The study of psychological trauma – one of episodic amnesia…

Judith Lewis Herman writes in the beginning of the chapter “A Forgotten History” in her book “Trauma and Recovery – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror” that:

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion. Repeatedly in the past century, similar lines of inquiry have been taken up and abruptly abandoned, only to be rediscovered much later. Classic documents of fifty or one hundred years ago often read like contemporary works. Though the field has in fact an abundant and rich tradition; it has been periodically forgotten and must be periodically reclaimed.”

An explanation why works like Alice Miller’s aren’t translated to Swedish today?

Herman also writes according to World People’s Blog:

“Diagnostic Mislabeling: The tendency to blame the victim has strongly influenced the direction of psychological inquiry.

It has led researchers and clinicians to seek an explanation for the perpetrator’s crimes in the character of the victim. In the case of hostages and prisoners of war, numerous attempts to find supposed personality defects that predisposed captives to 'brainwashing' have yielded few consistent results.”

Traumas - a non issue…

I read something interesting, true and worth noting and spreading, on the blog Do nothing day. Anja writes about an interview with a victim for child abuse, and winner of a prize for freedom of speech, where she especially liked the wording

“What I was exposed to as a child has been a non-issue.”

Anja thinks that traumas really are non-issues, not just in health care but in our whole culture. Of course, sufferings are paid attention to when they occur, like for instance when a tsunami happens. But we don’t really know what we shall do with the trauma when it has become “old”. And that’s exactly what’s problematic with traumas – [if] they don’t pass off as quickly as we expect, maybe they never pass off – and chronic states have very low status both in health care and in our culture in general.

And people telling about abuse (that sort of traumas) they experienced as children is really non-issues. And those sorts of traumas are the ones that becomes chronic and later easily or most often becomes added with more traumas. And is also the reason why people have difficulties recovering from later traumas.

But with proper and adequate help a traumatized can recover I think... Unfortunately I think few really get this help. Some sorts of traumas are non-themes exactly as Anja and Sigrun says/writes! Surrounded with a Wall of Silence.

And this is the reason, or an explanation, why people like for instance Jordan Riak and Paula Flowe have problems getting economical support for their work; preventing child abuse to happen!? At the same time people are more than readily prepared paying to other causes.

Those themes are non-issues in the world!?

About Jordan Riak in Wikipedia, see here. Also see Judith Lewis Herman on this topic.

Too bothersome and laborious…

On our way back to work after the lunch on Friday I took some photos in a hurry on pictures with old Volvos, hanging on the walls in the stairs to the restaurant where we ate our lunch, here is one of these pictures.

[Addition in the end May 26]. On Thursday and Friday I had a lot to do with one of our bosses, a man y, the "lower" of our two bosses (boss no 2!! :-)). We two only sat in a jury listening to candidates to a special course for our cleverest pupils, aged 13-20.

We spoke a lot with each other and with the pupils. y and I ate lunch on Friday too. We had a lunch-break for more than an hour on Friday, so we had time associating a lot!

There was a lot to process for me of all different kinds, both on a personal and general level, my reactions, what y said to the pupils, what they said, how they reacted, what their teachers (my colleagues) said etc. (typically female thoughts? Or?).

All of a sudden I got a very vague Aha-experience, something I am still trying to put words on.

I’ll start trying to do this in this posting (had to write a second posting today, let’s see if there comes a third too? :-))

On the balcony I wrote the following (in Swedish) with pen and paper:

“[It's] more comfortable shambling along (lulla på) in the same old ruts (hjulspår) [than changing the state of affairs]? Sometimes the profits and gains with this are outweighing everything else [or feel outweighing, easier than the hard and tough struggle and fight - and less scary?]? Men are maybe more forced giving up something quite comfortable (generally)? Changes feels like being forced doing something feeling too bothersome and laborious (besvärligt, mödosamt, jobbigt)? While many women don’t have any choices? They are forced doing the hard and bothersome work?

The profits in a [true, genuine] meeting with another human being (through a meeting with oneself) with all what comes along with that, all what that means, is – too much? [for many women too!] Something many men see as ‘changing oneself down’ as we say (byta ner sig)?”

A change to something that feels worse? Even if they on the other hand honour changes. But there are "changes and changes", and who define what changes actually are, and that they are against (at least a certain sort of) changes is covered up (and many of us probably don't see this either, because we aren't used to question these things, many are probably totally blind to this too, and I think I can be too to a high degree, even if I think I got a glimpse of something now)? The benefits with the old behaviour overweight. So of course they aren’t so interested, but cling to how it has always been? And defend that too, forcefully? With this not said that y is the worse example on men against changing oneself!! He isn't, but nevertheless... (I wonder what he would feel and think if he read this??:-))

They feel they will loose more than they will gain? And it struck me – they will loose many comfortable things??? So small wonder they aren’t so interested – in general?

