Emotional manipulation, emotional incest...

[Updated July 10]. Emotional incest is more common than we believe Pia Mellody thinks.

I have just read ”The Confrontation” from the book ”The Way of All Flesh” by Samuel Butler and got some spontaneous thoughts.

This text is about a mother being spokesman for her husband to their child.

I can recognize this I think:

“He loves you anyway!”

Which means the mother thinks (knows) that even if he is screaming and yelling, has problems showing his love, he loves his kids. For the first: why can't he say this to his kids directly himself (shouldnt' he be able as a grown up, and if he isn't; why isn't he)? Is it the mother's (wife's) duty to talk for her husband, the children's father?

“He doesn't think you love him!”

What does a statement like this cause in the child? Deep guilt feelings maybe?

I also came to think about passing confidences on... About absolutely having to know the child's inmost; that he child isn't allowed to hide anything to its mother. And what does Miller say about this? What this means and causes for this person not least later in his/her grownup life? For instance that you have to hide things for yourself!?

And I think all this is expressions of violation of boundaries. Not respecting boundaries or integrity in another person. And this sort of boundary and integrity violations are even worse when a child is exposed to it, than when an adult is exposed to them, even though a grown up can have big difficulties handling them. The child has no escape or alternative than to stay in the relation. An adult usually have even I it doesn't feel so (depending on her/his early and successive history).

And the child would most likely not get support for complaints about such things, and got even fewer when this book was written more than hundred years ago. Because you shall honor your father and mother.

Today it's more possible to refuse to answer questions than it was back then (and when later generations grew up). But still children opposing and refusing their parents things feel a lot of guilt and badness. It's easier to submit.

And all those demands from the mother (and father) are about fulfilling the mother's (parents') unfulfilled and denied needs.

But – a grown up has alternatives, unless she/he isn't entirely paralyzed by help and powerlessness (feelings) stemming from her/his childhood. And - you can't blame that grown up for those feelings and inabilities (contempt for weakness).

Miller writes:

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue." (in my amateur translation from Swedish).

See also what Kirkengen for instance has written about revictimization.

To deal with this you ought to get help with the underlying, early things... But too often you don't get this help (from so called helpers). Maybe the sort of help that is offered usually can last short term... But not long term!??

But I also think that you shall be really careful with Primal and regression therapy. In wrong hands it can be dangerous...

Addition July 10: Read about "Butler's unhappy youth" by a person in modern time critisiszing what Butler did, a person who in general seem to be quite moralizing!!! Surprisingly moralizing. And neocomservative. Ideal for neoliberal currents and their propaganda!?

Child abuse...

How can one leave this child on its own?? This is child abuse! And nothing to laugh at! Why do people laugh at this? Leaving a child crying and screaming like this is cruel, seen from the child's point of view.

Why is discipline even, or ever, needed, positive or negative, in the first place?? Why does a child react in this way?

See this reader's mail on Alice Miller's website, I just have to quote:

“Dear Alice Miller. Yesterday I watched a Swedish documentary about immigrant children who are a huge problem at school because of their aggressive behaviour and I thought about what you've claimed so many times. The title of the documentary was called ‘The scapegoats’. They were rebels at their school, and teachers were truly afraid of them. Some of the boys even set the school on fire at some point and they were making the place a living hell for the teachers and pupils. This was loudly debated in Sweden some time ago, ‘what to do’...and of course people and politicians would make these worst 20 boys or so the scapegoats. It became so very obvious to me what you've been saying all the time, and the documentary was also angling the problem from a ‘good place’, taking the boys side. They wanted to explore the reasons for the rebellions and destructive behaviour and they found it all right! The boys were all abused at home by their parents, and hit for every mistake or ‘wrong-doing’. The vicious circle was this: They were abused at home and then they took the rage out on teachers and other pupils because in Sweden it is forbidden to use any kind of violence towards a child, and then they knew it was ‘safe’ to act out their rage just as it presented itself to them. The school often ‘had to’ contact their parents and then they would be hit again of course and be more enraged. And this completed the vicious circle. A psychologist/scientist explained very well what he believed himself was the problem. He said that we're not taking it seriously, we're surrendering to that these immigrants have their own culture and that somehow their children are not like the ethnical Swedish ones and we hesitate to interfere because there would be so MANY complaints/so many files...etc.. This was exactly what he himself had been thinking at some point when he was confronted with the social workers' problems of coping. But he said that EVERY child has the right to be protected from their abusive parents not matter ‘culture’. This was also the answer a Muslim family therapist gave. He said that the parents had to learn something new and to understand what they are really doing to their children when they use violence. We always tend to find quick solutions, the laziest ones, so we can protect ourselves from taking responsibility. The children (aged 15-18) were interviewed and asked what they had experienced and their thoughts about it. Almost everybody was totally sure that they would smack their own children because they were convinced that violence is the answer to cope. Only one of the boys was emotional when he spoke of the violence he'd experienced, tears came to his eyes as he spoke and this boy was one of the very few who when asked the question if he would hit his own children said. ‘NEVER’. These boys were used as scapegoats at their homes and then again by the school and society. It was heart-breaking to me, also because I understood my own blindness, my OWN lack of empathy with myself only if it was only in a glimpse. How I've unconsciently done the same thing to myself, never let myself speak up against the violence I experienced. I saw myself in these boys who'd accepted the fact that they had to carry their parents' burden. I could not only see it but feel it, and that is something new to me. Anyway I wanted to share this experience, and also thank you for your great books and your hard work to reveal the truth. I'm too totally convinced that it is possible to change the world if every country would follow Sweden in their striving to never become complacent about children's rights even if some politicians from time to time want to create scapegoats and segregation. It also became clear to me emotionally that fear and suppressed rage is the reason for creating scapegoats. ALWAYS. And how easy it is to fall into delusions over and over again if I do not dare to question my own attitudes. And then I'm left with the question when did that fear enter my own family? It is clear that at some point somebody chose to lie in stead of being compassionate. Then it all comes down to a choice.”

