Painting rosy…

When I was searching in Jennifer Freyd’s book “Betrayal Trauma – The Logic of Forgetting Childhood abuse” for something I wanted to quote I read something that struck a chord.

I am an eager photographer and it looks as I almost only have beautiful views around me?

I thought of painting rosy pictures of the “happy family” (of origin). I think I have contributed to this. Maybe not so much any longer. Something that maybe can disappoint some people, wanting to believe in the picture they saw, and want to believe that the happy family exists?

Freyd writes at page 194:

“Sometimes we are so overwhelmed by the horror of our world that we are blind to its wonder; sometimes we are fortunate enough to be so overwhelmed by the wonder of the world that we are blind to its horror. When fragmented by betrayal blindness we sometimes see neither the horror nor the wonder. But whether we see them or not, both elements exist.”

Another thing that struck me is: developing abilities and skills demands training, sometimes a lot of training! Few people (children) can make things immediately. And the older you get the longer time you need for certain things. But experience can balance for the longer time it takes to learn new things and new skills. Especially if you are going to learn something you have never done before.

“Practice makes perfect”!

And you need to get time to learn and train (train and train even more)! And space learning. Sometimes even a lot of time. And maybe also patience and understanding from the environment!?

So long anybody’s life isn’t dependent on that you have certain skills immediately! And this seldom occurs for a lot of things. This is said quite ironical!

I was actually thinking on using a foreign language, talking and not least writing in it.

If you are allowed to train and train and train you’ll probably at last develop skills in your writing and communicating.

If people around you don’t have the patience with your imperfectness it’s probably their problem!

I can see an impatient parent here, not having maybe ANY patience with his/her child and that it isn’t (can’t possibly be) like an adult person when it comes to a lot of things: like using a good language immediately, with no flaws.

My dad had no patience when we should learn to cycle.

And there are parents with a lot of impatience even if they have very easily-taught children! Maybe some of those parents don’t even realize that their child(ren) are above average?

Betrayal, loneliness, distance…

Among a lot of other things I have been thinking on having nothing to say to a human being standing near. The feeling of loneliness this can create.

Struck me that Jennifer Freyd had said something on this theme I thought (about things you can’t talk about).

She writes in the chapter “Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected” at page 194 in her book “Betrayal Blindness – The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse”:

“If you are blind to the evidence that your intimate partner is having an affair, you may manage to keep the relationship from ending. But what sort of relationship is it, and what purpose does it serve?”

Having nothing to say to each other, becoming distant because you exclude (or have to hide) important things…

This has nothing directly with me to do.

Healthy boundaries and nearness to other people…

the first sprout (photo: S. Thomas)

How do we create them? Or not take them away?

So the latter grown up can protect her/himself adequately and in the best case without even thinking on this.

Can a person whose boundaries have been violated, even severely violated, recover? And end up protecting her/himself constructively and efficiently?

Yes, I think she/he would be able, with adequate help of some kind. Not just by new thought-patterns, new thinking and/or new behaviors!! The less harmed are maybe helped with this though. *

But by being allowed and helped to question and condemn what was done. By a person (books or literature) where what she/he was exposed to isn’t minimized or belittled at all.

Because I think the nature of the defenses is of that kind that you can’t control them or at least not control your feelings. For instance see what Jenson writes about Jane who continued to blame herself even though she had been able to live up to a lot of things she had been taught in therapy.

From earlier postings (slightly edited):

“Jane, who has gone to ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on co-dependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her co-worker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to ‘make’ her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough well at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.”

There are different boundaries you can violate. Such as not only sexual or physical, but also emotional ** (not letting the child have secrets for instance). Ingeborg Bosch for instance has written about this, so has Anna-Luise Kirkengen. Stepping over emotional boundaries is also extremely harmful.

See earlier postings on what violations actually are and about that emotional needs are essential for survival.

Alice Miller writes/says about therapy and therapists, and I think she is right:

“Certainly, if I knew of some therapists who would be respectful enough to answer your questions; free enough to show indignation about what your parents have done to you; empathic enough when you need to release your rage pent up for decades in your body; wise enough to not preach to you forgetting, forgiveness, meditation, positive thinking; honest enough to not offer you empty words like spirituality, when they feel scared by your history, and that are not increasing your life-long feelings of guilt…” (Alice Miller).

“The method of Marshall Rosenberg is very nice and may be helpful to people who have not be[been??] severely mistreated in childhood. The latter ones however must find their pent up, LEGITIMATE rage and free themselves from the lies of our moral system. As long as they don't do this, their body will continue to scream for the truth with the help of symptoms" (Alice Miller)

And about becoming stuck in anger (or hatred):

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

and about a "failing" client:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

Sigrun wrote a blogpost about (in my amateur translation) “Nearness sort of”:

“As an earlier victim for violence and abuse through a lot of years I have to say that the concept ‘violence in close relations’ doesn’t feel good. The closeness that was forced upon me during the abuses are so painful that it had been nice not being forced to become reminded each time I come across this conception (something that happens daily).

