Child abuse...

How can one leave this child on its own?? This is child abuse! And nothing to laugh at! Why do people laugh at this? Leaving a child crying and screaming like this is cruel, seen from the child's point of view.

Why is discipline even, or ever, needed, positive or negative, in the first place?? Why does a child react in this way?

See this reader's mail on Alice Miller's website, I just have to quote:

“Dear Alice Miller. Yesterday I watched a Swedish documentary about immigrant children who are a huge problem at school because of their aggressive behaviour and I thought about what you've claimed so many times. The title of the documentary was called ‘The scapegoats’. They were rebels at their school, and teachers were truly afraid of them. Some of the boys even set the school on fire at some point and they were making the place a living hell for the teachers and pupils. This was loudly debated in Sweden some time ago, ‘what to do’...and of course people and politicians would make these worst 20 boys or so the scapegoats. It became so very obvious to me what you've been saying all the time, and the documentary was also angling the problem from a ‘good place’, taking the boys side. They wanted to explore the reasons for the rebellions and destructive behaviour and they found it all right! The boys were all abused at home by their parents, and hit for every mistake or ‘wrong-doing’. The vicious circle was this: They were abused at home and then they took the rage out on teachers and other pupils because in Sweden it is forbidden to use any kind of violence towards a child, and then they knew it was ‘safe’ to act out their rage just as it presented itself to them. The school often ‘had to’ contact their parents and then they would be hit again of course and be more enraged. And this completed the vicious circle. A psychologist/scientist explained very well what he believed himself was the problem. He said that we're not taking it seriously, we're surrendering to that these immigrants have their own culture and that somehow their children are not like the ethnical Swedish ones and we hesitate to interfere because there would be so MANY complaints/so many files...etc.. This was exactly what he himself had been thinking at some point when he was confronted with the social workers' problems of coping. But he said that EVERY child has the right to be protected from their abusive parents not matter ‘culture’. This was also the answer a Muslim family therapist gave. He said that the parents had to learn something new and to understand what they are really doing to their children when they use violence. We always tend to find quick solutions, the laziest ones, so we can protect ourselves from taking responsibility. The children (aged 15-18) were interviewed and asked what they had experienced and their thoughts about it. Almost everybody was totally sure that they would smack their own children because they were convinced that violence is the answer to cope. Only one of the boys was emotional when he spoke of the violence he'd experienced, tears came to his eyes as he spoke and this boy was one of the very few who when asked the question if he would hit his own children said. ‘NEVER’. These boys were used as scapegoats at their homes and then again by the school and society. It was heart-breaking to me, also because I understood my own blindness, my OWN lack of empathy with myself only if it was only in a glimpse. How I've unconsciently done the same thing to myself, never let myself speak up against the violence I experienced. I saw myself in these boys who'd accepted the fact that they had to carry their parents' burden. I could not only see it but feel it, and that is something new to me. Anyway I wanted to share this experience, and also thank you for your great books and your hard work to reveal the truth. I'm too totally convinced that it is possible to change the world if every country would follow Sweden in their striving to never become complacent about children's rights even if some politicians from time to time want to create scapegoats and segregation. It also became clear to me emotionally that fear and suppressed rage is the reason for creating scapegoats. ALWAYS. And how easy it is to fall into delusions over and over again if I do not dare to question my own attitudes. And then I'm left with the question when did that fear enter my own family? It is clear that at some point somebody chose to lie in stead of being compassionate. Then it all comes down to a choice.”

I blogged about the TV-programme mentioned above in the end of November last year, see "The Scapegoats..."

Neoconservatism, neomoralism, perfectionism…

There's a wave of neoconservatism and moralizing over the whole (western) world is it? Ideas that weren't really opportune twenty years ago you express openly today with no shame at all!

Loud thinking around and about things I have read recently, I don’t have any real solutions to these things though, am just wondering, thinking, reflecting over things:

A Swedish journalist about Susan Faludi’s last book “The Terror Dream – Myth and Misogyny in an insecure America” (misogyny is hatred of women, though covered up in today's world as much as earlier?? And, yes, there is a backlash in the society in many respects!!! And I have actually started to read this book!) in the article “My Home Is My Sorrow – Ira Mallik About the Dream That Cracked – and Gender Equality”:

“…September 11 became the starting shot for a medial idealization of the housewife, the family, childbirth and the man as provider.”

