Vehicle testing in Sweden...

The car owner comes there gladly and unsuspectingly (?) driving, to the music from "Peter and the Wolf" by Sergei Prokofiev, the doors open to the testing hall - and who stands there waiting? I don't say more...

I forgot the time I had booked on Saturday morning for vehicle testing (a defense??), and this made me need to cheer myself up a bit? It's really a lot going on now at work, and maybe not only there... Some very important (and nice) things too.

Addition: My car went through with no problems...

To “understand” and “forgive”…

visited one of my old schools today (see here too.).

I had even more reflections over the phenomenon ”understanding” and ”to understand” when I drove to a service of my car and during the service of it today…

To understand OTHER people! But can you if you don’t (and haven’t been allowed or got the opportunity) to understand yourself? Doesn’t one have to start with oneself? And maybe understand not so pleasant things about oneself? Even very painful things? Truths about oneself and ones life?

Each one of us ought to have that responsibility understanding oneself?

Thought about forgiveness once again, and forgiveness connected to understanding. If you forgive you are a good, broad-minded, grown up person! But WHOM and WHAT have one understood actually? The forgiving is a higher standing human being, even morally? Is a better human being? And gets universal improvement and applauses!!!?? If you are faithful to one or both parents you get applauses! Even from so called helpers!! (therapists, psychologists etc.).

The back of forgiveness and understanding is what? Or what can it lead to?

Exploitation and being used? For some, preferably women (but probably also for many men).

You understand and forgive once again in a false hope of changing the other person/part? Or you use false power anger or false power denial of needs to avoid being forced to deal with anything that demands realization, recognition of a painful truth?

A fourth way is blaming oneself, maybe even harshly!!

And many possibly switch between these protection strategies or defenses…

And never the two really meet!

And you keep on directing things at scapegoats or symbols!? And this strategy will never solve anything. Because I think Miller is right: trying to solve your problems symbolically will never lead to recovery. Not even a slightest bit of recovery??

I think Bosch and Jenson are right here…

PS. And the whole society suffers from a cleverness mania! From cleverness at work to being able to walk further whatever has happened to you!!! Of course some manage with this!!! But why do they? And why do other people have difficulties with this? I don't think this has with genes or inherited traits to do!

I tried to find to whom Jesus said "Take your bed and go" and found a site called "The Bible-school" (Swedish site) and dropped my cheek over the underlying moralistic tone in the text!!! As I read it at least!

More on cold glances not only from bureaucrats but also from politicians and too many people in general today…

There was a reply in the paper today, to the leader I blogged about in the posting "The cold glance of the bureaucrat..."

Some loud thinking triggered by further thoughts AND this reply now (I will probably blog about this later, both in Swedish and in English): What these politicians and bureaucrats suffer from is empathy deficits? And lack of empathy comes from the upbringing, with no doubt (with this not said I am entirely free from this myself, but I try to work on it). But this is only an explanation and no excuse for their behaviour. Now they are taking revenge for what they suffered, things they are denying the severity in, so maybe they aren’t really aware of what they are actually doing, and that is still no excuse for what the are doing, saying and how they are behaving (that about responsibility). And many are probably honouring the way they were raised and think this was "for their own good”, they needed it.

Now with power using the same means (and needing power, needing to exercise power, with all means trying to avoid all, childish, feelings of power and helplessness); authoritarian, totalitarian, looking down on people lacking in discipline (too many politicians honouring strict, rigid discipline – a backlash really, neoconservative, neoauthoritarian), believing people need to become disciplined, not spoiled, need to learn how life actually is; how hard, tough it is etc. Yes, I think the psycho-historian is right who said:

"...the more defended psychoclasses tend to lead"

And the needed work is too bothersome and laborious, the easier way is striving for power, for being the leader, on different levels; from a family-level to the highest political. Miller is right when she writes:

"It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to."

The more power we get the more sever the consequences of an unprocessed and unfelt past for the environment. Power can be a way to avoid the truth. An effective way with severe and serious consequences.

And the ones voting for those politicians can’t see things through either, but votes for something they are familiar with, and thus feel comfortable with (how bad this even is for them in the end). They too believe in the necessity in educating people (in many cases in a humiliating manner; as humiliated as they themselves became once probably). And nobody wants to know the actual roots for things.

See Pincus on Societal approval: now it is opportune saying things that weren’t really possible saying earlier?

And it looks as if empathy can be a factor in exhaustion and burnout according to findings in stress-research (Währborg for instance).

Chewing the same things once and again - but so what? ("You stupid, k!!" the primary defence in me?).

Miller also writes something in the style that people want to claim that the problems with the youth is due to too slack (loose) upbringing, but adds that if people would want to inform themselves they will get to know that

"..it is exactly those most punished, the ones most maltreated or most severely neglected children whom find joy in destroying, and whom later glorifies the violence [violence in all forms; from the most obvious to the most subtle; as advocating more discipline in school for instance and advocating we shall avoid spoiling children and young people (but what is actually 'spoiling children'?), from physical to emotional disciplining (with for instance the wall of silence for to punish the child, and manipulate it to a desire behaviour, not listen to it, not explain to it why you are punishing it either, quite authoritarian! As our current school-minister), and maybe also sexual (though much rarer hopefully, or by manipulating this too in young people in different ways), my a little free translation and interpretation of Miller's text taken from page 188 in the Swedish edition of 'Paths of Life')."

Some silent thoughts…

In a pause between two schools, a pause longer than it use to be. Home for a cup of coffee and some writing.

”Don’t come here with your insecurity!”

a man said to a woman (by the way I wonder if this woman should have happened to be more secure on herself in another situation, or even very secure on herself in another, that wouldn't be good either??).

I came to think about taking responsibility for ones own things… For oneself and ones projections… However, probably not easy.

Who tend to question themselves? In general? And who are (maybe) less prone in questioning themselves?

Defended (in a certain way) are less prone?

Are some more forced to questioning themselves (oh, this English: was this right? "to questioning"?), because of the state of affairs? Because of the different roles we (still) play in the society?

As little as the man is my (early) dad, I am as little any grown up man’s mom… I am an entirely other grown up woman and person and human being. And I try the best I can (with more or less success) to take responsibility for my own things… And I am both insecure and less insecure in certain things and situations…

On the bike to the first school: blaming oneself… How was it with the Primary defense? Some are nearer to blaming themselves and taking the blame on themselves (even when there is no reason)!? Some are denying this side not only to the environment but also to themselves? And when those are stating to behave differently: not taking the blame on themselves, that can cause (strong) reactions in the environment, which thinks it's convenient with this tendency in this person...

And who are the ones most inclined seeking help? Isn’t it the ones that are admitting to their problems? And there are more women seeking help in therapy and counseling than men. At least here in Sweden.

And I think Anja is right: the perpetrator can't blame the bystander that he (she) committed crimes (of different degrees) "Why didn't you prevent me from doing this??" even if that is probably very convenient!? Not least if this is a an attempt to push responsibility away.

But (if I remember right) Jennifer Freyd writes in her book that it's maybe even more painful realizing you have been betrayed (if a mom hasn't intervened when a father has committed sexual abuse on a child).

And how was it now with scapegoats? Acting and reacting at scapegoats? And about symbolizing? We probably do this all of us to different degrees... And this certainly causes a lot and has caused a lot. Even wars!!

And I also thought about a raised awareness in society in general about those things: child abuse, in all its aspects/respects... Even emotional abuse and what that causes too.

There is still a Societal denial to a HIGH degree!?? I read the article I linked yesterday, about stigma... Of course childhood wasn't mentioned! Different topics (and he explanations to them) are still pretty "abstract"!?? As if phenomena comes from the blue or nowhere (or from genes, innate drives, our innate characters etc.)...

And I am reacting strongly at the moralizing politicians we have too (how were their childhoods? What are they playing out now??), not least in our current government... The neo-conservativeness, and a neo-morality...

No, now coffee...

Addition after lunch: in the Swedish magazine ETC there was an article today about the Master Suppression techniques and a new book about these... The interviewer in the article asked:

-Why is it so wrong to handle a taxing ruler (master) through an emotional outburst?"

-It offers the ruler a possibility of pressing one down even further. If you are attacking the ruler can say 'Oh, how aggressive you are!' ('You don't have to be aggressive!' I have heard as an advice when I have been upset about something, and wanted to deal with it, as if it is a great risk I would be!? And - what does 'aggressive' actually means in this circumstance? I am not allowed to be angry? I wonder how many that see me as 'aggressive' and attacking in real life? Addition at 7:15 PM: have just seen a café-program at TV. As it is International Women's Day tomorrow there was talk about that. A female politician played a tune on piano, a song they sang 30 years ago with the title "Why are birds having so weak voices?").

