Inlägg
From the Swedish film "Lotta på Bråkmakargatan" by Astrid Lindgren.
Visar inlägg med etikett Astrid Lindgren. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Astrid Lindgren. Visa alla inlägg
måndag 10 december 2007
onsdag 14 november 2007
Astrid Lindgren 100 years...
photo on Astrid Lindgren."David Wiles is a British journalist living in Sweden. He never had the pleasure of discovering Astrid Lindgren's books as a youngster, but as the father of two young girls he now considers himself something of an expert on the exploits of Pippi Longstocking & Co." :-)On this site there are other links. And at last at Swedish Televisions home site.
photos on Pippi and Emil in the Swedish films about these characters.
söndag 28 oktober 2007
About Hanna Zetterberg...
photo on Hanna Zetterberg Struwe.Astrid Lindgren-site here.
Dan Håfström which played Birk in the film is younger brother to Michael Håfström the director.
below: photo on Astrid Lindgren.
söndag 8 juli 2007
Ett samhälle i förnekande/a Society in Denial…
Jennifer Freyd skriver i sin bok ”Betrayal Trauma” (se tidigare blogginlägg om henne och denna bok) om amerikanen Ross Cheit som under en semester plötsligt mindes sexuella övergrepp en präst begick på sommarkörläger när Cheit var cirka 12 år. Och allt vad detta förde med sig för Cheit. Cheit ansåg dock att han var lyckligtlottad, för han fick stöd av sin fru och sina föräldrar…
Cheit höll ett anförande i vilket han föreslår ännu en nivå av svek mot honom, vuxna under lägret visade sig inte ha varit helt okunniga om att något kan ha pågått och en sköterska hade till och med kommit på denne präst med en annan av pojkarna på lägret, men ansvariga ansåg att denna pojke tillhörde den starka sorten och alltså troddes klara detta.
Cheit efterlyser mer uttryckliga diskussioner i samhället och organisationer om dessa saker och sa, sidan 162 i Jennifer Freyds bok ”Betrayal Trauma”:
En Diana Russell (1986) fann bland 930 kvinnor att före 18 åras ålder hade 16 % av kvinnorna blivit utsatta för sexuella övergrepp av en familjemedlem, 31 % av någon utanför familjen och 3 % av antingen eller både familje- och inte familjemedlem. Liknande resultat visas av en Lois Timnick (1985) att 27 % av de kvinnliga svarande och 16 % av de manliga i en nationell slumpvist prov på 1 252 män och 1374 kvinnor som kontaktats per telefon rapporterade sexuella övergrepp under barndomen.
Kinsey skrev redan 1953 att en av fyra kvinnor rapporterat sexuella övergrepp.
Och Freyd uppskattar utifrån dylika siffror att 14 miljoner vuxna i USA är överlevare fån sexuella övergrepp under barndomen.
Bosch skriver också att vi är ett samhälle i förnekande. Därför att de flesta av oss förnekar smärtan vi bär omkring på som vuxna, de flesta av oss förnekar effekterna i det som ses som ’normalt’ föräldraskap. Hon citerar en psykiater, Van Dantzig, i sin bok ”Rediscovering the True Self” som i en intervju sagt att
Barnaga är tillåtet i 147 av världen drygt 200 länder och minst 80 % av alla barn har utsatts för aga i hemmet.
Miljontals barn världen över utsätts varje dag för fysiskt, sexuellt och/eller psykiskt våld.
WHO tror att 150 miljoner flickor och 73 miljoner pojkar utsattes för sexuella övergrepp 2002.
Nästan 140 miljoner flickor och unga kvinnor har könsstympats.
Cheit searched for more explicit discussions in society and organizations about the topic sexual abuse and said in a speech (page 162 in Jennifer Freyd’s book “Betrayal Trauma”):
A Diana Russel (1986) found in a community sample of 930 women, that before reaching eighteen years of age, 16 % of the females were sexually abused by a family member, 31 % by a non-family member, and 38 % by either or both family and non-family members. Similar results have been shown by Lois Timnick reported (1985) that 27 % of female and 16 % of male respondents, in a national random sample of 1,252 males and 1,374 females contacted by telephone, reported sexual abuse during childhood.
Kinse wrote already in 1953 that one in four women reported childhood sexual abuse.
And Freyd estimates that 14 million adults in United States are survivors from sexual abuse during childhood.
Bosch also writes that we are a society in Denial:
Spanking children is allowed in 147 of a little more than 200 countries in the world (i.e., forbidden in only 60 countries!!!).
Millions of children are each day exposed to physical, sexual and/or psychological violence/abuse.
WHO thinks 150 million girls and 73 million boys are exposed to sexual abuse the year 2002.
Nearly 140 million girls and young women have been mutilated.
Cheit höll ett anförande i vilket han föreslår ännu en nivå av svek mot honom, vuxna under lägret visade sig inte ha varit helt okunniga om att något kan ha pågått och en sköterska hade till och med kommit på denne präst med en annan av pojkarna på lägret, men ansvariga ansåg att denna pojke tillhörde den starka sorten och alltså troddes klara detta.
Cheit efterlyser mer uttryckliga diskussioner i samhället och organisationer om dessa saker och sa, sidan 162 i Jennifer Freyds bok ”Betrayal Trauma”:
”’Jag har en konstig sorts utvidgande att erbjuda er förutsägelse rörande frånvaron av en socialt delad uttrycklig diskussion – inte förfinat; närvaron av underförstått socialt delad perversitet. Med andra ord: en iscensättning i vilken det finns ett latent accepterande av vad den vidare/det bredare samhället avskyr. Föreställ er de kognitiva konsekvenserna /…/ Idén kommer/emanerar från någonting [ett annat offer till denne präst] skrev till mig i sitt otroligt skarpa/bittra brev: ’Det fanns människor runt omkring oss /…/ till och med andra rådgivare. Det måste ha verkat säkert/okej för mig då.’ Denna mening nästan slog omkull mig. Det öppnade upp något som jag kände angående atmosfären då. Nu känner jag någon slags smärta som jag skulle vilja kalla institutionellt svek/bedrägeri.’Freyd hänvisar också i kapitlet ”Att tvivla på utbredningen av sexuella övergrepp” från sidan 34 och framåt om forskning i ämnet.
Ross Cheit ger oss en ny vändning angående avsaknaden av uttrycklig diskussion, idén om institutionellt gillande. Cheits insikt är viktig och verkar utsträcka sig till en sorts familjegillande eller, mer allmänt, socialt gillande som kanske är oundvikligt när sanningen inte diskuteras uttryckligen. Det är kanske därför som det att inte tala om djävulen/ondskan när djävulen/ondskan är närvarande, i slutänden, är så djävulskt/ont.”
En Diana Russell (1986) fann bland 930 kvinnor att före 18 åras ålder hade 16 % av kvinnorna blivit utsatta för sexuella övergrepp av en familjemedlem, 31 % av någon utanför familjen och 3 % av antingen eller både familje- och inte familjemedlem. Liknande resultat visas av en Lois Timnick (1985) att 27 % av de kvinnliga svarande och 16 % av de manliga i en nationell slumpvist prov på 1 252 män och 1374 kvinnor som kontaktats per telefon rapporterade sexuella övergrepp under barndomen.
Kinsey skrev redan 1953 att en av fyra kvinnor rapporterat sexuella övergrepp.
Och Freyd uppskattar utifrån dylika siffror att 14 miljoner vuxna i USA är överlevare fån sexuella övergrepp under barndomen.
