Individualisering i samhället - som innefattar klandring av offret ...‏

Clarence Crafoord.

Wille Crafoord.

Spridda tankar. Högt tänkande.

Klandring av offret. Man får klienten att skämmas. Och det var precis den metoden våra föräldrar använde för att få oss att ändra oss.

Konsekvensen att samhället lägger fokus på individen ser vi i den hjälp som erbjuds (i terapi). Ansvaret ligger på individen. Praktiskt för den i makten. Som kan undandra sig ansvar.

Den svenske psykiatrikern och psykoanalytikern Clarence Crafoord var med i Skavlan igårkväll. Åtminstone två av hans barn, sönerna Alexander och Wille, verkar (med rätta) vara ganska kritiska mot honom som förälder och hur han hanterade sitt föräldraskap.

För mig verkar han vara världens egoist.

Här om Crafoord och om en av hans böcker.

Han har varit utbildare av psykoterapeuter i Sverige och har högt anseende i dessa kretsar i Sverige?

Vi har fått lära oss att inte lita på oss själva och det vi känner. Därför tror vi på auktoriteter – ELLER förkastar alla auktoriteter.

Vi har svårast att bli arg på den som har det högsta ansvaret eller som begick övergrepp. Våra föräldrar tidigast i livet. Och ju mindre vi fick hjälp att ifrågasätta det de gjorde eller om det var kärleksfullt det de gjorde eller – vilket är svårast att inse på egen hand – att det faktisk var kärlekslöst, desto mer tar vi med oss detta upp i livet.

Kom att tänka på hur det ofta var i familjer (och detta finns delvis fortfarande?):

”Barn måste lära sig!”

Mina första lärare tillhörde den riktigt gamla stammen och läste uppbyggliga, moraliska berättelser i skolan på morgonen sedan vi sjungit psalm ”Din klara sol eller dylikt!

Barns inneboende ondska - och egoism (självupptagenhet) - måste uppfostras. Men den starke har skyddats! Och dens handlingar har förklarats och ursäktats. Men att bli sviken är ännu smärtsammare? Att den andre vuxne inte försvarade en, mot ilskeutbrott, bristande respekt för barnet och dess känslor (inklusive känslomässig incest, dvs. att använda barnet som pratpartner/terapeut stället för till en annan vuxen), mot aga eller t.o.m. sexuella övergrepp (även i form av otillbörlig beröring) till exempel.

Barn är beroende, de skulle inte skilja sig från sina föräldrar, de är svagare, mindre farliga - och lättare att forma. Dem kan man ändra och dem ska man också ändra.

Och har man inte fått känna med sig själv så kan man i motsvarande grad inte känna med andra. Men alla de som hjälpt en att ifrågasätta; i böcker (som Alice Millers och de som berättat om sin barndom), har hjälpt många ett steg på vägen mot större empati, både med sig själv och med andra.

Det här med att lära en klient att sätta gränser utifrån så att säga utan att förstå (inte bara på en intellektuell, utan också känslomässig nivå) vad har det lett till? Ökad medkänsla, empati?

Har individen förstått på en litet djupare nivå varför hon/han har svårt med gränssättning?

Hos de mest skadade hjälper det nog inte med att läsa (böcker eller artiklar av Alice Miller t.ex.).

”Man kan inte skylla allt på föräldrarna (chefen)!”

Hur effektiv och långsiktig blir således ”hjälpen”?

Skambeläggning av klienten leder det till tillfrisknande?

”Gör si, gör så! Du borde…”

Somliga terapeuter menar att det är en kränkning om föräldrar talar om vad ett barn bör och inte bör känna, tänka, tycka. Och det kanske är en kränkning i andra sammanhang också; när en vuxen i ord eller underförstått gör likadant!? När terapeut gör likadant också.

Att lära klienten sätta gräns kanske behövs i en akut situation! Men på längre sikt räcker detta? Kanske för dem som är mindre skadade.

Men om klienten misslyckas att sätta gräns förr eller senare, vad sker då? Börjar individen klandra sig själv: jag är hopplös!

