Käbi and Ingmar - in the name of love...

From a review on Käbi Laretei's last book about her marriage and love affair with Ingmar Bergman you can read:

”Käbi Laretei writes insightfully about her relation with Ingmar Bergman.“

The title of the book would be something in the style “Where did all this love disappear?”

“In the foreword Käbi Laretei gives a brief afterward perspective (where she with touching empathy tells about a couple of visits 2007 to the dying Ingmar Bergman).

As to the rest this fragmentary but nevertheless suggestive book is based on chronologically lined up letters between the lovers, and some extracts from a diary Käbi Laretei seems to have written in secrecy (reminding about Ingmar Bergman's mother, who also wrote a diary in secrecy about her problems living together with the strict father).

Käbi Laretei stands out as a clear-sighted and reflecting human being, where the difficulties combining art (piano-playing) and married life in many respects resemble Ingmar Bergman's.

Even though those two artist natures immediately are drawn to each other and feel a deep attraction and kinship, one have a feeling already early – in both parts – more or less articulated trials to protect oneself from a too complete association (or fusion) with the other.

The marital troubles are there built-in from the first moment. More and more it stands out that Käbi and Ingmar are engulfed by each other – as if they paradoxically enough were suffocated by the love they both are longing for.

Time and again light is shed upon how Ingmar Bergman both is longing for and avoiding nearness.

Käbi Laretei writes motherly in one of her letters: 'My little son, have confidence, assurance (??), patience – you have it in your art, also have it in love.' Ingmar Bergman replies with describing his demons and his struggle to get rid of them.”

Käbi Laretei was my piano-teacher for four years in all... She stimulated my intellectual interests (whether you notice it or not). Käbi mentions Alice Miller in one of her books!!! I wonder if her son with Bergman, Daniel, introduced Miller to her??

Healthy boundaries and nearness to other people…

the first sprout (photo: S. Thomas)

How do we create them? Or not take them away?

So the latter grown up can protect her/himself adequately and in the best case without even thinking on this.

Can a person whose boundaries have been violated, even severely violated, recover? And end up protecting her/himself constructively and efficiently?

Yes, I think she/he would be able, with adequate help of some kind. Not just by new thought-patterns, new thinking and/or new behaviors!! The less harmed are maybe helped with this though. *

But by being allowed and helped to question and condemn what was done. By a person (books or literature) where what she/he was exposed to isn’t minimized or belittled at all.

Because I think the nature of the defenses is of that kind that you can’t control them or at least not control your feelings. For instance see what Jenson writes about Jane who continued to blame herself even though she had been able to live up to a lot of things she had been taught in therapy.

From earlier postings (slightly edited):

“Jane, who has gone to ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on co-dependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her co-worker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to ‘make’ her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough well at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.”

There are different boundaries you can violate. Such as not only sexual or physical, but also emotional ** (not letting the child have secrets for instance). Ingeborg Bosch for instance has written about this, so has Anna-Luise Kirkengen. Stepping over emotional boundaries is also extremely harmful.

See earlier postings on what violations actually are and about that emotional needs are essential for survival.

Alice Miller writes/says about therapy and therapists, and I think she is right:

“Certainly, if I knew of some therapists who would be respectful enough to answer your questions; free enough to show indignation about what your parents have done to you; empathic enough when you need to release your rage pent up for decades in your body; wise enough to not preach to you forgetting, forgiveness, meditation, positive thinking; honest enough to not offer you empty words like spirituality, when they feel scared by your history, and that are not increasing your life-long feelings of guilt…” (Alice Miller).

“The method of Marshall Rosenberg is very nice and may be helpful to people who have not be[been??] severely mistreated in childhood. The latter ones however must find their pent up, LEGITIMATE rage and free themselves from the lies of our moral system. As long as they don't do this, their body will continue to scream for the truth with the help of symptoms" (Alice Miller)

And about becoming stuck in anger (or hatred):

“Feeling and understanding the causes of our old pain does not mean that the pain and the anger will stay with us forever. Quite the opposite is true. The felt anger and pain disappear with time and enable us to love our children. It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to [and which gives us all sorts of troubles]." (Alice Miller in an answer to a reader’s letter May 24, 2008, relating to a talk between Andrew Vachss and Oprah Winfrey)

and about a "failing" client:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

Sigrun wrote a blogpost about (in my amateur translation) “Nearness sort of”:

“As an earlier victim for violence and abuse through a lot of years I have to say that the concept ‘violence in close relations’ doesn’t feel good. The closeness that was forced upon me during the abuses are so painful that it had been nice not being forced to become reminded each time I come across this conception (something that happens daily).

What’s the reason why you can’t talk about relational violence instead?

I don’t think it is right using notions that become a burden for the ones that are concerned.”

* The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book at page 82 about Daniel Goleman and his concept Emotional Intelligence (a concept that can be, is, manipulative, but may help short term):

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Goleman's book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy.

/…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses (False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs) employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

**

"...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.” "Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection." (Andrew Vachss)

Communication and communicating...

a peaceful place I visited during my journey last week.