And if you are defending yourself the reply can be 'Oh, how sensitive you are!'

What you ought to do is to mirror the situation, and when you are doing this you suppose the ruler maybe isn't aware of that you a moment ago were oppressed. Pose counter-questions as for instance 'What do you mean by that?'

No matter where you are, who you are or what you are working with (or doing) you don't deserve being ruled over the author (a young woman) thinks.

She also refers to Berit Ås, and according to Ås the Master Suppression techniques are an instrument of force men uses to still more fortify the woman's suborder. And why do men need to demonstrate their power, and to oppress other people, both women and men? And why do men OR women want and need to oppress (even if this is entirely unconscious)?

But she thinks that to assert that there are no other rulers than men would be too stereotyped. Men oppress both women and men. Women oppress both men and women she thinks.

She also means that men usually HAVE space (at workplaces, but I would add not only there), which means they don't have to compete in the same way as women have to (men are competing in other manners?). And women are also often compared with each by men. Woman is put against woman, not competence against competence. Not human value against human value (where all are worth respect as the human being she/he is).

Playing people out against each other is a sort of power-tool too? Is a way of manipulating?? Is a sort of Master Suppression technique or a form of oppression of individuals or a whole group?

But why do we need to oppress other people and have power? From where does this need come?

PS. My youngest sister heard the videos with my pupil, she wrote to me that she thought he had copied my way of playing! Fun! "Softly and melodically and not 'hard'" as she wrote! Hmmm yes, my siblings have really heard my playing!!

PPS. From further reading in the magazine ETC, in a chronicle by the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius who is writing about power exercise too!! And about dominance and suborder. She is referring to Pierre Bourdieu who has said that the man is as little born to dominance as the woman is born to suborder. All this is instead a result of upbringing Bourdieu thinks, the upbringing from the first start of life (maybe already at birth, in how the small baby is treated? Small boys in one way and small girls in another - my addition and wonder).

She thinks this gives us hope!! Because if it is so it is possible to change! My addition: and this isn't only the women's/mother's responsibility, but also the men's/father's!?? Both have as much responsibility as the other part!! Noone more and the other less responsibility for this. And by the way, I have heard that dad (dads in general) had so much responsibility in his (their) work, so... And the strange thing is that that responsibility was much more worth! What they did and who they were was more worth than being with the kids. The first was more valued! (so how much were the kids worth actually??? Neither women no children were counted!?? When you were grown up - then, maybe! But the women were less wort even then!?? Men more worth! But were they seen as human beings either? With feelings etc.?).

Bourdieu studied a nationality in Afghanistan, in which the men wanted to stand out as 'real men' in other men's eyes, as only men were counted (women were not counted, nothing worth). But also women, wives and mothers demanded that the men should act like 'real men', since this raised theirs - and the family's - status.

Bourdieu meant that some forms of manly courage has its origin in fear of losing the group's admiration. Thus what one calls courage has sometimes roots in a form of cowardice!

The theme in this chronicle was honor killing. In Wikipedia it stands about honor killing:

“An honor killing or honour killing is generally a punitive murder, committed by members of a family against a female member of their family whom the family and/or wider community believes to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman is usually targeted for: refusing an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or committing adultery. These killings result from the perception that a woman has behaved in a way that ‘dishonors’ her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.

Human Rights Watch defines ‘honor killings’ as follows:

Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that ‘dishonors’ her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.^”

Only a little more than 50 years ago it was shamy becoming pregnant before marriage... The hypocrisy...

Also see this readers' letter at Miller's web, here (not about the topic above though).

Feelings of help/powerlessness...

I ought to do other things than writing... I am going to be at work the whole afternoon. Need to practice myself... Too.

But have thought about the topic help/powerlessness...

What are those feelings about? Are they the child's feelings once? From a state when the adult WAS power/helpless?? And she (he) takes this with her/him into adult life... And this feeling (reaction) is expressed (especially) in certain circumstances?

I am thinking both about grown ups feeling incapable of doing anything! Paralyzed (mentally) and totally helpless. I can't do anything... etc. And thinking that

"It's my character! (I can't do anything)"

But from where do these feelings (maybe or most probably) origin from? From the small child, who was badly treated, maybe even very badly treated?? Laughed at, scorned, shouted at, treated "violently", maybe even sexually abused (or "at least" improperly touched) etc. etc. etc.

Truths one don't want to admit to? Truths about ones own parents!?? How they actually were, how it actually was!!??

These things are also shown on a societal level? People thinking it's no idea at all to try to influence!! For instance by voting in elections!! Mistrusting politicians. But this is horrible!!

Where do this lead?

A certain sort of people goes on voting, and the ones still voting are to a high degree those voting on extreme parties (nationalist, "xenophobic" parties)???

So where has this child abuse led?? People paralyzed? Thinking they have no power?? Not capable of intervening? On any level maybe? Not even on a familial, by protecting weaker for instance? Incapable of leaving abusive relations? etc. etc. etc.

But were we born this way? So incapable of doing something, of acting, reacting??

Yes, the parents were complete, perfect?? In difference to ones children? Even to ones now grown up children struggling to deal with their own!!!?? They are much less complete than the old and dead parents were or ever became? They were angels, or??? And what they did one can belittle and minimize in comparison to how one treats and handle ones grown up children's misses, and imperfection!?? Because the difference is enormous?? Ones own children are shit compared to ones parents?? Sacrificing ones own children on the altar of -what? (but of course these children are now grown up, and thus they have responsibility for their own stuff).

Some (maybe not so few?) in power uses this (both unconsciously and consciously, and also deliberately)?? For instance in politics! Playing on this? Relying on this? Even using this with no scruples??

Yes, Naomi Klein is right: Information (and a greater and greater awareness of these facts, about the roots to those things, the simple answers??) are shock resistance?? And hopefully also a protection against abuse, even abuse on a political level??

And have a long way to go still myself... I don't say I handle this good... I struggle with these things myself...

Addition: and it is always possible to find people who have had it worse, so when am I entitled to complain??

And I am also very critical to the help that is offered; you are (only) learned to cope and/or to change a dysfunctional behavior to a functional... Because it is still forbidden to question ones parents?? And I came to think about what Jenson wrote about Dan... He wasn't capable of stopping from following a woman (compulsively) that had abused him when he saw her until he got access to things in his early history thanks to a good therapy? After that he had no problems at all when he met this woman!

And I know of a woman aware that her mother pulled her kids hair, and that she got severely spanked, but these memories hasn't changed anything? She can talk about this, but with few emotions connected!?? No rebellion or real questioning what her mother did. And probably no realization how this felt actually?? The rage (etc.) that would have been adequate?? (and did the father protect his kids against this???).

Because it isn't only about remembering?? You have to be helped to see it as wrong and to question it!!?? Yes, maybe even get permission doing this?? By a helper, expert!?? Realizing it wasn't your fault, you didn't deserve it. And question what this actually was supposed to teach one? And what one learned from this actually and what t has led to, all the possible consequences?? But this is probably extremely painful...

And I also know of man reacting at his own father who humiliated his children in front of other on one (or a few) occasions, but this realization didn't protect this father from doing the same thins with his own kids later!!??

So pure memories aren't enough?

Today the knowledge exists that perhaps didn't exist then... And all has those options! Even (old) parents...

"But it happened so long ago! I have went on with my life!!"

To avoid the feelings of vulnerability one can use anger or deny ones needs... And thus get a sense of power. A power one maybe don't need to exercise or demonstrate today!? Because today one has the power one didn't have then. Knowing what is what: what my anger is about... That's the problem... So it is used more productively... Because of course there are reasons today to get angry - too!! But if I am acting on something pas it's risk I behave destructively or self-destructively!?? And in a way that gains noone and even can become harmful??

Denying ones needs is also so sad and maybe even tragic many times? Trying to fill ones childhood needs instead of ones grown up needs!?? How much hasn't that costed? And still costs?

Help/powerlessness is about the past usually?? Except for extreme circumstances??

Hat...

from music-video recording February 2007 (balancing the content below!?).

About hatred and its origins, and targets for this hatred... Inspired by "Paths of Life" from the last chapter "Reflections". Also see "Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation? by Alice Miller."

