6/11/2009

Käbi and Ingmar - in the name of love...

From a review on Käbi Laretei's last book about her marriage and love affair with Ingmar Bergman you can read:

”Käbi Laretei writes insightfully about her relation with Ingmar Bergman.“

The title of the book would be something in the style “Where did all this love disappear?”

“In the foreword Käbi Laretei gives a brief afterward perspective (where she with touching empathy tells about a couple of visits 2007 to the dying Ingmar Bergman).

As to the rest this fragmentary but nevertheless suggestive book is based on chronologically lined up letters between the lovers, and some extracts from a diary Käbi Laretei seems to have written in secrecy (reminding about Ingmar Bergman's mother, who also wrote a diary in secrecy about her problems living together with the strict father).

Käbi Laretei stands out as a clear-sighted and reflecting human being, where the difficulties combining art (piano-playing) and married life in many respects resemble Ingmar Bergman's.

Even though those two artist natures immediately are drawn to each other and feel a deep attraction and kinship, one have a feeling already early – in both parts – more or less articulated trials to protect oneself from a too complete association (or fusion) with the other.

The marital troubles are there built-in from the first moment. More and more it stands out that Käbi and Ingmar are engulfed by each other – as if they paradoxically enough were suffocated by the love they both are longing for.

Time and again light is shed upon how Ingmar Bergman both is longing for and avoiding nearness.

Käbi Laretei writes motherly in one of her letters: 'My little son, have confidence, assurance (??), patience – you have it in your art, also have it in love.' Ingmar Bergman replies with describing his demons and his struggle to get rid of them.”

Käbi Laretei was my piano-teacher for four years in all... She stimulated my intellectual interests (whether you notice it or not). Käbi mentions Alice Miller in one of her books!!! I wonder if her son with Bergman, Daniel, introduced Miller to her??

6/07/2009

Eating problems...

Struck me about disturbed contact with signals about hunger, in both directions so to say... A person in the nearest family said she could go a whole day without thinking she ought to eat something.

My thoughts: Either you discover late in the day that you haven't eaten, or you don't feel the signals telling you that you have eaten enough and you overeat.

Meaning that you can be insensitive to signals in both directions so to say! You adopt either one of these “attitudes.”

I think this has to do with things that probably dates back to very early in childhood connected to eating. Traumas around eating the maybe VERY small baby was exposed to and maybe also connected to experiences adding up to these earliest experiences later in childhood and further when you grew up.

But people don't have to be doomed because of these things, so long as the surrounding later doesn't deny the roots to those problems (and moralize over it) and the person in question gets help processing and not deny the problem and its possible roots...

Anna-Luise Kirkengen has written about what sexual abuse can lead to in this respect, if I remember right (I haven't her books here now).

And I think forcing a spoon (or other "things") into a baby's mouth can cause troubles later for that child (things we don't/can't connect to early experiences like these, because we can't imagine such things could occur, and definitely not occur from people who ought to love the small baby most of all).Maybe such things occur more often than we believe???

So moralizing over peoples' troubles with eating and how they look is - what? Contempt for weakness! Unemphatic. Conditional love if it comes from a parent towards a child (honestly lack of love actually!!!!). Maybe even added abuse??

See about the ACE-study and its origin.

6/06/2009

Over and under valuation of oneself and the effects of this – societal and individual recovery...

Eurovision song contest winner 2009, a music-piece three students and I performed for a Rotary-club on their lunch-meeting on Thursday. Struck me: how would the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch interpret those lyrics?

Fairytale

Years ago when I was younger
I kinda’ liked a girl I knew.
She was mine, and we were sweethearts,
That was then, but then it’s true

I’m in love with a fairytale
Even though it hurts.
‘Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind;
I’m already cursed

Every day we started fighting,
Every night we fell in love.
No one else could make me sadder,
But no one else could lift me high above

I don’t know what I was doing
But suddenly we fell apart.
Nowadays I cannot find her.
But when I do we’ll get a brand new start

I’m in love with a fairytale
Even though it hurts.
Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind;
I’m already cursed

She’s a fairytale
Yeah
Even though it hurts.
Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind;
I’m already cursed

[Slightly updated and edited during the day]. Some morning reflections... Loudly thinking, rambling...

