The problem without a name…

Judith Lewis Herman.

[Updated during the day]. Searched in Judith Lewis Herman’s book “Trauma and Recovery – from Domestic Violence to Political Terror” about war veterans (the question of being perfect; not reacting, keeping your emotions and feelings and reactions in check, see the posting on perfectionism). Of course I found a lot of other interesting things!

At page 28-32 she writes about “The combat Neurosis of the Sex War.”

She writes that the late nineteenth-century studies of hysteria * foundered on the question of sexual trauma, but at the time of these investigations there was no awareness that violence was a routine part of women’s sexual and domestic lives. However, Freud glimpsed this truth and retreated in horror.

It was the study of combat veterans that for most of the twentieth century led to the development of a body of knowledge, as she writes, about traumatic disorders.

Not until the 1970s was it recognized that the most common post-traumatic disorders are those not of men in war but of women in civilian life.

My translation:

Det sena artonhundratalets studier angående hysteri var baserade/grundade på frågan om sexuellt trauma, men vid tiden för dessa studier fanns det ingen medvetenhet om att våld var en rutinmässig del i kvinnors sex- och hemliv. Dock, Freud fick en skymt/glimt av (aning om) detta och backade i förskräckelse.

Det var studier av krigsveteraner som under största delen av nittonhundratalet ledde till utvecklandet av en grund/stomme av kunskap om störningar på grund av trauma.

Inte förrän på 1970-talet erkände man att de vanligaste posttraumatiska tillstånden inte var dem hos män i krig, utan dem hos kvinnor i civilt liv.

She writes that

“The real conditions of women’s lives were hidden in the sphere of the personal, in private life. The cherished value of privacy created a powerful barrier to consciousness and rendered women’s reality practically invisible. To speak about experiences in sexual or domestic life was to invite public humiliation, ridicule, and disbelief. Women were silenced by fear and shame, and the silence of women gave licence to every form of sexual and domestic exploitation.

Women didn’t have a name for the tyranny of private life. It was difficult to recognize that the well-established democracy in the public sphere could coexist with conditions of primitive autocracy or advanced dictatorship in the home.”

“De verkliga förhållandena i kvinnors liv var dolda i den personliga sfären, i privatlivet. De omhuldade värdena i privatlivet skapade en kraftfull barriär/mur mot medvetenhet och gjorde kvinnors verklighet praktiskt taget osynlig. Att tala om erfarenheter i sex- och privatlivet var att inbjuda till offentlig förödmjukelse, förlöjligande/hån och misstro. Kvinnor teg av rädsla och skam och kvinnors tystnad rättfärdiggjorde varje form av utnyttjande, sexuellt och i hushållet.

Kvinnorna hade inte något namn på denna despotism/grymhet. Det var svårt att se att den väletablerade demokratin i den offentliga sfären kunde samexistera med det primitiva envälde eller den avancerade diktaturen i förhållandena i hemmet.”

Herman thinks it was no accident that this woman-question was called “The problem without a name.”

But the conditions for children are still to be recognized more broadly? There we are still in Denial? I think. If we weren't many things would be different. Children treated differently than they are and grown ups abused in childhood (if not physically or sexually but "only" emotionally) would get (much) better help in therapy. And I don't think this is the case.

Earlier postings with the label Judith Lewis Herman here (two postings).

* At page 24 she also writes about hysteria:

"Indeed, Kardiner recognized that war neuroses represented a form of hysteria , but he also realized that the term had once again become so pejorative that its very use discredited [!!!!] the patients: 'When the word 'hysterical' ... is used its social meaning is that the subject is a predatory individual, trying to get something for nothing. The victim of such a neurosis is, therefore, without sympathy in court, and ... without sympathy from physicians, who often take... 'hysterical' to mean that the individual is suffering from some persistent form of wickedness, perversity, or weakness of will ."

Min fria översättning: ”Kardiner visade att krigsneuroser representerade en form av hysteri, men han insåg också att termen än en gång blivit så pejorativ/nedsättande att dess blotta användning vanhedrade/misskrediterade patienterna: 'När ordet 'hysterisk' ... används så är dess sociala mening den att subjektet är en rovgirig/egoistisk individ, som försöker få något för ingenting. Offret för en sådan här neuros får därför ingen sympati i rätten, och ... ingen sympati från läkare … som ofta tar det 'att vara hysterisk' som bevis för att individen lider av någon envis form av ondska/synd, perversitet eller viljesvaghet [dvs. inte viljestyrka, avsaknad av viljestyrka. Och varför avsaknad av sådan? Hmmm, var det så hysteriska kvinnor sågs? Men då valde man inte lika självklart att benämna det på ett annat sätt?]"

Hysteria…

Jean Martin Charcot.

Peter Währborg also writes about hysteria in his book (a book which is in Swedish, so the text below is my amateur translation and interpretation of his text), at page 87-88 in a chapter called “Neocortical stress reactions.”

He writes that stress influences the behaviour. Memory, concentration, attention and other neuropsychological functions deteriorate during stress. During severe stress an even more pronounced reduction of higher mental and cortical functions can occur. This state has been described by Jean Martin Charcot (also see here about him) in the end of the nineteenth century and fascinated one of his visitors, namely Sigmund Freud.

This state is called hysteria. Wärhborg writes that it is a state whose physiology is almost unknown. It can be described as a sort of mental “playing dead reaction” (apparent death).where an active as well as a passive symptomatology can appear. In the former case symptoms like paralysis (förlamning), dumbness (stumhet), disequilibrium (balansrubbning) and vomiting appear. Passive symptoms are reduced feelings (nedsatt känsel), blindness, deafness, tunnel vision, failing off of smell (bortfall av lukten) and insensitiveness for pain. Characterized by what the French psychologist and prominent pupil to Charcot, Pierre Janet, once described as “la belle indifference.”

Easily influenced (påverkbarhet) without critical thinking, i.e., suggestibility and earlier occurrence (förekomst) of similar episodes are other important clues to this diagnosis.

Hysteria is characterized by a symptom-picture which is nearly related to the neocortical function. Often these symptoms appear swift as a lightning, not seldom in connection with a trauma for which the individual is lacking strategies handling. One can always discuss if hysteria shall be seen as a stress related syndrome he writes.

Judith Lewis Herman writes about hysteria, Charcot and Freud in her book "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror", see for instance the chapter “A Forgotten History.”

It starts with (page 7):

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion. 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.”

And I wonder if the drive theory can occur in other clothing during history too? More or less disguised? Even today? All sorts of ideas about what is driving people... Ideas that are defences rather?

A boss said:

"You are flexible [extremely stretchable??], innovative, don’t get stuck in a problem but try to see/seek solutions, you take own initiatives, are working independently… You have a broad ground to stand on."

Phew...