What corporal punishment can cause…

[Edited with more text and links October 5]:

"The fight or flight reaction * occurs in humans during times of stress or danger. The sympathetic nervous system causes a boost of adrenaline and is extremely powerful, but it doesn't always work to our advantage.

Prolonged exposal to adrenaline can damage your body and the repeated exposal to threatening situations can be a source for emotional and developmental problems later in life.

Many victims of torture and abuse, such as prisoners of war, experience post traumatic stress disorder and suffer feelings of alienation, rage and guilt, some succumbing to suicidal thoughts.

People may encounter the fight or flight reaction not just in situations of perceived physical danger, but shouting and verbal threats also carry a freight of terror straight into our base brain.

Remarkably with all we know children are treated to high doses of adrenaline each time they are shouted at or threatened with corporal punishment. And this is no different than what military personnel suffered when they were essentially told they would be tortured if they did not cooperate.

The threat of imminent violence carries this reaction which in repeated situations or prolonged durations leads to physical and mental disorders which can permanently affect a child's future."

The heading of this video was "What Corporal Punishment Does to the Endocrine System."

* See what Bosch writes about False Power Anger (fight??) and helplessness/powerlessness (flight??). Also see a posting under the label help and powerless victim, with quotations from Alice Miller's book "The Truth Will Set You Free."

Also see Andrew Vachss about emotional abuse of children:

"...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."

---

Det som sägs i videon blir något i stil med det som följer:

”Fly- eller fäktareaktionerna inträffar hos människor under tider av stress och fara. Det sympatiska nervsystemet sänder ut en puff av adrenalin och är oerhört kraftfull, men detta verkar inte alltid till vår fördel.

Utdragen exponering för adrenalin kan skada din kropp och upprepad exponering i hotande situationer kan vara en källa till känslo- och utvecklingsmässiga problem senare i livet.

Många offer för tortyr och övergrepp/misshandel, sådan som att vara fånge under krig, upplever post traumatiskt stressyndrom och lider av känslor av alienation (avskurenhet), raseri och skuld, en del dukar under för självmordstankar.

Människor kan möta fly- eller fäktareaktionerna inte bara i situationer av uppfattade fysiska hot, utan skrik och verbala hot leder också till skräckbelastning som riktas rakt in i vår hjärnas bas [och påverkar hjärnan, dvs. ger fysiska/fysiologiska reaktioner].

Anmärkningsvärt med allt det vi vet så utsätts barn för höga doser adrenalin varje gång de skriks åt eller hotas med kroppsliga straff. Och det är inte annorlunda än vad militärer led när de blev upplysta om att de oundgängligen skulle bli torterade om de inte samarbetade.

Hotet om överhängande våld för med sig denna reaktion, vilken i upprepade situationer eller utdragna förlopp leder till fysiska och känslomässiga sjukdomar som permanent kan påverka ett barns framtid.”

Och en hjärna som fortfarande är under utveckling måste vara ännu mer sårbar! Men det går att återhämta sig, kanske helt, om man får en möjlighet att sätta ord på vad man upplevt och det finns någon som kan lyssna på det man berättar, utan att förminska eller ifrågasätta.

Förmodligen har den svårare att bearbeta senare trauman som utsatts för misshandel (inte bara fysisk, uytan också känslomässig och sexuell och kanske allt detta) som barn. Vilket kan vara (och troligen är) förklaringen till varför vissa svarar på traumabehandling och andra kanske knappt alls. Man behöver också bearbeta tidig misshandel för att få ett lyckat resultat.

Poängen är att övergrepp skadar. Och skadar på sätt vi vanligtvis inte tror. De skadar inte bara psykiskt, känslomässigt och leder inte "bara" till psykska problem eller till och med sjukdomar, utan också till fysiska. Om inte tidigare, så när vi blir äldre (se bland annat ACE-studiens fynd). Om vi inte får en chans att berätta om vad vi varit med om och blir lyssnade till empatiskt.

Se också senare inlägg i dag.

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?]"

Morning reflections...

picture taken from here.

A blog posting in a Norwegian blog on “Declared to be Criminal and Stigmatization” made me think.

A woman had said that declaring customers of whores criminal can mean that the prostitutes become even more stigmatized. The blogger wonders

”But why should it be stigmatizing getting the status as victim of a crime?”

Yes, why? What's lying behind this? From where comes this view on victims?

