Astrid Lindgren about becoming spanked as a child…

Astrid Lindgren 16 years.

[Updated August 31, and slightly edited in the first part]. I have been on a course in the parts of Sweden where Astrid Lindgren was born, and found a book containing Astrid’s description of her childhood home, and thus also childhood, written to her nieces.

Astrid and her one year older brother Gunnar (dead already 1974 only 68 years) bought their childhood home together, and 1987 Astrid gave her part to her brother’s daughters Gunvor, Barbro and Eivor (of whom Barbro is mother to the author Karin Alvtegen, her home site).

Astrid and Gunnar also had two younger sisters, all siblings were married, but one sister never got any children I think. So Astrid had one heir and one heiress (a son and a daughter) but gave her part of the childhood home to her nieces nevertheless, of some reason.

I will try to translate what Lindgren writes later, so this posting will become updated this weekend hopefully.

I just want to remind eventual readers about Lindgren’s speech 1978 “Never violence.”

Earlier postings under the label “Astrid Lindgren.”

Addition August 31: In the book referred to above Astrid described how her childhood home at Näs looked like, and how it was furnished and she also describes some scenes from back then.

In the second part of the book she comes to the sofa in the living-room (what we called “sal”), a sofa which stands at the same place as it did when she was a child. On this sofa she and her brother got spanked the first time she writes.

The reason for this spanking was that she and her brother Gunnar had gone to “the murmuring ditch” (porlande dike) where Gunnar quickly climbed the stones, and Astrid of course followed him, with the result that she fell down between two stones in it. Gunnar ran home and told their maid Signe who went to the parsonage (prästård), where their mother was, something Astrid always thought was very stupid. Because their mother came fetching her two kids.

First she spanked Gunnar with the birch (riset), which Astrid thought was very funny to watch she writes, and then Astrid, something she didn’t think was fun at all,

“…when I for the first time in my life got spanked”

as she writes.

She didn’t become spanked again until she turned five or six when she had decided to move to the loo, from home (so at the first occasion described above she must have been smaller!!), because she had been unfairly treated of some reason (for what and how she had forgotten by then? She only rememered that she had been unfairly treated).

She was convinced that all should come running asking her to move home for God’s sake, but, no, they didn’t.

She bore being at the loo for five minutes, she thinks, and during this time her mom had taken the opportunity to offer sweets to the other people or kids. This was more than Astrid could stand, so when her mom came passing Astrid kicked with her foot, of course so she didn’t kick her mom, she only kicked at her mom as a sort of demonstration. But she shouldn’t have done that, because then she got spanked for the second time in her life as she writes.

The third and last time was when she and her younger sister Stina had been invited to a Mia (cousin?) in a nearby village. They had gone there on foot. Mom had said that they should be home by 7 that evening.

However, it was “unnaturally fun” at Mia’s. And Astrid had albuminuria (äggvita) and felt that she hadn’t the strength walking home. Their aunt Hardine (mother's younger sister) then said:

“I think you can stay, I take that on me!”

She took the responsibility on her. At this time there was no phone in this village, and they trusted aunt Hardine and stayed. But at 9 o’clock in the evening "their Pelle" (the farm-hand?) came and fetched them, and when they came home their mother met them at the yard saying:

“Is it seven o’clock?”

and walked further and fetched a birch with which Stina and Astrid got spanked, not on the sofa, but on their room one stair up. Astrid recalls this because

“…the birch laid frayed (trasigt) on the fireplace the next morning, where it was discovered by Signe (the maid) who said: ‘I think you are too big to get spanked!’”

The girls thought so too as Astrid writes. Astrid continues that

“That spanking I apprehend as abuse, although it probably was scarcely perceptible [wasn’t it??] because the birch was of such a bad quality that it got broken immediately [did it actually?? Or was the spanking so severe? So Astrid had to deny what she had been exposed to, including how extremely humiliating it had been?].”

So how rosy was this childhood actually? But Astrid and her siblings had witnesses around them? And the strictness wasn’t total?

Sinead O' Connor...

