A new leader style…

Yes, is it time for a radically new leader style? But are we going to get one, and not only trials in that direction in USA?

There has been a LOT of talk in the media about the election of a new president in USA, and here is something you could read in a local newspaper here yesterday about Barack Obama and his leader style:

“According to co workers Obama is known for his calmness and has therefore been called No Drama Obama. The coming president is expected to bring a leader style characterized by discussions and deliberation (betänksamhet) about. It’s a large contrast to Bush who is known for going on gut feeling.”

In the posting “Brave New World” the blog Do nothing day also wrote about leaders. That politicians with honest intentions (genuinely honest), i.e. those who aren’t out for the power in itself and for their own purposes of whatever kind, strive for agreement, to bring about cooperation, not to polarize or divide and rule. Something Obama seems to be more interested in than the leaving president. Obama seems to want to unite rather than to split.

But do we need saviors? And if so why? Is this a healthy sign that we have such needs?

I came to reflect over things yesterday in another blogposting "Capitalism and lack of freedom..." about a review of for instance a book by the professor in sociology Richard Sennett, and wonder if the reason to why more men are conservative and neoliberal is that more men (than women) are served by “the order of things” at least in short-term, an order we have had for thousand of years more or less. They don’t want to change this order, and definitely not as radical as would be needed? They would rather want to set the clock back many of them? Push the responsibility on someone else; their fathers and mothers in symbolic forms? Even if one asserts something else and does this with great emphasis. The greater the emphasis the more you have to convince yourself? But men looses on this, because they loose themselves in this deal!?

And “the market” is something many people in power positions want to push the responsibility on?? Very practical.

Because many don’t want to take responsibility for anything and not for themselves either? On the other hand they want to have power and rule the roost (vara herrar på täppan)?

Yes, it is as the psycho historian Bob Scharf writes in his essay "Leaders," the more defended tend to lead. And this is about leadership on all levels, from the micro to the macro level. From the family to being president for the United States of America???

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

Sleeping on pills and some additional thoughts - thinking loudly…

from the Ballet Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov.

In the morning-news this morning they spoke about an increase in the use of sleeping drugs in young people (15 to 34 years). One of the experts, Sonja Wallbom (ordförande for RFHL, Riksförbundet för hjälp åt narkotika- och läkemedelsberoende, an association in Sweden for help for those suffering from narcotics and alcohol addictions) said that we ought to teach young people to handle their crisis instead of treating them with pills.

The networks with adults have got weaker or thinner, shown for instance in fewer grown ups in recreation centres, school health care, teachers have less time, as parents etc.

We have less time speaking with each other and then also as a consequence with children and young people.

Yesterday I also saw a program about meeting a new partner after divorce, where a psychologist thought that children are more tolerant than we believe when a parent has found a new partner… They are so used to getting contacts on the net easily themselves… And understand that parents can do too. And many children feel good seeing their parent being happy and smiling - again.

The speaker said something in this style in the beginning of the program:

“Thick, tired and ugly in the hair, desperate, disillusioned…”

And I have feelings I haven’t put in words yet on the differences between US and Sweden (the Scandinavian countries), let’s see if I manage doing this…

The Swedish society feels (now at least) more equal and as people have a fairly high material standard - in general. Maybe not so many who are tremendously rich here, but… So people don’t have had needs to use the system in really the same way as in the USA? But are we walking in that direction (forced or brainwashed by politicians and right-wing lobby-groups)?

Silently: But my trip to USA has been great, in all respects... I am so glad over it. And glad over all that happened.

Now a bike ride though. :-)

PS. Also see this photo-album (with ONLY four pictures, you don't believe me!).

So far away
So far away
Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore
It would be so fine to see your face at my door
Doesn't help to know that you're just time away

Long ago I reached for you and there you stood
Holding you again could only do me good
How I wish I could, but you're so far away

One more song about movin' along the highway
Can't say much of anything that's new
If I could only work this life out my way
I'd rather spend it bein' close to you

But you're so far away
Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore
It would be so fine to see your face at my door
Doesn't help to know you're so far away

Travelin' around sure gets me down and lonely
Nothin' else to do but close my mind
I sure hope the road don't come to own me
But there's so many dreams I've yet to find

But you're so far away
Doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore
It would be so fine to see your face at my door
And it doesn't help to know you're so far away

Corrina, Corrina
Corrina, Corrina,
Gal, where you been so long?
Corrina, Corrina, Gal, where you been so long?
I been worr'in' 'bout you, baby,
Baby, please come home.

I got a bird that whistles,
I got a bird that sings.
I got a bird that whistles,
I got a bird that sings.
But I ain' a-got Corrina,
Life don't mean a thing.

Corrina, Corrina,
Gal, you're on my mind.
Corrina, Corrina,
Gal, you're on my mind.
I'mma sittin down thinkin of you, baby,
I just can't keep from crying.

An excellent interpretation of "Money, money" (see the Swedish group ABBA) sung by Helen Sjöholm:

The thrill is gone
The thrill is gone
The thrill is gone away
The thrill is gone baby
The thrill is gone away
You know you done me wrong baby
And you'll be sorry someday

The thrill is gone
It's gone away from me
The thrill is gone baby
The thrill is gone away from me
Although I'll still live on
But so lonely I'll be

The thrill is gone
It's gone away for good
Oh, the thrill is gone baby
Baby its gone away for good
Someday I know I'll be over it all baby
Just like I know a man should

You know I'm free, free now baby
I'm free from your spell
I'm free, free now
I'm free from your spell
And now that it's over
All I can do is wish you well

Miller on poisonous pedagogy, punishments…

[addition June 29 in the end, the posting is also slightly edited]. At page 64-65 in “The Truth Will Set You Free” Alice Miller writes about corporal punishment in schools (which still exists in the world, but not here in Sweden, or the other Scandinavian countries since long):

“…a teacher who understands these children’s fears [for a blow from the teacher, expending energy on observing the teacher so as to be prepared for the physical ‘correction’ that they feel are inevitable] might move mountains – provided, again, that the abused child’s reality is never played down.”

And it can be (is) something similar with other forms of correcting measures, of other nature, which aren’t of physical nature. The same things are true for grown up people? If they are fearing to be punished in different ways? Grown ups react in the same way? But are usually not (at all) as powerless as children??

She continues:

“We come across the same phenomenon in politics. As long as we are unaware of the degree to which the right to human dignity was denied us in childhood, it will not be easy to concede that right to our children, however sincerely we may want to do so. Frequently we believe we are acting in the interests of the children [for their own good!! Which is no excuse for what we do] and fail to realize we may be doing the very opposite, simply because we have learned to be callous [förhärdade, okänsliga!!!] in this respect at such an early stage. The effects of that learning are stronger than all the things we may learn later./…/

[The punished, humiliated children] are learning to fear their parents, to play down their own pain, and to feel guilty. Being subjected to physical [or others sorts of] attacks that they are unable to fend off merely [blott och bart] instills in children a gut feeling that they do not deserve protection or respect [they aren’t good enough for that they think]. This pernicious false message is stored in their bodies and will influence their view of the world and their attitude toward their own children [and other people’s children, and not least other people in general]. They will be unable to defend their claim to human dignity, unable to recognize physical pain [and other sorts of pains; emotional pain for instance, which of course also can be physical] as a danger and act accordingly [more or less unable to protect themselves adequately]. Their immune systems may even be affected. In the absence of other persons on whom to model their behaviour, these children will see the language of violence [physical and emotional violence, and maybe even sexual violence] and hypocrisy as the only efficient means of communication. Naturally, they will avail themselves of [benytta sig av!] that language when they grow up because adults normally suppress feelings of powerlessness and helplessness. This is the real reason why so many defend the old system of parenting and schooling.”

