Individualisering i samhället - som innefattar klandring av offret ...‏

Clarence Crafoord.

Wille Crafoord.

Spridda tankar. Högt tänkande.

Klandring av offret. Man får klienten att skämmas. Och det var precis den metoden våra föräldrar använde för att få oss att ändra oss.

Konsekvensen att samhället lägger fokus på individen ser vi i den hjälp som erbjuds (i terapi). Ansvaret ligger på individen. Praktiskt för den i makten. Som kan undandra sig ansvar.

Den svenske psykiatrikern och psykoanalytikern Clarence Crafoord var med i Skavlan igårkväll. Åtminstone två av hans barn, sönerna Alexander och Wille, verkar (med rätta) vara ganska kritiska mot honom som förälder och hur han hanterade sitt föräldraskap.

För mig verkar han vara världens egoist.

Här om Crafoord och om en av hans böcker.

Han har varit utbildare av psykoterapeuter i Sverige och har högt anseende i dessa kretsar i Sverige?

Vi har fått lära oss att inte lita på oss själva och det vi känner. Därför tror vi på auktoriteter – ELLER förkastar alla auktoriteter.

Vi har svårast att bli arg på den som har det högsta ansvaret eller som begick övergrepp. Våra föräldrar tidigast i livet. Och ju mindre vi fick hjälp att ifrågasätta det de gjorde eller om det var kärleksfullt det de gjorde eller – vilket är svårast att inse på egen hand – att det faktisk var kärlekslöst, desto mer tar vi med oss detta upp i livet.

Kom att tänka på hur det ofta var i familjer (och detta finns delvis fortfarande?):

”Barn måste lära sig!”

Mina första lärare tillhörde den riktigt gamla stammen och läste uppbyggliga, moraliska berättelser i skolan på morgonen sedan vi sjungit psalm ”Din klara sol eller dylikt!

Barns inneboende ondska - och egoism (självupptagenhet) - måste uppfostras. Men den starke har skyddats! Och dens handlingar har förklarats och ursäktats. Men att bli sviken är ännu smärtsammare? Att den andre vuxne inte försvarade en, mot ilskeutbrott, bristande respekt för barnet och dess känslor (inklusive känslomässig incest, dvs. att använda barnet som pratpartner/terapeut stället för till en annan vuxen), mot aga eller t.o.m. sexuella övergrepp (även i form av otillbörlig beröring) till exempel.

Barn är beroende, de skulle inte skilja sig från sina föräldrar, de är svagare, mindre farliga - och lättare att forma. Dem kan man ändra och dem ska man också ändra.

Och har man inte fått känna med sig själv så kan man i motsvarande grad inte känna med andra. Men alla de som hjälpt en att ifrågasätta; i böcker (som Alice Millers och de som berättat om sin barndom), har hjälpt många ett steg på vägen mot större empati, både med sig själv och med andra.

Det här med att lära en klient att sätta gränser utifrån så att säga utan att förstå (inte bara på en intellektuell, utan också känslomässig nivå) vad har det lett till? Ökad medkänsla, empati?

Har individen förstått på en litet djupare nivå varför hon/han har svårt med gränssättning?

Hos de mest skadade hjälper det nog inte med att läsa (böcker eller artiklar av Alice Miller t.ex.).

”Man kan inte skylla allt på föräldrarna (chefen)!”

Hur effektiv och långsiktig blir således ”hjälpen”?

Skambeläggning av klienten leder det till tillfrisknande?

”Gör si, gör så! Du borde…”

Somliga terapeuter menar att det är en kränkning om föräldrar talar om vad ett barn bör och inte bör känna, tänka, tycka. Och det kanske är en kränkning i andra sammanhang också; när en vuxen i ord eller underförstått gör likadant!? När terapeut gör likadant också.

Att lära klienten sätta gräns kanske behövs i en akut situation! Men på längre sikt räcker detta? Kanske för dem som är mindre skadade.

Men om klienten misslyckas att sätta gräns förr eller senare, vad sker då? Börjar individen klandra sig själv: jag är hopplös!

Och somliga terapeuter menar att just detta: att klandra sig själv är en försvarsstrategi hos det lilla barnet för att överleva misshandel och kränkning. Denna försvarsstrategi följer med om man inte fått hjälp att bearbeta traumat, upp i vuxenlivet. Och man tenderar att klandra sig själv och ta på sig skulden även när man inte borde det. Alternativt skjuta ifrån sig ansvar och skuld.

Men återigen; räcker det bara att säga åt klienten att den inte borde ta åt sig skuld, att den inte har ansvar i en viss situation alternativt att inte ta på sig så mycket ansvar?

Terapeuten borde hjälpa att förstå på ett djupare plan varför man är överdrivet ansvarstagande, överdrivet självklandrande.

