Terapeut om ondska...

foto på Kristian Ditlev Jensen.

Tips från en vän:

"En psykolog hadde en artikkel om psykisk ’småskalaondskap’ i tidsskriftet Samtiden i 2002 (side 116):

’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...

Is therapy actually pedagogy - should it be…

[Updated November 27 and 28 in the end]. Something I read yesterday evening in another forum, in a reply to a posting, swiftly before I go for a walk in the snow before lunch and meetings at work and pupils in the afternoon (my italics in the texts below). I am fairly critical to a lot of phenomena in psychotherapy and psychiatry, thinking it is manipulative...

What they are doing are too often "more of the same"?? Strengthening defenses instead of the opposite I have a feeling from my autodidact view. And the former blogpost: brain-tests like these are also a result or manifestation of the phenomenon to intellectualize, to be honest? My feelings are fairly mixed to this...

The commentator put the finger on something I have tried to find words for I think (the mail came; my salary/wage has been raised, I think I got rewarded for my work. Hmmm, the clever... Both glad and with mixed feelings. A bit tired being so clever and hardworking and loyal. But I am interested and cares a lot about the ones I work with).

And should we teachers be therapists?

By the way see this readers' letter at Miller's web. Where Miller answers for instance:

“I was distressed to the core when I read your letter for which I thank you wholeheartedly. At the same time, I felt a sort of gratefulness for the fate that helped the lively, brave and bright little girl not only to survive the terrible jail of her horrific parents but also to remain sound to keep the full clarity and the unusual courage in order TO SEE and TO ACCUSE, without ‘buts,’ without illusions, without self-betrayal. This stance is only very rarely encountered, and your letter will certainly help others to recognize their own situation and to forgo the ‘buts.’ /…/…here, the child has the strength to also speak for countless other children who are forced to bear the more or less visible delusion of their parents for years and to experience it as NORMAL. Formed by this ignorance, they often remain blind for the suffering of children during their whole lives and still recommend physical punishment. They work for senseless ‘research,’ for the pharmaceutical industry, organize wars, produce cruel movies and don’t know at all that they still ‘live’ in the prison of their sick parents because they never had the courage to see through the delusion and thus continue to poison the world with the toxin that they had to swallow as children.”

Here the exchange I wrote about in the beginning of this blogpost:

Subscriber:”I had, a psychologist, [who] said after a while: ‘Haven't we spoken enough of childhood now?’”

Commentator:“No doubt you realized this really means the therapist didn't want to speak more about it.”

And why not? Was he afraid of doing this? Of personal reasons (even if he wasn’t aware of these reasons)?

Commentator: “But she/he used the dishonest word ‘we’.”

Yes, that’s true! Couldn’t he have said

“I (in my opinion I) think we have spoken enough about childhood!”

Commentator: “As if it was a joint realization. What is the point of a psychologist becoming a therapist if she doesn't understand that a client may need to explore unfinished business from childhood -- until her client feels that all the necessary connections have been made.”

So true, needing to explore unfinished business! Processing things with another person, not doing it on her/himself… Even processing unconscious things.

Commentator: “I don't know what your psychologist wanted to do instead.”

No, what? But an idea comes later, see below.

Commentator: “If a psychologist is not actually a healer, but a pedagogue, she/he may believe that her job is to ‘teach’ coping strategies [believe that he/she actually is a pedagogue!]. That's a symptom of misguided assumptions underlying many schools of psychotherapy. I think it's dishonest or deluded to claim that teaching 'strategies' is something other than 'skills training'. That's teaching, not psychotherapy. It shouldn't be advertised as 'therapy'. The practitioners should be honest and call themselves 'coping skills trainers'. The word 'psychotherapy' becomes devalued if they use it for skills training. /.../ Dictionary publishers should add a caveat to definitions of the word to warn the public that it's often misused by 'skills trainers'.”

Yes, that’s so true!! They (most of them in fact) are skill trainers? Training the already good girls and boys to become even better! The best of the best!!?? Because who seek/search therapists? Isn’t it the ones that are aware that there is something that ought to be done!? And the ones that don’t, don’t think they need to change or work on anything? The ones that maybe most would need therapy are the ones that avoid all this "stuff", digging in the soul!? I think John Cleese and his therapist Robin Skynner wrote something about this!? That it’s the “healthiest” that seek therapists…

Commentator: “It just turns the search for a therapist who cares about your feelings into a difficult task.”

Yes, true! And genuinely cares, and isn’t talking about emotions and feelings intellectually only! As if these feelings were objects or how I shall describe it, objectifying feelings and emotions in fact. But this probably puts high demands on the therapist!? His/her own unprocessed things (which probably exists, otherwise he/she wouldn't have thought of this work) might be triggered then? And these things are probably extremely painful (and much more common than we usually believes)...

Commentator: “If skills training actually [my italics, because do they actually or automatically lead to improvements, and why not?] improves coping abilities and interpersonal relationships, it should be taught in schools -- for the benefit of society as a whole.”