---

[Uppdaterad i slutet 23 och 24 februari]. Inspirerad av Miller i kapitet "Hur uppstår hat?" i boken "Vägar i livet":

De destruktiva följderna av våld mot barn kan manifestera sig redan i ungdomen, till exempel i tyrannisk behandling av yngre syskon, i våldsdåd eller rentav mord. Så därför räcker det inte bara att i en terapi att fördöma ett äldre (eller yngre??) syskons handlingar (vilket kan vara nog så viktigt), utan gå vidare också och fördöma de vuxna som inte skyddade mot dessa saker!? Men jag har en känsla av att ganska många (kanske de flesta) terapeuter inte klarar detta!??? Att anklaga ett syskon är inte fullt lika livsfarligt som att anklaga och ifrågasätta föräldrar!?? Så detta förra går "relativt" lätt?? För trots allt ganska få terapeuter har på allvar ifrågasatt sina egna föräldrar? Möjligen har de gjort detta på en ganska ytlig och kanske enbart intellektuell nivå? De har bara tänkt och resonerat sig till "upplysning"?? Men om det är så kan de inte heller förstå sina klienter riktigt (eller i värsta fall ganska litet)?

Det är detta Miller beskriver i "Deception Kills Love". I en artikel som handlar om en dansk författare och dennes bok om sina upplevelser av sexuella övergrepp av en pedofil. Bearbetandet av dessa övergrepp i vuxen ålder, därför att han börjat må dåligt (övergrepp som han blev utsatt för under några år runt inträdet i tonåren), räckte dock inte för att befria honom från ångesten.

Miller menar (i min tolkning?) att förklaringen till detta är att författaren inte fick hjälp att gå vidare i terapin, till att ifrågasätta sina föräldrar, som anförtrodde sin son till denne man, sättet de gjorde detta på. Sveket att de inte såg och inte förmådde skydda honom?

Miller beskriver förbudet att ifrågasätta sina egna föräldrar och den påföljande ångesten över detta, att kroppen sa en sak som var strängt förbjuden att dra upp i ljuset?? Förstärkt av terapeutens (omedvetna) rädsla, med medföljande förbud att artikulera detta; ifrågasätta färldrarnas oförmåga, handlande och få tillåtelse att fördöma detta??

Och för att återgå till ursprungsämnet: den vuxne har tyvärr ytterligare medel till sitt förfogande för att föra detta förnekade våld vidare. Bland annat kan han/hon ideologisera våldet så raffinerat och utöva våldet så subtilt att han/hon till och med kan framställa det som något gott, som

”för den andres bästa”.

och på det viset liksom rättfärdiga det.

Och ju mindre beredd han/hon är att revidera sitt bedrägeri och självbedrägeri, desto tyngre blir konsekvenserna av hans handlande för andra.

Dvs. i den mån man är beredd att ifrågasätta desto mindre skada åstadkommer man, desto mindre blir konsekvenserna av ens handlingar/handlande. Så allt arbete man gör, alla insikter man skaffar sig (känslomässigt och intellektuellt) är av godo och skyddar en från att skada andra alltför illa (liksom skyddar en förhoppningsvis mot att skada en själv)!?

De barn som har turen att träffa ett hjälpande vittne (även ett omedvetet hjälpande, omedvetet men ändå vetande vittne) kan hjälpa barnet att litet mer aktivt se den lidna oförrätten (hjälpa barnet att ifrågasätta det som skett och betrakta som fel och i bästa fall helt fördöma det som skedde. Viulket oftast är förbjudet, för man ska ju förstå föräldrarna och deras situation och att de själva blivit skadade!!) och bearbeta det som hänt i mer eller mindre grad. Dessa barn blir inte våldsverkare senare kanske i någon grad trots att de kanske blivit misshandlade psykiskt och fysiskt och kanske även sexuellt och i vissa fall även grovt misshandlade. Detta menar Miller är förklaringen till att inte alla misshandlade barn själva blir grova förövare (och jag tror att Miller har rätt här, jag tror inte vi är födda med så dåliga gener eller drifter. Naturligtvis kan jag ha fel här, men varför inte utgå från denna hypotes? Och prova den?? Skulle detta skada någon? I så fall hur? För det är klart att man kanske inte ska ägna sig åt något som riskerar att orsaka skada!?).

Miller skriver på sidan 181 i "Vägar i livet":

"I detta sammanhang skulle man visserligen kunna resonera som Sigmund Freud gjorde på det sexuella området och säga: Om de flesta människor som barn har blivit misshandlade eller emotionellt försummade kan det inte vara någon patogen faktor vid uppkomsten av brottslighet, för i så fall hade de flesta utvecklats till mördare. Men detta resonemang bortser från själva det faktum att det inte är traumat i sig som direkt leder till att det bildas neuroser och till kriminella levnadsbanor, utan sättet på vilket de bearbetas."

Ja, antag att ganska många av oss, kanske väldigt många, varit utsatta för diverse "mildare" och subtilare saker... Och att omgivningen i många fall kanske inte var totalt konsekvent eller genomauktoritär... Kanske har många (fler än vi vill tro) varit utsatta för saker och det finns en anledning att kollektivt förneka detta, att minimera och bagatellisera en massa saker: otillbörlig beröring, nyp, daskar, utskällningar m.m.

Och kanske riktar de/vi detta istället "bara" mot sig/oss själva, i självdestruktivitet, självanklagelser osv.? Och/eller mot svagare...

Och när det gäller sexuella övergrepp så menar Miller att förövarna inte kommer ihåg vad de själva fick utstå, dvs. att de själva varit utsatta. Om en terapi är möjlig visar det sig att det är sin egen historia de har iscensatt i åratal, om och om igen.

Men rent allmänt så är inte vetande automatiskt något skydd, dvs. att man vet att man blev slagen, utskälld, och kanske inte heller att man blev sexuellt utnyttjad!? Man måste ha bearbetat det hela på ett någorlunda djupt plan. Dvs. ha fått ifrågasätta det och betrakta det som fel. Se t.ex. pappan som reagerade på sin egen pappa, som ör länge sedan förödmjukade sin son genom att skälla ut honom inför andra. Denna pappautsatte sina egna barn för samma saker, trots att han visste vad han själv varit utsatt för.

Jo, man behöver även ha integrerat det hela på någon känslomässig nivå? Vetande, minnesbild o.d. är inte tillräcklig!

Ett medvetet vetande är omöjligt för barnet utan ett hjälpande vittne. Barnet måste tränga bort eller förneka delar eller hela traumat. Och synen på VAD som är traumatiskt har också utvecklats?? Att kränkningar inte bara är av fysisk och sexuell natur, utan också handlar om känslomässiga kränkningar (vilka kanske är ÄNNU vanligare?). Men samhällets förnekande kan plötsligt liksom slå till igen. Ja, det kollektiva förnekandet kan slå till igen. Och man börjar bagatellisera och minimera betydelsen och allvaret i diverse kränkningar (se om Reich senare).

Miller skriver på sidan 168 i ”Vägar i livet”:

”Först när man inser den egentliga orsaken och förstår den naturliga reaktionen på oförrätter kan det blinda, på oskyldiga projicerade hatet upplösas. Dess funktion, att dölja sanningen, blir hädanefter överflödigt.”

Kom att tänka på mitt i skrivandet att man kan anse det vara berättigat att liksom "uppfostra" andra och tala om sanningar för dem... Och då kan det handla om ett försvar mot att inse sina egna sanningar, med den åtföljande smärtan, det försvar Bosch kallar för falsk makt-vrede? Ja, det svåra att inse vad som faktiskt ÄR berättigat och vad som INTE ÄR berättigat?? Där vi tyvärr ofta blivit förvirradgjorda?? Vissa tror att de förtjänar den behandling de får (första eller ursprungligt försvar) och andra anser att andra förtjänar den behandling de utsätter dem för!??? Och ofta "dras" dessa till varandra!??

Tillägg 23 februari: Miller skriver på sidan 170 i "Vägar i livet" om dagens terrorister som dödar och torterar främmande människor som inte har gjort dem något ont:

"...men varken deras aningslöshet idag eller deras en gång undertryckta och nu förnekade vrede rättfärdigar på något sätt deras extrema destruktivitet eller kan göra anspråk på vårt medlidande."

Och detta gäller andra våldsverkare också (även på politisk nivå och på en massa andra nivåer och i en massa andra sammanhang också)!! Och på sidan 171 om Hitler:

"Därmed kunde han också ursäkta faderns övergrepp, för fadern var ju bara ett offer för den onde och allsmäktige juden."

