Interview given to Ms Noreen Taylor, The Times, London 1999
with some additions of 2004
Is it possible to have some details of your         own childhood? For instance, were you smacked as a child? Could you describe         your background, parents' professions, and their relationship with you?         When and how did you find the freedom to criticize their parenting skills?         And did you find the courage to sit across from them and discuss your         childhood?
My parents were quite ordinary middle-class people. My father was an unsuccessful         banker, my mother a housewife. She was very devoted to the task of child         rearing and discipline, the way it was usual in the twenties of this century.         I was born 18 months after their wedding, 4 years later my sister was         born. Like so many parents at that time, they had not the slightest idea         of a baby's needs, the needs for attachment, loving contact, touching,         security, protection, respect, orientation. My mother had been emotionally         extremely neglected in her infancy, so that her body had no recollection         of what it means to be loved and cared for. As a result, her only one         concern as a young mother was to make me obedient as soon as possible.         And she perfectly succeeded in it. I became already "proper"         at the age of 6 months, as she told me later. Today I know that such achievement         is impossible without violence and systematic corporal punishment to the         baby. Thanks to those methods used very early I got perfectly adapted         to my parents' wishes and became the good girl they wanted me to be. This         survival strategy demanded a huge price to pay for: the repression of         my own feelings and needs. I was thus deprived of my emotional compass.         Consequently, when I myself became a mother I couldn't understand my baby         the way he needed to be understood. 
When I became 55 years old I wrote 
The Drama         of Being a Child where I described survival strategies similar         to my own ones, and many people have written since that they found their         own history in this publication. Thanks to these thousands of letters         I came to recognize that I was not alone to undergo such a treatment,         that it was more or less common and normal to our society and that most         people seem completely unaware of its danger. I was amazed. I wanted to         understand more about our educational system and, above all, about the         reasons of our lack of sensitivity toward the suffering of children. Then         I finished practicing in 1980 and devoted myself to the research on childhood         and to writing. In 
For Your Own Good I         described the cruelty of the so-called normal upbringing and - again -         so many people wrote: how did it come that you knew my family and the         way I have been treated? I didn't know their families but once your sensitivity         is awakened you grasp connections that for many yet remain in darkness.          
Both of my parents were already dead when I began to grasp what had happened         in my past. Thus I couldn't share with them my newly gained knowledge.         It was too late. 
Is the increase in rape, and in sexual attacks         on young women, connected with certain modes of discipline men may have         suffered in their own childhood?
I think that the violent teenagers are demonstrating what happened to         them emotionally when they were small. I have no doubt about that. It         might not always be a harsh discipline but in most cases there is emotional         neglect, lack of authentic communication, of warm, friendly contact. If         this lack is also covered by what is called "spoiling" (buying         a lot of expensive objects to replace love), the child is often unable         to detect the neglect and stays bound to denial. Anyway, every child must         deny the pain in order to survive. Only in adulthood is it possible to         realize the truth. But the more the childhood history is repressed, the         more its cruelty denied, the less these young people are able to feel,         to confront the actual reasons of their distress, the stronger they feel         urged to act destructively. They have not always conscious memories of         what happened in their childhood, especially in infancy, but this knowledge         is stored up in their body's cells and, amazingly enough, they threaten         others exactly the same way as they were threatened on the beginning of         their life. Unfortunately, the common, ever-present avoidance of the issue         "childhood" doesn't make things easier. I discuss this problem         in my book 
Paths of Life, 1999, and 
The         Truth Will Set You Free, 2002.
Do you feel that society has become more         compassionate and aware in the last ten years?
Today we know more about facts but we obviously still lack the compassion         for a child that must silently tolerate being beaten, neglected and disrespected         by people whom he/she loves. And most people don't see the consequences         of such an event. They lack the empathy that I so much hoped to wake up         in them when I gave interviews or wrote articles. In these interviews         I have been often asked why I was talking so much about beatings. Are         there no other ways of making a child suffer? Of course, there are. But         almost everybody agrees already that we shouldn't maltreat a child while         most people still claim that corporal punishment is OK, is not maltreatment         when labelled as "educational disciplining". I think that only         with a law forbidding corporal punishment to children, also to the own         ones, can we overcome this dangerous error. The goal of this law should         be not punishing parents but informing them that every beating is maltreatment,         a physical and an emotional one. Even if this law will not change the         parents' behaviour in one generation, it will certainly change the MENTALITY         of people very soon. And this is the first step to important social changes.
When did you first link the physical discipline         of children with destructive adult behaviour?
I started to understand these problems in my practice (1960 - 1980), thanks         to my patients, then, 1980, when I wrote 
For         Your Own Good. I found many confirmations for my hypothesis in         the literature about upbringing. With the help of many examples from history         and my practice I tried to demonstrate how our cruel upbringing causes         the denial and the lack of sensitivity of the whole society. 
Addition of 2004: The link between the specific maltreatments endured         in childhood and the destructive adult behaviour is still denied by the         media. They often report on both, but refuse to show the connection. This         avoidance can be clearly observed in all reports about the torturers in         Iraq. The actual causes of the perverse behaviour were never discussed.
The chief argument in favour of such discipline         is usually based on the premise that it's the only way to teach naughty         children to behave, especially those being cruel to others. Another could         be that a tired mother, with a houseful of wilful children, has little         alternative but to physically punish those who choose to ignore her verbal         admonishments. Since reading your books I have asked various people how         they feel about being smacked as children. Half believe it left no impression,         while the other half believe smacking was appropriate to antisocial behaviour.         What do you say about such opinions?
