On voices that are never heard - or creating a conception of the world...

Vibeke Olsson.

Anja on the blog “Do nothing day” writes that people trying to do something about inconveniences in the society are portrayed as bad people in media.

Think about labor union blockades; think demonstrating young people, think house occupants, think animal rights activists. Are you feeling “civil disobedience– brave!” or do you feel “criminality”? And who have in that case fed you with those associations?

She also wonders if all peoples' voices are heard, the poor peoples’ for instance…

And concludes yes, there are so many voices that are never heard.

My addition: some are silenced too. Whose? How come?

And whose voices are head? Who are screaming loudest? And who don't have to scream at all? Because they are listened to and respected anyway? In some cases deservedly of course.

Are we going to need more and more gated communities here and there in the world?

Miller is right: you CAN demonstrate without using violence or without destroying material things either.

Systematic work on the childhood history…

from a museum one year ago.

Miller writes at page 50 in her book “The Truth Will Set You Free – Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Adult Self” in the chapter ”Evading Childhood Reality in Psychotherapy”:

“…anxieties cannot be dissipated if clients sense their therapists’ fear of their own childhoods. They will identify with that instead of seeking as adults to fathom their childhoods. They will merely end up reliving the panic of their traumatic early years without understanding it fully. Only systematic work on the history of their childhoods can give clients a frame of reference that will enable them constantly to improve their understanding of the crippling fears beginning to surface and to recognize their origins.”

---

"…ångestar kan inte skingras om klienter känner sina terapeuters rädslor för sina egna barndomar. De kommer att identifiera sig med detta istället för att som vuxna försöka begripa och omfamna sina barndomar. De kommer blott och bart att sluta med att återuppleva paniken i sina traumatiska tidiga år utan att förstå detta till fullo. Bara systematiskt arbete på deras barndomshistoria kan ge klienter den referensram som kommer att göra det möjligt för dem att förbättra sin förståelse av de förlamande och [faktiskt] förkrympande rädslorna som börjar komma upp till ytan och att känna igen deras ursprung.”

Yes, systematic work would be needed.

Anxieties can be unconscious? And often are? We should need to get help recognizing them instead of playing them out in different manners. Playing them out without being really aware of it?

If one doesn’t get this help what do one do in the meantime?

Miller also writes at page 49-50:

“But the more strongly the parents’ urge to exercise power manifests itself as a way of covering over their own helplessness, the more enigmatic [difficult to explain] the language of the child’s symptoms becomes. Ultimately, there is no hope of any genuine communication. Only when the parents give up their bid for power can the child’s distress find a voice. We will not get very far if we try to escape the truth we are carrying within us. The denied truth will be with us wherever we flee. It will cause us pain, prompt us to do things we will regret, increase our confusion, and weaken our self-confidence. But if we face up to it, we have a chance of finally recognizing what happened, what didn’t happen, and what has forced us to end up living our lives in opposition to our most profound needs.”

---

“Men ju starkare föräldrarnas drift att utöva makt manifesterar (uppenbarar) sig som en väg att täcka över deras egen hjälplöshet, ju mer enigmatiskt (gåtfullt, svårförklarligt) blir språket i barnets symtom. Till slut finns det inte något hopp om en äkta, genuin kommunikation. Bara när föräldrarna ger upp sitt anspråk på makt kan barnets trångmål finna en röst. Vi kommer inte att komma särskilt långt om vi försöker fly från sanningen vi bär omkring inom oss. Den förnekade sanningen kommer att följa oss varhelst vi flyr. Den kommer att orsaka oss smärta, den kommer att driva oss att göra saker som vi kommer att ångra, öka vår förvirring och försvaga vårt självförtroende. Men om vi försöker möta denna har vi en chans att slutligen känna igen vad som skedde, vad som inte skedde och vad som tvingade oss att sluta i att leva våra liv i motsats, motsättning med våra djupaste behov.”

She continues with recounting the story of Birgitte and Henry both therapists in training, see this blogposting, where I have translated the English text to Swedish.

Therapists and many (maybe most) so called helpers walk in the leading-strings of the power, and pass what's opportune at present or for the time being forward in their work with people.