I blogged about the TV-programme mentioned above in the end of November last year, see "The Scapegoats..."

More about manipulation in therapy…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Helga - part 5...

...My experiences the last years have also taught me that one can (only) master the results from childhood traumas if one can remove the actual trauma. As you have proved, these consequences consist of blockading due to fear, dumbness, and dispiritedness.

I agree with you, that if the grown up human being gets over this fear she will not have to go back to the old helplessness, despair and dumbness. The child’s impotent anger probably only arises if the grown up voluntarily puts herself into such a dependency as the one she was forced to live in in childhood. As in your childhood this path was barred for you. Regressed to a small child’s state you couldn’t possibly see that your tears were made an affair of and profited on.

It has been proved since long that one best gets over a shock if one doesn’t try to forget it, which one thought earlier, but instead that one feels what has been done to one and that one talk about this till the shock at last loses its meaning. Silence is exposed people’s biggest enemy.

It was no coincidence that Freud experienced his first hysteric patients’ paralysis symptoms as expressions for this forced silence. Women often express their states through bodily symptoms, through paralysis’s and language disturbances.

“I have to keep quiet, I have no permission showing my anger, not even to knowing what and whom it is about, must believe what I am told, mustn’t betray anybody, must remain immovable till the anger kills me.”

I know of women who have become bodily ill because they didn’t have the power to work themselves up to an accusation for sexual abuse in therapies

The fear of talking is so stubborn because its roots lies in childhood. But you can’t get over it there, but only in the here and now. If you have been exposed to abuse in the here and now, in therapy or in other circumstances, you can’t solve it there and then (i.e. in your childhood) and only blame your parents and not the perpetrators/abusers here and now. This is to cover the present reality up.

To break the silence was in fact life-threatening for many children. For grown ups this is true only in totalitarian regimes, and to them many sects belong. They are built on the old educational system, which people enlisted to them are all too well acquainted with from their childhoods.

Even many therapies are leaning on this system. The therapist (and other gurus) interprets critics from his patients as transference and in this way he disconnects them (this critic) from the first beginning. The patients’ perceptions becomes manipulated to that degree that they don’t dare to believe in their own senses any more, but develop real agony for them.

These mental manipulations can get a devastating effect on the psyche, but doesn’t necessarily have to affect the body at once.

However, there are other tools, the emotional manipulation, which unlike the mental rapidly affects the body.

In my view many healing movements are grounded on this. There are people with a so called charisma; to them many shamans belong, who have a talent for emotional manipulations.

Many of them uses this for others best, many on others misfortune, all due to their own ethical principles and interests. They chose a destructive career if the charisma is combined with a strong need for self-assertion and a psychopathic character. Both these things seem to be true for your therapist. And unfortunately not only for him.

Of course there are serious therapists who now as earlier carefully are revealing the sore points and by this make integration possible for their clients.

But there are more and more charlatans trying to earn money on regression. But the initial euphoria from the wizard’s apprentices seldom remains a longer time. With time troublesome transferences and co-transferences occur, which the self-proclaimed therapist has never learned to deal with.

Then he can rule over his clients with the help of indoctrination and manipulation, which can be successful for a while, and the sexual exploitation can help him to sweep undesired crisis’s and serious distress-situations under the rug.

What you have learned through your personal experiences I have learned through books and from my work with defectors from sects. Our conclusions seem to be pretty alike. We will probably have much to say about this when we meet. I am so glad for that and am looking forward to it.

I wish you all the best, Helga, enjoy the freedom you have fought (and struggled) yourself to.