Emotional manipulation, emotional incest...

[Updated July 10]. Emotional incest is more common than we believe Pia Mellody thinks.

I have just read ”The Confrontation” from the book ”The Way of All Flesh” by Samuel Butler and got some spontaneous thoughts.

This text is about a mother being spokesman for her husband to their child.

I can recognize this I think:

“He loves you anyway!”

Which means the mother thinks (knows) that even if he is screaming and yelling, has problems showing his love, he loves his kids. For the first: why can't he say this to his kids directly himself (shouldnt' he be able as a grown up, and if he isn't; why isn't he)? Is it the mother's (wife's) duty to talk for her husband, the children's father?

“He doesn't think you love him!”

What does a statement like this cause in the child? Deep guilt feelings maybe?

I also came to think about passing confidences on... About absolutely having to know the child's inmost; that he child isn't allowed to hide anything to its mother. And what does Miller say about this? What this means and causes for this person not least later in his/her grownup life? For instance that you have to hide things for yourself!?

And I think all this is expressions of violation of boundaries. Not respecting boundaries or integrity in another person. And this sort of boundary and integrity violations are even worse when a child is exposed to it, than when an adult is exposed to them, even though a grown up can have big difficulties handling them. The child has no escape or alternative than to stay in the relation. An adult usually have even I it doesn't feel so (depending on her/his early and successive history).

And the child would most likely not get support for complaints about such things, and got even fewer when this book was written more than hundred years ago. Because you shall honor your father and mother.

Today it's more possible to refuse to answer questions than it was back then (and when later generations grew up). But still children opposing and refusing their parents things feel a lot of guilt and badness. It's easier to submit.

And all those demands from the mother (and father) are about fulfilling the mother's (parents') unfulfilled and denied needs.

But – a grown up has alternatives, unless she/he isn't entirely paralyzed by help and powerlessness (feelings) stemming from her/his childhood. And - you can't blame that grown up for those feelings and inabilities (contempt for weakness).

Miller writes:

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue." (in my amateur translation from Swedish).

See also what Kirkengen for instance has written about revictimization.

To deal with this you ought to get help with the underlying, early things... But too often you don't get this help (from so called helpers). Maybe the sort of help that is offered usually can last short term... But not long term!??

But I also think that you shall be really careful with Primal and regression therapy. In wrong hands it can be dangerous...

Addition July 10: Read about "Butler's unhappy youth" by a person in modern time critisiszing what Butler did, a person who in general seem to be quite moralizing!!! Surprisingly moralizing. And neocomservative. Ideal for neoliberal currents and their propaganda!?

Healthy boundaries and nearness to other people…

the first sprout (photo: S. Thomas)

How do we create them? Or not take them away?

So the latter grown up can protect her/himself adequately and in the best case without even thinking on this.

Can a person whose boundaries have been violated, even severely violated, recover? And end up protecting her/himself constructively and efficiently?

Yes, I think she/he would be able, with adequate help of some kind. Not just by new thought-patterns, new thinking and/or new behaviors!! The less harmed are maybe helped with this though. *

But by being allowed and helped to question and condemn what was done. By a person (books or literature) where what she/he was exposed to isn’t minimized or belittled at all.

Because I think the nature of the defenses is of that kind that you can’t control them or at least not control your feelings. For instance see what Jenson writes about Jane who continued to blame herself even though she had been able to live up to a lot of things she had been taught in therapy.

From earlier postings (slightly edited):

“Jane, who has gone to ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on co-dependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her co-worker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to ‘make’ her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough well at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.”

There are different boundaries you can violate. Such as not only sexual or physical, but also emotional ** (not letting the child have secrets for instance). Ingeborg Bosch for instance has written about this, so has Anna-Luise Kirkengen. Stepping over emotional boundaries is also extremely harmful.

See earlier postings on what violations actually are and about that emotional needs are essential for survival.

Alice Miller writes/says about therapy and therapists, and I think she is right:

“Certainly, if I knew of some therapists who would be respectful enough to answer your questions; free enough to show indignation about what your parents have done to you; empathic enough when you need to release your rage pent up for decades in your body; wise enough to not preach to you forgetting, forgiveness, meditation, positive thinking; honest enough to not offer you empty words like spirituality, when they feel scared by your history, and that are not increasing your life-long feelings of guilt…” (Alice Miller).