At least not in this generation? But honestly I am not sure this is true only for that generation… Sad to say.

But there are probably men whom have no choices but doing the hard work too?

Cats are musical? :-)

Addition May 26: Miller writes in a reply to a reader's letter about

"...many professionals who are still stuck in the traditional way of thinking."

Yes, these things ARE bothersome and laborious? Everything in us “rises up against” this? After a while we don’t want to know about it any more? Want to push it away, ignore and minimize it? Are some more prone to this too? Denial turns on? As Judith Lewis Herman actually writes about the history around trauma? See for instance the chapter “A Forgotten History” in her book "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror":

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion [a defence reaction? Denial of the longterm consequences of what we were exposed to and how in fact common these things are? Why a person like Miller is less mentioned today, and why her last books haven't been translated to Swedish for instance? And the denial also expressed itself when Sweden's therapist hesitated on banning corporal punishment fearing abuse would express itself in other manners, and maybe get more hidden? See earlier posting on this here. Denial from their part too!]. Repeatedly in the past century, similar lines of inquiry have been taken up and abruptly abandoned, only to be discovered much later. Classic documents of fifty or one hundred years ago often read like contemporary works. Though this field has in fact an abundant and rich tradition, it has been periodically forgotten and must be periodically reclaimed.”

---

“Studiet av psykologiskt trauma har en besynnerlig historia – en av tillfällig amnesi. Perioder av aktivt utforskande har alternerat med perioder av glömska [en försvarsreaktion? Ett förnekande av de långsiktiga konsekvenserna av det vi blev utsatta för och hur vanliga dessa saker faktiska är. Varför en person som Miller är mycket mindre nämnd idag och varför hennes sista böcker inte har översatts till svenska. Och förnekandet uttrycktes också då Sveriges psykoterapeuter tvekade inför förbud mot aga därför att de var rädda att misshandel/övergrepp skulle ta sig andra uttryck och kanske bli mer dolda. Se tidigare inlägg här om detta. Förnekandet hos dem uttrycktes på detta sätt??]. Under det gångna århundradet har liknande undersökningstankegångar tagits upp och abrupt blivit övergivna, bara för att upptäckas långt senare. Femtio till hundra år gamla klassiska dokument kan ofta läsas som samtida arbeten. Trots att detta område faktiskt har en överflödig och rik tradition, har det periodiskt glömts och har periodiskt måst återerövras.”

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.

The problem without a name…

Judith Lewis Herman.

[Updated during the day]. Searched in Judith Lewis Herman’s book “Trauma and Recovery – from Domestic Violence to Political Terror” about war veterans (the question of being perfect; not reacting, keeping your emotions and feelings and reactions in check, see the posting on perfectionism). Of course I found a lot of other interesting things!

At page 28-32 she writes about “The combat Neurosis of the Sex War.”

She writes that the late nineteenth-century studies of hysteria * foundered on the question of sexual trauma, but at the time of these investigations there was no awareness that violence was a routine part of women’s sexual and domestic lives. However, Freud glimpsed this truth and retreated in horror.

It was the study of combat veterans that for most of the twentieth century led to the development of a body of knowledge, as she writes, about traumatic disorders.

Not until the 1970s was it recognized that the most common post-traumatic disorders are those not of men in war but of women in civilian life.

My translation:

Det sena artonhundratalets studier angående hysteri var baserade/grundade på frågan om sexuellt trauma, men vid tiden för dessa studier fanns det ingen medvetenhet om att våld var en rutinmässig del i kvinnors sex- och hemliv. Dock, Freud fick en skymt/glimt av (aning om) detta och backade i förskräckelse.

Det var studier av krigsveteraner som under största delen av nittonhundratalet ledde till utvecklandet av en grund/stomme av kunskap om störningar på grund av trauma.

Inte förrän på 1970-talet erkände man att de vanligaste posttraumatiska tillstånden inte var dem hos män i krig, utan dem hos kvinnor i civilt liv.

She writes that

“The real conditions of women’s lives were hidden in the sphere of the personal, in private life. The cherished value of privacy created a powerful barrier to consciousness and rendered women’s reality practically invisible. To speak about experiences in sexual or domestic life was to invite public humiliation, ridicule, and disbelief. Women were silenced by fear and shame, and the silence of women gave licence to every form of sexual and domestic exploitation.

Women didn’t have a name for the tyranny of private life. It was difficult to recognize that the well-established democracy in the public sphere could coexist with conditions of primitive autocracy or advanced dictatorship in the home.”