And this language is used by politicians we see today too! And because this language is well-known to so many is the reason why so many support our current school minister’s ideas - and all other “reactionary” (and "inhuman" or unempathic, contemptuous, in my feelings) ideas our current government has? No, I don't like it and their politics...

In the Swedish part of wikipedia it stands that this “epithet” can be used by people both to the right and left about their “adversaries.” :-)

PS. Silently: I must be struggler, of the worst sort... Struggling with the most impossible things... Where the success is minimal, not even existing... I must think I am not worth anything better?? Responses or mutuality... Humiliating myself... But of course I can't blame the other part for this... And in fact, I am not ironical here, but very serious. I ought to know better. Why don't I? Am I so little worth? Not at all lovable? Seeking things where I can't get it?

Listening to (watching) the birthday celebration-concert (50 years) for and with Esa Pekka Salonen (he is from Finland, but speaks Swedish, too) and the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra, part 2. Here part 1 and here part 2.His home site. Håkan Hardenberg played so beautifully (his homesite here) in Piazolla's Oblivion (se below played by a flutist). I didn't know of this piece. I think Salonen has chosen both the music and artists to this concert in the Berwaldhallen in Stockholm.

Addition June 29: Skimmed Miller's "The Body Never Lies" in search for something. She wrote in the chapter "Kill Rather Than Feel the Truth" at page 136-137, about why people become criminals or murderers, about the rapist and serial killer Patrice Alègre:

"In each case he was killing the person who had condemned him to such unspeakable torments as a child [cruelly beaten by his father, the policeman, and being lookout to his mother when she was entertaining customers as prostitute]. He himself could hardly realize that fact. Hence he needed victims. Even today he asserts that he loves his mother. Because there was no one to help him, no enlightened witness to stand by him and help him admit to himself, become aware of, and understand his death wishes toward his mother, those wishes proliferated inside him and forced him to kill other women instead of his mother [but one can 'kill' in other manners: emotionally, by exercising power, seeing so people don't have the economic means etc.]

'Is it as simple as that?' many psychiatrists will ask. My answer is yes - it is much simpler than what we have been forced to learn in order to honor our parents and not feel the hatred they deserve [the effects of suppression and denial - and what can it cause if you have a lot of power?? As our politician leaders have...]./.../

The price for this illusion [about his loving mother in this case, and the illusion, belief that she wanted his best] was paid in this case by his victims. Feelings do not kill. The conscious experience of the disappointment caused by Patrice's mother, or even of the desire to strangle her, would not have killed anyone. It was the suppression of such a need, the disassociation of all the negative feelings unconsciously directed at his mother, that drove him to his terrible crimes."

This is the extreme. Miller also writes at page 135:

"There may be many children who survive a confusing fate without turning criminal at a later date./.../

Such a child may even achieve fame, like Edgar Allan Poe, who ultimately drank himself to death, or Guy de Maupassant, who 'came to terms' with his confused and tragic childhood by engaging with no fewer than 300 short stories. But he too, like his younger brother before him, became a psychotic and died in an asylum at the age of forty-two."

Or you become politicians or leader... Or, yes, teacher... And pass what you experienced further on people under you. Even if your need (or even strong urge) to exercise power is disguised. Exercising power by for instance claiming that you do things to other people for their own good (in law-making, political decisions etc.), things which are in fact harmful in different ways, but you have no awareness of what you are actually doing or access to the origins of your acts or emotions connected to this.

And those people who have learned to honor their parents, like maybe our school-minister, pass their unprocessed things further... Pupils and students shall learn to obey and keep quiet!!! And they need whips and carrots (rewards and punishments), if not they will never do their utmost or learn anything!!! (how does one create creativeness? Is it the old belief that the artists need to suffer to create the greatest master-pieces??? What rubbish!) As we grown ups also need rewards in form of for example money to make our best!!!???

Loudly thinking... Oh, please, can somebody help me saying things with fewer words??? :-) And (much) more condensed!! :-) But I get so speechless, so I get lost in a lot of words and emotions??

About the Alègre-case here and here.

Politics and poisonous pedagogy…

Are there parallels?

“It doesn’t matter! One has to dress (so one doesn’t freeze)!”

That it is chilly indoors, one has to adjust to simply? Chilliness out of no reason, because it isn’t about lack of money that is the cause to the cool temperature...

“It doesn’t matter!”

about being controlled concerning the use of the telephone. Again not because there is lack of money.

For having no needs or demands (at all) you can get a reward? Or prize? A big, “glorious” reward? Storms of applauds? Very upset writing...

Making things wrong is a catastrophe? You can’t get loved unless you aren’t perfect (= conditional love)? Perfect in every single little detail and respect (and therapists in therapy: how do they see those high demands on perfection, very ironically? As a character flaw?)? And noone will ever become… Or rather; they didn’t love because they couldn’t, their lack of love had nothing to do with the child. Their inability to love didn’t come from the child’s character. But this is too painful to realize. It is easier and less painful blaming oneself.

There is a stubborn refusal to take proper care of herself.

A burden of responsibility, and guilt, was put on the child(ren). A heavy burden…

The children couldn’t develop freely; use their energy on their own development. Tied up with invisible ties…

Everything should be perfect: perfectly fixed up, the children neat and cute and well-mannered and modest, the garden later perfect as the yard, the etiquette was important (in a way)… If it hadn’t been perfect (and when it wasn’t, because it was seldom perfect) what then?

Very often (if not always) grading the food she has made: too little (or much) salt, to this and that... Depreciating. So as to be in advance of an (or two) internalized parents??? Proving to them she knows how bad she is?? I wonder how much I have got of this??

My one year younger brother uses to tease and says:

"They weren't enough salted these meatballs, too much pepper..."

He too being in advance of her self-critics, phew!??

Yes, this with the cleverness…. And when you can’t manage being that perfect of whatever reason, not least out of age, what then?

Can that mother truly love or be there? Occupied with other things, herself not least… And of course all this fixing up, being the perfect wife, mother and also lady of the house for people dad could take unexpectedly with him from work (we lived at his work-places).

And what our politicians show is contempt?? Contempt for people, and not (genuine) respect or a wide variety of feelings either… Oh yes, strong feelings, but against and NOT FOR!!

They believe in the poisonous pedagogy: For your own good we need to… They think they need to educate and teach people. Passing the contempt for weakness further they learned very early in life and have kept denied behind many, many locks? Tragic and very damaging (destructive) because there unprocessed things befalls other people! So the effects can be really harmful, yes, even disastrous!

I saw the leaders of the alliance parties yesterday on TV and couldn’t watch further, wanted to vomit at their appearance… And the school minister said something that was filled with malicious pleasure and even enjoyment, delight.

How does one handle this attitude from the politicians, of malicious pleasure, of contempt for people and for weakness and all other similar attitudes? In the most constructive, really efficient way, in the constructive way?