“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)

And about becoming stuck in anger (or hatred):

“Feeling and understanding the causes of our old pain does not mean that the pain and the anger will stay with us forever. Quite the opposite is true. The felt anger and pain disappear with time and enable us to love our children. It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to [and which gives us all sorts of troubles]." (Alice Miller in an answer to a reader’s letter May 24, 2008, relating to a talk between Andrew Vachss and Oprah Winfrey)

and about a "failing" client:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

Sigrun wrote a blogpost about (in my amateur translation) “Nearness sort of”:

“As an earlier victim for violence and abuse through a lot of years I have to say that the concept ‘violence in close relations’ doesn’t feel good. The closeness that was forced upon me during the abuses are so painful that it had been nice not being forced to become reminded each time I come across this conception (something that happens daily).

What’s the reason why you can’t talk about relational violence instead?

I don’t think it is right using notions that become a burden for the ones that are concerned.”

* The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book at page 82 about Daniel Goleman and his concept Emotional Intelligence (a concept that can be, is, manipulative, but may help short term):

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Goleman's book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy.

/…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses (False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs) employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

**

"...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)

More of the same…

children (not mine) bathing till they had blue lips! :-)

A Norwegian blogger writes about “more of the same.” I want to translate the last two paragraphs (here done a little freely):

“The Swedish psychiatrist and feminist Kerstin Aldén has said that where the patient’s narrative contains enlightenments and statements which challenge the psychiatric treatment personnel’s conception or idea about reality this awaken resistance and one questions the one who has pronounced her/himself. Diagnosis also reinforce taboos, by locking out what one in different time doesn’t want to define as problems. That psychiatric diagnosis can be politic repression ought to be known through history [she mentions Drapetomania or runaway syndrome here and refers to a Norwegian article with the heading 'When the means become holy…' Also see Citizens Commission on Human Rights]./…/

The diagnosis can make the patient’s relation to her (or his) own reactions alien, and make her seeing herself with the eyes of the one treating her – in the same way as she has identified herself with what the perpetrator said. The consequence of the diagnosis can become revictimization. As the essence in the trauma is extreme impotence (powerlessness) and isolation, the diagnosis can become more of the same: being exposed to other people’s power of definition and exclusion from the fellowship.”

Vad kränkningar är/what violations are actually...

Pia Mellody.

Jean Jenson fann att det Pia Mellody skriver om hur kränkande upplevelser under barndomen, hur Mellody definierar och organiserar dem, var användbart för henne i hennes arbete med klienter. Här pdf-fil om Mellodys 5 huvudpunkter över vad medberoende är (”Codependence – The 5 Core Symptoms”), där står bland annat:

”Healthy self-esteem is created within an individual who knows that he [she!?] has inherent worth that is equal to others…”

Översatt blir det ungefär:

“En hälsosam självkänsla skapas i en individ som vet att han/hon har ett inneboende värde som är lika stort som alla andras…”

Och denna självkänsla tas förstås ifrån ett barn om det behandlas dåligt, nedlåtande, föraktfullt och icke respektfullt på de sätt som beskrivs nedan.

På Pia Mellodys hemsida står om medberoende:

“The name she gave to her particular form of suffering was 'codependency,' which is defined as an unhealthy tendency to put others needs before your own, usually involving a person who is addicted to something such as alcohol, drugs, or sex.”

Översatt blir det något i stil med:

"Namnet som hon gav sin särskilda form av lidande var 'medberoende', vilket definieras som en ohälsosam tendens att sätta andra framför ens egna, vanligtvis involverande en person som är beroende av någonting sådant som alkohol, droger eller sex [kan troligen handla om närmare, viktiga relationer med personer som har ett överdrivet behov av andra saker också?]."

Och där står också:

“Her work in codependence, boundaries, and the effects of childhood trauma on emotional development has profoundly influenced the treatment of addictions and issues around forming and maintaining relationships.”

Vilket översatt blir:

"Hennes arbete vad gäller medberoende, gränser och effekter av barndomstrauma för den emotionella utvecklingen har grundligt påverkat behandlingen av beroenden och frågor kring formandet och bevarandet/bibehållandet av relationer."

Men Jenson skriver redan i början av sin bok att insikt inte är nog för att förändra saker. Insikt är bara första steget, men förmodligen kan det vara ett viktigt och stort steg?

Och till skillnad från Mellody tror inte Bosch eller Jenson på att det räcker att ändra ett dysfunktionellt beteende till ett funktionellt, vilket Mellody tror på om jag förstått det rätt när jag skummat länkade sidor (men jag läste väldigt fort). Och de förklarar varför (kanske återkommer jag till detta, för jag tror de har rätt). Och återigen så är det kanske exakt detta som många duktiga pojkar och flickor ägnat sig åt och lyckats bra med - till priset av vad? Och de fortsätter kanske detta mönster för att tillfredsställa sin terapeut och kanske för att på detta sätt få en (villkorlig??) "kärlek" från terapeuten/hjälparen? Jag tror dock inte man kan förändra någon hjälpare eller terapeut. Se vad Miller skriver i sin FAQ: How to Find the Right Therapist * (FAQ=Frequently Asked Questions).