Och slutligen på sidan 187 om det misshandlade barnet:

"Det har ju lärt sig att den starkare har rätt att bruka sin makt godtyckligt./.../

...[han kommer] att böja sig för auktoriteter och spela herre över de svagare, enligt det despotiska mönster han som barn erfarit av sina uppfostrare."

Men fortfarande är en taskig barndom (vare sig medveten eller omedveten) ingen ursäkt för att den senare vuxne begår övergrepp av kanske något slag, vare sig stort eller smått?? Det befriar en inte heller från ansvar. Jag tycker Miller uttrycker detta ganska bra.

Se också om en anna sorts övergrepp (och om man så vill våld) i inlägget "Kön, genus och lojalitet." Ytterligare ett inlägg som jag måst gå och grunna på, men som är så suveränt! I all dess ilska!!! :-)

Tillägg 24 februari: En dansk man, född 1956, har skrivit en bok om sin far. En far som slog honom och som missbrukade hans syster sexuellt. Denne man säger sig forfarande älska sin far - och förstå honom (varför han gjorde som han gjorde mot sina barn). Dvs. han har förlåtit honom?

Se här, här, här och här om denna bok.

Jag tänker på det Miller skrivit om Hitler (se ovan). Om att Hitler riktade sitt hat mot syndabockar, genom att på "något sätt" ursäkta faderns övergrepp, för han (fadern) var ju ett offer för den onde juden... Och hur många fäder (och också mödrar) har inte barn måst förstå?? Men att vuxna fortsätter att göra detta...

Och återigen tänker jag på det Miller skriver om Wilhelm Reich. Miller skriver på sidan 162-163 om Wilhelm Reich:

"...föreställningen om den infantila sexualiteten, som Reich övertog från Freud och senare har vidareutvecklat, har jag aldrig kunnat dela med honom. I min bok 'Den bannlysta vetskapen' företrädde jag den åsikten att Freud med konceptet infantil sexualitet hade lagt locket på ifråga om de svåra följderna av övergrepp mot barn. Jag skrev: 'Något liknande gjorde senare också Wilhelm Reich. Han utvecklade en teori som skulle hjälpa honom att avvärja smärtan hos den tidigt och ständigt utnyttjade pojke som han en gång var. Istället för att känna hur ont det gör när man blir bedragen av de vuxna som man litar på och är försvarlös inför övergreppen, har Wilhelm Reich i hela sitt liv /.../ påstått: jag ville det själv, jag behövde det, alla barn behöver det!'[och vad har dessa båda auktoriteters privata och 'yrkesmässiga' förnekande inneburit för en oerhörd mängd människor?]

Denna utsaga bygger på Myron Sharafs Reichbiografi, enligt vilken Reich ska ha berättat att han redan vid fyra års ålder kände till det sexuella livets alla hemligheter, och detta tack vare husjungfrun som brukade ta honom till sig i sin säng och undervisa honom i sexuella lekar./.../ Förnekandet av barndomens smärta har /.../ vittgående följder, som inte begränsar sig till det privata familjeområdet utan till och med kan leda till politiska omvälvningar [förföljelse av vissa grupper, till och med mord och utrotning av människor osv., förutom övergrepp inom familjen...]."

I wikipedia står det om Reich:

”Reich attributed his later interest in the study of sex and the biological basis of the emotions to his upbringing on the farm where, as he later put it, the 'natural life functions' were never hidden from him. Reich also spoke of witnessing the family's maid having intercourse with her boyfriend, and apparently later asking if he could 'play' the part of the lover. He said that, by the time he was four years old, there were no secrets about sex for him.

He was taught at home until he was 12, when his mother committed suicide after being discovered having an affair with Reich's tutor, who lived with the family. In a report supposedly about a patient, Reich wrote about how deeply the affair had affected him, that the ‘joy of life shattered, torn apart from my inmost being for the rest of my life!’

Her death was particularly brutal because of the method she chose; she drank a common household cleaner, which left her in great pain for days before she died. The tutor was sent away, and Reich was left without his mother or his teacher, and with a powerful sense of guilt.

He was sent to the all-male Czernowitz gymnasium, excelling at Latin, Greek, and the natural sciences. It appears to have been during this period that a skin condition developed that plagued him for the rest of his life. It was diagnosed as psoriasis; Reich was given medication that contained arsenic, now known to make psoriasis worse.

Reich's father was ‘completely broken’ by his wife's suicide. In or around 1914, he took out a life insurance policy, then stood for hours in a cold pond, apparently fishing, but in fact intending to commit slow suicide, according to Reich and his brother Robert. He contracted pneumonia and then tuberculosis, and died in 1914 as a result of his illness; despite his insurance policy, no money was forthcoming.

Reich managed the farm and continued with his studies, graduating in 1915 mit Stimmeneinhelligkeit (unanimous approval). In the summer of 1915, the Russians invaded Bukovina and the Reich brothers fled to Vienna, losing everything. In his Passion of Youth, Reich wrote: ‘I never saw either my homeland or my possessions again. Of a well-to-do past, nothing was left.’

‘I had read somewhere that lovers get rid of any intruder, so with wild fantasies in my brain I slipped back to my bed, my joy of life shattered, torn apart in my inmost being for my whole life!’ — Wilhelm Reich.”

Och det där om barndomsskildringar och att skratta bort saker:

"Alice Miller on Frank McCourt in her book “The Truth Will Set You Free – Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Self” ISBN 0-465-04585-5 pages 100-103:

“Protection and respect for the needs of a child – this is surely something we ought to be able to take for granted. But we live in a world full of people who have grown up deprived of their rights, deprived of respect /…/

Also, there is less of a tendency today to idealize and romanticize childhood; the misery frequently comes across in all its starkness. But in most autobiographies I have read the authors still maintain an emotional distance from the suffering they went through as children. Little empathy and an astounding absence of rebellion are the rule. There is no inquiry into the whys and wherefores behind the injustice, the emotional blindness and the resulting cruelty displayed by the adults, whether teachers or parents. Description is all. On every page of the brilliant book Angela’s Ashes, for example, Frank McCourt describes such cruelties in gruesome detail. But even as he recalls his childhood, he never rises up against his tormentors, attempting instead to remain living and tolerance and seeking salvation in humor.

And it is for this humor that he has been celebrated by millions of readers the world over [!!!].

But how are we to stand up for children in our society and improve their situation if we laugh at and tolerate cruelty, arrogance, and dangerous stupidity? /…/

Humor saved Frank McCourt’s life and enabled him to write his book. His readers are grateful to him for it. Many of them have shared the same fate and they want nothing more dearly than to be able to laugh it off. Laughter is good for you, so they say, and it certainly helps you survive. But laughter can also entice you to be blind. You may be able to laugh at the fact that someone has forbidden you to eat of the tree of knowledge, but that laughter will not really wake you up from the sleep. You must learn to understand the difference between good end evil if you want to understand yourself and change anything in the world as it is [yes, what is good and what is evil? What is love and what is not love? What are expressions for love and what is not? What is in fact cruel and unfair? What should we question? And what are we usually questioning and not in fact and why? What are we protecting and what not actually? What produces evilness and what would not produce evilness?].

Laughter is good for you, but only when there is reason to laugh [and then we are of course entitled to laugh, from the bottom of our stomach, body, heart, with glittering eyes]. Laughing away one’s own suffering is a form of fending off, a response that can prevent us from seeing and tapping the sources of understanding around us [but the helpless and totally dependent child, with all what mean, had to laugh it off and use a lot of other strategies to survive. And those strategies cause the adult a whole range of problems, troubles and difficulties. And it is not only to intellectually understand this… And you can’t just cope with this with all different techniques and/or methods… Or just cognitively I think. If it was many of us would be cured long ago… In a way we must realize emotionally how harmful things are and were I think].

If biographers were better informed about the details and consequences of what some indifferently call as a normal strict upbringing, they could provide us with precious material for better understanding our world. But there are not many who try to figure out how such upbringing was experienced by their subject as child.”

Seeing things as wrong...

Some thoughts I have had or gotten recently… About therapy. About being allowed to question and see as wrong.

On a walk (or a couple of walks) I came to think: If the therapist listens to his/her client smiling when the client narrates what she/he has experienced… (what message does this therapist forward? That he/she doesn't believe what the clients says, doesn't see it as serious, minimizing and belittling the experience? And maybe that's also whathe/she ruly feels: what is this to make fuss about!!) What effect does that have on the client? Does that allow the client to realize/recognize what he/she was exposed to??

