Child abuse...

Things I threw down in my diary after starting to read about a child's experiences:

"Pushed into a corner. Siblings with alloted roles. A parent exercising power. Acting her/his things out? Things that had nothing to do with the child/ren.

Breaking the child's will?

Jenson wrote in her book about abuse of a more subtle sort and thus more difficult to see or grasp [as she seems to see it. Now I see in the Introduction that she writes that because her experiences of growing up in a dysfunctional family * weren't so apparent - she wasn't beaten and usually not shouted at either - it took a long time for her to understand how her childhood had affected her. Not until she had been in traditional therapies for years she discovered how you can uncover experiences that had been unconscious. Then she understood why and how childhood experiences still affected (disrupted, disturbed, interrupted, spoiled, marred) her life].

Reacting at scapegoats only give temporary relief..."

I had a father coming home and acting his irritation, anger, frustration out... Incapable of being present really... He was never really there. Impatient. Have I adopted parts of this? Though in a female way? (But I have been admired for my enormous patience in many circumstances, for instance in my work...)

Was he ever aware of this or even wondering over this? Did he ever question this side of his? Did he understand the roots for this ever? Did he want to understand? Did he have to understand?

Are other people forced to understand because their alternatives/options are none? And other people have the possibility to come home and pour things out and thus stay "healthy" and sane?

He died in malign melanoma when he was almost 83, 5 years. He was never a sunbather. Stress research has shown connections between depression and skin cancer... Searched on this on the net and found this.

Links between diabetes and depression see here for instance.

Also see the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (the ACE-study) on almost 18, 000 people.

* Jenson has written in her book about the results of just changing dysfunctional behavior to a functional; that it too often doesn't change so much (however a method that is most often used, i.e. you just understand these things with your brain). The feelings are often the same or even worse after this sort of therapy... You need to understand these things on a deeper level, get help understanding them on a deeper level. If you have to do this work on your own it will take a lot of time...

But physicians like Vincent Felitti, Anna Luise Kirkengen and Eli Berg for instance have shown that just giving a patient the opportunity to speak up, break silence can lead to tremendous relief and recovery.

Spankings, blaming co-victim, power abuse…

Some loud thinking, after a really hectic month:

Struck me about blaming the big sister (or big brother) for things that have gone wrong, for needs that haven’t been fulfilled… Is this exactly as it has always been: the big sister (brother) has had to take what should have been directed towards the parents???

And if the big sister or brother has done something she/he is maybe to blame. But shouldn’t the parents have protected the younger child, or been one to hear about abuse from and between siblings and been able of dealing with this??

And is it always the older sibling that is abusing younger?? Maybe older siblings need protection too!??? And I think Miller is right: if you blame scapegoats you won't recover. Only when you are capable of blaming the true perpetrators you will gradually recover. The unjustified anger is endless she writes (if I remember right). And I think that's true.

I thought further, on grown ups, in this case in a forum dealing with childhood issues. In a forum that seems to have the ambitions being a sort of replacement for therapy it seems today (and in the name of a well-known authority). Where the moderator only writes “Post was received” when she (he??) didn’t post a posting. No explanation whatsoever.

Isn’t this quite authoritarian (and totalitarian, as the moderator is the one in power)?

Of course if the subscriber had been repeatedly abusive and got this pointed out, and really being listened to and had gotten all opportunities to explain what she/he meant but continued being abusive, then I can understand that a moderator doesn’t think it’s any idea to explain anything.

But if the subscriber hasn’t been really met or listened to, and not been abusive till that point, I think such treatment from a moderator, especially on a list dealing with such things, is ABUSIVE! And can be very harmful!

What about talking as grown up to grown up?

Witches and other monsters...

examination of a witch.

Working here at home after lunch. Now a break on the balcony with something to eat. I happened to throw a glance at the local newspaper lying here on the foot-stool at the TV, and read the title to an article, written with big letters. The heading was "Witches and other monsters." I couldn't help smiling, with a lot of feelings bubbling up... Of quite deep irony, sadness, anger... The title felt as a thought.

Are there modern "witches" too? Women need to be held on distance? What do the witches stand for? Are they symbols for something? What? And what is the brave knight about? See below.

The extremely dangerous woman? And now I saw that I had written a posting earlier on witch-hunt, "Silence makes the violence possible..."

Having a slight headache...two versions of the knight on the white horse killing the monster (dragon).

In the evening (slightly updated August 14): found a letter from a reader to Miller on Miller's web. Want to quote from it.

“I've often been astonished by the intensity of my hatred (I some times honestly feel that I could kill my mother for what she has done to me), but now I do understand that it comes from my early experience of being helplessly intertwined with her serious emotional disturbances leaving me to feel responsible for her feelings and needs, basically speaking; her life. She made me feel this way with STRONG means such as serious threats and manipulations. And this has effectively stopped me from living my own life because every time I try to do so I'm subconsciently being dragged into HER needs

[fulfilling HER needs, the mother's childhood needs? Giving the mother the attention and love she should have gotten from HER parents once but actually didn’t get then (the child had no other choice but to help her mother keeping the denial in place), a hole the child will never be able to fill how cleverly she even tries/tried her whole life? And this mother didn’t want to recognize/realize how she actually had had it, what she had missed, and how her parents actually were and/or had been? No rebellion, indignation, questioning or anger against this, Instead she directed her anger at the child/children. Sacrificing not only herself and her own life, but also her child’s/children’s].

This is really difficult and I have literally felt sometimes that I couldn't leave the house or engage in my own interests, and even my education was affected by this depression and horrible anger I felt

[not allowed to be happy, to have genuinely, really fun, enjoying the life and a real, genuine contact/communication with other people (for instance with a partner), maybe even being truly loved, because her mother didn’t have any of this? The child had to sympathise, by living a miserable life too? And preferably an worse life than her mother!! So there was no risk her mother's view would be challenge and she had to question her own life?]./…/

…still I 'm struggling to live my own life

[even though she hasn’t had contact with her mother for ten years!!! Talk of being tied up!!].

These feelings of being responsible are so strong and so difficult to set aside that I do not know what to do. Intellectually I know a lot of things but still emotionally I feel like I'm a child, fearing whatever might happen if I take the stand and say to the world: ‘I do not support my mother anymore. She has to do without me destroying myself for her. She has to deal with her own feelings and lies.’

