[Updated June 30]. Yes, why do we? And why do we tend not to question it? Why do we tend to look up on people in power and have small and sometimes non-existing demands on them? And at the same time have big demands on those under, those with no or little power? Why don't we question (high) demands on those latter (but on the former)? Where are the roots?
How can we make fair and justified demands on ALL people?
Do we even sometimes have the right to make higher demands on those in power? The more demands the more power they get? At least if they have power over our lives!? But as fellow human beings we should have the same demands on all people, no matter their position in the society, rich or poor!?
Why aren't we capable of making those distinctions? On justified demands that has nothing with people's position to do.
Why don't we see clearer than we do? because I think many of us are more or less blindly admiring.
Is it because we weren't allowed to really see how our early caretakers were, what they did, question what they did etc.?
Are we doomed being forever incapable in seeing things through (seeing the power through for instance every time it's needed, as the child in The Emperor's New Clothes)?
Addition June 30:Sigrun wrote about class in a blogposting yesterday, the class you belong to and what this class-belonging means.
She had read a couple of comments on an article in a Norwegian newspaper about a right wing politician retired because of sickness. She complained that the social insurance becomes reduced with five percent because she receives compensation as representative in the board for the community where she lives.
Sigrun doesn't think that the few crowns it's about in this case is any problem. She thinks it's even worse when people with such tasks don't become paid at all, but maybe even have to pay from their own purse.
But after this comes what I thought was even more interesting:
Sigrun thinks it's probably much easier for unable to work coming from a middle-class background to become recruited in resource-strong organizations as political parties, than for unable to work with a less resource-strong background.
Journalists (as those on this Norwegian paper) probably don't understand this, because they are identifying themselves easier with middle-class people.
“Just over a fifth of people take a 'traditional egalitarian' and primarily needs-based view of inequality, which is sceptical about the claims of the rich and supportive of the claims of the poor.
A similar proportion support a traditional free market pro-inequality argument that both the better-off and the poor have broadly got what they deserve. So redistribution is rejected as unfairly taking from the deserving (rich) to the undeserving (poor).”
Which means that those latter (not the former??) are supporting that demands are made on the poor – but not on the rich!!! Something I have been confronted with! And haven't understood. I was just taken aback with astonishment and became totally speechless.
Shouldn't we AT LEAST make the same demands on both, and/or ALL??? And Pippi Longstocking said something in the style:
“If you are very strong you have to be very kind.”
Anna Luise Kirkengen (among many) are talking about power imbalance and what sort of responsibility that comes for the one with more power.
And I also wonder where do such attitudes come from where you associate with the strong, powerful on behalf of the weak, powerless? However, I have my thoughts about this...
[Slightly edited and updated February 24]. Anja on the blog Do nothing day writes in the blogposting "Now it is here at last" about a news paper that has started (or rather an old paper that has restarted or become reconstructed; a really needed counterweight to the almost dominant liberal and bourgeois press in Sweden today), something I thought was so well said, starting her post with quoting a journalist, Petter Larsson, when he writes that (in my free translation)
"...the political democracy – that the people are governing itself – demands economical and social equality to become real."
Anja reflects on this and writes (in my free translation)
“…this sentence summarizes a non bourgeois attitude, and the ideological ground on which the socialism and the social democracy rests. The idea that democracy is the inviolable, indivisible atom the society is [or ought to be] built up by – and this democracy demands equality to be working, to be a democracy in whole [If there is no or little equality it's no real democracy]. It says itself.
Democracy is built upon that all human beings have the same possibilities to exercise their democratic rights and duties. If a human being is in the point of an economically or socially weak (disadvantageous) position one easily lands in an unavoidable power relation to the ones having the superior (advantageous) position. This is pretty simple and easy to understand.
So the problem at the bottom, when the bourgeoisie wants to re-establish the society’s inequalities from the time before the democracy’s introduction in Sweden (before 1921) [as they are doing now, also see earlier posting on ‘The Neoliberalism and the school…’], is that the bourgeoisie never has been especially fond of the democracy-concept, something they have tried to pretend, however.”
Addition February 24:Petter Larsson writes (a little freely):
”What we see now is how old, bad ideas have gotten a renaissance inan increasingly arrogant bourgeoisie./…/
When people are starting to be worn out (whacked) they are scolded for being cheaters, work shy and simulants and are chased to work [divide and rule/conquer, polarize people, play them out against each other; and that sort of leadership is unhealthy, not really sound]. And when people have fled from violence and oppression they have been sent back to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then it’s time to gainsay and formulate alternatives.”
Yes, how well said, what too many leaders and people in power positions (the ruling classes) show is arrogance, he said it! And also contempt for weakness, beating their breasts, as we say, or swaggering (blowing their own trumpets). And they don't hide it today. It's opportune showing this and saying these things out loud. And on top they pretend that what they do is "for our own good"! And play on many people's tendencies in this direction. The people doesn't now what their own good is!? As arrogant leaders know??Quite ironically.
"Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis!!!"
President Barack Obama in argument against the American (and Swedish) right's idea that tax cuts can take us out of the economic crisis.
Lena Nyberg spoke about adults in school and thinks the competence in the personnel is altogether crucial.
I agree. Something we need to develop, and need help developing, and talking about we working in the school or with young people in health care etc.