Over and under valuation of oneself are two sides of the same coin? I came to think about this when I had written another blogposting on wages. On VERY HIGH and VERY LOW wages and the limited stimulating effect I think they have on those persons' achievements at work, about an blind faith (over belief) in the stimualting effect of wages and earning; when it comes to certain levels (in both ends) people don't make a better job (do we with more moderate earnings make less good jobs than those paid a hunderd times more).

Some have so limitless and bottomless needs because of early bad treatment and disrespect from their early caregivers (when it comes to a child's rightful and legitimate needs of deep respect for its feelings, its body, its boundaries, its integrity and good will and wish to love and become loved). And these losses can in some result in that they can never get enough of money, power etc. ( not getting those early needs filled is so painful for a child so it has to suppress its natural reaction to those things, and the later adult try to fill these needs in ways that harm themselves and other people, more the more power they have or get, so long as the person in question is in no or little contact with these things).

And other people who were treated badly early in their lives think they aren't worth a penny, not even worth a decent living maybe (they have to earn their whole living and right to exist in this world they can come to believe. And they can continue striving and struggling for this their whole life. If they should come to live on the street they would maybe think they don't deserve anything better).

The results of bad treatment are different in different people, probably depending on many different factors; on what sort of defense/s you (authomatically) used as a child, what role you were allotted by your caregivers etc. etc.

A child reflects the respect she or he got as a child. In respect or disrespect for her/himself and in her/his respect or disrespect for other people. I think. In if she/he thinks she/he is good enough as she/he is.

But a child doesn't chose defenses. Was it forced to adopt a certain role and thus certain defenses, attitudes?

And some people are stuck in denial and will never admit to what they have been through, and those persons are the most dangerous for other people? Those are the really dangerous people in this world?

And other people live in such conditions and circumstances so they are forced to do something, to process, or to founder. They have no other choice.

How do we see this in the society, what are the visble effects of this?

For instance that some never doubt that they have the rights to for instance their huge wages and an enormous power... And other people don't believe they deserve hardly anything. Are maybe even keeping silent of shame and don't raise their voices at all or ever.

We will probably never succeed in trying to enlighten the ones that never would doubt their rights.

Can we convince the ones under-valuating themselves either really? With this not said we shouldn't try!?

Can we continue calling state of affairs in the world in question? Both on a societal and a familial level (and a global)?AND point to the underlying factors, not least those earliest in life!??

And try to process our own experiences both as a child and as a later adult?

Probably an enormous struggle for many of us, and probably extremely painful. Many of us will probably only slightly touch upon the pain that our early caregivers' treatment and behavior caused.

Professionals ought to point at what maltreatment cause, and what maltreatment actually is! So we rather prevent it. Because it is so difficult to come to terms with later. Difficult, but possible with a lot of struggles. And some will only slightly recover. Some not at all, because they became so badly treated so they can't face the truth.

But it is as Miller says; if professionals should start doing this it would be to blame parents. And they are “afraid” of doing this, even because of personal reasons (standing up against their own parents and questioning what THEY did)? They are not only protecting parents in general, but not least their own parents? Or they are afraid of their own parents so they don't dare talking publicly about this, in a plain talk about those things.

They are so afraid for (the) punishment from their parents if they should dare to raise their voices, afraid even if those parents should happen to be dead and not actually capable of punishing them. Yes, we are all so afraid of our parents, to some degree!!?? Some very afraid and some not so much. But so many of us are that those topics are still so taboo to talk about!!!!???

But if people should start talking about those things much more openly in the society and stop denying those facts many people would recover from their abuse and wouldn't even need therapy. We aren't doomed. Even the most severely damaged have recovered. Even if we became harmed (and damaged) we CAN recover. But the best would be if we could prevent child abuse (of ALL kinds: physical, sexual, emotional) as much as possible. Because of all the efforts it takes to recover from it!!!!!!

Professionals ought to know this, they who are working with those (most) damaged poeople!!! And stop talking about that "each generation has to reclaim their own" (what? Life?).

6/04/2009

Why aren't those against abortions fighting against (all sorts of) child abuse? Miller and the fourth commandment...


Quickly: struck me when I spoke with my boyfriend (who is a child advocate). Why aren't the champions against abortions fighting with the same spirit, time and energy against child abuse???

Why aren't they fighting for the children THAT ARE ACTUALLY BORN and thus living among us, and against how they are treated, for better treatment of them (even when it comes to subtle maltreatment)? Why aren't they fighting for children's rights in all???

Why is this?