You made me the thief of your heart
I hope you're happy now...
...I could never make you so...
you were a hard man...
no harder in this world
you made me cold and you made me hard
and you made me the thief of your heart
Winter is cold...oh!
But you're colder still
and for the first time
I feel like you're mine
I share you with the one who will
mend what falls apart
and turn a blind eye
to the thief of your heart
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost all
you lost all
you lost all
I'll never wash these clothes
I want to keep the stain
Your blood to me is precious
nor would I spill it in vain
your spirit sings
though your lips never part
singing only to me
the thief of your heart
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost all
lost all
Ohhh you lost
Ohhh you lost all
lost all

I liked the music, but what is the text about actually??

Barndomen och dess effekter (senare) i livet…

[Lätt redigerad på kvällen, samt 22 augusti med länkar i slutet, för min egen skull]. Mitt i jobbstart med tusen saker i huvudet… Ville bara få ur mig detta.

Ju mer man är i förnekande desto större konsekvenser får den misshandel man blivit utsatt för, för en själv och andra. Jag tror att Alice Miller har rätt:

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

Översatt blir det något i stil med:

”Att känna och förstå orsakerna till vår gamla smärta betyder inte att smärtan och vreden kommer att stanna för evigt. Motsatsen är snarare sann. Den vrede och smärta som vi har känt [medvetet, eller så medvetet vi förmår] försvinner med tiden [och inte tvärtom] och gör oss förmögna att älska våra barn [oss själva, andra barn och andra vuxna människor]. Det är den smärta som lagrats i vår kropp, som vi undviker och förnekar, som driver oss att upprepa vad som gjorts mot oss.”

Och det är de som är minst benägna att erkänna dessa sidor i sig själva, som är i största (kanske det mest totala) förnekandet, som söker sig till maktpositioner (för att slippa ta itu). De man i psykohistorien kallar de efterblivna psykoklasserna (efterblivenheten har inte med gener att göra eller kan inte förklaras med psykoanalytiska idéer. Idéer som för övrigt förnekar och döljer/skyler över sanningen eller gör en i värsta fall totalt oförmögen att komma i kontakt med sanningen. Ville helt kort tillägga att jag inte påstår att jag har skådat sanningen, min egen sanning. Kanske bara vagt, vagt anat den?? Jag påstår heller inte att jag inte spelar ut mitt egna alls, tyvärr gör jag kanske det fortfarande hur mycket jag än skulle vilja att jag inte gör det).

I dag fanns en debattartikel i DD med rubriken ”Mobbare riskerar att hamna i missbruk och kriminalitet.” Där stod:

”Undersökningar visar, (Dan Olweus med flera) att mobbare som inte får hjälp med att komma ifrån sitt destruktiva beteende, löper fyra gånger så stor risk som andra, att så småningom hamna i missbruk och kriminalitet. Eller på annat sätt uttryckt. Fyra av fem av våra ungdomar som sitter på kåken, har varit mobbare under sin skoltid som inte fått hjälp./…/

Vilka barn och ungdomar är det då som terroriserar sin omgivning? Det finns inga starka allenarådande karaktärsegenskaper som kännetecknar mobbaren. Även om det finns en del att peka på./…/

Orsakerna till att en ung människa börjar att mobba andra står ofta att finna i hur barnet behandlas hemma. Om föräldrarna inte sätter tydliga gränser för barnets aggressiva beteende så kommer det sannolikt att fortsätta, till någon annan orkar att sätta gränserna.

Den främsta åtgärden vid all slags oönskat barnbeteende är, att en vuxen med kärlek omedelbart, korrigerar det felaktiga beteendet.”

I senaste lärartidningen står det också om mobbning. En skolpsykolog säger om hot om att flytta mobbaren att skolan då

”…använder sig av mobbarens eget språk och lär ut mobbarens egna strategier.”

Jag kunde inte låta bli att reflektera över allt detta sammantaget: För att verkligen komma tillrätta med existerande våld av alla slag räcker det inte med att se de ytliga orsakerna till detta våld. Vi borde (måste) gå till de yttersta rötterna. Och våga se dem klart och tydligt? Utan att göra detta kan vi aldrig hitta de åtgärder som ger mest effekt. Eller de åtgärder som alls ger riktig effekt.