And how is this client then supposed to react towards others, for instance those under him/her in power (own and others children for instance)?? What sort of understanding does this client get? Of what is actually damaging and harmful – and painful??

Miller writes about successful group-therapy with fathers accused for incest. How these (some, not all) realized what they had done (the life-long harm to the ones they had sexually abused) when they were allowed to question and see as wrong what they had been exposed to themselves. And also to a certain degree emotionally caught this!

But there are other forms of abuse too: subtler, as emotional abuse... Which is even more belittled and minimized, but damaging too (maybe more damaging than we believe)! And making us more or less insensitive to others and ourselves!?

But he therapist mentioned above really minimized this form of abuse?? What was that? Nothing to him?? And what about possible other forms of abuse under the emotional (disrespect)?? As sexual abuse (even if it was "only" about improper touching??). Or not even about spanking the child?? He diminished all these things? Didn't he? The grown up child's fantasies etc.??

A client maybe struggling to see and wanting to avoid hurting or damaging others…I get so upset thinking about this.

How is this client supposed to be sensitive to others, to others suffering etc.? Especially young people, still powerless and helpless and dependent to different degrees…

I also came to think about ability and willingness to develop as human being, to learn… Becoming a little more mature by the years…

Are some forced to become? Others less forced?

How many are actually prepared to change and to “learn” or develop?? Or maybe even wanting to change? Maybe it’s more the latter? Wanting to, even if the success is small, of different reasons? What can one see between ones fingers with? And what less maybe?

Now I am thinking more generally, but also more specifically, about a former boss, who has gone from job to job, all highly qualified… That about realizing ones limits… Some are told they ought to realize their limits, and not take a lot of work on them for instance… Who are told the former and who are told the latter? Some just have to, but others don’t have to??

“No wonder you get angry!!”

a female physician and gestalt-therapist said…

“What? Am I allowed to get angry??? To react??”

Yes, it so it is or can be:

"What? Am I allowed to get angry? Are there reasons to get angry? To question and see as wrong?? Is there nothing wrong in me because I am reacting?"

And it should be like this in therapy, when a client talks about his/her early experiences, even more concerning them, than in actual events?? Not that actual events should become diminished or belittled (oh, my fantastic English).

I know of a woman telling her therapist (a male therapist) how her parents behaved, how it was earliest in life; with a dad coming home pouring out his frustration and anger at the family, being irritated, with no patience and a very short fuse (stubin)… The therapist just smiled, showed no indignation… This was nothing to talk about?? No damage done? This didn’t hurt or damage the child?? Or was this client fantasizing? Making a hen of a feather or?? Was/is it:

“But you know, he had it tough at work!! You know he had his things (it wasn't so fun when he grew up) in his backpack!!”

No, the child didn’t understand this!!!?? Observe the irony, because I think that’s exactly what a child can “understand”, and put her/his own back…

Despite this father acted his things out, he didn’t get healed!!?? By symbolically reacting his out, at children and wife (human beings who had nothing to do with his early history) it didn’t make him less angry…

Symbolically reacting things out doesn’t heal. Yes, I think Miller is right there. How does one do then?

Can this anger (or the milder expression inform of irritation) be a way of avoiding the pain and thus the truth?? Giving the one pouring out his/her anger a sense of strength and powerfulness?? Giving her/him power? Does he/she need this power and strength in this circumstance (yes, maybe)? Does he/she need to exercise and demonstrate this power? Does he demonstrate his/her power against the ones he/she ought to demonstrate it against and protect her/him against??

Yes, I think Jenson is right: if you are (unconsciously) rewriting your history the failure is unavoidable.

How many misunderstandings and misinterpretations does this cause??

Blaming and accusing oneself is also a defense... Protecting oneself against an even greater pain? But it isn't just to start behaving differently (but you can't use this as an excuse either for not doing anything?). Maybe you succeed doing this though, changing your behavior I mean, but it doesn't automatically change your feelings, reactions etc. If it feels as if nothing has changed actually despite all you know you should do - and not do, despite how enlightened you even are, how strong your will even is, it's because no real integration has occurred?? Due to lack of proper help or because you were so harmed so this work is so difficult...

And no, you can't solve this with your intellect or with intelligence!? But understanding, cognitively knowing/understanding isn't bad, maybe an important first step? But yes, intellect and intelligence can block too?

And the client above: did this make her seeing things even better?? Did she really dare to see her therapist trough? Is a more harmed client more caught in such therapy? More unable to believe what she sees, hear, senses? The less harmed (and thus less needy!!!) can leave more easily? Dare to question such a therapist? And leave him.

Staying in such a therapy, what does this mean? Maybe for many years? Years have been spoiled and things have been sacrificed? The sacrifices have been added with more sacrifices?? Where she should have gotten (and expected) to get help...

And a therapist behaving like this, smiling (of what reason) is revictimizing his client??? He behaved disrespectfully?

I also saw these words now when I was searching about other things: integrity violations... Because that's what disrespect is about?

It is very painful thinking that despite all knowledge one has probably behaved disrespectfully without seeing or knowing it??

How was it Freyd wrote about removing blinders, becoming connected?

Thinking further in the shower: Treating your child disrespectfully is playing your in the hands of abusers later in life! And/or making them to abusers of different degrees??

And knowledge isn't enough. I came to think of the father reacting at how his father ones treated him (and his siblings), shouting to his/them i front of others, the humiliation this caused... But he exposed his own children for the same/similar things... So, no, knowledge isn't enough...

You have to process this in a certain way for not passing this further!? Being allowed to see it as wrong and question the whole behavior: had I as child given the parent (other grown up/person) reasons to treat me like this? If so: what reason? The punisher should be able to tell for what and why he/she punishes??? Shouldn't he/she? And it is a question of not belittling or minimizing what as (is) done?? But we have tendencies doing this: I deserved it! It doesn't matter? That was then! etc. Denying the truth!? We probably do in a lot of ways??? More than we are aware of!? With what follows... I probably do too... But as grown ups we can always communicate things?? Try the best we can to do that??

Do I have a flu in the body? Not breaking out? Think if one could go to bed and draw a blanket over oneself... Do nothing... Can a blind lead a blind? Am I very self-occupied? And that is absolutely forbidden??

Defences...

I have been thinking about the topic gurus and power the last months and thought of blogging about it and yesterday I started to search in my books what stands there and found something else (or not?) in the revised edition of Miller's first book "The Drama of the Gifted Child" in the chapter "The vicious circle of contempt [for weakness, for instance in the client in therapy, not recovering as fast or at all as he/she ought to. The, still unconscious, contempt for the small child, not handling things better than it did!!]" (or how is it translated in the English edition?).

At page 151 (in the Swedish edition) it stood something that triggered some thoughts, something in the style:

“The human beings whom had the responsibility for us in our childhood made it impossible for us to develop our awareness (consciousness?). They wanted to prevent (or stop) this because it threatened their defenses.”

I thought further: And it is deplorable if the development of our awareness/consciousness is hindered in our therapies by our therapists because it threatens their (the therapists) defenses. Miller writes that therapists have learned about conscious manipulation, but they aren't always aware of the/an unconscious manipulation...

And it is the latter that is so problematic... If I have understood her right.

An unconscious manipulation neither the client nor the therapist is aware of.

And this is also the problem in other circumstances and relations!?? One example is the relation teacher-pupil, where the teacher (more often than we believe or are aware of) doesn't want to know something that would threaten her/his defenses... There are probably other examples on this... I also came to think about the conception power imbalance, Kirkengen for instance has written about this. And the power imbalance between in first hand physician/doctor and her/his client. About power abuse...

The conception "censoring" also struck me all of a sudden... What is this about? What are we censoring, in others and ourselves, and why? What is actually important and what matters actually?

Quite silently: Hmmm, and that about women's voices... Do they have anything to contribute with or come with? Are the worth listening to and respectfully be met as equals? In a real, genuine exchange on similar conditions, with mutual respect? Where the message is important, more important than how it is said...

But I guess; if you are truly interested in an exchange the form matters less or maybe not at all!!??

There is (or can be??) a lot of competition among musicians... And it isn't so unusual that people say very critical things about others playing for instance... Quite contemptuous things... But who are the most contemptuous? The ones that knows "most"? Who are the most generous and maybe less critical? I don't know if I am unfair now... An maybe is it so that the ones that knows "most" also can afford to be more generous?? I don't know...