Their attitude probably triggers a wide variety of reactions in people: in some as me disgust, in others it functions as approval of the same contempt and of treating other people, some people badly… In other harmed people this attitude from our politicians causes thunderous applauses, enjoyment and yes, malicious pleasure, but they don’t know why and they don’t care about why?? The pleasure when people get “corrected” and punished and suffer because of the punishment, the more the better, whether they deserve it or not, that doesn’t matter at all?

In others this attitude of contemptuous attitude and entire lack of sensitivity and empathy causes another reaction, which comes as automatically, triggers something, but with another result; rather a strong against-reaction??

Early experiences all these never have gotten help questioning and seeing as wrong, but now afterwards regard as love and for their own good?? We needed to learn?? Measure executed by complete individuals, standing high above us??

But what did we learn?

Our school minister, whose ideas I dislike from deep in my heart, is educated officer, major I think. Some use the expression baton-major… And his ideas are applauded by horribly many! What have he and they experienced? And haven’t child-raising improved more since I was a child???

One can get afraid of the dark for less…

Yes, “the more defended tend to lead”???

After a 30-minutes walk in rain, coming home almost like a drowned cat: How does one teach children respect? Genuine, real respect? And the lack of respect: Where does it come from? Why don’t they show respect? Can it be because of lack of respect? And that they have been treated disrespectfully? Probably from earliest in life?

Is the right measure more of the same? Is punishment the right measure? Or what should we try with, do?

The power can punish without being forced to explain why he is punishing?? Authoritarian, totalitarian!

I will write more about this later… Referring to what Miller writes about poisonous pedagogy and politics…

Addition in the evening: In fact Arthur Silber writes about similar things in his essay “Four More Months of This Crap? Noooo…” And writes great as usual. I have to smile at this title!!! Addition July 3: I have blogged about this essay (translated parts to Swedish) here.

I have to quote:

“…in an article I wrote two and a half years ago, I set out what I consider a significant part of the explanation. (Precisely how these dynamics initially take root and the often complex ways in which they operate require a longer explanation, which is the one I hope to get to in the future.) In ‘The Roots of the Politics of Power,’ I noted Alice Miller's term ‘poisonous pedagogy’ and her explanation of its meaning:

‘Poisonous pedagogy is a phrase I use to refer to the kind of parenting and education aimed at breaking a child's will and making that child into an obedient subject by means of overt or covert coercion, manipulation, and emotional blackmail.

In my books For Your Own Good and Thou Shall Not Be Aware, I have explained the concept using concrete examples. In my other books I have repeatedly stressed how the mendacious mentality behind this approach to dealing with children can leave long-lasting imprints on the way we think and relate to one another in our adult lives.’

In introducing a further excerpt from Miller, I wrote:

The following is from one of her first books, Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. We should note the revealing subtitle: Society's Betrayal of the Child. As Miller once again makes clear, it is our childhood experiences -- and learning to internalize completely the obedience-denial-idealization mechanism -- that explain so much of our adult behavior.

And those earliest experiences and their resulting psychological damage also throw light on the nature of politics and political debate.

Here is Miller:

‘There is a good deal else that would not exist without 'poisonous pedagogy.' It would be inconceivable, for example, for politicians mouthing empty cliches to attain the highest positions of power by democratic means. But since voters, who as children would normally have been capable of seeing through [see the child in 'The Emperors New Clothes'] these cliches with the aid of their feelings, were specifically forbidden to do so in their early years, they lose this ability as adults. The capacity to experience the strong feelings of childhood and puberty (which are so often stifled by child-rearing methods, beatings, or even drugs) could provide the individual with an important means of orientation with which he or she could easily determine whether politicians are speaking from genuine experience or are merely parroting time-worn platitudes for the sake of manipulating voters. Our whole system of raising and educating children provides the power-hungry with a ready-made railway network they can use to reach the destination of their choice. They need only push the buttons that parents and educators have already installed.’”

De politiska konsekvenserna av övergrepp på barn...

Klaus Barbie (I chose a picture of him, but I think there has existed people of his caliber later in history - and in different parts of the world too).

The second part/half of this posting is in English. The links in the Swedish text are in English.

Alice Miller skriver i ”The Political Consequences of Child Abuse” (min översättning):

“Fastän romaner och biografier i århundraden har sysslat med ämnet barnmisshandel i alla dess former, har samhället varit långsamt att erkänna hur ofta detta övervåld är begånget. Först under de senaste tjugo åren har det skett en verklig utveckling i detta avseende, och merparten av detta beroende på ett litet antal forskare och framför allt på media [???].

Konsekvenserna av väldigt tidiga övergrepp för offren i deras [senare] vuxna liv är fortfarande underskattade och ibland kämpad, striden för. Ämnen som är involverade har blivit vida ignorerade och de är i motsvarande grad litet omnämnda i historiska och antropologiska studier.

Sålunda har sociologen Wolfgang Sovsky varit förmögen att skriva ett annars imponerande arbete över våldets olika former, utan att ge oss en enda referens till barndomsdimensionen.

Han ger avsevärt utrymme åt överlagt tillfogande av våld, kallande det ’mystiskt’, fastän det är lätt förklarligt så fort vi stödjer idén att kropparna hos förövarna, torterarna och orkestrerarna av organiserad människojakt kan ha lärt sin ödesdigra lektion väldigt tidigt och sålunda mycket effektivt [också! Tack vare att det lärdes in tidigt i livet].

Även Goldhagen begränsar sig till en fenomenologisk diskussion om människor som frivilligt deltog i tortyr och förödmjukelse av andra, utan göra något övervägande om deras barndom.

Han ägnar mycken uppmärksamhet åt förövarnas känslor, ett ämne som hittills vida ignorerats, men utan bakgrund i deras tidiga uppväxt förblir deras beteende mystiskt.

Läsaren söker förgäves efter en förklaring. Vad fick respekterade medlemmar av samhället att plötsligt agera som monster? Hur kunde en före detta lärare som Klaus Barbie, och andra män, beskrivna av sina döttrar som fäder som brydde sig, få oskyldiga människor torterade eller till och med själva tortera dem? Goldhagen tar inte itu med denna fråga. Han är uppenbarligen övertygad om att hänvisningar till traditionell antisemitism i Tyskland ger oss tillfredsställande svar. Det gör de inte.

Hypotesen att tysk antisemitism var den verkliga orsaken till förintelsen har med rätta blivit kritiserad, genom att framhålla en jämförelse med första världskriget. Vid den tiden var antisemitismen lika stark i Tyskland men ingen organiserad utrotning resulterade.

Och varför fanns ingen förintelse i andra antisemitiska länder: Polen, Ryssland och andra delar av Europa? Argumentet att arbetslöshet och fattigdom orsakade en ofantlig allmän frustration som blev avlastad via massmorden av judar i Weimarrepubliken är knappast övertygande, därför att Hitler snabbt lyckades få arbetslösheten under kontroll.

Det måste ha funnits andra faktorer i omlopp som hittills har blivit ignorerade, faktorer som i viss mån kan förklara varför förintelsen ägde rum i Tyskland och varför den ägde rum vid just denna tidpunkt snarare än vid någon annan. Enligt min syn så är en möjlig opererande faktor den destruktiva uppfostringsstilen som vitt praktiserades på små barn runt sekelskiftet i Tyskland, en stil som jag utan tvekan refererar till som en universell misshandel av spädbarn.