She thinks that it is important that adults manage to see the students. Children need to be seen and motivated she says. So we need to see ourselves in the first place (my addition).
“Today the school most often has an adult perspective I think is very out-of-date, obsolete. We shall raise our kids to independent individuals, who can call things/phenomena in question, be critical, curious and eager to learn. Besides they shall gradually be competitive in a European and international world, and put Sweden on the map.
Against this we have a school system where the idea in many respect is that the students shall be quiet, disciplined and do as they are told. This doesn’t fit together so to speak.”
she declares and looks like a real warrior!!!!
“We need an entirely new school debate!
Yes, a school debate where important questions about the basis of values [värdegrundsfrågor] are at the focus.”
She asks for a mutual respect between us adults and our children and young people. My comment: But it is this with power imbalance. So this with showing respect lies more on the adult… Or the greatest responsibility in this respect lies on the adult.
She also speaks about children’s right to culture. She thinks aesthetic learning processes are interesting, as well as their connection to the article 12 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the article she thinks is a great tool when we shall meet children’s and young people’s needs.
It reads as follows:
Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
For Lena it is evident that children are entitled to culture and different ways of expressing themselves. An important tool helping them to create a better self-esteem and thus a greater safety, as she expresses it.
I agree. And this goes along with ideas like the ones in Reggio Emilia for instance. And her ideas about respect for the child with the work in the Summerhill school.
When it comes to the spare time and sports sector she has a clear opinion.
“The children and young people of our time are consumers. If there is money there is a great selection of spare time, but the risk is that we get a dividing up between those who can afford and those who can’t afford.
The sports activities play an important role. /…/
My only wish is that they [the ones responsible there] could better meet each individual’s needs, so that each one can continue with her/his big interest so long as he/she wishes and that one became even better in reaching more children and young people.”
It suddenly struck me yesterday in the middle of everything (there has been a couple of articles about aesthetic expressions and occupations recently, maybe because of coming changes in our gymnasium education that are announced) about the ones in power in Sweden today (the politicians, especially in our current government): do they begrudge young people being alive, free, autonomous, self-secure in a healthy and genuine way?
That they (the ones in power) aren't genuinely alive, free, autonomous, is that why they are now talking so much (entirely) about discipline, grades etc.??? And not about other solutions? And is that he reason why they see the problems in school as they see?
But we aren't born in this way. We weren't born emotionally numb or dead. We became that way. But we don't have to continue being like this. However, the work to recover can be really tough. Really, really tough. Think if we hadn't become harmed in the first place! Thinking loudly here...
Sidetrack: people should become encouraged to raise their voices instead of the opposite!? Even if their language isn't perfect! Their spelling and grammar has flaws. How many voices aren't silenced? How many voices aren't censored that shouldn't have been censored? And are there people screaming loudly and taking up all the space that maybe shouldn't have all this space? Why do they need all this space? Quite ironic.
I know of a girl struggling with everything on her own. Trying to understand, to develop on her own. Afraid of taking too much space, feeling shame and gilt because she did. Whose fault was this actually?
form a strong alliance of human rights agencies, key individuals and non-governmental organisations against corporal punishment;
make corporal punishment of children visible by building a global map of its prevalence and legality, ensuring that children's views are heard and charting progress towards ending it;
lobby state governments systematically to ban all forms of corporal punishment and to develop public education programmes;
provide detailed technical assistance to support states with these reforms.
It struck me after watching a TV-programme about the financial crisis, that when one says that one has learned something from the crisis after 1929, one means in first hand that one now has rescued the economical elite.
After the crash 1929 the politicians tried to apply a liberal economic policy, not saving any banks but letting them go bankrupt, cutting taxes and saving on public expenses. This was the method then.
This caused a super depression. Instead one started to apply Keynes ideas and in USA the New Deal was introduced which was about paying money to unemployed and poor, through investing in public activities and infrastructure which created jobs for all those unemployed. The result was a recovery in the economy. After this the war (WWII) of course came.
This time (today) one obviously try to guarantee the bank customers’ depositions and the banks' continued existence, so one can escape from redistributing any resources in the societies and escape investing in the public sector. (You so to say buy the middle class!!?? And sacrifice the poorest in the societies!? Because this the power elite can handle!?).
The democracy can manage a 2/3 society, without that the economical elites will have to give up or fear anything, but a 1/3 society becomes a serious threat.
This the governments can't risk?? So if the power can calm those people (the middle class?) down they don’t have to fear anything?? How utterly cynical???
[Updated October 5]. I have referred to what Anna Luise Kirkengen has written about a young woman suffering from an aggressive arthritis, with several rheumasurgical interventions and a strumectomy (in Swedish below). After her first delivery she became psychotic.
Psychiatrists didn’t want to believe that she had been raped and earlier also exposed to sexual abuse as a child, until she met a young doctor in training, who listened and believed her. The recovery came very quickly. Read here about what I have referred to below in Swedish.
---
Den norska läkaren Anna Luise Kirkengen skriver på sidan 96 i sin bok ””Inscribed Bodies” om den norske psykiatrikern Tormod Huseby som berättat om ett fall på en psykiatrisk klinik, med en kvinna som från tidig barndom led av aggressiv artrit (det finns olika former av artrit, bland annat reumatoid artrit, se också s.k. muskelreumatism). Vid 23 års ålder var hon helt handikappad av kronisk smärta, hade genomgått åtskilliga kirurgiska ingrepp för sina reumatiska besvär och hade genomgått en strumaoperation (om jag fattar begreppen rätt).Om struma se här.
