More about manipulation in therapy…

[Updated April 11 with a translation to Swedish of the first quotation] I have been tipped long ago about the book ”Gaslighting: The Double Whammy, Interrogation and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy & Analysis” by Theo L. Dorpat. It stands about it:

“In treatment, the psychotherapist is in a position of power. Often, this power is unintentionally abused. While trying to embody a compassionate concern for patients, therapists use accepted techniques that can inadvertently lead to control, indoctrination, and therapeutic failure. Contrary to the stated tradition and values of psychotherapy, they subtly coerce patients rather than respect and genuinely help them.

The more gross kinds of patient abuse, deliberate ones such as sexual and financial exploitation, are expressly forbidden by professional organizations [but they occur nevertheless]. However, there are no regulations discouraging the more covert [hemliga, dolda] forms of manipulation, which are not even considered exploitative by many clinicians. In this book, noted psychiatrist Theo. L. Dorpat strongly disagrees [with that they aren't exploitative, which he thinks they are?]. Using a contemporary interactional perspective, Dorpat demonstrates the destructive potential of manipulation and indoctrination in treatment.”

Also see Dorpat's new book “Wounded Monster – Hitler’s Path from Trauma to Malevolence” which sounds interesting:

”Few authors who have written about Hitler have understood the deeply damaging effects of psychic trauma on his private life and the way he functioned in the public sphere. Nearly all major biographers have neglected the importance of Hitler's childhood trauma and his later combat trauma during World War I. In Wounded Monster, Dorpat demonstrates how extreme emotional and physical abuse from his father, and his unusually long combat service during the Great War became the most formative influences of his life, resulting in severe, life-long, psychiatric disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. It is the first book to apply contemporary trauma theory to explain Hitler's malevolence [elakhet, illvilja].

This psychiatric biography of Hitler is the only work to discuss the central importance of his vulnerability to shame emotions, as well as the trauma-induced construction of an extensive repertoire of mainly unconscious mechanisms (including fight and flight) for the avoidance of feelings of shame.”

See earlier postings on Adolf Hitler, Jonathan Pincus on Hitler and Hatred, earlier posting on "Hat..." (the first part in Swedish, the second in English), a posting about bigotry, all postings on therapy abuse so far.

From bike ride this morning (see my on line photo album).

Addition April 11: See the site "Verbal and Emotional Abuse in Therapy." Translation of the first quotation above:

“I behandling är psykoterapeuten i en maktposition. Ofta missbrukas denna oavsiktligt. Medan terapeuter försöker förkroppsliga ett medkännande bekymmer för patienter [vara medkännande), använder de accepterade tekniker som oavsiktligt keder till kontroll, indoktrinering och terapeutiskt misslyckande [bristfällig terapi]. Tvärtemot den tradition och de värderingar som uppges eller läggs fram i psykoterapi, tvingar de [dock] patienter subtilt snarare än att respektera och genuint hjälpa dem.

De grövre överlagda, avsiktliga formerna av missbruk av patienter, som sexuellt och finansiellt utnyttjande, är uttryckligen förbjudna av yrkesorganisationer/fackorganisationer [men de förekommer ändå och kanske oftare än vi tror?]. Men det finns dock ingen reglering som avskräcker/hindrar de mer dolda, hemliga formerna av manipulation, vilka inte ens ses som utnyttjande eller exploatering av många kliniker [kliniskt praktiserande]. I sin bok är Theo L. Dorpat starkt oense med detta [med att de inte är utnyttjande, exploaterande, vilket han tycker att de är?]. Genom att använda samtidiga växelverkande perspektiv, visar Dorpat den destruktiva potentialen i manipulation och indoktrinering i [mången] behandling.”

Gurus and leaders…

from tea now at around 10.30, with new-baked bread :-).

Gurus and leaders - a topic I have thought of writing about for a long time…

Miller writes about this and the roots to it in her book “Paths of Life” in the chapter “Reflections” and in the chapter about Helga and her therapy in the same book. And she also mention these topics in the revised version of "The Drama of the Gifted Child" and in "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware."

I googled on "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware" ("Du skall icke märka") and found this text from the bible. Also see here. The illustration below is from the last site, illustrating "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware"?

My summary of what she writes (in "Paths of Life") and eventual comments and thoughts below (from the Swedish edition, the last book that has been translated to Swedish of Miller’s books. Why is that? A societal and professional denial? Is it only due to Miller herself? And why has Miller turned the way she seems to have turned?).

Miller writes that we live in a time where it looks as if dictatorships seem to be replaced by democracies. But at the same time we see how totalitarian systems are growing in different sects.

People who have grown up with freedom and respect and whose distinctive characters have been tolerated and not been throttled with the help of education, would scarcely voluntarily let themselves be drawn into a sect or at least not stay in it if they by coincidence or skillful manipulations should land there.

But many people don’t seem to bother that there exists mechanisms which once again will deprive them of the freedom of thoughts, actions and feelings/emotions (see Pia Mellody about codependency and violations of a child's inner life). They don’t seem to worry that they are put under totalitarian control and are forced to obedience in a way that they will never free themselves from, because through the years they will become objects for an indoctrination which makes it impossible for them to acknowledge or of seeing what damages their personalities have suffered - once again.

Miller writes that the form of secterist groups she has been occupied with are the ones with the unconscious manipulation; the way in which parents or therapists suppressed and unconscious childhood-history influences their children’s and patient’s lives, without anyone observing. In their education they have learned to handle conscious manipulation, but not the unconscious. They haven’t sufficiently dealt with their suppressed history Miller thinks. Other therapists have similar ideas.

Stettbacher says something I think is true; that we ought to protect the watchers of life in ones children. Which means treating our children from the first moment with all the respect we are capable of, so they don’t have to suppress things, so they have to suppress as little as possible? And this is the best way to protect them.