HELP… I feel that I'm an awful person

[The child was made and forced to feel like that; that she was an awful person/child, selfish, only thinking on herself, made feeling this with different means, with threats and manipulations of other kinds?? Made feeling guilt for abandoning and failing (svikande) her mother (but who had abandoned and failed the mother actually?), by not living her mother’s life, on her mother’s conditions! And for this she was going to be horribly punished? A horrible punishment must just come! And this was probably what happened? The ‘love’ was withheld/withdrawn from the child, maybe by freezing the child out, thrown out into the cold or threatened of being pushed away? Yes, she was emotionally and maybe also literally pushed away?]

And I can remember myself thinking these kinds of thoughts as a child, wanting her to get lost, leave us, explode, whatever...for me just being able to breathe and live without her invading me all the time. And I remember that I felt an incredible anger and then… GUILT.”

Miller answers:

"Everything in your letter makes sense to me.

Above all you understand that your mother made you RESPONSIBLE FOR HER FEELINGS. Not many people recognize this and suffer thus for decades of feelings of guilt.

Why do you also suffer in the same way though you already succeeded to understand? Can it be that you came to understand this mechanism thanks to my books, rather intellectually, but that emotionally you still can't BELIEVE that your mother used you as a container?

I imagine that you always tried to understand her so she would eventually liberate you from this role and care herself for her feelings?

But she doesn't. She prefers not to look at the mirror and [but] to blame you for her chaotic state of emotions.

Can it be that you still feel responsible for her chaos, her lies, and her contradictions and that you actually can't believe that she ALWAYS tried to live at your cost?

[yes, it is probably so?? And liberating oneself from a person from earliest in life is one of the most difficult things? Nobody want to think that anyone can do what is in fact done to small children, and SO small children or realize HOW common these things in fact are! Or we minimize or belittle what happened, both on our own, children's and other peoples' behalf: it didn't hurt or damage! This won't last a whole lifetime! Etc. Even therapists do this!]

I think that if you succeed to really BELIEVE what you know you will liberate yourself from your dependency and then also from your hatred."

Addition just before lunch August 14: A picture, or an expression that came for me this morning: maliciously smiling (försmädligt, nedlåtande leende). Something the child was exposed to?

In the car I thought further... On blackmail (utpressning), emotional blackmail not least. How the child probably was exposed to this too. And this sort of blackmail is different than the one a grown up usually is exposed to? Even if it maybe can feel horrible even for a grown up? But it was probably even more painful for a child, so painful it had to suppress it even before it reached the consciousness? And even for a grown up it can be difficult to deal with, especially if she/he is still paralyzed by early things...

To “understand” and “forgive”…

visited one of my old schools today (see here too.).

I had even more reflections over the phenomenon ”understanding” and ”to understand” when I drove to a service of my car and during the service of it today…

To understand OTHER people! But can you if you don’t (and haven’t been allowed or got the opportunity) to understand yourself? Doesn’t one have to start with oneself? And maybe understand not so pleasant things about oneself? Even very painful things? Truths about oneself and ones life?

Each one of us ought to have that responsibility understanding oneself?

Thought about forgiveness once again, and forgiveness connected to understanding. If you forgive you are a good, broad-minded, grown up person! But WHOM and WHAT have one understood actually? The forgiving is a higher standing human being, even morally? Is a better human being? And gets universal improvement and applauses!!!?? If you are faithful to one or both parents you get applauses! Even from so called helpers!! (therapists, psychologists etc.).

The back of forgiveness and understanding is what? Or what can it lead to?

Exploitation and being used? For some, preferably women (but probably also for many men).

You understand and forgive once again in a false hope of changing the other person/part? Or you use false power anger or false power denial of needs to avoid being forced to deal with anything that demands realization, recognition of a painful truth?

A fourth way is blaming oneself, maybe even harshly!!

And many possibly switch between these protection strategies or defenses…

And never the two really meet!

And you keep on directing things at scapegoats or symbols!? And this strategy will never solve anything. Because I think Miller is right: trying to solve your problems symbolically will never lead to recovery. Not even a slightest bit of recovery??

I think Bosch and Jenson are right here…

PS. And the whole society suffers from a cleverness mania! From cleverness at work to being able to walk further whatever has happened to you!!! Of course some manage with this!!! But why do they? And why do other people have difficulties with this? I don't think this has with genes or inherited traits to do!

I tried to find to whom Jesus said "Take your bed and go" and found a site called "The Bible-school" (Swedish site) and dropped my cheek over the underlying moralistic tone in the text!!! As I read it at least!

Some silent thoughts…

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...

Addition after 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.

Human Rights Watch defines ‘honor killings’ as follows:

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).

Some more thoughts on therapy abuse…

Easter 2007 at the country-side, chocolate-cake with whipped cream and fruit.

In the shower: my relatives in the working-class (which I have had most contact with and have had further contact with, and where we played very freely when we grew up, as we did at home, but not at my paternal grandparent's home really) would never think of entering a therapist’s office…That is out of question. And earlier it was even more out of question. defenses (and denial) can take different expressions?

Not least was it so in my parents’ generation and earlier. Reading books could give one a lot of strange ideas, and working with creative things was no real occupation! And you shouldn’t think “too much”.

My youngest uncle is born 1935 and his wife is one year younger…

Helga was educated social worker, and she got her mom’s house in Santa Monica when her mother died, and thus she was seen as the rich and wealthy house-owner, who could afford paying expensive fees.

Michelle wrote that the sect-members she referred to (what Carol L. Mithers has written about in “Therapy Gone Mad…”) belonged to the middle-class; they were intelligent people, of whom many had Academic exams and was used to thinking.

How was this enslaving possible Michelle wondered? She thought that the patients through regression to childish helplessness obviously lost their ability for critical thinking or that they entirely directed the critics at themselves.

The people whom had come to the therapy-center to learn to perceive their feelings had been held away from exactly these true actual feelings instead, because their therapists had no use for those.

The members at the center had been exhorted to strict critics of their parents and at the same time been hindered refinedly seeing their contemporary extortionists through.

When the truths were revealed they became aware of that they had told the most intimate details about their childhoods and sexual lives in the “therapy-groups”, but that they had buried their true feelings and thoughts about the therapists behaviors inside instead. They had never really spoken with the other sect-members either. The patients’ lives were strictly controlled, day and night.

And they got a lot of perverse commands; couples who loved each others too much was ordered to have sex every day, so they should get enough of each others. People who didn’t’ really like each others were forced to intimate relations etc.