Och somliga terapeuter menar att just detta: att klandra sig själv är en försvarsstrategi hos det lilla barnet för att överleva misshandel och kränkning. Denna försvarsstrategi följer med om man inte fått hjälp att bearbeta traumat, upp i vuxenlivet. Och man tenderar att klandra sig själv och ta på sig skulden även när man inte borde det. Alternativt skjuta ifrån sig ansvar och skuld.

Men återigen; räcker det bara att säga åt klienten att den inte borde ta åt sig skuld, att den inte har ansvar i en viss situation alternativt att inte ta på sig så mycket ansvar?

Terapeuten borde hjälpa att förstå på ett djupare plan varför man är överdrivet ansvarstagande, överdrivet självklandrande.

Men problemet är inte de som tar på sig för mycket ansvar eller självklander, utan alla de som skjuter ifrån sig ansvar och helt saknar skuldkänslor kanske! De är de sista som uppsöker en terapeut.

Och psykoanalysen har klandrat barnet och dess drifter!

Det handlade inte om föräldrarnas (perverterade) drifter eller (perverterade behov)!?? P.g.a. det de i sin tur upplevt. Dock borde terapi inte handla om att förstå föräldrarna och deras bevekelsegrunder? För det är just det som barnet ha måst ägna sig åt. Och det hindrar kontakt med ens egna känslor?

Och jag tror inte på det Wille Craaford sa om att försona sig med föräldrarna. I detta fall inte minst med sin far och hans sätt att vara pappa.

Är det möjligt att se dem för vad de var och inte förlåta eller ursäkta det och sunt stå upp för sig själv?

Individualiseringen i samhället går igen i terapin: att skjuta över ansvaret på individen (som ska skämmas och som av skam tiger och blir mer eller mindre blind för hur den faktiskt blir behandlad och vilka rättigheter han/hon faktiskt har som född till denna värld: att ha tak över huvudet, mat på ordet osv., åtminstone). Och självfallet har vi som individer ansvar för oss själva, men…

Danska regissören Susanne Bier var också med i Skavlan och pratade där om hämnd - och förlåtelse. Om jag minns rätt. Den engelska wikipediaartikeln innehåller en massa ytterligare information om Bier och hennes bakgrund och uppväxt än både den danska och svenska!

Tillägg 17 oktober: se om "DSM: diagnostisering för pengar och makt - summering av kritiken mot DSM."

Och här om offerrollen – igen.

Den amerikanska terapeuten Jean Jenson har skrivit om detta, se här, tidigare inlägg med länkar.

Se följande artiklar: “The global financial mess: blaming the victims” bav Ann Pettifor, “Blaming the Victim: Domestic and Codependency model” av Greg Dear, “The Shame of Blaming the Victims – In a desperate attempt to protect the president, the right wing has resorted to blaming the victims” av Amanda Marcotte, “Victims are never to blame for coercive, abusive ‘relationships’ – in this guest post, Cara Grayling tackles our victim-blaming culture.”

Opportunistic so called helpers and “experts”…

Had to read the article again that triggered this posting, to see if I had misunderstood things. The original posting is below, if you are interested in my initial reactions to this article.

The authors (therapists in Norway?) are writing (in my amateur translation from Norwegian) that

“…according to our view our age is defending the violated person’s right in a too large degree and is thus avoiding self-settlement with personal and collective life values [in my understanding: people with certain personality traits aren't calling themselves in question, instead they are putting the blame on all and everyone around them; on circumstances, the family, the workplace, organizations, the society etc. It must be a big problem as they are writing an article about this? To whom are they directing this message? And what is their actual message?].

One gives free rein for supporting violated persons’ subjectivity; in serious ways this can burden children and the surroundings

[of the violated person/people? Yes, of course, and then you have to deal with this!]. /…/

It is in the nature of things that those persons don’t see their ways of being as problematic, but are instead accusing the environments. They are projective./…/

The ‘right’s-society’ takes away some of the existential responsibility – for oneself, for the community and for the society’s good.”

I just say: Phew! And have to sigh.