What’s the reason why you can’t talk about relational violence instead?

I don’t think it is right using notions that become a burden for the ones that are concerned.”

* The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book at page 82 about Daniel Goleman and his concept Emotional Intelligence (a concept that can be, is, manipulative, but may help short term):

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Goleman's book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy.

/…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses (False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs) employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

**

"...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.” "Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection." (Andrew Vachss)

Seeing, hearing, or speaking no evil…

Hans Scholl, his sister Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst.

[Updated May 11 in the end]. When I read an exchange on a discussion forum (for wounded people!!!) I suddenly came to think of the three wise monkeys (how wise are they?). In wikipedia it stands about them that:

“The three monkeys are Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil./…/

Some simply take the proverb [ordspråk] as a reminder not to be snoopy [snokande], nosy [nyfiken] and gossipy [skvallrig]./…/

Today ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ is commonly used to describe someone who doesn't want to be involved in a situation, or someone turning a willful blind eye [also see Willful blindness. 'Willful' means 'avsiktlig, uppsåtlig' in Swedish] to the immorality of an act in which they are involved.”

In this (open, not closed) forum the owner (a man) abuse (some) commentators , showing an enormous insensitivity and contempt for struggling people (in my feeling), and nobody reacts except 1-3 persons of 43 members. This makes me really astonished. People continue to post as if nothing has happened.

During my shower now I thought further on this. About bystanders. Herman has written about this for instance (and probably others too, whom I don’t know of).

And I also came to think of an example Miller uses, the Scholl siblings and "the White Rose" during WWII.

And now when I am writing I also come to think of civil courage… And whistle blowers.

Freyd writes about this too! Yes, she writes (see this former posting about "A Society in Denial...", and postings with the label Ross Cheit):

"It is perhaps why to speak no evil when evil is present is, in the end, so evil."

And once again, Miller thinks that

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings [people still struggling with their healing for instance, and maybe not so successfully], of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue."

A person who has worked her/his history through to a certain degree doesn’t behave like the owner of the forum I am thinking of (and this forum is an open forum, and the owner is a man). Miller is right: if you to a certain degree can take your own feelings seriously you can respect other people more. And truly respect them. Respect what's worth your respect and react against people and phenomena which is worth little or no respect. If you can't do that you haven't really reached that point of self-respect?

And I can't say I respect those not reacting, but who continue to post as if nothing has happened, although not only one but more people have been treated in a similar way. Haven't they seen it at last? No, I can't really admire those silent bystanders, especially NOT those who have been members for a longer time (for some years even)...

I will probably update this posting during the day. Silently: And I won't say I am very courageous... But I got so upset.

What is a constructive reaction/action? What is destructive or self destructive? How do one protect oneself in all this too?

How do one behave/do so one can go to sleep at night with a (a fairly) good conscience?

Addition: Yes, you can breach for other people in a way that harm yourself, which becomes self-destructive and maybe even destructive? What is what?

I found this article “Against Biologic Psychiatry” which I truly recommend. There it stood in the end, relevant for this posting (and for all this with psychological/psychiatric conditions/treatment/help) it feels:

“Now when a person becomes depressed, for example, they are less able to read it or interpret it as a sign that there may be a problem in their life that needs to be looked at or addressed. They are less able to question their life choices, or question for example the institutions that surround them.

They are less able to fashion their own personal or cultural critique which could potentially lead them to more fruitful directions./…/

In short, the very meanings of unhappiness are being redefined as illness. In my view this is a dismaying cultural catastrophe. I do not mean to suggest that psychiatry is solely to blame for this, given how wide a cultural shift this is. However, I do think that psychiatry has not only not resisted its role here, but actually has fulfilled it with considerable hubris [psykiatrin har inte bara motstått sin roll här, utan faktiskt också fullföljt den med avsevärd övermod/storhetsvansinne]....

I am increasingly astonished about how unable the average patient is now to articulate reasons for their unhappiness, and how readily they will accept a medical diagnosis and solution if given one by a narrow-minded psychiatrist. This is a cultural pathologic dependence on medical authority. Granted, there are patients who do fight this kind of definition and continue to search for better explanations for themselves which are less infantilizing, but in my experience this is not common.