Bosch skriver också att vi är ett samhälle i förnekande. Därför att de flesta av oss förnekar smärtan vi bär omkring på som vuxna, de flesta av oss förnekar effekterna i det som ses som ’normalt’ föräldraskap. Hon citerar en psykiater, Van Dantzig, i sin bok ”Rediscovering the True Self” som i en intervju sagt att
”De senaste tjugo åren har den offentliga uppmärksamheten fört förfärligheter i extrema former av övergrepp till ljuset, sådana som sexuella och allvarliga fysiska övergrep. Bara i Holland dör 80 barn varje år på rund av fysiska övergrepp och åtminstone 80 000 blir svårt sexuellt och fysiskt kränkta av de människor som borde ta and om dem. Medvetenhet om dessa förfärliga fakta motiverar människor att upprätta vägar att hjälpa barn utsatta för kränkningar och övergrepp. Förhoppningsvis kommer människor att bli mer medvetna om vad som händer ’hos grannen’ och agera som skyddar barn. Vid denna tidpunkt dock, är vi fortfarande kollektivt villiga att anse att vad som händer bakom ytterdörren är otillåtet/ointagligt. Det territoriet anses varade privatas rike. Privat används som politiskt alibi för att undvika att göra något strukturellt gällande övergrepp på barn. En pojke som blir slagen till döds på gatorna, hela nationen är i uppror. 80 barn dör anonymt hemma, tidningarna skriver om det och ingen reagerar.’
De flesta aktioner som görs för att adressera barndomsövergreppssaker verkar har som sikte att hjälpa barnet efter att det har blivit offer för sina vårdnadsgivare. Eftersom det blir allt mer klart hur omfattande inflytandet av barnövergrepp får på individer och samhället i stort, vore det bara rationellt att skapa uppmärksamhet på faktorer som kan hjälpa till att förhindra övergrepp /…/ mycket lidande skulle kunna förebyggas. Samhället behöver fortsätta sin kamp att förbättra de fysiskt och sexuellt kränkta barnens lott, både på en efterövergreppsnivå och, ännu viktigare, innan skadan har gjorts.”I antologin om Astrid Lindgren skriver politikern Karin Söder att FN-chefen Kofi Annan hösten 2006 presenterade fakta om våldet i vardagen för miljoner barn:
Barnaga är tillåtet i 147 av världen drygt 200 länder och minst 80 % av alla barn har utsatts för aga i hemmet.
Miljontals barn världen över utsätts varje dag för fysiskt, sexuellt och/eller psykiskt våld.
WHO tror att 150 miljoner flickor och 73 miljoner pojkar utsattes för sexuella övergrepp 2002.
Nästan 140 miljoner flickor och unga kvinnor har könsstympats.
---
Jennifer Freyd writes in her book “Betrayal Trauma” (see earlier blogposts about her and this book) about the American Ross Cheit suddenly remembering during sexual abuse a priest committed at a boy chorus camp when he was round 12 years? And all what followed this disclosure. Cheit had a wife and parents that supported him.Cheit searched for more explicit discussions in society and organizations about the topic sexual abuse and said in a speech (page 162 in Jennifer Freyd’s book “Betrayal Trauma”):
“I have a strange kind of extension to offer to your prediction concerning the absence of any socially shared explicit discussion – inelegantly, the presence of implicitly socially shared perversity. In other words: a setting in which there is latent acceptance of what the broader society abhors. Imagine the cognitive consequences… The idea emanates from something [another victim of this priest] wrote to me in his incredibly poignant letter: ‘There were people all around us … even other counsellors. It must have seemed safe/OK to me at the time.’ This sentence about knocked me over. It tapped into something I felt about the atmosphere then. Now, I felt some kind of pan that I would call institutional betrayal.’Freyd also refers in the chapter ”Doubting the Prevalence of Sexual Abuse” at page 34 and forward to research on this topic.
Ross Cheit offers a new twist on the lack of explicit discussion, the notion of institutional approbation. Cheit’s insight is important, and seems to extend to a kind of family approbation or, more generally, social approbation that is perhaps inevitable when the truth is not discussed explicitly. It is perhaps why to speak no evil when evil is present is, in the end, so evil."
A Diana Russel (1986) found in a community sample of 930 women, that before reaching eighteen years of age, 16 % of the females were sexually abused by a family member, 31 % by a non-family member, and 38 % by either or both family and non-family members. Similar results have been shown by Lois Timnick reported (1985) that 27 % of female and 16 % of male respondents, in a national random sample of 1,252 males and 1,374 females contacted by telephone, reported sexual abuse during childhood.
Kinse wrote already in 1953 that one in four women reported childhood sexual abuse.
And Freyd estimates that 14 million adults in United States are survivors from sexual abuse during childhood.
Bosch also writes that we are a society in Denial:
“Just as most of us are in denial of the pain we carry around as adults most of us are also in denial about the effects of what is considered as ‘normal’ parenting. Van Dantzig, psychiatrist, puts it as follows in a recent interview: ‘In the last twenty years, much public attention has brought to light the horrors of extreme forms of abuse, such as sexual and severe physical abuse. In Holland alone, 80 children die every year from physical abuse, and at least 80,000 are severely abused sexually or physically by the people who should be taking care of them. Awareness of these horrendous facts is motivating people to establish avenues to aid abused children. Hopefully people will become more aware of what is happening ‘at the neighbors’ and take action that will protect the child. At this point, however, collectively we are still willing to consider the space behind the front door as inadmissible. That territory is considered to be the realm of privacy. Privacy is used as a political alibi to avoid doing something structurally about child abuse. A boy is beaten to death on the streets, the whole nations is in uproar. Eighty children die anonymously at home, the newspapers write about it and nobody reacts.’In the anthology on Astrid Lindgren one of the contributors wrote that the former UN-leader Kofi Annan presented facts the fall 2006 about present day violence for millions of children.
Most action taken to address childhood abuse issues seems to be aimed at helping the child after it has become a victim of its caregivers. As it is becoming more and more clear how large the impact of child abuse is on individuals and the society at large, it is only rational to give attention to factors that might help prevent the abuse /.../ much suffering might be prevented. Society needs to continue its struggle to improve the lot of physically and sexually abused children, both at a post-abuse level and, more importantly, before the harm has been done.”
Spanking children is allowed in 147 of a little more than 200 countries in the world (i.e., forbidden in only 60 countries!!!).
Millions of children are each day exposed to physical, sexual and/or psychological violence/abuse.
WHO thinks 150 million girls and 73 million boys are exposed to sexual abuse the year 2002.
Nearly 140 million girls and young women have been mutilated.
söndag 1 juli 2007
Pippi Longstocking…
It stands about Pippi Longstocking at least twice in the anthology over Astrid Lindgren.
The story about Pippi was first verbally told to the daughter Karin, who was born 1934, on her request (so this occurred in the beginning or midst of the forties?):
“Mom, tell me about Pippi Longstocking!!” (it was her daughter which invented the figure Pippi Longstocking).
Astrid did. This was before she had published any book whatsoever. And I think the original Pippi was even more rebellious than the Pippi we know and as I read once.
1995 a Swedish Christ-democrat Carin Stenström published a debate-article, on the international women’s day, in one of our biggest newspapers about Pippi Longstocking. Where we could see, according to the former Swedish culture-minister Bengt Göransson, that “Pippi Longstocking’s anarchistic appearance still is strongly provoking for the one which with the help of a strict and not questioned moral want to regulate even individuals lives”.
Another contributor to the anthology writes:
“That Pippi provoked many pedagogues and some year after it was published caused a lively discussion, called the Pippi-feud, is well-known. Even fifty years later the Pippi-figure still has its challenging character and give rise to new exchanges of opinions.”
This contributor also mentions the debate-article by Carin Stenström, with the headline “Time to pension Pippi Longstocking?” Stenström said in this article that she already as a child had seen something grown up was unable to see, namely that Pippi was gravely asocial, that she was emotionally disturbed, and that she lacked all abilities to adapt and lacked all normal ties to other human beings. She continues with analyzing what she calls the “Pippi-culture” and its influence on school and child-raising in Sweden.