The blogger refers to a case in Norway with a lawyer Tor Erling Staff going out in public claiming he wanted to have sex with grown up men when he was a 12-year old boy. She wonders (quite ironically?) if Staff is right when he thinks we should be careful talking about victims of sexual abuse when grown ups violate children?

When it comes to raping grown ups nobody talks like that she thinks. Can this have something to do with that rapes can happen you and me, i.e. all white, grown up ordinary women.

Prohibiting sex-buying by law won’t stigmatize other than men with a stigmatizing view on women, won’t it? She wonders.

She doesn’t think we can feel sorry for Norwegian men.

“We are the most liberal in the world”

she writes. Research has shown that men in Norway (and all men, nordmän, here in the north?) have more one-night-stands than any other men. And adds that feminists are the best partners in bed! Source: Rudman LA & Phelan JE (2007). The interpersonal power of feminism: is feminism good for romantic relationships? Sex Roles (DOI 10.1007/s11199-007-9319-9. Also see “Feminism and Romance go Hand in Hand.”

This made me think about diagnosing in general - as a power tool. To discharge people, not having to take them seriously or listen to them?? To dismiss people??

The one with more power always is superior when it comes to interpretation (Has what we call tolkningsföreträde).

And a friend recently pointed out how veterans in US have been treated. He wrote:

“US military personnel with PTSD (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) have been falsely diagnosed with personality disorder, and discharged [avskedade, avfärdade?] without a pension. A blogger wrote about the scandal: Returning Vets Discharged With Personality Disorder.”

And when I googled now on War Personality Disorder I found this blogposting “Military using personality disorder diagnoses to cheat soldiers out of lifetime benefits.” I haven't had time really doing this earlier. There is so much in my brain now, phew!

These things are used everywhere? By people in power! On all levels? From the lowest to the highest. And this is one form of power abuse. Starting already with the children, whom are diagnosed and labeled in different ways and to different degrees, by parents to manipulate them into behaviours...? Later on by personnel (teachers for instance) in the school etc.

"You are..."

And the child - what does it have (has?) to put against?

See the earlier posting “Fatalism…” about Pro-War Personality Disorder.

Yes think if we should diagnose all these abusers on all different levels back! But it is the victims that are diagnosed? How often are the perpetrators diagnosed and how? I don't know...

Just some morning reflections…

Psychosocial stressors in children…

from the Swedish child-film Dunderklumpen (1974, English site here and Swedish here), I have played the first tune with a couple of pupils.

Peter Währborg (see former posting "Empathy and Stress...") also writes about children and psychosocial stressors at page 79-81 in his book (mentioned in the former posting).

He writes that in the main the same things which are stressing children are stressing adults.

The most important stressors are emotionally significant separations, for instance parents divorce, but also getting new teachers and classmates. When children loose a part of the body because of illness or accident they react with a powerful stress reaction, as when a person whom is important dies or moves. Children lives in a world which is a little bigger than adults understand Wärhborg writes.

Discomfort (vantrisel) being in a school and a class which only causes social and psychic suffering is of course not fun and causes (sometimes severe) stress in children. If you experience (thinks) you don’t manage especially well in school each failure gives new proofs on your insufficiency or inadequacy. The self esteem is jeopardized, and the inability to live up to the demands parents, teachers or others put turns into chronic stress.

Difficult relations are another source of stress in children. It looks as children in this case reacts more equal to grown up women, i.e., they react more pronounced on difficult relations than men do.

Children have many different sorts of relations which can play a significant or important role for the risk developing stress (my addition: and for minimizing the bad effects?).

Especially powerful are the stress reactions in children exposed to insulting “specific treatment” (särbehandling) or victimization (?) such as mobbing. (See this pdf-file on "Victimization at Work" from the Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health).

Währborg thinks that children’s sensitivity means that the best would be if the classes were small and stable.

Encroachments (abuse), accidents, maltreatment or other severe traumas also causes stress. Sometimes this stress state is of a more serious nature, so called Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Not least children who have immigrated can carry things with them that they haven’t got any opportunity to process.

Währborg also mentions time and decision conflicts as a source for stress reactions in children something we also see in adults. When children feel powerlessness or that they don’t have control over their situation they react with stress.

Children suffer more seriously because of lack of security and social stability. The family-situation plays an important role in this (in moderating, and in moderating both this and that?). Here it isn’t only a question of interaction-patterns in the family but also about events happening to the family.

