The Wall of Silence…

Cherry Bird at my work place, picture taken with my cell phone camera.

Apropos punishments… What we regard as punishment? And what we maybe deny being a punishment? Thinking further on ”See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics,” the pschologist Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker in Newsweek, May 13, 2004. Earlier posting on this here (in Swedish) and here.

Miller writes in her book ”Breaking Down the Wall of Silence” (“Riv tigandets mur”) that she experienced the Wall of Silence already in her childhood. Her mother used to meet her with silence whole long days on end for to demonstrate her absolute power over the small girl and force her to obedience, "for her own good" of "love for her small child." She needed this power to mask he own insecurity to herself and to others, but also to withdraw from the relation with her child, a child whom she had never wanted (though maybe denied both to herself and to the environment, not actually knowing what love is probably, because she hadn't experienced true, genuine, real love herself from HER caretakers when she grew up. No excuse though).

And the mother didn’t have to defend her sadism surrounding the small girl with silence, as if she didn’t exist.

The mother saw her attitude as a fair and well deserved punishment for offences the small girl had committed, as her duty giving her a lesson.

This was awful (we can probably not imagine how it feels) for the child. The small girl Miller was couldn’t feel this really then probably, but these feelings (or most parts of them) became suppressed. And so she in turn became insensitive to HOW awful this actually feels, not only to grown ups but not least to a powerless and helpless child. See Berit Ås on the Master Suppression Techniques, where "making invisible" is the first she mentions.

But what was even more painful, Miller writes, was the child’s hopeless efforts to get to know the reason(s) for this punishment. In this omission, negligence a message laid she writes: If you not even know for what you have deserved this punishment you have no conscience. Search (look for), ransack yourself and do your utmost till your conscience says what sort of guilt you have brought down upon you. Not until then you can TRY to exculpate or excuse yourself and dependent on the mood of the one in power you can, if you are lucky, MAYBE be forgiven.

Miller thinks she was exposed to a totalitarian regime and that she was despised (looked down upon) and sadistically treated.

She had to believe that the fault lay in her that her mother didn’t’ speak to her but surrounded her by silence day after day, it must have been her meanness (see Bosch on the Primary defence) that made her mother behave like that (not that the mother was mean!!). That her mother didn’t answer her questions, didn’t care when she wanted an explanation, avoided her looks, so the chikld understood what she had done and change her destiny, being included again in the community, so she could understand her mother (and her strange and very mean behaviour in fact, a fact she should have needed help seeing, a behaviour she should have needed help questioning and seeing as wrong).

As the actual truth was so brutal and unbelievable she had to deny it. For this she had to pay a VERY high price: namely her full awareness was limited and she has been obsessed by guilt feelings since then (for her inherent badness, for which she has to pay her whole life, the rest of it?). Probably reinforced by other people she has had around her to whom she has been drawn?

She escaped this truth by searching the fault in herself, blaming herself (see later how we blame the victims here and there, and meet them with contempt - for weakness!! And for having drawn things upon themselves), and getting blind for her mother’s mendacity (förljugenhet) and thirst for power.

Later she tried to weigh this loss and truth up by philosophical speculations about “the unbelievable truth.”

From the chapter “Ut ur förvirringens fängelse” (“Out of the prison of confusion”) at pages 23-26 in “Breaking Down the Wall of Silence”.

PS. I will probably update this later. A lot at work this time of the year… But I need to reflect upon things too, even if I don’t really have the time.

Concert this evening with our piano-pupils, with rehearsal before it. Now 12 pupils first!!

A lot to organize here; informing all and everyone, practicing with students, I can’t name it all.

And it is over 35 ears since I read English. I didn’t read it the whole gymnasium. I regret it! But I wonder if I was prepared then either…

A church-concert Thursday May 29 in the evening with a group I am co-responsible for and I am accompanying many of them. In June we are going to have a teacher’s concert too, where I am involved. With only a handful of my colleagues.

Perfectionism…

Georgio Grossi.

[Updated during the day]. In the Swedish magazine ”MåBra” (”FeelWell” there was an article with the title ”The more roles you play – the higher the demands.”

There it stood that wanting to be clever isn’t wrong. But always being the cleverest can break the best.

Stop comparing yourself with others so you get spared from unnecessary demands! It stood in the article.

You shall be an engaged parent, creative colleague and lover, in good physical shape and with the makeup on the right place. We shall develop and become better, smarter and quicker on everything we do. Suddenly the whole existence has become a race and the cleverest wins! But the question is if the most clever is the most happy? Or if the cleverest is the most exhausted?

