Trauma & Art

Thanks to my son, who’s more apt than I am at these things, the image uploading issue has been resolved.

The shadow side… and the importance of situating our lived experience…

“Let people realize clearly that every time they threaten someone or humiliate or unnecessarily hurt or dominate or reject another human being, they become forces for the creation of psychopathology, even if these be small forces. Let them recognize that every person who is kind, helpful, decent, psychologically democratic, affectionate, and warm, is a psychotherapeutic force, even though a small one.” Abraham H. Maslow

“I consider rugged individualism to be an exaggerated pretend posture of a person struggling against emotional fusion. The differentiated person is always aware of others and the relationship system around him.”  Murray Bowen

“A focus on the individual is supported in professional journals, by academic tenure review committees, by agencies that control funding, and in the larger society in which feminist psychologists live. Although feminist psychology could be a vital domain of political and intellectual thought, it is constrained by a discipline “designed to flatten, depoliticize, individualize.”  Dana Becker

“…. people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to man and beast, it is all a sham….” From Black Beauty by Anna Sewell

Eleanor Potter writes about her character Pollyanna: “My relationship with “Pollyanna” is a very personal one, because Pollyanna got me through my childhood…”

It has taken me a little longer than usual to post something, one reason being that I’ve been doing a lot of art, which has meant long hours bent over a drawing pad, not to mention the preparatory work, which has involved revisiting all sorts of material. I realized that over the last four or five months I’ve produced about 50 drawings, while also painting a bit, which is a lot of sitting hours. As I have written art making is a process that involves conscious and unconscious processes, mental and physical effort, past, present, internal and external influences, and more. I’ve been reading a bit and listening to old material while drawing, as part of the whole artistic process. It’s been interesting, for lack of a better word,  to listen to old classics, but also to old recordings of influential figures in psychology like Abraham Maslow, Milton Erickson, and others.Because visual art allows for many narratives to co-exist, even on small surfaces – stories within stories – in some sense I’ve been creating layered visual narratives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very briefly, Abraham H. Maslow (1908 – 1970) was an American psychologist, whose theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling human needs culminating in self-actualization. Most psychologists before him had been concerned with the pathological, but he focused on what constituted positive mental health and people’s basic and higher needs, and ultimately, at least for some, the potential for self-actualization.  One basic tenet of humanistic psychology is that people have the inner resources for growth and healing and that the role of therapy is to help remove obstacles and conditioning that prevent individuals from achieving this. Maslow also believed that, because of the difficulty of fulfilling the four lower needs for so many people on the planet, few people would become self-actualized or could do so in a limited capacity.

Some of Maslow’s beliefs and findings were that:

“If the essential core of the person is denied or suppressed, he gets sick sometimes in obvious ways, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes immediately, sometimes later….”

“A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately at peace with himself. What a man [human] can be, he must be… This need we may cal self-actualization….”

“Life is an ongoing process of choosing between safety (out of fear and need for defense) and risk (for the sake of progress and growth). Make the growth choice a dozen times a day.”

“Self-actualized people… live more in the real world of nature than in the man-made mass of concepts, abstractions, expectations, beliefs and stereotypes that most people confuse with the world….”

Milton H. Erickson (1901 – 1980) was an American psychiatrist and psychologist specializing in medical hypnosis and family therapy. He considered the unconscious mind as creative and solution-generating. His emphasis was often to alleviate symptoms and solve problems while taking into account individual differences. Both Milton and Maslow have influenced many therapeutic approaches and schools of therapy, and their work and ideas have been developed further and expanded on, but also viewed through critical lens.

Some ideas from Erickson:

“When I wanted to know something, I wanted it undistorted by somebody else’s imperfect knowledge.”

“Until you are willing to be confused about what you already know, what you know will never grow bigger, better, or more useful.”

“Change will lead to insight more often than insight will lead to change.”

“It is really amazing what people can do. Only they don’t know what they can do.”

“You always call it hindsight. Two weeks too late to think of the right retort to make. You lead with your unconscious; you make that retort immediately… Trust your unconscious; it knows more than you do.”

“You use hypnosis not as a cure but as a means of establishing a favorable climate in which to learn.”

Finally, I’m currently reading a book, The Myth of Empowerment, by therapist, associate professor and writer with degrees in both social work and psychology, Dana Becker. The book is informed by a feminist lens and it surveys the various ways women have been represented and influenced by a growing popular and professional therapeutic culture from the 19^th century till today. Becker discusses how today’s middle-class woman, concerned about her health and her ability to care for others, is not that different from her late nineteenth-century white middle-class predecessors. She argues how ideas like de-contextualized empowerment perpetuate the myth that many of the problems women have are medical or psychological rather than societal; personal rather than political. She describes how from mesmerism to psychotherapy to the Oprah Winfrey Show, women have gleaned ideas about who they are or ought to be as psychological beings, and questions what women have gained or lost from these ideas and practices. She provides a critique of the self help industry and aspects of positive psychology, as well as a glimpse into the historical conflicts within the fields of medicine, psychiatry and psychology.