Men då måste vi våga börja se var dessa rötter finns.

Annars kommer problemen att fortsätta kvarstå i samma grad (och kanske till och med öka i grad och omfattning). Och vi kanske ovanpå allt tillskriver dess existens gener för att alls kunna förklara varför beteendet fortsätter trots allt vad vi "gjort".

Och orsakerna till våld, och det handlar inte bara om fysiskt (inklusive sexuellt) utan också om emotionellt våld, ligger tidigast i livet; hur vi blev behandlade som barn. Och det handlar inte bara om uppenbart våld, utan inte minst (eller kanske framförallt) subtilt våld. Kanske sådant som vi förnekar medvetet och omedvetet (hån, förödmjukelser, ringaktning osv. osv. osv.).

Men dess effekter är kanske så allvarliga att vi inte borde bagatellisera eller förminska dem! Dess effekter är kanske sådana som de flesta av oss inte kan ta in. Vi ser dem förmodligen (utan att se dem) i politiken på allra högsta nivå, med allt vad det kan innebära för oerhört många människor. Vår förmåga att se dem kanske är så skadad, så att vi är så blinda att vi inte ser saker som för en oskadad skulle vara glasklara?

Olweus (som verkar rätt okej) tror dock att

”…att vi har fått fler barn som är aggressiva hänger ihop med en försvagning eller urvattning av föräldrafunktionen.”

PUST!!! säger jag. Men vad är en "bra" föräldrafunktion?? Se tidigare inlägg om "hur komma tillrätta med det tilltagande ungdomsvåldet och det påstådda behovet av föräldraauktoritet"!!! Vad för sorts auktoritet egentligen?

Och en annan skolpsykolog i Lärartidningen (än den i artikeln ovan) menar att barn och ungdomar måste lära sig impulskontroll och vikten av att kunna uttrycka känslor av sorg, glädje och ilska. För övrigt gillar jag inte riktigt chefredaktörens idéer och en viss underliggande ton i denna tidning. Som jag om jag ska vara riktigt ärlig reagerat oerhört start EMOT! Det finns något auktoritärt, patriarkalt i de åsikter han förmedlar känns det! Någon slags klappa-på-huvudet-tendens hos honom och kanske tendenser att slå sig för bröstet?

"Jag minsann!"

Något jag reagerat på oerhört starkt i alla fall...

Se också Olweus ovan om att sätta tydliga gränser, i detta fall för barns aggressiva beteende. Men vad handlar gränslöst beteende om hos barn? Har detta gränslösa beteende kommit ur intet? Vad sätter man egentligen gräns mot? Vad är det för impulser ett barn måste kontrollera? Ett människobarns natur? Undrar jag oerhört ironiskt!

Och jag kan hålla med om det senare; om vikten av att kunna uttrycka sorg, glädje och ilska.

Vilket kanske var just DET som det riktigt lilla barnet (läs spädbarnet) fick lära sig att INTE göra?

Se också artikeln "Mobbning är ett övergrepp, inte en konflikt." De två första artiklarna finns också här.

Tillägg 22 augusti: se "Om (o)förmåga att godvilligt erkänna misstag - samt psykopati..." (om prestige), "Ledarskap och föräldraskap..." (om bland annat vad övergrepp och misshandel egentligen är, dvs. att det inte minst finns känslomässig misshandel, som kan vara nog så skadande, kanske oerhört skadande och förmodligen långt mer skadande än vi inser eller vill inse), "Att vara en äkta auktoritet eller inte...", De som har det bra redan tjänar mest på Reinfeldts politik… (om auktoritär uppfostran).

Alice Miller videos...

By Alice Miller

Why spankings, slaps, and even apparently harmless blows like pats on the hand are dangerous for a baby?
1. They teach it violence.
2. They destroy the absolute certainty of being loved that the baby needs.
3. They cause anxiety: the expectancy of the next attack.
4. They convey a lie: they pretend to be educational, but parents actually use them to vent their anger; when they strike, it's because, as children, they were struck themselves.
5. They provoke anger and a desire for revenge, which remain repressed, only to be expressed much later.
6. They program the child to accept illogical arguments (I'm hurting you for your own good) that stay stored up in their body.
7. They destroy sensitivity and compassion for others and for oneself, and hence limit the capacity to gain insight.