Men problemet är inte de som tar på sig för mycket ansvar eller självklander, utan alla de som skjuter ifrån sig ansvar och helt saknar skuldkänslor kanske! De är de sista som uppsöker en terapeut.

Och psykoanalysen har klandrat barnet och dess drifter!

Det handlade inte om föräldrarnas (perverterade) drifter eller (perverterade behov)!?? P.g.a. det de i sin tur upplevt. Dock borde terapi inte handla om att förstå föräldrarna och deras bevekelsegrunder? För det är just det som barnet ha måst ägna sig åt. Och det hindrar kontakt med ens egna känslor?

Och jag tror inte på det Wille Craaford sa om att försona sig med föräldrarna. I detta fall inte minst med sin far och hans sätt att vara pappa.

Är det möjligt att se dem för vad de var och inte förlåta eller ursäkta det och sunt stå upp för sig själv?

Individualiseringen i samhället går igen i terapin: att skjuta över ansvaret på individen (som ska skämmas och som av skam tiger och blir mer eller mindre blind för hur den faktiskt blir behandlad och vilka rättigheter han/hon faktiskt har som född till denna värld: att ha tak över huvudet, mat på ordet osv., åtminstone). Och självfallet har vi som individer ansvar för oss själva, men…

Danska regissören Susanne Bier var också med i Skavlan och pratade där om hämnd - och förlåtelse. Om jag minns rätt. Den engelska wikipediaartikeln innehåller en massa ytterligare information om Bier och hennes bakgrund och uppväxt än både den danska och svenska!

Tillägg 17 oktober: se om "DSM: diagnostisering för pengar och makt - summering av kritiken mot DSM."

Och här om offerrollen – igen.

Den amerikanska terapeuten Jean Jenson har skrivit om detta, se här, tidigare inlägg med länkar.

Se följande artiklar: “The global financial mess: blaming the victims” bav Ann Pettifor, “Blaming the Victim: Domestic and Codependency model” av Greg Dear, “The Shame of Blaming the Victims – In a desperate attempt to protect the president, the right wing has resorted to blaming the victims” av Amanda Marcotte, “Victims are never to blame for coercive, abusive ‘relationships’ – in this guest post, Cara Grayling tackles our victim-blaming culture.”

Blaming the victim(s)…

Who has to pay (most) for the current gigantic economic crisis? The ones that caused it? And what (or who) caused it? How has it been through history, with people causing crisis and sometimes even catastrophes and the ones who have had to pay for them?

Thought on responsibility and guilt. On civil wars.

Are we directing the anger at the true or original sources? Or at other, (much more) innocent, who maybe had nothing to do with this crisis, people who have been working and taking responsibility for themselves maybe their whole lives?

Yes, each person has a responsibility for her/himself as single unit, citizen and human being, but, there’s a but…

In Owe Wikström’s last book “In defense of longing – or the melancholy in Finnish tango” he writes at pages 92-93 (referring to Albert Camus and what he has written about Sisyphus) that the human being has come into his world with the capacity (ability) to think and plan, to chose and take responsibility. Thrown into the existence and endowed with a freedom we hardly can carry – not to talk about the other side of this freedom: the responsibility and the guilt, we are standing there quite unable to act before the strange that nobody knows – and this is Camus’ point – nobody CAN know either about what this existence/life is about. Camus talks about trials running away from those ontological and moral questions – through leaning on scientific models, political ideologies or fixed belief systems.

The struggle not fleeing to the seemingly secure systems demands courage. This struggle remains the human being’s nobility mark. Why do we need those easy answers and quick fixes?

The last fifteen years (since we got a right government the first time on more than ten years), at least, we have spoken here in Sweden about “freedom under responsibility” (the power’s idea!?), for us employed for instance (and not least). And also about loyalty to the workplace and its ideas or programs. Hmmm, loyalty to what and what not??

When I was reading Wikström and thinking on other things at the same time my thoughts went this way:

Responsibility: for ourselves, but as a separate individual what’s reasonable doing? The ones taking on bigger tasks HAVE a greater responsibility and have more power (because they have more power through their position, have taken more power on them. And many people don’t want to have all those responsibilities following with a lot of power, because they can imagine how it would be, how this is. Maybe we don’t get the ones hat would be the best in leader and power roles, but this is another discussion?).

But the small human being can’t accordingly disclaim ALL responsibility! The small human being has still a responsibility, but one can’t put responsibility on her for conditions (structural for instance) she as a separate individual have no possibility (or maybe slightest power) to change. We “must” condemn the right thing or person.

We ought to direct the anger and fury at those who deserve it. As Miller says; if we direct the anger at scapegoats (and not the true sources for our anger) nothing will become dissolved (we won’t really recover).

The leader also needs to have the courage to condemn systems he/she can’t beat! Because even for the one with a lot of power there can be conditions he/she can’t master or cope with, because they are beyond his/her human capacities.