Men kortfattat så handlar de beteenden som vi har problem med om försvar (inte inneboende egenskaper som vi måste lära oss att kontrollera), som vi inte kan kontrollera... För försvaren skyddade oss en gång mot en verlighet barnet, den unge då inte kunde ta in på egen hand och försvaren har fortsatt denna funktion; att försvara oss doxk nu mot saker vi inte längre måste försvara oss emot, men som fortfarande är oerhört smärtsamma (se ny hjärnforskning: om amygdala, neocortex osv. Och etiketten/the label "the brain", se t.ex. här, här, här och här). Men idag kan vi möta denna smärta anser de, vi behöver inte undvika den, vi kan överleva den. Vi behöver inte skyddas mot den, men ska heller inte brutalt utsättas för sanningar.

Men att vi inte kan kontrollera dessa försvar (dvs. för våra dysfunktionella beteenden, med annat än stor ansträngning och användande energi, mer eller mindre för att hålla dem på plats) är fortfarande ingen ursäkt för kränkande beteenden, eller för vad man säger eller gör. Detta faktum tar inte ifrån oss ansvaret för vad vi säger och gör... Vi har fortfarande ansvar för våra handlingar oavsett hur mycket (eller litet??) skadade vi är.

Men det är den mest använda metoden i alla former av terapi; att få klienten att bete sig funktionellt, dvs. att blott och bart ändra beeende inklusive tankar och känslor?? Vilket t.ex. Bosch anser omöjligt med hänsyn till hur vår hjärna fungerar och till senaste tidens rönom hjärnan.

Med dessa ändringar kommer allting annat också att ändras!? Och kanske ändringar sker, i viss mån, men hur ofta är de inte ganska begränsade (för de kan inte bli annat än ganska begränsade, hur mycket än klienten "vill")? Eller åtminstone kan ändringar upplevas i ett initialt skede, till och med upplevas som radikala?? Till en början...

Vad värre är (??): när effekten inte håller i sig eller kanske i stort sett uteblir, vilka signaler kan detta ge - eller vad kan detta förstärka (om inte medvetet, så omedvetet?) Att man är en hopplös patient som inte lyckas bättre, inte lyckas förändra sina känslor eller egentligen någoning nämnvärt i slutänden. Och man, som t.ex. Helga i "Vägar i livet" börjar anklaga sig själv: "Vad hopplös jag är! Vad dum jag är! Hur kunde jag vara så dum!?" Och man kanske av skam tiger (en variant av tigandets mur, the Wall of Silence), för att man inte vill bli skrattad åt "för sin dumhet, hopplöshet"!? Helga var rädd att andra skulle skratta åt henne om hon berättade vad hon låtit ske med sig i terapin; hur hennes terapeut missbrukat henne sexuellt - och ekonomiskt.

Ett minimalt lyckande i terapin är faktiskt kanske inte är konstigt och kanske beror på den terapihjälp man får? Där man egentligen inte får riktigt hjälp att bearbeta? Försvar stärks istället? Ja, kanske förstärks alla försvar istället? ** Men som sagt, man kan inte ändra en terapeut/hjälpare. Vilket ju kan bli rejält problematiskt om man hamnat i en sådan kris att man kanske egentligen inte kan göra några val (men kan man inte välja oftare än man tror?? Är man fullt så makt- och hjälplös och beroende alla de gånger som man tror? Denna känsla kan vara, är, en barndomskänsla menar Jenson).

Och Miller skriver att i bästa fall kan effekten sitta i över en längre tid (och alla som lyckas ska förstås gratuleras), men förr eller senare kanske något inträffar ens liv som triggar igång de fortfarande inte tillräckligt bearbetade sakern (kanske min fria tolkning av Miller).

Jenson skriver (på sidan 138 i sin bok ”Att återerövra sitt liv”):

”Som kränkning eller övergrepp definieras ’allt som inte kan innefattas i värme, omvårdnad och omsorg’ eller varje handling som ’angriper barnets verklighet’. ’Barnets verklighet’ innefattar hans eller hennes kropp, tankar, känslor och beteende.”

Först och främst kan man tala om kränkningen som fysisk, sexuell eller känslomässig (emotionell). I detta innefattas också det som kallas ”känslomässig incest”.

