Violations, punishments, trials to make the child obedient and what that has caused and causes in the adult life, in the society and the world…

Have come to think about violations again. Searched for old postings on this here. Found one in which you can read about the American therapist Jean Jenson on what she thinks violations are, inspired by Pia Mellody’s ideas. I use the "Summary" I made in English in this posting and have made small changes and additions in it.

Yes, different treatments were and are used as punishments and to make the child obedient. Used to silence it etc. And we take this with into adult life if we don’t get help to process them and these early experiences cause us a lot of problems depending on the degree we have gotten help to process them. Sometimes we have huge problems.

And some play this out on other people close to them who are in lower positions. Women usually on their kids because they haven’t gotten other power positions in this world. Men play them out on wife and kids if they have any, and/or at work depending on the power position he has there.

Miller speculates on what had happened if Hitler had had kids, i.e. if he had had objects to abreact on at home. Had he become that world tyrant as he became?

And what happen with those whose voices were entirely silenced? Who maybe never got a voice and didn’t get the opportunity to express themselves. And with those who had a voice and got the opportunity to express themselves, but in a, from the truth, disguised way.

About this Miller speculates in one of her last books, “The Body Never Lies – the Lingering Effects of Cruel Parenting.” About authors and other artists who expressed themselves, sometimes very bravely, but never really called early experiences in question. They became sick. Also see what the Norwegian physician Anna-Luise Kirkengen and her findings in this respect.

To come back to Jenson and Mellody; they mean it isn’t only a question of physical or sexual violations but also of emotional violations. Of disrespect even emotionally. Verbal violence, demands on perfectionism, neglect, abandonment and “exaggerated control of reality” (the child is told what to wear, what friends to have, how to think [and not think], what it shall believe in), they see all these things as violations.

And they also write about the phenomenon emotional incest, to use the child instead of the partner or another grown up as the intimate or confidant, something the child couldn’t escape or say no to, and something Mellody thinks is very common in our cultures, and what is a violation too according to them, an infringement on the child's integrity.

Jenson writes about an emotionally not accessible father, what that means to the child; giving it a feeling of not being good enough.

A mother “sick” because she was drunk and the children were hindered to disturb her or "give her troubles" [this mother wasn’t there for her kids either, absent, if not physically so emotionally/psychologically]. Threatened by their father if they did “disturb” her, with being spanked, and how THAT felt. Maybe so painful so they had to suppress that feeling. Probably because of their whole history and other experiences with their caregivers.

They write about growing up with many siblings, where each child didn’t get enough attention or time. That was an emotional violation. Neglect. Giving the child a feeling of being forgotten, and being unimportant.

And about a family in which all seemed to be kind and friendly (and maybe even caring, at least on the surface), but when the child tried to communicate something that worried it its mom used to change subject (not listening or not wanting to listen) and dad sat hidden behind the newspaper (not wanting to listen either, also avoiding the problem). An emotional violation. Being abandoned. Giving the child a feeling of being ignored and not being good enough (to be listened to, being taken seriously, being seen and cared for) etc.

The right to have ones feelings, emotions, thoughts, and to express them loudly just as anybody else, so long as you don’t harm anybody. Not become silenced. Again.

Men have had the power and money (material wealth), that is things that have made it and still makes it easier for them to raise their voices (and see the Norwegian Berit Ås with her Master Suppression techniques).

Cooperation and teamwork…

The new time’s melody at our workplaces (since around 20 years) was teamwork. Did something happen in parallel with this “new trend”? I have to add that I think working together can improve what’s done a lot. It CAN, but it doesn’t necessarily do (but that’s another thread).

We shall “teamwork” at workplaces, but what about teamworking i.e. cooperating and getting together about really substantial things outside our workplaces?

You shall but you shall not!?

