THE RHETORIC CASE
Persecution strategies in a child care order
investigation ¹
Linda Ärlig
Department of Social Science, the Psychology
Section, University of Örebro, Sweden
Translated into English by:
Gillian Thylander, BA, translator and language consultant (Thycon HB)
Janet Vesterlund, MA, translator and language consultant (Ad Hoc HB)
Roger Ponsford, MCIOB, accredited quality assurance assessor
Anna-Stina Ponsford, MCSP, physiotherapist and driving evaluator
ABSTRACT
The
purpose of this study is to make a critical examination of six official reports
in an LVU (Care of Young Persons Act) investigation, to detect the possible
occurrence of persecution strategies in the social welfare service reports and,
in that case, to define the strategies used and examine whether the
investigation complies with the legitimate claims of objectivity and
impartiality.
In
the official reports, fifty-six different persecution strategies appear.
Definitions of the strategies found are produced, and their application in the
case will be shown in passages from the reports. The main patterns seen in the investigators’
actions are: "Power defines reality," and "influencing and
persuading the reader". Two techniques were found in the material,
withholding and fabricating, which co-operate to make an investigation
defective. The strategies have been divided into six groups depending on their
purpose:
Throughout
the investigations, the client’s perspective is ignored and references to
sources are missing. My conclusion is that the investigations are defective,
and that they violate the Constitution Act, Chap. 1, Para. 9, containing
directives concerning objectivity and impartiality. The documentation of the
case contains a considerable number of distinct persecution strategies.
Finally,
I present eleven hypotheses about why persecution strategies are used. The
hypotheses that I think have the most validity are: "The dissonance
hypothesis", "The attribution hypothesis" and the
"Communication breakdown hypothesis".
Keywords:
persecution strategies, objectivity, impartiality, LVU investigation
1Advanced
course (41-60p) paper in psychology, autumn 1996;
supervisor
Professor Bo Edvardsson
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Purpose and definition
1.3 Previous work on persecution
strategies
2. METHODS
2.1 Selection/presentation
2.2 Approach
2.3 Advantages and disadvantages of
the methods
3. THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVE
3.1 Factual perspective
3.2 Investigative perspective
3.3 Judicial perspective
3.4 Perspective of the child
4. EXPLANATORY
THEORIES
5. PERSECUTION
STRATEGIES
5.1 Rhetorical
strategy
5.1.1 Insinuating strategy
5.1.2 Positive-negative argumentation
strategy
5.1.3 Negative reinforcement strategy
5.1.4 Negative synonym strategy
5.1.5 Repetition strategy
5.1.6 Hammer strategy
5.1.7 Multi-minus strategy
5.1.8 Contrast strategy
5.1.9 Strategy of selective use of words
indicating uncertainty
5.1.10 Generalisation strategy
5.1.11 Strategy of making trivial statements
in a negative context
5.2 Strategy of
making the client seem pathological
5.2.1 Strategy of implying that the
client’s criticism stems from the client’s pathological condition
5.2.2 Therapy strategy
5.2.3 Strategy of making the client seem
peculiar
5.2.4 Strategy of making the client’s
behaviour seem too intense
5.2.5 Strategy of persecution by use of
the fundamental attribution error
5.2.6 Scapegoat strategy
5.2.7 Strategy of calling attention to
non-existent "facts"
5.3 Suppression
strategy
5.3.1 Strategy of ignoring the client’s
perspective
5.3.2 Strategy of vagueness
5.3.3 Strategy of gradually suppressing
details
5.3.4 Strategy of using the impersonal
form
5.4 Exaggeration
strategy
5.4.1 Quantitative strategy
5.4.2 Fabulation strategy
5.4.3 Strategy of gradual intensification
5.4.4 Lying strategy
5.4.5 Strategy of presenting irrelevant
information
5.4.6 Implicit theory strategy
5.4.7 Strategy of exploiting and
exaggerating events
5.4.8 Strategy of collecting negative
historical events of little or no relevance
5.4.9 Strategy of referring to unspecified
others
5.4.10 Presumptive strategy
5.5 Control and power
strategy
5.5.1 Provocative strategy
5.5.2 Strategy of trying to accuse the
client of lying
5.5.3 Anti-democratic strategy
5.5.4 Strategy of presenting insulting
values and comments
5.5.5 Strategy of restricting the
credibility of others’ opinions
5.6 The social
authorities know best
5.6.1 Strategy of emphasising social
authorities’ resources
5.6.2 Strategy of overconfidence in
oneself and others
5.6.3 Strategy of exceeding the limits of
your competence
5.6.4 Moralising strategy
5.6.5 Strategy of justifying yourself and
your actions
5.7 Strategy of
stressing one’s own experience
5.7.1 Strategy of making vague references
to experiences
5.7.2 Strategy of ascribing an experience
to the client
5.7.3 Strategy of ascribing a negative
attitude to the client
5.8 Interpretational
strategy
5.8.1 Strategy of using strategic
interpretation
5.8.2 Strategy of using signs as evidence
5.8.3 Strategy of interpreting everything
negatively
5.8.4 Negative prognosis strategy
6. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
6.1 Actors in the case
6.2 Course of events
7. OFFICIAL REPORTS
7.1 Official report 1991-11-28
7.2 Official report 1991-01-31
7.3 Official report 1991-04-08
7.4 Official report 1994-11-29
7.5 Official report 1995-10-23
7.6 Official report 1996-06-14
7.7 Case notes and additional
notations
7.8 Testimonials
8. FINAL DISCUSSION
8.1 Final analysis of persecution
strategies
8.1.1
Variations and similarities in official reports
8.2 Development of a persecutory
work approach
8.3 Conclusions
REFERENCES
***************
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Every
year children and adolescents are taken into custody, thereby being separated
from their parents. This is done in accord with the law containing special
regulations concerning the care of young persons (LVU – Care of Young Persons
Act). According to this same law, society has special responsibility for
children and adolescents.