Se vad Kirkengen skriver om gränskränkningar eller boundary violations inte bara hos barn, utan hos vuxna i olika sammanhang, inte minst när det finns obalans i makt... Och det hon skriver om reviktimisering, Anne Luise Kirkengen: Reviktimisering i medisinen. Å søke hjelp for en skade - og bli skadet igjen. Och se till exempel hennes bok "How Abused Children Becomes Unhealthy Adults" (sjuka i både kropp och själ). Excerpt in English of Kirkengens book.

Med fysiska kränkningar avses att man behandlar barnets kropp på ett respektlöst sätt – att man slår eller piskar det, ger det en örfil eller skakar det, dunkar barnets huvud mot något, kittlas tills barnet gråter, nyps, håller för hårt eller för länge i barnet eller låter barnet bli vittne till kränkning (det vill säga att ett barn måste titta på nä ett annat barn kränks eller när föräldrarna kränker varandra).

Sexuella kränkningar kan vara incest, ofredande, blottande, voyeurism, att använda tvetydiga eller sexuella uttryck, skämt eller skällsord, att kasta lystna blickar eller att vägra barnet att ha en privat, fysisk sfär. Se vad både Bosch och Kirkengen skriver om integritet.

Med känslomässiga kränkningar avses verbal misshandel (utskällningar, skrik och vrål), krav på perfektion (bland annat i form av att barnet ska fixa saker omedelbart och bara kunna,barnet ska vara perfekt direkt, tålamodet är noll från föräldern, kanske till och med trots att barnet fattar och gör saker osedvanligt snabbt!!!?), vanvård, övergivande och ”överdriven kontroll av verkligheten” (att tala om vad barnet ska ha på sig, vilka vänner det får ha, hur det ska tänka, vad det ska tro).

Känslomässig incest är när en förälder väntar sig att ett eller flera av hans eller hennes barn ska stå för den relationsmässiga tillfredsställelse som borde sökas hos den äkta hälften eller någon annan vuxen. Ett behov inte barnet ska måsta fylla. Det bör få sina behov fyllda istället. Enligt Mellody är detta mycket vanligt i våt samhälle (USA, samt troligen är också).

Man kan också undersöka om kränkningen är öppen eller dold, uppenbar eller subtil.

Här exempel på olika typer av kränkningar (enligt Jenson). Detta kan ge en idéer om vad barn upplever som kränkande och vad som är fel och faktiskt kan och får och bör ifrågasättas vad gäller hur vi blev behandlade en gång (samt hur vi nu kanske behandlar inte minst egna barn. De är ingen egendom eller kanske ens till för oss!??):

Pappa arbetade alltid över och ville inte bli störd när han kom hem. Känslomässig kränkning: fysiskt och känslomässigt otillgänglig far. Möjlig känsla hos barnet: dög inte.

Mamma var alltid ’sjuk’ (baksmälla egentligen) och vi ungar skulle alltid hålla oss tysta så att vi inte störde henne, annars slog pappa oss (eller så blev vi tillsagda eller straffade på andra sätt?). Känslomässig kränkning: orimliga gränser uppsatta, överdriven kontroll av verkligheten. Möjlig känsla: dålig, rädd, arg. Frånvarande mamma. Känslomässig kränkning: övergivande. Möjlig känsla: ensam, oönskad.

Både mamma och pappa arbetade och jag var alltid ensam när dagen var slut. Jag förväntades ha maten klar när de kom hem. Känslomässig kränkning: vanvård. Möjlig känsla: arg. Jag kunde inte leka med mina kompisar och blev lämnad att ta hand om mig själv. Känslomässig kränkning: vanvård. Möjlig känsla: lämnad, rädd.

Mina mycket äldre systrar var tvungna att ta hand om mig eftersom både mamma och pappa arbetade. De avskydde att behöva släpa på mig när de träffade sina tonårskompisar och var därför sura och elaka. Känslomässig kränkning: kritik, småaktigt klander. Jag blev lämnad i äldre systrars vård. Känslomässig kränkning: vanvård. Möjlig känsla: inte omtyckt, rädd. Kunde inte leka med kompisar. Känslomässig kränkning: vanvård. Möjlig känsla: ensam, annorlunda.

Jag var det tredje av sju barn. Våra föräldrar hade aldrig tid att ge någon av oss tillräckligt med uppmärksamhet. Alltför många ungar, inte tillräckligt med uppmärksamhet. Känslomässig kränkning: vanvård. Möjlig känsla: glömd, oviktig.

