en stormvind i öcknen bort.

Men sanningen lefver. Bland bilor och svärd
lugn står hon med strålande pannan.
Hon leder igenom den nattliga verld,
och pekar alltjemt till en annan.
Det sanna är evigt: kring himmel och jord
genljuda från slägte till slägte dess ord.

Det rätta är evigt: ej rotas der ut
från jorden dess trampade lilja.
Eröfrar det onda all verlden till slut
så kan du det rätta dock vilja.
Förföljs det utom dig med list och våld,
sin fristad det har i ditt bröst fördold.

Och viljan som stängdes i lågande bröst
tar mandom lik Gud, och blir handling.
Det rätta får armar, det sanna får röst,
och folken stå upp till förvandling.
De offer du bragte, de faror du lopp,
de stiga som stjernor ur Lethe opp.

Och dikten är icke som blommornas doft,
som färgade bågen i skyar.
Det sköna du bildar är mera än stoft
och åldren dess anlet förnyar.
Det sköna är evigt: med fiken håg
vi fiska dess gullsand ur tidens våg.
Så fatta all sanning, så våga allt rätt,
och bilda det sköna med glädje.
De tre dö ej ut bland menskors ätt,
och till dem från tiden vi vädje.
Hvad tiden dig gaf må du ge igen,
blott det eviga bor i ditt hjerta än.

Witches and other monsters...

examination of a witch.

Working here at home after lunch. Now a break on the balcony with something to eat. I happened to throw a glance at the local newspaper lying here on the foot-stool at the TV, and read the title to an article, written with big letters. The heading was "Witches and other monsters." I couldn't help smiling, with a lot of feelings bubbling up... Of quite deep irony, sadness, anger... The title felt as a thought.

Are there modern "witches" too? Women need to be held on distance? What do the witches stand for? Are they symbols for something? What? And what is the brave knight about? See below.

The extremely dangerous woman? And now I saw that I had written a posting earlier on witch-hunt, "Silence makes the violence possible..."

Having a slight headache...two versions of the knight on the white horse killing the monster (dragon).

In the evening (slightly updated August 14): found a letter from a reader to Miller on Miller's web. Want to quote from it.

“I've often been astonished by the intensity of my hatred (I some times honestly feel that I could kill my mother for what she has done to me), but now I do understand that it comes from my early experience of being helplessly intertwined with her serious emotional disturbances leaving me to feel responsible for her feelings and needs, basically speaking; her life. She made me feel this way with STRONG means such as serious threats and manipulations. And this has effectively stopped me from living my own life because every time I try to do so I'm subconsciently being dragged into HER needs

[fulfilling HER needs, the mother's childhood needs? Giving the mother the attention and love she should have gotten from HER parents once but actually didn’t get then (the child had no other choice but to help her mother keeping the denial in place), a hole the child will never be able to fill how cleverly she even tries/tried her whole life? And this mother didn’t want to recognize/realize how she actually had had it, what she had missed, and how her parents actually were and/or had been? No rebellion, indignation, questioning or anger against this, Instead she directed her anger at the child/children. Sacrificing not only herself and her own life, but also her child’s/children’s].

This is really difficult and I have literally felt sometimes that I couldn't leave the house or engage in my own interests, and even my education was affected by this depression and horrible anger I felt

[not allowed to be happy, to have genuinely, really fun, enjoying the life and a real, genuine contact/communication with other people (for instance with a partner), maybe even being truly loved, because her mother didn’t have any of this? The child had to sympathise, by living a miserable life too? And preferably an worse life than her mother!! So there was no risk her mother's view would be challenge and she had to question her own life?]./…/

…still I 'm struggling to live my own life

[even though she hasn’t had contact with her mother for ten years!!! Talk of being tied up!!].

These feelings of being responsible are so strong and so difficult to set aside that I do not know what to do. Intellectually I know a lot of things but still emotionally I feel like I'm a child, fearing whatever might happen if I take the stand and say to the world: ‘I do not support my mother anymore. She has to do without me destroying myself for her. She has to deal with her own feelings and lies.’

HELP… I feel that I'm an awful person

[The child was made and forced to feel like that; that she was an awful person/child, selfish, only thinking on herself, made feeling this with different means, with threats and manipulations of other kinds?? Made feeling guilt for abandoning and failing (svikande) her mother (but who had abandoned and failed the mother actually?), by not living her mother’s life, on her mother’s conditions! And for this she was going to be horribly punished? A horrible punishment must just come! And this was probably what happened? The ‘love’ was withheld/withdrawn from the child, maybe by freezing the child out, thrown out into the cold or threatened of being pushed away? Yes, she was emotionally and maybe also literally pushed away?]

And I can remember myself thinking these kinds of thoughts as a child, wanting her to get lost, leave us, explode, whatever...for me just being able to breathe and live without her invading me all the time. And I remember that I felt an incredible anger and then… GUILT.”

Miller answers:

"Everything in your letter makes sense to me.

Above all you understand that your mother made you RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FEELINGS. Not many people recognize this and suffer thus for decades of feelings of guilt.