När hon fick sitt första barn vid 25 års ålder blev hon psykotisk, med syn- och hörselhallucinationer. Och när hon tillfrisknade från detta insisterade hon på att bli steriliserad. Återkom med självmordstankar, psykotisk och förlorat medvetande. Till slut fick hon diagnoserna ”schizofren, paranoid personlighet, kronisk.”
Vid 29 års ålder remitterades hon till en långtidsbehandling på grund av terapiresistens (motstånd, icke mottaglighet för terapi) och en dålig prognos.
Denna nya relation förde dock fram nya aspekter. När den unge doktorn åter läste hennes journal blev det uppenbart att vid varje besök på psykiatrisk klinik berättade hon att hon hade blivit våldtagen. Denna historia hade upprepat tolkats som ”symbolisk för patientens livssituation”!! Dvs. inte som reella, faktiska fakta!!
Men nu blev faktiska sexuella övergrepp och en svår våldtäkt gradvis avtäckta. En vecka efter att våldtäktsmannen blivit identifierad var kvinnan inte längre psykotisk. Hennes mardrömmar upphörde, hennes sömn förbättrades, hennes depression försvann. Sju månader senare blev hon utskriven "enbart" hänvisad till ett lokalt stödjande nätverk.
Exakt vid det tillfälle då hon kände sig trygg och säker på att det hon berättade skulle mötas med ett öppet sinne, kom en detaljerad beskrivning av hennes synintryck, påträngande lukter, ljud och smaker upp. Hon beskrev förövaren som hon inte kände, men vilken hon talade om och namngav varje gång, så att hennes mamma kunde identifiera honom. När det var möjligt att knyta våldtäkten till denna man kom diskrepans vad gällde tidsangivelse upp, vilket i sin tur indikerar övergreppshändelser före denna våldtäkt.
Gång på gång bekräftas detta i samarbete mellan patienten, hennes mamma (vilken bra mamma!!!?) och hennes terapeut. Våldtäktsmannen och barndomsförövaren (jag tror det var flera förövare, nära anhöriga) identifieras och patienten blir avsevärt bättre inom loppet av några få dagar för varje steg i processen av att minnas, tala och bekräfta.
Patientens symtom har tidigare hela tiden blivit tolkade helt enligt psykiatrisk teori! Och alltså ansedda falska.
Kirkengen skriver (i min något fria översättning) att:
”Så länge psykiatrin definierar individen som platsen och källan för galenskapen, så styr psykiatrin sina ögon bort från galenskapen i mänskliga relationer och också bort från sociala tabun och maktasymmetrier sanningen att säga, i vilka vissa människor tar så mycket plats att andra blir deformerade genom deras inflytande.
Det är troligt att en dogmatisk[närmast religiös!!?] attityd gentemot det som måste vara sant [att patienten i symbolisk form talar om något i dennas/dennes nuvarande livssituatin, istället för något som skett, och kanske skett långt tillbaka. Och klienten/patienten talar för kanske helt döva öron, gång på gång på gång? Och kanske renav börjar tvivla på sina egna sinnesintryck. För det klienten berättar kan inte vara sant!? Men denna attityd från de 'professionella' kanske handlar mer om dem och deras egna erfarenheter än klientens? De kan helt enkelt inte ta in fakta och deras 'avnämare' blir offrade istället och har blivit offrade gång på gång i psykiatri och terapi över hela världen?], tvingar psykiatriker att ignorera relevant information för att upprätthålla klassifikationssystemet gällande 'individualiserad mental bristfällighet'.”
In a review on a dissertation “Att leva som utbränd” or “Living as burnout” by Mia-Marie Hammarlin it stands (my maybe a little free translation):
“Being burnout is feminized with the help of media, where the word ‘burnout’ gets a clear low status face – the middle age woman in public sector. Men retire to loneliness [solitude] and seem to be afraid of the connection with shame [and nerve weaknesses]. ‘Real chaps don’t get stricken with nerve weaknesses.’”
This review triggered a lot of thoughts and emotions, not only connected to the topic burnout. Here are some of those reactions and thoughts. It resulted in a lot of threads. And will maybe result in more postings than this one. So this posting is loudly thinking once again, and in many directions.
Even if it isn’t straight outspoken one can hear (or is this projection, a symbolic reaction/interpretation from my part?):
“What weakling you are! Why not just… One can seek oneself to other environments! To get more healthy and sound you have to seek yourself to a healthy and sound environment![what that is? If it exists and where.]”
The contempt for weakness - and for all those incapable of controlling themselves!! Something we have seen here around the debate about social insurances, things I am reacting very strongly and angrily at.
Women are since long schooled to stay (vistas) in powerless places it stood in the review. 35 years ago women overly trained in a traditional patriarchal pattern went right out into the public sector and was locked in there. Their own fault? How stupid of them! Blaming themselves too: How stupid of me! My own fault! I should have been able to handle it better! See the Primary defence.
The author of the dissertation seems to mean that being burnout is deeply embedded in sex and class problems. And wonders if depression and diffuse aches and pains can be an expression for female dissatisfaction, if these things can’t be seen as downright political actions, as a sort of demonstrations.