Came to think about a blogposting today: what about “devoting oneself” to self-damaging behavior? That’s nothing to talk about, because there are other more important and bigger questions. Such as for instance a president forbidding/banning (read: dictating - as a dictator) the further use and selling of a certain sort of light bulbs and a certain sort of fuel consuming car… More on light bulbs.

How tired I get…

We shall work for and only promote ourselves and not care about other people (unless they aren’t higher in the hierarchy than I am)?? Be independent islands all of us. Work in small separated cells, at least outside work. But at work we have to cooperate (AND compete at the same time). Survival of the fittest and the most “adaptable”!

To which people with self-damaging behavior don’t belong! They aren’t really capable of adapting to the society, or workplaces or anything, are they? (observe the irony).

And I can’t help wondering who are the most “adaptable” (how empathic is that)? Are many psychopaths the most “adaptable”?

The weakest and also the most compassionate and empathic can founder!? And many of them also do!?

The biggest bullies are the ones that survive best? Because they aren't called in question??? You tend to admire and look up to those instead?

You can - if only you decide you will!

photo S. Thomas.

Writing further, furiously: More from Wikströms' book (see earlier postings). In the popular self-development literature it is said that the human being just can’t blame her misfortunes on unfortunate circumstances (!!!), a sad and unfortunate childhood (!!!) or existential weariness (!!!). Who and what is she then to blame? (Herself? Her genes? Her unwillingness to do something or to change? Or what? This ought to be said out in plain words!? Shouldn't it?)

Talk about moralizing! What about what’s lying behind? Is anybody interested in that, in bringing this to light? Bringing both this and that to light! For instance how it is with many emperors' new clothes!?

The human being therefore has to “take hold of her life” and see so she is steering her soul’s bark [herself], realize (or as one says today “implement”) her innermost dreams of success. But what about the American dream?

And she shall do this “now,” live now, instead of just planning for to live, to not having to realize when she is old that she hasn’t really lived. And this is nothing wrong with actually I think. There are a lot of contradictions – and confusions here and there.

Wikström thinks the lust-principle has started to rule on a cultural level, not the postponed drive-satisfaction’s gloomy reality principle.

But what are those needs about, maybe those urgent needs, needs that have to become filled immediately? And what are those bottom and endless needs about, which can never become filled? Surrogates, substitutes? See Alice Miller here.

The lightness in the existence has disappeared for many in everyday life’s trivial treadmill, confused home situations, children’s demands (justified and/or “perverted” needs because of earlier unfulfilled needs), relations that aren’t straightened out. All those things together make one want to maximize the small zone that’s left for oneself. No wonder!

Moralizing or being ironic over life style literature and dismiss it as drivel is too simple. But I want to take a step further he writes. And ponder over what those dreams are an expression of.

For some this reading leads to a lot of improvements in those particular persons’ lives.

But despite many people are trying to think positively, take command over their lives or are striving for a conscious presence, they fail. And that the popular culture constantly reminds them about that it is only on themselves the whole existence (AND success) is lying, the feeling of lack of satisfaction and self contempt increases. As self blame and shame (convenient for the power and power abusers!?).

My addition: And also the shame over how incapable and incompetent you are. So the one in question stops questioning the state of affairs out of shame (keeping silent of shame), or as she is told: has no right to complain, she has all tools and options to succeed she is told (if she is legitimately complaining she can be called spoiled)?

Blaming the victim.

We are on the one hand treated like children and on the other we are demanded taking responsibility as grown up! Damn if you do and damn if you don’t. See Berit Ås on Master Suppression Techniques.

Addition in the evening: read Oscar Flowe in "The hitting stops here!".

Gender differences, master suppression techniques, blaming the victim, keeping silent of shame…

Some loud thoughts in different directions and on different subjects.

Struck me about a former (second) boss after a phone call this morning with my second boss (where I got really angry, didn’t say yes or agree with everything he said, but tried to stay calm): Stiff (rigid) and inflexible, didn’t dare making own decisions at work. A stickler for details, a bureaucrat. Following the text-book totally.