Michelle thought that regressive therapy-forms offer a certain favorable soil for these things. A human being suddenly thrown back to childish dependency can’t integrate her childhood. Only grown ups can do this with the help of a therapist who follows his patients and supports their independence, and who are not holding them in a childish dependency.

This dependency is the soil in which the illusion that the therapist can give a grown up human being all she lacked with her mother (and father) when she was a (small) child: being mirrored, understood, unconditionally loved (and given true, genuine respect, which is something a client has all rights to demand and expect!?).

If the mother is capable of this she has protected her child from being exploited later.

But expecting that shortages are possible to be taken back with a guru is self-delusion. It only leads to dependency on promises which can never be fulfilled, because the sect-follower isn’t a child any more and the guru isn’t his/her mother (or father) from the beginning of life. In spite of this this illusion is kept alive in many sects and religions.

Michelle writes that knowing this maybe can be of help to Helga; that she isn’t the only one who have done this experience (or been such a fool!) and succeeded to free herself from the confusion.

And I thought on the article I linked and quoted from yesterday (about the woman who was exposed to incest from she was 7, or earlier, till she was 14, and how her life had turned out later): how can it be to read this for the one that hasn’t been able to deal in the same way as this woman? How do newspapers nuance what they write? Are they “nuancing” things rather?? The Societal Denial again? Because I wonder if not more people have been exposed to things than we want to believe? Many more? Maybe almost all of us, but to different degrees. Some are less harmed, others more??

And - can a sexual abuser come to believe that what he (she) does isn't so harmful??

"See how she dealt with it!!!"

Minimizing and belittling the damage?? Which is absolutely intolerable and wrong!!! I guess most of those who have succeeded in their recovery would agree that the damage could have been undone, and the struggle to recover has taken so much of their time and life...

Also see the article "Compassion Gone Mad" by Heather Mac Donald.

And it was someone who wrote:

“I’m wondering why after many adult children finally say:

“Ok that’s enough! I’m done!”

and then they walk away and have little or nothing to do with the abusive parent after that, but they continue to or begin abusive relationships with others.

I know a woman who refused to speak with her dad because he molested her, but then started dating a man who was very mean to her and treated her like she was nothing.

He used her for sex just like her father did and abandoned her and then would come back just to hurt her.

After I stopped seeing my mother I became very friendly with a very mean woman who screamed at me when she got drunk I also dated a man who was mean and acted pretty much like my mother.”

Is it because they haven't actually worked things through (and this is certainly not easy or easy made)? And recovery isn't about solving things on a symbolic level??

Hat...

from music-video recording February 2007 (balancing the content below!?).

About hatred and its origins, and targets for this hatred... Inspired by "Paths of Life" from the last chapter "Reflections". Also see "Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation? by Alice Miller."

---

[Uppdaterad i slutet 23 och 24 februari]. Inspirerad av Miller i kapitet "Hur uppstår hat?" i boken "Vägar i livet":

De destruktiva följderna av våld mot barn kan manifestera sig redan i ungdomen, till exempel i tyrannisk behandling av yngre syskon, i våldsdåd eller rentav mord. Så därför räcker det inte bara att i en terapi att fördöma ett äldre (eller yngre??) syskons handlingar (vilket kan vara nog så viktigt), utan gå vidare också och fördöma de vuxna som inte skyddade mot dessa saker!? Men jag har en känsla av att ganska många (kanske de flesta) terapeuter inte klarar detta!??? Att anklaga ett syskon är inte fullt lika livsfarligt som att anklaga och ifrågasätta föräldrar!?? Så detta förra går "relativt" lätt?? För trots allt ganska få terapeuter har på allvar ifrågasatt sina egna föräldrar? Möjligen har de gjort detta på en ganska ytlig och kanske enbart intellektuell nivå? De har bara tänkt och resonerat sig till "upplysning"?? Men om det är så kan de inte heller förstå sina klienter riktigt (eller i värsta fall ganska litet)?

Det är detta Miller beskriver i "Deception Kills Love". I en artikel som handlar om en dansk författare och dennes bok om sina upplevelser av sexuella övergrepp av en pedofil. Bearbetandet av dessa övergrepp i vuxen ålder, därför att han börjat må dåligt (övergrepp som han blev utsatt för under några år runt inträdet i tonåren), räckte dock inte för att befria honom från ångesten.

Miller menar (i min tolkning?) att förklaringen till detta är att författaren inte fick hjälp att gå vidare i terapin, till att ifrågasätta sina föräldrar, som anförtrodde sin son till denne man, sättet de gjorde detta på. Sveket att de inte såg och inte förmådde skydda honom?

Miller beskriver förbudet att ifrågasätta sina egna föräldrar och den påföljande ångesten över detta, att kroppen sa en sak som var strängt förbjuden att dra upp i ljuset?? Förstärkt av terapeutens (omedvetna) rädsla, med medföljande förbud att artikulera detta; ifrågasätta färldrarnas oförmåga, handlande och få tillåtelse att fördöma detta??

Och för att återgå till ursprungsämnet: den vuxne har tyvärr ytterligare medel till sitt förfogande för att föra detta förnekade våld vidare. Bland annat kan han/hon ideologisera våldet så raffinerat och utöva våldet så subtilt att han/hon till och med kan framställa det som något gott, som

”för den andres bästa”.

och på det viset liksom rättfärdiga det.

Och ju mindre beredd han/hon är att revidera sitt bedrägeri och självbedrägeri, desto tyngre blir konsekvenserna av hans handlande för andra.

Dvs. i den mån man är beredd att ifrågasätta desto mindre skada åstadkommer man, desto mindre blir konsekvenserna av ens handlingar/handlande. Så allt arbete man gör, alla insikter man skaffar sig (känslomässigt och intellektuellt) är av godo och skyddar en från att skada andra alltför illa (liksom skyddar en förhoppningsvis mot att skada en själv)!?

De barn som har turen att träffa ett hjälpande vittne (även ett omedvetet hjälpande, omedvetet men ändå vetande vittne) kan hjälpa barnet att litet mer aktivt se den lidna oförrätten (hjälpa barnet att ifrågasätta det som skett och betrakta som fel och i bästa fall helt fördöma det som skedde. Viulket oftast är förbjudet, för man ska ju förstå föräldrarna och deras situation och att de själva blivit skadade!!) och bearbeta det som hänt i mer eller mindre grad. Dessa barn blir inte våldsverkare senare kanske i någon grad trots att de kanske blivit misshandlade psykiskt och fysiskt och kanske även sexuellt och i vissa fall även grovt misshandlade. Detta menar Miller är förklaringen till att inte alla misshandlade barn själva blir grova förövare (och jag tror att Miller har rätt här, jag tror inte vi är födda med så dåliga gener eller drifter. Naturligtvis kan jag ha fel här, men varför inte utgå från denna hypotes? Och prova den?? Skulle detta skada någon? I så fall hur? För det är klart att man kanske inte ska ägna sig åt något som riskerar att orsaka skada!?).