I don’t know, maybe they are, but if so not consciously?
And the reviewer writes that she wants to scream
“OF COURSE!”
as a reply, and she also hear a choir of female anger, furiously filling in in her scream.
Yes, reading this triggered a lot of thoughts and probably emotions around things that have happened and things I have experienced recently!!
And all these phenomena are there for to protect the ones reacting (reacting with contempt and rejection, wanting to educate and maybe also punish the ones not having any “stake” as we say) against the truth, a too painful truth, a SO painful truth so we need to protect ourselves against it. Seeing it from the Miller-point-of-view!
But these protections (or defences) turn to problems, not only for ourselves but also for other people (self-destructiveness and destructiveness), so if not sooner we ought to work on this now as adults. Because they can result and have resulted in political decisions with grave and severe consequences and continue to result in such things.
Thinking further and loudly in an attempt to understand and grasp these phenomena (how can people be so stupid and insensitive?): And contempt for weakness is also a protection: a protection against the realization and to this connected feelings on HOW in fact powerless the child once was and how this power and helplessness was used by the ones that were/are supposed to care for us the most. Realizations we and many want to avoid at all costs. With all what that means.
In circles where people are supposed to be enlightened I have heard things in the style and with the meaning (in my feeling and interpretation):
“But take yourself in the collar!! The question is about seeking oneself to an environment which is healthier, with healthier people.”
And if one doesn’t succeed in this… Then one is only to blame oneself? And I have heard from those (men) that it’s the mothers’ fault how things are. Yes, that’s true, the mother is the first one in a child’s life… Does this mean that dads – and men – have no responsibilities thus?
But don’t we all have responsibilities each one of us, and the same responsibilities and should also have the exact same demands on us, no more or no less, whether we are women or men? And especially as or if we are grown ups! We all have responsibilities to contribute in making things better, and each of us have a responsibility for ourselves? And exactly the same responsibility?
But then, if we actually have those means in all circumstances is another question and to what degree? The structures can contribute to less power – in some circumstances? Oh, what am I after?
The more power you have the more harm you can do? And some don’t have any other power than the one over their children!
Fields of Gold.
You'll remember me when the west wind moves Upon the fields of barley You'll forget the sun in his jealous sky As we walk in fields of gold So she took her love for to gaze awhile Upon the fields of barley In his arms she fell as her hair came down Among the fields of gold
Will you stay with me, will you be my love Among the fields of barley? We'll forget the sun in his jealous sky As we lie in fields of gold See the west wind move like a lover so Upon the fields of barley Feel her body rise when you kiss her mouth Among the fields of gold
I never made promises lightly And there have been some that I've broken But I swear in the days still left We'll walk in fields of gold We'll walk in fields of gold
Many years have passed since those summer days Among the fields of barley See the children run as the sun goes down Among the fields of gold You'll remember me when the west wind moves Upon the fields of barley You can tell the sun in his jealous sky When we walked in fields of gold When we walked in fields of gold When we walked in fields of gold
“In treatment, the psychotherapist is in a position of power. Often, this power is unintentionally abused. While trying to embody a compassionate concern for patients, therapists use accepted techniques that can inadvertently lead to control, indoctrination, and therapeutic failure. Contrary to the stated tradition and values of psychotherapy, they subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them.
The more gross kinds of patient abuse, deliberate ones such as sexual and financial exploitation, are expressly forbidden by professional organizations [but they occur nevertheless]. However, there are no regulations discouraging the more covert [hemliga, dolda] forms of manipulation, which are not even considered exploitative by many clinicians. In this book, noted psychiatrist Theo. L. Dorpat strongly disagrees [with that they aren't exploitative, which he thinks they are?]. Using a contemporary interactional perspective, Dorpat demonstrates the destructive potential of manipulation and indoctrination in treatment.”
”Few authors who have written about Hitler have understood the deeply damaging effects of psychic trauma on his private life and the way he functioned in the public sphere. Nearly all major biographers have neglected the importance of Hitler's childhood trauma and his later combat trauma during World War I. In Wounded Monster, Dorpat demonstrates how extreme emotional and physical abuse from his father, and his unusually long combat service during the Great War became the most formative influences of his life, resulting in severe, life-long, psychiatric disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. It is the first book to apply contemporary trauma theory to explain Hitler's malevolence [elakhet, illvilja].
This psychiatric biography of Hitler is the only work to discuss the central importance of his vulnerability to shame emotions, as well as the trauma-induced construction of an extensive repertoire of mainly unconscious mechanisms (including fight and flight) for the avoidance of feelings of shame.”
“I behandling är psykoterapeuten i en maktposition. Ofta missbrukas denna oavsiktligt. Medan terapeuter försöker förkroppsliga ett medkännande bekymmer för patienter [vara medkännande), använder de accepterade tekniker som oavsiktligt keder till kontroll, indoktrinering och terapeutiskt misslyckande [bristfällig terapi]. Tvärtemot den tradition och de värderingar som uppges eller läggs fram i psykoterapi, tvingar de [dock] patienter subtilt snarare än att respektera och genuint hjälpa dem.