She compares what Faludi writes concerning USA with the state of things in Sweden; calling it the building of the home (isn’t it a form of regression we see, regression in an insecure world? People are seeking comfort in idealizing the family, because that early family had “flaws” and they can't admit to that, when this image is triggered we people regress. The more flaws the family had and the person hasn’t processed this or come to terms with it, the more he/she regresses to earlier stages? And this also occurs on societal levels, when a whole society is in crisis, then many become more conservative for instance, we can see a neoconservatism and a new moralizing? Sometimes harsh?):

“With the renovation, the weekend cottage summerhouse and the upkeep of the private house, the parent generation’s traditional gender role division is maintained. Dad cuts the grass and does the joinery; mom works hard, potters about and decorates [see the Swedish painter Carl Larsson whose wife, Karin, also was painter originally, she let her artistic talents and interests out in the family, in the shadow/shade of her husband]. The common prison is decorated with Italian glazed tiles. The dream wasn’t to spend all free time renovating. The dream wasn’t either to look after the kids when the husband was renovating.

The perfection which, as soon as the putty has dried, is completed, seem to be the explosive paste which transforms the love relation to bloody rags and bitter wars, about leases on the place to live and the weekend cottage summerhouse.

All which shall manifest our selves in the home [instead of our true selves??]/.../

Ironically enough it is the same homes that shall manifest the middle class status and the

successful self [being good enough!?] which threatens to become transformed into a prison.

You have to pay money for interests each month and this demands a high and steady income./…/

Hopefully we can start to talk about all peoples’ rights to a decent living instead of fancy and cool kitchens and the right making a good bargain on ones living.”

Yeah, we have to have perfect homes, be perfect, look perfect, express ourselves perfectly (if you don’t you can keep quite) and have perfect lives… Being perfect partners, lovers, workers... So those having problems with perfectionism gets problems too in such a society, problems which had been smaller in another society?? No wonder burnouts, exhaustions – and broken relations!??)

Another article yesterday in a newspaper I bought “Should we get divorced more often?” with representatives for both the outer alternatives “Yes” and “No”. Where the woman Cecilia Gyllenhammar (daughter to the former CEO for Volvo, Pehr Gyllenhammar) said

“Yes! Follow your heart.”

(I didn’t find this article on the web but another one on the same theme).

She says:

“Dead marriages create a milieu without dynamics and beliefs in the future. It makes me crazy thinking of how other people ave answers on how our lives are. Don’t let outer pressure and moral rule. Follow your heart; allow yourself a rich sex life.”

The journalist asks her:

“Do you think more people would divorce if they could afford it?”

Cecilia G. answers:

“Yes, I know from my surrounding that people having it damn [economically] well have to change living area or even to one with a lower status. They are cowards and don’t dare to break up from old patterns and ideals [on top it's great shame not succeeding - or maybe even being left]. The society has to be there and see so people aren’t forced to stay in marriages. We have to prevent so the right [right wing people] doesn’t let our moral govern our lives once again, so the marriages aren’t strengthened in the society.”

We ought to wonder what healthy and sound relations are, and how to create them?? Because even if we are entirely independent we need other people!! Even autonomous people need other peoples in their lives. And a truly autonomous person doesn’t even think or reflect over this, but just has other people around, in healthier relations than many other people have?? And if they don't have people around they don't blame themselves, as if this is their fault?? And shouldnt't become blamed...

A sound, autonomous person can admit to her/his needs, wishes, and desires?

A man, Marcus Birro, has a different view on if it is too easy to divorce.

“Of course there are people feeling very lonely in a relation, but it is nevertheless a defeat with a divorce [yes, something to grieve!?]. Giving up is a loss [yes, and you have to grieve a loss].

The love is stronger than the self-centered cynicism that is rewarded in the society. The ultimate proof of this is that people can marry four times and really believe that it shall function each time, despite that all knows that it can go to hell.”

But he also wonders:

“Is it better being stuck in an emotional desert just because you want to continue driving a golf-car during the weekends?”

Yes, there has been a lot of hypocrisy, and selfishness… How it looks on the surface…

People stayed together earlier who should have divorced!?? Or who should have worked their problems through and gotten help with it too. But because of the moral and taboos people couldn’t talk openly about their problems, maybe at all! And many also became scorned:

"Oh yeah, now you are coming here and complaining! You should have listened to me/us in the first place!"

Or something. So instead of helping people solving mistakes, people became punished, and many times didn't really work anything out. Didn't work things ot that could have been worked out, or in the worst cases didn't work a divorce through for all involved parts best... Or was stuck in a bad relation.