There is a frightening choking off of the possibility for dissent and creative questioning here, a silencing of very basic questions such as what is this pain? or what is my purpose? Modern psychiatry has unconscionably participated in this pathology for its own gain and power./…/

Having said this, what I am advocating is a psychiatry which devotes itself humbly to the task of listening to patients in a way that other medical practitioners cannot. This means paying close attention to a patient's current and past narrative without attempting to control, manipulate or define it. From this position a psychiatrist can then assist the patient in raising relevant questions about their lives and pain ... Diagnosis should play a secondary and small role here, given that little is known about what these diagnoses actually mean..../…/

A more humane psychiatry, if it is even possible in today's cultural climate, must recognize the powerful potential of the uses and abuses of power if it is not to become a tool of social control and normalization. As I have outlined in this piece, these abuses of power are by no means always obvious and self-evident, and their recognition requires rigorous thought and self-examination./…/

This requires real moral awareness on the part of a psychiatrist who wishes to act intelligently.”

This psychiatrist acknowledges that a depressed person is less able in handling his/her life… And I think one shall not moralize over this - at all. That is contra productive. So starting to lecture him/her is… Bad! Wrong! Mildly said.

Addition May 11: read ”See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics”, Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker in Newsweek, May 13, 2004.

Bosch on the creation of "safe places"...

calm and peace, photo taken June 15, 2007, on a bike-tour back to town.

Reposting an earlier posting (without editing it though)...

Bosch writes at page 99 and forward in her book "Redisovering the True Self":

“Many therapists also use the strategy of creating a ‘safe place’ when working with traumatized clients. The therapist helps the client to think up an imaginary place in which she feels completely safe where she can retreat to whenever she feels overwhelmed by her feelings.

Although this might sound nice to some readers, why would we need to have an imaginary safe place? We would only need such a place if we were not truly safe in the present and we were unable to change our situation. Such thinking implies it is possible that our feelings cold really hurt us, and that we could actually be overwhelmed by our feelings.

Both these ideas are explicit in the concept of the ‘safe place’. The ‘safe place’ concept prevent us from giving in to our worst childhood feelings while knowing that there is no actual danger, and therefore it takes away the opportunity to come out on the other side of the feeling unharmed [and the possibility to experience that this is actually possible. And possible again and again till we don’t need it any more, as many times as we maybe need. And the possibility of experiencing that it for each time gets a little bit easier and is a little bit less frightening].

Knowing that it is safe to feel all old feelings, that we won’t be devoured by them, that they will pass by eventually, and that they are not too much for us to feel, is an important part of the healing process. It can be painful and unpleasant, but we will come out unharmed and one step closer to being healed.”

Clients have been scared and thus hindered in their healing during history??? This is awful I think! And this because of the therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists and other helpers own fears for their own truths? Bosch means, and writes, that these fears is actually a defence the child once needed against the truth, defences adults doesn’t need any more, adults can survive those feelings even if it doesn’t feel so. These defences aren’t necessary any longer. The harm that we are so afraid of has already been done and can’t harm us any more. But it doesn’t feel so; it feels as we are in danger here and now… But nevertheless we can survive them… Many clients have been scared instead of helped to overcome this fear, and scared for their own truths… Even more scared instead of less. And have used a lot of energy on controlling these feelings and hold them in check, energy they could have used on much more constructive things!!!!!

She writes at page 98:

“Quite a few therapeutic schools reinforce this fear of feelings we carry with us. Most therapists do not recognize that the belief, about feelings being potentially harmful, is actually a defence we needed when we were children.”

No, they don’t even recognise this for themselves?

See also what Freyd has written about healing. That she doesn’t agree with Daniel Goleman (see that blogpost).

---

Bosch skriver på sidan 99 och framåt i sin bok "Redisovering the True Self" (min snabba översättning av texten):

”Många terapeuter använder också strategin att skapa ’säkra platser’ när de arbetar med traumatiserade klienter. Terapeuten hjälper klienten att tänka ut en inbillad/imaginär plats i vilken hon känner sig helt säker och dit hon kan dra sig tillbaka närhelst hon känner sig överväldigad av sina känslor.

Även om detta kan kännas trevligt för vissa läsare, varför skulle vi behöva en tänkt ’säker plats’? Vi skulle bara behöva en sådan om vi inte var verkligt säkra i nuet och var oförmögna att förändra vår situation. Ett sådant här tänkande låter oss förstå att det är möjligt att våra känslor verkligen kan skada oss och att vi verkligen skulle kunna bli överväldigade av våra känslor.

Båda dessa idéer är uttryckliga i konceptet ’säker plats. ‘Säkra platsen’ konceptet hindrar oss från att ge efter för våra värsta barndomskänslor samtidigt som vi vet att det inte finns någon aktuell fara och därför tar det bort möjligheten att komma ut oskadad på andra sidan av känslan [att verkligen få uppleva att det faktiskt är
möjligt. Och möjligt igen och igen, så mänga gånger som vi kanske skulle behöva. Och att få uppleva att det för varje gång blir en aning mindre skrämmande].