De grövre överlagda, avsiktliga formerna av missbruk av patienter, som sexuellt och finansiellt utnyttjande, är uttryckligen förbjudna av yrkesorganisationer/fackorganisationer [men de förekommer ändå och kanske oftare än vi tror?]. Men det finns dock ingen reglering som avskräcker/hindrar de mer dolda, hemliga formerna av manipulation, vilka inte ens ses som utnyttjande eller exploatering av många kliniker [kliniskt praktiserande]. I sin bok är Theo L. Dorpat starkt oense med detta [med att de inte är utnyttjande, exploaterande, vilket han tycker att de är?]. Genom att använda samtidiga växelverkande perspektiv, visar Dorpat den destruktiva potentialen i manipulation och indoktrinering i [mången] behandling.”
Miller writes about when the ability is awoken (arisen) in the client to question and criticize, the therapist need to be able to handle this (my interpretation). And there it’s very important he (she) has worked her (his) things through to that degree so he (she) knows what he (she) is reacting on.
Abusive patients at Janov’s center, how come? Why? Empathy for ones self is said to make one more empathic for other people, what the hypothesis is… What’s wrong here? Is it the method or help which it is something “wrong” or faulty with?
What is true, genuine communication? Doesn’t moderators have to motivate their decisions?
People “exposed” to Janov’s method do they start to use defenses, because their feelings are so overwhelming? And would it be better if they still lived in real life during the therapy as a former patient suggested? Having access to real life, living in real life, and not among other people struggling and triggering things in each other?
I am wondering…
People rejected from ourchildhood.int seem to have committed suicide…
Aren’t those topics important to bring to surface and out in public? If there is nothing to hide I don’t understand what would be the problem??
But people abused perhaps need safe places to discuss this on, not going out in public?? But some are probably capable of going out in public!? And those are probably the less early harmed, or those who have been able to process what they have been exposed to… The more callous handles this "better"?? And the less callous worse? Are there people needing to become rehabilitated?? I think there is... Hearing that other people have been abused? In a similar way as those at Janov's center???
See earlier post about Janov's center... I think one can (and shall) have high demands on moderators, not least on a list calling itself Alice Miller's list... Even if Miller herself doesn't agree to this?
In a similar manner as you should have higher demands on all those in power... As we teachers!! Towards our pupils and students. Of course this doesn't mean we can't get abused by those under us. Because we can and we are??
But this is another question (though not unimportant I guess)... How to handle this professionally. Both as individual and as organization?? So we don't meet abuse with abuse...?
PS. That people have been abused by Alice Miller's team doesn't gain her ideas or herself. And I will claim people have been abused. If anything this must confuse (already confused)!!! Miller wrote herself (in the translation Barbara Rogers made, from French?) about confusing people by motivating a rejection/refusal... How does she mean I wonder?
And that moderators are nothing but ordinary human beings with good and bad sides are no excuse at all!!?? How many abusers doesn't claim this? But we are used to hear such explanations...
No, these things doesn't gain Miller or her ideas!!! She would gain on handling things differently!?
But it's maybe so that she (and members of her team, who that team now consist of) hasn't understood that there exist Internet-trolls at the net?? And how do one separate who are trolls from those who aren't? A key-question maybe or possibly? (and by the way; what do they suffer from?? Who are abusive in that way?).
Addition March 13: I read something in the style
"Silence is friend of the perpetrator."
Slideshow above from rehearsal with choir March 12. It became a long working-day yesterday. Was home at 21.30 (9:30 PM)...
”Ett gyllene talesätt är att det är ’sak och inte person’ som bör diskuteras i alla diskussionsforum. Så länge argument kan bemötas på ett sakligt och konstruktivt sätt uppstår oftast inga problem.”
My amateur-translation about Internet-trolls from the Swedish part of wikipedia:
"A golden mode of expression is that it is 'thing not person' that ought to be discussed in all discussion-forums. So long as arguments can be met on a unbiased (??) and constructive way no problems usually arises."
Very, very silently (I hope noone hears this, but I need to express it?): how tired I am... Of all and everything... Only intelligent people "göre sig besvär" for some... (I wonder what the English translation of this is??) Smiling till the smile feels like a grimace, very, very stiff, not natural at all... No warmth in the eyes, just tiredness... It's not only the bright or intelligent who counts among all kids and young people I am working with, that's at least what I try, making no differences (how successful I am in this I guess other people have to judge about. And will underline that I am no angel, and don't want to be seen as such! Or do I maybe???)... Neither those young nor grown ups have to be enlightened either to deserve being rejected or counted on so long as they don't harm anyone...
Struggling to be liked - what's that about? Struggling so one gets totally exhausted... Is that harming other people actually? They maybe get irritated though?? (but who is that irritation about??). A lot of thoughts here in the evening...
The one struggling till she (he) gets blue - why is she (he)?? To get a love (or only being accepted, not striving for higher goals than just being accepted)? What love? A love that doesn't exist? Or a love that in fact exists, but which the person in question isn't capable of seeing (because she/he puts her/him so low)? Striving for people who maybe don't deserve all those efforts - at all even?? Tragedies... Maybe walking a whole long life not seeing what was in reach?
In a pause between two schools, a pause longer than it use to be. Home for a cup of coffee and some writing.
”Don’t come here with your insecurity!”
a man said to a woman (by the way I wonder if this woman should have happened to be more secure on herself in another situation, or even very secure on herself in another, that wouldn't be good either??).