Naturligtvis har barn i andra länder blivit och är fortfarande dåligt behandlade under namn av uppväxt och vårdgivande, men knappast som babyar och knappast med den systematiska grundlighet som var karaktäristisk för den preussiska pedagogiken. I de två generationerna före Hitlers tillträdande till makten, var genomförandet av denna metod bringad till fulländning i Tyskland.

Med denna grund att bygga på, kunde Hitler slutligen åstadkomma det han ville: 'Mitt uppfostringsideal är hårt. Allt som är vekt måste hamras bort. I fästningarna av mina militära order kommer en ung generation att växa för att inge fruktan hos världen. Våldsam, kraftfull, orädd, grym ungdom är vad jag vill ha. Unga människor måste vara allt detta. De måste kunna utstå/tåla smärta. Det får inte finnas något vekt eller mjukt i dem. Det fria, härliga rovdjuret måste blixtra från deras ögon. Jag vill ha dem starka och vackra… På det sättet kan jag få till saker på ett nytt sätt.'

Detta uppfostringsprogram, vilket rörde sig kring utrotandet av allt livgivande, var föregångare till Hitlers planer om utrotningen av en hel nation. Det var sannerligen förutsättningen för den ultimata framgången i hans planer.

De otaliga och vitt lästa traktaten av Dr. Daniel Gottlieb Moritz Schreber, uppfinnaren av Schreberträdgården /…/ är av huvudintresse här. Somliga av dessa kom ut i så många som 40 utgåvor och deras centrala bekymmer var att instruera föräldrar till systematisk uppfostran av sina små barn från den allra första dagen i deras liv.

Många människor, motiverade av vad de trodde var de bästa intentioner, åtlydde de råd som gavs dem av Schreber och andra författare om hur man bäst uppfostrar sina barn om man ville göra dem till förebilder för det tyska riket.

De gjorde detta utan att ens avlägset misstänka att de utsatte sina barn för en systematisk form av tortyr med långsiktiga effekter. Tyska ordspråk och slagord som ”Prisa det som gör dig hård” och ”Det som inte dödar dig stärker dig”, som fortfarande hörs av uppfostrare av den gamla stammen, har troligen sitt ursprung här [hur många av oss hör inte dessa ord än idag?? Och vilka använder dem? Kan det vara makten? Ganska moralistiskt slående sig för bröstet!!? Inte minst i backlashen i samhället av idag??].

Morton Schatzman som citerar mycket upplysande passager ur Schrebers skrifter, är av åsikten att här befinner vi oss i närvaron inte av barnuppfostringsmetoder utan om systematiska instruktioner om barnförföljelse [och i en omfattning som kanske inte existerat tidigare?? Men nog existerade och fortfarande existerar, men inte alls lika allmänt och kanske inte lika konsekvent som då. Liksom att medlen att förgöra andra människor var 'bättre' under 1900-talet än de kanske någonsin varit tidigare? Mina små funderingar]. En av Schrebers övertygelser är att när barn gråter skulle de fås att upphöra med detta genom användande av ’fysiskt märkbara varningar (tillrättavisningar, förmaningar),’ försäkrande läsaren om att ’dessa procedurer är bara nödvändiga en, eller allra högst två gånger, och sedan är man herre över barnet för all framtid [!!!]. Från och med nu kommer en enda blick, en enda hotande gest att vara tillräcklig för att underkuva barnet [något som nog tyvärr kanske inte så få barn kan uppleva även idag både här och där i världen, men inte den omfattningen som är beskriven ovan, för att sedan utsättas för en massa andra övergrepp senare och på det sättet skapas diktatorer, serimördare osv. också idag??]. Framförallt, det nyfödda barnet skulle bli drillat från den allra första dagen att lyda och avstå från att gråta [Se tidigare postning om "Crying..."!!!! Och i denna om barnets behov av närhet och uppmärksamhet].

Idag kan människor, som har växt upp i allt annat än det som ens avlägset närmar sig ett mänskligt sätt, knappast att kunna föreställa sig noggrannheten och orubbligheten med vilken Schreber själv genomförde detta program. Psykoanalytikern Wilhelm G. Niederland citerar exempel som kastar ljus över beteendet i vardaglig praktik, under decennier, vad gäller barnuppfostran; till exempel, recept över hur man räknade ut hur man skulle lära det lilla barnet ’konsten i självförnekelse’ [och självbehärskning, självkontroll!?? Barnet skulle inte skämmas bort för allt smör i Småland!??? För hur skulle det bli om barnet fick som det ville?? Om barnets omättliga (??) begär fick fritt utlopp!!]. ’Metoden ska vara enkel men effektiv: barnet placeras i knäet hos en barnflicka medan den senare äter eller dricker vadhelst hon önskar. Hur enträgna de orala önskningarna hos det lilla barnet än kan bli i denna situation, får de inte belönas.’

fortsättning följer...

---

I have translated Alice Miller's text on "The Political Consequences of Child Abuse" above and want to quote parts of the English text below:

“Many people motivated by what they thought to be the best of intentions complied with the advice given them by Schreber and other authors about how best to raise their children if they wanted to make them into model subjects of the German Reich. They did this without even remotely suspecting that they were exposing their children to a systematic form of torture with long-term effects.

Germany sayings and catch-phrases like ‘Praise be to the things that make us tough’ and What doesn't kill us will strengthen us,’ still to be heard from educationists of the old school, probably originated in this period [and reveals, even today, how we have been brought up, because people today use these sayings!! And probably believe in them? How many of us haven't heard these words? And still hear them? Said by who? The power, in the general bachlash in society of today, to "tougher and harder grips"?? Hearing that increasing violence is caused by "too loose grips"!??].

…systematic instruction in child persecution. One of Schreber's convictions is that when babies cry they should be made to desist by the use of ‘physically perceptible admonitions,’ assuring his readers that ‘such a procedure is only necessary once, or at the most twice, and then one is master of the child for all time. From then on, one look, one single threatening gesture will suffice to subjugate the child.’ Above all, the newborn child should be drilled from the very first day to obey and to refrain from crying [see earlier posting on "Crying..." and there about the small child's need for touching and attention - that about a child's actual needs!]."

How many of us have been exposed to things like the one above, though not so consequently or hopefully not from the first day in our life, "milder" versions? But enough to damage things in our lives; relations, making us uncapable of seeing, hearing, sensing etc. But we can't force ourselve or become forced to see, hear, sense... Not brutally become confronted (would that be compassionate or empathic? Isn't it an empatich, compassionate witness we need in confronting our truths?).

And how many of us haven't heard the words or things similar to those:

"They must withstand pain. There must be nothing weak or tender about them" (Adolf Hitler about the youth in Germany).

That we should be bold, daring this and that, not being wimps etc.? (contempt for weakness, expressed in a lot of ways, which is contempt for the small children we once were actually Miller thinks, and I think she is right).

"Psychoanalyst Wilhelm G. Niederland quotes examples that cast light on the everyday practical conduct of child-rearing in those decades; for example, recipes for inculcating the 'art of self-denial' into infants. 'The method should be simple and effective: the child is placed on the lap of its nanny while the latter is eating or drinking whatever takes her fancy. However urgent the infant's oral needs may become in this situation, they must not be gratified.'