Schools of different kinds and educational methods are never free from all risks for manipulation, how fine ideals one even has. I have had a discussion about Summerhill school system. Not even that system can entirely guarantee anything!? And there has existed things there too from the (very) little I have heard... And also see these experiences of private schools or rather boarding-schools in England. by a former boarding-school student.

In my work I have also seen things I have reacted against, maybe less harmful than other things though… Methods that almost becomes like sect-like things, with a guru a top… For instance as in the Suzuki-metod, we also use the Montessori-method etc. etc. etc. (not inthe music-school though). Noone of us are free from all those tendencies?

Miller writes that among the sect’s founders there are many paranoiac and megalomaniac psychotics who, in the crowd of followers, are seeking protection from their own agony, in that they offer themselves as helpers and healers. They want to avoid their childish powerlessness and impotence and fight this on the symbolic level. At the same time they offer themselves as saviors, because through their followers eulogizes they at last feel powerful instead of powerless/impotent.

But as soon as they fear being seen through they force their disciples to silence. Scary.

See what Arthur Silber has written about obedience and the obedience culture in his Miller-essays. What our early experiences of obedience can mean and lead to even (or not least) on a societal and political level too.

It’s not only the victims but also the leader/guru that regresses to the childhood Miller thinks. The leader/guru also looses the contact with reality (to different degrees) through the followers’ praising-songs, depending on how much or little he has suppressed or later processed (to what degree he is willing to question himself).

Gurus obtain a common assent through fatherly and motherly care, which blends the masses and through regression to early childhood makes them caught in a limitless admiration. In this regression critics of parent-figures as leaders and gurus are not possible at all. And self critic from the part of the leader also disappears in the power-inebriation and self-idealization.

The jubilation of the masses works like a drug on the leader’s excited affects and all the jubilant people doesn’t realize that he uses them only for this function.

The followers don’t question if they are sent out into wars (literally or metaphorically) by their loving and supposed loving leader, just because his personal history demands this. They join, don’t think, leave the thinking to him (and he wants them leaving the thinking to him), they trust him as small children, who don’t have any conception of future and planning yet, they are just trusting that their “father” wants their best - and knows best. They stop thinking themselves (or many do?). Even if he (metaphorically) comes home from work, shouting and with his hand lifted, greeting and correcting them, he is only doing this for their own best (and he knows better than them what is the best for them), he says.

Often well-formulated theories are offered, which despite the scientific façade has nothing with science to do, because they only replace lasting facts with those they make up or deduce from their own theories.

And I think Miller is right concerning failures in therapy (my amateur-translation!!):

If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility (and she includes regressive techniques here AND primal therapy) 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.

How many haven’t experienced the same (or similar things) as Helga experienced, in this case in therapy (another form of manipulation)? I think I will write about her story too in a later posting.the not best well-mannered dog at the table, begging (I have serious problems resisting him)!! :-)

Addition after lunch: On my walk (with a dog that has to arm himself with an enormous patience before anyone is ready to go out. It was wonderful out; sun and a blue sky, and we met a woman on a horse and a man with the dog in the forest! So this forest isn't so wild as it maybe looks!?) I thought further on what Mellody has found about violations and abuse:

The child could be violated by being told how to

• think,
• behave,
• feel,
• not think,
• behave,
• feel,
• what friends the child should have,
• and not have,
• which cloths it should wear,
• and not wear…

It was told:

• how it was
• and how and what it wasn’t,
• how it thought,
• and didn't' think,
  
• how it felt,
• and didn't feel,
• how it reacted
• and accused for not reacting, feeling, sensing…

How does a child meet this?

"No, I am not! I am not thinking that way!!"

Words, feelings, thoughts, reactions etc. put in its mouth?

Which Mellody thinks are violations and abuse. And disrespect for the child as person, a disbelief and distrust in its wishes and strivings. Mellody calls this “excessive control of reality” (my translation from Swedish).

And this is also abusive adults between and seldom leads to anything constructive (if it ever leads to something constructive)!? How do one meet:

“You are!!”

With:

“No, I am not!!”

How does one prove neither the first nor the second?

Projections has to be worked out in some way? And they aren’t (are they) by saying

“You are!!”

But it’s very tempting to use these words sometimes?? And where are the limits for when it's no idea to go on trying???

Using these words, is that to take responsibility for oneself? And to say things like that one need to be very self-aware?? Knowing what is about oneself and what is about the other part. But this is tricky! Is the alternative entire solitude??

How would the best way be to communicate? Taking responsibility for what we say, do, how we behave? We will probably go on making bigger and smaller mistakes with all what follows, but we can try to communicate???

No wonder there are wars in this world? But from where does this enormous rage and fury come where you are capable of killing, not only verbally but also literally? Did he child once experience its fathers outbursts as threats for life??

And both parts probably have to want to develop, and care about the relation? And this isn’t always the case? Thinking loudly here... Wondering, thinking (WHAT?? "Thinking!!!??" If one is emotional than one is too emotional and not thinking?? And when one is thinking, one is thinking too much and maybe also insensitive. Yes, it's that too: "You shall not think so much!!" that is also an expression of "excessive control of reality"?), not trying to write a hand-book...

Jenson writes something: from where does all the… in the world come? All needs for mood-rising medication? It’s obvious that there is something lacking? Is it the child’s….?

Mellody speaks about other emotional violations, as demands on perfectionism, neglect, abandonment (both emotionally as physically) etc too, and she is one of those who have pointed out that there exist emotional abuse and disrespect too.

Easer said than done all this!?? With all we probably have in our back-packs??

We can and maybe should communicate how we feel, react etc. And ask

“What did you mean? I reacted in this and this way! It felt...”

or I don't know. Think if there existed a hand-book in this!!??