“If you try to fill all those roles you never get a relaxed moment”

the psychologist and stress researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm Giorgio Grossi says, working at a stress clinic sorting under the University?

With all the tasks we have taken on ourselves; as "women in the career," lover, friend etc. a carousel of demands follows of a sort we have never seen before.

At last we have to have everything in check, from fond wall papers and share market to the man’s erogenous zones it stood in the article.

“Wanting to be clever isn’t wrong, but it can become a problem when one feels forced to be perfect in all areas of life!”

Grossi says.

He means that we are competing in being clever of two reasons. One is the fear “being wrong” and getting critics for that. The other is the kick one gets of achieving!! It’s enough hearing

“Oh God, how have you succeeded with all this??”

for us to continue our chase of confirmation kicks. The praise is worth the stress, in short term.

But in long term the trap of high demands are a risk of stifling us because we never get the opportunity for relaxation - and recovery.

Fifty ears ago we had much less to compare ourselves with. You compared yourself with your neighbour. But today we compare ourselves with many more people. There is always anyone smarter, kinder, and faster. And on we chase to become better and we don’t stop until we get a mental break down.

What are we striving and chasing for?

To be good enough?

Getting love? For this you have to be perfect?? And nothing less? The most perfect of the perfect?

And we are told:

“But stop that!!”

Easy like that.

“It’s nothing wrong with being clever!”

And the next moment

“You don’t have to be so clever!!!”

How do we actually come to terms with these things? Many of these hard working women (and men) aren't "stupid" people (and what is "stupid" and "not stupid" The most intelligent can be the most stupid - emotionally? Entirely insensitive?)?? Just by telling us what to do and what to stop with? Quite ironically: I don’t think so! I think many of us should need to understand this on a deeper level, and get loved despite we are like this.

Not be rejected because we don’t have those things better in check – and are so weak??

But by whom are we rejected? Are they worth our time and energy - at all? Do they help us with their attitude? And what is THEIR attitude actually about? Is it actually about contempt for weakness, looking down on people struggling and striving enormously?

And one of Ås' Master Suppression techniques wasn’t it “Damned If You Do And Damned If You Don’t”, double bind or double punishment?

It stands about it that:

“It is strange that the double bind is such an effective master suppression technique. It is manifestly illogical and unjust! But centuries of making women and female culture invisible and ridiculing either or both, do make even the strictest logician go soft. Meantime, women exposed to this master suppression technique, become stressed out when they try without much success to avoid attracting criticism from either side.

The double bind is extremely unpleasant for the constant guilty conscience and feelings of inadequacy it often brings. To avoid such unpleasantness, a woman can abstain from getting politically involved or from having children. She can accept an inferior position at work, and she can try her utmost to adapt to and balance the conflicting demands made on her.

It is important to learn to recognize this fourth master-suppression technique. Women, like men, are needed everywhere: at work, in politics, and with their children. And women must have the right and opportunity to combine different types of involvement without physical and mental burnout.”

PS. And (young) men are adopting the bad female sides concerning occupation with the outer approach I can think (That one reacts at this does it have to mean one is moralising though? Are we allowed to react and wonder and question?).

Of some reason I googled on Britt Ekland and read she has problems with osteoporosis!! She has been overly careful with her weight?

More young women are not feeling well today. The pressure is bigger than ever? Earlier there were no burn-outs or psychological break downs (more hidden earlier?). Are young people weaker today? Spoiled because they have been too protected and not hardened enough. As a Swedish psychiatrist (!!!!) David Eberhard thinks. He wrote a book three years ago called "I trygghetnarkomanernas land" or "In the land of the safety addicted"!! He means that we in Sweden have exaggerated needs on safety, that we have been too protected by the state!!! See an upset blogposting about this here titled "The cynic psychiatry boss".

And yesterday a female colleague whispered quite angrily and ironically that they had said on a one-day course in friskvård (how to care about health) according to two other female colleagues attending this course that the ones lacking ability to say no are (more and more?) labeled with suffering from personality disorder (personlighetsstörning). How convenient!!! Is this an expression of power abuse. And are so called "experts" walking in the leading strings of the power more than ever again??

Are demands and permissions similar for all people on a work-place, in society? Or in the family? We had a studying day (a day where the teachers are educated or just talk a lot!!) yesterday at work, and when I sat there I started to wonder over these things. A bit startled, or how I shall express it.