My brief reflections: We have tended to minimize and belittle things children experience, and to sweep it under the rug? And it was even more so earlier? If you didn’t talk about bigger and smaller events or traumas they didn’t harm one thought. And the child and whole events became surrounded by silence.

See about the ACE-study here and here.

More about manipulation in therapy…

[Updated April 11 with a translation to Swedish of the first quotation] I have been tipped long ago about the book ”Gaslighting: The Double Whammy, Interrogation and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy & Analysis” by Theo L. Dorpat. It stands about it:

“In treatment, the psychotherapist is in a position of power. Often, this power is unintentionally abused. While trying to embody a compassionate concern for patients, therapists use accepted techniques that can inadvertently lead to control, indoctrination, and therapeutic failure. Contrary to the stated tradition and values of psychotherapy, they subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them.

The more gross kinds of patient abuse, deliberate ones such as sexual and financial exploitation, are expressly forbidden by professional organizations [but they occur nevertheless]. However, there are no regulations discouraging the more covert [hemliga, dolda] forms of manipulation, which are not even considered exploitative by many clinicians. In this book, noted psychiatrist Theo. L. Dorpat strongly disagrees [with that they aren't exploitative, which he thinks they are?]. Using a contemporary interactional perspective, Dorpat demonstrates the destructive potential of manipulation and indoctrination in treatment.”

Also see Dorpat's new book “Wounded Monster – Hitler’s Path from Trauma to Malevolence” which sounds interesting:

”Few authors who have written about Hitler have understood the deeply damaging effects of psychic trauma on his private life and the way he functioned in the public sphere. Nearly all major biographers have neglected the importance of Hitler's childhood trauma and his later combat trauma during World War I. In Wounded Monster, Dorpat demonstrates how extreme emotional and physical abuse from his father, and his unusually long combat service during the Great War became the most formative influences of his life, resulting in severe, life-long, psychiatric disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. It is the first book to apply contemporary trauma theory to explain Hitler's malevolence [elakhet, illvilja].

This psychiatric biography of Hitler is the only work to discuss the central importance of his vulnerability to shame emotions, as well as the trauma-induced construction of an extensive repertoire of mainly unconscious mechanisms (including fight and flight) for the avoidance of feelings of shame.”

See earlier postings on Adolf Hitler, Jonathan Pincus on Hitler and Hatred, earlier posting on "Hat..." (the first part in Swedish, the second in English), a posting about bigotry, all postings on therapy abuse so far.

From bike ride this morning (see my on line photo album).

Addition April 11: See the site "Verbal and Emotional Abuse in Therapy." Translation of the first quotation above:

“I behandling är psykoterapeuten i en maktposition. Ofta missbrukas denna oavsiktligt. Medan terapeuter försöker förkroppsliga ett medkännande bekymmer för patienter [vara medkännande), använder de accepterade tekniker som oavsiktligt keder till kontroll, indoktrinering och terapeutiskt misslyckande [bristfällig terapi]. Tvärtemot den tradition och de värderingar som uppges eller läggs fram i psykoterapi, tvingar de [dock] patienter subtilt snarare än att respektera och genuint hjälpa dem.

De grövre överlagda, avsiktliga formerna av missbruk av patienter, som sexuellt och finansiellt utnyttjande, är uttryckligen förbjudna av yrkesorganisationer/fackorganisationer [men de förekommer ändå och kanske oftare än vi tror?]. Men det finns dock ingen reglering som avskräcker/hindrar de mer dolda, hemliga formerna av manipulation, vilka inte ens ses som utnyttjande eller exploatering av många kliniker [kliniskt praktiserande]. I sin bok är Theo L. Dorpat starkt oense med detta [med att de inte är utnyttjande, exploaterande, vilket han tycker att de är?]. Genom att använda samtidiga växelverkande perspektiv, visar Dorpat den destruktiva potentialen i manipulation och indoktrinering i [mången] behandling.”

Trauma psychology and research...

I got a bouquet of tulips and blue berry wires yesterday from a pupil and his dad, a spring-greeting (not the flowers on the picture though).

Got an interesting article (in Norwegian) from a Norwegian friend about a more developed notion on trauma, away from explaining trauma as due to individual occurrences (from one or two single events) to other explanations, more complex…

Yes, and I think vulnerability for PTSD, (mentioned in the text), has roots early in life…

The article comes from this magazine.