Visar inlägg med etikett C. Doctare. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett C. Doctare. Visa alla inlägg

4/19/2008

Cinderella…

the fairy godmother

I go on writing…

Miller writes in her book “The Truth Will Set You Free” about a woman, Katya...

I grew up as the oldest of six children coming close… I have three sisters and two brothers.

Miller writes that a woman (man) can reject accusations from grown up children only if she (he) in her (his) youth wasn’t subjected to [utsatt för] extreme corporal punishment [extrem kroppslig bestraffning] and was allowed to make mistakes. She writes that there are also many mothers who were punished for every little thing by their own parents (by both the mom and the dad) and go on blaming themselves or allow themselves to be blamed. They behave like small children trying to be good so as to earn the love of their parents and not be alone.

My comment: and today there is knowledge they too could benefit from… They could also search for information and knowledge and wanting to know. But all don’t want. Why not? Because somewhere they sense that the truth would be too painful? All these things have caused? For themselves, their lives, their relations and for their children and grandchildren in turn and maybe even great grand children? Unable to stop this vicious circle.

They use to say that people survive heart-diseases if they have close relations or close family ties, these have better chances of recovery (Miller mentions Dean Ornish).

But Miller writes that she has found that many patients cling to the very attachments that have played a strong causative role in their illness (they wouldn’t even have became sick if they had lived in better relations?).

And she writes that some of them manage to free themselves from their illness if they have the good fortune (yes, one needs some or a lot of good fortune for this?) to encounter enlightened (truly enlightened) witnesses who can help them dig down and find their own personal truth.

By the way, the Swedish physician Christina Doctare writes about two elderly people (a woman and a man), if I remember right, in her book “Hjärnstress” (“Brainstress”) and the fatal effects their relations had, especially when these persons retired from work and didn’t have work-contacts as moderating factors. In the end leading to death she thinks.

Back to Katya: it was Katya’s job to look after her two younger sisters. And if they failed to live up to their mother’s standards Katya was blamed for this. Miller sees parallels to the tale of Cinderella (Askungen). She thinks that the dynamics of this fairy tale occur more frequently than we might expect in real life.

Miller wonders how Katya was able to develop an average intelligence. How did she contrive [finna medel till, lyckas] to satisfy her mother’s demands (explicit and implicit, outspoken and not outspoken)? At least to the extent of being able to survive and not turn to crime later in life. Who was helping witness in Katya’s case? Hardly her father Miller thinks.

Katya was unable to remember herself.

But when Kaya was about fifty she suddenly met a former playmate from the neighbourhood who told Katya that she admired her so. And reminded Katya about another family's maid, Nicole, who had been very fond of Katya and spoilt her when her mother wasn’t present, because Nicole was afraid of her mother (what about the child then? In my case people had a deep respect for my parents, who had a lot of integrity??).

Thanks to this maid Katya grew into a strong and lovable person. Noone else in her childhood supported her and showed her respect and affection for the person she was except this Nicole.

As an adult Katya was good at her job, but her private life was a succession of mishaps. She was drawn to the wrong men, abusing her trust and at last Katya married a man she didn’t love.

She wanted children but couldn’t love her children as she would have wished. Intent of being different from her own mother in every possible way, she never beat her children, but she was incapable of protecting them from his cruel father. From the outset her relationship to her daughters and sons, the fist born three months after her marriage (three weeks before she was expected to come), was marked by the experiences she had been through. As her own feelings were alien to her, because she had no knowledge of what a child feels, she was unable to relate to her children’s feelings and maybe even less to the first.

In her own life, including her marriage and her relationship with her son, Katya was dogged [jagad, följd i hälarna] by guilt.

Just as she had been blamed for every misfortune [olycka] that befell [hände, skedde] her mother, father, sisters and brothers, she blamed herself for the suffering of her husband and children. Her husband were adept [skicklig i] at exploiting her attitude to delegate [delegera] to her the feelings he had split off from himself – helplessness, anxiety, powerlessness – and thus avoid living with them himself.

