On childhood abuse

It’s ‘impossible to explain to the healthy the logic of the sick.’ Hanya Yanagihara

So we understand from Jude St Francis, a man in his mid-thirties crippled with a disabled spine following a serious car accident in which he nearly lost his life. But that’s not the half of it in his Little Life, along with that of his three close friends, JB, Malcolm and Willem. All of them dogged by life’s troubles, mid twentieth century, but none more so than Jude. 

To read this book is to venture into the world of trauma and child abuse full on. 

We are privy not only to what Jude experiences at the hands of the cruel monks who raised him, presumably in a Franciscan monastery, and gave him his name, as an abandoned baby left beside a dumpster to freeze to death. 

The story continues in sequential flashbacks that pile one on top of the other, of abuse upon abuse inflicted on this young man throughout his early years. We get glimpses of his initial attempts to cope through tantrums and rage, which are only met with more punishment into an adult hood of self-cutting and other deprivations all hopelessly designed to rid him of the burden of his childhood experience. 

His constant insistence he has done bad, unspeakable things when we know that he was subjected to appalling cruelties on his young person. We can see the way they get confused even in his so-called happy times. 

This is not a book for people who can’t tolerate the imagined feel of a knife through the skin, the blade edging deeper, and the blood. There are times when I find myself groaning out loud at the horror of it all. But persevere I must. As persevere we all must in our own little lives, hopefully none as horrific as Jude’s. Though I know that’s unlikely.

Jude is a man who values friendship but is unable to use it fully as he can’t trust that anyone else will not be corrupted by him or even that someone good will not turn bad in his presence. It’s classic trauma, not just the theory but the full impact. 

Yanagihara’s imagination suggests to me she’s been close to these dark places. To know the depths of self-loathing a person can reach. Despite the efforts of Jude’s many friends to reach and help, he cannot get beyond the fundamental belief he is unworthy of love.

This story reminds me of Franz Kafka in his short story Metamorphosis. A boy reduced to a beetle, flat on his back and non-comprehending with disinterested parents, and a dispassionate sister. But I digress. 

St Jude is the patron Saint of lost causes. And Francis was both my mother’s and father’s favourite saint. He is the patron saint of animals. It’s said my father uttered these words before he died, that St Francis was a wonderful saint. Or some such words, but that might have been my mother’s wishful thinking. She was with my father soon before he died. My father was a master at self-loathing, despite his last-minute re-conversion to religion. 

St Jude, Patron saint of lost causes, of hope when all hope is gone.

Self-loathing. I suspect we all know something about it. The voice in your head telling you you’re useless, a blight on the landscape, a disgrace to humankind. Overdoses of shame then swamp you in a fog of self-criticism and the weird relief that comes from writing yourself off, before your conviction that others would instead.

When I was a child I loved Emily Dickinson’s poem:

 I’m nobody. Who are you? Are you Nobody too? 

She makes a virtue of this state: 

Then there’s a pair of us.

Don’t tell. They’d advertise, you know

How dreary to be somebody. 

How public like a frog 

To tell one’s name the livelong June

To an admiring Bog.

And a children’s verse comes to mind. I like to quote it out loud in sing song fashion to highlight the sensation. 

Nobody likes me
Everybody hates me
Guess I’ll go eat worms
Big, fat, juicy ones
Long, thin, slimy ones
Itsy bitsy, fuzzy wuzzy worms
Down goes the first one
Down goes the second one
Oh, how they wiggle and squirm!
Big, fat, juicy ones
Long, thin, slimy ones
Itsy bitsy, fuzzy wuzzy worms
Up comes the first one
Up comes the second one
Oh, how they wiggle and squirm!
Big, fat, juicy ones
Long, thin, slimy ones
Itsy bitsy, fuzzy wuzzy worms
Nobody likes me
Everybody hates me
Guess I’ll go eat worms!

The strange comfort we get from chastising ourselves, not in the modest way of recognising our mistakes and limitations, but in an all-encompassing and massive way that reckons we’re despicable. Despicable Me. Like one of the minions, only worse.

Yanagihara’s words about the logic of the sick appear after Jude in a wheelchair because walking causes him too much pain in his legs, arrives at his apartment after a long day at the office. He’s a whizz bang lawyer in New York.