She means that in no other country childhood has been made its own goal, nowhere else the infantilism has been elevated to norm and wisdom as with us. The worship of Pippi has put everything up-side-down; the school, family life, normal behaviors. It has ridiculed order and respect, honesty and politeness. It glorifies self-centredness, self fixation, ruthlessness, and escapism she thought.
This attack proves if nothing else the belief in the literature’s possibility to influence (And is that why conservatives, and the right that is now our present government since September 2006, is so afraid of culture??? My small wonder).
When Astrid Lindgren had held her speech 1978 “Never violence” (“Aldrig våld”) she got a lotof reactions. She understood it would be challenging to many. A German vicar wrote a long letter to her and expressed his worries and disappointment, but at the same time also expressed his admiration for her. He means that Lindgren interprets the Old Testament and thus the bible as the cause for all violence children are exposed to by their caretakers. He means that she is citing one-sidedly and fails lifting the parts in the Bible forward which speaks against violence.
Other critics of her view on children and child-raising are less thoughtful and well articulated. One opens his letter with establishing that Lindgren needs a “jolly good birching” (rejäl risbastu). The reasons for the writer of the letters anger are all mischief (hyss) Emil is allowed to make. And the letter continues with establishing that children deserve “a beating” if hey destroy and in respect for older.
A Swedish woman tells another story about using “Lotta on the Troublemakers-street” (“Lotta på Bråkmakargatn” in Swedish) as literature when she should teach Chinese toll-polices English. The book not only improved the English but led, even more, to lively discussions about raising-principles and create many good laughs. And probably also to a partly other view on how small girls are allowed to behave!!!
Yes, there are many backlashes in the society… And what is infantilism? I wonder if it is what some therapists call being in the child state, which has reasons, and thus is possible to cure – and to prevent too, which would be even better. But not with abuse or violation, i.e., more of that kind, not more of that which caused suppression and to stay more or less in a child state, but via processing of the roots for this state, by talking about it…
And it isn’t enough with only cognitive or intellectual knowledge. To change things more radically (and not only on the surface) we should need to understand those things more on an emotional level. Not until then we can avoid harming children either I think… We should need to sensitize us for what we as adults were harmed by – on an emotional level to a certain degree…
And I came to think once again about what Pincus has written about bigotry (trångsynthet) and the roots for this according to him (and I think he is right!!! People who are abused and violated, but not with the severest abuse or those that had the luck to encounter helping witnesses during childhood and thus didn’t need to resort to either being criminals or abusers of other kinds, more subtly), which persons like that Carin Stenström above maybe showed!!?? Yes, personally I think she rather show that??? Honestly.
See the blogpost Pincus on Frank McCourt.
As others in societies all over the world it seems, which shouts for harder holds/grips again. And now stronger than before or stronger than for a long time? Nanny-programs are one expression of this phenomenon?
But from where does disrespect and rudeness come? But at the same time, that’s only an explanation and not an excuse for grown ups… You can’t excuse your bad behavior with your upbringing and childhood... As grown up we have the possibility to do something about it. But probably with a lot of work and may failures…
Came to think about what Bosch has written about teaching children not to be egoistic (can this also have resulted in the opposite?? Another side of the same coin? An against-reaction in some parents?). Maybe I will write a blogpost about this later…
The story about Pippi was first verbally told to the daughter Karin, who was born 1934, on her request (so this occurred in the beginning or midst of the forties?):
“Mom, tell me about Pippi Longstocking!!” (it was her daughter which invented the figure Pippi Longstocking).
Astrid did. This was before she had published any book whatsoever. And I think the original Pippi was even more rebellious than the Pippi we know and as I read once.
1995 a Swedish Christ-democrat Carin Stenström published a debate-article, on the international women’s day, in one of our biggest newspapers about Pippi Longstocking. Where we could see, according to the former Swedish culture-minister Bengt Göransson, that “Pippi Longstocking’s anarchistic appearance still is strongly provoking for the one which with the help of a strict and not questioned moral want to regulate even individuals lives”.
Another contributor to the anthology writes:
“That Pippi provoked many pedagogues and some year after it was published caused a lively discussion, called the Pippi-feud, is well-known. Even fifty years later the Pippi-figure still has its challenging character and give rise to new exchanges of opinions.”
This contributor also mentions the debate-article by Carin Stenström, with the headline “Time to pension Pippi Longstocking?” Stenström said in this article that she already as a child had seen something grown up was unable to see, namely that Pippi was gravely asocial, that she was emotionally disturbed, and that she lacked all abilities to adapt and lacked all normal ties to other human beings. She continues with analyzing what she calls the “Pippi-culture” and its influence on school and child-raising in Sweden.
She means that in no other country childhood has been made its own goal, nowhere else the infantilism has been elevated to norm and wisdom as with us. The worship of Pippi has put everything up-side-down; the school, family life, normal behaviors. It has ridiculed order and respect, honesty and politeness. It glorifies self-centredness, self fixation, ruthlessness, and escapism she thought.
This attack proves if nothing else the belief in the literature’s possibility to influence (And is that why conservatives, and the right that is now our present government since September 2006, is so afraid of culture??? My small wonder).
When Astrid Lindgren had held her speech 1978 “Never violence” (“Aldrig våld”) she got a lotof reactions. She understood it would be challenging to many. A German vicar wrote a long letter to her and expressed his worries and disappointment, but at the same time also expressed his admiration for her. He means that Lindgren interprets the Old Testament and thus the bible as the cause for all violence children are exposed to by their caretakers. He means that she is citing one-sidedly and fails lifting the parts in the Bible forward which speaks against violence.
Other critics of her view on children and child-raising are less thoughtful and well articulated. One opens his letter with establishing that Lindgren needs a “jolly good birching” (rejäl risbastu). The reasons for the writer of the letters anger are all mischief (hyss) Emil is allowed to make. And the letter continues with establishing that children deserve “a beating” if hey destroy and in respect for older.
A Swedish woman tells another story about using “Lotta on the Troublemakers-street” (“Lotta på Bråkmakargatn” in Swedish) as literature when she should teach Chinese toll-polices English. The book not only improved the English but led, even more, to lively discussions about raising-principles and create many good laughs. And probably also to a partly other view on how small girls are allowed to behave!!!
Yes, there are many backlashes in the society… And what is infantilism? I wonder if it is what some therapists call being in the child state, which has reasons, and thus is possible to cure – and to prevent too, which would be even better. But not with abuse or violation, i.e., more of that kind, not more of that which caused suppression and to stay more or less in a child state, but via processing of the roots for this state, by talking about it…
And it isn’t enough with only cognitive or intellectual knowledge. To change things more radically (and not only on the surface) we should need to understand those things more on an emotional level. Not until then we can avoid harming children either I think… We should need to sensitize us for what we as adults were harmed by – on an emotional level to a certain degree…
And I came to think once again about what Pincus has written about bigotry (trångsynthet) and the roots for this according to him (and I think he is right!!! People who are abused and violated, but not with the severest abuse or those that had the luck to encounter helping witnesses during childhood and thus didn’t need to resort to either being criminals or abusers of other kinds, more subtly), which persons like that Carin Stenström above maybe showed!!?? Yes, personally I think she rather show that??? Honestly.
See the blogpost Pincus on Frank McCourt.
As others in societies all over the world it seems, which shouts for harder holds/grips again. And now stronger than before or stronger than for a long time? Nanny-programs are one expression of this phenomenon?