Once again see the blogpostings on "See no Evil..." here and here, and also the blogposting on "Seeing, hearing or speaking no evil..."

But the trick is not seeking help in a sect or cult or with a guru. But seek help with persons whom can handle those things without using, misusing or exploiting ones plight. Miller has written quite a lot about this.

We can in the meantime try to write about these things and maybe narrate our histories in contexts and circumstances that feels safe? The more we do the better?

And it's true as Marie-Louise Wallin wrote in her article about Dr Phil "Boycott Dr Phil...", that

"...human beings can only grow in interplay with others."

A truth with modification as we say? Because it can be the opposite too, even in therapies, where you are supposed (rightfully!) to get help. But in general we think much better when we talk about things in dialogs. In a giving and taking. Something that isn't so easy always, no...

On my own I wouldn't have achieved what I have achieved here in my blogs for instance?? That's absolutely for sure? And I hope what I have done has inspired and will inspire other people doing the same or similar things...

Silently thinking... And I am so grateful to many people in this world who have spoken up and continue to speak up! I use my writing as a way of processing things I read, meet, react on... And I use my blogs as a sort of library for myself, in collecting things somewhere I want to return to.

Proportions…

Hermann Hesse.

Things triggered the following words, words which I threw down on a paper before my first pupil came: What is sin, shame? What is downright criminal?

What does Miller write about this? (I thought that somewhere she does, but where? About a talented boy growing up in a religious home).

And what does Jenson write about shame?

How is it with proportions here?

Yes, Jean Jenson writes at page 150-151 in the Swedish edition of “Rediscovering the True Self…” that shame is a feeling which is caused because we were treated as if we were bad, mean and evil when we were children. She thinks this has to do with that parents are learned to believe that human beings have an innate tendency to be evil, and Jenson adds that this doesn’t mean there aren’t evil grown ups.

We accept with a childish confidence without further notice that we have a malignant, malevolent nature which has to be controlled and if we don’t succeed doing this we ought to be ashamed.

“You ought to be ashamed!!”

Jenson is convinced that the feeling of shame is created when one is badly treated during childhood. And I think she is right. To survive this, the child blames itself.

Yes, Miller writes about that with proportions in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” in the chapter about contempt, the part about Hermann Hesse, at pages 130-136 in the Swedish paperback edition in the chapter “Det ‘fördärvade’ i Hermann Hesses barndomsvärld som exempel på det konkreta ‘onda’.” Translated it is something in the style “The ‘depraved’ in the childhood world of Hermann Hesse as example on the concrete ‘evil’.”

Hesse was left alone in a home impressed by goodness and purity; there was no room for anything else. Quite hypocritical. The boy was left alone with his sin and feels awful. Miller thinks Hesse reveals quite peculiar ideas in his (autobiographical?) book “Damian.” “The depraved” (?fördärvade) is quite harmless actually. Like stealing a fig in his beloved father’s room to have something that had been close to his father (so he didn’t even eat it either, did he)!!! Plagued after this with feelings of guilt, fear and despair in his loneliness. Followed by the deepest humiliation and shame when “the evil deed” is discovered. Steeling a whole fig – how awful!!

I think this can be applied to other things today too to small children. We who are much younger than Hesse have experienced similar things and maybe (or probably) felt awful shame over “deeds” and “crimes” that were quite harmless in fact, compared to other crimes. So ashamed, so in the worse cases we hardly didn’t want to live further. It was absolutely forbidden doing things (anything) wrong (at least in the small child’s world, with a more or less insensitive environment). Forbidden doing in fact quite harmless things wrong. Forced doing things right and perfectly. Or at least the child put these high demands on her/him?

And some people have the ability to infuse this feeling in us later on, even as grown ups, probably because THEIR problems with these things?

Struck me in the car to work about the topic file sharing which has caused a hot debate here; common among young people, for whom this is nothing which bother them. They do it gladly and a lot I can imagine.

And some can’t even steal a cake…

Many years ago I used to watch “Summer-morning” at Swedish TV. A programme for children with summer vacation. It was so nice creeping into bed again after breakfast watching this. I slept in a cottage at my parents’ and there was a TV on a lower cupboard so I could lie in m bed watching.