Miller skriver på sidan 181 i "Vägar i livet":

"I detta sammanhang skulle man visserligen kunna resonera som Sigmund Freud gjorde på det sexuella området och säga: Om de flesta människor som barn har blivit misshandlade eller emotionellt försummade kan det inte vara någon patogen faktor vid uppkomsten av brottslighet, för i så fall hade de flesta utvecklats till mördare. Men detta resonemang bortser från själva det faktum att det inte är traumat i sig som direkt leder till att det bildas neuroser och till kriminella levnadsbanor, utan sättet på vilket de bearbetas."

Ja, antag att ganska många av oss, kanske väldigt många, varit utsatta för diverse "mildare" och subtilare saker... Och att omgivningen i många fall kanske inte var totalt konsekvent eller genomauktoritär... Kanske har många (fler än vi vill tro) varit utsatta för saker och det finns en anledning att kollektivt förneka detta, att minimera och bagatellisera en massa saker: otillbörlig beröring, nyp, daskar, utskällningar m.m.

Och kanske riktar de/vi detta istället "bara" mot sig/oss själva, i självdestruktivitet, självanklagelser osv.? Och/eller mot svagare...

Och när det gäller sexuella övergrepp så menar Miller att förövarna inte kommer ihåg vad de själva fick utstå, dvs. att de själva varit utsatta. Om en terapi är möjlig visar det sig att det är sin egen historia de har iscensatt i åratal, om och om igen.

Men rent allmänt så är inte vetande automatiskt något skydd, dvs. att man vet att man blev slagen, utskälld, och kanske inte heller att man blev sexuellt utnyttjad!? Man måste ha bearbetat det hela på ett någorlunda djupt plan. Dvs. ha fått ifrågasätta det och betrakta det som fel. Se t.ex. pappan som reagerade på sin egen pappa, som ör länge sedan förödmjukade sin son genom att skälla ut honom inför andra. Denna pappautsatte sina egna barn för samma saker, trots att han visste vad han själv varit utsatt för.

Jo, man behöver även ha integrerat det hela på någon känslomässig nivå? Vetande, minnesbild o.d. är inte tillräcklig!

Ett medvetet vetande är omöjligt för barnet utan ett hjälpande vittne. Barnet måste tränga bort eller förneka delar eller hela traumat. Och synen på VAD som är traumatiskt har också utvecklats?? Att kränkningar inte bara är av fysisk och sexuell natur, utan också handlar om känslomässiga kränkningar (vilka kanske är ÄNNU vanligare?). Men samhällets förnekande kan plötsligt liksom slå till igen. Ja, det kollektiva förnekandet kan slå till igen. Och man börjar bagatellisera och minimera betydelsen och allvaret i diverse kränkningar (se om Reich senare).

Miller skriver på sidan 168 i ”Vägar i livet”:

”Först när man inser den egentliga orsaken och förstår den naturliga reaktionen på oförrätter kan det blinda, på oskyldiga projicerade hatet upplösas. Dess funktion, att dölja sanningen, blir hädanefter överflödigt.”

Kom att tänka på mitt i skrivandet att man kan anse det vara berättigat att liksom "uppfostra" andra och tala om sanningar för dem... Och då kan det handla om ett försvar mot att inse sina egna sanningar, med den åtföljande smärtan, det försvar Bosch kallar för falsk makt-vrede? Ja, det svåra att inse vad som faktiskt ÄR berättigat och vad som INTE ÄR berättigat?? Där vi tyvärr ofta blivit förvirradgjorda?? Vissa tror att de förtjänar den behandling de får (första eller ursprungligt försvar) och andra anser att andra förtjänar den behandling de utsätter dem för!??? Och ofta "dras" dessa till varandra!??

Tillägg 23 februari: Miller skriver på sidan 170 i "Vägar i livet" om dagens terrorister som dödar och torterar främmande människor som inte har gjort dem något ont:

"...men varken deras aningslöshet idag eller deras en gång undertryckta och nu förnekade vrede rättfärdigar på något sätt deras extrema destruktivitet eller kan göra anspråk på vårt medlidande."

Och detta gäller andra våldsverkare också (även på politisk nivå och på en massa andra nivåer och i en massa andra sammanhang också)!! Och på sidan 171 om Hitler:

"Därmed kunde han också ursäkta faderns övergrepp, för fadern var ju bara ett offer för den onde och allsmäktige juden."

Och slutligen på sidan 187 om det misshandlade barnet:

"Det har ju lärt sig att den starkare har rätt att bruka sin makt godtyckligt./.../

...[han kommer] att böja sig för auktoriteter och spela herre över de svagare, enligt det despotiska mönster han som barn erfarit av sina uppfostrare."

Men fortfarande är en taskig barndom (vare sig medveten eller omedveten) ingen ursäkt för att den senare vuxne begår övergrepp av kanske något slag, vare sig stort eller smått?? Det befriar en inte heller från ansvar. Jag tycker Miller uttrycker detta ganska bra.

Se också om en anna sorts övergrepp (och om man så vill våld) i inlägget "Kön, genus och lojalitet." Ytterligare ett inlägg som jag måst gå och grunna på, men som är så suveränt! I all dess ilska!!! :-)

Tillägg 24 februari: En dansk man, född 1956, har skrivit en bok om sin far. En far som slog honom och som missbrukade hans syster sexuellt. Denne man säger sig forfarande älska sin far - och förstå honom (varför han gjorde som han gjorde mot sina barn). Dvs. han har förlåtit honom?

Se här, här, här och här om denna bok.

Jag tänker på det Miller skrivit om Hitler (se ovan). Om att Hitler riktade sitt hat mot syndabockar, genom att på "något sätt" ursäkta faderns övergrepp, för han (fadern) var ju ett offer för den onde juden... Och hur många fäder (och också mödrar) har inte barn måst förstå?? Men att vuxna fortsätter att göra detta...