But from where does disrespect and rudeness come? But at the same time, that’s only an explanation and not an excuse for grown ups… You can’t excuse your bad behavior with your upbringing and childhood... As grown up we have the possibility to do something about it. But probably with a lot of work and may failures…
Came to think about what Bosch has written about teaching children not to be egoistic (can this also have resulted in the opposite?? Another side of the same coin? An against-reaction in some parents?). Maybe I will write a blogpost about this later…
lördag 30 juni 2007
Even more about Astrid Lindgren…
Astrid Lindgren left her enormous archive to the Royal Library (Kungliga biblioteket) in Stockholm, and this library contains 125 shelf-meters of manuscripts, letters, press cuttings etc. Most parts of it are letters (from the whole world) and press-cuttings. Unesco has given this archive the status of World-memory (translated directly from Swedish; corresponding to World heritages, which Ingmar Bergman’s and Alfred Nobel’s archives are suggested to be too), by this sanctioned that this archive is important to protect for human beings and the whole world. She and the Danish author H. C. Andersen are the only child book authors which are honoured in this way.
One of her admirers has said about her that she was “simple (or plain), brave, wise, kind, sees when the emperor doesn’t have any cloths – and points this out (talks about it)!”
She was 38 when she made her début as author and 68 when she made her début as political author.
Was she both Pippi and Ronia and Emil etc.? In one and the same person? My wonder…
Ronia the concretisation of the growing child’s rebellion, fear, sorrow, love and also strength. “Watch (Mind or look out for) the Hell’s Gap!”
they said to Ronia, to warn and protect (over-protect?). But then Ronia immediately rushes to it instead.
“How am I supposed to mind for the Hell’s Gap if I am not there?” she wonders.
A woman met Astrid Lindgren and overwhelmed over the situation she said:
“Oh, how wonderful, Astrid, to shake your hand!”
“Shake it again then!”
Astrid Lindgren replied!!
Her first child, Lasse (Lars) she bore in secret before she was twenty, he spent his first three years in a foster home in Copenhagen and one year with his maternal grandparents at Näs in Småland (see earlier blogposts about Lindgren with links to different places etc. connected to her including the farm she grew up on, Näs!).
Her marriage became short. When she was 44 her husband died and she lived the rest of her life as widow, never married again.
Already in February 1951 she participated in a radio program about “the single mother’s situation”. At that point few knew that she talked from own experiences. Her attitude was both then and later that the children should come in the first place, the child was always the most important, not the mother, how difficult her situation even was. She thought it was the children who had to suffer for the moralist’s sake.
At the same time she warned for generalisations and for romanticizing the motherhood. She thought a good foster home could in the specific case be better than a too young and immature mother.
And with an inimitable “lindgrenskian” turn she slightly bantered with how easy it seemed to be to take the guilt feeling away for “the extra-marital fatherhood”!!!
She also said to a friend:
“I can walk out on the street and look people directly in their eyes and then I can’t help thinking: ‘How do you have it, you poor thing?’ One can’t avoid wondering when one knows how people have it: ‘Is it really like this it is thought it shall be? (are those the intentions about life, the world, human beings lives?)’”
She also had her small thoughts when she watched the men in the park (Vasaparken) outside the windows to her apartment at Dalagatan in Stockholm, men who were alcoholics sitting on the benches there. She felt with them too.
In the aftermath of the tax-raid (round up) on Ingmar Bergman 1976 she wrote a letter to one of the responsible about this:
“I think the police shall treat whoever it concerns respectfully [no matter if it was famous person or not, and not treat the famous worse either!! My interpretation).”
She thought one should be careful going out to the press with things before anything was properly investigated, in this case if Bergman deliberately had committed any crimes concerning taxes or not. That people shouldn’t be given out officially only on suspicions.
“It’s like this it is; a judgment in court must have been pronounced first even when it is about the worse and biggest murderer in the whole world!
If he has done something that isn’t right, then of course he shall soot for this when the whole is proven. But don’t pick a human being to pieces as long it’s only about suspicions, a right even Ingmar Bergman should have, as you and me and all which lives in a law-governed society.”
One characteristic thing about her in all she engaged herself in is that global issues are mixed with local. She was a woman with intuition which reacted on “the concrete question at issue”, not an intellectually calculating person which on beforehand estimated in which circumstance her words would have largest or greatest possible effect. She reacted with her heart but also used the head when she was arguing for her cause.
She said to another woman:
“You feel in your stomach what’s right or wrong. Act on your gut feelings, trust them!”
And Astrid Lindgren also thought that it is only the grown up and calculating which start thinking in patterns like
“…on the one hand we shall… to… but on the other we can’t… because…”
A former Swedish politician Bengt Göransson says about her that she was always “common” (i.e., “as we all are”, she never took a position from above) in her appearances, never the great author which spoke to an ignorant public. She spoke from below, before the authority, which she says she had learnt both to obey and respect (??). Her usualness was also her strength he thinks.
Astrid Lindgren spoke about the libraries by informing how great they are for the children, and showed with a grimace that she thought that those who attacked the libraries are mean and stupid, that was enough (no more words than those!!). When she said what he thought she wasn’t the expert who spoke from above but she said what people in general thought. She never started a contribution to a debate with “We intellectuals…”
She also avoided the sunken rocks the populist always risk steering onto when he tries to interpret what people want. It’s simply so that Astrid Lindgren spoke about things she reacted on. She had a strong intuition and felt what was wrong. She reacted spontaneously and rapidly without dedicating herself to tactical considerations. That’s the reason why she so often hit the right thing, and when she captured a general opinion – “what people though” – she didn’t because she had stronger antennas than people in general, antennas which tells what people thinks, but she just said what she herself thought, frankly and directly.
Not only a great author but also a political person, let be with strong traits of the truth telling child in the Emperors New Cloths.
I guess she would have had a lot to react on today…
Photos above taken here today and on the grave yard taken yesterday, on the old church ruin there...
fredag 29 juni 2007
Old unmet needs/gamla, ickefyllda behov…
The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes in her book ”Rediscovering the True Self- A search for truth and healing. New insights combined with at comprehensive self-healing program” at page 271 about old unmet needs:
And this lack of power you can exercise as grown up in different ways… If you aren’t totally paralysed of trauma. Which also can be the case?
The more revenge feelings ad needs for control and power the more you need to exercise this as grow up in different ways… Depending on what opportunities you are given too.
For women the traditional way to do this is via their own children – if they have any. That has been an allowed object for her. Men have had other opportunities, but also exercised it at own children. See what Astrid Lindgren said I her speech about dictators, tyrants etc.
But not only this, but it also causes a lot of problem in the grown ups life, because trying to fill old unmet needs will always cause problems and troubles in relations. Will always distance you, maybe most to the ones that are most important. With whom you won’t have that grown up relation as really grown up to grown up. Maybe that’s an illusion to get the perfect relation?
And it is as Jennifer Freyd writes, that life will always be both wonderful and horrible. But the less unprocessed you have the better you can handle these facts!? The perfect life isn’t a life on roses, but you can handle the life as it is more or less constructively…
I am trying to catch something here…
Denying these truth will always cause problems… If we were able to feel the feelings that would have been adequate then we would have less needs to exercise them in out lives here and now. But this is no easy thing. And that fact would really be a reminder for us all; in how we are treating the up growing species. To prevent all problems we can for them… Because it is so difficult to deal with those things, which we should realize…
A psychologist said to me:
But it was like mentioning a taboo-thing!!?? As if it forbidden to blame ones parents and seriously do that and see what comes out of that? If there was nothing to hide what would be the problem? I can’t see where the problem is then? And not least then!
A chid needed warmth, safety, respect, trust etc. on the emotional level, and sexual and physical integrity including bodily safety. If a grown up try to fulfil these needs in adult life it always causes problem, bigger or smaller…
And stands in the way for filling adult needs or even to realize what ones adult needs actually are…
Needs for power and control… But what needs does a grown up actually have in these respects?