See Bosch on boundary violations and a posting under the label integrity violations.

From an earlier posting:

"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?"

Here a sender-in in a newspaper here in Sweden on ”Abuse, a tool legitimized by the goal?”

Defences...

I have been thinking about the topic gurus and power the last months and thought of blogging about it and yesterday I started to search in my books what stands there and found something else (or not?) in the revised edition of Miller's first book "The Drama of the Gifted Child" in the chapter "The vicious circle of contempt [for weakness, for instance in the client in therapy, not recovering as fast or at all as he/she ought to. The, still unconscious, contempt for the small child, not handling things better than it did!!]" (or how is it translated in the English edition?).

At page 151 (in the Swedish edition) it stood something that triggered some thoughts, something in the style:

“The human beings whom had the responsibility for us in our childhood made it impossible for us to develop our awareness (consciousness?). They wanted to prevent (or stop) this because it threatened their defenses.”

I thought further: And it is deplorable if the development of our awareness/consciousness is hindered in our therapies by our therapists because it threatens their (the therapists) defenses. Miller writes that therapists have learned about conscious manipulation, but they aren't always aware of the/an unconscious manipulation...

And it is the latter that is so problematic... If I have understood her right.

An unconscious manipulation neither the client nor the therapist is aware of.

And this is also the problem in other circumstances and relations!?? One example is the relation teacher-pupil, where the teacher (more often than we believe or are aware of) doesn't want to know something that would threaten her/his defenses... There are probably other examples on this... I also came to think about the conception power imbalance, Kirkengen for instance has written about this. And the power imbalance between in first hand physician/doctor and her/his client. About power abuse...

The conception "censoring" also struck me all of a sudden... What is this about? What are we censoring, in others and ourselves, and why? What is actually important and what matters actually?

Quite silently: Hmmm, and that about women's voices... Do they have anything to contribute with or come with? Are the worth listening to and respectfully be met as equals? In a real, genuine exchange on similar conditions, with mutual respect? Where the message is important, more important than how it is said...

But I guess; if you are truly interested in an exchange the form matters less or maybe not at all!!??

There is (or can be??) a lot of competition among musicians... And it isn't so unusual that people say very critical things about others playing for instance... Quite contemptuous things... But who are the most contemptuous? The ones that knows "most"? Who are the most generous and maybe less critical? I don't know if I am unfair now... An maybe is it so that the ones that knows "most" also can afford to be more generous?? I don't know...

I have taken lessons for pianists like Janos Solyom, Käbi Laretei etc. Been in master-class with the Swedish baritone Olle Persson and the Swedish pianist Matti Hirvonen (as 46 year-old woman!!!! Curious on everything, still trying to develop things. That I was accepted for this master-class a summer in the north of Sweden was unbelievable for me...). I have cooperated a little (very little!!) with the singer Erland Hagegård etc. To mention some... All these well-known in music-circles here... And other teachers during my educations...

And I have seen others in action... And of course seen both good and bad things, and probably been blind for things (maybe many things)... And in a way (maybe many ways?) I probably have a lot of respect for some, maybe too much respect!??? Too...

But I don't aspire at all to be well known myself, I am satisfied with how it is. If I had any opportunity to that, any more...

The last fifteen years have been about plain surviving, to different degrees (for ten years it was almost a question of surviving), for keeping the nose above water, despite all supposed (???) advantageous'... Not for developing any skills whatsoever actually... (Including not for developing my English or for communicating on that language). But I kept on working as the clever girl; both on work-things and on personal things (not my English!)...

"Oh, you must have had support!!!"

No, I hadn't, people disappeared... I became very lonely... (blowing my hair in the middle of writing).

Someone wrote to me recently:

"...these matters can be very painful. But having faced them we become stronger."

In the context this was said (actually written) these words didn't feel especially caring or empathic at all. Excuse me, but what bullshit!!?? It doesn't automatically make one stronger. You experienced this for your own good, for to learn!!?? You deserved this, or?

When I was showering now I came to think of blind admiration too... See above, about having too much respect maybe. I have wondered and reacted over woman I have had contact with for a long time, actually a woman in my mom's age (a mother-figure??), over how she resonates and reacts over people in certain positions, how shall I express this; as if they have no faults (or blind spots), as if they are perfect, not really human beings!? One isn't allowed to question them or criticize them!? One of them is a former head for a big company here in Sweden! A man she has had some private contact with, I don't know... Oh, I react so strongly when people admire "fine people", seeing like some sort of superhuman beings, of some reason... Has something to do with my background?

This woman (actually retired teacher!) grew up in a crowd of seven children as the one in the midst, on a farm in the middle of Sweden that has been in the family for over 400 years, fairly wealthy I think. They never starved, and they had opportunities to go further in school-education (opportunities my mom didn't have, coming from the working-class, the lowest working-class too)...

I have tried to imagine how it was, how her (my friends) parents were (my think I learned to know my maternal grandparents to that degree that I can imagine how they were. I was 31 respective 33 when they died, grandmother 90 years and grandfather 87)... How her father was... From what I have read (not least from/in Miller's books). I see an authoritarian father, maybe even totalitarian... And I wonder how her mother was too, actually?? Not so little authoritarian too? Yes, that about growing up in better conditions...

This woman married a man, colleague to us, and they got two children (in my age, or a little younger)... Her husband was alcoholic (as his older brother), but this wasn't something we spoke of at all. We haven't done it at all, not even today we do speak about it (so vital things!!?). And this was some kind of secret at work too!!?? When I came here I was a 23-year old woman, not so secure and not seeing things... Her husband died in cancer (due to his alcoholism, in organs which use to be damaged if you are an alcoholic) when he had just passed 60.