I think it was like this not more far away than in my parent’s generation, where nobody is divorced… Were/are their marriages better and established on better grounds?

Alice Miller has written a lot about traditional morality in the society and its results in her last books... No, what she talks about,and have been talking about for the last 30 years, isn't quite appropriate any more? Not as it was 15-20 years ago??

Are we dealing with the most painful things here though? I.e. our relations with our parents from the first beginning? Betrayals, disappointments, making our lives more difficult than they had to be, maybe far more difficult and painful than they ought to be??

And people don't get proper help dealing with this from their therapists, counselors, helpers! Because it isn't only about understanding those things on an intellectual level! But understanding it on an emotional - to some degree...

What is the eager glorification of the family about? How are the actual experiences of the early family actually for the biggest promoters of the family? Because they are promoting it in a quite moralizing way? How sound are those people?

And that about power, the needs for it and leaders again... See earlier posting with the label "backward psycho classes" and the essay "Leaders" by Bob Scharf, that the more defended psycho classes tend to lead!!! Yes,so it is!? This is what we see in the society and world!!?? With some (few) exceptions!?

Being together...

This morning I happened to read a strip in the local newspaper from the cartoon Nemi by Lisa Myhre, something I don't use to. But today I did of some reason...

The strip above is from another newspaper, and is another one than the one I have translated below.

One woman, Nemi (the black-haired), to the other:

"I want to be together with somebody who comes along with everything! Who sees it as a matter of course that we shall go visiting people together. We shall be a couple."

The other woman, Cyan (the blonde woman), replies:

"I want to have, I wish, somebody who understands that one has to have separate lives too."

Nemi:

"One who knows when to back away. Who doesn’t hang around all the time when the buddies comes or clings on to one when one shall go out."

Cyan:

"Are you talking about the man you want to have?"

Nemi:

"I’m talking about the man that I want you shall want to have."

!!!

Perfectionism...

Came to think about perfectionism - and therapists - of some reason this morning (after an early talk on the phone)… In this case it was about having it perfectly cleaned up at home…

And continuing having almost perfectly even though you don’t manage that any longer because you have gotten old and don’t have the same powers or strengths any more. Not capable of grieving that truth, because there are other things behind these needs…

Unless you aren’t perfect you won’t be loved, get love… However, if I become then maybe… Struggling into old age with getting love, a love you will never get, because you should have gotten it then, struggling for a love that didn’t exist. But realizing the truth feels to painful, so the human being continue to struggle her/his whole life.

I thought further: if therapists understood this on an emotional level, not just with their brain, intellect, analysis and theories, they would be capable of helping!??

A client would immediately sense the emotional understanding from the helper.

But many clients continue struggling with therapists just of the reason they don’t get what they need (and are entitled to demand). In a false hope to get it, to enlighten them, make them more sensitive, empathic etc.

Clients do this to avoid the utterly painful disappointment; the original pain is also touched upon. A very justified feeling of disappointment. And that truth was so painful then so the child couldn’t take it in, or in the best cases partly take it in. With no help this truth is unbearable for a child: the truth that it isn’t loved but loved conditionally (but is that real, genuine love?).

A pain that would be bearable today with help and understanding and empathy?

Addition after lunch: Something I wrote two days ago after a nightly talk that felt like a relief…

Miller writes about people in middle-age at last finding a better partner than the one they found when they were younger in “Paths of Life” *… About how people eventually have found the right one fairly late in life. As Claudia, who as middle age had matured as woman, with Mark, and Daniel with Monica…

Relations late in life yet without struggles, but with more capacities than earlier to work these struggles out; work them out in a new and better way than earlier. Struggles not without pain though… Sometimes maybe with considerable pain?

I thought then, two days ago: some of the troubles we have (have had) and are facing would have been unnecessary? Maybe entirely? And we could have been more capable of dealing with difficulties, which ARE inevitable (and has nothing to do with if we are harmed or not??), in a much better way and easier if we hadn’t been harmed early in different ways; emotionally, physically and not so seldom sexually.

Many times also much more constructively, and without causing so much harm and damage, to ourselves and people nearest to us.

We would have been more capable of dealing with other hurt people in a much better way too? With other peoples’ attacks too? And with what they do and have done. In some cases we would probably have withdrawn in an early stage too entirely, because our feelings, emotions were so intact so we sensed and felt in an early stage what could happen?