Och återigen tänker jag på det Miller skriver om Wilhelm Reich. Miller skriver på sidan 162-163 om Wilhelm Reich:

"...föreställningen om den infantila sexualiteten, som Reich övertog från Freud och senare har vidareutvecklat, har jag aldrig kunnat dela med honom. I min bok 'Den bannlysta vetskapen' företrädde jag den åsikten att Freud med konceptet infantil sexualitet hade lagt locket på ifråga om de svåra följderna av övergrepp mot barn. Jag skrev: 'Något liknande gjorde senare också Wilhelm Reich. Han utvecklade en teori som skulle hjälpa honom att avvärja smärtan hos den tidigt och ständigt utnyttjade pojke som han en gång var. Istället för att känna hur ont det gör när man blir bedragen av de vuxna som man litar på och är försvarlös inför övergreppen, har Wilhelm Reich i hela sitt liv /.../ påstått: jag ville det själv, jag behövde det, alla barn behöver det!'[och vad har dessa båda auktoriteters privata och 'yrkesmässiga' förnekande inneburit för en oerhörd mängd människor?]

Denna utsaga bygger på Myron Sharafs Reichbiografi, enligt vilken Reich ska ha berättat att han redan vid fyra års ålder kände till det sexuella livets alla hemligheter, och detta tack vare husjungfrun som brukade ta honom till sig i sin säng och undervisa honom i sexuella lekar./.../ Förnekandet av barndomens smärta har /.../ vittgående följder, som inte begränsar sig till det privata familjeområdet utan till och med kan leda till politiska omvälvningar [förföljelse av vissa grupper, till och med mord och utrotning av människor osv., förutom övergrepp inom familjen...]."

I wikipedia står det om Reich:

”Reich attributed his later interest in the study of sex and the biological basis of the emotions to his upbringing on the farm where, as he later put it, the 'natural life functions' were never hidden from him. Reich also spoke of witnessing the family's maid having intercourse with her boyfriend, and apparently later asking if he could 'play' the part of the lover. He said that, by the time he was four years old, there were no secrets about sex for him.

He was taught at home until he was 12, when his mother committed suicide after being discovered having an affair with Reich's tutor, who lived with the family. In a report supposedly about a patient, Reich wrote about how deeply the affair had affected him, that the ‘joy of life shattered, torn apart from my inmost being for the rest of my life!’

Her death was particularly brutal because of the method she chose; she drank a common household cleaner, which left her in great pain for days before she died. The tutor was sent away, and Reich was left without his mother or his teacher, and with a powerful sense of guilt.

He was sent to the all-male Czernowitz gymnasium, excelling at Latin, Greek, and the natural sciences. It appears to have been during this period that a skin condition developed that plagued him for the rest of his life. It was diagnosed as psoriasis; Reich was given medication that contained arsenic, now known to make psoriasis worse.

Reich's father was ‘completely broken’ by his wife's suicide. In or around 1914, he took out a life insurance policy, then stood for hours in a cold pond, apparently fishing, but in fact intending to commit slow suicide, according to Reich and his brother Robert. He contracted pneumonia and then tuberculosis, and died in 1914 as a result of his illness; despite his insurance policy, no money was forthcoming.

Reich managed the farm and continued with his studies, graduating in 1915 mit Stimmeneinhelligkeit (unanimous approval). In the summer of 1915, the Russians invaded Bukovina and the Reich brothers fled to Vienna, losing everything. In his Passion of Youth, Reich wrote: ‘I never saw either my homeland or my possessions again. Of a well-to-do past, nothing was left.’

‘I had read somewhere that lovers get rid of any intruder, so with wild fantasies in my brain I slipped back to my bed, my joy of life shattered, torn apart in my inmost being for my whole life!’ — Wilhelm Reich.”

Och det där om barndomsskildringar och att skratta bort saker:

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

“Protection and respect for the needs of a child – this is surely something we ought to be able to take for granted. But we live in a world full of people who have grown up deprived of their rights, deprived of respect /…/

Also, there is less of a tendency today to idealize and romanticize childhood; the misery frequently comes across in all its starkness. But in most autobiographies I have read the authors still maintain an emotional distance from the suffering they went through as children. Little empathy and an astounding absence of rebellion are the rule. There is no inquiry into the whys and wherefores behind the injustice, the emotional blindness and the resulting cruelty displayed by the adults, whether teachers or parents. Description is all. On every page of the brilliant book Angela’s Ashes, for example, Frank McCourt describes such cruelties in gruesome detail. But even as he recalls his childhood, he never rises up against his tormentors, attempting instead to remain living and tolerance and seeking salvation in humor.

And it is for this humor that he has been celebrated by millions of readers the world over [!!!].

But how are we to stand up for children in our society and improve their situation if we laugh at and tolerate cruelty, arrogance, and dangerous stupidity? /…/

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

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

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

Gamla omötta behov/old unmet needs...

[Updated February 5: Illustrating this posting with trying to paste a slide-show into it. With the first photos I eagerly took with a new cellphone camera 1, 5 year ago, fascinated by all the possibilities with the technique. Almost my first trials as photographer actually. From the town where I live.]

Ingeborg Bosch skriver i sin bok "Rediscovering the True Self" på sidan 271 om "Old unmet needs":

"As children we all had needs that were not met by our care-givers. Usually these unmet needs are of a non-physical nature (warmth, safety, trust, support, etc.). There are also unmet needs of a physical nature (sexual integrity and bodily safety). It is these unmet needs that make it necessary for children to hide the truth about their childhoods from themselves. The truth being that their needs are not being met and will not ever be met."

Vilket översatt blir (min översättning, utan ordbok, men jag får nog lov att hämta den för det fortsatta bloggandet här!!):

"Som barn hade vi alla behov som inte blev mötta av våra vårdnadsgivare. Vanligtvis är dessa omötta behov av en ickefysisk natur (värme, säkerhet/trygghet, tillit/förtroende, stöd osv.). Det finns också omötta behov av en fysisk natur (sexuell integritet och kroppslig trygghet/säkerhet). Det är dessa omötta behov som gör det nödvändigt för barn att dölja sanningen om sin barndom för sig själva. Sanningen som är att deras behov inte är mötta och aldrig kommer att bli mötta."

Och detta är för smärtsamt för ett barn att ta in, om det inte får hjälp att göra detta av en medkännande vuxen, som inser att barnet behöver få dessa behov fyllda, att de är naturliga och inte sjukliga, inte tecken på svaghet eller något sådant. Se Miller till exempel i "Det självutplånande barnet i hela kapitlet "Föraktets onda cirkel"!