Unless we don’t live in a totalitarian regime we are never totally helpless (even if it can truly and genuinely feel like that) though. Saying like this can really become misused and become a source for moralizing… And yes, it can maybe be a little dangerous.

It’s important to put the blame right and where it belongs and the responsibility where it belongs actually. And it’s probably easier blaming certain people (people with less power and societal status)?

Once again: who have to pay for what other people have caused and done? If those who have to pay (and because of this suffer in different ways, economically for instance) at least were honored and confirmed!!!

Interview with the daughter of Camus.

Rage, fury…

about J. Stiglitz here (from Indiana!) and see his homesite here.

Found an article by the American economist Joseph Stiglitz on the economical crisis “Capitalist Fools” about “five key mistakes – under Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II – and one national delusion,” and the reading of it made me think.

For ordinary people, the man on the street, maybe realizing what he/she has had to go without, forsake, and probably is forced to go without further * because of the politics that has been pursued (and realize the results of this politics) must be very hard. Where and how does this anger get expression? How is this (justified) disappointment (for the deceit and treachery to the man on the street) expressed?

Some people use denial to escape the anger?

Similar things exercised by people in power occur in other countries on this earth and have occurred during history.

What have they led to?

* But I am not sure that people should HAVE to forsake as much as they are probably going to be told... The governments here and there COULD do more for the ordinary man in this crisis!?? And then I don't mean just food and shelter or a roof over the head as we say!

Some silent reflections...

What is sound, healthy, justified, constructive anger?

Thinking further on a tour to look for a new TV, but there were so many people in the store so I left…

On the bike (it was really cold, blowing through my woolen duffel-coat/coat, through the very marrow of my bones, my body, soul and heart should need being warmed it felt??):

Are we after all born evil? And antisocial? Paranoiac? Psychopathic? Stepping over boundaries? How do we handle this evilness, paranoia, lack of feeling for boundaries etc. then? How do parents and environment handle what adults and children are born with? Are we all born with this? Is there any hope for mankind then? Or are some of us born with this and others not? Some are better people than others by nature? Who is what? And who are capable of judging about this?

And if we are born with these bad sides do we have responsibility for expressions of these sides or not? Is that person granted discharge for his/her behaviour?

Or is early abuse so difficult or maybe even impossible to cure sometimes, so… What would that imply? Could we avoid incurable harm, shall we do that?

How have we seen on these tings so far? Has this changed? Has treatment improved? Shall some not be allowed to reproducing, radically? And who shall be allowed reproducing? Who are actually reproducing? Those which would be the best parents, who has the “best genes” etc.? (maybe it’s a luck I have no children, quite ironical??)

A male cousin of mine has been reacting on “unnecessary talk”:

”What is that to talk about? If one doesn’t have more important things to talk about… (then one can keep quiet)!”

The strange thing (or not) is that this person is fairly good himself in talking… As his dad was… And as another brother of his is… I don’t use to react, but here I do… And that about the content and importance in what is said… Politely and as the well-mannered girl I am raised to listening though.

And how is it actually in this world? Who are talking, the most intelligent and who have most to say? About what are those raising their voices talking? And how much? Who are keeping quiet? Who and what are we seeing through our fingers with and who/what not? Who do we judge and who not? Do we treat all with the same respect? Are all allowed the same things? O not and why is that?

Yes, it ought to be as van Dyke said:

"Use what talent you possess - the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best."

Or, some should really keep quiet? Be really ashamed? Have blushing cheeks?

About the card:

"En glad påsk. Hand i hand framåt. Uppå grönklädd stråt. Vandra vi så kärligt. Uti månens sken. Med en vän så vän. Är ju lifvet härligt."
Avstämplat Odengatan Stockholm 31/3 1907. Porto 5 öre.
Sänt till Fröken Alma Almgren, 29 Roslagsgatan 29, Ingeniör Söderberge. Här (Stockholm).

Translated it would be (I THINK!!):

"A Happy Easter. Hand in hand forward. Upon a green path. We wander so loving(ly?). In the moon-light. With a friend so fair and graceful. Life is lovely you know."

Is it always?

From a Charles to an Alma, March 31, 1907.

Hate...

More Miller. I went on reading ”The Drama…” here and there…

At pages 146-147 in the Swedish edition she writes that people who have got help in discovering their past, who in their therapy have learned to unravel their feelings/emotions and got to know the real causes to them, are no longer ruled by the compulsion to cast off (??) their hate on innocent people to spare those who (actually) deserves their hatred. They have the capacity hating what is worth hating and loving what is worth loving. Since they dare seeing who deserve their hate they can find their place in the reality without deteriorating to the same blindness as the abused child who had to spare her parents and therefore needed scapegoats.