In the magazine MåBra (or FeelWell) a woman wanted an advice and asked, the heading to the question was "Now I want to have children - but he doesn't":

“Since some time I live with a man older than I am. All the time he has been clear with that he can’t give me any children. He feels too old he thinks and has children since earlier.

I have been satisfied with that as I haven’t wanted any children either. But the last time my feelings have started to change. I love the man I live with and want to live with him, but the realisation I will never become mother has started to gnaw in me. However, I don’t dare to talk to him about this; it feels as if I desert him. What shall I do?”

The adviser answers, this is only part of the answer and true for other things too it felt:

“You have changed your mind about having children. Who knows, maybe he also has. If you don’t ask him you will perhaps never get to know. Explain to him how you feel and ask him how he feels confronted with your changed mind. And how he feels about the thought of getting children together.

You are failing him if you don’t tell him what you feel inside. Being honest, sincere and talking about your dreams, fears and other important things is not to desert, on the contrary. This is what brings one nearer, both nearer oneself and the other part in a relation.”

Yes, this is true for a lot of other things in a relation too? And - it is a VERY tricky thing? Many times one thinks one is very open and communicating everything, but one isn’t to that degree as one thinks?

Instead one interprets and imagines what the other part thinks, wants, and feels (or doesn't even reflect)? Mind reads, and the other part maybe also demands mind reading, i.e. that you shall know what he (she) feels, wants, thinks, how she (he) reacts etc.!? This causes misinterpretations and misunderstandings… And broken relations, both necessary and unnecessary…

Miller writes about the wish and/or quest for open, genuine communication (a longing which also contains fear, why it is so difficult?)…

The therapists Jenson and Bosch thinks there exists a defence they call False power denial of needs… By denying one has needs one gets a false sense of power, and if you have no needs you can't get hurt. The opposite/other side of the coin is that we never get close or near neither to ourselves (really) nor to other people? We never get real contact with our true selves?

But we have probably reasons not to open up… Afraid of showing our Achilles heals, maybe with good reasons sometimes too, but more seldom than we think and believe?

Too bothersome and laborious…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cats are musical? :-)

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

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

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

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

---

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

Morning reflections...

the dreadful (gruvliga) part of the town, not the sweet or delightful (ljuvliga). The poor people lived here earlier, but now these small red-painted houses are pretty expensive.

[Updated during the day]. Jenson writes at age 73-79 in her book "Att återerövra sitt liv" or "Reclaiming Your Life" about a pair, Mary and Joe, with problems in their relation. Joe is joiner and has become unemployed. But he doesn’t want to take his share of the work at home now when he doesn’t have a work any longer.

Mary works as nurse and has had the total responsibility for the home at the same as she has worked full time.

Joe gets very irritated when his kids or wife want something from him (his childhood story Jenson thinks), and Mary takes a lot of responsibility on her and has done from they got married.

When Mary can’t stand the situation and starts lashing out on her kids and gets headache and an enormous tiredness she wonders if she has got a depression and consults a doctor she works with. When he has heard her history and that her mother also suffered from depressions he thinks there is a hereditary tendency for depression and prescribes mood-rising medicine.

For a while their problems are relieved. But a pair like Mary and Joe often gradually realizes that antidepressants doesn’t lead to any positive changes and seek family advisory service (counselling or therapy for pairs).

This can be a good start – if the family counsellor understands that it is childhood experiences at the root of the problems. The relation is possible to improve, but to achieve the final healing, which gives the best possibility to create a sound closeness and a prospering love relation both need to work on their early experiences/history (take a look at it maybe for the first time, question things and see them as wrong etc.), not just relearn from the outside so to say (my, a little free, interpretation).

And they need to encounter a counsellor/therapist who understands these things (and has worked on them her/himself). I think Jenson is right, but the work doesn't necessarily has to be done through regular, proper (regelrätt) regressive or primal therapy... But a therapy where one gets help to process and integrate ones history. Without this the changes will be small and shallow. And maybe some ARE satisfied with this, of course.

And - this work is probably also so hard and painful so many retreat of understandable reasons?

Yesterday a female colleague (47 or 48 years) hitch-hiked from the music-school (and three workplaces meetings - phew!!) to a school we both work on on Mondays and she told me how she had it at home at present, upset (we have known each other for long). With husband, an old mom, and everything. How exhausted she is on Fridays (when we get vacation colds break out and things like that). But now she tries to get up early to take a walk (get some exercise) to prevent this and take care of herself.

Her dad recently died in cancer and her mom couldn’t stay in their house alone (and they have recently established the mom has a weak heart, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, what we call KOL etc. etc. and she got very worried over all this, and has to take all this). The mom has moved to an apartment in the town one month ago or so though and x thought maybe now things would calm down (and on top the new owners of the house complained about things in the house, so they have had to deal with this TOO).