The
social welfare committee can offer parents and children support and help on a
voluntary basis according to the Social Services Act (SoL). LVU, which applies
to care without consent, acts as a supplement to SoL. Both placements according
to SoL and LVU should, in the opinion of the Swedish Board of Social Welfare
(SoS), "as far as possible, be for limited periods of time and focused on
treatment, with reunion as the objective." (SoS report 1990:24). Any
decision concerning care according to LVU is a strong emotional experience for
the child and the parents. It implies limitations of the parents’ right of
decision concerning the child. For this reason, it is extremely important that no
mistakes are made on the part of the social welfare committee.
An
investigation that forms the basis of an LVU decision must be objective,
impartial and worked through in accordance with the true facts. This is founded
on the Constitution Act, Chap. 1, Para. 9. Taking a child into care can affect
the investigator emotionally. So as not to affect the investigator’s personal
involvement or disturb the work, it is necessary that the work should follow
certain rules. Investigation work should proceed with a critical-objective
method, in which a number of basic criteria must be met. Examples of such
criteria area: clarity, posing questions, relevant information, account of
sources, precision, avoidance of emotional language, ethical considerations for
the protection of private persons etc. (cf. Edvardsson, 1996).
When
these criteria are not observed, partial investigations lacking in objectivity
may arise, which are characterised by the fabrication of evidence with the
intention of influencing and persuading the reader and supporting the
investigator’s own purposes. Defective investigations can lead to wrong or
unsuitable decisions being reached that destroy the future of the family.
1.2 Purpose and definition
The
purpose of this paper is to critically examine six official reports in an LVU
case, to investigate any occurrence of persecution strategies in its handling
and, if so, to define and investigate them, as well seeing whether the matter
meets the requirements of objectivity and impartiality prescribed by the
Constitution Act, Chap. 1, Para. 9.
I
use the definition of the concept persecution strategies by Edvardsson
(1996, p. 173): "patterns of thinking and behaviour directed against
persons and groups, which on the basis of the fundamental values concerning
democracy, legal security, objectivity, self-determination, humanity and not
causing physical/mental injury, can be considered as unacceptable."
I
also call attention to the definition of the concept of persecution strategies
further developed by Jäderquist et al. (1994, p.2): "that it can to a
certain extent be a conscious way of behaviour when one has a motive, e.g.
custody, control, power, reprisals or other motive. One does work that is
steered by the objective, which is nourished on conflicts. The lack of
objectivity depends not only on ignorance, lapses, giving one’s imagination
free rein, good faith and so on, but there are one or more reasons for being
partial."
1.3 Previous work on persecution
strategies
Previous
research shows that persecution strategies are to be found in therapeutic and
social work (see, for example, Edvardsson, 1989).
In
his study of 352 cases of children taken into care, Hollander 81985) found that
the investigations consisted of large amounts of material. On the whole, the
material was dominated by negative information and by information from various
authorities. In nearly all cases, the investigations had the character of
arguments for taking into care, and that the mass of negative facts about the
family and the child was large. References of a positive nature were often
missing or were judged to be of no importance. Medical certificates and
references from child psychiatric experts were included in most cases and were
of central importance.
Edvardsson
(1989) studied persecution strategies in a care case in social and psychiatric
work. A considerable number of different persecution strategies was revealed.
Edvardsson found that the investigator, on non-objective and vague grounds,
ascribed the client addiction problems and aggressive behaviour and made the
client seem pathological. He also found fundamental and systematic defects,
such as ignoring the client's resources and perspective.
In
their examination of the "Daniel Case", Junttila et al. (1994) found
that some fifteen persecution strategies existed. Some strategies were more
obvious than others, for instance the scapegoat strategy, that the investigator
makes the mother appear as the cause of the problem and even of the failure of
the authorities in helping the mother and son. It was revealed that negative
material from the past was often used, and also a negative selection strategy,
that the investigator had mainly chosen to use negative information about the
mother. It was also shown that the client perspective was ignored, and that
assessment exceeding the competence of the authority were made.
When
analysing an investigation concerning care according to LVU, Jäderquist et al.
(1994) found two main features among twenty-odd strategies. One was to
emphasise the knowledge/know-how/competence of the authorities. That it is the
reality of the authorities that applies, frequently on the basis of trivial
signs. The other main feature was to get the mother to appear as an incompetent
parent. The authors of the paper believe that the authorities provoke
situations and events in various ways. The provocation makes the client behave
in various ways that are then used against him or her.
Gunnarsson
et al. (1995) have critically examined twelve LVU investigations and compared
them. This was done to see whether they complied with the intentions of the
Social Services Act (SoL), Administrative Law and met the requirements of the
Swedish Constitution concerning objectivity and impartiality. The results
showed that similar defects existed in all the investigations.
Jansson
and Rönnbäck (1995) found 42 persecution strategies when they critically
examined an investigation that formed the basis of taking into care according
to LVU. The following main features of the behavioural pattern stood out:
Throughout
the material the client perspective was ignored, negative material was
emphasised and positive material withheld.
Stenberg
(1995) found 18 persecution strategies used against the client in his critical
examination of an LVU investigation. The most common strategy she found was
ignoring the perspective of the client. The author is of the opinion that the
occurrence of inadequate investigations is a result of a collapse of
communication between the client and the authorities, anxiety on the part of
the investigator, and of the fact that the phenomenon "group think"
exists within the social welfare authority.
In
his critical examination of an LVU case, Rönnbäck (1996) found 92 persecution
strategies/patterns of behaviour. The author found that the investigations were
characterised by massive depreciation of the father, no raising of questions,
no analyses of resources, no hypothetical thinking, fixation on a single care
alternative, etc. Rönnbäck divided the strategies into eight main features, as
follows: The authority knows best: Blackening the name of the parents; Getting
the children and parents to appear in need of care; Abuse of power; Ignoring
laws and regulations; Psychological maltreatment of children; Destruction of
important relationships; Influencing the reader; and Ignoring elementary
aspects of objectivity.
In
another examination of an LVU case, Skog (1996) found 10 persecution
strategies. The predominant strategy was that the authorities defined reality.