But there was something I reacted on in the young programme leaders (early twenties); how they reacted over a person’s behavior or what he/she/they said. I don’t remember the details now, but I remember their and my reaction. This got stuck obviously! Their shame on behalf of other people. And I reacted on behalf of those they got ashamed over!

Would anyone be ashamed over the things they became ashamed of if there wasn’t something in their background I thought already then. Would these things bother a mature human being? I don’t think it would!

But I think many reacts as these programme leaders did…

I don’t say I am free from this though… Hopefully I am much less today. The blood sugar low here, I hope one doesn't see it in the text! I just need to get something in my stomach and want to post this item nevertheless.

And at last, I also found these words at page 113 in “The Drama…” My amateur translation:

“The contempt is the weapon of the weak and his protection against feelings bringing the old life-history to life.”

“Föraktet är den svages vapen och hans skydd mot känslor som väcker liv i den egna livshistorien.”

Addition May 2: Compared to crimes committed in this world… Real atrocities. Homicides even. Serial murders. Soul murder. Terror attacks. Economical crimes. Real abusers. And other sort of crimes of different sizes...

Getting blushing red over what? How are the proportions? Do all these criminals get blushing red? Do they regret what they have done? Do they feel guilt or shame?

And are the worst criminals always punished?

All of a sudden I came to think of a friend who was son to a high boss in an old, venerable company where I live. In the news one evening they said that xx had died, and nothing more. Later they revealed he had committed suicide. He had taken a gun and shot himself in the mouth. This felt so awful. At this time I was round 24 or maybe a little older I think. My friend six years younger, and he was his parents youngest child.

This high boss was about to get fired from his job. And later it was revealed that his wife had had an affair with another man, and I don't know wanted to leave the marriage. This was too much? The shame too big? So he saw no way out but to end his life? He drove out to the country-side and shot himself if I remember right.

His life was less worth than the "honour"?

Who are silenced and who not?

Communication...

picture taken from here.

Here some great things I found I would want to save, and keep here. The thread was about pressures people like Alice Miller (and all other struggling for these issues) have/had to resist on all sides, but it felt as this is applicable in other circumstances.

And see earlier postings on "giving and taking voice." And as van Dyke wrote:

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

(Henry van Dyke)

And I also found this in Quotations when I scrolled my blog to listen to a video:

"But with adult freedom and responsibility come the potential to break silence, to use voice and language to promote internal integration, deeper external connection, and a social transformation, Through communication – integration within ourselves and connection between individuals – we can become whole; embodied, aware, vital, powerful”

(Jennifer Freyd in the chapter “Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected” in her book “Betrayal Trauma…”)

John Stuart Mill writes in his essay on "The Subjugation of women" (1869) or “Underkuvandet av kvinnor” according to this site (also see his book "The Subjection of Women", are these two actually the same book, but with slightly different titles?):

“But was there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who possessed it? ... the generality of the male sex cannot yet tolerate the idea of living with an equal... In the present day, power holds a smoother language, and whomsoever it oppresses, always pretends to do so for their own good...”

Translated it would be something like:

“Men fanns det någonsin någon tyranni som inte tycktes vara naturlig för den/dem som ägde (besatt) den?...

…allmängiltigheten hos det manliga könet kan dock inte tolerera idén att leva med en jämlik… Som det är idag så håller makten ett mildare språk, och vem den än förtrycker, låtsas han/hon alltid att han/hon gör det för deras eget bästa…”

From where do these needs come? Other quotations from Mill's book "The Subjection of women" see here.

The person writes that she (he) would like to see her (Alice Miller's) 'failures' given the same level of compassionate understanding that she asks for children. And she (he) does this so well; how to communicate, or how we could try to communicate… She puts things in words so well. I couldn’t find better words I think... It could have been written by me...

“Someone is always first to walk a new path; everyone who follows finds rough places left untrodden. What's more important is that she took the first steps - it is up to the rest of us to smooth the way and widen the path, without criticizing her for not finishing the whole job in one go [but we are allowed to question things, and shall question things too? But how do we do this? How can we do this to reach out with our message? And, of course, is it always possible to reach out with our messages?]."