And not only self-denial but the child should learn the art of self-restraint and self-control too, for if it didn’t… If its insatiable (Are they?? Were they? And if they are, why are they?) needs got free reign, then… If it wasn’t taught self-control and self-restraint, what would happen? And the child should absolutely not be spoiled either!!??

And what have we been exposed to on top of this? Confusing us even more? And making life difficult? And how many of these things have we passed further, both knowing and not knowing that we are doing wrong?

I think we are made so thick-skinned in different areas and to different degrees that we don't really realize how things actually feels in a child!? That it is so painful the child has to suppress it, maybe (or probably) even before it has felt it, using defences and Denial of diffrent sorts to protect itself. And couldn't this make us furios, raging and despaired (to say it mildly)??

And these defences are later shown as dysfunctional behaviors (because our dysfunctional behaviors are defences actually with all what that means!??), behaviors too many therapists and helpers only try to change to functional, not wanting to deal with what's beneath really?? Afraid of doing so!?? Because then they would have to confront themselves with a history they haven't processed and which feels too painful to confront (an unconscious fear, because they aren't really in touch with their/the fear either??).

But I think speaking loudly about these topics can mean a lot for a greater freedom in us, if we don't meet a helper daring to confront these things in a way that would be good, and not more harming, for us... Yes, I wonder if not narrating can mean a lot?? In long term and with a lot of struggles and difficulties... Because, yes, we should be careful with "gurus" of different kinds.

See Morton Schatzman's book “Soul Muderer – Persecution in the Family” and the article ”Another Soul Murderer”. Which it is about!? Murdering small children's souls?? From very early in life even!? And this is what it is about, not too seldom (but in different degrees): persecution (förföljelse in Swedish) of children in the family (and later on in life; school etc.)!?

See earlier posting, on "Altruism..." Where it stands more about Goldhagen etc. And see about the ruling classes paranoia another theme on the same subject!? And also about bigotry.

And a grown up with insatiable, unrestrained needs (of power, wealth, money, things etc.) what are they about? How has he (she) got those? And how are they expressed? Who do the most harm in the world? Are they born like this? Haven't these persons been brought up strictly enough?

I don't think so... If a person got what she/he needed as a child then he/she doesn't have unrestrained needs probably at all, not of any kind (but this is rare?? Maybe not even existing? And maybe it will never exist either? Because such a perfect upbringing will never occur? Which doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve our ways of raising children! On the contrary; we should improve them, much more!?). And functions better in society too... Is living a much better life than many of us do?? Trying to fill our childhood needs instead of our grown ups?? Our true grown up needs!? Maybe not even admitting to those grown up needs either!? (I am probably not good at this at all either or very little?).

Bigotry eller trångsynthet...

taken November 28, 2006 (with a mobile phone camera).

Reposting a posting from June 15, 2007, on “Pincus and Miller on Frank McCourt…” on the topic bigotry… I am going to translate the entire article by Miller on “The Political Consequences of Child Abuse” to Swedish I have planned, and think bigotry belongs to this topic! Bigotry is another result from child abuse!?

“The American neurologist Jonathan J. Pincus on Frank McCourt from the chapter “Hitler and Hatred” in his book “Base Instinct – What Makes Killers Kill” ISBN 0-393-32323-4 page 179- 180:

“Frank McCourt’s book Angela’s Ashes offer insight into how abuse might lead to bigotry. The author movingly portrays the poverty into which his father’s alcoholism and his mother’s depression had thrust the family. His father would return home late at night, intoxicated, his paycheck gone. He would awaken his starving children and have them stand in the kitchen and recite noble poems and sing patriotic songs that celebrate the Irish and condemn the English as the cause of the misery of the Irish and, in extension, of his family. As a reward, the father gave each child a penny with which to purchase candy the following day.

Their father successfully displaced his own responsibility for the family’s poverty to the English. Fortunately for the author, his father and mother were not violent and abusive [physically!?], but what if they had been? Could deprivation and abuse be the origin of IRA terrorism in lower middle-class Belfast?

The dreadful sense of helplessness and humiliation that is engendered by child abuse [even emotional!?], the victim’s sense of powerlessness and fear, and the rage which spring from it [though maybe suppressed and even not consciously felt] are crucially important motivators toward violence. Depression [which comes from where? Suppressed things that the child never got possibility or help to process maybe?] in an abused person intensifies this dynamic [but is no excuse, only and explanation]. The brain damage [caused by violence and/or abuse? Recent brain research on Romanian child home children has shown that parts in the brain where emotions and empathy is seated can be damaged by abuse, neglect etc. Damages that is possible to restore if they haven't gone too far] and/or intoxication that can be superimposed interfere with the capacity of the abused individual to control the expression of his rage and hatred [again – this is no excuse, only and explanation]. The paranoia and delusional thinking [does this come from nowhere? Or from where does it come?] of individuals who have additionally inherited mental instability and mental illness [is this in fact located in genes? What genes? Where do they sit, are they located? What research has actually proved this???] exacerbate these dark feelings and abolish the capacity to love, to trust, and to enjoy life. So fundamentally do these factors harm the psyche that the life’s work with such victims can be seen as an attempt to escape from their victimhood and sometimes ‘rise’ to the level of perpetrators.”

Alice Miller on Frank McCourt in her book “The Truth Will Set You Free – Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Self” ISBN 0-465-04585-5 pages 100-103:

“Protection and respect for the needs of a child – this is surely something we ought to be able to take for granted. But we live in a world full of people who have grown up deprived of their rights, deprived of respect /…/ Also, there is less of a tendency today to idealize and romanticize childhood; the misery frequently comes across in all its starkness. But in most autobiographies I have read the authors still maintain an emotional distance from the suffering they went through as children. Little empathy and an astounding absence of rebellion are the rule. There is no inquiry into the whys and wherefores behind the injustice, the emotional blindness and the resulting cruelty displayed by the adults, whether teachers or parents. Description is all. On every page of the brilliant book Angela’s Ashes, for example, Frank McCourt describes such cruelties in gruesome detail. But even as he recalls his childhood, he never rises up against his tormentors, attempting instead to remain living and tolerance and seeking salvation in humor. And it is for this humor that he has been celebrated by millions of readers the world over.

But how are we to stand up for children in our society and improve their situation if we laugh at and tolerate cruelty, arrogance, and dangerous stupidity? /…/ Humor saved Frank McCourt’s life and enabled him to write his book. His readers are grateful to him for it. Many of them have shared the same fate and they want nothing more dearly than to be able to laugh it off. Laughter is good for you, so they say, and it certainly helps you survive. But laughter can also entice you to be blind. You may be able to laugh at the fact that someone has forbidden you to eat of the tree of knowledge, but that laughter will not really wake you up from the sleep. You must learn to understand the difference between good end evil if you want to understand yourself and change anything in the world as it is [yes, what is good and what is evil? What is love and what is not love? What are expressions for love and what is not? What is in fact cruel and unfair? What should we question? And what are we usually questioning and not in fact and why? What are we protecting and what not actually? What produces evilness and what would not produce evilness?].