I have taken lessons for pianists like Janos Solyom, Käbi Laretei etc. Been in master-class with the Swedish baritone Olle Persson and the Swedish pianist Matti Hirvonen (as 46 year-old woman!!!! Curious on everything, still trying to develop things. That I was accepted for this master-class a summer in the north of Sweden was unbelievable for me...). I have cooperated a little (very little!!) with the singer Erland Hagegård etc. To mention some... All these well-known in music-circles here... And other teachers during my educations...

And I have seen others in action... And of course seen both good and bad things, and probably been blind for things (maybe many things)... And in a way (maybe many ways?) I probably have a lot of respect for some, maybe too much respect!??? Too...

But I don't aspire at all to be well known myself, I am satisfied with how it is. If I had any opportunity to that, any more...

The last fifteen years have been about plain surviving, to different degrees (for ten years it was almost a question of surviving), for keeping the nose above water, despite all supposed (???) advantageous'... Not for developing any skills whatsoever actually... (Including not for developing my English or for communicating on that language). But I kept on working as the clever girl; both on work-things and on personal things (not my English!)...

"Oh, you must have had support!!!"

No, I hadn't, people disappeared... I became very lonely... (blowing my hair in the middle of writing).

Someone wrote to me recently:

"...these matters can be very painful. But having faced them we become stronger."

In the context this was said (actually written) these words didn't feel especially caring or empathic at all. Excuse me, but what bullshit!!?? It doesn't automatically make one stronger. You experienced this for your own good, for to learn!!?? You deserved this, or?

When I was showering now I came to think of blind admiration too... See above, about having too much respect maybe. I have wondered and reacted over woman I have had contact with for a long time, actually a woman in my mom's age (a mother-figure??), over how she resonates and reacts over people in certain positions, how shall I express this; as if they have no faults (or blind spots), as if they are perfect, not really human beings!? One isn't allowed to question them or criticize them!? One of them is a former head for a big company here in Sweden! A man she has had some private contact with, I don't know... Oh, I react so strongly when people admire "fine people", seeing like some sort of superhuman beings, of some reason... Has something to do with my background?

This woman (actually retired teacher!) grew up in a crowd of seven children as the one in the midst, on a farm in the middle of Sweden that has been in the family for over 400 years, fairly wealthy I think. They never starved, and they had opportunities to go further in school-education (opportunities my mom didn't have, coming from the working-class, the lowest working-class too)...

I have tried to imagine how it was, how her (my friends) parents were (my think I learned to know my maternal grandparents to that degree that I can imagine how they were. I was 31 respective 33 when they died, grandmother 90 years and grandfather 87)... How her father was... From what I have read (not least from/in Miller's books). I see an authoritarian father, maybe even totalitarian... And I wonder how her mother was too, actually?? Not so little authoritarian too? Yes, that about growing up in better conditions...

This woman married a man, colleague to us, and they got two children (in my age, or a little younger)... Her husband was alcoholic (as his older brother), but this wasn't something we spoke of at all. We haven't done it at all, not even today we do speak about it (so vital things!!?). And this was some kind of secret at work too!!?? When I came here I was a 23-year old woman, not so secure and not seeing things... Her husband died in cancer (due to his alcoholism, in organs which use to be damaged if you are an alcoholic) when he had just passed 60.

My father could have developed a totalitarian regimen too? But he couldn't really? I try to imagine how it was... There were moderating factors? Mom didn't really allow him?? But she couldn't really protect us!?? She in turn had been beaten (and probably also been exposed to emotional abuse, and maybe even sexual??), her self-esteem was (and is?) very low... But I don't want to idealize her either...

With the years dad changed I think (seen from the child's point of view)... He became more democratic, less strict, in a way?? And much more anxious for things, for us, when we were on the road home for instance, which made me very astonished!! Now he allowed himself to let things to surface more? But not the really vital things??

No, I must do something else than writing... Many threads and sidetracks here?

Even more about a Society in Denial...

Astrid Lindgren's "homo ludens"?

Even more about ”A Society in Denial”. Also read about "Collective Denial" and "Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected".

Addition January 17: a leader about wanting to kill the "homo ludens" ("Man the Player" see links in this blogpost to Johan Huizinga and his whole book "A Study of the Play Element in Culture"?) i.e. the living, feeling human being, shown in school-politics here in Sweden the leader-writer thinks (in my interpretation). A backlash to "harder grips"... Yes, (we) grown up people can't stand young people and their capacity to play, have fun, enjoy things, react, feel?

Can it be like this even grown up people between too?

That people with less access or connection to their feelings, emotions etc. , whether it is conscious or not, can't stand people with seemingly maybe a little more access to these things, the things they had to kill, that was robbed from them early in life, maybe even earliest in life? Things you don't want to be reminded about.

Doesn't Miller write about this somewhere; about parents killing the living human being in their child? Which doesn't exclude that they later try to restore the lost spontaneity, creativity and lost self-confidence with different measures, assuring the child of it's value, of its capacity etc. etc. etc. And the child gets confused by this... Because it isn't allowed to recognize the reasons for its problems. It can't realize this on its own either. And the grown up world join the trials to liberate he child...Phew!!

But noone want to know why all these things were killed, or how they were killed...

And that about intellectualizing... That about words... The difficulty to live as one learns... An honest wish and strive can weigh up things, can it??

The sad thing: we probably don't see our blind spots... Despite "all awareness in the world" even?? And this causes a lot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations (maybe in both directions; we get stuck with people we should leave and avoid those that we shouldn't avoid), misunderstandings and misinterpretations which we aren't aware of at all many times too?? And maybe live our whole lives avoiding things that would be good for us, and being stuck with people and circumstances that are less good...

Not realizing what is/was in reach actually? Resulting in tragedies seen to what we have lost, if we were capable of seeing this?

That about communication too...

Silently thinking... That about power-abuse, and the defense False Power Anger... Ranging from irritation (and maybe impatiens) to real anger or even fury? See earlier blogpost "A father...", "A child..." and "A mother...".

---

Bosch om "Defences..." på svenska, sidorna 78-81 i den holländska terapeuten Ingeborg Bosch bok ”Rediscovering the True Self – A search for truth and healing. New insights combined with a comprehensive self-healing program” i min amatöröversättning:

”Det är viktigt att inse att mycket av det som vi anser vara vår inneboende natur i själva verket är en försvarsmekanism som verkar nästan hela tiden.

Vilken än vår försvarsstrategi är vid en given tidpunkt, så använder vi alla tre försvaren [ursprungligt försvar, falskt hopp och falsk makt förnekande av behov eller falsk makt vrede]. De flesta av oss identifierar oss huvudsakligen med antingen falskt hopp eller en variation av falsk makt, men långt nere känner vi alla den oundkomliga dragkraften från det ursprungliga försvaret.

Det är intressant att undersöka hur dessa tre olika försvar arbetar tillsammans i förhållande till en symbol. När ett försvar inte fungerar så skiftar vi vanligtvis över till ett annat och, om det är nödvändigt, till ytterligare ett annat. Till exempel kan vi gå från ett beteende att behaga/tillfredsställa (falskt hopp) till vrede (falsk makt) till att känna oss ovärdiga kärlek (ursprungligt försvar). Eller från att förneka att vi känner oss sårade (falsk makt) till att försöka bli uppskattade (falskt hopp) till att känna oss skyldiga (ursprungligt försvar). Eller så kan vi förflytta oss direkt från att försöka lyckas (falskt hopp) till irritation (falsk makt) till att känna oss inkapabla (ursprungligt försvar). Eller vi kan gå från att känna oss värdelösa (ursprungligt försvar) till att känna oss arga (falsk makt) eller att försöka lyckas (falskt hopp) etc. Alla kombinationer är möjliga. Det är som att röra sig i en cirkel, vi kan röra oss på alla olika sätt.

Människor som identifierar sig mer med falskt hopp, visar vanligtvis sitt ursprungliga försvar ganska ofta. Föreställ dig Teresa, en medelålders kvinna som har vigt sitt liv åt sin man och sina barn och sitt hem. Hon ser sig själv som en typisk hemmafru. Även om det är hennes val att vara hemmafru, så känner hon sig ofta missnöjd med sitt liv. Hon försöker att tillfredsställa sin familj genom att sätta deras önskningar framför sina egna (falskt hopp). Men det spelar ingen roll hur hårt hon än anstränger sig för att tillfredsställa sin man och sina barn, så känner hon sig sällan uppskattad av dem för det hon gör. Under denna avsaknad av uppskattning är hennes självuppskattning ganska negativ (ursprungligt försvar).