I think Jenson is right when she writes at page 173 in the Swedish edition of her book that when we have realized how it actually was we willnot be able to hurt others without feeling their pain too. And: We will not believe that power and richness can give us something really important.
We won’t be able to live with anything but the truth – before ourselves and others. And the best, the better our mental health becomes the more we distance us from exercise of power and violence [wherever it occurs].
-//-
Den holländska terapeuten Ingeborg Bosch skriver i sin bok
”Rediscovering the True Self- A search for truth and healing. New insights combined with at comprehensive self-healing program” på sidan 271 om gamla ickefyllda behov:
“As children we all had needs that were not met by our caregivers.Experienced in a totally dependent state. In the powerlessness state as it is to be a small child and a newborn baby dependent on caregivers. The worse the child was treated the more needs in the child of power in her/his adult life…
Usually
these unmet needs are of a no-physical nature (warmth, safety,
respect, trust,
support etc.). There are also unmet needs of a physical
nature (sexual integrity
and bodily safety). It is these unmet needs that
make it necessary for children
to hide the truth about their childhoods from
themselves. The truth being that
their needs are not being met and will not
ever be met.”
And this lack of power you can exercise as grown up in different ways… If you aren’t totally paralysed of trauma. Which also can be the case?
The more revenge feelings ad needs for control and power the more you need to exercise this as grow up in different ways… Depending on what opportunities you are given too.
For women the traditional way to do this is via their own children – if they have any. That has been an allowed object for her. Men have had other opportunities, but also exercised it at own children. See what Astrid Lindgren said I her speech about dictators, tyrants etc.
But not only this, but it also causes a lot of problem in the grown ups life, because trying to fill old unmet needs will always cause problems and troubles in relations. Will always distance you, maybe most to the ones that are most important. With whom you won’t have that grown up relation as really grown up to grown up. Maybe that’s an illusion to get the perfect relation?
And it is as Jennifer Freyd writes, that life will always be both wonderful and horrible. But the less unprocessed you have the better you can handle these facts!? The perfect life isn’t a life on roses, but you can handle the life as it is more or less constructively…
I am trying to catch something here…
Denying these truth will always cause problems… If we were able to feel the feelings that would have been adequate then we would have less needs to exercise them in out lives here and now. But this is no easy thing. And that fact would really be a reminder for us all; in how we are treating the up growing species. To prevent all problems we can for them… Because it is so difficult to deal with those things, which we should realize…
A psychologist said to me:
“Each generation has to work on its own”.That’s the possibility we all have. But I reacted against this statement, tried to point it out, but don’t feel he really took it to him or maybe didn’t even listen or hear what I said!? Because I thought that we should talk much more open about all these things everywhere in society.
But it was like mentioning a taboo-thing!!?? As if it forbidden to blame ones parents and seriously do that and see what comes out of that? If there was nothing to hide what would be the problem? I can’t see where the problem is then? And not least then!
A chid needed warmth, safety, respect, trust etc. on the emotional level, and sexual and physical integrity including bodily safety. If a grown up try to fulfil these needs in adult life it always causes problem, bigger or smaller…
And stands in the way for filling adult needs or even to realize what ones adult needs actually are…
Needs for power and control… But what needs does a grown up actually have in these respects?
I think Jenson is right when she writes at page 173 in the Swedish edition of her book that when we have realized how it actually was we willnot be able to hurt others without feeling their pain too. And: We will not believe that power and richness can give us something really important.
We won’t be able to live with anything but the truth – before ourselves and others. And the best, the better our mental health becomes the more we distance us from exercise of power and violence [wherever it occurs].
-//-
Den holländska terapeuten Ingeborg Bosch skriver i sin bok
”Rediscovering the True Self- A search for truth and healing. New insights combined with at comprehensive self-healing program” på sidan 271 om gamla ickefyllda behov:
“Som barn hade vi alla behov som inte blev fyllda av våra vårdnadsgivare.
Vanligtvis är dessa ofyllda behov av en ickefysisk natur (värme, trygghet,
respekt, tillit, stöd osv.). Det finns också behov av fysisk natur (sexuell
integritet och kroppslig trygghet). Det är dessa ickefyllda behov som gör det
nödvändigt för barn att dölja sanningen om sina barndomar för dem själva.
Sanningen att deras behov inte blev mötta och aldrig kommer att bli mötta.”
”Never violence” – a speech by Astrid Lindgren…
I have started to read the anthology “Ingen liten lort – Astrid Lindgren som opinionsbildare” ISBN 978-91-29-66692-2 Rabén& Sjögren (“No little shit *) – Astrid Lindgren as moulder of public opinion” it would be in English?), about Astrid Lindgren, with contributions from seventeen persons in different ages and with many different works and back grounds most of them living in Sweden. From other child book authors, journalists, a child physician (working at Astrid Lindgren hospital in Stockholm, a child-hospital) a former Soviet ambassador which now is living in Sweden etc.
*) or muck or dirt!?
It is a small cute dog here that wants to go out it looks now when I have sat down to write in the morning!! I wonder if I shall dress and take a walk with him before I write further?? J
Now back from the walk:
The speech Astrid Lindgren held in Frankfurt October 22, 1978 when she received the German bookseller’s peace prize had the title “Never violence” (“Aldrig våld” in Swedish).
The organization which gave it to her asked her not to hold it, just receive the prize, but Lindgren said no and that she wouldn’t come to the prize ceremony at all if she wasn’t allowed to hold just this speech and no other speech, and then they had to change their minds!!!
She starts this speech (which is published in its entity in this anthology) with wonders if we shouldn’t after all those thousand of years ask ourselves if there is a sort of constructional error in the human species since we always resort to violence. And if we are doomed to be ruined for our aggressions sake? Is there no possibility for us to change then, before it is too late? That we could learn to disclaim violence. Try to become another sort of human beings simply. But how and where shall we then start?
She thinks we have to start from the ground, the bottom. With the children.
My comment: And maybe we need many different perspectives on things in our world!!! From different angles, in different ways, from different persons, high and low, intellectual and not the leas intellectual (a former culture minister Bengt Göransson reflects in the anthology upon what made Lindgren such a success in moulding public opinion; and it wasn’t that she talked from above, but from an under perspective, spontaneously, directly etc. Maybe I write more about this too later)… Most the ones which are about our survival on this earth!!??
And she thinks that as they had chosen a child book author for this peace prize they couldn’t expect any political views, or perspectives, or suggestions to international solutions to problems. She wanted to talk about the children, simply. The ones that are going to take over this world. If there is anything left of it. Or what is left of it?
Do we want a society where the violence just keeps on increasing or do we want one where human beings live in peace and fellowship with each others? Is there any hope at all that we are going to create a more peaceful world than we have succeeded to create so far (if we see it from the pessimistic perspective)? And why haven’t we been more successful in spite of all good will? Se asked then, thirty years ago!!
She said that she remembered what a shock it was when she as a very young girl suddenly realized that those who ruled the countries and the world’s destiny were no gods with superior equipment or a divine clear vision. They were just human beings with the same faults and human weaknesses as she had. But the difference was that they had power and could each minute make the most fatal decisions, all after the impulses which ruled them (in that particular moment).
In the worse case a war could be started just because of one person’s desire for power or greediness of revenge or conceitedness or greediness to win or – which seems to be the most usual – blind faith and superstition in violence as the most effective tool in all situations. And at the same time just one good, calm human being can sometimes ward off catastrophes just by being good and calm and by distancing him/her from violence she meant.
She asked why there are so many who want violence and power? Is there an inborn evil wish or desire in some?