I thought there for myself: think if one should measure the time men and women are talking and compare this with the subjective experience of how much they talk, what would this show?

You aren't allowed to be long-winded, neither in speech nor in written text!!

When and were and how are you allowed to speak up? And who are actually listened to?

What about giving voice?

Addition after a shower: It's the one suffering who is at fault?? Genes? And/or he/she shouldn't be so sensitive!! But in another occasion she/he can be accused for being totally insensitive!!! You shall be but not be!! In the latest news here today it stands about War veterans (from Afghanistan and Iraq) in US suffering from PTSD commit suicide to a high (an even higher) degree (than before)! Googled on this and found this in English.

But some people claim that soldiers from the WWI didn't suffer from PSTD! So there must be some weakness in soldiers later!!!! Or? How was it actually with the older soldiers? Is it Judith Lewis Herman who writes about this in her book "Trauma and Recovery?"

Pleading the cause of the oppressed…

it looked like this on parts of the road when I drove here on Tuesday! (parking-permissions on the windscreen, not so beautiful! :-))

[Updated in the end March 29. I will perhaps proof-read this text later. I did the translation very quickly - once again. Now I am going to the town to shop food, tomato-seeds etc.]

Some blog postings triggered thoughts… About oppression and who need to plead the cause (föra talan) of the oppressed? Who ought to be spokesman to the oppressed? Who need to plead the child's/children's cause? Can the child do this on her/his own? Who need to plead to other oppressed’s cause?

There was a review of a new book about “the mother” of the Master Suppression Techniques Berit Ås. Angela Davis had said to Ås that it isn’t poverty in itself which causes rebellion. For rebellion (and questioning) to happen/occur or take place a leader from the higher societal classes ["higher societal classes" in a metaphorical sense too!!??] is needed to step forward and lead the oppressed people/person(s) and their revolts(s) [a therapist has this role too? Helping her/his client understanding, questioning, seeing as wrong, rebel against wrongdoings that were done - and are done].

I draw parallels to different relations and different levels of the society, and even to the world’s...

A child needs having someone pleading its right on the “lowest” level already… A child needs help to be able to question and see as wrong and to rebel. Without this what happens?

Children in general in society need this too!? That things are spoken about and able to speak about. That about taboos... What's unspeakable and taboo, things one isn't allowed to touch upon?

And what does a child actually need (respectful treatment for its person, feelings etc.)? What does a grown up need? What are righteous, justified needs for a human being in a society, things we all need and which are justified for all living human beings?

All with power of different degrees have more responsibility for what they do, say, behave etc. towards the one under him/her. Journalists have responsibility for what they write…

The postings which triggered this posting were written from a feminist view(stand?)point…

About how it is in society today, and how it was. And a common denominator is that there is a real backlash in society. Which I agree to too.

I want to translate from the texts:

Ås is influenced by the Norwegian psychologist Robert Levin (a former teacher of hers?). According to him and his research the democratic leadership is the most effective, functions most effectively, and the authoritarian leadership results in discord, dissension and bad cooperation in the groups exposed to this sort of leadership [thinking of our quite authoritarian school-minister Jan Björklund, leader of the liberal party here, and other authoritarian 'leaderships' such as those in therapies, help-forums etc. What does an authoritarian leadership cause in these, and what has it caused?].

Ås and the interviewer, and author of the book about Ås, thinks that the society in fact is leaning on an invisible women-cultural basis, that would fall apart, fall to pieces, if women one day decided to come out on strike (if they should say: No, we don't find ourselves in this!?). This culture is held together with women’s unpaid jobs, the work which isn’t valued, isn’t paid and isn’t spoken of but is taken for granted – as the air we breathe. Ås also says that it is the exploitation of women which characterizes the man’s culture.

And back to what Angela Davis said; that it isn’t poverty in itself which cause rebellion. A leader from the higher societal classes is needed for rebellion. A reflection from me: and to these “higher societal classes” mothers belong for children, fathers too, men for women in many occasions (because men still have more power, a higher status etc.) etc. etc. …

The reviewer writes that today when the individualism is highest fashion and the prevailing liberal ideology claims that all are unrestrictedly egoistic [but why are we if we are???] we are made blind to this fact.