Att veta att det är säkert att känna alla gamla känslor, att vi inte kommer att bli förtärda av dem, att de slutligen kommer att passera och de inte är för mycket för oss att känna, är en viktig del i helandeprocessen. Det kan vara smärtsamt och otrevligt, men vi kommer att komma ut oskadade och ett steg närmare att bli helade.”

Klienter har blivit skrämda och på det viset hindrade i sitt helande under historiens gång??? Detta är fruktansvärt tycker jag! Och detta på grund av terapeuters, psykologers, psykiatrikers och andra hjälpares egna rädslor för deras egna historier?? Bosch menar, och skriver, att dessa rädslor i själva verket är ett försvar som barnet måste ha en gång mot sanningen, försvar som vuxna inte behöver längre, vuxna kan överleva dessa känslor även om det inte känns så. Detta försvar är inte nödvändigt längre. Skadan som vi är rädda för har redan skett. Men det känns inte så, det känns som om faran finns här och nu. Men vi kan överleva dessa starka känslor. Många klienter har blivit skrämda istället för hjälpta att komma över sin rädsla och rädda för sina egna sanningar… Ännu mer rädda istället för mindre. Och har använt en massa energi för att kontrollera dessa känslor och hålla dem i schack, energi som skulle ha kunnat användas på betydligt mer konstruktiva saker!!!

Hon skriver på sidan 98:

“Inte så få terapeutiska skolor förstärker denna rädsla för känslor som vi bär med oss. De flesta terapeuter erkänner inte att denna tro, att känslor är potentiellt farliga, faktiskt är ett försvar vi behövde när vi var barn.”

Nej, de erkänner det inte ens för sig själva?

Se också vad Freyd skriver om helande. Att hon inte håller med Daniel Goleman (se det blogginlägget).

another calm and peaceful place in the north of Italy, picture I got from my youngest brother today, taken and sent with his cell-phone.

Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected…

Jennifer Freyd writes at page 194 in her book "Betrayal Trauma":

“But what sort of relation is it, and what purpose does it serve /../ If a woman is blind to her husband’s betrayal and abuse she may be serving the immediate survival needs of her children and herself. But often the perception of dependency is the result of past or current psychological manipulation; escape and change may be possible, but the woman may not see those options at all. More often than not, I suspect, an adult’s perception of dependency is erroneous.”

Jennifer Freyd on “Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected”:

“Sometimes we are so overwhelmed by the horror of our world that we are blind to its wonder; sometimes we are fortunate enough to be so overwhelmed by the wonder of the world that we are blind to its horror. When fragmented by betrayal blindness we sometimes see neither the horror nor the wonder, But whether we see them or not, both elements exist.

Psychological health and fulfilling, constructive relationships have in common wholeness, integration and connection /…/ …often the perception of dependency is the result of past or current psychological manipulation; escape and change may be possible, but the woman [man it can be too?] may not see those options at all. More often than not, I suspect, an adult’s perception of dependency is erroneous. People are too easily manipulated into believing they have no options, and thus they collude in their own self-deception.

It is also tragic, and all too common, when a fear of trust limits intimate relationships between trustworthy individuals. This fear of trusting is a kind of betrayal blindness without the betrayal. The person is unwilling to look, for fear of finding betrayal. Thus, the blindness serves to protect the relationship, but at the prize of intimacy /…/ Therapist-directed feelings of gratitude are not the stuff of connection and intimate relationship.

Blindness and lack of connectedness whether truly needed or not, are ultimately tragic solutions to life. These adaptations keep us from knowing ourselves and others fully. We end up fragmented both internally and externally – impoverished spiritually and socially /…/ it seriously constrains our human potential /…/ Survivors of childhood sexual abuse and betrayal blindness have learned to cope by being disconnected internally so as to manage a minimal kind of external connection. But with adult freedom and responsibility come the potential to break silence, to use voice [Grossman!] and language to promote internal integration, deeper external connection, and a social transformation, Through communication – integration within ourselves and connection between individuals – we can become whole; embodied, aware, vital, powerful.”

She also writes at page 193 in her book:

“Carol Gilligan (1991) identified the irony that occurs when we must sever our relatedness in order to have relationships. She observed that in adolescence we learn to cut off components of our internal sources of knowledge in order not to speak unacceptable truths that would threaten relationships. According to Gilligan, this is something we learn to do; it is not the way we come into the world.

Must we be this way? And if this kind of behavior is so common is it perhaps acceptable, or even healthy? Perhaps. But I believe that a great deal of our habitual betrayal blindness is not necessary, and ultimately not healthy.”

All earlier blogposts with the label J. Freyd including the copied above.