He divided the various strategies used of maintain the position of power into
three groups. These are:
Eriksson
and Wiesel (1997) made a study of how attributes are used in social work of a
persecuting nature. They found that attributes, persecution strategies and the
theory about monster parents interact in three main ways. The authors believe
that attributes are used to create monster parents and that persecution
strategies are used against the monster parents. The attributes are used as
tools in persecution strategies.
I
have chosen to examine a case from a social welfare authority concerning a care
order according to LVU. Through my supervisor, I came into contact with a
lawyer whose client is a single mother. Her child was taken into care according
to LVU para. 6. Both the client and the lawyer gave their permission for the
matter to be examined.
The
case was initiated on October 29, 1990 and is still pending. The material used
consists of official reports, notes/memoranda on social welfare service documents,
judicial decisions, appeals against judicial decisions, medical opinions,
certificates, social welfare case records, minutes of meetings, diverse letters
from, for example, medical consultants, psychologists, lawyers,
representatives, the client herself, and so on.
I
have critically examined six official reports including appendices concerning
the application for care according to LVU Para. 6, declarations to the
Administrative Court of Appeal, considerations concerning regulation of the
right of access, and the client’s request that custody should be discontinued.
I
have concentrated on examining the investigations of the social welfare
services, but also refer to appendices when necessary.
First
of all, the definitions of the persecution strategies found are presented.
These are followed by a section that shows how the strategies are actually
applied. The section contains excerpts from the official reports and other
material.
The
examination of the material was based on a critical investigative method. One
important starting-point in this work was not to form any opinion about whether
the application for care with the backing of LVU was right or wrong.
Studies
were first made of the literature. This provided basic information on the legal
aspect, such as, for example, the directives of the Constitution Act concerning
objectivity and impartiality, the intentions of SoL, LVU and FL (Administration
Act). I tried to find out about the psychological methods used in persecution
strategies, and different psychological phenomena that might lead to an
inadequate investigation.
Previous
research was studied, including among other things, definitions of strategies
found earlier.
Then
I went systematically through the official reports to see whether working
methods that were persecutory in nature had been used. Anything that could be
regarded as persecution strategies was marked and compared with persecution
strategies found earlier. The material was found to contain a number of
previously found persecution strategies and also others not previously
recorded. After going through the investigative material several more times,
the strategies found were sorted out.
Finally,
out of consideration for the individuals concerned, any means of personal
identification were removed.
One
advantage as far as the research method is concerned has been the access to the
material throughout the research period and, thanks to that, the possibility of
checking any points of uncertainty. The contact with the representative and the
client has also been an advantage from the point of view of information. It has
also been a good thing that the author of the paper has not been able to
influence the texts. This has meant that expectancy and interview effects have
been avoided.
When
interviews, questionnaires, etc, are used, the subjective methods influence the
generation of data, but this does not occur with textual data of this kind, for
the investigators probably did not foresee that the text would be examined by a
psychology student.
One
disadvantage is not being able to ascertain how many facts are erroneous or
suppressed. The selection of the text material can possess subjective elements,
and other researchers might interpret the material differently. Some faulty
reasoning might also have affected the analysis. No claim is made to having
completely covered the different perspectives or explanations.
3.1
Factual perspective
Edvardsson
(1996) states that investigative work shall be done with an investigative
methodology that combines critique and fact and not with subjective, unfactual
and partial procedures. "Weak investigations can lead to incorrect and
unsuitable decisions resulting in high human and economic costs. Legal security
is affected and people’s belief in the authorities is undermined by
investigations of low quality." (p. 8)
Children
are hard hit in poor investigations although it is often said that they are
done to protect the children. Edvardsson (1996, p.9) says that a critical and
factual investigative methodology should yield benefits for all parties. The
fundament for this is:
Trankell
(1963, p. 127) explains "formal structural analysis" i.e. that one
investigates the available information’s structure and investigates it with
consideration to its possibilities for giving a meaningful and uncontradictory
total picture of the underlying reality. Trankell gives two criteria for
judgement of interpretations:
"If
an interpretation leaves a great deal of the existing information unexplained,
it can not be considered to give a certain, true description of the underlying
reality."
If
all interpretations must be rejected on the ground of the first criterion, this
is an indication that important information is still missing or that the
information collected has been incorrectly analysed. For an interpretation to
be able to be accepted according to Trankell, it must also fulfil the other
criteria:
"If
an interpretation shall be accepted as a certain, true description of the
underlying reality, it must alone give a reasonable explanation for the
information at hand."
Trankell
states that the formal structural analysis can never show how something has
come about exactly. Its main task is instead as "primarily an instrument,
with whose help we can reject theories and hypotheses that are built upon false
or insufficient premises."
Naess
(1981, chap 6) gives six main norms for factuality. If a text goes against one
of these norms, it can be seen as unfactual.
All
six norms are highly relevant in LVU investigations. Keeping neutral, being
clear and not withholding relevant information are requirements for an
investigation to be factual and impartial. Thus these norms should be applied
in investigative work, among other reason from the intentions of the Constitution
as concerns factuality and impartiality.
3.2 Investigative perspective
Factuality,
competence, knowledge and self-knowledge are extremely important in social work
and especially in management and investigations. "Investigations means
advanced thinking and not just reporting of material." (Edvardsson, 1996,
p.21).
Edvardsson
(1996, p.11) sees investigations as a process in which questions and hypotheses
are developed and data to answer these questions and hypotheses are created,
tested, analysed and interpreted. "In order for something to be called an
"investigation", "investigation work" or
"investigation text", certain requirements of factuality should be
fulfilled. If not, it has to do with something else, e.g. rumour, impulse
actions, careless notes, a montage of information, a partial expressions of
ideas or a propaganda text."
Edvardsson
further explains the most basic demands that should be placed upon an
investigation:
Background
and underlying perspective shall be clearly stated.
Purpose
and/or set of problems (possibly hypotheses) shall be clearly stated.
Factual
methodology, which reasonably corresponds to each question, shall be used and
described well enough that it can be repeated.
Relevant
information in relation to the question(s) shall be used.