Yes, why aren't they loud speaking advocates for the children that are living here and now?

Isn't this contradicting??? And quite moralistic undertone?

What did Jesus say about those who are without sin and throwing the first stone? What has Miller written about the fourth commandment?

In the society I am living in this isn't a big topic (why? But that's another posting maybe). I just started to wonder.

And, quietly, I think this with anti-abortion campaigns is quite hypocritical...

By the way: why do women become unintentionally pregnant? Why are they living promiscuously? Why do those women become pregnant who aren't promiscuous? Can it be because of earlier child abuse in their life-history?

See about teenager pregnancy... Something that this earlier blogposting is about.


Addition after lunch: Also read about 'the World Environment Day and equality/inequality' at the blog Equality trust.

See or listen to "Capitalism Hits the Fan - Richard Wolff on the Economic Meltdown." Read about it here.

6/01/2009

Do we dare to see what we see? Is shock treatment needed for so called “helpers”...


[Updated during the day]. The Norwegian blogger Sigrun wrote about the biggest and most important conference on child abuse that has ever been held in Norway. From the newspaper, Tønsbergs Blad:

390 people in occupational groups (???) working with the youngest of us got the brutal reality presented for them during an eight hour long day. For many it was a tough awakening. Many times the audience was exhorted to look at the horror awakening pictures that rolled over the big viewing screen (they had to avert their gazes from what they saw? Didn't manage to look at it?).

When two doctors for forensic medicine showed pictures of abused children's corpses with big head and fracture damages one person fainted. A physician were sent for and they had to make a break in the program (also read here about Forensic medicine).

Many occupational groups need a massive awakening according to the Norwegian Children's Ombudsman Reidar Hjermann (also see here about him, those links are in Norwegian though). Not least family doctors need this.

At the same time he eulogized the big awakening among Norwegian dentists. They can capture children who have problems with having things in their mouth.

A dentist, specialist on pedodontics, came with powerful descriptions of how children have been victims for oral sexual abuse.

She said that 2006 35,000 Norwegian children didn't meet up to their appointments with their dentists, and only 7,000 gave an explanation.

“It's so important that we care!”
was her clear message.

“Do we dare to see when we see?”
was the, or a, background motto to this day.

Sigrun writes:

“It is this method occupational people ought to become exposed to too I have thought for many years.

I said to a psychologist I visited [as a client], that the ones treating [my addition and interpretation: psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists etc.] ought to become tied up to the chair and forced to look at child abuse on film.

Then they would maybe stop offending patients with

'It's not about how you have it, but about how you take it',
'All parents make their best',
'It's never too late to get a good childhood',
'It's only the vulnerable children that don't stand violence'
etc. [blaming the victim].”

How well said!!!

And maybe they would start to listen to clients telling them about abuse that never was visible too (humiliation, neglect, emotional and psychological abuse etc.)!? Listen to clients when they maybe after a long time start to recall and/or dare to tell about things.


Also read the posting "Here you have a stone" (more about the speech the Swedish author of childbooks Astrid Lindgren held when she received the German Bookseller's Prize 1978).

Addition at lunch-time: Also read the article about horrible ”Irish child abuse: The Ryan Report cover-up”. The report is avaible from here.

5/28/2009

More on the ban on corporal punishment in Sweden 30 years...


See the article "No spanking, please!" on the site "Sweden.se - the Official Gateway to Sweden."

Also see earlier posting "The ban on corporal punishment of children in Sweden celebrates 30 years this year..." A law that was implemented July 1, 1979.

Addition May 30: First the committee asked Astrid Lindgren not to hold the speech below, just recieve the prize at the prize ceremony. But then Astrid Lindgren said she wouldn't come at all. The committee changed its mind and Lindgren held her speech. Links to the speech in Swedish and German are at the bottom of this posting.

Never Violence!

Delivered upon children's author Astrid Lindgren's acceptance of the German Booksellers Peace Prize in Frankfurt, Germany, October 22, 1978

Dear friends!

What I must do first is thank you, and this I do with all my heart. The German Booksellers' Peace Prize has such a luster around it and is such a great honor to receive that one almost totters when it is put into one's hands. And now I stand here, where so many wise men and women have stood during the years, putting their thoughts and hopes forth about the future of humanity and about the eternal peace that we all are longing for. What can I say that hasn't been said already in a better way than I can?