“De verkliga förhållandena i kvinnors liv var dolda i den personliga sfären, i privatlivet. De omhuldade värdena i privatlivet skapade en kraftfull barriär/mur mot medvetenhet och gjorde kvinnors verklighet praktiskt taget osynlig. Att tala om erfarenheter i sex- och privatlivet var att inbjuda till offentlig förödmjukelse, förlöjligande/hån och misstro. Kvinnor teg av rädsla och skam och kvinnors tystnad rättfärdiggjorde varje form av utnyttjande, sexuellt och i hushållet.

Kvinnorna hade inte något namn på denna despotism/grymhet. Det var svårt att se att den väletablerade demokratin i den offentliga sfären kunde samexistera med det primitiva envälde eller den avancerade diktaturen i förhållandena i hemmet.”

Herman thinks it was no accident that this woman-question was called “The problem without a name.”

But the conditions for children are still to be recognized more broadly? There we are still in Denial? I think. If we weren't many things would be different. Children treated differently than they are and grown ups abused in childhood (if not physically or sexually but "only" emotionally) would get (much) better help in therapy. And I don't think this is the case.

Earlier postings with the label Judith Lewis Herman here (two postings).

* At page 24 she also writes about hysteria:

"Indeed, Kardiner recognized that war neuroses represented a form of hysteria , but he also realized that the term had once again become so pejorative that its very use discredited [!!!!] the patients: 'When the word 'hysterical' ... is used its social meaning is that the subject is a predatory individual, trying to get something for nothing. The victim of such a neurosis is, therefore, without sympathy in court, and ... without sympathy from physicians, who often take... 'hysterical' to mean that the individual is suffering from some persistent form of wickedness, perversity, or weakness of will ."

Min fria översättning: ”Kardiner visade att krigsneuroser representerade en form av hysteri, men han insåg också att termen än en gång blivit så pejorativ/nedsättande att dess blotta användning vanhedrade/misskrediterade patienterna: 'När ordet 'hysterisk' ... används så är dess sociala mening den att subjektet är en rovgirig/egoistisk individ, som försöker få något för ingenting. Offret för en sådan här neuros får därför ingen sympati i rätten, och ... ingen sympati från läkare … som ofta tar det 'att vara hysterisk' som bevis för att individen lider av någon envis form av ondska/synd, perversitet eller viljesvaghet [dvs. inte viljestyrka, avsaknad av viljestyrka. Och varför avsaknad av sådan? Hmmm, var det så hysteriska kvinnor sågs? Men då valde man inte lika självklart att benämna det på ett annat sätt?]"

Hysteria…

Jean Martin Charcot.

Peter Währborg also writes about hysteria in his book (a book which is in Swedish, so the text below is my amateur translation and interpretation of his text), at page 87-88 in a chapter called “Neocortical stress reactions.”

He writes that stress influences the behaviour. Memory, concentration, attention and other neuropsychological functions deteriorate during stress. During severe stress an even more pronounced reduction of higher mental and cortical functions can occur. This state has been described by Jean Martin Charcot (also see here about him) in the end of the nineteenth century and fascinated one of his visitors, namely Sigmund Freud.

This state is called hysteria. Wärhborg writes that it is a state whose physiology is almost unknown. It can be described as a sort of mental “playing dead reaction” (apparent death).where an active as well as a passive symptomatology can appear. In the former case symptoms like paralysis (förlamning), dumbness (stumhet), disequilibrium (balansrubbning) and vomiting appear. Passive symptoms are reduced feelings (nedsatt känsel), blindness, deafness, tunnel vision, failing off of smell (bortfall av lukten) and insensitiveness for pain. Characterized by what the French psychologist and prominent pupil to Charcot, Pierre Janet, once described as “la belle indifference.”

Easily influenced (påverkbarhet) without critical thinking, i.e., suggestibility and earlier occurrence (förekomst) of similar episodes are other important clues to this diagnosis.

Hysteria is characterized by a symptom-picture which is nearly related to the neocortical function. Often these symptoms appear swift as a lightning, not seldom in connection with a trauma for which the individual is lacking strategies handling. One can always discuss if hysteria shall be seen as a stress related syndrome he writes.

Judith Lewis Herman writes about hysteria, Charcot and Freud in her book "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror", see for instance the chapter “A Forgotten History.”

It starts with (page 7):

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion. Repeatedly in the past century, similar lines of inquiry have been taken up and abruptly abandoned, only to be discovered much later. Classic documents of fifty or one hundred years ago often read like contemporary works. Though this field has in fact an abundant and rich tradition, it has been periodically forgotten and must be periodically reclaimed.”

And I wonder if the drive theory can occur in other clothing during history too? More or less disguised? Even today? All sorts of ideas about what is driving people... Ideas that are defences rather?

A boss said:

"You are flexible [extremely stretchable??], innovative, don’t get stuck in a problem but try to see/seek solutions, you take own initiatives, are working independently… You have a broad ground to stand on."

Phew...