Laughter is good for you, but only when there is reason to laugh. Laughing away one’s own suffering is a form of fending off, a response that can prevent us from seeing and tapping the sources of understanding around us [but the helpless and totally dependent child, with all what mean, had to laugh it off and use a lot of other strategies to survive. And those strategies cause the adult a whole range of problems, troubles and difficulties. And it is not only to intellectually understand this… And you can’t just cope with this with all different techniques and/or methods… Or just cognitively I think. If it was many of us would be cured long ago… In a way we must realize emotionally how harmful things are and were I think].

If biographers were better informed about the details and consequences of what some indifferently call as a normal strict upbringing, they could provide us with precious material for better understanding our world. But there are not many who try to figure out how such upbringing was experienced by their subject as child.”

But such autobiographies would be very interesting I think. Maybe that’s the next step. Some 25 years ago Jan Myrdal came with books about his childhood as son of Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, criticizing his parents (both Nobel-prize winners and well-known and highly respected). These books awoke a lot of criticism towards Jan Myrdal, to write so disrespectfully about parents. Noone had done this in this way not before. This was almost forbidden and unthinkable.

Swedish site about Alva (with pictures of her!).

The forth commandment ruled even more then. But we still live under its "spell"!? But maybe disrespect has taken other forms... But what is disrespect about, whenever it occurs? Whoever is showing it? Whether it is a grown or a child which show it? And how do we come to terms with it? With limit setting or with something else?

---

Den amerikanske neurologen Jonathan J. Pincus om Frank McCourt i kapitlet “Hitler and Hatred” sin bok “Base Instinct – What Makes Killers Kill” ISBN 0-393-32323-4 på sidorna 179- 180:

”Frank McCourts bok Ängeln på sjunde trappsteget erbjuder insikt i hur kränkningar kan leda till bigotteri eller trångsynthet. Författaren porträtterar på ett rörande sätt fattigdomen i vilken hans fars alkoholism och hans mors depression hade drivit familjen. Hans far brukade återvända hem sent på natten, berusad, avlöningen borta. Han väckte sina svältande barn och fick dem att stå i köket för att recitera nobla poem och sjunga patriotiska sånger som hyllar det irländska och fördömer det engelska som orsaken till misären hos irländarna och, i förlängningen, hos hans familj. Som belöning gav han varje barn en penny som de kunde köpa godis för nästa dag.

Deras far förflyttade lyckosamt sitt eget ansvar för familjens fattigdom till engelsmännen. Lyckligtvis för författaren var hans far och mor inte våldsamma och misshandlande [fysiskt!?], men tänk om de hade varit det? Skulle förlust, berövande och misshandel kunna vara ursprunget till IRA terrorismen i Belfasts undre medelklass?

Den hemska känslan av hjälplöshet och förödmjukelse som skapas genom barnmisshandel [även känslomässig, emotionell misshandel och kränkning av barn], offrets känsla av maktlöshet och rädsla och raseriet som kommer ur detta [men kanske bortträngd och inte ens någonsin medvetet känd?] är avgörande viktiga motivationer för våld. Depression [som kommer varifrån? Bortträngda saker som barnet aldrig fick möjlighet att bearbeta kanske?] hos en misshandlad människa intensifierar denna dynamik [men detta är ingen ursäkt, bara en förklaring]. Hjärnskadan [orsakad av kränkning eller misshandel. Hjärnforskningen har de senaste åren kunnat visa på hjärnskador hos rumänska barnhemsbarn i de delar av hjärna där emotioner sitter. Skador som är reparabla om de inte är alltför stora??] och/eller berusning som kan bli ytterligare pålagd stör förmågan hos den misshandlade individen att kontrollera uttrycket för hans raseri och hat [återigen så är detta ingen ursäkt, bara en förklaring]. Paranoian och inbillningstänkandet [kommer sådan ut intet? Eller var kommer sådant ifrån?] hos individer som dessutom har ärvt mental instabilitet och mental sjukdom [sitter detta verkligen bevisat i gener? Vilka? Var? Eller varifrån kommer detta ’arv’???] förvärrar dessa mörka känslor och avskaffar förmågan att älska, lita på och njuta av livet. Så fundamentalt skadar dessa faktorer verkligen psyket så att sådana offers livs arbete kan ses som ett försök att fly från sin offerstatus och ibland höjas till förövarnivån.”

Alice Miller om Frank McCourt i hennes bok “The Truth Will Set You Free – Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Self” ISBN 0-465-04585-5 sidorna 100-103:

“Skydd och respekt för barns behov – det är verkligen något som vi borde kunna ta för givet. Men vi lever i en värld full av människor som har växt upp berövade sina rättigheter, berövade respekt /…/ dessutom finns det en tendens idag att mindre idealisera och romantisera barndomen; misären kommer ofta upp i ljuset i all sin galenhet. Men i de flesta biografier jag har läst håller författarna fortfarande en känslomässig distans från lidandet som de genomgick i barndomen. Liten empati och en högeligen förvånande avsaknad av uppror är regeln. Det finns ingen undersökning om 'varför' bakom orätten, den känslomässiga blindheten och den resulterande grymheten visad av vuxna, vare sig de är föräldrar eller lärare. Det är bara beskrivning. På varje sida i den briljanta boken Ängeln på sjunde trappsteget av Frank McCourt, till exempel, beskriver Frank McCourt sådana grymheter i kuslig detalj. Men även när han minns sin barndom reser han sig aldrig upp mot sina plågoandar, istället försöker han förbli levande och tolerant och försöker söka räddning i humor. Och det är för denna humor som han har blivit hyllad av miljoner läsare över hela världen.

Men hur ska vi kunna stå upp för barn i vårt samhälle och förbättra deras situation om vi skrattar åt och tolererar grymhet, arrogans och farlig dumhet? /…/ Humor räddade Frank McCourts liv och satte honom i stånd att skriva sin bok. Hans läsare är tacksamma mot honom för detta. Många av dem har delat samma öde och de vill inget hellre än att kunna skratt bort det. Skratt är bra för dig, säger de, och det hjälper en verkligen att överleva. Men skratt kan också förleda dig till att bli blind. Du kan bli förmögen att skratta åt det faktum att någon ha förbjudit dig att äta av kunskapens träd, men det skrattet kommer inte att verkligen väcka dig från din sömn. Du måste lära dig förstå skillnaden mellan gott och ont om du vill förstå dig själv och ändra något i världen som den är [ja, vad är gott och vad är ont? Vad är kärlek och vad är inte kärlek? Vad är uttryck för kärlek och vad är det inte? Vad är faktiskt grymt och orättvist? Vad borde vi ifrågasätta? Och vad ifrågasätter vi faktiskt vanligen och vad inte? Vad skyddar vi och vad inte handen på hjärtat? Vad producerar ondska och vad skulle inte producera ondska?].

Skratt är bra för dig, men bara när det finns anledning till skratt. Skratta bort ens lidande är en form av avvärjande, ett svar som kan hindra oss från att se och avlyssna källorna till förståelse omkring oss [men det hjälplösa och helt beroende barnet, med allt vad det innebär, måste skratta bort det och använda en massa andra strategier för att överleva. Och dessa strategier orsakar den vuxne ett otal problem och svårigheter. Och det är inte bara att intellektuellt förstå detta. Om det vore så skulle många av oss vara kurerade för länge sedan… På något sätt måste vi känslomässigt inse hur skadliga saker är och var tror jag].