No, she believes there isn’t. She means that the decisive factor for if the child is going to turn out to a warm, open, confiding (trustful) human being with ability to community or a frigid, destructive “lonely wolf” is how the child is met when it comes into this world. If the people who meets the child and introduce it into the world can teach it what love it, by meeting it with love and respect or if they refuse to do this, if they refuse to take their responsibility for the child that has been brought into this world and put in their hands. No matter whether this child is going to play an important and decisive role or not. Every child deserves genuine love and respect and care despite this. Yes, no child has asked to come into this world, so I agree with this. But this is difficult, because so many of us are harmed more or less. We have to understand what has formed us (each of us ought to do this work) and at the same time avoid hurting the ones that are growing up (and of course all people).
Even coming statesmen’s or politician’s characters are formed before they have even turned five, this is awful but true she said. My addition: I have had a discussion with a friend about the need for power and control, and I think this plays a role here… I will probably come back to that topic later.
She reflects upon how children have been treated during history. And as she says, it has not all too seldom been about violence of some kind (yes, she said like this!!); physical or psychical, to break the child’s will. She asked: how often haven’t children got their first education in violence by “von denen die man liebt”, i.e., their own parents, and then passed these lectures further from generation to generation. “Spare the rod and you will spoil the child” (or how do one say this in English?) stands in the Old Testament, and many fathers and mothers have believed in this and diligently used the “rod” and called it “love”.
But all those “spoilt lads” (yes, she said so) round the world; the dictators, tyrants, oppressors, tormentors of human beings, which there are so many of in this very minute, if one should investigate what they have in their backgrounds, how their childhoods were. This we ought to inquire she thought. And she thought that behind most of these dictators, tyrants etc. there stand a tyrannical father or other fosterer with a rod or another whip in his hand.
She said in this speech: shouldn’t one get despaired when voices suddenly have been raised (fairly strongly then 1978? As they are today too, a well known child physician here Lars H Gustafsson criticizes the popular nanny-programs that have occurred the last years in TV here too unfortunately, maybe I will write more about this too. Yes, they feel fairly manipulative).
Voices for retrogression to the old authoritarian system, she said – then 1978. Which is what happens at many places in the world just now. Now one want “harder holds/grips” and “more tight reins” and believes that this shall help against all the youths bad habits which too much freedom and too little strictness in the upbringing is to blame they mean and say.
But that’s like trying to drive evil out with Beelzebub and will only in long term lead to more violence. These long-desired “harder holds” would possibly give a superficial effect which the pleaders maybe could interpret as an improvement until they would have to realize that violence breeds violence – as it has always done.
Many parents were probably worried by those signals and wondered what wrong they had done then (not learnt to trust themselves?)? If an antiauthoritarian upbringing is something to be condemned? It is, Lindgren thought, if it is misunderstood. She thinks there must be a mutual respect between children and parents. Children shall though not be left totally alone; left drifting at the mercy of the wind. But I would add that it must always start with the parents respect and love and care and enlightenment.
And then Lindgren told the story about the young mother and her son; Lindgren had met an old woman who told her this story: When she had been a young mother her little son had done something the mother thought she had to punish him for. She asked him to go out and fetch a birch for her so she could o this (or only threaten him with this? As the custom also was? In some homes the birch hang in the kitchen as a reminder). For the first time in his life (he was fairly small?). The little boy went out and was out for a long time. At last he came home crying and said:
“Never violence!”
*) or muck or dirt!?
It is a small cute dog here that wants to go out it looks now when I have sat down to write in the morning!! I wonder if I shall dress and take a walk with him before I write further?? J
Now back from the walk:
The speech Astrid Lindgren held in Frankfurt October 22, 1978 when she received the German bookseller’s peace prize had the title “Never violence” (“Aldrig våld” in Swedish).
The organization which gave it to her asked her not to hold it, just receive the prize, but Lindgren said no and that she wouldn’t come to the prize ceremony at all if she wasn’t allowed to hold just this speech and no other speech, and then they had to change their minds!!!
She starts this speech (which is published in its entity in this anthology) with wonders if we shouldn’t after all those thousand of years ask ourselves if there is a sort of constructional error in the human species since we always resort to violence. And if we are doomed to be ruined for our aggressions sake? Is there no possibility for us to change then, before it is too late? That we could learn to disclaim violence. Try to become another sort of human beings simply. But how and where shall we then start?
She thinks we have to start from the ground, the bottom. With the children.
My comment: And maybe we need many different perspectives on things in our world!!! From different angles, in different ways, from different persons, high and low, intellectual and not the leas intellectual (a former culture minister Bengt Göransson reflects in the anthology upon what made Lindgren such a success in moulding public opinion; and it wasn’t that she talked from above, but from an under perspective, spontaneously, directly etc. Maybe I write more about this too later)… Most the ones which are about our survival on this earth!!??
And she thinks that as they had chosen a child book author for this peace prize they couldn’t expect any political views, or perspectives, or suggestions to international solutions to problems. She wanted to talk about the children, simply. The ones that are going to take over this world. If there is anything left of it. Or what is left of it?
Do we want a society where the violence just keeps on increasing or do we want one where human beings live in peace and fellowship with each others? Is there any hope at all that we are going to create a more peaceful world than we have succeeded to create so far (if we see it from the pessimistic perspective)? And why haven’t we been more successful in spite of all good will? Se asked then, thirty years ago!!
She said that she remembered what a shock it was when she as a very young girl suddenly realized that those who ruled the countries and the world’s destiny were no gods with superior equipment or a divine clear vision. They were just human beings with the same faults and human weaknesses as she had. But the difference was that they had power and could each minute make the most fatal decisions, all after the impulses which ruled them (in that particular moment).
In the worse case a war could be started just because of one person’s desire for power or greediness of revenge or conceitedness or greediness to win or – which seems to be the most usual – blind faith and superstition in violence as the most effective tool in all situations. And at the same time just one good, calm human being can sometimes ward off catastrophes just by being good and calm and by distancing him/her from violence she meant.
She asked why there are so many who want violence and power? Is there an inborn evil wish or desire in some?
No, she believes there isn’t. She means that the decisive factor for if the child is going to turn out to a warm, open, confiding (trustful) human being with ability to community or a frigid, destructive “lonely wolf” is how the child is met when it comes into this world. If the people who meets the child and introduce it into the world can teach it what love it, by meeting it with love and respect or if they refuse to do this, if they refuse to take their responsibility for the child that has been brought into this world and put in their hands. No matter whether this child is going to play an important and decisive role or not. Every child deserves genuine love and respect and care despite this. Yes, no child has asked to come into this world, so I agree with this. But this is difficult, because so many of us are harmed more or less. We have to understand what has formed us (each of us ought to do this work) and at the same time avoid hurting the ones that are growing up (and of course all people).
Even coming statesmen’s or politician’s characters are formed before they have even turned five, this is awful but true she said. My addition: I have had a discussion with a friend about the need for power and control, and I think this plays a role here… I will probably come back to that topic later.
She reflects upon how children have been treated during history. And as she says, it has not all too seldom been about violence of some kind (yes, she said like this!!); physical or psychical, to break the child’s will. She asked: how often haven’t children got their first education in violence by “von denen die man liebt”, i.e., their own parents, and then passed these lectures further from generation to generation. “Spare the rod and you will spoil the child” (or how do one say this in English?) stands in the Old Testament, and many fathers and mothers have believed in this and diligently used the “rod” and called it “love”.
But all those “spoilt lads” (yes, she said so) round the world; the dictators, tyrants, oppressors, tormentors of human beings, which there are so many of in this very minute, if one should investigate what they have in their backgrounds, how their childhoods were. This we ought to inquire she thought. And she thought that behind most of these dictators, tyrants etc. there stand a tyrannical father or other fosterer with a rod or another whip in his hand.