A
view of the whole shall be applied according to the intentions of the social
service authority.
Reliability,
i.e. information shall have reasonable reliability and known sources of error
and influential factors shall be specified.
Sources
and the material that the investigator has used shall be reported so clearly
that checks can be made.
Dated
information - it is often valuable to indicate the time of day.
Source
criticism and checks shall be applied, e.g. consideration shall be taken to
classic questions concerning source criticism such as presence in time and
space, biased material, psychological factors such as preconceived ideas,
expectations, perceptual distortions, conflicts, friendships, memory lapses
etc.
Being
precise - i.e. information shall be precise enough as to be meaningful. An
important requirement is that situations that have occurred can be made precise
via questions such as " who, what where, when, how, how often, how
long?"
Hypothetical
thinking shall be used, i.e. alternative hypotheses shall be stated and tests
against respective criteria or against one another with equal exertion.
Logic,
i.e. conclusions and judgements, shall be logically connected to basic material
presented. If the material offers alternative interpretations, these shall be
reported.
Lack
of bias, i.e. the work may not be carried out such that the investigator
attempts to seek and report material that represents only one preconceived
view.
Independence,
i.e. the investigator must remain independent in conflicts between parties.
Material
important to the question must never be withheld.
Factual
bases may not be made up, changed or imagined. Information shall have a factual
foundation.
Uncertainty,
which the investigator judges to exist, shall be indicated verbally.
Emotional
words shall be avoided by the investigator himself - although the person giving
the information, if this is relevant, may be referred to.
Corroboration,
i.e. all material in an investigative text shall be corroborated by respective
personal sources. A collective corroboration may never be accepted.
Dependencies,
conflicts, objections, gossip etc. that disturbs the investigation and twists
the meaning of the text shall not take place.
Normal
human variations must be given consideration. The investigator may not intimate
on the basis of his own personal or his group's values that certain normal
variations are better or worse than others.
Openness,
i.e. the material shall be collected openly in relation to the person(s) who
is/are the object of the investigation.
The
client perspective is necessary, i.e. the persons who are in focus in an
investigation shall be given as much leeway as they desire to present that
which they consider to be relevant - verbally or in writing.
The
child perspective shall be carefully considered, by interviewing children down
to an age of 4.5 years, indirectly by using reliable information from other
persons about the child, theoretically via empirical research about separation
effects, children's needs, parental contact etc. are carefully considered.
Resource
analysis - people's own resources and network resources shall be investigated
and reported. The investigative work shall be focused on how these resources
can be developed.
The
investigator's own behaviour, i.e. the effect of the investigator's own actions
and of the investigation process on the occurrence of behaviours, symptoms and
counteractions shall be taken into consideration when information is analysed.
Principle
of non-contamination. Investigative work may not be contaminated (mixed
together) with the investigator's own preconceived ideas, ideas without a
fundamental basis, own feelings such as "worry" etc.
Ethical
requirements are placed on investigative work and linguistic expressions in
investigations.
Great
attempts shall be made for comprehensiveness and factual language. An
investigation at the action of an authority may not be constructed in a
deceitful manner for the purpose of being convincing, e.g. through a one-sided
selection of information or through conscious withholding of resource analyses
and alternative interpretations.
Disturbing
effects may not be present, i.e. an investigator must be aware of the
disturbing effect of the ecology and his own psycho-ecology on his own
thinking.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.15) emphasises that it is important to be aware of the human total
context surrounding an investigative process in order to be aware and have
control over the surrounding world's (ecology's) influence. Edvardsson sees
society as a power and interest field, where strong actors such as the mass
media, government and courts determine what thought patterns and values will
dominate, which affects and disturbs investigative work. A common idea among
investigators, which according to socio-psychological research is seriously
incorrect, is that the investigator is not assumed to have any effect on the
person(s) being investigated. Everything that comes about via the influence of
the investigator can in the understanding be interpreted as whatever the
investigator wishes to demonstrated, according to Edvardsson.
Edvardsson
brings up a problem in investigative work, that is, that selective use of legal
texts, statements by parliamentary commissioners and general advice from the
social service authority takes place against the client, but not in favour of
the client, which twists the meaning of an investigation.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.19) remarks that investigative texts in e.g. social investigations,
child psychological investigations, to a great extent are characterised by
"investigative methodological naivety". This implies that critical
awareness of one's own methods and thought processes are lacking.
Investigators' own feelings and opinions are mixed into the investigative
texts. Interpretations are naive and farfetched and are made in order to fit
with the conclusion that the investigator wishes to come to, and no other
alternative interpretations are considered. From a methodological viewpoint,
these investigations appear to be "naive collages" according to
Edvardsson. The phenomenon implies that investigations lack questions, that
information of varying quality is collected in an unplanned fashion, in order
to be put together later into an investigative text.
3.3 Judicial perspective
The
form of government constitutes the basic rules for the activities of the social
authority. The Constitution Act 1 chap. §9 establishes the following:
"Courts and administrative authorities and others that perform tasks in
public administration shall in their activities heed all persons’ equality
before the law and observe factuality and impartiality."
The
basic goals of the social service authority are described in 1§ SoL, where the
basic values such as democracy, equality, solidarity and security are stated.
All activities shall be built upon respect for people's right to decide over
themselves and for their integrity. The following is stated in 9§ SoL:
"The efforts of the social service authority for an individual persons
shall be formed and carried out together with this person and, when necessary,
in co-operation with other social organs and with other organisations and
associations."
The
following is stated in SoL 51§: "What has been discovered in an
investigation and is significant for determining a matter shall be utilised in
a safe and satisfactory fashion."
Norström
and Thunved (1996, p.142) state: "The documentation of what has been
discovered in an investigation should be limited to what is necessary in a true
judgement of the matter and its settlement. Unnecessary information about the
clients' personal relationships shall be avoided. Furthermore, one should not
unnecessarily document subjective values concerning the clients and their personal
relationships."