X has two teenage kids, and they are reacting too in different manners (the son with compulsory behaviours. Yes, x is very open-hearted. And they have tried to treat this with changing his behaviour - only?).

x's only brother, 6 years older (and not married) died in cancer a few years ago, and x had to be hand holder to her parents in this - too. So she has no unloading (avlastning) through other siblings either now, to handle old parents sickness for instance. But she hadn't earlier either? And one can wonder whose responsibility things are too (for other grown up people,like her parents for instance, easy to say though)?

X has taken antidepressants and been in therapy or counseling for a lot more than ten years. Her husband has been to a therapist too, pushed by his wife. And it is possible they have been in therapy for couples for a short time…

And at work x is very responsible-taking, with a lot of initiatives. And she is quite outspoken and spontaneous, quite open about hers, and says things from the bottom of her stomach (med stödet).

But despite all this very little has actually changed I think!

She is still in counselling I think and maybe that has held her on her feet. But isn’t something lacking in this counselling/therapy? Or are real, genuine improvements impossible?

I think this man is right about how it is in the society (and in therapy too), see here.

Addition before lunch: Too great nearness can invoke fear in one of two… And feel like a violation to one of the parts. But this part can nevertheless feel a need to keep the individual who makes him (her) frightened, keep her (him) in his (her) grip in different manners (be attracted AND afraid). At the same time as this person fears she (he) is going to get too near he (she) can try to create, and maintain, a dependence relation, yes, even a sort of property relation with the one he (she) is fearing, through different manoeuvres, explicit or implicit, subtle and less subtle. For example about what is possible (and allowed) to speak of, and what not. Even concerning things that are important for one of the parts (the private/personal life, a passion, even that person’s work etc.).

Where the one kept is stifled in many different ways (both subtly and less subtly, but where the mechanisms perhaps aren’t clear for either part in what is happening, where the parts are confused over what’s happening, or at least one of them), and thus more and more limited and restricted, in all those traits that perhaps originally was attracting? Maybe liveliness that attracted?

Measures are taken which shall prevent an engagement that inspires to fear. Through this process the other is held on distance, between boundaries that feel safe. Through suffocating the other and at the same time demanding that the other shall be at ones disposal. But a controlled disposal, that isn’t frightening.

In a pair relation (love, friend etc.) which functions "normally" there “has” to be a mutual narcissistic confirmation (Marie-France Hirigoyen writes at page 30-31). But a pair driven by a perverse narcissism constitutes a deadly union; the degradation and attacks in the hidden, secret then becomes systematic.

The process is only possible with one part’s too great tolerance. But it isn't sure both agree to who has shown and is showing the greatest tolerance (or who is the most "tolerant", sensitive/insensitive, self-occupied/less self-occupied). Or do both (always) think in those terms (labeling the other)?

It can be about approval of a role as the caring about the other parts narcissism, a sort of mission where she (or he) has to sacrifice herself (himself).

And never the two meet... Sometimes even very sad - and tragic. To all involved. Not only to one of the two but both (all involved, if more people are involved).

PS. And with a sigh, I AM long winded, and I use question marks after statements, because I am wondering about things, not bomb-proof on things, testing thoughts, searching myself forward (onward?)...

Earlier postings under the labels empathy deficit, EQ and SQ. And I don't say I don't suffer from empathy deficits, or that I have any EQ and SQ to speak of... A totally hopeless case? More than people in general? Unable to teach, how much I even work and try and read?

I wouldn't quote a friend who was saying stupid, lousy things, but a friend saying good things, things I think more people ought to hear (if they should read what I write). Not link to a friend saying, writing stupid things. Maybe mention things I react against, if other people (than friends and people I respect) write stupid things (stupid in my mind, feelings, thoughts).

Addition in the evening: I got some books with the mail today. One was "Nystart i livet - hitta tillbaka till livsglädjen efter utbrändhet" by a Madeleine Åsbrink (her home site in Swedish). Translated a little freely it would be "Starting anew - finding the joy of living again after a burnout" (the other book was one about Lev Vygotsky). See this article in a Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet.

At page 19 in the first book it stands, also this a little freely translated:

"I look myself around and see that there aren't many (role) models [there are very few successful, 'perfect' relations?]. In most cases one wants more in a relation than the other. This makes nearness impossible, a nearness we are all longing for but many times are unconsciously afraid of."

At page 20 she writes:

"I think many people clench their teeth and try with showing a facade that isn't true or genuine [the hypocrisy was worse 40-50 years ago though? Then one clenched the teeth even more?]. This work [with clenching and clenching our teeth] only drain our power and strength and doesn't lead to any changes [we have no power for these, or much less power for them?]."

I have many tired women (young and old) around me.

We have done an evaluation with the group I am one of the responsible for. On the last meeting yesterday we spoke about what the students have written. They want to make a journey of some kind as a kickoff this fall when we start again, to learn to know each other and especially the new ones.

With a smile I couldn't help saying:

"And I know who answered what, and it is the 'social' girls wanting this!"

They boys (in general) doesn't care really about those things. This is also something stress research has found; that women (in general) care (more) about the atmosphere at work (than men in general) and as the atmosphere and stress has become worse the last 15 years (economic steel bath and slimmed organizations) this has become another burden for women.