My father could have developed a totalitarian regimen too? But he couldn't really? I try to imagine how it was... There were moderating factors? Mom didn't really allow him?? But she couldn't really protect us!?? She in turn had been beaten (and probably also been exposed to emotional abuse, and maybe even sexual??), her self-esteem was (and is?) very low... But I don't want to idealize her either...

With the years dad changed I think (seen from the child's point of view)... He became more democratic, less strict, in a way?? And much more anxious for things, for us, when we were on the road home for instance, which made me very astonished!! Now he allowed himself to let things to surface more? But not the really vital things??

No, I must do something else than writing... Many threads and sidetracks here?

Brainwashing…

Margaret Singer.

[Updated April 6] In a comment to my former posting on “Emotional abuse…” I was tipped about a Margaret Singer and her 6 criterias for thought reform (my amateur translation from Swedish) I guess it was from the site "hjärntvätt" (brainwashing):

1. Keeping a person unknowing of what is going on and what is happening.
2. Controlling a person’s time and if possible its physical environment (milieu).
3. Creating a sense of powerlessness, secret fear and dependency.
4. Repressing a lot of the person’s old behaviours and attitude.
5. Infusing new behaviours and attitude.
6. Pushing a closed system of logic forward, not allowing critics.

The commentator wrote:

“Her description of brainwashing was very similar to what I suffered in a ‘normal’ psychotherapy (except milieu and time control)."

And it was like Singer describes it the child had it once and as many children still have it? Being obedient and keeping quiet? Not questioning or seeing through? As many of us had it more or less? So we are so used to it and thus have difficulties seeing this through?

Addition April 6: was tipped by a friend on Robert Jay Lifton’s "Theory of thought reform":

• Milieu Control (controlled relations with the outer world)
• Mystical Manipulation (the group has a higher purpose than the rest)
• Demand for Purity (pushing the individual towards a not-attainable perfection)
• Confession (confess past and present sins)
• Sacred Science (beliefs of the group are sacrosanct and perfect)
• Loading the Language (new meanings to words, encouraging black-white thinking, thought-stoppers)
• Doctrine over person (the group is more important than the individual)
• Dispensing of existence (insiders are saved, outsiders are doomed)

Also see "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" by Robert Jay Lifton.

And all these things you ought to avoid in therapy. And these are things many children have experienced when they grew up, in their families, to different degrees?

Translated the points above would be something in the style:

• Kontroll av miljön (kontrollerade relationer med den yttre världen)
• Mystisk manipulation (gruppen har ett högre syfte än resten, dvs. resten av världen? Manipulation av upplevelser vilka verkar vara spontana, men är planerade och orkestrerade)
• Krav på renhet (man pushar individen mot en ouppnåelig perfektion, världen ses svart-vit och medlemmarna är konstant förmanade att rätta sig efter gruppens ideologi och strävan efter perfektion)
• Bekännelse (man bekänner forna och nutida synder. Synder, som de definieras av gruppen, ska bekännas antingen inför en personlig ordningsman eller offentligt till gruppen)
• Helig vetenskap (övertygelser om gruppen är okränkbara, heliga och perfekta. Gruppens doktrin och ideologi ses om den ultimata sanningen, bortom allt ifrågasättande eller varje dispyt)
• Laddande av språket (nya meningar på ord, uppmuntrande av ett svart-vitt tänkande, tankestoppare. Gruppen tolkar och använder ord och fraser på ett nytt sätt så att den yttre världen ofta inte förstår)
• Doktrin över person (gruppen är viktigare än individen. Medlemmens personliga erfarenheter är underordnade den heliga vetenskapen och varje motsatt erfarenhet måste förnekas eller tolkas på nytt för att passa gruppens ideologi)
• Fördelande av existens (insiders räddas, outsiders är dömda. Gruppen har privilegiet, förmånsrätten att bestämma vem som har rätten att existera och vilken som inte har det)

Detta låter som något som skulle kunna existera i familjen för ett både litet och betydligt större barn i större eller mindre grad? Och dylika saker borde undvikas i terapi, både i individuell som gruppterapi.

The significance of childhood for how healthy the politics is that is practised – and is possible to practise…

When I was writing the recent blogposting about solidarity I came to think of something I read in one of the books John Cleese has written together with his therapist Robin Skynner “Life and How to Survive It” (the Swedish edition). I wrote a blogposting in Swedish about this.

First I want to add that I don’t believe in all their ideas on why people get psychologically ill, are having psychological problems or how to come to terms with them.

However, here I want to quote a little freely from the chapter about "changes for everybody."

Politicians dividing people in ”we” and ”them”, whom always need somebody to blame when things have gone wrong, aren’t really psychologically healthy.

They have less contact with the reality and their opinions are less gone through. Instead we are seeing their deep-rooted emotional attitudes (whom they maybe aren’t aware of).

On average they are more polarized, more prejudiced towards political opponents and thus less capable of seeing the whole picture and work towards the most reasonable compromises, as the soundest in every party are capable of.

Both Stalinists and Nazis were very authoritarian and totally paranoiac.

Differences, disunity and debate are important to be able to make proper political decisions, for they show the whole row of possibilities and through comparing and choosing among those we can make changes in consensus (without manipulation or brainwashing or anything: my comment).

See earlier postings about cults.

The soundest politicians have a lot of other interests in life besides the politics.

The sounder have less needs controlling other people. They are less interested in power for its own sake and more anxious or eager sharing it, as far as possible, giving power to other people in the society.

And when changes are desirable they try to bring those about through convincing people, instead of forcing changes on them. But again: not through manipulation. Sooner or less people will see manipulation through. And if they don’t we will see the results anyway; in a less good working society, workplace, family etc.

The people in the current system getting power are maybe the ones that least of all should have it. But the ones who ought to have the power are held back by the others, because that’s how our system is working. You obtain influence in a party by investing all your time and energy on it – something you are more apt to if you are obsessed by it and don’t have any other real interests.