“…we humans are just barely beginning to evolve beyond the raw violence of the jungle. We have a LONG way to go; let's not waste our energy attacking other wounded souls who, like us, are doing the best they can with damaged goods.

We're a bunch of wounded, limping, bleeding folks struggling along as best we can; let's help each other! [and not least to people trying to understand and working hard on trying to understand, who aren't mean and don't want to harm other people, and who aren't mean. And maybe also is dong this mostly on her own, in a sort of monologue. Of course she can be "misled" from time to time? Or? Even less if what she says or writes isn't really met]. To me, criticism has no place in this. And how else do we learn, you might ask? Well, there's a zen saying that goes ‘Do not teach unless asked’ (something like that). In other words, a person is not going to learn something until they're ready. So it's a waste of time to criticize.”

Yes, I think that is true, but we are allowed to question things…

”Instead, we're each responsible to try to get the healing we need, and as we heal, we become available as 'enlightened witnesses' for others who are still suffering. We are there, ready to offer a hand if and when a person asks for help.”

She (he) thinks that we use different ways in our processes of making sense of our own life experiences? We walk different paths, use different strategies, more or less? Can't we do this? Walking there in parallel? And can't this be to complement each other? Respecting each other in our struggles? So long as we don't hurt other people (or ourselves)? But this is probably not easy. Hmmm, this easily sounds so pretentious?

Continues here. Well worth reading!

Voices...

Hmmm, I got stuck at the computer!

It's soon one year since I started blogging. I haven't pinged my blogs, not being sure where I wanted to go with them. And haven't made any advertisement for them, either than to people personally.

When I started to blog May 12, 2007 I had got the book "All can blog" ("Alla kan blogga") which I had ordered from one of my book clubs, and started immediately.

Now I reread the introduction to it once again:

”Din röst behövs på Internet - alla har något att berätta. Fler människor borde skriva om sitt liv, om sin vardag och sina erfarenheter. Fler människor borde vara med och debattera och diskutera i olika medier.

Många grupper saknas eller finns inte med särskilt mycket i dagens brus i medier. Speciellt människor inom LO-yrken är kraftigt underrepresenterade. Om människors vardag inom LO-yrken inte beskrivs i medier, om människor med erfarenhet av dessa arbeten inte är med i den politiska och kulturella debatten blir det en skev bild av verkligheten som dominerar.”

With my a little free translation it would be something in the style:

“Your voice is needed on Internet – all have something to tell/narrate and contribute with. More people ought to write about their life, about their everyday life and their experiences. More people should join the debate and discuss in media.”

I think this is so true, as I wrote to a friend, I got a lump in my throat reading this - again.

“Many groups aren’t present, are lacking in today’s noisy media. Especially people from ‘the lower classes’ are powerfully underrepresented. If their lives aren’t described in media, if people with experiences from these works/jobs aren’t represented in the political and cultural debate we get a warped or distorted view about the reality which is dominating.”

And there are other people that maybe for the first time are given the opportunity and possibility to raise their voices and reach out to other people. EVEN if these who read them are few.

For instance I have had the opportunity and possibility raising my voice...

Women and aggressiveness, being subjects and being objects…

When I searched on the song in the former posting “Why are birds having so weak voices?” ("Varför har tjejer så svaga röster?") I found this text (I recommend it for those understanding Swedish) where it for instance stood about women and aggressiveness, women being a subject - and being an object (but I guess men can be both subjects and objects too, but maybe in other ways??):

Kvinnor och aggressivitet

Women and aggressiveness.

Som kvinna är du kanske uppfostrad att gråta bort din berättigade vrede och inta en vädjande eller förförisk pose för att nå dina syften. Denna stukade hållning gör dig svag och utlämnad till den andres goda vilja även om den ger dig framgång ibland.

As woman you are maybe raised crying your justified anger away and raised in taking up an appealing or seducing pose to reach your aims. This browbeaten attitude makes you weak and left out to the other person's good will even if it gives you success sometimes [to what prize? You aren't allowed to be too strong and not too weak either? You aren't allowed to be too much, or too little of this and that, or anything!?? You aren't allowed to be exactly as you 'are'? What our true selves now are?].