Min mamma tvättade mig i munnen med tvål när jag klagade på någonting. Hon kallade detta (att påtala saker) för att ’vara uppkäftig’. Fysisk (och känslomässig??) kränkning: vållande av fysisk (och psykisk) smärta. Möjlig känsla: rädd, arg, dålig.

Vi gavs lavemang med för mycket vatten som straff för allt vi gjorde som pappa inte tyckte om. Det var först när jag gick min läkarutbildning som jag insåg att lavemang inte behöver göra ont. Fysisk kränkning: vållande av fysisk (och psykisk) smärta. Möjlig känsla: skräck, raseri.

Vi blev slagna med ris som vi fick gå ut och skära själva (eller bara hotade med stryk). Fysisk kränkning: vållande av fysisk smärta. Att vara tvungen att skära riset själv: känslomässig kränkning: ångestskapande aktivitet. Möjlig känsla: rädsla, fruktan.

Alla i familjen verkade snälla och rara, men varje gång jag försökte prata om något som bekymrade mig brukade mamma byta ämne. Hon tillät mig inte att vara ledsen eller orolig. Känslomässig kränkning: övergivande. Möjlig känsla: dålig, fel. Pappa satt bakom sin tidning. Han var otillgänglig. Känslomässig kränkning: övergivande. Möjlig känsla: ignorerad, duger inte.

Pappa brukade komma in i mitt rum på kvällarna och stoppa fingrarna i min vagina medan han masturberade. Detta pågick från jag var två till jag var elva år, när mina föräldrar skildes. Pappa utnyttjade mig sexuellt. Sexuell kränkning: incest. Möjlig känsla: dålig, rädd, skamsen. Mamma måste ha vetat om det, men ingrep inte. Känslomässig kränkning: övergivande. Möjlig känsla: rädd, dålig

Mamma ville alltid att jag skulle komma direkt hem efter skolan och försökte hindra mig att delta i diverse fritidsaktiviteter tillsammans med mina kompisar eftersom hon tyckte så mycket om att prata med mig om sig själv. När jag började i gymnasiet vägrade att fylla hennes önskningar och var ute med kompisar, men det gav mig alltid dåligt samvete. Mamma utnyttjade mig för sina egna känslomässiga behov. Känslomässig kränkning: känslomässig incest, otillbörligt beroende. Möjlig känsla: kvävd, fångad, skamsen.

Det var som om både mamma och pappa ville titta på min kropp när jag började få bröst. De vägrade låta mig låsa sovrumsdörren eller dörren till badrummet och kunde komma in utan att knacka på dörren, ibland flinande. Sexuell kränkning: voyeurism. Sexuella utvecklingen förhånad av föräldrarna. Sexuell kränkning: sexuellt förlöjligande. Möjlig känsla: skamsen, generad, arg.

Jag fick aldrig ha sådana kläder som andra hade. Jag brukade i hemlighet ta med mig kläder som jag kunde byta med på väg till skolan. Jag köpte dem för pengar som jag sparade av mina överdrivet generösa fickpengar. Klädseln dikterades av modern. Känslomässig kränkning: överdriven kontroll av verkligheten. Möjlig känsla: sorg, vrede.

Ja, det där med beröring... Hittade detta pdf-dokument om "Helande beröring för den åldrande människan" (in Swedish) apropå dysfunktionellt beteende som beröring kan väcka - och dämpa!? Ja, vad kan beröring trigga igång i en gammal människa, kanske när han/hon börjar bli dement? Har denna åldring blivit respektfullt tagen i eller inte och måst förtränga saker?

Pia Mellody är medarbetare på ett center som heter "The Meadows" i Arizona, USA.

* [from Millers FAQ: How to Find the Right Therapist:] “As a child you were probably punished for asking questions because they might have shaken your parents' position of power. Your questions were often ignored or you were given lies instead of true answers. This was very painful.

Now, you are afraid that this might happen again. It CAN happen that you will not be understood or that your questions trigger the fears and defences of a therapist but you are no longer the helpless child without any options. You can leave and look for another therapist. The child could not leave, so it tried to change its parents, some people do it (symbolically) their whole life. But as an adult you have options.

You can, /…/ [with support] recognize the lies, the poisonous pedagogy and the defences. You must only take seriously what you hear, not deny your uneasiness, and not hope that you will be able to change this person (the parent) later. You will not. She will need therapy herself, and this shouldn't be your job as long as YOU pay the honorary.

