Tips från en vän:
’Ondskap mot klienter er et tema for seg. Min egen arbeidsarena – behandlingssamfunnet – er av dem som har stort behov for å feie for egen dør. Sætersdal og Heggen tar prisverdig opp skjult ondskap i behandlingssamfunnet, hvor ondskap på grunn av maktasymmetri mellom behandler og pasient, ikke minst med hensyn til definisjonsmakt, blir særlig vanskelig å se. Det er åpenbart at vi som helsearbeidere har et stort og ubehagelig arbeid å gjøre med å gå oss selv og hverandre etter i sømmene for å røyke ut skjult ondskap på våre egne arenaer. I dag vil jeg hevde at vi fungerer omtrent like blindt benektende og selvopprettholdende som andre maktsterke institusjoner hvis oppgave det er å forholde seg til maktsvake individer: undervisningsinstitusjoner, fengselsvesen, politi.’"
Jag tror inte ondska är medfödd utan något inlärt... Se Miller här (bland annat denna artikel på hennes webb). Kommer att tänka på en artikel av Miller "Bedrägeri dödar kärleken" om den danske författaren som blev utsatt för sexuella övergrepp som ung poke av en man som förädrarna hade förtroende för och att denne man trots artikulerande (i terapi) av detta trauma inte blev löst från sin ångest. Miller menar att det beror på att föräldrarna troligen skonades... Oc så tror jag att det är. Terapin stannade liksom vid traumat med en mindre nära person... Men bearbetandet borde ha gått vidare tror jag, från min amatörsynvinkel. Miller skriver:
"Som en vuxen är Kristian Ditlev Jensen fri att se igenom Gustavs manipulation av honom [sexuellt]. I enlighet därmed är han inte utsatt för risken att göra detsamma mot andra. Men som barn hade han inte denna frihet. Man kan inte fly från sina egna föräldrar, så man har inte råd att se igenom/genomskåda heller. Blindhet/att inte se gör det möjligt för en att överleva."
Och vidare (mina kursiveringar):
"While the book reveals that the parents’ indifference was in fact the ground in which sexual abuse was able to take root and flourish, the author insists in his preface that today he loves his parents dearly and has forgiven them for absolutely everything.
It was this sentence that prompted me to react to this book. The point is that it illustrates the covert, but nonetheless virulently destructive power of the Fourth Commandment that has been a constant concern of mine. As a child Kristian was unable to free himself of Gustav’s pernicious influence because he believed that he could not live without him, without the intellectual joys he had introduced him to in the capital. If he were forced to return to the soul-destroying boredom of his parents’ provincial home, then he would surely die. Accordingly he submitted to his “friend’s” brain-washing and chose to ignore the obvious abuse he was being subjected to. Today, as an adult, he can see things more realistically, he can see what harm was done to him, and for that reason he is no longer forced to love Gustav. But the ties that link him to his parents have lost none of their power. And this is what Kristian Jensen calls love.
Although Kristian’s account indicates very clearly how the first years of his life as a neglected child drilled into unquestioning obedience of his parents paved the way for the crimes perpetrated on him by this pedophile, he acquits his parents of any kind of responsibility for his dilemma. Emotionally, at least. The reader can sense the adults’ indignation at the behavior of his parents, who calmly entrusted him to the care of a criminal every week-end for a period of three years. But the child within cannot venture to express this indignation, the fear of his parents is still too overpowering. This may explain why Kristian still suffers from his symptoms. His rage at Gustav’s behavior is legitimate, the contempt for pedophiles is shared by society. But not the rage caused by his parents. This forbidden rage remains pent up in his body, it produces nightmares and other symptoms because it is not accessible to his adult consciousness. What remains is the longing for 'good' parents, and this longing sustains all the illusions he entertains about them.
Kristian Jensen is no exception. I constantly receive books by authors relating inconceivable cruelties perpetrated on them in their early years. On the very first pages of these books they assure the reader that they have forgiven their parents for everything done to them. All these cases are a sure indication of compulsive repetition, the compulsion to prolong the deception they were once subjected to. This compulsion manifests itself above all in the religious assertion that forgiveness has a salutary effect. This assertion is clearly contradicted by the facts. The compulsion to preach is never the product of a free spirit.
Am I saying that forgiveness for crimes done to a child is not only ineffective but actively harmful? Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The body does not understand moral precepts. It fights against the denial of genuine emotions and for the admission of the truth to our conscious minds. This is something the child cannot afford to do, it has to deceive itself and turn a blind eye to the parents’ crimes in order to survive. Adults no longer need to do this, but if they do, the price they pay is high. Either they ruin their own health or they make others pay the price – their children, their patients, the people who work for them, etc.
A therapist who has forgiven his parents for the cruelty they showed him will frequently feel the urge to suggest this same course of action to his patients as a remedy for their ills. In so doing, he is exploiting their dependence and their trust. If he is no longer in touch with his own feelings, he may indeed be unaware that in this way he is doing to others what was once done to him. He is abusing others, confusing them, while rejecting any kind of responsibility for his actions because he is convinced that he is acting for their own good. Are not all religions unanimous in their conviction that forgiveness is the path to Heaven? Was not Job ultimately rewarded for the fact that he forgave God? No good can be expected of a therapist who identifies with the parents who once abused him. But adult patients have the choice. They can leave a therapist when they have seen through his deception and self-deception. They need not identify with him and repeat his acts all over again."
Se också tidigare inlägg om psykoanalysen och dess inflytande och om andra terapeutiska skolor...