She discusses the similarities between the more recent movements and earlier ones and how they have placed emphasis on individualism and adjustment. She, however, argues for more nuanced conceptions of happiness,  strengths and human flourishing,  a focus beyond the individual or the woman in isolation, and a  perspective that takes in the totality of the social environment and values social engagement and activism. Becker argues that the therapeutic culture has created a kind of imperative to manage the tensions and problems of daily life by turning inward only, ignoring the social and political realities that underlie many of those tensions. For instance, she traces the evolution of the social uses of the stress concept across time and shows that although stress is often associated with conditions over which people have little control like workplace policies unfavorable to family life, unemployment and increasing economic inequality, various  forms of discrimination, and so on, the stress concept focuses most of our attention on how individuals react to stress placing the responsibility for alleviating stress squarely on the individual.

Becker asks certain questions like: Are psychology and psychotherapy compatible with feminism?

She writes: “……. Psychology has always been political in the sense that it often reduces social and political problems to the personal and pathological. Whereas the women’s movement explained women’s problems as arising from their oppression, psychology transforms them into mental phenomena……. As Michelle Fine and Susan Gordon suggest, in order for women to be accepted in mainstream psychology they may need to join in the pretense that the discipline of psychology is apolitical “by representing [themselves] uncritically as objective researchers; by misrepresenting gender, within frames of sex roles, sex differences, or gender-neutral analyses without discussing power, social context, and meanings; and by constructing the rich and contradictory consciousness of girls and women into narrow factors and scales.” A focus on the individual is supported in professional journals, by academic tenure review committees, by agencies that control funding, and in the larger society in which feminist psychologists live.  Although feminist psychology could be a vital domain of political and intellectual thought, it is constrained by a discipline “designed to flatten, depoliticize, individualize.”

In one of my pictures I have drawn a Panopticon to represent one of Foucauld’s metaphors – a story within other stories.

In the book Becker claims that Michel Foucault employed Bentham’s architectural design of the Panopticon, a model prison, as a metaphor for the way in which power is exerted over individuals in modern society. She writes: “In this prison, inmates, each in his own cell, would be rendered continually visible, via backlighting, from a central tower. The effect of constant scrutiny on the inmates would be to induce in them “a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” This power, designated in Foucault’s writings as both “bio-power” and “disciplinary power,” is evidenced in the inmate’s ongoing self-observation. To Foucault the Panopticon is a metaphor for societal institutions, and self-scrutiny represents the manner in which institutions exert power over individuals through a sense of continual self-consciousness— what Foucault terms a “technology” of the self…..

….. In the metaphor of the Panopticon, knowing that he may be observed from the tower at any time, the inmate takes over the job of policing himself. Women, who are on display to a greater extent than men, subject themselves not to outward regulation, but to an inner “self-surveillance” that observes patriarchal norms. Bartky believes that resistance is possible if women are able to understand how during the period when they have made enormous gains in the economic and political realms they have, paradoxically, become increasingly subject to “the dominating gaze of patriarchy.” What seems critical is the ability to change the terms of the contest, to see where we are located within the terrain, and to make our response from another position….…….. Power exists in society’s representation of individuals to themselves. Women have been both the subjects of and subjected to the observations, ministrations, and regulation of medico-psychological experts who limit and control “what it means to be a woman” in terms of the “truths” that suit the needs of the psychotherapy profession. What are these truths and how have we come to subscribe to them? The story of how psychotherapy emerged as a profession……….  offers a number of answers to this question. It is a story about how men developed those “technologies of the self” that we have been talking about— the means by which we come to evaluate ourselves, to correct ourselves— and about how those technologies came to be broadly employed and adopted.”