If the answer is hostile or very incomplete or defensive you can gain much money and time by leaving./…/

A good therapist must help you to find and fulfil YOUR OWN needs, neglected for such a long time, needs for free expression, for being understood, respected and taken seriously. When you begin to look for fulfilment and protect the child the rage and hatred will leave you, they will fade. They are alarm signals of your repetition of parental neglect and contempt, they have not the therapeutic quality we are so often told they have./…/

You have the right to be sufficiently informed and she must have the courage, the awareness and the honesty to answer you in a proper way. Otherwise she is not the right person for you.”

** Alice Miller skriver i sin bok "Vägar i livet", "Paths of Life" på sidan 161:

"Men håller man okritiskt fast vid de gamla metodernas föregivna ofelbarhet och skyller misslyckanden på patienten, hamnar man oundvikligen i samma farvatten som sekturun, som också lovar fullständig befrielse. Sådana löften producerar bara, som Helgas berättelse visar [Helga blev sexuellt missbrukad i sin terapi, men antagligen kan man bli utsatt för andra sorters övergrepp och brist på respekt från terapeuters och hjälpares sida. Jo, det är ju just detta Kirkengen pekar på vad gäller reviktimisering], självdestruktivt beroende, som står i vägen för den enskildes befrielse."

Och det där med missbruk av makt, maktmissbruk, power abuse...

---

Summary: Jenson on what violations are, inspired by Pia Mellody’s ideas. They mean it isn’t only a question of physical or sexual violations but also of emotional violations. Of disrespect even emotionally. Verbal violence, demands on perfectionism, neglect, abandonment and “exaggerated control of reality” (the child is told what to wear, what friends it shall have, how it shall think, what it shall believe in), they see all these things as violations.

And they also writes about the phenomenon emotional incest, which Mellody thinks is very common in our cultures, which is a violation too according to them, an infringement in the child's integrity.

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

A mother “sick” because she was drunk and the children were hindered to disturb her or "give her troubles"… Threatened by their father if they did, with being spanked and how that felt…

About growing up with many siblings, where each child didn’t get enough attention or time. An emotional violation. Neglect. Giving the child a feeling of being forgotten, and being unimportant.

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

Most of the links above are in English!?

Boundary violations…

But what is she doing??? (the first meeting?)

[updated January 21 in the end]. Now in the morning I came to think about the topic limit-setting of children of some reason. And thought further on boundary violations and Kirkengen.

Boundary violations take place everywhere!? And have different expressions? Some are visible right away and others are very subtle?

How do we handle them when we meet them, if we meet them? For instance: how do we as grown up protect ourselves? I believe we aren't as helpless and powerless as children are concerning this... Except if we don't land in a deep crisis... Then it can become tricky... I have the book by Marie-France Hirigoyen on mobbing and stalkers. It stands about her that she is (was) nun and that she is psycho-analyst now.

And that you see in her book I think, that she is psychoanalyst I mean. She hasn't shaken this off. Is so brain-washed with Freudian concepts. My gut-feeling is that I doubt she can really contribute to solving what's actually the causes to mobbing and stalking.

I see some parallels to the American neurologist Jonathan Pincus and his research on serial killers, he hasn't shaken all old ideas off entirely either.

But he feels less moralizing than Hirigoyen?? And reading him feels better.

But none of these two say that the criminal, mobber or stalker don't carry responsibility for what they do or have done.

Now back to the original thread: There’s a lot of talk here about limit setting of children… And among grown ups the ones with for example exhaustion-troubles are said to have to learn to pose boundaries… And to learn to know their limits… A bit ironically... (Things are made individual problems. But that’s another discussion). Why do people have problems with boundaries? To pose them (and thus protect them,selves) and/or stepping over others boundaries?

I came to think of the Norwegian doctor Anna-Luise Kirkengen and that she has written about boundary-violations and their effects (if not immediately so later), and the concept revictimization.

There were several references to boundary-violations in her book “Inscribed bodies”, and in the first the concept bio-medicine was mentioned too.

At page 2-4 she writes (my italics):

“Those human conditions which are embedded in interpersonal relations, societal values, and culturally constituted meaning, are, through the very logic of biomedical theory, made invisible. The logic of the dominant methodology also renders them incomprehensible. Finally, they are deemed ignorable or irrelevant since values and meaning are non-issues according to objective science. The result is that the power implicit in social rank and the humiliations of human beings due to abuses of power are turned into non-medical logics, making medicine, inevitably blind to the adverse effects which abuse has on human health [the results of abuse isn’t ‘only’ psychological ill-health to different degrees!]. This becomes even more the case whenever the practice of such abuse is either societally legitimized or culturally taboo./…/