As the beaten children we once were we learned very early misleading messages         (for instance that cruelty is normal and beneficial) which we have a hard         time to unlearn. But many succeeded in doing it. Today there are already         hundreds of articles and plenty of books written by experts about the         dangerous consequences and uselessness of corporal punishments to children.         However, most people act and continue to think as if this knowledge didn't         exist at all or were not available. Why? I think that one of the reasons         can be the fact that they had to learn not to feel their physical and         psychic pain when they were beaten and they think that their children         don't feel it either. I can often hear mothers saying they spank their         babies without violence just to give them a lesson. Once I heard it from         a very nice young mother who breastfeed her little boy and complained         about his anxieties. I asked her if she never thought he made be waiting         for the next smack. No, she never thought this could be possible. He is         only 15 months, too small to "make such reflections". I asked         her if she was beaten as a child. Yes, she said, all the times, by both         parents. I asked her how she would feel if a friend told her that her         husband hit her and that she is scared to stay with him. Would she understand         her feeling? Of course, she said, I would tell her to leave. So why was         she able to have empathy for the adult friend but not for the child? Because         it is too small? I suppose rather that she never got empathy when she         was suffering from being beaten and she thinks that this was the right         way to treat a child. This is a very common attitude that could be changed.         For instance newspaper could offer their readers a forum for discussions         with parents about their problems with disciplining and also offer the         new information about spanking. 
Do you have children? How did you discipline         them?
I have two adult children. I never hit them but I was sometimes careless         and neglecting to my first child out of ignorance. Fortunately not so         much as my parents had been to me. It is very painful to realize that         but this realization can also be liberating from a self-deception. I think         that the love for the own children can bear the truth and can even thrive         on it while lies and denial seed cruelty for the next generation.
Could you tell me about your interpretative         paintings and how you became inspired by this medium of communication?
I have never painted before 1973. When I then started to paint spontaneously         spots, without any goal or project I discovered my old anxieties and the         way I had experienced my childhood. Until then I was quite sure that my         childhood was a good one. But my body, my hands, knew more than my mind.         They showed me in my painting that I had survived a horror and that I         had to dissociate this knowledge because nobody was there to understand         that what had happened to me was pure cruelty (as it was so "normal")         and to help me to integrate the memories. Now it was me who eventually         understood.
You write about the "helping witness":         is there any example you could give in order to help illustrate your findings?
I developed the concepts of helping and conscious witness when I was asked         time and again why some people who were severely beaten in childhood didn't         turn to become destructive while others, like Hitler, Stalin, Ceaucescu,         Mao etc. did. Interestingly, in all this positive cases there was a person         (a teacher, a nanny, a grandmother) who loved these children, or at least         liked them, even if she or he was unable to protect them fully from the         maltreatment. But in the lives of all dictators I analysed I could not         find such a person whom I call a HELPING WITNESS. If a depressed adult         have to retrieve his story he would need more than that, he would need         a CONSCIOUS WITNESS, a person who is well informed about the situation         of a maltreated child and does not minimize it. 
In public, if you see parents hitting their         children, do you ever confront them?
I try to talk to the parents, to explain, but not to blame them because         they act out of ignorance and I don't want to put shame on them. But every         time I try to inform them as kindly as I can. The reactions to my intervention         differ from case to case; sometimes they are angry, sometimes puzzled,         sometimes even grateful.
Most British people would, I guess, believe         that smacking their children is their own business, their own God-given         right, and would have grave misgivings about government, legislation intruding         into an area as sacrosanct as the home. Such state behaviour would be         perceived as close to totalitarian. What is your opinion?
Maybe, 20 years ago such voices could have been heard without opposition.         But today we know too much about the lingering effects of violence against         children to silently tolerate this lack of information. We should know         that the whole society will pay the price for our blindness. A government         of a civilized country can no longer ignore this knowledge. You can't         claim the right to play with nuclear weapons on your territories, only         because they belong to you. The society's interests go before your pleasure         and your habits. The government must defend these interests. To call it         thus "totalitarian" makes so little sense as to insult the fire         brigade in a burning house. Look around: When children are small some         parents reclaim the sacrosanct "right to them" like to a property.         But as soon as they become violent or drug addicted and then emotionally         inaccessible these parents are eager to grant their rights to society.         The children are no longer "our" children, protected in the         sacrosanct family, they become "social cases" and the anonymous         taxis-payers will have to pay for the prisons and hospitals these once         so eagerly disciplined teenagers will need. The new law must make people         aware of a very serious danger we so often oversee because we have learnt         so early to oversee it. In Norway and Sweden where this law has been adopted         most people already know that beating children teaches them short term         obedience but in the long run only violence and anxiety. Children become         so as they are treated. The theory that we are born with good or bad genes         may be a modern version of the old belief that the devil put his child         in our cradle and that we must make it sociable and noble with our vice         or birch. We are born with different talents, inclinations and temperaments         but our urge to punish others has not a genetical imprint. It is the result         of being punished very early and looking for scapegoats to the repressed         rage. If it were not so we would need an answer to the question why so         many children were born with bad genes 30 - 40 years before Hitler's Reich         to make his plans possible. This question shows the limits of a genetical         explanation of the Evil. Nobody is born evil, we produce destructive people         by the way we are treating them in childhood.
Addition of 2004: In the whole discussion concerning the scandalous behaviour         US-Soldiers displayed in Iraq nobody ever used the word sexual abuse though         it was more than clear that the torturers used the same way of humiliating         the victims as they themselves once had experienced as helpless children         on the mercy of their perverse 
Read more 
here