They are further writing about “narcissistic violation”, “persons with violable personalities”, and that

“…the society sets few or no limits to those. They become a great burden for the family, the workplaces, the organizations, public offices and the law and order. There they can be busy with their own lawsuits. [And, on top, oh horrible thought] They often get support./…/

As mentioned earlier a certain group with serious personality disorders is quite violable./…/

In handling those setting limits is often necessary./…/

Laws and rules and regulations are protecting the violated person’s rights in regard to ‘security of law and property’, but one is only to a small degree acknowledging that this also is opening up to increasing abuse

[from those persons, of the rights and the system we have in the society! Yes, is this something new, that people are abusing their rights?].”

They are sounding like and reminding me about a Swedish leader writer.

A physician, with over 35 years as physician, said at a seminar with the heading "The Difficult Talk" (about his experiences with people in crisis, on a 10 Academic points course for music-people actually) recently, that sooner or later everybody will experience pain (and how do we dealwith it then? And why are we dealing with it in the way we do? And what sort of help are we offered in dealing with it?). This physician said a lot of great things on this seminar, which I won't refer to now, just say that maybe it's not until you are experiencing this pain that you understand those persons that can't quit their victim roles?? But for many encounters with pain won't be enough though, I think. They will continue showing empathy deficit. I think what those authors are writing about is actually a minor problem in the society, compared to other problems, with for instance people who have a lot more power, and whose unsolved and denied problems can caus a lot of troubles for people under them. For most parts those problematic people the authors are writing about are or would be possible to deal with? Of course there are extreme cases, but they are probably relatively rare. Or?

The authors are also writing about

"...nuances and balanced values."

How nuanced and balanced is this? As if they are?

In the third paragraph they are writing that

“All have to experience violations in life. It damages the self-esteem, but passes off within hours or days for most of us. However, narcissistic violations don’t pass off especially quickly; it follows the person for a long time, things doesn’t become forgiven or forgotten maybe ever.

Seen with a bystander’s eyes the starting occurrences aren’t especially serious many times [!!??]. Yet, for the violated they get big dimensions, especially with time, and these violations can engulf a lot of the life of thoughts and feelings for the person in question.”

I wonder quite ironically; why are some getting over things while others have difficulties doing this? Can it have with unprocessed early things to do? Things they haven’t gotten help from their helpers to process and understand? And when they don’t recover “as they should” according to those experts, like the ones writing this article, then it’s something wrong with those persons, not with the helper/s or her/his methods?

Alice Miller for instance has written a lot about this, and I think she is right.

Yes, people shall actually keep their mouths shut and don’t complain?

Original posting: Some more loud thinking... Written with a lot of indignation as you probably can see. I wish I could put my feelings in words better than I can. Especially the strongest in words.

I got a link to an article from a Norwegian friend, an article with a heading that would be something in the style “Complaints, Demands and Violations - On Indignation, Victim Position and Narcissism”. Written by (three?) psychologists about people who are dwelling on violations and iniquities (narcissists) and about the society that is unreflectedly defending and understanding those self occupied persons, something they are now calling in question with their article. As if nobody have done it before!?

My friend thought that what those authors were doing was to bait against people who have become violated.

For the first, I don't agree with this; that violated people are defended too much, I think it's the opposite (at least here in Sweden). (The small) "People" aren't defended by the society. On the contrary. They have become less and less defended. And this belong to a trend to blame victims. In line with ideas that we are "safety addicted" (and by the way; who are "safety addicted"?).

The authors write about people whining and grumbling about violations, complaining over all and everything, unable to take responsibility for their own lives. Demanding that other people and the society shall take responsibility for them. People are denying that they have a responsibility themselves.

I wonder, why have they written this article? What’s the purpose of it? Because it has political, societal and psychological implications (how people are treated and seen in the society, what sort of therapy help that’s offered and how people are seen in health care and thus how they are treated there)?

Yes, narcissists are a problem, but not in the sense that those authors claim. Narcissists are a big problem in other respects (that’s another blogposting though), but how widespread is this phenomenon? And if it's widespread why is it? And how do we deal with those? The authors suggest limit-setting.