He lives on the fifth floor but the lift has stopped working. He rings the few friends he’s prepared to call upon but none of them are available. His closest friend Willem, at a party, doesn’t hear his phone ring.

After moments of despair, Jude starts to lug himself up the one hundred plus steps. Dragging his folded wheelchair behind. He collapses midway and tries his friends again.

Half an hour later he drags himself up the final stretch, finally reaches his apartment, gets inside, then loses consciousness. 

When Willem reaches him, Jude’s out cold and drooling. Willem calls Andy, Jude’s doctor and a friend. When Jude wakes up hours later, both independently ask him: ‘What were you thinking?’

Why didn’t he call so or so and so. Why didn’t he wait for Willem to come. Then Yanagihara offers the simple words: ‘impossible to explain to the healthy the logic of the sick.’

So many layers of meaning here. This book is an attempt to explain to all of us who can bear to read, the ways in which the unmitigated abuse of a child can turn the life of even the most gifted into a never ending cycle of self hatred and cruelty. The book makes sense of self destruction in ways I can see more clearly than ever before.

We need books like these, despite the pain they evoke. We need to understand the lives of those so wounded they can never overcome their pain. We need to accompany them on their journeys so we can better understand and try to stop the cruelties that give rise to such lives in the first place.

Silence is a crime

‘Someone with a capacity for silence,’ writes Jacinta Halloran in her book Resistance about a man who keeps things to himself.

When I read these words in isolation, ‘a capacity for silence’, they sound like a positive attribute, someone unafraid of stillness, someone prepared to sit in silence for long periods, someone not in love with the sound of their own voice. A circumspect person, not given to prattling, to ‘exercising their tongues’.

As my list rolls on I recognise the wisdom of these words. A capacity for silence bespeaks a spy, someone who holds their cards close to their chest, someone who gives little away. A person who refuses to let their vulnerability show; a person who lets others appear foolish, prattling on about the weather, desperate to share their thoughts while the person capable of silence keeps everyone guessing.

I find such silent people difficult. I am not such a person, although I can hold my tongue when circumstances require. At least I like to think I can.

Other times, I’m bursting with wanting a turn to speak.

In every group I have ever attended, be it large or small, there are always a few who speak up first. They have something to say, make a point, share their thoughts, while most other attendees remain silent. 

I am not one of the silent ones. The number of times, especially at analytical gatherings where I have felt the weight of the microphone in my hands, my pulse racing, my hands sticky around the clunky loudspeaker, when I hope my words do not reveal too much of the tremble behind them. 

It is a daunting thing to speak at such conferences. The audience thrums with disapproval. Only the guest speaker is allowed to have a say or their appointed discussants, their presenters, the rest of us must sit back in awe.

When it comes discussion time and questions or comments are invited, there falls a long, agonising silence across the room. Sometimes the presenter might urge the room to feel okay about the silence as people gather their thoughts.

Karen Maroda during a recent zoom conference to some 200 participants, after she had talked at length about enactments in therapy, asked for questions, and the zoom room fell silent.

‘You’re kidding’. Maroda could not believe the timidity of her audience. Timid or taciturn. Leave the speaker to stew in their juices. Leave them to gather almost no sense of how their words have landed.

When people participate in discussion they begin a conversation that is the bread and butter of relationality. The to and fro, the back and forth, the give and take that is a hall mark of the human condition. 

We get along because we share our thoughts and when we do not, and leave others in the dark, we are withholding and cruel, however much we might imagine we are timid, shy, or too frightened and do not want to upset the other.

Silence is a crime. 

When we’re babies we learn to vocalise and ultimately to talk through a process of turn taking. You see it all the time. The baby makes a cooing, gurgling, burbling sound to the parent and the parent, or whoever else is interacting with the baby, tosses back clear, exaggerated words. 

Baby talk. It’s a form of marking that helps babies to recognise the difference between themselves and others. Your turn, my turn. But the silent one, the one with a capacity for silence breaks these rules by refusing to play the game. 

Think of the still face experiment when babies are confronted with a mother who fails to respond. One minute she engages in her usual playful interactive way then she turns her back and when she turns back she holds her face stony still. She refuses to interact with her baby who then throws their arms around, grimaces and grunts, or shrieks, burbles, and coos, all to get a mother’s attention. To find again the mother they once knew.