Why do you also suffer in the same way though you already succeeded to understand? Can it be that you came to understand this mechanism thanks to my books, rather intellectually, but that emotionally you still can't BELIEVE that your mother used you as a container?

I imagine that you always tried to understand her so she would eventually liberate you from this role and care herself for her feelings?

But she doesn't. She prefers not to look at the mirror and [but] to blame you for her chaotic state of emotions.

Can it be that you still feel responsible for her chaos, her lies, and her contradictions and that you actually can't believe that she ALWAYS tried to live at your cost?

[yes, it is probably so?? And liberating oneself from a person from earliest in life is one of the most difficult things? Nobody want to think that anyone can do what is in fact done to small children, and SO small children or realize HOW common these things in fact are! Or we minimize or belittle what happened, both on our own, children's and other peoples' behalf: it didn't hurt or damage! This won't last a whole lifetime! Etc. Even therapists do this!]

I think that if you succeed to really BELIEVE what you know you will liberate yourself from your dependency and then also from your hatred."

Addition just before lunch August 14: A picture, or an expression that came for me this morning: maliciously smiling (försmädligt, nedlåtande leende). Something the child was exposed to?

In the car I thought further... On blackmail (utpressning), emotional blackmail not least. How the child probably was exposed to this too. And this sort of blackmail is different than the one a grown up usually is exposed to? Even if it maybe can feel horrible even for a grown up? But it was probably even more painful for a child, so painful it had to suppress it even before it reached the consciousness? And even for a grown up it can be difficult to deal with, especially if she/he is still paralyzed by early things...

I'll give you shelter from the storm...

Bob Dylan Lyrics
You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go Lyrics

"They sat together in the park
As the evening sky grew dark,
She looked at him and he felt a spark tingle to his bones.
'Twas then he felt alone and wished that he'd gone straight
And watched out for a simple twist of fate.

They walked along by the old canal
A little confused, I remember well
And stopped into a strange hotel with a neon burnin' bright.
He felt the heat of the night hit him like a freight train
Moving with a simple twist of fate.

A saxophone someplace far off played
As she was walkin' by the arcade.
As the light bust through a beat-up shade where he was wakin' up,
She dropped a coin into the cup of a blind man at the gate
And forgot about a simple twist of fate.

He woke up, the room was bare
He didn't see her anywhere.
He told himself he didn't care, pushed the window open wide,
Felt an emptiness inside to which he just could not relate
Brought on by a simple twist of fate.

He hears the ticking of the clocks
And walks along with a parrot that talks,
Hunts her down by the waterfront docks where the sailers all come in.
Maybe she'll pick him out again, how long must he wait
Once more for a simple twist of fate.

People tell me it's a sin
To know and feel too much within.
I still believe she was my twin, but I lost the ring.
She was born in spring, but I was born too late
Blame it on a simple twist of fate"

"'Twas in another lifetime, one of toil and blood
When blackness was a virtue and the road was full of mud
I came in from the wilderness, a creature void of form.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

And if I pass this way again, you can rest assured
I'll always do my best for her, on that I give my word
In a world of steel-eyed death, and men who are fighting to be warm.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Not a word was spoke between us, there was little risk involved
Everything up to that point had been left unresolved.
Try imagining a place where it's always safe and warm.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I was burned out from exhaustion, buried in the hail,
Poisoned in the bushes an' blown out on the trail,
Hunted like a crocodile, ravaged in the corn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Suddenly I turned around and she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair.
She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Now there's a wall between us, somethin' there's been lost
I took too much for granted, got my signals crossed.
Just to think that it all began on a long-forgotten morn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Well, the deputy walks on hard nails and the preacher rides a mount
But nothing really matters much, it's doom alone that counts
And the one-eyed undertaker, he blows a futile horn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I've heard newborn babies wailin' like a mournin' dove
And old men with broken teeth stranded without love.
Do I understand your question, man, is it hopeless and forlorn?
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

In a little hilltop village, they gambled for my clothes
I bargained for salvation an' they gave me a lethal dose.
I offered up my innocence and got repaid with scorn.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm."

Well, I'm livin' in a foreign country but I'm bound to cross the line
Beauty walks a razor's edge, someday I'll make it mine.
If I could only turn back the clock to when God and her were born.
"Come in," she said,
"I'll give you shelter from the storm"

About the Beat Generation here.

Au Cabaret Vert

Those eight days on the road, their wear-and tear,
Had left my boots stone-savaged. Limping late,
I came to Charleroi, to the Cabaret Vert.

I asked for buttered doorsteps and a plate
Of anything they had: some half-cold ham.

Relaxed, I stretched leg's ache beneath their green
Table and stared, too tired to give a damn,
At the daft doings in the simple scene
Their wallpaper repeated.

Bliss, pure bliss
Flowed over me when that big-breasted chick--
Nor one, her bright eyes signaled, whom a kiss
Would discompose--brought in my butter-thick
Slabs of rich bread, my luke-warm pink-and-white
Ham with it sprigs of garlic; all sweet-spread
On a painted plate. Dear Christ, how good the sight
Of the mug she smiled to fill, whose frothing head,
Not the expected white, shone golden-red
In one long sunshaft of late evening light.

Arthur Rimbaud