And narcissism has different degrees in individuals too, hasn't it?

And it’s true that there are a lot of “individualists” in the society today. See what the Swedish professor in religion psychology Owe Wikström has written about "individualism". Sidetrack: some think there were more “personalities” earlier. But this is also another blogposting.

Back to the article: Are you born too sensitive to violations and to narcissist and how do you cure it? Is it possible to cure? Also another blogposting probably. However, I’m touching on this later in this posting.

Again I'm wondering what is underlying articles like these? Is it that the society can’t afford all those who are playing helpless and powerless victims; can’t (economically) afford people who are demanding that the society shall take responsibility for them, and solve everything for them?

And what about golden parachuts? No, that's something entirelly different!?

Too many so called helpers (therapists, counselors, psychologists etc) are opportunists (that is in my feeling adopting a/the neoliberal agenda), and are actually nothing but turncoats and (maybe) even cowards (vänder kappan fegt efter vinden).

I wonder ironically; how many people are in fact complaining and demanding too much (and those who are complaining and demanding are they always the ones that have most reasons to complain)? How many people are unable to take responsibility for their own lives, and if there are, what’s the solution to this? And can it be that people are victims for systems and circumstances they have no power to change?

And, are there forces interested in that we all start to believe that it’s a big, and for the society even, a disastrous problem? But are there in fact much bigger problems in the society? And other, bigger, problems with narcissists? More worth bringing up on the agenda and trying to solve?

And that about perverted needs, about denial of needs and is consequeces?

Is it rather an even larger problem that so few people are calling things in question, instead struggling with their lives, clenching their teeth, pulling themselves together? That “the good people are keeping quiet”?

This is the political implication of an article like this one. And there have come several articles the last years in this style. It’s okay to do this in the society today. The society approves of this? The impersonal “society”. But who is the impersonal “society” in this case? In whose interest are those views and opinions spread, in nobody’s? Are they spread for the best of us all?

Is it an even larger problem that SO many are obedient and keeping quiet? Taught to obey and keep quiet? Taught very early in life to be obedient and keeping quiet? Not to see, hear and speak? And not doing this as the clear-eyed, not damaged child in the Emperor’s New Clothes?

And what is the root to these traits of having too big demands and claiming too much from other people and the society? (And actually among those claiming too much, who are the biggest problem for other people and the society? Those with little or a lot of power?)

The psychological side of it.

I would claim it’s that those “helpers” don’t dare to see them. Do they care about those roots? Yes, Alice Miller is right: those helpers are afraid of calling their own parents (or early caretakers) in question, but now want to prove to those parents how clever they are and how many clients they have cured and thus get “love” and “respect” even if it’s very late in life. Probably with similar methods that were used on them.

Yes,

“Don’t complain unnecessarily! Be a clever boy/girl!”

“Pull yourself up by your bootstraps”.

Yes, the small boy or girl had no other alternatives, and probably survived by doing like this, this strategy was necessary then. But later this becomes a problem for the individual and for the society, especially if this person gets a lot of power. And the most defended tend to lead.

And that the helpers are actually moralizing over their clients means that they actually can’t help anybody in the long run either, LEAST of all those who are “unnecessarily complaining, and dwelling over their miserable lives.” And even if these therapists admitted to their own early history and have been able of feeling some of that early pain it’s not sure they can cure all harmed people.

No, those “helpers” don’t have any other tools than to “teach” their clients and/or patients new thoughts, feelings and strategies? But the changes that will come are only superficial and will only cure the least damaged and traumatized. Is this what Alice Miller calls poisonous pedagogy?

And this with being stuck in a victim role should also need a separate blogposting. Therapists like Jean Jenson and Ingeborg Bosch have written about this.

What people like the authors of this article are showing is contempt for weakness, and actually contempt for the small children they themselves once were. And they probably have all reasons for those feelings. But they shouldn’t work as therapists or helpers.

When their clients and patients are the victims for their helpers’ fears (and actually probably personal denial) then it’s not really possible to understand and forgive their posture.