Compared him with my current second boss. Struck me that some things worked better with the former, but... I wouldn’t want to have him back as boss anyway! But there were SOME advantages with the former.

Also thought about saying what you think, raising your voice. Because I wondered how much more I should say actually. And if I should raise my voice at all at the meeting after lunch, where what we had spoken about on phone should become taken up.

At a quite recent occasion I raised my voice and was told by my female boss:

“Now you have spoken almost all the time (during this meeting).”

She meant dominated it, on behalf of the two men (and her?)? I got a bit confused didn’t really know. But didn’t try to clear this up by asking:

“Please explain what you mean! Shall I be quiet?”

Shame on me who didn't! My own fault I am stuck with wonders!

And hmmm, isn’t this one of the Master suppression techniques in fact? I was fighting for things at our workplace for us all.

“Damn if you do and damn if you don’t.”

or something?

I haven’t been the one speaking up earlier. Rather very quite and back drawn, so… I really wonder, if somebody had measured the time each one spoke in that group (we spoke about the psycho-social environment at our workplace and a survey all had answered on our workplace anonymously!), maybe they would have found that I wasn’t the one speaking most of all four there? Or maybe “only” as much as my boss and another man.

It’s still so (despite all awareness about those things) that our “perception” of what we hear say us that a woman has spoken much more than a man even when she hasn’t. Because we are brought up that “the woman keeps silent in the congregation”?

When I studied pedagogy over 20 years ago at the University of Uppsala we spoke about how astounded teachers became when researchers told them that what they experienced in the classroom wasn’t true: that the girls were talking as much or even much more than the boys. Even when it was the opposite, that bys were talking much more.

We have an expression here (apropos raising our voices), translated it would be “talk in the corridors.” Instead of speaking up on meetings people are talking in the corridors. But how come? Why are people (quite ironically)?

Because they are silenced with different means, quite abruptly if needed?

Another thing I thought of was that clarity (legibility) is important so people know what they are supposed to, where the workplace is heading etc. And when you work with young people it is important being consequent. But this doesn’t mean you have to be rigid. Being consequent doesn’t have to be the same thing as being rigid. But of course it can be. As often is.

I also thought on self blame yesterday.

Had another phone call with a person standing close who said about her baking and dropping a bowl of dough on the floor:

“I made a (terrible) slip-up (tabbe in Swedish)!”

But nobody died because she did this.

Doing blunders or slip-ups or making mistakes are forbidden! Entirely forbidden.

Further on blame: you can also blame other people, the victim for instance.

“Blame yourself! Your own fault (that you became badly treated)!”

Making the victim feel shame. Making her/him crouch down and keep silent. Maybe even afraid?

“I am so bad! I deserve this!”

This can become used deliberately, to infuse shame and guilt.

My work...

Some loud thinking again: Forced fun. Is that respectful? Can it become almost humiliating?

And I/we have heard:

“You ought to/shall talk!”

Because many people are said to be or keep quiet.

But some are told not to talk! Actually my (female) boss said I had been he one that had talked most on the meeting I am referring to below! I got dumb hearing this, and thought the more. But felt I didn't want to argue...

I who used to be most quiet of the quiet!!!

"People don't say what they think!!"

we have heard.

"They talk in the corridors instead!"

"I don't want corridor-talk!"

our former boss (a he) said once. I dropped my cheek. And thought for myself that:

"Does this have the opposite effect? Or people rather keep totally quiet and explode when they have built up enough inside? And if you can't create this sort of communication you can't order it!"

Actually I also asked a psychologist (needed to get permission from someone? with deep self-irony):

"Am I allowed to think that they are stupid???

The psychologist got dumb. Dropped HIS cheek. And then he said:

"Yes, you ARE!"

What my female boss above used wasn't it a Master Suppression Technique? First we are told to say what we think and then yo are told thatyou have spoken most of all on a meeting!