Jag tror att de som ser starka ut har fått dessa behov fyllda eller haft ett medkännande, upplyst vittne eller så har den senare vuxen helt förnekat dessa saker och är så förhärdad och tjockhudad att inget ser ut att bita på denne/denna.

Jean Jenson skriver också om behov på sidorna 148-149 i sin bok "Att återerövra sitt liv".
Om vad hon anser skulle vara känslor som vuxna skulle uppleva under normala förhållanden om de inte vore påverkade av obearbetad barndomssmärta (saker som kan triggas igång av diverse symboler i vuxenlivet, även sådant som inte handlar om stora kriser i vuxenlivet, utan kanske bara av en doft, ett ljud, en film eller dylikt). Här hennes uppräkning över vad hon anser vara vuxenkänslor:

"Obehagliga:
vrede
raseri
sorg
ensamhet
rädsla
hat
olycka

[men också!!] Behagliga [känslor vi kanske inte tillåter oss eller inte kan känna ogrumlade, eller väldigt litet ogrumlade]:
glädje
tillfredsställesle
trygghet
välbefinnande
kärlek
lycka
skuld"

Alla dessa känslor hör normalt också barndomen till, är också barndomskänslor, med tillägget av följande obehagliga känslor (som hon menar indikerar att barndomshändelser triggats igång, dvs. är barndomskänslor):

"övergivenhet
bortstötthet
otillräcklighet
totalt beroende
att man är 'elak', 'dålig' eller känner sig 'fel'
skam."

Hon skriver vidare:

"Så snart vuxna känner sig övergivna, bortstötta, otillräckliga eller totalt beroende är det gamla barndomskänslor de upplever. Det är bara när man är beroende av andra för sitt välbefinnande som man känner sig övergiven. Vuxna kan bli 'lämnade', men när de åtföljande känslorna är desamma som de ett barn skulle känna om det blev lämnat av föräldern - såsom panik, förkrosselse eller förlamande sorg - är det inte förlusten i den aktuella relationen man upplever. På liknande sätt är 'bortstötthet' mer än att man inte är omtyckt, det antyder att det är något fel på oss och kastar en skugga över vårt värde, precis som 'otillräcklighet'. Som vuxna klarar vi av vissa saker men räcker inte till för andra, och vår självkänsla påverkas inte av denna insikt. Att känna sig totalt beroende är en normal del av barndomen, men när man känner på det sättet som vuxen är det en gammal känsla som kommer upp till ytan (som diskuteras i de tabeller som visade skillnaden mellan barnets och den vuxnes verklighet i [tidigare kapitel] kapitel tre). Alla dessa känslor är gamla barndomskänslor som måste ha funnits och trängts bort; den smärta som man inte kände då kommer till ytan nu, förknippad med den aktuella händelsen."

Jenson skriver att om det skett en sund mognad hos barnet skulle den vuxne inte känna känslor som övergivenhet, bortstötthet osv.

Jenson menar att en medvetandeväxling äger rum om något sker i nuet, om vi möter en symbol av något slag. Och det behöver inte vara något dramatiskt alls som utlöser denna medvetandeväxling. Men dessa växlingar, med åtföljande reaktioner kan verkligen krångla till tillvaron för, kanske mer än vi inser eller vill inse...

Men hon påpekar (sidan 59) att:

"Det är viktigt att inse att Joan [en kvinna vars exempel hon använt] inte hade någon kontroll över sina reaktioner på dessa upplevelser [när hon kom ut morgonen för att ta bilen till jobbet hade ett tungt issjok rasat ner från garagets metalltak och Joan blev alldeles förkrossad och började anklaga sig själv. Storgråtande rusade hon in till sin man och talade om vad som hade hänt. Jenson menar att om Joan inte hade det hon hade i ryggsäcken skulle hon ha agerat på ett annat sätt, vuxnare och mer konstruktivt, men nu kunde hon inte detta]. Vår västerländska kultur [och förmodligen inte bara den] vill gärna få oss att tro att det nästan alltid är möjligt för oss att ha kontroll över oss själva, men en av de situationer där vårt psyke inte har situationen helt i sin hand är när medvetandet växlar över till ett tidigare tillstånd där problem inte har lösts eller sörjts. Vi kan inte medvetet hindra denna växling från att inträffa. Men det vi kan göra, och det vi måste lära oss att göra om vi vill uppnå läkning, är att bli på det klara med att den ägt rum."

Barnet använde diverse försvar för att skydda sig mot smärtan och full insikt; falskt hopp (om det bara, då skulle det få sina behov fyllda, bli bättre behandlat osv.), falsk makt genom vrede eller bara irritation (att barnet kände sig stort och starkt och att det hade en makt som det inte hade), falsk makt förnekande av behov (om man förnekar att man har de behov som inte blir fyllda kan det också ge en en, falsk, känsla av makt och kontroll, precis som barnet skyddade sig genom att intala sig att det som hände inte var något viktigt, inget betydde), ursprungligt, eller första, försvar (barnet klandrar sig själv, och detta klander kan vara öppet eller mer dolt; kvinnor tenderar att mer öppet klandra sig själva, anse sig dumma osv., män att dölja detta mer, både för sig själva som för andra, men både män och kvinnor använder detta försvar). Se Miller's artikel "Out of the Prison of Self-Blame" ("Ut ur självklandrets fängelse") och "Depression - Compulsive Self-Deception" ("Depression - tvångsmässig självförnekelse").

De menar också att rädsla kan vara ett sorts försvar, dvs. man undviker det som gör ont, flyr ifrån det... Men man borde försöka våga möta denna istället för att fly den, vilket är vad de hjälper sina klienter med i terapi, genom att inse att faran fanns då, handlar om då och inte om nu... Oerhört svårt dock...

Man använder alla dessa försvar för att förneka de behov man inte fick fyllda, för att undkomma smärtan i sanningen om hur det var och vilka brister ens föräldrar eller vårdnadsgivare hade. Det är dessa försvar som resulterar i all de dysfuntionella beteenden, som man sedan i den mesta terapin ska ändra, till funktionella beteenden...

Men på grund av försvarens natur kan det vara (är!!??) det svårt att riktigt ändras... Vilket kan vara skönt att inse; att det inte beror på fel på mig, utan att detta faktiskt har en orsak. Det vill säga man behöver (eller ska inte ens) klandra sig själv om framgång uteblir eller blir liten, kanske oerhört liten...