As medicine is a respected societal institution, and in its guise as a science, the normative character of biomedical epistemology accrues crucial influence. It effects central decisions with regard to what is, and what is not, to be considered relevant in drawing medical conclusions. Purporting to apply objective scientific knowledge while actually applying societal norms, medicine as a practice maintains the mandate to define the categories of ill health and malfunctions. By defining these categories, medicine has the right to include any conditions which meet the categorical criteria. Thus, according to the rules of formal logic, medicine also has the power to exclude those conditions which fail to meet those criteria. This distinction between ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ states or conditions plays a role in every medical decision. The norms of biomedicine are embedded in the practice of any medical examination and treatment, and affect every living person who addresses a medical institution in the role of a sick patient. Through application of these norms, distinguishing the ‘proper’ from the ‘improper’ within a formalized societal context, medicine has the power to stigmatize people who ask for help for ‘improper’ conditions. While acting in the name of giving help, medicine may, in fact, violate a person’s dignity. But even those who present apparently ‘proper’ conditions may risk stigmatization if presumably appropriate medical interventions prove ineffective. According to objectifying medical theory, such measures ought to result I a predictable outcome. If they consistently do not, the most probable question is not, ‘what is wrong with medical judgment and medical theory?’ but rather ‘what s wrong with this patient?’ Failures stemming from the foundations of professional judgment, namely medical knowledge acquired by applying rules requiring objectivity, are more likely to be attributed to those whose conditions fails to improve. In other words: Medical norms exclude, marginalize and then stigmatize.”

Side-track: is this the case even more today, with doctors’ limited time with each patient?

And in school: shouldn’t we all try to improve the school in general, together, isn’t this our common concern?

I have cooperated with class-teachers (grade 1-3) as preparation for the music-school. An offer from the music-school, as a way to reach all children, not only those having support from home… To give all children an opportunity to experience the joy of singing, dancing, playing… And maybe make them want to go further, and learn to play an instrument. (I want to add: during all my work life there has been discussions round instrumental education; genres not least, to use the music young people listen to, and to use all the new techniques when it came: synths, computers etc. etc. etc. I am a bit tired hearing about this, as the very ambitious person I am, working and working and trying and trying. Hearing ‘you should this and that!!’ And those saying this, what do they actually know about what I, or we, do?? Quite sarcastically to be honest!!). With the ambitions t give all children an opportunity to become active executors not only passive consumers… Does this sound idyllic, and unrealistic, a stupid dream?

And back to the question limit-setting: why do children and young people have problems with boundaries? How do we handle this?

The best would of course be if we did something as early as possible… The best would be before the child was born; informing about a child’s needs (if we know which they are? For this we probably need to have access to our own history… Which would probably demand a tough, hard work on ourselves, and how many are interested in that?).

I don’t know what is actually possible at school: but with a child acting out on others and in the class-room, what should one do? And what is done actually?

I don’t believe in “obey and keep quiet”! The authoritarian, totalitarian method…

Are grown ups afraid of hearing about actual truths? And/or afraid of having to deal with something they don’t know how to handle? The method of solving this is sweeping this under the rug!???

Is it possible to talk to the child face to face, in person, and explain to it, calmly and not moralising that you can’t do this or that, and at the same time be open to listen??? And to hear!!?? This would probably also require that this grown up has support from other grown ups in the environment, so he/she can keep the professional, empathic stand he/she ought to have??

The sad thing is that this I probably so much easier to talk about than to do… Just because I think we all have experienced things we don’t want to be reminded about…

But from some professionals we are entitled to demand more in this respect: not least from psychologists, therapists of all kinds, probably also doctors and at last people in school…

Silently: personal development isn’t highly regarded or rewarded though… At least from some bosses… I wonder if a more seeing co-worker also can be a little dangerous!!?? The more aware and enlightened this person can see other things and question other things and that is “a bit” dangerous… (or very dangerous straightly said!!??).

So children are at risk of becoming revictimized already in school…

I see parallels to what Kirkengen describes in medicine to the conditions at school. But I don’t work in the “regular” school, only in its outskirts.

Another sidetrack: research has shown that the ones that are more empathic are at greater risk of being burnt-out…

What am I taking on my shoulders? To change the whole world? What is my responsibility? Is this only my responsibility? Can I do this on my own? And what shall I do on my own? What can I do? The first step is to articulate things? To say it out loudly? Test the thoughts in that way? And by this also process my own personal things? Discover what is actually driving me, and by this maybe also deal with things more constructively? Not burdened with a lot of own unprocessed, unconscious stuff? Which can make me behave and handle things maybe both self-destructively and destructively, i.e., harming myself and/or others even if I don't want to do that (which I perhaps do)?