She said in this speech: shouldn’t one get despaired when voices suddenly have been raised (fairly strongly then 1978? As they are today too, a well known child physician here Lars H Gustafsson criticizes the popular nanny-programs that have occurred the last years in TV here too unfortunately, maybe I will write more about this too. Yes, they feel fairly manipulative).
Voices for retrogression to the old authoritarian system, she said – then 1978. Which is what happens at many places in the world just now. Now one want “harder holds/grips” and “more tight reins” and believes that this shall help against all the youths bad habits which too much freedom and too little strictness in the upbringing is to blame they mean and say.
But that’s like trying to drive evil out with Beelzebub and will only in long term lead to more violence. These long-desired “harder holds” would possibly give a superficial effect which the pleaders maybe could interpret as an improvement until they would have to realize that violence breeds violence – as it has always done.
Many parents were probably worried by those signals and wondered what wrong they had done then (not learnt to trust themselves?)? If an antiauthoritarian upbringing is something to be condemned? It is, Lindgren thought, if it is misunderstood. She thinks there must be a mutual respect between children and parents. Children shall though not be left totally alone; left drifting at the mercy of the wind. But I would add that it must always start with the parents respect and love and care and enlightenment.
And then Lindgren told the story about the young mother and her son; Lindgren had met an old woman who told her this story: When she had been a young mother her little son had done something the mother thought she had to punish him for. She asked him to go out and fetch a birch for her so she could o this (or only threaten him with this? As the custom also was? In some homes the birch hang in the kitchen as a reminder). For the first time in his life (he was fairly small?). The little boy went out and was out for a long time. At last he came home crying and said:
“I didn’t find any birch, but here you have a stone you can throw on me”.Then the mother started to cry too, seeing the whole scene with the boys eyes. The child must have thought:
“My mom in fact wants to hurt me, and then why not use a stone”.They cried together and the mom put the stone on a shelf in the kitchen and there it lay as an eternal reminder about the promise she gave herself in that very moment:
“Never violence!”
torsdag 14 juni 2007
Mer om Astrid Lindgren/more about Astrid Lindgren...
Det stod mer om Astrid Lindgren i Lärarnas tidning idag och det var så intressant att jag vill skriva mer om henne...
Astrid föddes som Astrid Ericsson i en familj med tre syskon; två systrar och en bror.
När hon som 17 åring hade shinglat håret (tror jag), sa hennes pappa Samuela August:
Under sitt 18:e levnadsår blev Astrid gravid och barnafadern friade men Astrid sa nej. Hennes pappa var emot giftermålet och sa att
Astrids mamma Hanna sa
1928 träffade Astrid sin blivande make, alltså 21 år gammal... 1931 gifte de sig och Astrid blev hemmafru, i en tvårumslägenhet på Vulcanusgatan i Stockholm. 1941 flyttade de till en större lägenhet på Dalagatan där Astrid sedan levde resten av sitt liv.
Astrid lyckades efter många om och men ta körkort,
När Astrid skulle ta emot bokhandlarnas pris i Tyskland 1978 godkändes inte talet hon tänkt hålla, det ansågs för kontroversiellt, så man bad henne att bara ta emot priset utan att hålla något tal. Detta vägrade dock Astrid och hotade hon med att inte komma alls och hon fick till slut hålla det provocerande talet - om aga!!!
Astrid Lindgren was born as Astrid Ericsson November 14, 1907, on the small farm Näs just outside Vimmerby in Småland (Swedish site about Vimmerby) with three siblings; two sisters and one brother. She was the second child in line after her brother Gunnar (born 1906, maternal grandfather of Karin Alvtegen, see earlier blog post about Astrid Lindgren in the end about her and the blog post "12 questions to Karin Alvtegen" from her website).
When she had shingled her hair as 17 year old and phoned her father about this, to which her father Samuel August replied:
At 18 she got pregnant with the editor-in-chief at the local newspaper in Vimmerby as the coming father, he asked her to marry her but Astrid said no.
Her mother Hanna used to say when things occurred in the family:
Astrid went away when it was time for the birth and got a son, which spent his first three years in Copenhagen and one year with his maternal grandparents at Näs till Astrid got married 1931 with a man she had met 1928. At first she was home as housewife. 1934 she got the daughter Karin.
Her son Lars is supposed to have said about his mother:
After many struggles she took a Drivers License,
When she should receive the reward in Germany 1978 she was asked not to hold the speech she had thought of, it was seen as too controversial. But then Astrid said that she would not come to the ceremony at all. In the end she held her speech - about corporal punishment of children!!!
Addition: Astrid's engagement in animals rights resulted in the law Lex Lindgren 1987 as a gift on her 80th birthday from the hands of our prime minister Ingvar Carlsson, but she wasn't entirely satisfied with this law, thought it was half of what the government had promised. She frankly said what she thought about this! As the straightforward she could be. :-)
Astrid Lindgren world on this site, really worth a visit.
And also see the site Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award –Alma
Astrid föddes som Astrid Ericsson i en familj med tre syskon; två systrar och en bror.
"Vi lekte och lekte och lekte, så det var konstigt att vi inte lekte ihjäl oss"har hon berättat om sin barndom, på bondgården utanför Vimmerby i Småland.
När hon som 17 åring hade shinglat håret (tror jag), sa hennes pappa Samuela August:
"Då är det väl ingen idé att du kommer hem".När hon väl kom hem var det ingen som sa något. Astrid satt på en stol och de andra gick runt henne och tittade förundrat.
Under sitt 18:e levnadsår blev Astrid gravid och barnafadern friade men Astrid sa nej. Hennes pappa var emot giftermålet och sa att
"Det räcker väl med en olycka!"Jag tror barnafadern var chefredaktören på Wimmerby tidning.
Astrids mamma Hanna sa
"Vi sä'r [säger] inget utåt"om sådant som skulle stanna i familjen. Vilket gällde inte minst när Astrid blev med barn som tonåring i en liten småstad på 20-talet. Hon åkte bort för att föda sin son Lars och han bodde sina första tre år i Köpenhamn.
1928 träffade Astrid sin blivande make, alltså 21 år gammal... 1931 gifte de sig och Astrid blev hemmafru, i en tvårumslägenhet på Vulcanusgatan i Stockholm. 1941 flyttade de till en större lägenhet på Dalagatan där Astrid sedan levde resten av sitt liv.
Astrid lyckades efter många om och men ta körkort,
"Sveriges dyraste körkort"enligt henne själv. Dock insåg hon redan efter ett år sina begränsningar som bilförare och cyklade resten av livet.
När Astrid skulle ta emot bokhandlarnas pris i Tyskland 1978 godkändes inte talet hon tänkt hålla, det ansågs för kontroversiellt, så man bad henne att bara ta emot priset utan att hålla något tal. Detta vägrade dock Astrid och hotade hon med att inte komma alls och hon fick till slut hålla det provocerande talet - om aga!!!
-//-
In the teachers paper that came today it stood more interesting things about Astrid Lindgren I felt I wanted to forward.Astrid Lindgren was born as Astrid Ericsson November 14, 1907, on the small farm Näs just outside Vimmerby in Småland (Swedish site about Vimmerby) with three siblings; two sisters and one brother. She was the second child in line after her brother Gunnar (born 1906, maternal grandfather of Karin Alvtegen, see earlier blog post about Astrid Lindgren in the end about her and the blog post "12 questions to Karin Alvtegen" from her website).
"We played and played and played, so it was strange we didn't play ourselves to death"Astrid said about her childhood.
When she had shingled her hair as 17 year old and phoned her father about this, to which her father Samuel August replied:
"You'd better not come home then".When she at last came home noone said anything. She sat on a chair and the others walked around her looking at her silently - struck with wonder.
At 18 she got pregnant with the editor-in-chief at the local newspaper in Vimmerby as the coming father, he asked her to marry her but Astrid said no.