* On Miller's site it stands about this book:

"How do our first experiences of pain and love affect our future adult lives and our relationships with others?/.../

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./.../

Alice Miller's intention is to encourage us towards an awareness of the need to learn from experience, adapt to change and regain trust in order to break free of the negative effects of childhood trauma."

---

En perfekt värld (A Perfect World).

I sitt perfekta hem i sin perfekta värld
Är det middag i kväll alla kommer va där
I sitt perfekta hem i sin perfekta värld
Hon smetar på läppstift från en postorderaffär

Och hon är vacker när hon ler
Ja hon är vacker när hon ler
Men det finns ingen i världen som vet
För lögner som är bra dom är en hemlighet

I sitt perfekta hem i sin perfekta värld
Alla fotografier står där dom ska
Bland gröna fåtöljer o tapeter i skärt
Hon sätter sig o väntar nu kommer dom snart

Och hon är vacker när hon ler
Ja hon är vacker när hon ler
Men det finns ingen i världen som vet
För lögner som är bra dom är en hemlighet
Men det finns ingen i världen som vet
För lögner som är bra dom är en hemlighet

Dom kommer hit o äter varje kväll
Men dom kommer ju försent varenda kväll

I sitt perfekta hem i sin perfekta värld
Hon dukar av bordet när TV:n är slut
Bland gröna fåtöljer o tapeter i skärt
Ska hon gå o sova eller ska hon gå ut

Och hon är vacker när hon ler
Ja hon är vacker när hon ler
Men det finns ingen i världen som vet
För lögner som är bra dom är en hemlighet
Men det finns ingen i världen som vet
För lögner som är bra dom är en hemlighet

A doll or a living human being...

[Updated in the afternoon with a title; I was unhappy so I forgot to give this posting a title this morning. Still very unhappy].

One can’t stand certain faults, flaws or imperfections? A not perfect person is nothing to have? Unless you aren't perfect you can't become loved? A living, reacting, feeling human being is nothing to have? A doll would be better? Creating and reenacting this later?

I was not 1, 5 years here yet?

A student's MySpace-site.

The power elite…

Another Swedish voice:

It struck me after watching a TV-programme about the financial crisis, that when one says that one has learned something from the crisis after 1929, one means in first hand that one now has rescued the economical elite.

After the crash 1929 the politicians tried to apply a liberal economic policy, not saving any banks but letting them go bankrupt, cutting taxes and saving on public expenses. This was the method then.

This caused a super depression. Instead one started to apply Keynes ideas and in USA the New Deal was introduced which was about paying money to unemployed and poor, through investing in public activities and infrastructure which created jobs for all those unemployed. The result was a recovery in the economy. After this the war (WWII) of course came.

This time (today) one obviously try to guarantee the bank customers’ depositions and the banks' continued existence, so one can escape from redistributing any resources in the societies and escape investing in the public sector. (You so to say buy the middle class!!?? And sacrifice the poorest in the societies!? Because this the power elite can handle!?).

The democracy can manage a 2/3 society, without that the economical elites will have to give up or fear anything, but a 1/3 society becomes a serious threat.

This the governments can't risk?? So if the power can calm those people (the middle class?) down they don’t have to fear anything?? How utterly cynical???

Dan Gilbert videos...

Another Swedish voice on the current state of affairs in the world...

Johan Ehrenberg.

Another Swedish writer, Johan Ehrenberg in a leader this week:

There is a problem with the whole discussion about the financial collapse and the political decisions which has been taken to save the banks from the collapse. A view on the state as an independent neutral actor, whose achievements shall be seen as something “on top of” the economy. The state interlocks “because it’s best for all.”

This is a special view existing to the left, one discuss the state as something politically radical and this is maybe not so strange because the bourgeoisie puts all its energy on slandering and painting the state black, the state it at the same time is governing and dependent on.

The state is namely used of those who are in power in a society.

It’s an instrument among others to defend a bourgeois society’s continued existence; it’s actively or passively depending on what’s most profitable to the powers that govern a society.

This we can all see today. The state governed by the bourgeoisie engages in saving banks and financial systems. It does this through nationalizing it all, i.e., the state guarantees the loans and affairs of the banks, yes, in fact it guarantees affairs that haven’t yet been done.

But when it does it doesn’t “usurp” the power over the banks.

The truth is that the only stable in all this is that the state – which means all of us – are guarantors for the banks businesses nowadays.

The only which makes the system survive is that we all promise to pay if it doesn’t function.

There is nothing in political proposals that changes the banks or finance businesses. Not really.