Hon ser sig själv som en ointressant, tråkig person som inte har något verkligt värde för någon i denna värld. Hon gråter ofta över sitt liv och känner sig då hopplös och värdelös. Ändå försöker hon fortsatt att tillfredsställa sin familj (falskt hopp) i ett försöka att vinna deras kärlek och när de inte verkar uppskattande, känner hon sig värdelös (ursprungligt försvar) istället för att möta sanningen/verkligheten av sitt förflutna som denna symboliska situation för upp: barnet som hon var, var inte uppskattat av sina vårdnadsgivare. Så hon återvänder än en gång till att sätta sin familj önskningar framför sina egna i hopp om att hitta/få uppskattning.

Människor som identifierar sig mer med falsk makt tenderar att dölja sina ursprungliga försvar. Dessa personer ser vanligen starka och kompetenta ut och döljer ursprungligtförsvarkänslor som ’Jag är dålig’ eller ’Jag är inte god nog’. Ett exempel på detta skulle kunna vara Herman. I tidig fyrtioårsålder har han gjort en ganska rejäl karriär och är nu vd (?) för ett stort och lyckosamt företag. Hans managementstil är ganska auktoritär. Han visar litet hänsyn mot sina anställda och tillbringar vanligtvis knappast någon tid med dem alls. På möten tar han upp det mesta av tiden och han verkar alltid vara mycket säker på sig själv och på sina idéer. Hans anställda har aldrig sett en skymt av tvivel i Hermans ögon.

Under detta järnyttre känner Herman dock ofta känslor av yttersta ensamhet, därför att han känner att han inte kan dela några av de tvivel han har om affärerna eller sig själv med någon. Han är övertygad om att varje yttring av svaghet inte är riktigt tillåten för en vd för ett företag. Han försöker till och med dölja självtvivlen för sig själv så gott han kan. Han känner sig ofta som en ’dålig’ person som inte går att tycka om (ursprungligt försvar). Vanligtvis när dessa störande tankar och känslor kommer upp, upptäcker han att det hjälper att bli upprörd över någon annans uppträdande. Detta avleder hans uppmärksamhet från de negativa tankarna han har om sig själv och ger honom en upprättad känsla av falsk makt igen. Till nästa gång osv.

Detta typiska exempel visar hur någon som är engagerad i falsk makt döljer sitt ursprungliga försvar mycket mer än den som är mer benägen att använda falskt hopp. Det är inte troligt att auktoritativa eller ’coola’ personer (de två ansiktena/yttringarna för falsk makt) faller i gråt och uttrycker hur till exempel värdelösa, skyldiga eller dåliga de är /…/

Som slutsats, det finns tre sätt att försvara oss [enligt Bosch och Jenson, eller det är i alla fall dessa tre de jobbar utifrån eller anser mest betydelsefulla?] mot barndomssmärta, genom att ersätta den gamla verkligheten med en inbillad sådan: falskt hopp, falsk makt, ursprungligt försvar. Alla tre kallas förnekande, därför att deras inneboende natur är att förneka sanningen: den gamla verkligheten som den verkligen var. Varje gång som vi engagerar oss i någon av dessa tre försvarsmekanismer, betyder det att gammal smärta har vidrörts av en symbol och vi försvarar oss mot att känna denna smärta genom att tro på en illusion [vi fortsätter att skydda oss mot något som vi inte längre behöver skydda oss emot, mot saker som redan hänt och varit. Sanningar vi då som barn inte skulle ha överlevt. Och dess upplevelser finns fortfarande lagrade i vår kropp och i hjärnan]:

Falskt hopp; Jag kan få det jag behöver, bara jag…

Falsk makt - förnekande av behov: Jag bryr mig inte/behöver ingenting, Jag har det bra/är okej, ingenting pågår här.

Falsk makt – aggressivitet: Det är ditt fel, du är inte något bra, du har fel osv.

Ursprungligt försvar: Det är något fel på mig, Jag är inget bra, det är mitt fel, jag är skyldig, Jag kan inte osv. [klandrande av en själv].

När vi engagerar oss i våra försvar betyder det därför att vi tror på en illusion. Vi tror på denna illusion därför att barnet vi var, inte kunde möta smärtan över att veta sanningen. Men att som vuxen tro på illusionen, kommer bara att skjuta sanningen bort ifrån oss ännu mer bakom än ännu tjockare mur av förnekande och göra helande mindre och mindre troligt.”

Not only Staff...

photos on Tor Erling Staff.

[Updated January 14 and 17 in the end]. Making my first real post on this new blog.

I got a tip from a friend this morning about an article about sexual abuse of children and a Norwegian man exposed to sexual abuse as 12-year old boy, the now retired Norwegian lawyer Tor Erling Staff (about him at wikipedia, though only in Norwegian), belittling and minimizing the damage he was caused.

His recent client is a pedophile, the so called "lommemannen", which has been sexually abusing several hundred small boys in Norway the last three decades, that has been caught in Norway recently, which was a big news in Sweden too.

See earlier blogposts about defences, because what this man is doing is defending himself against the truth to what he has been exposed to. He admits to the abuse he has suffered, he remembers it, but the feelings that would be adequate aren't connected to this. These he has suppressed? Probably immediately? And one can wonder what he has been exposed to even earlier in his life.

And the bad thing is that he goes out in public with this denial, he doesn't keep it for himself...

I came to think that Miller has actually written about Wilhelm Reich somewhere (maybe I come back to this) and his minimizing of the sexual abuse he was exposed to by a maiden in the family as only 4-year old, which she thinks is a protection against the utter pain the true realization would be. I think she is right.

Earlier blogposts about minimizing and belittling, and about Tor Erling Staff (both in English and Swedish).

I googled on him and in one article he says that the respect for the child is ruining, destroying the society. In another he says he has had sex with everything that can crawl or walk either it has two legs or four... Grew up in the upper middle-class? And seems to have been a very controversial lawyer in Norway... No wonder...

A female incest-victim in Norway had this man as defender, see here and here. She reacts over Staff's belittling and minimizing these issues! This woman killed her father 2000 as 38 years and Staff was the only lawyer she knew of and asked him. Her father had been abusing her sexually from she was a child up in teenage...

The article (in Norwegian):

"Ikke bare Staff.

Det er ingen grunn til å tro at hadde Tor Erling Staff vært uskadeliggjort, ville alt vært greit. Bagatellisering av overgrep mot barn skjer daglig, på mange fronter.

Tor Erling Staffs uttalelser om seksuelle overgrep mot barn opprører oss. Staff sier ting som er virkelig avskyelige. Han er helt på jordet når han legger skylden på politiet om smågutter blir traumatisert av å bli utsatt for orale overgrep fra voksne menn [Staff blames the police that boys gets traumatized by oral sexual abuse by men!!! It's the police's fault; if they didn't make this an issue there wouldn't be any damage he means?].

Hjelpeapparatet

Men bagatellisering av overgrep mot barn skjer mange steder. Blant annet i barnepsykiatrien, som ikke registrerer overgrepene blant de fleste av sine overgrepsutsatte pasienter. Da en undersøkelse av norsk barne- og ungdomspsykiatri ble offentliggjort for to år siden, kom det ingen reaksjon fra verken helseministeren, andre politikere, eller fra psykiatrien [investigations have shown that the psychiatry doesn't make any records over abuse their patients have been exposed to and dared to talk about? When this investigation actually was made public in Norway no ministers in the government reacted - of course!?].

Selv har jeg hørt en psykolog omskrive overgrep mot barn til Ødipus-komplekset (innlegg i Tidsskrift for psykisk helsearbeid 4/2006). Og jeg har opplevd at det har blitt brukt samme type uprofesjonell begrunnelse som Staff bruker, for å bagatellisere - i dette tilfellet fysiske - overgrep mot barn, ved at psykologen hevdet at han selv ikke hadde blitt skadet av å ha blitt utsatt for vold som barn [The author of this debate-article writes in a magazine for work on psychological health that a psychologist ascribed abuse the Oedipus-complex!!! And that a psychologist meant that he himself hadn't been damaged by violence he was exposed to as a child!! Very unprofessional from both Staff and the psychologist! I come to think of what the Norwegian physician Anna-Luise Kirkengen writes in the foreword to her book 'How Abused Children Becomes Unhealthy Adults' something about that her book is directed to all dealing with victims of abuse of all kinds and in all different circumstances, including that of lawyers! *see the bottom of this blogpost what Kirkengen writes, at the asterisk].