Thus it’s the human beings whom have less on the side of politics, and the ones with the greatest power-hunger, who get disproportionate big influence and force the sounder and more moderate holding more extreme opinions than they should have otherwise. Which in turn increases the polarization further and conjure more extreme opinions up than most people usually would entertain.

The governing in Great Britain has largely consisted of foisting minority opinions on the citizens, with the result that a great part of the population don’t feel represented in the political process(es).

I wonder: Can this demoralize people? Create cynicism in the worst case and create cynicism if it continues a longer time?

The decisions that are working are the ones that are obtained through a thorough and open discussion where diverging opinions are welcomed and listened to, leading to a real and widely spread unity or in the worst case that decisions are taken by a management one feels is acting with the WHOLE systems best for its eyes.

A bit ironic: for our own good!!??

But this sounds a little as the Summerhill school!

One-sided (or badly supported: my addition) made decisions aren’t lasting. Instead of solving problems they maintain the sad processes in the political apparatus that makes so decisions never are what they ought to be, but always are an exaggerated reaction against the last one-sided decision. The result becomes an endless oscillation between extremes giving overcompensation for what you have lost on the earlier decision.

My comment: The ones that are governing are in many cases governing through dividing and ruling.

The result can become a society that is less sound, more authoritarian, more polarized and group-selfish.

My comment: Exactly what we are seeing.

The trick is finding people whom are less one-eyed.

My comment: why are people one-eyed? Why don’t we have healthier leaders? Or healthier societies?

If I use rhetoric people are paying back with the same coin and we don’t get anywhere. Only in the healthiest contexts we are safe/secure enough to encourage all becoming independent and to express what they feel.

Yes, as the meetings at Summerhill!?

Early unmet needs…

Before I take a bike ride: trying to fill our early, unmet needs will always cause problems, bigger and smaller.

And this is true for therapists too! They should want to work on these things? They should have done during their training, and not only on an intellectual level. Should have got proper help doing this. So they don’t play these out unconsciously.

Miller writes about therapists who have come to terms with conscious manipulation, however (but how many don’t use conscious manipulation and are aware of it and admitting to it maybe only to themselves, yet reluctantly?). Yes, she is writing quite a lot about this (ucoscious manipulation) in the revised version of "The Drama..." or "Det självutplånande barnet..."

Who cause most harm? The ones entirely denying they are playing their early things out (or are denying there are any early things to be played out), or the ones yet reluctantly are admitting that they maybe are playing their unmet needs out, if not consciously so unconsciously? And would want to deal with this. Who hasn't got proper help though... But have to struggle on their own. And make mistakes during this journey, harming both others and themselves, more or less severely. Maybe not noticing it until afterwards?

I think I want to explore this once again, and even more.

I wonder if there are any Lilies of the Valley yet? It has been so many warm days, so maybe?

Addition: I need to remind myself, and I think these things can't become repeated too much. Miller writes that abused grown ups can use protection laws if they are abused, so long as they aren’t paralysed by suppressed pain and thus prevented from protecting themselves.

We are born with the right to be feeling and conscious human beings and to develop as such. To survive, but only at the prize of a complete consciousness, wasn’t the natural goal for our lives – it was a necessity, a consequence of our tragic destiny. To find our way out of this drama we need to be aware of this.

Therapists’ manipulations can only continue so long as the child’s fear is left inside the patient and prevents him/her from seeing his/her actual chances today.

You can’t fight the hatred with arguments, one has to realise their origins and use tools/instruments which make it possible to dissolve the hatred.

When one at last has felt/experienced the hatred and understood that it was justified, then it gets dissolved.

Jenson thinks that one of the serious consequences of the necessary and constant, perpetual suppression is the distortion of the conscious which is the result and which we are forced to. With other words, an innate human ability is damaged – namely to process experiences.

When we start to becoming aware of and realising how some traditional ways of handling children as a matter of fact is violating them, it’s important to start changing these behaviours, based on this insight – but first and foremost we need to become aware of what we ourselves experienced as abuse in our family of origin, to avoid passing this further (but it s no excuse for what we do or say, only an explanation). The more we process these things and liberate us from pain and losses; we automatically take care of and understand our kids.

The more we liberate us from the suppressions which are protecting us from the pain from our own childhoods, the easier it becomes for us avoiding behaving in ways that harm our children (and other people, especially those in our power) without knowing it.

Jenson writes at page 50 in her book the Swedish edition) that children who have grown up in a false hope can believe that it is justified that they are treated badly, that they deserve it because they aren’t good enough. These children, most often girls, will grow up to adults with a low self esteem who can’t pose boundaries or even realize that they are badly treated, but continue to struggle becoming “better.” Trials in changing through learning how to pose boundaries or through participating in self confidence training won’t lead to any noticeable results until one succeed to remove the original obstacle, impediment for what shouldn’t become conscious and felt during childhood, so one shouldn’t perceive or discover and experience the original pain.

Other children, usually boys, make themselves insensitive to all feelings on the whole so they believe they can’t get hurt by anything their parents do, by denying they have any needs or by believing they have a power they don't have (or don't need later as grown ups). They grow up to adults with emotionally weak reactions, who can’t be really near people whom are important for them Getting in contact with their “manliness” through playing drums (furiously) or even through allowing themselves roaring of anger and crying in despair can be a starting point – but if they aren’t confronted (in some way) with the original experiences which demanded that they became emotionally dead no real healing will take place.

Jenson also thinks that we can’t get to the root with problems through aiming at changing fruitless adult behaviours. She thinks that this root lies hidden or concealed under the unconscious impediment which stands between us and the consciousness about old experiences of violations and abuse from childhood.

Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected…

Jennifer Freyd writes at page 194 in her book "Betrayal Trauma":

“But what sort of relation is it, and what purpose does it serve /../ If a woman is blind to her husband’s betrayal and abuse she may be serving the immediate survival needs of her children and herself. But often the perception of dependency is the result of past or current psychological manipulation; escape and change may be possible, but the woman may not see those options at all. More often than not, I suspect, an adult’s perception of dependency is erroneous.”

Jennifer Freyd on “Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected”:

“Sometimes we are so overwhelmed by the horror of our world that we are blind to its wonder; sometimes we are fortunate enough to be so overwhelmed by the wonder of the world that we are blind to its horror. When fragmented by betrayal blindness we sometimes see neither the horror nor the wonder, But whether we see them or not, both elements exist.

Psychological health and fulfilling, constructive relationships have in common wholeness, integration and connection /…/ …often the perception of dependency is the result of past or current psychological manipulation; escape and change may be possible, but the woman [man it can be too?] may not see those options at all. More often than not, I suspect, an adult’s perception of dependency is erroneous. People are too easily manipulated into believing they have no options, and thus they collude in their own self-deception.

It is also tragic, and all too common, when a fear of trust limits intimate relationships between trustworthy individuals. This fear of trusting is a kind of betrayal blindness without the betrayal. The person is unwilling to look, for fear of finding betrayal. Thus, the blindness serves to protect the relationship, but at the prize of intimacy /…/ Therapist-directed feelings of gratitude are not the stuff of connection and intimate relationship.

Blindness and lack of connectedness whether truly needed or not, are ultimately tragic solutions to life. These adaptations keep us from knowing ourselves and others fully. We end up fragmented both internally and externally – impoverished spiritually and socially /…/ it seriously constrains our human potential /…/ Survivors of childhood sexual abuse and betrayal blindness have learned to cope by being disconnected internally so as to manage a minimal kind of external connection. But with adult freedom and responsibility come the potential to break silence, to use voice [Grossman!] and language to promote internal integration, deeper external connection, and a social transformation, Through communication – integration within ourselves and connection between individuals – we can become whole; embodied, aware, vital, powerful.”

She also writes at page 193 in her book:

“Carol Gilligan (1991) identified the irony that occurs when we must sever our relatedness in order to have relationships. She observed that in adolescence we learn to cut off components of our internal sources of knowledge in order not to speak unacceptable truths that would threaten relationships. According to Gilligan, this is something we learn to do; it is not the way we come into the world.

Must we be this way? And if this kind of behavior is so common is it perhaps acceptable, or even healthy? Perhaps. But I believe that a great deal of our habitual betrayal blindness is not necessary, and ultimately not healthy.”

All earlier blogposts with the label J. Freyd including the copied above.

Helga - part 5...

...My experiences the last years have also taught me that one can (only) master the results from childhood traumas if one can remove the actual trauma. As you have proved, these consequences consist of blockading due to fear, dumbness, and dispiritedness.

I agree with you, that if the grown up human being gets over this fear she will not have to go back to the old helplessness, despair and dumbness. The child’s impotent anger probably only arises if the grown up voluntarily puts herself into such a dependency as the one she was forced to live in in childhood. As in your childhood this path was barred for you. Regressed to a small child’s state you couldn’t possibly see that your tears were made an affair of and profited on.

It has been proved since long that one best gets over a shock if one doesn’t try to forget it, which one thought earlier, but instead that one feels what has been done to one and that one talk about this till the shock at last loses its meaning. Silence is exposed people’s biggest enemy.

It was no coincidence that Freud experienced his first hysteric patients’ paralysis symptoms as expressions for this forced silence. Women often express their states through bodily symptoms, through paralysis’s and language disturbances.

“I have to keep quiet, I have no permission showing my anger, not even to knowing what and whom it is about, must believe what I am told, mustn’t betray anybody, must remain immovable till the anger kills me.”

I know of women who have become bodily ill because they didn’t have the power to work themselves up to an accusation for sexual abuse in therapies

The fear of talking is so stubborn because its roots lies in childhood. But you can’t get over it there, but only in the here and now. If you have been exposed to abuse in the here and now, in therapy or in other circumstances, you can’t solve it there and then (i.e. in your childhood) and only blame your parents and not the perpetrators/abusers here and now. This is to cover the present reality up.

To break the silence was in fact life-threatening for many children. For grown ups this is true only in totalitarian regimes, and to them many sects belong. They are built on the old educational system, which people enlisted to them are all too well acquainted with from their childhoods.

Even many therapies are leaning on this system. The therapist (and other gurus) interprets critics from his patients as transference and in this way he disconnects them (this critic) from the first beginning. The patients’ perceptions becomes manipulated to that degree that they don’t dare to believe in their own senses any more, but develop real agony for them.

These mental manipulations can get a devastating effect on the psyche, but doesn’t necessarily have to affect the body at once.

However, there are other tools, the emotional manipulation, which unlike the mental rapidly affects the body.

In my view many healing movements are grounded on this. There are people with a so called charisma; to them many shamans belong, who have a talent for emotional manipulations.

Many of them uses this for others best, many on others misfortune, all due to their own ethical principles and interests. They chose a destructive career if the charisma is combined with a strong need for self-assertion and a psychopathic character. Both these things seem to be true for your therapist. And unfortunately not only for him.

Of course there are serious therapists who now as earlier carefully are revealing the sore points and by this make integration possible for their clients.

But there are more and more charlatans trying to earn money on regression. But the initial euphoria from the wizard’s apprentices seldom remains a longer time. With time troublesome transferences and co-transferences occur, which the self-proclaimed therapist has never learned to deal with.

Then he can rule over his clients with the help of indoctrination and manipulation, which can be successful for a while, and the sexual exploitation can help him to sweep undesired crisis’s and serious distress-situations under the rug.