What we see is a bourgeois state saving its own members.

Europe’s and the American states have now acted to save the finance-system, a system that didn’t manage its job (and when we ordinary people don't manage our jobs, how are we treated?). A system that instead of creating stability, created insecurity through hiding loans so nobody in the end knew who was responsible for what. The holy business-secret made so the finance businesses were capable of cheating everybody, including themselves.

Of course it’s necessary that a state has money and credits, otherwise a depression is created. But support from the state is about politics, it isn’t neutral. Let’s discuss WHAT sort of politics! Ehrenberg suggests.

The state could just as much guarantee the borrowers, one could guarantee the rate-gap, one could prohibit giving loans for speculations (which means refuse to approve of shares and other similar sorts of papers as security), take the business secrets away around the companies and one could take over the ownerships for the banks.

This would also save the financial system, without making wage earners and citizens paying the bill.

No, the state isn’t automatically on your side. It supports the bourgeois power that governs our economy and our companies.

Which – when the bank system slowly starts to get moving again – is important to remember the next time they say that “there is no money” for public investments or leveling out.

Now there is unlimited money.

To save the own power.

And at last, see the article "Bloomington Art Is Overrated"! :-) And "Indiana University - Bloomington", and at last about the Swedish politician Olof Palme.

Outmoded by the reality...

the work of beavers.

A Swedish writer, Maria-Pia Boëthius in a leader-chronicle:

Media is trying to make the debate apolitical, but she thinks this won’t be a successful strategy because the policy is on its way back. And this time not as entertainment – but as a necessity for life.

She wonders what the next bubble bursting will be. Presumably the blown-up entertainment industry, which during the mad-capitalism consumed “the most of it”: the policy, the literature, the societal debate and so on.

To make the debate apolitical and push it in the direction entertainment the Medias have employed a young, trend setting generation whose premier merit has been that it has cooperated with the power and Mammon.

The myth is that every generation is making revolt, but this Media-generation has “liked the situation” and been the power of assistance through uninterruptedly dramatizing the consumption and create debates, not least through attacks on different celebrities, half-celebrities and arrange distributions of prizes where they give each other prizes. What is their rebellion about? Against what? How?

In Sweden we have many established truths to get out of. One says that all political parties, except for maybe the left party – have accepted the market-economy. But now there is no consensus about what this market economy is or how it shall become designed in the future, so it is fairly uncertain what the parties actually are in agreement about. Boëthius thinks the parties don’t even know themselves.

She had heard an interview on radio with a sociologist from London School of Economics saying that we will now see nationalizing, socializing of – not only banks.

“Isn’t that leftish?”

the reporter asked.

And Boëthius was struck by the thought that she had never heard a public-service-reporter ask:

“Isn’t that rightist? Isn’t that neoliberal?”

in a challenging voice – as if public service instead of trying to be neutral make itself known as non-left.

The British sociologist laughed at the question and replied:

“If I had said that the British state would nationalize banks one year ago one had seen me as mad!”

The high-sounding empty phrases from media that “all political parties are alike” isn’t true she thinks. Does media has interests in that politics become that??

She thinks that politics is coming back, not as entertainment, but as a life necessity. And that the symbiosis between politicians and media is dissolving.

The experience-industry and the blown up entertainment industry suddenly seem outmoded and passed by the reality. The reality itself has shown to be far more dramatic than any manuscript-author could have thought out.

Unconditional love…

Things that have struck me the last days of some reason: instilling shame is used as a method raising children. A very effective method. Shame that you feel and react as you do – and that you have needs (that you are needy and childish for instance).

But those needs were much justified, maybe later on perverted, and thus it became more and more difficult to understand their origins. And the needs became more and more "complex."

This method covers what actually happened, covered not only for the ones involved but also for the environment. Making all more or less incapable of seeing what happened/what is happening even.

Later used for the same purpose grown ups between, more or less consciously or deliberately.

Mirrored how? As someone disgusting, ugly, not really lovable…

Unless…

Unless what?

Unless you aren’t perfect; as a human being, in your achievements, how you look (if you are a beauty or not. Only beauties counts!). So the possibility you will be good enough doesn’t even exist. And thus also the possibility of being loved almost doesn’t exist! False hope to get what you miss, if only... Getting needs met that should have become met then, and can't be met afterwards. Continuing to give us problems later, especially in circumstances that are important for us, in relations that are (most) important for us.