De som lyckas bättre har antagligen så litet i sin ryggsäck redan, så de lyckas bättre. Deras exempel är alltså inget "bevis" för att denna metod är oerhört bra eller lyckosam eller den bästa... Se återigen vad 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."

Jag kan inte låta bli att undra hur många terapeuter som inte för allt smör i Småland vill undvika sanningen!!?? Förmodligen har personliga skäl att göra detta? Och det är väl i och för sig antagligen förståeligt, för de har antagligen en massa smärtsamma upplevelser som de måst tränga bort...

Kan det vara så att de genom sina klienter (och deras lyckanden) vill visa hur duktiga de nu är - och att de nu (kanske) äntligen förtjänar sina föräldrars kärlek, respekt och aktning?? Något de aldrig kommer att lyckas med? För de behov de (eventuellt) försöker fylla skulle ha fyllts då och kan inte fyllas senare.

Jag tror att Miller verkligen har rätt i det hon skriver om terapeuter och omedveten manipulation...

Och om terapeuter är omedvetet rädda för sin egen historia hur kan inte detta påverka dennes/dennas klienter? Undra på om man blir ytterligare rädd? Se Millers artikel "Taking it Personally: Indignation as a Vehicle of Therapy" ("Att ta det personligt: indignation som ett verktyg i terapi").

Fast tyvärr verkar det som om Miller inte riktigt lever upp till det hon lär alla gånger...

De här gamla omötta behoven skapar kanske bara problem i vuxenlivet i olika grad och storlek. Försök att fylla dessa gamla behov (medvetna eller omedvetna) i vuxenlivet orsakar alltid större eller mindre problem!? Somliga problem kanske dock är försumbara?? Och existerar knappt?

Och även om vi nu själva inte orsakar så mycken skada (???) så kan det vara en stor fördel att se så klart som möjligt och ha förmåga att genomskåda manipulation var den än förekommer och i vilken form den än förekommer; i hjälpsituationer (att vi kan hjälpa någon att se saker eller hjälpa oss själva att se saker), i politik på alla nivåer...

Konrad Stettbacher (vilken Miller tagit avstånd ifrån) skriver i sin bok "Om lidandet ska ha en mening" ("Making Sense of Suffering: Confrontation With Your Own Past") om att bevara livets väktare i barn, dvs. att vi behandlar dem så att de inte måste tränga bort saker och döva sin förmåga till kännande - och medkännande.

Se också vad Miller skriver om primalterapi "Concerning Primal Self-Therapy". Och se Sam Turton om Millers syn på primal terapi, efter epostande med henne, i "Alice Miller & Primal Therapy: a Summary".

Se tidigare postningar om "evading childhood reality in psychotherapy".

I "Introduction to Past Integration Therapy" står det:

"Past Reality Integration® therapy is based on that we, as adults, often perceive the world through the defence mechanisms that we have developed as children. These defence mechanisms see to it that we do not have to feel the pain which was inflicted upon us as children. However these defence mechanisms is exactly what makes us, as adults; suffer the most as they give a distorted view of our perceptions of the present reality. Our problems in the present are, but are also caused by: fear, dejection, anger, stress and lack of true contact with other people.

The aim of PRI is to help us work towards becoming aware of the destructive actions of these defence mechanisms, to stop the defence and subsequently break them down or dismantle them.

Behind our defences hides the old pain which we have had to repress as a child because allowing ourselves to feel it at that time would have been so painful that we would have not been able to endure it. The situation of the child that we were differed greatly from the situation of the adult that we are now: we were small, dependent and at the mercy of others for the care, love, warmth and understanding that we needed. We had no choice in this: if our parents did not give us what we needed, there was no way out, we could not go away and find other parents.

Moreover young children have no awareness of time. This means that a situation with lack of love, insufficient amount of touch and comforting in times that we were distressed seemed, to the child we were, last endlessly without a prospect of change [it will last for ever, if my family doesn't like or love me, nobody will - ever etc.].

Through dismantling the defence and admitting the old pain we can see and feel the old pain for what it is: old, not belonging in the present but to the child we were still very painful and life threatening.

Deep inside and throughout we realise then that it is not necessary any more to defend ourselves against these feelings through all sorts of defence mechanisms. This was in the past, and the past is gone. We are adults now and not dependent any more on one or two people responsible for fulfilling our basic physical and emotional needs. As adults we now have the ability to fulfil our own needs. We always have a choice now and we have awareness of time, matters that the child we were had no grasp of. Therefore, if it had not developed defence mechanisms, in many cases the child we were would have been exposed to unbearable pain.

The aim of PRI therapy isn’t to feel the old pain in the (false) hope we can do some work on it in order for it to go away. The aim of a PRI therapy is to live our lives increasingly free of defences. Also then when a defence is being activated, we can recognize these ourselves and can dismantle it more effectively, with accelerating speed, so that we can eliminate the destructive effect of it in our daily lives. Then we can experience life for what it actually is: mostly surprisingly unburdened [Oh, how nice!!! Probably not easy to achieve though and that's important to realize!? And I am skeptical to all sorts of (manipulative) coping-methods... Only covering things up? They are much less needed than you think?? And used much more often than needed, with people who could work things through more? I think Miller, Jenson and Bosch etc. thinks so too. And talking loudly about these things together with narrating what we have been through step by step also contributes, are maybe the only needed steps for the less harmed to recover??]."

---

Brief summary: because of the nature of the defences (what therapists see as dysfunctional behavior) we can't just change them to functional, at least not with (long-)lasting effects/results Jenson and Bosch thinks. Janov etc. agrees? Good, clever girls and boys "can" though? As they have always been able to!? If it was a question of intelligence and intellect only, then... How many wouldn't then be cured? But cognitively knowing IS a step for Bosch and Jenson. And for Janov, and probably others I don't know of.

The ones succeeding with this method long-lastingly are probably much less harmed??? Probably hardly harmed at all?

---

Silently: Words, words, words... Yes, is there a Wall of Words - and a Wall of Information too, struck me... Are we hiding behind them? Can they both be beneficial, in connecting people with each others, in new connections and relations, but also be problematic? Walls against what? Anything? Or? And who uses most words? Who has been using most words during history? Talking above ones head!?? As if one didn't exist or was counted on, had nothing to contribute with!?? Hadn't the child, doesn't the adult now have?? I can't help being a little ironical... Again. Hmmm...

And who are given the opportunity to speak up today (for instance through the technique) and are now raising their voices (or trying to raise them)?