Katya was like a sponge [tvättsvamp], she absorbed all those feelings without realizing that it was not in her power to work out other people’s feelings for them. Only her husband could have understood and come to terms with his own emotions. But instead of refusing to take over the feelings he cast upon her, she accepted them without protest because emotionally she was still the little girl who felt responsible for her parents suffering.

This could be a mix of me, my mom – and my dad?? And sisters and brothers? A thought once again; who have own families in this sibling’s crowd? And why? Were they allowed a greater freedom? Allowed to free themselves? Allowed to see through to a higher degree? Or allowed not to idealize as much as other siblings? And what about self-esteem, valuing oneself? What has one been living for? The only option for some of these siblings, because they had no other value, than doing a good job, being good workers, but doing it very modestly, not thinking they were anyone? God forbid.

At last Katya realized and admitted to that she had married a man who strongly resembled [liknade] her mother, a man without the slightest interest in thinking about his own behavior and profoundly incapable [djupt, grundligen oförmögen] of relating to others.

For twenty years she hoped that with kindness and understanding (False hope) she might be able to change things for the better, but the nicer and kinder she was to him, the more aggressive he became (and contemptuous towards such a weakness and lack of strength, the one he had?), because above all he envied [avundades] her for her kindness.

After years spent soliticing [enträget beende om, bjudande ut sig åt, tiggande om], she developed severe internal bleeding. Her uterus was removed.

Katya was blind to the fact that as an adult she had ways of escaping her dilemma, that she could have separated from her husband. Instead she sought ways of living with him without incurring [ådra sig, utsätta sig för] outbursts of anger.

She also taught her children, especially the daughters (and maybe most f all one of them?), being kind and nice, to avoid being badly treated, incurring outbursts of anger (the victim's fault how it is/was treated effectively inoculated, implanted from early childhood).

“One doesn’t have to be aggressive!!”

Do her children have tendencies to that? And who actually have those tendencies (if any of them have)??

She tried to understand how she could live in peace with her husband; the very sight of her appeared to provoke a towering rage [uppstickande vrede?], so there must be something wrong with her of course.

But what she needed would have been help to be the woman she was and to find the courage to live with the truth, her truth. But her feelings of guilt prevented her from setting herself free. She was within herself still the small child who took all the blame for the bad moods and the failures of the people around her in herself.

And never the two meet.

As she had learned as a child from her own mother, the adult Katya forced herself every day to believe what she was told and not to see what she saw. Although this compulsion as a source of immense suffering [ofantligt lidande], she was unable to rid herself of it and desperately sought a solution (in what manners?), yet she still refused to perceive the roots to her troubles in the relationship with her mother, whom she idealized despite this woman was dead since long and despite she in many ways could criticize her.

Katya’s unfulfilled desire for an emotional and intellectual exchange with her parents, sisters, brothers, and schoolmates had survived for so long in an illusory form.

She had turned to perfectionist, unable to forgive herself for her failings.

To confront these questions seriously, Katya should have had to face up to her earliest childhood, when her mother used physical force (for instance by pulling her children’s hair) to make her a good girl deeply ashamed of everything she did wrong and felt and said and thought, and living in a state of constant guilt (for being badly treated).

The lessons she learned retained [behöll] their impact throughout her life. Katya’s potential fort guilt was unlimited, an innate trait, her nature she thought very convinced.

She was able to develop her creativity and establish relationships. And in her work she was able to help others. Some thought this was because her teachers had been strict at school, as her parents had educated her strictly too.

But all her life she was incapable of ridding herself of the guilt her mother had implanted in her at such an early age. The seed thus sown [fröet som såtts på detta sätt] grew into a tall tree and effectively obscured [fördunklade] a view of the facts. And what was the price, not only for her?

All her life Katya had submitted [underkastade sig] herself to well-established [väletablerade] guidelines [förhållningsregler] (following written and unwritten “hand-books” eager to do the right thing and blaming herself harshly if she didn’t do right, but wrong, for being a lousy mother, lousy wife etc.). She had accepted all kinds of laws that played a major role in dictating her behavior. But doing it so intelligently that she fooled both herself and people in the environment?