"From
the regulations in 7§ of the administrative law it is clear among other things
that an authority shall strive to express itself in an easily understandable
way. The social service authority's documentation shall thus be formed in such
a way that the persons whom the matter concerns can read and understand the
investigation." (General Counsel, 1994:3, p.59)
General
counsel from the social service authority (1994:3, p.59) also states the
following: "The contents of the investigation shall be relevant. Only
information that concerns the matter in question may be included (…) An
investigation shall be credible. This means that no factual information shall
be included that cannot be corroborated. (…) In order that suitable care shall
be able to be given, it is necessary that there exists a comprehensive and
careful investigation. An effort shall not be begun without there being an
investigation about the family and a judgement has shown that the proposed
effort is the most suitable one for the child."
The
so called ecology cases are focused on shedding light on to what extent the
child's basic needs are recognised and fulfilled by the parents and whether
there is an obvious risk that the child shall be injured. The judgement of the
present and future situation (prognosis) shall be made on the basis of actual
conditions. Experience and all factors shall be weighed together,
psychological, medical and legal. A sensitive description of the relation
between the parents and the child shall be given, and resources, developmental
possibilities and the family's network shall, just as risk factors, be reported
in the investigation.
"In
the investigation, it shall be possible to differentiate between such
information as constitutes facts that can be corroborated (hard data) and such
information as constitutes judgements, either the judgements of others or one's
own." (p.64)
LVU
The
law on care for children and youths (LVU) is a complement to SoL, in the
situations when the voluntary efforts that can be given with the support of SoL
are not sufficient. That is, the law is used first when it is found that it is
not possible to come to agreement as to the care considered necessary for the
child according to the social service authority.
Judgements
on care according to LVU are made by county courts after notification via the
social service authority, and the maximum time in which the case shall be
treated is four weeks. A decision about care with the support of LVU implies
that the parents' right to decide over the child is limited in the extent that
is necessary for care to be able to be carried out.
Immediate
custody can be carried out when there is direct danger for the child's life and
health. This means that the social service authority can, without waiting for a
decision by the county court, place the child in a "safe
environment". When a child is taken into custody, it is placed in an
emergency home. When the child is given care for a longer period of time the
child is placed in a so called family home.
"The
social service authority shall regularly and at least each sixth month
according to 28§ SoL and 13§ second paragraph LVU consider whether care needs
to continue when it is a case of a child that has been given care with the
support of 6 and 12§ SoL or 2§ LVU (ecology case)." (general counsel from
the social service authority 1994:3, p.65)
3.4 Perspective of the child
"The
social service law shall fulfil the child's need of care and eventual efforts
shall be made for the child's good. The child can not itself demand its rights
with the support of the law, but the social service authority represents the
child and takes upon itself the care responsibility for children who are taken
into custody and placed outside their own families' homes." (Hagbard &
Esping, 1992, p.19)
Hollander
(1985, chap. 6) state that a vaguely formulated law and detailed rules for
action do not constitute a guarantee that the child's needs and the child's
good are fulfilled. Her feeling is that a detailed and more precise legislation
is necessary to facilitate the application of the law and to reduce the risk
that the wrong children are taken into custody.
Hollander
further explains that the study of a number of child custody cases has made
obvious the importance of recognising the evidence and interpretation problems
in child custody cases: "It can not be considered sufficient to confirm
that there are documented bad conditions in the home. Facts concerning the
connections between these conditions and the "danger" for the child's
health and development must be clarified."
The
different parties in an LVU case can have different conditions and assumptions.
Hollander (1985, p.299) explains: "Both parents and children have a weak
position in child care cases. It is hardly a lack of formal legal safety
guarantees that can explain this, and instead a composition of parties that
characterises these cases. The individual parties, parents and children, are
socially and economically weak. They are not familiar with legal regulations
and do not know how to act strategically." Hollander (1985) found in her
doctoral thesis that facts in child care cases had primarily to do with the
guardian, generally the mother, and with her weaknesses. Evidence issues were
concentrated around these facts, while few factors in the child's environment
were reported. Hollander points out that facts about the children were always
few and did not agree with the requirements for analysis of the child's need
for care and prognosis for development that the legislation states. A
conclusion that Hollander draws is that the legislation is more a coercive law
for the parents than a law acting to the advantage of the child.
Heap
(1983, p.156) points out: "According to the child care legislation, it is
the task of the authority to judge the conditions in which the child lives,
judge whether these conditions imply a danger to the child's health and
development. The authority's treatment has however been characterised by
showing evidence, while the child's total situation and needs have been
lost."
Hagbard
& Esping (1992, p.20) believe that "The increasing professionalisation
in child care in the last decades brings with it risks that the social worker
ideal takes over the parents' role as model for upbringing and for judgements
about the child's good."
They
feel that the increasing professionalisation instead should be directed toward
looking for the child's perspective and understanding the child's experiences
and feelings. This would give a better guarantee that the child's interests and
good are being safeguarded.
Anita
Cederström (1990, ref I Holmberg, 1990) followed 25 children that were placed
in foster homes in her thesis "Foster children's adjusting relations
problems". Her belief is that it is not the quality of the foster homes
that are decisive for the children's development but how the children's
relations with the parents have been. The starting point for Cederström was
that the children's relations with the parents were completely decisive for how
they would develop in the foster home. This was also demonstrated. The results
showed that children whose parents were not able to see and accept their needs
developed in a negative way. It went best for the children who had been seen by
the parents and not been drawn into their internal conflicts.
A
conclusion that Cederström draws is that if one identifies the child's relation
to the parents, one can get a better understanding of the child's situation.
"However,
it is clear that one must place greater importance on trying to understand the
psychological situation that the child exists in to be able to determine
whether a placement in a foster home is possible at all or whether other
measures must be taken. And to be able to support the foster parents so that
they understand what is happening with the child."
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the child
In
the convention concerning children's rights that was adopted by the UN in 1989
and that Sweden ratified, Article 12.1 states: "State Parties shall assure
the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express
those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child
being given due weight in accordance with the age at and maturity of the
child."
2:
For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to
be heard, in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child,
either directly or through representatives or an appropriate body, in a manner
consistent with the procedural rules of national law."