I came to think about taking responsibility for ones own things… For oneself and ones projections… However, probably not easy.
Who tend to question themselves? In general? And who are (maybe) less prone in questioning themselves?
Defended (in a certain way) are less prone?
Are some more forced to questioning themselves (oh, this English: was this right? "to questioning"?), because of the state of affairs? Because of the different roles we (still) play in the society?
As little as the man is my (early) dad, I am as little any grown up man’s mom… I am an entirely other grown up woman and person and human being. And I try the best I can (with more or less success) to take responsibility for my own things… And I am both insecure and less insecure in certain things and situations…
On the bike to the first school: blaming oneself… How was it with the Primary defense? Some are nearer to blaming themselves and taking the blame on themselves (even when there is no reason)!? Some are denying this side not only to the environment but also to themselves? And when those are stating to behave differently: not taking the blame on themselves, that can cause (strong) reactions in the environment, which thinks it's convenient with this tendency in this person...
And who are the ones most inclined seeking help? Isn’t it the ones that are admitting to their problems? And there are more women seeking help in therapy and counseling than men. At least here in Sweden.
And I think Anja is right: the perpetrator can't blame the bystander that he (she) committed crimes (of different degrees) "Why didn't you prevent me from doing this??" even if that is probably very convenient!? Not least if this is a an attempt to push responsibility away.
But (if I remember right) Jennifer Freyd writes in her book that it's maybe even more painful realizing you have been betrayed (if a mom hasn't intervened when a father has committed sexual abuse on a child).
And how was it now with scapegoats? Acting and reacting at scapegoats? And about symbolizing? We probably do this all of us to different degrees... And this certainly causes a lot and has caused a lot. Even wars!!
And I also thought about a raised awareness in society in general about those things: child abuse, in all its aspects/respects... Even emotional abuse and what that causes too.
There is still a Societal denial to a HIGH degree!?? I read the article I linked yesterday, about stigma... Of course childhood wasn't mentioned! Different topics (and he explanations to them) are still pretty "abstract"!?? As if phenomena comes from the blue or nowhere (or from genes, innate drives, our innate characters etc.)...
And I am reacting strongly at the moralizing politicians we have too (how were their childhoods? What are they playing out now??), not least in our current government... The neo-conservativeness, and a neo-morality...
No, now coffee...
Additionafter lunch: in the Swedish magazine ETC there was an article today about the Master Suppression techniques and a new book about these... The interviewer in the article asked:
-Why is it so wrong to handle a taxing ruler (master) through an emotional outburst?"
-It offers the ruler a possibility of pressing one down even further. If you are attacking the ruler can say 'Oh, how aggressive you are!' ('You don't have to be aggressive!' I have heard as an advice when I have been upset about something, and wanted to deal with it, as if it is a great risk I would be!? And - what does 'aggressive' actually means in this circumstance? I am not allowed to be angry? I wonder how many that see me as 'aggressive' and attacking in real life? Addition at 7:15 PM: have just seen a café-program at TV. As it is International Women's Day tomorrow there was talk about that. A female politician played a tune on piano, a song they sang 30 years ago with the title "Why are birds having so weak voices?").
And if you are defending yourself the reply can be 'Oh, how sensitive you are!'
What you ought to do is to mirror the situation, and when you are doing this you suppose the ruler maybe isn't aware of that you a moment ago were oppressed. Pose counter-questions as for instance 'What do you mean by that?'
No matter where you are, who you are or what you are working with (or doing) you don't deserve being ruled over the author (a young woman) thinks.
She also refers to Berit Ås, and according to Ås the Master Suppression techniques are an instrument of force men uses to still more fortify the woman's suborder. And why do men need to demonstrate their power, and to oppress other people, both women and men? And why do men OR women want and need to oppress (even if this is entirely unconscious)?
But she thinks that to assert that there are no other rulers than men would be too stereotyped. Men oppress both women and men. Women oppress both men and women she thinks.
She also means that men usually HAVE space (at workplaces, but I would add not only there), which means they don't have to compete in the same way as women have to (men are competing in other manners?). And women are also often compared with each by men. Woman is put against woman, not competence against competence. Not human value against human value (where all are worth respect as the human being she/he is).
Playing people out against each other is a sort of power-tool too? Is a way of manipulating?? Is a sort of Master Suppression technique or a form of oppression of individuals or a whole group?
But why do we need to oppress other people and have power? From where does this need come?
PS. My youngest sister heard the videos with my pupil, she wrote to me that she thought he had copied my way of playing! Fun! "Softly and melodically and not 'hard'" as she wrote! Hmmm yes, my siblings have really heard my playing!!
PPS. From further reading in the magazine ETC, in a chronicle by the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius who is writing about power exercise too!! And about dominance and suborder. She is referring to Pierre Bourdieu who has said that the man is as little born to dominance as the woman is born to suborder. All this is instead a result of upbringing Bourdieu thinks, the upbringing from the first start of life (maybe already at birth, in how the small baby is treated? Small boys in one way and small girls in another - my addition and wonder).