Kanske samlar du på dig så mycket vrede att du oartikulerat tappar kontrollen, eventuellt i samband med alkoholförtäring. Du blir då inte tagen på allvar utan snarast 'förlåten' och ditt budskap trollas bort.

Maybe you accumulate so much anger that you inarticulately loose the control, perhaps in connection with alcohol use. Then you won't be taken seriously but instead 'forgiven' and your message is conjured away.

Förnekar du din vrede är det sannolikt att den sipprar fram som ironier, pikar, gnat eller provokationer och du riskerar att bli sedd som obehaglig och elak människa som lockar fram det sämsta hos sina närstående, även barnen. Blir någon med outvecklad självkontroll utsatt kan följderna bli katastrofala för er båda.

This paragraph is about denying your anger and the consequences of that... If you are denying your anger it can ooze out in ironies, gibes, nagging or provocations and you are at risk being seen as an uncomfortable and mean human being which entice the worse sides in the people near you, even in the children. If a person with an undeveloped self-control becomes the target for this the consequences can become disastrous for you both.

Om du sätter dig i sinnet att börja hävda dig mer direkt och rakryggat hamnar du i svårigheter som känns ovana. Kanske kan du hitta stöd hos någon klok medmänniska!

If you have decided to raise your voice and stand for what you think, want, feel, need you can land in troubles which can feel difficult to handle. Maybe you can get support from a wise human fellow being then!

Det stöd som du har tillgängligt från andra räcker kanske inte om ditt självförtroende är stukat. Då kan det vara idé att söka psykoterapi för att komma vidare. Depressioner är dubbelt så vanliga hos kvinnor som hos män!

The support you have access to maybe isn't sufficient or enough. Then it can be a good idea [I have doubts about a lot of help] to seek therapy to be able to move further. Depressions are twice as common in women as in men!

Att vara subjekt

To be a subject.

Varför har tjejer så svaga röster...

Why do birds (women) have so weak voices?

Att vara subjekt innebär att vara inlemmad i kulturen och samtidigt vara huvudperson i sitt eget liv. Många fler kvinnor än män hittar sin plats i samhället som bifigurer till sina partners, föräldrar, chefer eller barn.

Being a subject means being incorporated in the culture and at the same time being the leading figure in ones own life. Many more women than men find their place in society as accessory figures to their partners, parents, bosses and children.

Du lever då för någon annan och underkastar dig en annans tänkande, behov och vilja (oftast en mans men det kan också vara en kvinnas). Samtidigt avstår du från att tänka och känna själv eller åtminstone från att uttala din sanning högt, när det gäller. Detta innebär att du offrar en central del av din egen identitet. Undergivenhet innebär nästan alltid en (omedveten) fientlighet.

You live for someone else and subject yourself to another person's thinking, needs and will (often a man's, but it can also be a woman's). At the same time you give up thinking and feeling yourself or at least from expressing your truth loudly, when it is really important. This means that you sacrifice a central part of your own identity. Submissiveness is almost always an (unconscious) hostility.

Att etablera dig som subjekt sker inte utan risker. Det kräver självförtroende och självkännedom. Och skapar självkänsla!

Establishing yourself as subject doesn't occur without risks. This demands self-confidence and self-knowledge. And it creates self-esteem.

Slavuppror möts alltid av motstånd - de forna härskarna och härskarinnorna fruktar att själva bli slavar och kan svårligen se jämlikhetens möjligheter. Det gäller att tänka klart och strategiskt.

The slaves rebellion is always met with resistance - the former rulers fear becoming slaves themselves and can hardly see the possibilities in equality. It's a question of thinking clearly and strategically [but not manipulatively!!??].

Att vara objekt

Being an object.

När du kämpar för att vara subjekt kommer detta ofta i konflikt med din önskan att vara objekt, önskan att bli begärd.

When you are struggling being a subject this will be in conflict with your desire of being an object, the desire of being desired for.

Du kanske frestas tro att denna längtan måste utrotas ur din personlighet. Detta vore en ny stympning, knappast värd sitt pris. Ett av dina begär är väl faktiskt att vara begärd? Den svåra konsten är att behålla ditt centrum.

