More of Alice Miller…
"Many professionals respond to the new information available about child abuse with insensitivity and indifference, which I assume are primarily a reflection of their loyalty to theory and not of their own heartlessness. This reaction is a particularly clear indication of the dangers of the theory in question. These dangers stem from the simple fact that psychoanalysts are forced back into the framework of "poisonous pedagogy," from which they had hoped to free themselves with the help of their psychoanalytic training, and that they force their patients back with them. For when Freudian theory prescribes that patients' reports about their childhood are to be regarded as fantasies originating in drive conflicts and not in real experiences, the analyst continues to be insensitive to childhood suffering. This has the following consequences."
1. Analysts will have to make light of their own childhood suffering and will be unable to help the patient become sensitive to his or her suffering but will, on the contrary, minimize it the same way they did their own case and the same way all well-raised children do. Then the emotional grounds for minimizing it can be legitimized and shrouded in mystery in conjunction with the drive theory.
2. When patients make uncertain and anxious attempts to portray the atmosphere of humiliation, mistreatment, or psychological rape they were once subjected to, their perceptions will be interpreted as drive fantasies or projections of their own desires. This will make patients (a) stop expressing their grievances; (b) feel ashamed for having them; (c) dwell on guilt feelings; and (d) repress their traumatization again, this time more deeply than before. Such a process will add greatly to their self-alienation. Autonomy cannot develop, and as a result, patients will often respond obediently to the analyst's pedagogic efforts without even noticing them. With this method of psychoanalysis, the patients' own truth will be buried, which can, to be sure, temporarily reinforce their resistance to their traumas, usually by means of intellectualizing; yet in the long run this approach will increase the likelihood of the incidence of new depression.
3. If patients are not given the opportunity to air their grievances against their parents and educators – which is more often the case than not – then of course they don't have to be talked out of their "negative attitudes" at all; the analyst can simply build upon their "good upbringing" and teach them very quickly how they "can learn to understand their parents better and forgive them." The religious notion that a "gesture of forgiveness" will make you a better person has also found its way into psychoanalytic treatment. As if this gesture could do away with something slumbering deep within a person since childhood that can be articulated only in neurosis. Who know this better than psychoanalysts, had they not reached an agreement that the true nature of childhood should not be the subject of their investigations?
"The drive theory, then, entails denial of reality, insensitivity to childhood suffering, refusal to give credence to the patient's grievances – which ultimately means refusal to take him or her seriously – and, above all, misunderstanding and denial of the roots of neurosis. As I have already emphasized more than once, it is my belief that these roots lie in the enforced repression not of the child's so-called instinctual drives but of his or her awareness of having been traumatized and in the prohibition against articulating this, which was internalized at a very early age. Freudian drive theory reinforces this prohibition to the fullest because it is still caught in the system of assigning blame and thinks the parents must be protected from their children's recriminations. Since guilt must be assigned in this system, it is the child's drives and , just as in "poisonous pedagogy", ultimately the child himself who is found guilty. Presumably, his aggressions and the sexual desires he blames his parents for not fulfilling are what often make his parents (by projection) "appear" cruel to him. Thus, cruelty on the part of parents is always interpreted as the product of the child's drive fantasies, generated by the child's own cruelty. For this cruelty is always real and present for the psychoanalyst (as it is for the pedagogue/educator). Significantly, in classical psychoanalytic literature I have never encountered the question of what actually becomes of the children's cruelty later when they grow up and have children of their own. As if, when children attain the power accompanying adulthood, such questions would automatically disappear… "
She goes on to write about the consequences of when we go to seek help from those who have not addressed their own childhood with clarity…and rely upon theories that are not useful to children of abuse.
"We might not begrudge them the peace of mind their theories provide if it were not disquieting to think that they are the ones so many people turn to in their attempt to be rescued from neurosis, people who were narcissistically and often sexually mistreated, violated, and abused as children and who need help in interpreting the information revealed in their symptoms and in regaining their original vitality. Tragically, they cannot receive the help they need from the drive theory; the most they can achieve is to reinforce their defense mechanisms against what they know to be the truth and make their adaptation to society more rigid, thereby cutting themselves off from access to their own self. This self is like a prisoner in a cell: no one believes in his innocence, and as a result, rather than remain alone and isolated with the truth, he too finally loses all knowledge of it.(cf. The Drama of the Gifted Child, pp. 10-14). Only by sacrificing his true self does he reestablish ties to other people."
"The advice regularly given in the old pedagogical manuals was to "break" the child's will at as early an age as possible, to combat his "obstinacy," and always to impart to him the feeling that he is guilty and bad; they stressed that one should never allow the impression to arise that an adult might be wrong or make a mistake, should never give the child an opportunity to discover adult limitations, but that the adult should, on the contrary, conceal his or her weaknesses from the child and pretend to divine authority. Later, if this child becomes a patient, it might be that during analysis he will realize for the first time that something essential is being "taken away" from him, i.e., his own way of expressing himself, and that his analyst is treating him just as his parents did earlier when he was still too little to be conscious of it. This is a form of psychological castration, which unfortunately may be repeated in analysis if the analyst assumes a didactic attitude. Even if he does not, it is still possible for the patient to experience him as the "castrating father" if he indeed had that kind of father. Only by granting the patient the right to do this and not regarding his fears as paranoid delusions but as a long overdue breakthrough of repressed perceptions can the analyst avoid taking the parent's castrating attitude and instead enable the patient to make "new discoveries." Alice Miller.
I am not certain you can fully appreciate and bring in, the consequences we face in seeking help for our childhood mistreatment….when the therapy world is so backwards and hell-bent on theories that support the parent and discount the child's childhood as its root cause in our dysfunctional life. Not to mention the therapist themselves and their viewpoint upon their own childhood and HOW that alone will aid or prohibit us from finding our way back to our vital self.
What Alice Miller shows me is the expansive view of where our troubles began and why and also how it is near impossible to find our way back to vitality IF the therapists are unable to reconcile their own lives with truth.
It is like seeking the key to the cage from those in the cage with us. Blind leading the blind, but with some who have more intellectual theories that are actually stopping us from finding the key.
A very tricky landscape for sure.
She confirms my suspicions in how someone could lead you out, if they themselves have not begun this journey. I recognize and appreciate the book learned, but Alice also knows what I suspected…that the wrong leader/facilitator could lead you further away from your self.
It appears it all boils down to the truth.
If you can see yours, you will allow me to see mine.