Yes, why not?? Much more than we do!

And I came to think of what the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes about Daniel Goleman and his emotionally intelligent individual, and I think is very interesting and so true:

“The reader should be aware that many of the ideas on emotional development put forward in Mr. Golemans book are contrary to PRI [Past Reality Integration therapy] ideas. In PRI it is not considered as desirable for young children to control their ‘socially undesired’ emotions or feelings such as fear and anger. When this sort of behaviour is desired by adults of children PRI regards it as poisonous pedagogy /…/ Also, many of the behaviors that are considered by Mr. Goleman to be essential elements of ‘emotional intelligence’, are considered by PRI to be defenses [False Hope and False Power Denial of Needs] employed in order to avoid feeling pain. The general profile of Golemans ‘emotionally intelligent’ person fits the PRI idea of someone who is quite defensive, albeit in a socially desirable way. This might therefore lead to social success, while simultaneously sacrificing contact with the True Self and inner autonomy.”

And is this actually “healing”?

And Jennifer Freyd writes at page 195 in her book:

“For a child dependent on abusive caregivers, lack of internal connection can help maintain some sort of external connection to necessary others. But I disagree with those such as Daniel Goleman (1985), who suggest that while truth is generally a good thing, some times even privileged members of our society are best served by living with ‘vital lies’ in which the truth is best kept from oneself and one’s intimate partners.”

Addition November 27:

An article in a Norwegian newspaper “My life in half an hour” (not worth more!?? And today reduced to just a few minutes!):

“Psychiatry-critics. I dropped their pills, so they dropped me. Psychiatry isn’t different from the rest of the society; they want obedient and humble victims *, living up to the role with /…/ repentance and submission **. And at last – adjustment.”

Pills are the solution. Doctors’ time for the patients is very limited. They don’t take a deep going anamnesis, one doctor sat with his back towards the patient during the whole session. The patient meets new doctors each time…

The Norwegian physician Anna Lise Kirkengen thinks physicians (General Practitioners for instance) should take up even the childhood story when they are taking up the anamnesis...

In one of our newspapers here it stood work environment, about the Swedish Work Environment Authority that they are going to get fewer recourses to their work, and the consequences of that... It stood that it would be better with prevention, to avoid things...

I get so tired. And I don't like what is being done... Things should be done right from the first beginning a man said. Yes, that about prevention...

Yes, we shall keep quiet, be obedient, work like beavers. More about working like beavers... And if we don't thrive in this existence we are given a pill, yes, silenced with a pill!!?? Too many psychiatrists, psychologists - and physicians contribute to this!? Walking in the power's leading-strings!? Maybe with too much to do they too, so it is easier to prescribe pills than doing anything else? They don't have the strength to really hear what people have to say? Noone has that strength, all working like beavers. The exceptions are few!?? Putting ourselves and the society in a trap??

* At the same time people are accused for being unable to quit the victim-role!!! For playing victims!! In therapy too!! Jenson has written about this. Maybe more about that later.
** Should apologize for their whole existence, all nuisance they cause for all and everyone!!?? For not having anything to contribute with, and for not having had anything to contribute with ever!! Be ashamed!!! Go away! Don't show up again!! (where did we meet this first in life?).

"Repentance" means "ånger" in Swedish.

Tillägg 28 november: En tredje kommentator kommenterade utbytet ovan om terapi som svar till ”subscriber”:

Commentator 2: ”What you write about your psychologists/psychiatrists, I agree with x [the first commentator]. They were the ones being manipulative and being scared. And these are not exceptions in the world of therapy, but rather standard procedure. But they feel confident by what they believe because they have that diploma from years of schooling, and never had time to question anything.

Therapists are parent-defenders. Otherwise they would have the parents on the chair and not their victims.”

Dvs. något i stil med:

”Jag håller med x [kommentator 1] om det du skriver om psykologer/psykiatriker. De var de som var manipulativa och rädda. Och de är inga undantag i terapins värld, utan snarare standardproceduren. Men de känner sig trygga/självsäkra/säkra med det de tror på därför att de har sina diplom från åratal av utbildning/skola och har aldrig haft tid att ifrågasätta någonting.

Terapeuter är föräldraförsvarare. I annat fall skulle de ha haft föräldrarna i stolen [som patienter] och inte deras offer.”

Jo, han har rätt? Detta är power-abuse? Och i extremfall går man verkligen maktens ärenden... Även terapeuter (och kanske inte minst psykiatriker, genom att droga ner patienter***) gör det, men kanske inte alltid genom att vara medvetna om det? Skulden läggs på individen... Och individer ska anpassas? Utan att de uttryckligen bett om det...

Tror de trots allt att individer är födda till självdestruktivitet och/eller destruktivitet?
Se bland annat vad Jonatan Pincus funnit (i bland annat denna artikel) i sin forskning om seriemördare och de allra värsta brottslingarna.

*** Så vi inte tvingas lyssna på vad de försöker säga och ge uttryck åt??