What long-term lessons does the baby retain from spankings and other blows?
The baby learns:
1. That a child does not deserve respect.
2. That good can be learned through punishment (which is actually wrong, punishment merely teaches the children to want to punish in their own turn).
3. That suffering mustn't be felt, it must be ignored (which is dangerous for the immune system).
4. That violence is a manifestation of love (fostering perversion).
5. That denial of feeling is healthy (but the body pays the prize of this error, often much later).

How is repressed anger very often vented?
In childhood and adolescence:
1. By making fun of the weak.
2. By hitting classmates.
3. By annoying the teachers.
4. By watching TV and playing video games to experience forbidden and stored up feelings of rage and anger, and by identifying with violent heroes. (Children who have never been beaten [or treated badly in other manners, my addition] are less interested in cruel films, and, as adults, will not produce horror shows).

In adulthood:
1. By perpetuating spanking, as an apparently educational and effective means, often heartily recommended to others, whereas in actual fact, one's own suffering is being avenged on the next generation.
2. By refusing to understand the connections between previously experienced violence and the violence actively repeated today. The ignorance of society is thereby perpetuated.
3. By entering professions that demand violence.
4. By being gullible to politicians who designate scapegoats for the violence that has been stored up and which can finally be vented with impunity: 'impure' races, ethnic 'cleansing', ostracized social minorities, other religious communities etc.
5. Because of obedience to violence as a child, by readiness to obey any authority which recalls the authority of the parents, as the Germans obeyed Hitler, the Russians Stalin, the Serbs Milosevic.

Conversely, some become aware of the repression and universal denial of childhood pain, realizing how violence is transmitted from parents to children, and stop hitting children regardless of age. This can be done (many have succeeded) as soon as one has understood that the causes of the 'educational' violence are hidden in the repressed history of the parents.

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.

Creativity…

In the car home from work I had a lot of thoughts… We discussed a “new” form of cooperation at work. Initiated by us piano teachers originally. The discussion didn’t become especially “hot”, people looked or felt moderately interested.

We (the piano teachers and colleagues from other instrument groups) think people are working in many different, separate music schools. We would want to work more over the borders, for our own and our pupils' sake. At the same time we (on the whole workplace) have spoken about creating we-feeling.

It started to boil inside when nobody seemed to be interested, all sat there quiet. I felt very provoked. Of course you can wonder why I felt provoked, but this is another question and post I think.

I thought a lot for myself sitting there. This “we-feeling” we try to create by quite superficial means, as having parties and “funny” games. The rebellion in me was awoken?? Forced fun isn’t fun; funny games aren’t funny if they are forced on you! And this forced fun can become humiliating for some too?

And in the car I thought further… Are many of us so stressed and tired? And this stress and tiredness makes us less creative? We get stuck in certain thought-patterns and are incapable of thinking in other and/or new? And at the same time many maybe also feel they OUGHT to be creative, much more creative. Which rather add to the stress instead of lessens it! People can land in a viscous circle.

And I also came to think about the topic stimulation: neither over nor under stimulation are good. None of them are good in long term. Maybe short term stimulation (in form of stress for instance) can make you create big things, but you don’t if the stress and press continues year after year. And who knows what happens during this time either? If your life and relations are stable you can manage a longer time, but what makes sure nothing will happen?

Under stimulation is bad too! People also need to use their powers…

And on top comes the tricky things with balance… And we have to be allowed making mistakes!

I got an email this morning from a friend, about manipulation... Would want to write a separate posting about this, a brief one. But now I think I am going to take a bike ride first. Then home for some supper and maybe some more writing.

Brainwash...

Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth.

The Swedish author Bodil Malmsten wrote on her blog about our current culture minister Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth who had said earlier this summer to one of our biggest newspapers that

"...to wash my brain I read detective stories."

Malmsten had given this blogposting the heading "Brainwash."