To talk about peace is to talk about something that doesn't exist. Real peace does not exist on our earth and has never existed other than as a goal that we evidently cannot reach. So long as humanity has lived on this orb it has dedicated itself to violence and war, and the fragile peace as it now exists is constantly threatened. At this moment the whole world is living in fear of a new war, a war that will destroy us all. At the prospect of this threat more people than ever are working for peace and disarmament—that is true. This could be a hope. But it is difficult to be hopeful. The politicians gather in large crowds at top-level meetings and talk so warmly for disarmament, but the only disarmament they desire is that of someone other than themselves. “Your land shall disarm, not mine!” No one wants to start with oneself—no one dares to start—because all are so afraid and have so little confidence in other's will to work toward peace. And while one disarmament conference replaces another, the most insane rearmament in humanity's history takes place. It is not strange that we are all afraid. Either we live in the East, North or South; either we live in a great and powerful country or a small, neutral one. But we know that a big new war would hit the whole of humanity, and whether it is in a neutral or not neutral heap of ruins that I lie dead can make no big difference.

Mustn't we, after all those thousands of years of constant wars, ask ourselves if it is because of some kind of construction fault in the whole species of man that we always take up violence? And ask if we are doomed to come to our end for our aggression's sake? We all want peace. Isn't there a possibility then that we can change before it is too late? That we can learn to dissociate ourselves from violence? Simply try to become a new strain of human beings? But how should that come about? And where should we, in that case, start?

I think we have to start from the foundation. With the children. You have given an author of children's books a peace prize; you must not expect any big political views or suggestions for international solutions to the problems. I want to talk about the children, my worries for them and my expectations for them. Those who are children now shall take over the handling of the world, if there is anything left of it. They shall decide between war and peace and what sort of society they shall have; if they prefer one in which violence continues to escalate or one in which human beings live in peace and community with each other.

Is there on the whole any hope that they shall be able to create a more peaceful world than what we have succeeded with? Why have we failed so badly in spite of all good will? I recall what a shock it was for me when, still very young, I suddenly realized that those who governed countries and the world's destiny were no Gods with a superior outfit or clear, divine sight. They were human beings with the same weaknesses as I. But they had power, and they could in each moment come to the most ill-fated decisions by the impulses that ruled them. If things were against us, it could be war because of one single human being's desire for power or revenge or vanity or triumph or—what seemed to be the most common—blind faith in violence as the most efficient aid in all situations. And in the same way, one single good human being filled with consideration could ward off catastrophes, just through being good and filled with consideration and through repudiating violence.

The conclusion from this could be: it is individual human beings who determine the destiny of the world. And why aren't all good and filled with consideration then? Why are there so many who only want violence and power? Is there an innate evil will in some? I couldn't believe it then, and I don't believe it even this day. The intelligences—the gift of reason—are innate, but in a newborn baby no seed lies within from which it will automatically grow good or evil. What determines whether a child will become a warm, open, trusting human being with the ability to commune with others or a cold, destructive loner is decided by the ones that welcome the child into the world and either teach it what love is or leave it to be shown.

Goethe has said “Überall lernt man nur von dem, den man liebt”, and then it must be true. A child that is lovingly met and who loves its parents learns a loving attitude to its surrounding world, and keeps this basic attitude throughout life. Which is good, even if he or she comes to belong to those deciding the world's destiny. And should, contrary to expectation, he or she happen to become one of those deciding the world's destiny, that's good luck for us all—if their basic attitude is love and not violence. Future statesmen and politicians are formed in their character before they are even five years old—that's horrible but it is true.

And if we now look back at how children have been treated and raised so far as we can follow it through the times, hasn't it too often been a question of breaking their will with violence of some kind, either physical or psychological? How many children haven't gotten their first lesson in violence “von denen, die man liebt”, their own parents—and then passed this teaching on from generation to generation? “Spare the rod and spoil the child” you can read in the Old Testament. This, ever since written, many fathers and mothers have believed. They have diligently swung the birch and called it “love”. But all those “ruined boys” of whom there are so many at this moment in the world—the dictators, the tyrants, the oppressors, the tormentors of human beings—how was their childhood? That you ought to do some research into. I believe that behind most of them there is a tyrannic father or other raiser with a birch or a rod in the hand.