What you have learned through your personal experiences I have learned through books and from my work with defectors from sects. Our conclusions seem to be pretty alike. We will probably have much to say about this when we meet. I am so glad for that and am looking forward to it.

I wish you all the best, Helga, enjoy the freedom you have fought (and struggled) yourself to.

Manipulation...

From an email from a friend this morning: With the help of specially trained psychologists the advisers of Acta are taught how they shall win the full trust of their clients.

There is no doubt that psychological competence can contribute to the training of sellers.

"There has been a lot of research on how to influence other people, without the influenced noticing that she/he becomes manipulated,"

a psychologist says.

He has seen how sellers use psychological competence.

“With technical language this technique is called neuro-linguistic programming, or NLP. In the clinical psychology such techniques are used without the patient being clear over this [not clear over what's happening]. You try to bring peoples' thoughts, and create feelings, in certain directions. But then [in this circumstance] they are used with a good aim [but is it better in this or any other circumstances?]. It is unethical using these techniques in selling businesses, [especially] when they are exclusively used in winning purposes [gaining money!?]”

this psychologist means. He thinks it’s important that people are aware that techniques like these exists.

“You need to have counter-knowledge, so you are better prepared in meetings with trained sellers,”

he says.

I wonder what Alice Miller has written about NLP and manipulation once again… Maybe I will look for this later. See articles by and about Miller and her ideas here, here and here.

Some personal reflections…

During a tough period I tried with a lot of ”therapies”: qigong, Feldenkrais, meditation, different relaxation-programs, mental training…

During some weekends training Feldenkrais there were physiotherapists (sjukgymnaster) also attending… They and the course-teacher (yes, they call the sessions lessons) spoke very enthusiastically about neuro linguistic programming (NLP), and how they used it in their work. And the Feldenkrais teacher spoke about a Norwegian couple in particular having courses in NLP in Sweden too, for instance on the island Öland (if I remember right), and she thought they were so great. However I got a bit suspicious, because it sounded as keeping barriers on place... I don't believe in that method... Deliberately cutting upcoming things off. If what you as whatever therapist you are "release" things in the client or patient you must be able to deal with it, and have tools dealing with it too. And these things are nothing you should "play" with as we say!!

I have a sister who is educated occupational therapist (arbetsterapeut). During her education they had a course in psychiatry I think. Or they read about how to handle (and/or avoid) psychosis. Because when you start to work with the body and release tensions, when you meditate etc. things can happen… People can start to react very powerfully? Even become psychotic (quite often become psychotic, or more often than we maybe believe)? See Reich about the bodily armour! And this seems to be a reality, so that they have to learn about these things in their education!

In my work or rather during my piano-playing education I have come in contact with the phenomenon the kinaesthetic sense. That is, how it feels doing a movement, finger or body. Being able to imagine how it feels.

In dancing for instance the pupils/students watch their teacher making a movement and at the same time make a sensory imagination of how it feels doing this movement, what’s happening.

Riding horses is the same or can or ought to be the same??

Singing is too; to find ones voice, the breathing etc.

This also makes me think of therapists working with peoples’ breathing… One of the parents to a couple of our pupils (she is mother of five or more children!!), educated from college for social workers, works as breathing-therapist. I would never go to her. I think all these tools can be dangerous used wrongly and by the wrong person, which means a person with unresolved things!! This is true for all sorts of therapies, how attractive they even may sound. See what Miller has written and said about unconscious manipulation.

Yes, many of us probably want there were quick fixes? We are maybe even in desperate need for them! The years are passing, and we live not so fulfilling or rich-containing lives (but what is a “rich life”?). We want a change, and an immediate change?

And maybe there are reasons choosing the presumptive therapist very carefully! Trying to give oneself that time, even if it feels hard and the need for help and change is very strong. Using Miller’s FAQ-list (frequently asked questions) "How to find the Right Therapist?" in our search, or creates our own questions if we are capable.

We also speak a lot (especially during higher education) about feelings and emotions and expressions… But this doesn’t mean we working with artistic things are healthier… I can immediately mention a lot of musicians and other artists with sever problems. Even during history. Which proves that just talking doesn’t really change things? But our work maybe keeps many of us working with it alive. Alive but going crazy? Or as Robert Schumann committing suicide…

Working with all these things above one has to be prepared and really capable of dealing with what’s perhaps coming up!! As in all other therapies! Having solved ones own things to that degree so one doesn’t harm the other one by ones own denial and unsolved/unprocessed things.

One can click on the labels “gurus”, “cults”, “manipulation”, “Helga’s story” etc. in the sidebar to the left…

Beethoven in fury over a dead friend (the third movement from the moonlight sonata).

A physician’s conscience – more on the Nanny-pedagogy and demands on harder grips…

"In TV-programmes like 'The Supernanny' children are taught to do as the parents say – without understanding why. This sort of 'poisonous pedagogy' goes against an upbringing characterized by humanism."

[Slightly updated August 18]. Threats and punishments are not the recipe to get more order in the school and in the homes the physician Lars H. Gustafsson means. He is critical to the ”neoauthoritarian movement.” And says that he sees a trend where it is said that children shall learn to obey and follow the grown ups’ order.

He is worried for a return to old times where children and adolescents were taught to obey for to get away from punishment(s) (something they didn’t get away from how much they even tried I think).

This kind of treatment (with punishments) can lead to that we get “obedient soldiers” without personal responsibility to lean back on in difficult situations Gustafsson says. Blind obedience (and what has such obedience led to?).

My addition: and probably also people with a need for revenge and for to punish other, weaker, people!! And today the society approves of this too!!! Why do so many approve of this? And see what the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus writes in the chapter “Hitler and Hatred” in his book “Base Instinct – What Makes Killers Kill.”