She thinks this gives us hope!! Because if it is so it is possible to change! My addition: and this isn't only the women's/mother's responsibility, but also the men's/father's!?? Both have as much responsibility as the other part!! Noone more and the other less responsibility for this. And by the way, I have heard that dad (dads in general) had so much responsibility in his (their) work, so... And the strange thing is that that responsibility was much more worth! What they did and who they were was more worth than being with the kids. The first was more valued! (so how much were the kids worth actually??? Neither women no children were counted!?? When you were grown up - then, maybe! But the women were less wort even then!?? Men more worth! But were they seen as human beings either? With feelings etc.?).
Bourdieu studied a nationality in Afghanistan, in which the men wanted to stand out as 'real men' in other men's eyes, as only men were counted (women were not counted, nothing worth). But also women, wives and mothers demanded that the men should act like 'real men', since this raised theirs - and the family's - status.
Bourdieu meant that some forms of manly courage has its origin in fear of losing the group's admiration. Thus what one calls courage has sometimes roots in a form of cowardice!
The theme in this chronicle was honor killing. In Wikipedia it stands about honor killing:
“An honor killing or honour killing is generally a punitive murder, committed by members of a family against a female member of their family whom the family and/or wider community believes to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman is usually targeted for: refusing an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or committing adultery. These killings result from the perception that a woman has behaved in a way that ‘dishonors’ her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.
Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are held to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a way that ‘dishonors’ her family is sufficient to trigger an attack on her life.”
Only a little more than 50 years ago it was shamy becoming pregnant before marriage... The hypocrisy...
Also see this readers' letter at Miller's web, here (not about the topic above though).
In this blog I want to explore the effects of childhood experiences on individual lives, the health (not only the emotional/psychological, but also, and not least, the bodily/somatic), the society, why people seek themselves to power positions, the effect of childhood on politics.
With the ideas that imbue Alice Miller's work and writing.
And sometimes just share things I have read and come across and I agree with and couldn't have said better myself.
I work full time with young people since many years, as teacher in music (piano pedagogue), and am interested in these things, both privately/personally and professionally.
But my time is limited to write and blog, even if it probably doesn't look so.
I will devote myself to loud thinking a lot here I think. And this blog is also a way for me to collect texts, facts, links, sites I want to save for further use maybe.
Makt avslöjar en persons grundläggande moral …
-
View this post on Instagram Och detta gäller på ALLA nivåer. — Related Mer
om självhävdelse – ord för hjärta är också metaforer för styrka, mod,
stolthet, ...
This feed has moved and will be deleted soon. Please update your
subscription now.
-
We've Moved! Update your Reader Now. This feed has moved to:
*http://feeds.feedblitz.com/phdinparenting*
Update your reader now with this changed subscri...
Crisis
-
I suppose some people might wonder why I'm not completely hysterical. Why
would I be hysterical? The building where I've lived for 22 years is
scheduled fo...
-
Pharmaceutical marketing expert witness [image: screen2largeMM]
Dr. Peter Rost is a former Pfizer Marketing Vice President providing
services as a marketi...
Påskuppropet mot sjukförsäkringar
-
Idag var det manifestation. Mycket bra. Jag var där. Mycket bra.
Men någonting gnagde mig på vägen hem. För stämningen var mer uppgiven än
arg, och det ä...
Arbeidet med ny side er i gang!
-
Nå har arbeidet med domeneregistrering og nytt design startet og jeg gleder
meg til jeg kan vise dere resultatet! Det skal bli bra å få Psykiskbloggen
over...
Click on the picture to go to Astrid Lindgren site.
Books I am referring to on this blog:
Bosch, Ingeborg: "Rediscovering the True Self"
Freyd, Jennifer J.: "Betrayal Trauma - The Logic of Forgetting Childhood Abuse" ISBN 0-647-06806-8
Jenson, Jean: "Reclaiming Your Life" ISBN 91-46-17409-5
Kirkengen, Anna Luise: "Hvordan krenkede barn blir syke voksne" ISBN 82-15-00713-9 ("How Abused Children Become Unhealthy Adults")
Kirkengen, Anna Luise: "Inscribed bodies - Health Impact of Childhood Sexual Abuse" ISBN 0-7923-7019-8
Lewis Herman, Judith: "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror" ISBN 086358430-6 (svensk översättning finns: ”Trauma och tillfrisknande” ISBN10: 9197263133, ISBN13: 9789197263139, Förlag: Göteborgs Psykoterapi Institut)
Miller, Alice: "Den dolda nyckeln" ISBN 91-46-15747-6 (The Untouched Key)
Miller, Alice: "Det självutplånande barnet och sökandet efter en äkta identitet" ISBN 91-7643-559-8 (The Drama of the Gifted Child)
Miller, Alice: "Du skall icke märka - variationer över paradistemat" ISBN 91-46-14374-2 (Thou Shalt Not Be Aware)
Miller, Alice: "Riv tigandets mur - sanning byggd på fakta" ISBN 91-46-16022-1 (Breaking Down the Wall of Silence)
Miller, Alice: "The Body Never Lies - The Lingering Effects of Cruel Parenting" ISBN 0-393-06065-9
Miller, Alice: "The Truth Will Set You Free - Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Adult Self" ISBN 0-465-04585-5
Miller, Alice: "Vägar i livet - sju berättelser" ISBN 91-46-17414-1 (Paths of Life - Seven Scenarios)
Pincus, Jonathan H.: "Base Instincts - What Makes Killers Kill?" ISBN 0-393-32323-4
Children baking...