En prest som har tatt doktorgrad på seksualforbrytere og jobber som terapeut, mener at barneporno muligens kan brukes til noe positivt: som hjelp i det terapeutiske arbeidet. Barneporno er filmede eller fotograferte reelle overgrep mot barn. Hvorfor skrek ikke halve nasjonen opp etter en slik uttalelse? Jeg ble så sjokkert da jeg leste det at jeg skrev til vedkommendes biskop. Men det kom intet svar fra biskopen [a Norwegian priest/minister working as therapist with children exposed to sexual abuse means child-porno maybe can be used as something positive. Horrible.].

Eller hva med barnevernet? I rapporten Barnevernet og incestsaker fra Redd Barna og Støttesenter mot incest - Oslo leser vi:

- Fagfolk er redde for å gå inn i slike saker! Slik var det for noen år siden. Slik er det i dag, sier en saksbehandler. Mange barnevernsansatte opplever at de er alene på arbeidsplassen om å tro at det har skjedd overgrep [People are very lonely believing they are the one and only exposed to abuse because the silence around these issues.].

En fostermor var sikker på at fosterdatteren var misbrukt, men ble ikke hørt av barnevernet, som truet: - Hvis dere ikke slutter å være så opphengt i overgrep, vil vi vurdere å overlate barnet til noen andre.

Barneoppdragerne

Sammenhengen mellom fysisk og seksuell vold er fortsatt i liten grad erkjent i samfunnet. Selv om det kom mange og kraftige reaksjoner i høst da Carl I. Hagen, Aslam Ahsan med flere gikk ut i media og bagatelliserte fysisk avstraffelse av barn, forble dette et ikke-tema.

En avstemning VG gjorde, viste at hele 46,5 prosent godtok rising av barn. Det er åpenbart ikke bare Staff som ikke skjønner hva traumer hos barn er.

Oslos ordfører Fabian Stang, som selv er advokat, engasjerer seg nå mot Staffs uttalelser. Han sier Staff kan ha brutt Straffelovens § 140, der det heter at den som offentlig oppfordrer eller tilskynder til iverksettelsen av en straffbar handling eller forherliger en sådan, kan straffes med bøter eller med fengsel i inntil åtte år, eventuelt 2/3 av den høyeste straff for det aktuelle lovbruddet.

Men hvorfor reagerte ikke Stang etter Aslam Ahsans forsvar for vold mot barn? Oslo kommune har vært med og finansiert et senter for barn som Ahsan leder. Mener kommunen at de som forherliger vold er egnet til å arbeide med barn?

Mørkemennene

Så har vi enkelte kristenfundamentalisters bagatellisering av seksuelle overgrep mot barn, ved å likestille homofili og liberal seksualmoral med pedofili.

Stortingsrepresentant André Oktay Dahl (H) har fortalt at han får uhyggelige brev på grunn av sitt arbeid for felles ekteskapslov, homoplan og bedre homo-rettigheter. På nettstedet Gaysir kan vi lese utdrag av et, som påstår at 'homofile er like farlige overgripere mot barn og unge som de pedofile'.

Denne brevskriveren er ikke den eneste som ikke viker tilbake for å sammenlikne homofili med seksuelle overgrep mot barn. Espen Ottosen, informasjonsleder i Norsk Luthersk Misjonssamband, skrev i en kronikk i Aftenposten: "På det seksuelle området har relativismen fått en enorm innflytelse. Et tankevekkende utslag av denne relativismen var reaksjonene som kom til uttrykk da Tor Erling Staff ... fortalte at han som 12-åring hadde gode seksuelle opplevelser sammen med andre menn', og at 'få våget å hevde at tilfeldig sex som involverer et barn alltid er galt'.

Den gode kristne mann gjorde seg skyldig i brudd på det åttende bud. For Staff møtte motbør. Jeg var selv en, av flere, som hadde innlegg mot Staff da han gikk ut med dette i 2005.

Å kalle en tolvåring mann, og dermed ansvarliggjøre barn for sexmisbruk, er grovt. Å knytte en seksualmoral som er mer liberal enn mørkemannens til det å ha sex med barn, framstiller de aller fleste av oss voksne, heterofile eller homofile, som seksualovergripere.

At de mest skadelige overgrepene ofte skjer i den tradisjonelle, heterofile familien, tok ikke Ottosen seg bryet med å nevne. Men da er det jo heller ikke lenger snakk om 'tilfeldig sex', men ofte langvarige og systematiske krenkelser fra de nærmeste.

Folkeopplyserne

Staff bør ikke gjøres til den ene syndebukken, for å avlaste fellesskapet. Mye mer kan gjøres på dette feltet. Her har særlig fagfolk - fortrinnsvis de med kompetanse på traumer hos barn - en viktig oppgave.

I dag er noen av dem på banen og snakker om 'Lommemannens' antatte psyke. Men selv om den noe omstridte diagnosen dissosiativ lidelse skulle referere til et faktisk psykisk fenomen, der vedkommendes egne traumer fra barndommen er fraspaltet bevisstheten, så vet enhver voksen tenkende person at overgrep mot barn er galt og straffbart.

Burde ikke psykologer og andre profesjonelle bli flinkere enn de er i dag til å opplyse allmennheten om de alvorlige konsekvensene for mange ofre for overgrep, slik at potensielle overgripere der ute kunne velge å søke hjelp framfor å ødelegge barns liv?

Og vi andre kunne se litt på våre holdninger."

* Yes, Kirkengen in fact writes:

"I address this book about how personal integrity violations lead to illness to my colleagues who practice, do research, teach and write within the field of general and specialized medicine. I also address researchers and clinicians within health-related professions, such as nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists, midwives, pediatric nurses, and consultants in ergonomics. Furthermore, I address all professionals working with children, such as teachers, child care consultants, speech therapists, social workers, and special education teachers. I wish, moreover, to reach those in the legal professions. This includes the police because lawyers, judges and police personnel come in contact with people, old and young, who are being hurt or have been hurt in the past by other people's lack of respect for their personal integrity.

I also address politicians and lawmakers since they are in a position to translate knowledge regarding boundary violation into viable initiatives and laws. The initiatives must have as their goal the prevention of humiliation, violation, injury or abuse, particularly of people who are young and dependent. They must also aim to insure that all people, regardless of where they are or where they go, can trust that they will be valued and treated with respect. Laws must have as their aim that all people, especially those who are small and dependent, who have already been humiliated, violated, injured or abused receive the help they need, and in abundance. They must also aim to insure that all people who have been treated with disrespect or contempt can regain their sense of self-worth and self-respect.

First and foremost, however, I address this work to students within medicine and other health professions. My declared aim here is to point out in what ways a dualistic view of the human being and his body is untenable, how it leads both to a dualistic health system, one somatic and the other psychiatric, and to a dualistic conceptual world, divided into one classification system for somatic illnesses and another for mental illnesses. Medicine and related fields of study rest on this divided and dividing knowledge and students are trained to think those terms. I beg students not to allow this way of thinking to wipe out what they know about themselves, and, consequently, about other people as well: that they are unique individuals with mindful bodies.

In the hope that this book may also reach people outside the medical professions, I have chosen to use everyday language. Issues of integrity and violation are, in fact, themes all people share. We are all vulnerable, not just a few of us. In addition to our being mortal, what human beings have in common is the fact that we can all be humiliated."

Addition January 14: Silent reflection during a walk in the morning: Does Staff want the whole society to join his personal denial? Soon turning 75 years, with more and more weakening defenses? Maybe he even wants to convince himself that he wanted it, that it was good for him, that all children want this? As Wilhelm Reich did if I remember what Miller wrote right? Awful and so sad...

In the afternoon: Staff has the power and the position... He can allow himself to go out and say such things. And he is allowed too, even if I know people have reacted... I couldn't help wonder:think if Staff had been a woman. Could a woman do such a thing?

Addition January 17: more articles/opinions about Staff and what he has put forward recently here, here and here. People questioning and defending. Even a man charged for sexual abuse (of children?) is critical, even furious. Saying that what Staff has said legitimizes abuse, and of course the abusers

"...loves when something says it is ok to paw children."

Miller has written about successful therapy with men in prison for incest... If these men (and women) get an opportunity to question and view what they have endured themselves as (small, maybe even very small) children, they can realize what they ave done...