Om biografiförfattare var bättre informerade om detaljerna och konsekvenserna av det som vissa likgiltigt kallar normal och sträng uppfostran, skulle de förse oss med dyrbart material för bättre förståelse av vår värld. Men det finns inte många som försöker förstå hur en sådan uppväxt upplevdes av det subjekt som de var som barn.”

Men sådana biografier skulle vara väldigt intressanta tycker jag. Kanske det blir nästa steg? När Jan Myrdals böcker om sin barndom och sina föräldrar, Gunnar och Alva, kom för kanske drygt 25 år sedan blev det ju en kraftig reaktion! Att hänga ut sina föräldrar överhuvudtaget och i synnerhet dessa välkända och högt respekterade… Dessutom var ju båda också nobelprisvinnare…

Also see the other postings under the label ”bigotry” here and here.

(Shock)therapy...

bilder tagna mars 2007 (som det ser ut i år - i februari).

Unga mår allt sämre, se artikel i Aftonbladet:

”Förväntningar på att lyckas och krav på utbildning bakom ungas psykiska ohälsa enligt folkhälsoinstitutet.

Förverkliga dig själv och bli en stjärna.

Annars är du ingen alls.

Samhället ger tusen möjligheter men för den som inte lyckas blir tillvaron svår.

Det är en förklaring till att Sveriges unga mår allt sämre, säger Sven Bremberg på Folkhälsoinstitutet till aftonbladet.se.

Världen ligger öppen för en 15-åring. Du kan bli en framgångsrik artist, en välkänd journalist eller en spännande person som sett hela världen.

Det enda som hindrar dig är du själv. Det kallas individualisering. Det är en fantastisk möjlighet men också en förklaring till att alltfler unga mår psykiskt dåligt, har ångest, går i självmordstankar och skadar sig själva. /…/

’ Sverige är nog det land i världen som kommit längst när det gäller individualisering. Det ställer högre krav på ungdomar i det här landet än på många andra håll.’ /…/

Var samhället bättre för de unga förr, när möjligheterna inte var lika många?

’På ett sätt var det enklare förr. Men det är det här samhället vi har nu och som vi har strävat efter. Istället för att kämpa för att få mat och kläder kan vi rikta in oss på att förverkliga oss själva.’”

Signalen till barn och ungdomar, vilken är den? Du duger och är bra som du är??

Här ungdomarnas egna berättelser.

Göran Greider skriver också idag i ledare "Kall BRIS..." om BRIS-rapporten ovan och om hur unga mår:

”Genom åren har det ofta klagats högljutt över företagsklimatet i det här landet. Mer sällan talas det i politiken om barnklimatet, trots att det borde vara viktigare än någonting annat.”

I en annan artikel står också att psykiatriska droger står bakom 75 % av alla självmord bland kvinnor.

Det står i artikeln (min amatöröversättning):

”’Kvinnorna sökte hjälp – och de fick psykiatrisk medicin,’ för att förhindra självmord och kurera depression sa psykiatriker och läkemedelsbolag.

Det handlade inte om avsaknad av behandling för 377 kvinnor som begick självmord. Nästan en av fem (18 %) fick åtminstone tre psykiatriska mediciner (antidepressiva, neuroleptiska, hypno/sedativa); 41 % fick åtminstone två."

De data som samlats gör att man vill gå ut med direktiv att inkludera varningar för ökad risk för självmordstankar och beteenden för ALLA antidepressiva medel, inte bara för barn och unga, utan också för unga vuxna.

Det står vidare (min översättning):

”I åratal har läkemedelsföretag använt ’utpressningsstrategier’ för att få doktorer och ledsna patienter att tro att de MÅSTE använda medicin – annars. Ledande psykiatriker med finansiella intressen av ökad försäljning har ändlöst skrivit om de ‘skyddande effekterna’ av antidepressiv medicin mot självmord i medicinska journaler.

Skamlöst falska påståenden att psykiatrisk/a medicin/droger korrigerar en kemisk obalans (som avsaknad av serotonin) i hjärnan är fortfarande en del i den officiella drogkategoriseringen./../

Slutsatsen från nu avslöjade data kan bara bli en: i bästa fall kan psykiatriska droger/medicin inkluderande antidepressiv medicin, inte förhindra självmord och, i sämsta fall direkt orsaka dem.”

Vad skulle dessa barn, unga och unga vuxna egentligen behöva??

Och på nyheterna imorse pratade de om Carl Bildts och Beatrice Asks artikel i DN att "Samlad svensk strategi ska bekämpa terrorismen"... Jag slog av TV:n, orkade inte höra mer om det... De skriver bland annat:

”Under 1990-talet har terrorismen blivit en alltmer global företeelse och de metoder som används har blivit allt svårare att bemöta och skydda sig mot. Det allvarligaste hotet kommer i dag från grupper som vill rättfärdiga våld och försöker rekrytera självmordsbombare med hänvisning till extrema uttolkningar av islam.

De stora terroristattentaten i europeiska länder under de senaste åren - särskilt attentaten i Madrid och London - innebar en allvarlig upptrappning av terroristhotet också i vår del av världen.

Trots att det direkta terroristhotet mot Sverige och svenska intressen alltjämt bedöms vara relativt lågt, vore det naivt att tro att det som har hänt i våra grannländer inte kan hända också här.”

Jag utgöt mig åt en person på nätet, i ren uppgivenhet och trötthet, vilken svarade (på engelska, min översättning):

”Rigida och konservativa personer sådana som Carl Bildt vill ha fiender. Nu när det kalla kriget är över och det inte finns några krig i Europa att sticka sin näsa i, vill de ha terrorister. Det finns inga terroristhot och terrorister kan aldrig förebyggas hur stor arsenal av förtryckande vapen och teknologi det än finns. Vad de gör är att få människor rädda därför att rädda personer är lättare att kontrollera. Det är hela idén bakom det.”

Ja, det är en variant av chockterapin som Naomi Klein skriver om i ”Chockdoktrinen”??? Hör dessa ting ihop?? Folk ska hållas tysta och lugna och snälla, med droger av olika slag?

Se tidigare inlägg under kategorin "shock therapy" och "shock doctrine". Och tidigare inlägg om "Andnöd".

I wikipedia står det om förtryck/oppression:

“Oppression is the act of using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another. It is particularly closely associated with nationalism and derived social systems, wherein identity is built by antagonism to the other. The term itself derives from the idea of being ‘weighted down.’”

Se ”More about touching and the need for attention…” och Alice Miller om de politiska konsekvenserna av kränkningar/övergrepp/misshandel på barn.

More about touching and the need for attention...

two men hugging (how cute they are! :-))

Swiftly: I had got an email from a Norwegian friend this morning, with a text written by a British author, about the boarding school system and the effects of it (om internatskolor på svenska och norska kostskolor). In the bottom of this posting the text (in Norwegian) and a summary I have tried to write in English.

The author writes, that the boarding schools have been so effective in their forming of the kids, that an attack on them becomes like an attack on all those who have passed this school-system through. The most miserable victims are the system’s most angry defenders. But I would add that the problems probably have started earlier in life, already at home with the relation to the parents or other caregivers. And on top of this children are separated from parents they haven't got the support or respect from as they should have gotten? They have no real, genuine ground to build on. And they probably react to this in different ways; some (or many) by hardening themselves against all, everyone and everything? But functions socially and behaves normally, are capable of doing that (have learnt a role)?