"We who grew up learning good behaviour, in a fine family!"

the headmaster's wife (who could have been her mum) at the agricultural school the young couple moved to as newly married said to the young wife one of the first years as married. The truth was that she wasn't raised in a "fine family", on the contrary. She grew up in a working-class family. At the bottom of society really (though socially adapted). And was the only one of four siblings who studied further.

As daughter to this mother one can survive by creating a life where the rules aren’t so strict? Where you can be “spontaneous”? Where you can break rules? Live a bit outside the "norms"? And in that way adopt the father’s way of behaving, but in a more “female way”? Not being quite as bulldozer-like as he? Not quite as insensitive?

Unable to question the code of morals her parents had lived under really. Still correcting her children/grandchildren, but in a “kind” way. Actually using manipulation, but in subtle forms? And not noticing it herself?

I have changed some facts in the original story about Katya…

No, now a bike ride before my niece comes here after her dancing-lesson. She wanted help with two melodies she is going to record at school! She hasn't taken any playing-lessons, so...

Fatalism…

Michael Milburn and a water colour painting by him.

Some morning reflections: I react a lot at our current government (a government I hope becomes short-lived and doesn't destroy too much in the society, but I fear they are going to destroy a lot more than they have already done). And this takes a lot of time and energy for me of some reason?

I wonder what is driving them (and what is driving me?). Probably a lot they aren’t aware of themselves? Or all their drives are probably not conscious (is this to exaggerate)? And why do people in general go on these politicians rhetoric? What is driving them? Do they know what is driving them?

With this not said I know myself so much better than people in general (with a tired smile).

And as the creatively working I am I think hardly any of all our politicians (neither here than anywhere else) show creative traits… And no interests in these things either!! At least hardly any genuine, deep, passionate interests. And I react too on a certain sort of snobbishness…

There are no access between the “right” and “left” brain? The Swedish physician Christina Doctare wrote in her book “Hjärnstress” (“Brain Stress”) that she thinks the future leaders need to have both IQ and EQ and jolly good/proper broad bands between those.

Alice Miller writes at page 188 in her book “The Truth Will Set You Free”:

“As a child I, too, had to learn to keep my mouth shut and stop asking ‘Why?’ of people whom I knew would give me an evasive [undvikande, kringgående] answer. Later I tried to answer those questions for myself and in so doing discovered the supreme commandments running through our upbringing and education: ‘Thou shalt not be mindful of the things done to you or the things you have done to others.’ I then realized that for thousand of years this commandment has prevented us from telling good from evil, identifying the wrongs done to us in childhood and sparing our own children the same fate./…/

If we deny the wounds inflicted on us, we will inflict those same wounds on the next generation. Unless, that is, we make a decision in favour of knowledge.”

But for doing this journey we probably need help? If we have to do it on our own it will take a lot of time, and we will probably inflict harm on others during it, but hopefully less big...

Our politicians are pretty authoritarian, and “knowing best”…

The American neurologist Jonathan Pincus writes about how abuse might lead you bigotry.

Miller also writes at page 189 -190 in “The Truth…”:

“Like Frank McCourt, many people today say, ‘My childhood was awful, but it had its moments, and the main thing is that I survived it all and can write about it. It’s the way of the world.’ I find such an attitude fatalistic and believe that we can rebel against this kind of childhood and do our bit to ensure that it will cease [upphöra, sluta upp med] to exist, or at least cease to be so common.

To a child, an unemployed father (like McCourt’s) spending his dole money [arbetslöshetsunderstöd?] on drink is an inescapable trick of fate: the child has no alternative but to come to terms with such realities. Children may in some vague way intuit that they are not really being perceived [sedda, varseblivna, uppfattade] by their parents for what they are, that the parents need them as scapegoats. But their minds cannot grasp the facts/…/

They take refuge in compassion for their parents, and the feeling of love will help them retain some modicum of dignity in spite of the mistreatment.