Article
25 states: " State Parties recognise the right of a child who has been
placed by the competent authorities for the purpose of care, protection or
treatment of his or her physical or mental health, to a periodic review of the
treatment and all other circumstances relevant to his or her custody."
(Hagbard & Esping, 1992, p.16)
The
UN's child convention is also applicable for children taken into care in a
foster home.
Edvardsson
(1989) develops four hypotheses on the occurrence of persecution strategies:
*
The phenomenon of the professional role existing in the interaction between
civil servant and organisation culture. Edvardsson means that the non-factual
thinking that the investigator displays can be a result of general mental
tendencies to twist things in organisational cultures and professional roles.
That mental fixations occur in certain concepts such as "abuse",
"aggression", "lack of order" etc. The social worker works
so much with e.g. drug abusers and their problems that the way of thought is
generalised without authorisation to others also.
*
Destructive stress interaction in the interplay between social worker and
client.
That
the strategies that the organisation has used to reduce its own anxiety place
stress upon the client so that the client acts in a special way that further
stresses the persons from the authority. An "evil circle" is
established.
*
Increasing irrational consensus formulation.
That
the persons at the authority influence one another to come to a similar
judgement, which can very well be irrational or obviously incorrect.
*
Compensation of loss of power.
Edvardsson
states that when the client, the civil servant feels a loss of power in
relation to his understanding of how much power he should have, a compensating
behaviour occurs, rational or irrational, e.g. persecution strategies.
The
legislative area in the context of investigations determines/decides what the
result of LVU cases shall be. This area "allows" weaknesses, enables
and justifies persecution strategies.
"Benneche
and Dahl feel that it is possible that children are taken into custody on
unjustified or incorrect grounds even if decisions are legally unassailable. As
support for this statement, they show that authorities understand the law's
social goals and the law's intentions in very different ways. The law's goals
are thus an uncertain guarantee that children's interests are being
protected." (Hollander, 1985, p.53)
So
called expert statements weigh heavily in investigation contexts. These
statements are seldom examined and questioned, i.e. critical thinking is seldom
used.
Hollander
(1985) found in her investigation of 352 child care cases that the
investigations were comprehensive and exact in regard to the parents' situation
but considerably more limited with respect to the children themselves. She
gives an interpretation of why social authorities' decisions or proposals for
decisions are seldom questioned by administrative courts. The interpretation is
based on the fact that investigative social workers and other child card
experts have such a decisive influence that laymen and lawyers in the social
service authority and administrative courts can not influence the results or
have a well-grounded, diverging understanding. Hollander also presents another
interpretation that implies that agreement can be explained such that
"experts tend more to take children into custody for social care because
they define the conflict in child care cases primarily as a conflict between
parents and children." (p.343)
Claezon
(1987) writes in his doctoral thesis about the dilemma of the social secretary.
She believes that the social secretary can feel anxiety, that he or she
experiences that society asks for work to be carried out at the same time that
he or she is refused adequate resources. That this situation occurs may depend
on the social secretaries being given too many child care cases, that they must
work under time pressure, that there is a lack of guidance, the organisation's
lack of resources etc. Claezon also believes that the social secretary is
affected by the client's hostile feelings, which can lead to the social
secretary's also feeling "unpermitted" feelings, and through
projective identification, feelings are transferred to the client and
strengthen the negative picture of him or her. "The client becomes the
dangerous, unreliable and aggressive person who wishes other people ill and
this picture grows larger and larger in the social secretary, who himself or
herself "wants to do good"." (p.136)
Moxnes
(1987) came to the conclusion in his case description that, in organisation and
bureaucracies, there is anxiety among its members. This anxiety is created by
those who have a power or status position. High status is related to security.
The anxiety is greatest among those people who are farthest down in the status
hierarchy. Seeing the social secretary as being farthest down in the
hierarchical ladder in the organisation of the social service authority is not
impossible from this viewpoint. Moxnes explains that those who feel anxiety
create social defences and defence mechanisms to protect themselves from the
anxiety. Examples of some defence mechanisms are categorisation and denial of
the client's significance, resistance to change, diagnostisation and
pathologisation, creation of scapegoats etc.
The
creation of scapegoats is a common social defence mechanism. Scapegoats are
society's, organisations' and families' anxiety-diverters. Scapegoats can be
set up to divert awareness from the actual problem. "Being a scapegoat
means feeling others' anger without having provoked it oneself so that it is
not necessary for these others to feel guilty." (Moxnes, 1987, p.121)
By
the use of different strategies in documentation, one can get clients to seem
aberrant in different respects. Angelöw and Jonsson (1990, chap.7) underscore
that aberrant behaviour is socially constructed, created by the surroundings
and influential social groups who have the power to decide what behaviour shall
receive respect and prestige and which condemnation and negative sanctions.
That is, what behaviour shall be seen as aberrant. A form of aberrant behaviour
has to do with the creation of scapegoats and snubbing people. "That a
persecutory way of work comes into existence may be because it is difficult for
society to reconcile itself with and tolerate those who are different.
Power
and interest field guide much of the work of the social service. The group that
has power sets up the rules. The power defines reality. Politicians set up
directives for the organisation, both in terms of work and its economy."
(Jäderqvist et al., 1994, p.39)
Hayakawa
(1973, p 216) points out: "People are such that they have to organise
their activities so that behavioural patterns come about that are more or less
uniform within one and the same social group." Hayakawa further explains
that when people have become used to their institution, they get a feeling that
their institution represents the only right and correct way to do things.
Groupthink
is a thought process that can occur in closely knit groups. Group think implies
that the individual stops thinking critically himself. The group seeks
agreement more than quality in the work process. If there is a strong group
feeling in an organisation, this leads to a high frequency of group think,
which in turn leads to serious defects in decision-making.
Janis
(1972, p.174) lists eight main symptoms for group think in his group think
theory. The different symptoms are divided into three groups (main types):
Group
1: Overestimation of the group
Symptom
1 - an illusion of invincibility that is shared by most of the members in the
groups, creates exaggerated optimism that stimulates extreme risk-taking.