See Jan Guilliou's "Evil" (based on a book)! Guilliou was cruelly hit by his stepfather.

The author writes (my translation):

“How may times haven’t I heard maimed or ‘cut off’ people [stympade människor på svenska] saying ‘I wasn’t damaged by this’?"

Here some tips: see the book “The Making of Them – the British Attitude to Children and the Making of the Boarding School System” by Nick Duffell (in its entirety?).

And also “Boarding School Survivors – workshops for men and women”. At this site it stands:

"Boarding School Survivors was founded in 1990 and has two principal activities:
Firstly, in order to raise public consciousness, they research, lecture, write, and broadcast about the psychological effects of sending children away to school, and the social system which has encouraged this process.

Secondly, they run a programme of therapeutic workshops for adults who have recognised that they may have paid a price for their education, and are looking for ways to understand and heal their wounds. These courses, which have been running for over ten years, receive referrals from GPs, community organisations and counsellors, and have benefited many people, by allowing them to leave aspects of their past behind, and to develop their true potential.

The founder, Nick Duffell, is an accredited psychotherapist registered with UKCP, a supervisor, freelance trainer and a Sexual Grounding Therapist. Boarding School Survivors is an organisational member of the British Association for Counselling. "

See this site. And about "Public Schools and the Platonic Ideal". And about "Unsentimental Education".

Also see “Imperial Reckoning - The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya” by Caroline Elkins.

And once again what Alice Miller on the political consequences of child abuse.

And at last an article in the Gazette about that "Children need touching...", where it for instance stands (my italics in the texts below):

"Instead of letting infants cry, American parents should keep their babies close, console them when they cry, and bring them to bed with them, where they'll feel safe, according to Michael L. Commons and Patrice M. Miller, researchers at the Medical School's Department of Psychiatry.

The pair examined childrearing practices here and in other cultures and say the widespread American practice of putting babies in separate beds -- even separate rooms -- and not responding quickly to their cries may lead to incidents of post-traumatic stress and panic disorders when these children reach adulthood.

The early stress resulting from separation causes changes in infant brains that makes future adults more susceptible to stress in their lives, say Commons and Miller./.../

The pair say that American childrearing practices are influenced by fears that children will grow up dependent. But they say that parents are on the wrong track: physical contact and reassurance will make children more secure and better able to form adult relationships when they finally head out on their own.

'We've stressed independence so much that it's having some very negative side effects,' Miller said."

Maybe it is the opposite: if (small) children get respect from their parents, if they have been taken up when they are crying, and been allowed to sleep in the same room as their parents and maybe even in the same bed (respecting boundaries and integrity of the child) they develop to truly, genuinely independent individuals? With a sound, healthy independence? Where the individual can function both on her/his own and together with others??

The article ends like this:

"...other factors have helped form our childrearing practices, including fears that children would interfere with sex if they shared their parents' room and doctors' concerns that a baby would be injured by a parent rolling on it if the parent and baby shared the bed. Additionally, the nation's growing wealth has helped the trend toward separation by giving families the means to buy larger homes with separate rooms for. The result, Commons and Miller said, is a nation that doesn't like caring for its own children, a violent nation marked by loose, nonphysical relationships.

'I think there's a real resistance in this culture to caring for children,' Commons said. But 'punishment and abandonment has never been a good way to get warm, caring, independent people.'"

At last the article in Norwegian:

"Britiske privatskoler skaper en klassekultur av et slag som er ukjent i resten av Europa. Det ekstreme eksemplet er internatskolene som skiller barn fra foreldrene ved åtteårsalderen for å forme dem til medlemmer av en fjern elite. I boka ’The Making of Them’ viser psykoterapeuten Nick Duffell [se också om boarding school överlevare] hvordan disse kunstig foreldreløse overlever tapet av familien ved å distansere seg fra følelser av kjærlighet og tilknytning. Overlevelse innebærer ’en ekstrem herding av normal menneskelig mykhet, en alvorlig avskjæring fra følelser og følsomhet’. De er ute av stand til å knytte seg til folk (nære vennskap med andre barn hindres av en morbid homofili-frykt), og blir i stedet oppmuntret til å gi sin naturlige lojalitet til institusjonen.

Dette gjorde dem til ekstremt effektive kolonitjenere: Om kommandanten beordret det, kunne de organisere en massakre uten et øyeblikks nøling (jamfør offiserene som slo ned Mau Mau-opprøret, gjengitt i Caroline Elkins' bok ’Britain's Gulag’). Det betød også at lavere klasser hjemme kunne slås ned på uten den minste bekymring. I mange år har Storbritannia blitt styrt av avstumpede mennesker [anser hon!??].

Jeg gikk gjennom dette systemet selv, og jeg vet jeg vil måtte stri med virkningene av det hele resten av livet. Men en av de nyttige ferdighetene det har gitt meg er evnen til å gjenkjenne det hos andre. Jeg kan gjenkjenne et tidligere internatbarn på 200 meters hold - jeg kan se og lukte skaden dryppe fra dem som svette. Konservative regjeringer var proppfulle av dem - selv i John Majors 'klasseløse' regjering hadde 16 av de 20 mannlige medlemmene av 1993-regjeringen gått på privatskole, 12 av dem på internatskole. Privat utdannede dominerer politikken, embetsverket, rettsvesenet, militæret, finansverden, mediene, kunsten, universitetene, de mest prestisjefylte profesjonene - til og med, som vi har sett, overvåkningsorganet for frivillige organisasjoner. De gjenkjenner hverandre, frykter de uformede menneskene fra statssystemet, og gir sine privilegier videre til folk som dem selv, ofte uten å være klar over det.

Systemet er beskyttet av taushet. Fordi privatskolene har vært så effektive med å forme barnas sinn blir et angrep på skolen til et angrep på alle som har gått gjennom den. De ynkeligste ofrene blir systemets argeste forsvarere. Hvor mange ganger har jeg hørt avstumpede mennesker erklære at 'jeg tok aldri noen skade av det'?"

---

“Children are separated from their families at 8 years old to be formed to the coming elite. They survive the loss of the family with distancing themselves from feelings of love and attachment. Survival means ‘an extreme hardening of normal human softness, a serious screening for emotions and flexibility (accommodation)’. They are incapable of attaching to people (near friendships with other children are hindered by a morbid fear for hemophilia) and they are encouraged to give their natural loyalty to the institutions instead.

This makes them extremely loyal colony-servants; if the commander orders it they are capable of organizing a massacre without (any) hesitation."

The author thinks Great Britain is governed by maimed people. He has gone this system through himself and thinks he has to struggle with the consequences of it the rest of his life. But one advantage is that he recognizes another victim on 200 meters distance.

"Privately educated are dominating politics, governments offices, the judicial system, the military, the finance-world, the media, the art, the colleges, the most prestigious professions… They recognize each others; fear the unformed human beings from the state system and give their privileges to people like themselves, often without being aware of it.

The system is protected by silence.”

My maternal grandmother and her siblings lived during the school-year in something which was called "arbetsstuga", in a village called Korpilombolo (I think), so they wera also separated from their parents and family for long periods. How was that? After WWII they ("arbetsstugorna") were called "eftermiddagshem" and later "fritidshem."