Of course this lays in the oppressors interests, that we all get suspicious towards these persons fighting for many people’s rights and not least that we dispatch those people fighting for groups they themselves aren’t part of, don't belong to [as Cecilia von Krusenstjerna, daughter to the former VD for Volvo P. G. Gyllenhammar in a discussion-program recently about "Are we on our way back to a maiden-society? (having servants again)"!!]. Nonetheless such a disinterested, altruistic behaviour has been the condition, not only for the working-class’ climbing from unrestrained sucking out, but also for women’s liberation. For example, without the support from men women’s fight for equality would have been in vain.

The reviewer thinks on J. S. Mills standpoints, as well as the men which made it possible for women getting Academic exams and work with research despite powerful critics from contemporary co-brothers.

That Berit Ås is very critical to the neoliberalism’s emphasis on the egoism and the individualization of society you can’t miss. She believes in teamwork and cooperation, on the thesis that together we are strong; alone we can’t bring any change about.

But I would add that teamwork and cooperation shouldn't be a prescription in everything we do either; that all have to be involved in everything!!?? Must one exclude the other though? Because, yes, I need my own time and I need a certain amount of freedom... The collective doesn't have to (and shall/should not) exclude the individual... I am an individualist too, but also need people around me!? Does the collective have to exclude the individual or vice versa, the individual exclude the collective*? What would be the soundest? What did Pia Mellody say about independence/dependence?

A younger woman than the reviewer above writes in another posting, on her blog:

“It feels a little cliché-like to say, but it’s true that we live in a time, an era, with an enormous fixation on appearances and looks [is this blog a satire upon this, or only about joking and having fun???], where human dignity is converted into bridges of the noses, rows of teeth and body-shapes [Aren't we good as we are, and if not why not? Do we need to be perfect? In every sense? Being superhuman beings? People rebelling through self-destructiveness and/or destructiveness? And the power, stand in for our parents, tells us whom, what and how we ought to be? Yes, what is actually human dignity?]? Or, we are already there?

I often walk over the cemetery to my work, an old cemetery in central Uppsala, with mossy stones over great dead men and their more or less deeply, under the forgetfulness’ anonymity, buried spouses. A picture of past times./…/

…that one still is there with the wave of life and its strong forces of sickness, and just establish, accept, the dead ones implacable suborder.”

Quotes from Angela Davis:

"Progressive art can assist people to learn not only about the objective forces at work in the society in which they live, but also about the intensely social character of their interior lives. Ultimately, it can propel [driva fram] people toward social emancipation [social frigörelse]."

"Imprisonment [fångenskap] has become the response of first resort to far too many of our social problems."

Was tipped by a friend about the shorter version on “Psychopathy and Consumerism” titled “Consumerism the fastest Growing Religion” – thanks!

Addition March 29: as you can rad in the article above about consumerism.

“Few societies could imagine themselves surviving very long when one of their central institutions was advocating unrestrained greed.”

And what is this need about? About early unfulfilled needs? And see about "Seven Deadly sins"!! In Swedish here. But what are they about in turn too?

And see about John Dewey and the progressivism!

Master suppression techniques...

In another circumstance I searched on the Master Suppression Techniques and found this, translated to English:

"The Master suppression techniques were a framework articulated by Berit Ås to describe five means by which women are or were subjugated in Western patriarchical societies.

The techniques are:

• Make Invisible [surround that person with silence for instance, as if she/he doesn't exist?]
  
• Ridicule
• Withhold Information
• Damn If You Do And Damn If You Don’t
• Heap Blame and Put to Shame"

The roots to this, to this need (whether it's conscious or not)? If I had time I would refer to things Ingeborg Bosch has written I think... The need of bullying (spela översittare).

But I want to add that Ås has pointed out that the use of these techniques can occur not only men towards women, but also women between etc. Used when someone need to exercise power, maybe feel more powerful and knowing, put her/himself above whether it is conscious or unconscious...

What legitimacies bullying of any kind? How big or small, even the most subtle... Can one blame early childhood abuse? And who is responsible for that early abuse actually? And later: is that early abuse to blame for what you do or say, for your actings today? Some small, silent wonders...

Hmmm, that about being well mannered... And what is actually done for my own good? Of real care? Of real concern? What matters and what is important actually?

PS. I have written a blogposting about "Women's voices"... About singing-technique and being able to raise your voice (even technically), even if singing is something I just slightly touched upon in my two music-educations. Over whose voices are dominating, everywhere, even on the net (and who is listened to and seen and heard?).

And it is a bit funny that I have been method-trained in teaching singing... I don't think I know much there... But enough to reflect on these topics (do I know anything about anything I wonder silently?).