Maybe you are tempted into believing that this longing has to be eradicated from your personality. This would be a new maiming, hardly worth its prize. Isn’t one of your desires to be desired? The hard task is to keep your center.

Kvinnan tige i församlingen...

Paul the Apostle in the eyes of El Greco respective Rembrandt.

När jag satt och skrev om annat kom jag att tänka på begreppet "Kvinnan tige i församlingen"... Enligt "Bevingade ord ur Bibeln" är detta citat hämtat ur 1 Kor 14:34.

---

Loudly thinking… More about womens' voices (and all people 's voices in the lengthening???).

When I was writing about other things I suddenly recalled the mode of expression and what Paul said about women’s’ role in the church (congregation?), not allowed to raise their voices, they should keep quiet… With this followed renewed thoughts about silencing and censoring forces… And the methods for censoring and silencing… And who let themselves be silenced? And censored? Who don’t care? Who gets the encouragement and support?

“The cat on the rope…” An (un)conscious need to exercise power? To protect oneself against shame-feelings – and the underlying pain? But whose responsibility is that? And how do one handle those things? Especially if one has been silenced and censored , and kept on silencing and censoring oneself? You have to do a hard and tough work? And try to face the pain..? Not easy...

And women behave in this manner too against each others... Women silencing and censoring other women... Maybe not least the last am I thinking of. What triggered this blogpost actually. Quite sourish.

I grew up with two brothers and three sisters... Boys were valued higher I think... (very quietly).

I see a child exploring language, trying new words, using expressions wrong and the reaction in her parents, a look of shame and contempt (contempt for the child and its imperfection, "ofullkomlighet", "icke perfekthet" in Swedish)... Which the child noticed... And experiences like this held the child back step by step? Till it was a doll, as superficial as a doll too!? But intelligent enough to play her role so many got fooled? That about masks... Putting on a mask. Not being ones true self, not being allowed to be ones true self, not good enough if one was ones true self!!?? And still one isn't good enough if one is ones true self? What one true self is?

Miller writes somewhere about parents shame for their children...

It starts early?I am probably blind to a lot, but I come to think of a 6-year-old Emelie... And her look sometimes, of wonders and shame, or what? She plays with a small boy, a boy fixing a lot of things (with two elderly brothers and ambitious parents and grand-parents), a boy fixing more than small boys use to fix.

"Am I good enough? Do I fix this as fast as I 'should'?"

Of course she does. And she is firmly resolved?? :-) Her mother said after she had taken part of her first mini-concert this fall (after only around 6 lessons) that the parents wonderedif she should want (and dare) to play. Oh yes, she should play!! And she did! Bravely! Was in a class of her own when it comes to age. In a room filled with people, more people than I had expected!

And I am also thinking of all sudden side-tracks! :-) What they have done at school, a tooth that is about to get loose... :-) The eagerness to tell (and??? :-)).

What am I mirroring? Her and/or me??

I can also see the small intelligent child being laughed at, and imagine very, very weakly how that felt... Not being taken seriously. Not being good enough. The humiliation...

See further (in Swedish) here and here.

Using the voice you have. What voice you have. And it was a time when we didn't have any words at all either... What did we do then? And it was a period (over several years) when we conquered he language; how was this done?

Why have I chosen this work? I could have gone in my dads path... I am interested in that too... What is this interest for all and everything about too? Is it the true me? And it also struck me again; dad took lessons in singing when he studied to agronomist...

I got the language early!! Started to talk early it is said... And learned to read with no difficulties, and spelled right early. Read and wrote a lot. Together with a lot else... So it isn't a matter of lack of that sort of language!?

Now a cup of tea and a walk in a wonderful winter-day with presentiments of spring!?? And then some work! Hmmm...

PS. Back after a nice walk; told how to dress, how to have it at home, that the photos she has taken was a bit unsharpened, told this and that... From some. I was good at drawing once, I thought of being architect (and also got a place on that program, despite I didn't work hard at the gymnasium)... And when one later doesn't think one is good enough, than that's wrong too... Strange...

Quite ironic...

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?