Gustafsson (who has been working as child and school physician) says that it has become more and more common with being put in the corner. But today this is called something else: put on “timeout benches” or “rowdyism mats.” Benches and mats where kids have to sit for a couple of minutes (or more) if they have done something “wrong.” Nobody really asks (or dares to??) ask seriously why children are behaving as they are!! And call punishments as the right method in question!! If this maybe isn’t more of the same.

And in the British TV-programme ”Supernanny”, which is sent in Sweden too, the parents are taught to use a “naughty chair” where the kids are placed if they aren’t doing as the parents say.

People supporting methods like these are probably defending methods that once (severely) harmed themselves, but this is too painful to admit to. They had to believe this was done for their own good and thus they are probably the strongest advocates for methods like these, and this is really horrible and very tragic. And even more horrible when they get power positions, the higher the worse (as becoming ministers in governments, or leaders for schools etc.).

And why do they get those positions? Why don't more people oppose to this? Is it because so many have been badly treated as children in turn? And not only by grown ups around them, but not least at home? I think that IF we grew up under ideal circumstances we would be more immune (or even totally immune) to later bad treatment, or recover quicker from later bad treatment. But such ideal circumstances don't exist? But this is no excuse for not trying to improve our treatment of kids. With that ideal circumstances don't exist. And for anyone (therapist, psychologist even less) to say that "Each generation has to recapture its own." Because the recovery is so hard, so we should try to avoid as much as possible from the first beginning. Even though recovery is possible to that degree so you can live a decent life. But in too man cases with A LOT OF hard work! A work that COULD have been unneccesary. And should be unneccesary.

Instead of passing this forward those people should get help to call their own experiences in question by a society that started to talk much more openly than is the case about those things. And we ought to be a much more enlightened society today really. But it seems to be a backlash in the whole society (all over the world) not only in this respect, but when it comes to human rights and respect for each other in all.

Of course programmes of this kind influences the debate in Sweden and how grownups are behaving towards kids Gustafsson means (but why were they accepted from the first beginning I wonder???). The last years many licensed programs for education of parents with the roots in the same philosophy have become introduced in Sweden. They are building on the same thoughts on tighter reins and a firm discipline.

He refers to older times when corporal punishment strengthened the verbal imposing of shame. Children were also confined in the own room, in a basement storage space or a dark wardrobe to think over its sins!!! What ”sins” I wonder??

The child advocate Andrew Vachss thinks that

“...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."

To avoid the pain of such bad treatment we tend to use defense strategies, for instance by blaming ourselves, and thinking it’s something wrong with us, instead of calling the received treatment in question. And by this we tend to reenact the same thing with those with less power than we have later, and think we are doing this “for their own good”!!

Gustafsson says further that the darkness in the wardrobe should remind us of how dark we were in our souls. And even in homes that were more humane there existed “whining-wardrobes.”

Gustafsson says that he becomes sad when he hears all the demands on more order in school and home, all the talk about rougher treatment and punishments as the solution to (all) problems. But this is something that permeates the whole society is my addition!!! To moralize and put yourself on high horses.

We are on our way to return hundred years back in time he thinks. I agree.

A personal conscience isn’t created through demands on order and discipline, through orders to feel more empathy and understanding for other people. Such things can only grow from inside! Yes, I agree, through genuinely respectful treatment of children from the first beginning of their lives. But you CAN recover later, if you meet people that are able to confirm you and show you what true, genuine respect and love is. And we CAN become more respectful in our way of meeting young people, but it’s probably a very painful work.

The examples on how bad things can turn with peoples’ consciences through an upbringing built on threats and punishments are in fact many. But we don’t really discuss them or talk about them!!!?? We still believe that some people are born evil (or at least with bad genes).

Right to the WWII the German school (and the treatment at home) was characterized by blind discipline (see about blind obedience and its consequences), where threats and punishments were pedagogical tools for creating obedient students. Those young people later defended their support and cooperation in the Holocaust with that they only obeyed order.

And their suppressed anger (from the early treatment) got an outlet in the annihilation of Jews etc.

The personal conscience can never become formed via threats and punishments. And therefore the blend of new and old views on the bringing up of children that is growing stronger and stronger in Sweden is unfortunate he thinks. I would say it’s horrible. What sort of human beings are created by this way of treating young people – and very small children??

We should instead settle account with our own individual and personal history to the degree that is possible, but yes, this work is a tough work for many, many because of the pain that such treatment caused in our early childhood. To recover from such treatment is a hard work in many cases. And isn't this a reason as good as any to treat kids better?

And that people became harmed has nothing to do with a special vulnerability, i.e. the roots don’t lie in some genes that makes us more sensitive than other people (and by the way; is sensitivity bad).

And what sort of problems, and to what degree we get problems later in life from those early experiences, has with how badly treated we were and if we had the luck or not to encounter one or more person that could help us realize on some level that we were bad and unfairly treated by people who in fact didn’t show love, and not with genes I think (but it's eaier to blame genes than our parents or their substitutes). But we had to believe that they (our early caregivers) loved us and did what they did for our own good.

And it’s awful when people act this out - in politics for instance, as I think happens today, with our current government and (too many of) its supporters...

Addition after lunch: see about Corporal Punishment in the United States of America; Number of Students Receiving Corporal Punishment, by State School Year: 2006-2007, and Number of Students Receiving Corporal Punishment, by State School Year: 2006-2007 (students with an without disabilities).

Addition August 18: And how is it with emotional punishment (and manipulation)? Why is manipulation needed?

See what Alice Miller writes about conscious and unconscious manipulation in therapy for instance.

And also see the interview "Violence Kills Love: Spanking, the Fourth Commandmentand the Suppression of Authentic Emotions."