Symptom
2 - a common unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morals, giving members
in the group a tendency to ignore ethical or moral consequences in their
decision-making.
Group
2: Narrow-mindedness
Symptom
3 - collective attempts to rationalise in order to consciously be able to
ignore warnings or other information that can question the group's decisions.
Symptom
4 - stereotypical views of rivals/enemies as too evil to be able to correctly
deliberated upon or too weak and stupid to be able to struggle against the
views of the group.
Group
3: Pressure toward uniformity
Symptom
5 - Self-censure of deviations from the group's agreement that reflect each
group member's tendency to minimise for himself the significance of his own
doubt and counter-argument.
Symptom
6 - A shared illusion about agreement that applies to judgements that are
adapted to the view of the majority. This illusion results partially from
self-censure of deviations that are affected by the false assumption that not
speaking out means agreeing.
Symptom
7 - Direct pressure on a member that expresses strong argument against one of
the group's stereotypes, illusions or agreements. It is made clear that this
type of deviation is in conflict with what is expected of loyal group members.
Symptom
8 - The group has self-appointed mind guards. These group members protect the
group from unfavourable information that would split the group's common
self-satisfaction as regards effectiveness and morals in their decisions.
All
eight main symptoms do not need to be present for group think to come about.
The consequences of group think are shown through group members not being aware
of relevant information that can force them to change their ideas. Janis gives
seven symptoms that show poor decision-making in a group:
-
insufficient examination of alternatives. The group's discussion is limited to
only a few alternatives, most often only two.
-
insufficient examination of the degree of objectivity. The group does not
investigate that objectivity is present in the decision-making process.
-
failure to investigate the risks of the group's decision
-
failure to re-evaluate alternatives rejected in the beginning. The group
members do not bother to investigate previously rejected alternatives.
-
poor information search. The group ignores information sources such as experts
in the area in question.
-
selective bias in treating information. This occurs when group members choose
information from expert statements, mass media, independent critics etc. They
reject information that does not support the group’s decisions and policy.
Failure
to develop possibly necessary alternative plans. The group uses too little time
in developing alternative approaches, if the chosen plan should stumble upon
obstacles.
The
attribution theory treats how people come to insights about themselves and
other to understand each other better. We ascribe reasons for why things
happen, why people behave the way they do. We ascribe a person characteristics,
motives, that can constitute a reason for an action or we ascribe a person's
surroundings reasons that can explain their behaviour.
According
to attribution research, we often ascribe reasons in a rational way. An
attribution error that is well known is called the "fundamental
attribution error".
"We
have a striking tendency to overestimate the role of personal factors and to
underestimate the influence of the situation/surroundings when we describe
others' behaviour." (Smith, 1993, p.342).
Cognitive
psychology and research describes many thinking errors. Some of these seem to
exist in investigation contexts and may help persecution strategies to come
about.
Smith
(1993, p.342) mentions a thinking error called "confirmation bias";
"people are often unwilling to challenge their cherished beliefs. Instead,
they are prone to fall into a trap called confirmation bias, they tend to look
for evidence that will confirm what they currently believe rather than looking
for evidence that tests their beliefs."
Edvardsson
(1996, p.98) mentions a number of thinking errors that can have an effect in
investigations:
-
perceptual distortion, meaning that one believes that one sees and hears what
is expected in spite of the fact that reality is not so. For example, clients
are seen as aggressive when they question things.
-
imperfecta enumeratio is an oversight error that implies that one makes an
incomplete count and thus does not take consideration to certain factors,
hypotheses, interpretations, alternative decisions etc.
-
contextual implication, means that one leaves it to the reader to make the
interpretation that the context implies.
-
generalising on the basis of only a few pieces of information
-
decontextualising means that the situation information is removed (or withheld)
and leads to a description with a very different significance for the reader.
-
base frequency error, means that one ignores how common a phenomenon is in the
population in question. Thus, common and trivial phenomena, e.g. critical
comments, how messy someone's home is, can be made significant in a certain
context.
-
implicit relation assumption, making assumptions about relations that lack a
factual basis.
-
moral thinking error, e.g. accusing someone of a lie without justification for
this.
-
mental availability error, through experience and education, one has concepts
and possibilities easily available in one's memory. An investigator can, by
mixing in easily available experience, his own ideas, values that do not have
to do with the case in question, create false notions.
-
extreme uniformity demand, means that one ignores normal variations or becomes
fixed on a mean value or ideal. The social service culture can have these,
which stand in direct conflict with biological, psychological and sociological
knowledge about the normal variation between people.
-
the doctrine of zero influence. Concretely, this can mean that the investigator
does not understand that he (and others involved) has an effect on the person
they are judging.
-
unjustified conclusion - non sequitur - means that one draws conclusions in
spite of the fact that one or more premises is lacking.
-
fallacia libidinis - means that the investigator owing to insufficient
foundations and incorrect reasoning, linguistic shifts and associations,
reaches the desired conclusion.
-
overconfidence - uncertain statements can be made categorically without
indication of uncertain markers and shifts in meaning.
-
grandiosity error - one raises someone above critical examination.
-
secret evidence error - one keeps evidence secret. If evidence is missing,
there is fabulation or lies.
-
solution fixation - using the same old solution and applying it to different
types of problems.
-
bolstering and de-emphasising - these phenomena come about when one
non-objectively adjusts an investigation so that the solution one has become
fixed upon shall be suitable.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.119) talks about a behaviour that he calls "control
psychosis", which implies that "extreme control behaviour is
developed toward people on weak or contradictory factual grounds."
Control
psychosis can be a causative background to the occurrence of a persecutory work
approach. Edvardsson feels that it is different thinking errors that lie behind
this behaviour, such as paranoia errors, that the investigator creates
incorrect ideas about the parents' dangerousness, bolstering error, that small
incidents are used as arguments to increase control efforts, confusion errors,
that the investigator cannot differentiate between his own and the
organisation's need for control and the child's needs.