A mother and father incapable of loving unconditionally. The child feeling that it isn’t good as it is. A feeling that follows the individual up in grown up age.

A colleague joked with me on a party yesterday evening. He and three more colleagues had entertained with playing on service flats for elderly people. One of those colleagues is retired since five or more years. They had been joking about what demands to have on service flats for their old ages; if the service flats had ranges of culture, for instance a good piano or Grand piano.

“Come and entertain us with your students!!”

my retired colleague ended a lengthy exposition about service flats and their particular entertainment on one here in town.

“Yes, you have to!”

a male colleague sitting next to me said to me.

“But we will land at that service flat at the same time!”

I replied, not really understanding what he meant.

“As we are (exactly) in the same age!!!”

I added, because he looked a little bewildered. As a question mark almost.

“Yes, I am born…”

I said the year (the same as this man, I think, or the year after).

“I thought you were younger [than him? Than I look? With a sigh. I don't have high opinions about how I look...]…”

He replied. He must have thought not so few years!!??

There’s really a lot working here… Not only because of this event, but because of a lot else…

Things I try to put words on…

But it was/is only the child that needs that unconditional love. I think Miller is right there. Grown up doesn’t need it, or shouldn’t need it, if the development had been sound (or what the appropriate word would be?).

But many of us didn’t get that upbringing, so many of us have problems with a lot of things not least when we get in love… Thinking loudly again.

Free will, brainwashing…

This couple got 17 children in 21 years. From 1884 to 1905. They were both born 1856, so they were 28 when they got their first child and 49 when they got their last. One child died at birth the others lived to adult age, and the average age of those children is over 83 years I think. Did they get their children of free will? Was it God's gift they got so many children? Was it of love of children they got so many children? Or how come they got so many? Not their own free will getting so many? They were Leastadians... And lived near the Arctic Circle in Sweden, in a fairly tough climate thus... How did they manage this? And how did all these children survive? They lived i a small village with only two families. The other family had as many children, but those children died of tuberculosis. None in the family of the couple above got that disease. How come?

I heard a review on TV some days ago with an author of a new book with the title “Our will isn’t as free as we think – when you do as I want.” "Your will sits in the tree-tops." as we say here.

Found information about the book and there you could read something in the style that: Who owns your thoughts? From you open your eyes till you go asleep in the evening you are exposed to an endless stream of trials to persuasions and influences. Each time you turn the radio on, open a book or walk into a shop someone tries to make ideas grow in your head.

An author here in Sweden has written a book about how you become influenced and complaisant whether it’s about personal, political or commercial circumstances. Knowledge about those things gives you tools you can use if you for instance want get a political idea through, start yoga for the personnel on work time or start a sect with some friends.

But this book also opens your eyes for how the war about your brain is carried out. The difference between selling toothpaste and a politician is maybe smaller than you think.

But I think it’s more to say about this…

A person less exposed to child abuse as a child is less prone to becoming influenced by brainwashing. But the problem is that so many have been exposed to child abuse of some kind or another. If not physical or sexual, so emotional; by being laughed at, belittled, minimized, surrounded by a wall of silence to make one compliant and “kind” and so on. But sexual and physical abuse is more common than we believe.

Some more loud thinking: Struck me this morning about therapists talking about a client’s needs for control… At the same time experts talk about the importance of having a feeling that you have things under control, for instance to avoid exhaustion or burnout. You shall but shall not. In one circumstance you shall let control go and in another control is important. Confusing!? And does this promote integration, healing or recovery actually? Why do therapists use this/these method(s)? Is it because they can’t deal with what’s at the bottom of this problem really, or too many times hardly at all: The child once with no control, who had find itself in situations and circumstances help and powerlessly?

And if the latter adult doesn’t get help processing this she/he will continue to have problems with these things, bigger or smaller, depending on early experiences!? More or less visible? Because a clever client can manage to hide further and continued problems both to her/his therapist and her/himself??? But sooner or less the problems will show up again in some form.

Something Alice Miller actually has written about, when she has written about therapies. For instance in her last books “The Truth Will Set You Free” and “The Body Never Lies.” About therapies covering the problems and giving temporary relief, and in some occasions more long term.

The so called helpers run the power’s errands (går maktens ärenden) in fact! Even the factual power today, meaning the power in society too.

And for instance the Norwegian physician Anna Luise Kirkengen talks about revictimization, which means people becoming abused again in health care and other so called help situations. Something that can occur and has occurred in forums concerning our childhoods!!?? So it actually exists an expression for this!!!