And that about silence, and ignoring, taking no notice, disregarding... But aren't there options? Forums where you get a true, genuine exchange? And other forums where you get less or hardly anything? Can one choose? Are there choices? Actually!!??

How was it now with the Master Suppression Techniques?

Manipulation...

taken yesterday at work.

Some thoughts thrown down just before work, when I moved between work-places now before lunch. In my excellent and fantastic English (I wonder if you ought to be quiet, k!!?? You ought to realize your limitations!? To be honest!? Quite ironic).

A method to punish a child is to surround it by silence, meet it with silence. And I think this is more horrible than we can imagine… A grown up needing to demonstrate his/her power in this manner… Grown ups can be met with this too!?

You can act old things out in different manners, aggressiveness in destructive or self-destructive behaviors. Some people (or all more or less) use both methods to different degrees?

And abuse is more than spanking. But does spanking result in another sort of suppressed anger? That takes its expression in aggression and brutality? Together with self-destructiveness of different kinds (for instance more successful suicide-attempts?). While other forms of abuse more result in self-destruction, self-harm of different degrees, but not as much in aggression and brutality?

On my way to the first school (on bike, icy roads):

You can manipulate in other ways too, not only with silence (ignoring the child till it changes) if “necessary”!? By instilling shame in children, for their natural needs, for their imperfection (they should realize their utter, enormous imperfection!!?? Taken out of the delusion that they are perfect!? Realize their utter limitations?), their reactions, thoughts, behaviors, way of expressing themselves, in all: their ways of being, how they are!?

All this is done in different manners, more or less subtle, some of these measures are aware and some aren’t aware? Both consciously and unconsciously done?

You can do this to other grown ups too!? Of shame on behalf (!!!) of them try to change them, or not even reply to what they say? You react to how they say it, not actually WHAT they are saying in some cases). What is this shame about?? What does it awoke? Honestly I don’t think I want to understand THEM (the ones feeling shame and needing to change one), but to understand the mechanisms and roots.

Is this for instance about feeling superior? Maybe even powerful, knowing, capable!??? And maybe this is entirely unconscious? But does this mean that you aren’t responsible for what it can cause??

And the one exposed to this sort of (conscious or unconscious) power game

Need to be very self-aware!? But how many are?

Yes, shame for others what is that actually about?

And why does a child behave in the way he behaves? What would a “natural” behavior be if the child wasn’t abused at all, or hardly at all??

And why does a grown up behave as he/she does? And if that person isn’t harming anyone… What’s the problem? Or does this person harm just by her/his way of being?? By instilling shame in its poor environment??

Where has Miller written about her experiences with the Wall of Silence?? I would like to come back to that, but now I don’t have time to look for that book. I believe it is in “Breaking Down Walls of Silence” (“Riv tigandets mur”)!? But the forum ourchildhood.int doesn’t live up to this? Miller approves of how people are treated there? People are me with silence, they have to figure out on their own why contributions are rejected, and in first hand also why they are rejected, when they are rejected. People aren’t informed about why they are rejected, and don’t get any opportunity to defend themselves… Miller also writes about our wish for an open, genuine communication…

Don't anyone wonder why people maybe are objecting and reacting? If there may lie something behind?

So who is manipulative?

And what is actually manipulative?

Jenson and Bosch on shame (and guilt). About the different expressions of Walls of Silence, or the theme Walls of Silence, see earlier postings here and here.

The text above was very swiftly written in a pause in work...Franz Kafka.

Addition in the evening: I found the text I thought of, where Miller writes that she experienced the Wall of Silence already in her childhood. Her mother used to meet her with silence for days in a row to demonstrate her absolute power over the small girl and force her to obedience. The small girls' needs, questions and suggestions were taken aback against this wall without forcing her mother to defend herself for this sadism, at all. The mother saw this attitude as a fair and well-earned punishment for offenses the small girl had done, as her duty to give the child a lesson. "For her own good!!"

As in Franz Kafka's "penal colony" the small child wasn't informed about her punishable offense(s). In this omission there was a message; if the child didn't even understand for what she earned this punishment she had no conscience!! Oh, horrible!! If she didn't understand then she had proved her badness!!

The child was pushed away, had to seek, do her utmost till her conscience (hopefully?? with a lot of iron) told her what guilt she had drawn upon her. Not until then she could TRY to apologize and dependent on the mood in the one in power, if she was lucky, maybe be excused!!

The child then couldn't realize that this was actually a (extremely) cruel and even sadistic behavior/treatment. She couldn't realize this on her own, no. She needed a grown up who could help her to see, at all see, even if she didn't get the help to question it and see it as unfair. She couldn't take the truth in with her feelings on her own for what her mother actually had showed (lack of love), instead she questioned her own feelings and natural (and adequate) reactions, than questioned her mother and her behavior, that what she did was wrong and unfair (to what extent it was wrong and unfair), that she in fact showed despise and contempt for the small child.

The child was left in "the/a prison of confusion" as Miller writes!!

Bosch is talking about a defense she calls the Primary defense (det första eller ursprungliga försvaret), in which the child blames herself...

See also Arthur Silbers Miller-essays where he often mentions not only Denial but also obedience (that the child is learned to obey from earliest in life) here and there in these essays (in my feelings) and what it results in later, in life and in the society!!

---

Miller skriver på sidorna 23 och framåt i sin bok "Riv tigandets mur" i kapitlet "Ur förvirringens fängelse":

"Tigandets mur [The Wall(s) of Silence] upplevde jag redan i min barndom. Min mor brukade möta mig med tystnad hela dagar i sträck för att på så sätt demonstrera sin absoluta makt för [och över!!??] mig och tvinga fram min lydnad. /.../ Den lilla flickans behov, frågor och förslag studsade tillbaka mot denna mur utan att min mor behövde försvara sig för denna sadism. Hon betecknade sin attityd som ett rättvist och välförtjänt straff för förseelser jag begått, som sin plikt att ge mig en 'läxa'. /.../

Liksom i Kafkas 'I straffkolonin' blev nämligen den lilla anklagade aldrig upplyst om sin straffbara förseelse I denna underlåtenhet låg ett budskap: 'Om du inte ens vet vad du har förtjänat detta straff för har du ju inget samvete. Sök, forska, ansträng dig tills ditt samvete säger dig vad det är för skuld du ådragit dig. Först då kan du försöka urskulda dig och beroende på makthaverskans humör kan du, om du har tur, kanske få förlåtelse."