And things I meet: what is about me (and are things I should do something about) and what is not about me, but the other person actually??? What am I to blame for, and what I am not to blame for?

PS. It's convenient with people taking the blame on them, with people blaming themselves?? That about defences... Which are actually protections against old pain Bosch and Jenson mean, and they cause problems of all sorts in grown up life. I think Bosch even writes that they can be life-threatening.

On the label "the Primary defence" (blaming yourself). And the label "defences".

A sigh, how pretentious is this? Escape out on a walk, out into the nature?? Disappear? Become invisible??? As I wanted in my teens... Didn't want to be seen, be visible. So when I got new cloths I didn't want to take them on in school!! Wanted to stay like a gray mouse!? Why?

Hmmm, somewhere when I had passed 30 I started to dare to dress much more personally, with more colors... And here I also started to awake with anxiety! Scary to show who I was? To go out there in life thinking I was someone? I have also noticed that my hand-writing changed somewhere here! I use to write my name on all my music-books also dating when I bought the book in question...

And I wonder if I have a dash of Body Dysmorphic Disorder??

PPS. And, yes, I have done a cosmetic operation (pure cosmetic), a big one (no breast or something like that). Being photographed is something I dislike enormously, and being recorded when I am playing, singing or talking is awful too. I can stand it if I don't have to listen to it... Is this something genetic maybe, as suggested in articles about this disorder? Or how was that child mirrored and viewed? With dislike even ranging to disgust sometimes? The musician Sinéad O'Connor in fact mentions this in an interview!!?? Does she suffer from a slight variant of this disorder?

I see people around, have seen and amazed wondered; what's the difference: all these people having relations, and not seeming to have any problems with this... Despite this and that. And I think it may be so, that it doesn't have to have anything to do with a child's intelligence, brightness, beauty what concern parental love. There exist parents capable of loving a child hpw "faulty" it even may be. And this child grows up with this natural belief that it is valuable, and doesn't care at all about how talented or god-looking it is!? But this is probably fairly rare, that a child is treated i this way, that the parent doesn't need of for certain purposes or for filling her/his needs?

And it also struck me now, when I was to the grocery store (and in no time at all did what I should there, very effectively, with a sigh!), that: is this some sort of competition? Who is most harmed and who is less? Who has had it worse? So the one "more harmed" is in a position where he/she and/or is allowed things the less harmed isn't?? Can it be so? "What do you have to complain about??? You who...!!!"

In a similar manner as the father was excused for this and that, because of his lousy upbringing??

"What do you have to complain about; you with your back-ground, all the opportunities you got and had!!??"

Just this fact, does it give others permission to mistreat? And isn't this fairly contemptuous?? Too!!? What have I done to that person? Just the fact that I exist is enough?? And that I exist as the one I am? I have to take this humbly, full of shame for who and what I am (as if what I am, how I live etc. is something to be jealous about at all!!!). Bow my head and just take it?? Shall I?

And have I done that person something? What in that case? Wouldn't it be better I was told that first??

Deemed beforehand, because I am this and that?? As piano-teacher you are..., as teacher you are..., with your background you are...?

And in fact, I have been very quiet with my middle-class back-ground, with educated parents and all siblings, at work etc. (as if it was something so fine or fantastic!!!), where I come from, about the family, what we had, what we did, what we do...

And this background was no bonus either round 1970 and further... (quite ironical. I wasn't mom and dad!! Was I? I hadn't chosen parents as little as anyone else! And what did I experience? I don't know, surrounded with a lot of hypocrisy!!?? People seeing up, blindly admiring, not imagining what could occur in such a family and with such highly regarded parents? So I wonder if things had to be even more suppressed maybe? And the Denial bigger? In a way? So, I don't know, who has had it worse? As if that give anyone some kind of discharge from liability, quite ironical!!! So discrimination what is that? All my life having to excuse and apologize and hide...? And frankly, those who don't understand this can take them in their asses!!! I try the best I can, have always done, and tried not to make any differences on people, whether I have succeeded or not!! And I stand on the "weak's" side, and have always done, but today I do in another way, hopefully?).

I bought two bouquets of tulips in the store... Now some tea and then a walk. When I return home some lunch. Thought I should bake root-crops in the oven, but the oven has to get warm first... A late lunch - again!!

Addition: as if the "more harmed" has rights the "less harmed" don't have!!?? How one measures this actually? And is this some sort of competition either, or? But grown ups between; both have the same rights and responsibilities?? And you ought to be entitled to demand the same treatment, a similar respect etc.?? Or?

Addition January 21: see earlier blogposting on empathy deficits and biomedical scientists.