Look, the joy in the children?? Enjoying what they are doing? (illustration from one of the books by Astrid Lindgren, click on the picture to go to her site).
"...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.” "Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection." (Andrew Vachss)
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom." -- "Common Sense", Thomas Paine, January 10, 1776
"Modern education is competitive, nationalistic and separative. It has trained the child to regard material values as of major importance, to believe that his nation is also of major importance and superior to other nations and peoples. The general level of world information is high but usually biased, influenced by national prejudices, serving to make us citizens of our nation but not of the world." (Albert Einstein)
"Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow men in the last fifty years... Given these and other conditions of contemporary civilization, how can one claim that the ‘normal’ man is sane?" (R.D. Laing, 1967)
"Organizations take on characteristics of the people running them./.../ There's always pressure within groups to conform, anyway. The top monkey exerts the most pressure." (Steve Thomas)
"Yet many psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to entertain the idea that society as a whole may be lacking in sanity. They hold that the problem of mental health in a society is only that of the number of 'unadjusted' individuals, and not of a possible unadjustment of the culture itself." (Erich Fromm in The Sane Society, 1955)
When a big kid hits a little kid, we call it bullying. When an adult hits another adult, we call it assault. When the adults in a family hit each other we call it battering or domestic violence. When an adult hits a child we call it discipline..
“Blindness and lack of connectedness whether truly needed or not, are ultimately tragic solutions to life. These adaptations keep us from knowing ourselves and others fully. We end up fragmented both internally and externally – impoverished spiritually and socially /…/ it seriously constrains our human potential /…/ Survivors of childhood sexual abuse and betrayal blindness have learned to cope by being disconnected internally so as to manage a minimal kind of external connection. But with adult freedom and responsibility come the potential to break silence, to use voice and language to promote internal integration, deeper external connection, and a social transformation, Through communication – integration within ourselves and connection between individuals – we can become whole; embodied, aware, vital, powerful”(Jennifer Freyd in the chapter “Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected” in her book “Betrayal Trauma…”).
“If you are very strong you have to be very kind” (Pippi Longstocking)
“In psychiatry, too, what a person says and writes can’t be divorced from who he is and how he lives.” (Thomas Szasz).
“The method of Marshall Rosenberg is very nice and may be helpful to people who have not be[been??] severely mistreated in childhood. The latter ones however must find their pent up, LEGITIMATE rage and free themselves from the lies of our moral system. As long as they don't do this, their body will continue to scream for the truth with the help of symptoms" (Alice Miller)
“To desire and strive to be of some service to the world, to aim at doing something which shall really increase the happiness and welfare and virtue of mankind - this is a choice which is possible for all of us; and surely it is a good haven to sail for" (Henry van Dyke)
“‘I have never met a man,’ said Grandma Georgina, ‘who talks so much absolute nonsense!’ ‘A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men,’ Mr Wonka said.” (Roald Dahl)
Look at his facial expression! Angrily carving… The stubborn, disobedient child... Or? How does he feel there in his joiner's workshop? (click on the picture to go to Astrid Lindgren site).
About the ACE-study:
"It's not just water under the bridge."
ACEs are surprisingly common among people of all social strata, and have far-reaching consequences. For many people, it's not possible to "just get over it".
What's an ACE (Adverse Childhood Experience i.e. "skadlig barndomserfarenhet")? Adverse Childhood Experience is growing up experiencing any of the following conditions in the household prior to age 18:
1. Recurrent physical abuse
2. Recurrent emotional abuse
3. Contact sexual abuse
4. An alcohol and/or drug abuser in the household
5. An incarcerated household member
6. Someone who is chronically depressed, mentally ill, institutionalized, or suicidal
I don't like being photographed, and don't have many photos of myself but here are some, though fairly old! Click on the picture to see two more pictures.
I was born in Umeå in Västerbotten, Sweden, and moved during childhood stepwise to Skåne in the south, and at last back to just below the middle of Sweden where I still live.
I am educated both as piano-pedagogue and church-musician and have a full time employment as piano-pedagogue. Church-music is side work.
I am interested in a lot of things and will blog about things I read, psychology, society, history, nature, my work too hopefully, and my everyday life… And both in Swedish and English.
This is a blog, with my (sometimes very) personal - and loud reflections on what I read, see, hear, react on, feel for - and not feel for and want to explore. I don't work in this field at all, but I have my reflections and thoughts nevertheless and have read fairly a lot I think, and here I reflect upon all this. I am searching myself forward. I link sites for information, if one want to know more about what I am talking/writing about and what is mentioned in the texts I am citing and referring to. And I link sites not least for my own sake. So it isn’t sure I agree with all that is linked on this blog, that's not why I link sites. I can agree with parts of what is linked, bigger or smaller, from almost everything to almost nothing.
I hope those who perhaps find my blog are reading everything here critically - including what stands in what I link.
And when it comes to therapy and all (self)help-concepts I think one shall be very careful. Maybe as a friend said it:
“Meaningful critical thinking.
Psychotherapists have been claiming that they have invented better treatment methods since Sigmund Freud in 1897. The amount of psychological distress in the world hasn’t become less. There’s money to be made from attracting more clients, whether the therapy works or not.
Inlägg