Mustn't you then become despaired when there are voices screaming for retrogression to old authoritarian systems? That is what is going on in many places in the world. Those who blame “too much freedom” and “too little strictness” in upbringing for youthful “misbehaviors” now want “harder grips” and “tightened reins”. This is to use Beelzebub to drive out the Devil and will only lead to more violence and bigger and more dangerous gulfs between the generations in the long term. Those much longed for “harder grips” would possibly “achieve” a superficial effect that its advocates could interpret as an improvement. Until, that is, they are gradually forced to notice that violence breeds violence—as it has always done.

Many parents are worried by those new signals and have begun to wonder if perhaps they have done wrong. Is an anti-authoritarian upbringing something objectionable? It is only if it becomes misunderstood.

An anti-authoritarian upbringing doesn't mean that children shall be left to care for themselves or to do precisely what they want. It doesn't mean they shall grow up without norms, by the way, or that they will reject them. Both children and adults need norms for conduct, and children learn more from their parents' example than from anything else. Of course a child shall have respect for its parents, but indeed—parents shall also have respect for their children and not abuse their natural advantage over them. A mutual, loving respect—that one wishes for both parents and for all children.

And for all those who are now screaming so eagerly for harder grips and tighter reins, I would want to tell you what an old lady once told me. She was a young mother when the common belief was “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. She hadn't been fully convinced of it, but at one time her little boy had done something, so she decided he “needed” a spanking—the first of his life. She said to him that he had to go out and find a birch for her. The little boy left and was out for a long time. At last he came back, crying, and said:”I didn't find any birch but here you have a stone you can throw on me.” Then she too began to cry, because suddenly she saw everything with the child's eyes. The child had thought “If my mother in fact wants to hurt me, then she can as well use a stone.” She put her arms around him and they cried together for a while. And then she put the stone on a shelf in the kitchen, and there it laid as an eternal reminder of the promise she gave herself at that moment: “Never violence!”

Well, if we now raise our children without violence or tight reins of any kind, do we then get a new human species living in eternal peace? Only a child book author can hope something so silly. I know it is an utopia. And of course there is so much else in our poor, sick world that has to be changed so that there can be peace. But we have, in the here and now—even without war—so incomprehensibly much cruelty and violence on earth. The children are indeed aware of it. They see and hear and read about it daily, and must think violence is a natural state. Mustn't we, at least in our homes and through our own examples show that there are other ways of living? Maybe it would be a good idea if we were to put a stone on the kitchen shelf as a reminder for children and ourselves: Never violence! It would yet maybe at last be a small contribution to the peace of the world.

[translation from Swedish by me and Steve Thomas. Here you can read the speech in Swedish and here in German].

5/27/2009

Putting the student in the center...

just got this cartoon from a friend, click to make it larger.

Quite tiredly, thinking loudly: Something that has been spoken about for the last fifteen years here is “To put the student in the center.” At the same time we teachers shall compete in ways we didn't earlier (or have I forgotten how it actually was earlier, am I idealizing earlier times? But this doesn't mean I want old times back either, because it was probably other things then I don't want back now).

Fifteen years ago individual salary was introduced here too. And there are probably other similar things that was introduced then...

We are played out against each other. And many were skeptical to this and still are, thought many would become ass-kissers.

I thought the idea behind this was quite insolent too; as if we hadn't done a good job earlier and put a lot of efforts on doing a good job!

How many teachers try to prove how great they are through their students (even more than before)?

These wonders make me think further: to prove they/we are worth, love for instance? The (unconditional) love we didn't get as kids?

To prove our worth through students, in a similar manner as parents use their kids as outer signboards? Fulfilling the parents needs...

So are the students put in the center or are things done for their best?? Yes, for whose best are things actually done?

Has it become more fun working than it was before?

No, I would say.

Team work is a new model too. But do we work better together today than we did? For a good cause?

When I returned from the last vacation I also thought that

“'The state' isn't that actually WE, all people? We together? All human beings living in a country (or society)!? Not the politicians or power people, definitely not more than all we other people!? We are all entitled to raise our voices and call things in question!? And maybe we ought to do this too?”

Politicians, power people, governments aren't more than we grassroots are actually in this respect? They have only gotten our authorization, and nothing more. And actually, they ought to know this and be aware of this!?

Even in today's world we need to cooperate! We are dependent on each other, in similar, the same or different ways as earlier times' people. We are both strong and fragile, no matter if we are rich or poor.


See earlier postings on unequal societies and the connections to the health (not only among the poor, but also among the rich).