Her mother Hanna used to say when things occurred in the family:
"Let's not say anything to any outer person (outside the family)."And so she did this time too.
Astrid went away when it was time for the birth and got a son, which spent his first three years in Copenhagen and one year with his maternal grandparents at Näs till Astrid got married 1931 with a man she had met 1928. At first she was home as housewife. 1934 she got the daughter Karin.
Her son Lars is supposed to have said about his mother:
"She wasn't that sort of a mother which was sitting silently in the park on a bench watching her playing children. She wanted to play herself and I suspect she thought it was as fun as I did!"Yes, Astrid Lindgren in a nutshell I think!
After many struggles she took a Drivers License,
"The most expensive Drivers License in Sweden"Astrid said, so she must have taken a lot of lessons!! Already after one year Astrid realized her limitations as car-driver and cycled the rest of her life!!
When she should receive the reward in Germany 1978 she was asked not to hold the speech she had thought of, it was seen as too controversial. But then Astrid said that she would not come to the ceremony at all. In the end she held her speech - about corporal punishment of children!!!
Addition: Astrid's engagement in animals rights resulted in the law Lex Lindgren 1987 as a gift on her 80th birthday from the hands of our prime minister Ingvar Carlsson, but she wasn't entirely satisfied with this law, thought it was half of what the government had promised. She frankly said what she thought about this! As the straightforward she could be. :-)
Astrid Lindgren world on this site, really worth a visit.
And also see the site Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award –
onsdag 13 juni 2007
Astrid Lindgren...
I ledare idag skriver Göra Greider om ”När Astrid tog ställning” apropå boken om Astrid ”Ingen liten lort; Astrid Lindgren som opinionsbildare” av ett tiotal skribenter.
Greider skriver att detta nationalhelgon faktiskt var EU-motståndare, men när han googlar om detta så hittar han knappt något alls om det!
”När jag letar på Google efter någon referens till hennes ställningstagande, som kom de sista febriga veckorna före folkomröstningen 1994, går det nästan inte att hitta någonting. Men jag minns det. Jag tänkte att nu har Astrid talat. Nu händer något.
Det gjorde det inte. Ty denna gång var varken Expressen eller något annat större media intresserade av att marknadsföra hennes ställningstagande. Det passade inte in. Det var fel.”
Men hennes Pomperipossasaga 1976 eller uttalanden om djurskydd på 80-talet (från hösten 1985 och framåt) fick stort genomslag i media (se länk om detta nedan).
Greider skriver också: ”Som Bengt Göransson skriver: Hon talar alltid underifrån, är ’vanlig’, ett litet adjektiv som faktiskt är livsfarligt för makten.”
Samt att Astrid Lindgren använde ett språk som ”varenda jävel” förstod, vilket han tycker att alla tusentals redaktionsmedlemmar i OEI och Gläntan borde tänka på.
Greider skriver också:
”Astrid Lindgren gav Sverige, och rentav världen, ett moraliskt språk för barnens rättigheter som inte kom uppifrån och som inte var hallstämplat pedagogiskt.
I bidragen återkommer många till det tal Astrid Lindgren höll [året innan Sverige som första land i världen förbjöd barnaga] när hon tilldelades Den tyska bokhandelns fredspris. Där berättar hon om den unga mamman som, indoktrinerad med en gammal tids syn på barnuppfostran, bad sin lilla son gå ut i skogen för att hämta det ris hon skulle aga barnet med. ”Den lille pojken gick och var länge borta. Till sist kom han gråtande tillbaka och sa: ’Jag hittade inget ris, men här har du en sten som du kan kasta på mej.’ Då började mamman också gråta, för hon såg plötsligt alltihop med barnets ögon.”
” Talet hölls året innan Sveriges riksdag bestämde sig för att som första land i världen förbjuda barnaga. I sitt tal oroar sig Astrid för en återgång till en mer auktoritär barnuppfostran, för alla signaler hon hörde om behovet av ’stramare tyglar’ och ’hårdare tag’.”
Jag utvecklar detta nedan, på engelska.
-//-
In a leader this morning in a local newspaper it stood about Astrid Lindgren and her role as moulder of public opinion (opinionsbildare in Swedish).
A book about Astrid has recently come, with contributions from about some ten writers.
1976 she wrote a fairy-tale (saga) about Pomperipossa and the high taxes some had to pay here (At this time Ingmar Bergman also left
All the authors in the book also writes about a speech Lindgren held (1978) in Germany when she received an award there, where she told the story about a young mother who had asked her little son to go out into the forest and fetch a twitch she would use on him (to "have a taste of the birch rod", which she perhaps didn't say explicitly though??), indoctrinated as she had been with an old time’s authoritarian view on child-raising.
The little boy went out and was out for a long time. At last he came back home crying and gave his mother a stone saying “I didn’t find any twitch, but here is a stone you can throw on me!”
Then the mother also started crying, because suddenly she saw the whole situation with the child’s eyes.
The leader-writer thinks that Astrid Lindgren gave
He also thinks this story could be told to our school-minister of today (since September 2006), which talks about "harder grips" (a backlash many reacts against here and many also are for!!! And this seem to be a world wide "movement!!?? Why? Scary and horrible I think!).
After this speech a law came 1979 banning corporal punishment of children, where
Not until the end of the new book about Lindgren there stands that Lindgren was against EU, but strangely this didn’t become a big issue in media here!!! And when the leader-writer now has tried to find something about this on Google there is hardly anything! So this issue was "silenced" then 1994, when we had a popular vote (folkomröstning) if we should join EU or not. The yes-side won, but with small margins…
Again comes the topic what media chose to report and write about - and not…
The leader-writer writes. “But that is how it is with national-monuments: they are also there for hiding things”.
Another thing about Lindgren is that she wrote so everybody understood, she had that sort of language!!! She uses a sort of habitual, common language to say the most important with. Which is far from how many uses the language struck me – again!?? (You can use language as a power-tool too, and hasn’t Miller written about this: how professors can use a language so his/her students have to struggle enormously to decipher it!!!) And the leader-writer thinks people on editorial staffs should consider this… How they are writing, in what way…
And as a former culture-minister here writes: “She talks from under, is ‘common’, a small adjective which is highly dangerous for the power.”
Yes, so it is??? So it can be? (I see more connections here…)
And Greider, the leader-writer also writes about one difference in child- and adult-literature: child-literature you often read highly with a child, but adult-literature you read silently, which in the latter case means the reading is a thing between the reader and the text. Child-books can invade rooms, houses, street, meadows and Astrid Lindgren’s books invaded a whole society from the debut with Pippi Longstocking 1948 he writes and is something that can be and often is shared child-adult.
So here were many threads!!! About the media-reporting, language, communication, children’s (and animals) rights…
An addition: Lindgren got a son, out of marriage, when she was round 19... She had to travel to another place to give birth to this child... And had to leave him to foster care. This was a shame? So how was it actually? Lindgren has painted a very rosy and loving picture of her parents and her and her siblings upbringing... So I can't help wonder how it actually was if one would scratch on the surface??
But when Lindgren got married she took her son back... And she wasn't as mothers of that time was, no, she was out playing with her kids - for instance... She also got a daughter, Karin... Yes, Lindgren had a childlike mind her whole life... And maybe she was as Pippi Longstocking which never wanted to get grown up!???
PS. See Astrid Lindgren site in the link list to the left! This year it is 100 years since she was born... Why there comes articles etc. about her... We have a lot of beloved child-songs here written by her (with music by different musicians), which we, both children and grown ups, have sung for some decades now... I never get tired of them!! :-)
And also see the blogpost about what Freyd says about children’s rights. For instance:
"In this way, when we promote children’s rights we are promoting our own freedom."Oh, does this sound pretentious?? But these two things belong together I think!!!
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)