When you witness this experiment you witness the slow unhinging of a baby. They cannot get a response and thereafter lose sight of themselves in a void of absence, of silence.

It’s devastating to watch.

The experimenters allow only a minute or two to spare the babies going fully mad but long enough to distress them. To demonstrate the point: Babies need live company. 

In television crime series when police or barristers ask the prisoner a question and the reply comes: ‘No comment’, we’re left with a similar sensation. Some one who remains tight lipped.

Rather as the infamous video clip that went viral many years ago. After Tony Abbott, then Prime minister of Australia, refused to answer a question put to him by a reporter about his response on hearing of the death of a soldier in Afghanistan, that ‘Shit happens’.

He stood still, for what seemed like minutes, only his head nodding, as though he had heard but was could not speak, or could not/would not share his thoughts. 

How often have you heard someone, at least in my day, say words like ‘Hold your tongue’ or reflect on the women in America who cut out their tongues to protest those who raped them?

Or the women whose tongues are otherwise cut out to silence them. Saints in the church, too. Saints Agatha, Anastasia, Hilary among others. All these people, women mainly, forced to hold their tongues.

My father’s demand of our mother to hou op, which to me as a child meant ‘shut up’. But now I discover, means ‘don’t, which then makes me wonder, did my mother say this to my father when he attacked? Or were they his words? 

The Dutch for shut up is Hou je mond. Hold your mouth. An insult. Shut your trap.

You who must hold that capacity for silence because another person does not want to hear from you. You, your words, your existence is too hard to bear.

Chain of hearts which I prefer to call bleeding hearts.

When I was a schoolgirl of thirteen travelling home with my sister on the red rattler from Richmond where our convent school squatted on top of Vaucluse hill to the flat lands of Cheltenham, which once housed acres of fruit gardens, a man told me I talked too much. 

He overheard me talking to my sister and a friend. It was not his business that I should speak as often as I did. I don’t remember being loud or obnoxious. But at one point this man told me I was too loud.

‘You’re schizophrenic,’ he said, and the word stuck in my head like a piece of shrapnel. I did not understand its meaning but recognised it as a word of derision. I did not understand why he found my enjoyable conversation with my sister and friend, talking about something as innocuous as a poem we enjoyed in class or our pleasure over some series on the television. Something like our favourite variety of chocolate, so offensive.

We were immature girls bent on the small pleasures of life. We were otherwise shy souls. This man seemed like one of extraordinary audacity. To intrude on our conversation.

When we came home, in one of those rare moments when my father was not drunk and surly in the lounge room, when he had stayed sober at least for this part of the evening. He sat across from my mother and they seemed to be enjoying an unpredictably calm conversation about something safe.

I told them what the man on the train had said. 

My father dismissed the word without explaining its meaning and I was forced to visit the dictionary.

Years later when the film One flew over the cuckoo’s nest came out, I watched the treatment of people with so-called schizophrenia, appalled at the inhumanity. And then several years later when I read Angel at my Table, Janet Frame’s memoir. Childhood poverty in New Zealand and family troubles led her to such depression she was hospitalised. And deemed schizophrenic in a heartbeat. This during the nineteen fifties where such a diagnosis could lead to electro convulsive therapy, or cold baths. Sleep therapy at best. At worst a lobotomy.

Frame was spared because a doctor, about to order the final procedure, read her manuscript and realised she did after all have a mind that was not worth removing. As if anyone’s brain is. 

Years later in England, another doctor reversed the diagnosis. The cruelty of humankind to label in pejorative ways and to keep silent about the possibility that so many other trauma related events in a person’s life can turn them into people they might otherwise never become. To label them in pejorative ways, made more so by the power to intimidate. They sound serious and authoritative these words and leave the ordinary person feeling they must indeed be suffering some terrible infirmity, so unspeakably sad as to be thus labelled.

The powerful professional who once hid inside the white coat of anonymity and silence who announces in short snatches what is wrong with you the other and washes their hands of you, vermin and despicable. You are then left buried under the weight of shame. And shame leads to silence. You go silent at the risk of further shaming.

And what needs to be said is never able to be spoken and the cruel practices of the past are allowed to flourish into perpetuity. A capacity for silence is not always called for. And sometimes needs to be replaced by the ability to find words against an avalanche of silencing.