I think the child could be aware of this? That she/he directed her/his anger at other objects than the nearest? Or the actual? At objects that were more “allowed”? And less dangerous to direct the anger against. But the emotions needed to come out in some way, and this turned out to be possible one? But the relief was only temporary.

The future of democracy is dependent on that individuals can take those steps Miller thinks. Appealing to love and common sense (reasons) is of no use so long as those steps in clearing up the early emotions are prevented by the fear for our parents.

And we probably need help confronting those fears!? More help the more hurt we are.

Those fears are hidden behind political and religious ideologies of different kinds, but also in moralistic and well-meaning values Miller thinks. You can’t combat the hatred with arguments; one has to realize their origins and use tools, instruments which make it possible to dissolve the hate.

Meeting with the justified hate is liberating, not only because the body has been tense since childhood, but above all because this experience opens our eyes for realities, liberate us from our illusions, give us our suppressed memories back and often make our symptoms disappear.

When one a last has experienced the hatred and understood that it was justified, then it becomes dissolved.

It is the unfair, on innocent cast off hatred which is endless, and doesn’t lead to recovery or dissolution. Jenson thinks that if you (unconsciously) rewrite your history the failure is inevitable. They are saying the same thing, Miller and Jenson? If you direct the anger at scapegoats the relief will become temporary, this anger won't dissolve anything? But as soon as we succeed in directing the anger at the true cause we will probably feel it?? And become more and more liberated and relaxed and free, and really feel it? If we don't become, this is a sign that we are directing the anger at scapegoats? Or CAN be a sign of that???

And can it be so that directing the anger at the true cause/s is so extremely scary that we "prefer" directing it at other targets? That it is so extremely difficult directing this anger at the true cause/s? And difficult directing at symbols too, especially power-figures of different kinds? So we rather protect perpetrators and abusers? And act it out on less scary objects? Some even going so far so they can kill other people? (but who do they want to kill actually?).

This hate is confusing Miller thinks, because it conceals realities and makes it impossible to perceive them. It is destructive because it origins in a suppressed history about a destruction whose cruelness the body remembers in its whole extent. It poisons the soul, destroys the mental memory, and kills not only the ability to insight and compassion but the judgment at heart.

A human being, who can handle her/his hatred and all other emotions honestly, without self-deception, doesn’t have to trim or garnish it with ideologies and is therefore no threat to other people.

Adding a video today too I really laugh at, every time I watch it (found it yesterday). Two big, strong men opening a can of fermented herring (surströmming)!! A tip is doing it under water, so you don't get a shower! I love this food, but I grew up with it, born in the north of Sweden! :-) And eat it with thin bread with butter (soft bread so I can make a wrap of it), fresh potatoes (mashed with the fork or sliced with the knife), raw chopped onion (you need to have a strong stomach!?). All Swedes don't like this food though. My two brothers in law are moderately fond of it I think, but they are from the southern parts of this country, so... :-)

An English-man living in Sweden writes about his debut as surströmming-eater, look here. I laughed when I read that too! He wrote for instance:

"It looks more appetizing than I imagined; for a headless, fermented creature. I work quickly, following the animated instructions from the woman opposite [!!! Curious watching him eating it!??]. Before I know it, I have gutted and filleted the creature, cutting each of the two fillets into fingernail-sized pieces, buttered the bread, dotted it with herring pieces and onions, and topped it all with slices of steaming boiled potato [Delicious!!!]. I'm ready [Now she must have stirred at him!!].

My neighbor charges my glass with a generous measure of snaps [he probably needed i!!?] and I gather my wits and my stinking sandwich. The crowd falls silent. All eyes are on me. My nose is screaming for air, my throat for a drink and my sanity for a hamburger with fries [Oh no! Surströmming is far better!]. I raise the sandwich to my mouth and in one swift movement ingest as big a chunk as I can bite off. Chew once, twice, three times and swallow.

Sweet and Sour

Delicious! [Yes, I knew it!!! It IS delicious!] The word comes out before I even realize I’m saying it [Of shock!!??]. And I mean it [OH!! :-)]. Pungent, aromatic, head-filling salty deliciousness. 'He likes it,' someone exclaims and toasts are raised and cheers cheered as another surströmming slithers onto my plate [what a luck he gets more to drink!??].

I managed three in total [what I use to eat too!! Or maybe four!]. Not as good as Lasse’s 28, but at least I kept mine down. After dinner I danced (badly) and drank (well), and made new friends (easily). Best of all, though, was the smell. I don’t know when it happened, but by the time we left at two in the morning I didn’t even notice it anymore. Surströmming: I don’t know what all the fuss is about."

And here when Swedes are eating it! :-) In a more calm, relaxed style!? Jennie bit her cheek (not fun). She was "newbie" eating fermented herring? As the young woman opposite her at the table? The man to the right of her looks really cool! :-) He has done this many times!???