But children forced to overlook the cruelty born of irresponsibility and indifference on the part of their parents are in danger of blindly adopting this attitude themselves and staying bogged down [stående i ett träsk? Fatalismens träsk?] in the fatalistic ideology that declares evil to be the way of the world. As adults they will retain [hålla kvar] the perspective of the helpless child with no alternative but to come to terms with this fate. They will not know that, paradoxically, they can only grow out of this childlike attitude if they lose their fear of the wrath [vrede] of God (their parents) and are willing to inform themselves about the destructive consequences of repressed childhood traumas. But if they do become alive to this truth, they will regain [återfå, återvinna] their lost sensibility for the suffering of children and free themselves of their emotional blindness.”

Earlier postings under the label Christina Doctare and on empathy deficits here and here.

See Arthur Silber and his Alice Miller essays. Words that comes back in the titles to these essays are "obedience", "denial", "innocence" it feels... For instance Silber writes about the consequences of denial, see “THE ROOTS OF HORROR: The Consequences of Denial:

“…the results of the mechanism of denial and obedience, a mechanism which requires that reality be obliterated [utplånad, förintad], so that the threat of unpleasant facts cannot come too close and so that authority will not be questioned -- even when those facts lead to the deaths of untold millions of people and a war that engulfs the entire world.

People ought to consider this warning from history -- before it becomes too late, once again. Unfortunately, if history itself is any guide, all such warnings will be disregarded [ignorerade, åsidosatta], and the nightmare [mardröm] may envelop [svepa in, inhölja] us still another time.

Also read about "Pro-War Personality Disorder". There it stands for instance:

"Kurt Vonnegut, author of the anti-war novel Slaughterhouse Five, said in an online article that he believes many corporate executives and government leaders are afflicted with psychopathic personalities which match actual textbook definitions.

PPs [Psychopathic personalities?] are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care... Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can't. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich...’

Why are political views more deeply divided in America than anywhere else in the free world? According to Michael Milburn, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts [who seem to paint too!! Nice!], the difference is in the way individuals were raised, as he explained in a Newsweek magazine interview [another copy of the text]."

3/26/2008

Civil courage...

taking a nap!!
I read something in "Rediscovering the True Self" by Ingeborg Bosch at page 143-144.

I think it was the physician Christina Doctare who pointed out in her book "Brain Stress" (came 1999, and I have a book with a dedication from her, but I didn't get it in person) from where "civil courage" origins? "Courage" comes from the French "coeur" which means "heart"... So civil courage to her means the heart or feelings are involved. About her at Wikipedia (only in Swedish).

Bosch writes Chapter 5, "Taking responsibility for our feelings":
"We usually live more or less impulsively [not an excuse for everything??], and when things go wrong we blame the other person, the world, fate or ultimately God [or ourselves].

Research by Jones and Nisbett has shown how we are all prone to this basic attitude. Actors tend to attribute their actions to external factors, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to personal dispositions of the actor. /.../

[An] example is the Watergate scandal. '...Many of the participants in that affair maintained that they were simply following executive orders, while 'higher-ups' argued that they had acted out of a concern for national security. All the actors in short made external attributions. But by the summer of 1974, a majority of citizens - observers via the press - saw the participants as corrupt, power-hungry, and paranoid. The observers made internal attributions.' This is called the actor-observer effect."
At this site it stands about their ideas:
"Jones and Nisbett's (1971) proposition that actors favor environmental attribution and observers personal attribution was investigated. Subjects attributed causality from two perspectives (observer versus role-playing actor) for verbally-described behaviors which varied in desirability (low versus moderate versus high). The results suggested that motivational considerations mediated actor-observer attributional differences. While observers attributed more personal cause than did actors at all levels of desirability, this actor-observer difference was attenuated as behavioral desirability increased. Actor-observer differences were not evidenced on environmental attribution, suggesting that perspective differences represent a differential salience of personal causes for actors and observers."
It also struck me: what do our behaviours towards animals reflect? I could write a separate posting about this, as I grew up with animal and saw things (and probably didn't see things too) and have people in my family of origin working with animals (so I think I know them as persons too, but maybe I don't? I wonder if they are different when family-members aren't present??)... My dad and the two siblings coming after me (a brother and a sister) were/are agronomists with domestic animals as Major (huvudämne in Swedish).

And I wish I could relax as the dog Eskil!! (the dog and cat on the picture are not mine! :-))