Orphan protagonists in literature

“The year end brings no greater pleasure then the opportunity to express to you season’s greetings and good wishes. May your holidays and new year be filled with joy.”  Charles Dickens

“What made Sara most popular was this gift for telling stories. When she sat in the middle of a circle of children, and began to invent the most wonderful things, her green eyes shone with excitement….. ‘When I’m telling it, it doesn’t seem made up. I feel as if I am all the people in the story, one after the other!’ “ (From A Little Princess by Francis Hodgson Burnett retold by Joan Collins, Ladybird Books)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I’ve mentioned I like children’s books and literature. I don’t always find the time to indulge in it, but around the holidays I like to reread Christmas classics and other stories. This year, I decided to listen to stories while doing things around the house and while drawing. I listened to Christmas with Anne by L. M. Montgomery, Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, The Secret Garden and A Little Princess by  Frances Hodgson Burnett, Hans Christian Andersen’s well known tale, The Little Match Girl, and others. I also listened to a story by Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Little Orphan, which I had not read before. It was published in 1887, whereas, Andersen’s story was published in1846.

In Dostoevsky’s story it’s Xmas Eve, but for this little boy it is the day his mother will pass away first and then he himself will die of hunger and cold. In this beautifully written short story Dostoevsky gives us a realistic glimpse of the lives and hardships of the poor in 19^th century Russia:

“Several times since morning he has drawn near the bed covered with a straw mattress as thin as gauze, where his mother lies sick, her head resting on a bundle of rags instead of a pillow. How did she come there? She came probably from a strange city and has fallen ill. The proprietress of the miserable lodging was arrested two days ago, and carried to the police station; it is a holiday today, and the other tenants have gone out. However, one of them has remained in bed for the last twenty-four hours, stupid with drink, not having waited for the holiday. From another corner issue the complaints of an old woman of eighty years, laid up with rheumatism. This old woman was formerly a children’s nurse somewhere; now she is dying all alone….”

While in search of some food the boy sees the grandeur of the rich during the season of Christmas through the windows of the houses he passes by. Through the window of the second house he sees that children are being given cake by a woman. He dares to enter the door, but causes much confusion. He is pushed out with a coin for the people there do not want to be reminded of this harsh reality. When the little boy dies he goes to a special place, with a brilliant Christmas tree, that Jesus has made for all the children who have no food or warm shelter and no one to care for them. In the story the little boy is reunited with his mother.

In Andersen’s story the little girl has hallucinations of a warm room and meals and a Christmas tree, and of being reunited with her beloved grandmother in heaven. Like Andersen, Dostoevsky provides a metaphysical happy ending, which reflected religious and spiritual beliefs of hope for those who suffer or have not in this life. They also provide relief for their readers. However, I remember that as a child I always felt distress with the ending of Andersen’s story. I wondered why the writer didn’t provide an ending where human compassion and generosity save the little girl’s life. I wondered why he chose such an “uncertain and unjust happy ending”. Then I imagined my own more down to earth ending to the story. Many decades later as I listened to these stories I found that I still felt that same desire for a different ending.

I also realized that the orphan theme is common, especially in children’s literature from Cinderella to superheroes and Pippi Longstocking, orphans have been the main characters of many of our beloved stories across culltures. There is for instance, The Jungle Book series by Rudyard Kipling about a feral child called Mowgli raised by his wolf parents. The Roman tale of the orphaned twins, Romulus and Remus, suckled by a she-wolf, before they rise to become the founders of Rome, is another earlier story of orphans raised by non human creatures. The orphan Mary in The Secret Garden is sent to live with a detached uncle and young Heidi is sent to live with her Grandfather in the Alps after the deaths of her parents. Peter Pan, who can fly and never grows up, is another orphan created by the Scottish novelist and playwright J.M Barrie. These and many others are all stories that have shaped and fascinated children and adults through time. The orphan theme is common in fairy tales as well. For instance, Rapunzel’s parents are forced to give her up as an infant to an evil witch, who locks her in a tower with no stairs or door where the only way to enter is to climb up her long hair. The story was first published in 1812 as part of a collection of German fairy tales by the Grimm Brothers. Another fairy tale in the 1812 Brothers Grimm collection is Snow White, the tale of a young girl whose mother dies in childbirth and is left with an evil stepmother.

The roots of the orphan hero / heroine in children’s literature go back in time and versions of certain stories have propagated throughout time and across cultural boundaries, and although the stories vary there are some universal cultural elements. In the nineteenth century the orphan hero and heroine rose in prominence in literature. Some have suggested that high mortality rates and poverty made orphans commonplace and this sensitized and attracted many well known writers. Charles Dickens’ books, David Copperfield, Oliver Twist and Great Expectations all tell the story of a poverty-stricken, orphan boy rising through the ranks of society, against all sorts of odds. There are many stories of girl orphans, too. Some of my favourite early readings were Pollyanna, Heidi, Anne of Green Gables, A Little Princess, The Secret Garden and Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, a well known heroine of Victorian literature, who as a young girl was sent to live with relatives after her parents’ death and who later became a governess. Today story tellers like JK Rowling and Lemony Snicket have also produced some well loved series with orphan characters.