My piano-colleagues replied to this (when I told them later):

"And?? (what did she mean? What should you do?)"

Yes, I don't know, maybe she could have tried to meet what I said? And discuss facts? Or?

Slowly I have realized it is like this she functions; things just slip out of her mouth, and maybe she even regrets what she has said... But having this trait can't it be a problem, create problems? Putting quite high demands on people around? (do all get the same understanding though?)

My boss also said about having a lecture in communication (later a piano colleague said that our boss and another colleague had been on a lecture about communication on Monday, the day before we started): Can you learn these things by reading about them or hearing about them on a lecture? Only? Some can? But can all? I doubt on the effectiveness. But information is better than nothing?

I sat in a small group this week discussing an inquiry about the psychosocial environment at our work. After this I was quite upset. Went home for lunch. Called a colleague to pour out a little of the frustration. And succeeded to calm down!

This time of the year, making our time-plans (with he pupils) is something we all think is one of the toughest, if not THE toughest, periods of the year.

Before we got on summer vacation we got a graphical oversight over measures we need to take to make more co-workers more satisfied with the psychosocial work environment.

On this meeting this week I tried to point out how important it is to try to engage ALL at our workplace in these questions/topics (if possible). Tried to put emphasize on that about participation and engagement. The less people feel engaged and participating the less they do in work (not that I want to force anybody to anything) – and the less they reply/answer to any inquiries of any kind. If they aren’t engaged in this work and/or inquiries of this kind things can’t lead to anything. Hmmm, my impatience has grown with the years?

Only 14 of 32 teachers had replied/answered to this inquiry! I wonder what this says (IF it says anything?). That people are satisfied, and/or don't really care? Only the less satisfied have answered? OR the most satisfied? Or it's he most passionate that have answered to the inquiry?

But I am not going to beat my head bloody in trying to change these things if they don’t get real support! And with a sigh and tired smile, I don’t think our (female) boss understands what I mean. She has no real sense for making people engaged and participating; despite she is such a social person as she is. Not afraid of talking, liking parties (and big parties), having a lot of social contacts (I think)... But does this automatically mean a person can handle other people?

If she, and nobody else, understands the work environment it can be as it is.

What do I have in my backpack, influencing me in these topics? Having grown up in a big family (with five younger siblings, coming close, being big sister out in the fingertips?) a father who worked as teacher the first 6, 5 years of my life, and as headmaster till his retirement. He in turn having difficulties to subordination? Having difficulties with women… Especially with strong women?

And I think my mom actually also had teacher-tendencies! Even though she worked as nurse…

After this sidetrack, back to the meeting this week: according to the results from the inquiry people weren’t really satisfied with the psychosocial work environment. And not with the atmosphere or cooperation, and they thought that it wasn’t clear who shall do this and who shall do that, i.e. the organization of the work could become better.

People also thought that the meaningfulness on our meetings isn’t what it ought to or could be. And they didn’t think that suggestions that are put forward are leading to concrete changes/improvements.

Another thing that we could explore the consequences of was the possibilities for development (in general?).

Hmmm, and the medicine against this, and something that is thought to transform the workplace and create understanding between individuals and groups and create a “we-feeling,” is parties and playing games… Having what I would call forced fun…

But I am no kid any more (but quite girlish, something I have mixed feelings about. Is this side a protection?)!! I am a grown up person (I HOPE!!) and I want to be treated like one!

This is a workplace not a kindergarten!

This doesn’t exclude that I can’t play with my pupils, and have fun with them, and also do such things with my colleagues! But if people are forced to this it can become disrespectful and almost humiliating!?

Yes, if we were treated with real, genuine respect of bosses capable of showing this – how would that be??

Would we behave differently too with our pupils/students, colleagues, parents etc.?

Spontaneously and temperamentally writing, pouring out! Yes, I work with artistic things (do I??? How artistic is what I/we do – actually???).