So why are both writers and readers attracted to stories of orphans?

In stories orphans often touch our hearts, fill us with compassion, and also, win our admiration for their tenacity, resourcefulness and endurance. They usually go through a lot of hardship before they find the love and belonging they have been seeking. We can all relate to these stories to some extent or other. Orphan characters symbolize vulnerability, isolation or marginalization. Because they have lost their belonging to the most basic social group, such as, a nurturing family, often society or certain cultures marginalize them and treat them as less then. This draws readers into the hero / heroine’s journey and triggers empathy and compassion, as well as, a desire for justice. Also, good stories require wide story arcs. Orphan protagonists often start out low and rise high through overcoming a series of obstacles.  Being orphaned is also probably a child’s worst fear. I read a piece by a writer who suggested that her artistic interest in orphan characters may be a relic of that childhood fear.

From a psychological point of view we might relate to these stories because they remind us of or trigger “orphaned aspects” in us that carry our traumas or fear of abandonment, the parts of us that might carry memories of abandonment, neglect or lack or of being left out and not having a sense of true belonging. These stories might also connect us to our fear of knowing that we will all be orphaned sooner or later. They may also trigger our own existential fears of our own mortality. Those of us who are parents might at times have come in touch with an underlying fear of the possibility of not being around long enough to raise our children. Many people might carry some deep even unacknowledged fear around the fulfillment of our basic human needs of survival, safety and belonging that are often more intensely compromised for orphans both in reality and in stories.

From a Jungian perspective one might think of the orphan archetype as the one that has a backstory defined by trauma, abandonment, abuse, or neglect and that is often positioned as an outsider and in search of safe belonging. It might be more developed in those who were orphaned as children, but also in those who were not truly nurtured for who they were. An archetype refers to a set of characteristics, fears, experiences and motivations that are universally recognizable to all readers to one degree or another. The archetype doesn’t necessarily require that a character in a book or film is actually orphaned. It’s more about how the protagonist perceives their own belonging in the world. This inner orphan aspect of our psyche might also be a force propelling us to heal and grow.

In relation to the question of why orphans appear so frequently in 19th-century fiction and the opportunities they provide for authors, Professor of Literature and researcher John Mullan [https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/orphans-in-fiction\], writes: “If we look to classic children’s fiction we find a host of orphans….. Their stories can begin because they find themselves without parents, unleashed to discover the world.” He claims that orphans are characters out of place, forced to navigate their way through the trials of life and make their own home. Therefore,  orphan characters are free from established conventions to face a world of endless possibilities (and dangers).  He writes: “The orphan leads the reader through a maze of experiences, encountering life’s threats and grasping its opportunities. Being the focus of the story’s interest, he or she is a naïve mirror to the qualities of others….. ” Mullan also comments on how along the way and before the often happy ending the hero or heroine will reveal uncomfortable truths about society. As I mentioned above Dostoevsky’s short tale is a commentary on socioeconomic reality of Russia at the time. Mullan writes that Oliver Twist “reveals to the reader the secrets of London’s criminal underbelly” and that “Dickens reflects with savage facetiousness on the mortality rate among orphaned infants doomed to this fate.” Similarly, in Mark Twain’s book as we follow our protagonist’s journey the social issues of racism, child maltreatment, class inequity, access to education, and more, are revealed to us.

He adds that another reason for the frequency of the orphan protagonist is that any author interested in the vulnerability of children is likely to think of orphans. Orphans are dependent on the kindness of others. He refers to the fact that often female orphans in order to survive end up becoming a governess, an occupation which Jane Fairfax, in Jane Austin’s novel Emma considers a kind of slavery. Mullan adds that the governess is also a recurring literary motif and that life as a governess is the fate of Victorian fiction’s most famous female orphan Jane Eyre.  He writes: “Mr. Brocklehurst, the self-proclaimed Christian who rules over the school, is malign and, as an orphan, Jane has only her own spirit with which to defend herself. Parentless protagonists like Jane and Jude are frighteningly vulnerable to prejudice and cruelty.” In her novel, Villette, Brontë’s heroine Lucy Snowe also appears to be an orphan, who is forced to survive first as a ‘companion’ to a cantankerous old lady, and then as a junior teacher in a girls’ school in Villette of Brussels, where one of her spoilt students comments: ‘I suppose you are nobody’s daughter’.

Mullan conludes that there is a real social history behind these fictional orphans, and also that orphaning the main characters was fictionally useful because it was a way by which they were made to find their way in the world.

Finally, I’d like to wish everyone much love, joy and peace during the holidays and beyond.