Memory
is influenced by different factors, which can lead to the occurrence of memory
errors. Our work memory can hold about 7 +/- 2 information units at the same
time (cf. Ashcraft, 1994, chap.4). Sjöberg (1978, p.112) reports research
results that show that our judgement is affected by a large amount of
information.
"The
number of clues seems to have the effect that the more clues one presents, the
greater is the uncertainty in judgements. At the same time, however, the
subjective confidence in the judgements seems to increase drastically."
There
is a great difference between experienced and actual judgement ability when the
amount of information increases. This gives an idea about how the amount of
information (correct, diffuse, incorrect) in social investigations is received
and interpreted by an investigator.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.159) states that implicit taboos or limits to expression occur among
investigators. One of the reasons that investigative texts are the way they are
seems to be that there is a taboo against critical thinking in social service
and care organisations. This expresses itself in making clients who give
criticism pathological, instead of thinking about the contents of the criticism.
Edvardsson further explains:
"There
also seems to exist a strong taboo in investigative texts in each case against
critically examining one’s own and other authorities’ actions. (…) These taboos
give rise to incorrect interpretations and a great risk for incorrect
judgements."
Another
possible causal background for persecution strategies is the client’s
dependency on the social secretary. Sunesson (1981, p.70) points out that the
social worker’s ideology can affect his client work "by the social worker
without being aware of it treating the client in the he "should" be
treated, according to his status as a worker, an outsider in society, poor or
alone. (…) This can have effects that imply a deepening of the dependency
position, something that is probably completely impossible to avoid in today’s
social help work."
Sunesson
further states: "Having to do with people means in social care that one
treats the person as a "client", i.e. one places him more or less
automatically in a dependent, childish and primarily subordinate
position." (p.83)
Edvardsson
(1984,1986) believes that the social service as an organisation creates and
maintains technological rationality. This leads to a situation in which
resource thinking over-emphasises social efforts and ignores people’s own
resources and the informal network’s resources. Clients are seen as objects and
not as people, which is demonstrated concretely by poor problem analyses,
client perspectives and resource descriptions.
Edvardsson
(1986) says that the social service is strongly influenced by awareness
processes in the ecology, i.e. authorities, companies, the public, strong
interest groups etc. There is a complicated interaction and power position
between the social service organisation and other organisations in society.
Through this relationship, thought patterns, ideas and values that are not
always suitable are transferred from the surrounding society.
Definitions
are given here of different persecution strategies that occur in the management
of the "rhetoric case".
Edvardsson
(1996, p.173) defines the concept of persecution strategy as "thought and
action patterns directed toward persons and groups from which basic values
about democracy, legal security, objectivity, making one’s own decisions,
humanity and not inflicting damage physically/psychically can be judged as not
acceptable."
The
strategies are not hierarchically organised but instead grouped according to how
similar they are to one another. How the strategies are applied in a concrete
way will be presented in a later section with excerpts from the investigations.
5.1 Rhetorical strategy
The
strategy implies that the investigator uses unobjective reasoning that includes
vague statements, interpretations and conclusions about the client and his
situation that aim to influence the reader.
The
investigator speaks well and thus the reader does not question what lies behind
the reasoning. The investigator’s reasoning is like a propaganda text.
The
original purpose of the art of rhetoric was to exercise control and to steer,
to convince and influence people. Möijer (1989, p.78) brings up general rules,
"speech strategies". If one follows these, one has the possibility to
steer others’ thoughts and feelings in a determined direction. Möijer describes
different rhetorical strategies such as:
"In
propaganda and advertising, the so called selection principle is used
(Andersson & Furberg, 1973; Ryding, 1980), i.e. a one-sided selection of
information is conveyed from a propagandistic purpose and for that purpose
disturbing information is withheld. The effect is made stronger through the
receiver’s own associations and feelings. Through somewhat contradictory
information, a text can also appear as apparently objective. The selection
principle is unfortunately applied in many social and child psychiatric
investigations." (Edvardsson, 1996, p.43)
The
investigator gains a kind of power over the reader where he can manipulate the
reader to interpret the text in the way he wants it to be interpreted.
Edvardsson (1984, p.132) points out that "Language, phrases, rhetoric can
mask the exercising of power and enable the exercising of power." The
rhetorical strategy can be divided into several different sub-strategies,
certain more common and larger than others. The strategies are not given in
hierarchic order:
5.1.1 Insinuating strategy
This
strategy means that something is insinuated that one wishes to be presented in
the text without saying it clearly and without giving a factual basis for the
statement. The text is fashioned so that the reader unconsciously can draw the
conclusion the investigator wishes, and that the reader experiences it such
that he has not been forced to draw the investigator’s conclusions. This leads
to the reader not being critical toward his "own" subjective
reasoning.
Melin
and Lange (1995, p.50) describe a type of argumentation that they call
"the argumenting character". What they mean is that the text contains
no formulation of theses and that no actual argumentation is given. "The
technique is based on the author, from a prestigious investigation, presenting
facts that serve his own understanding and that allow the idea to show the
direction for the reader’s "spontaneous" interpretation."
This
argumentation method is present in the material analysed through the
insinuating strategy.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.44) writes "to state that there are signs of abuse, anxiety,
psychic disturbance, relation problems, sexual exploitation etc. without
clarifying evidence is propaganda, not investigation."
There
are two thought errors that work together in the insinuating strategy. The one
is contextual implication, which implies that the author does not write any
interpretation of his own but allows the reader to make the interpretation that
the context indicates. The other is the thought error imperfecta enumeratio,
i.e. by a incomplete listing, certain factors and hypotheses are not taken into
consideration (cf. Edvardsson, 1996, p.98)
5.1.2 Positive-negative argumentation strategy
This
strategy means that the investigator, through his argumentation, tries to get
himself to appear as an understanding person for the feelings the client has
and situation that he finds himself in. The argumentation is positive. Then
follows negative information about the client, for which understanding can not
be shown for because the client is outside the framework of how one behaves in
a certain situation that the investigator presents. The argumentation is
negative. The investigator use the reader’s feelings for the purpose of
convincing him.
Möijer
(1989, p.50) points out: "For convincing (when true arguments are lacking)
personal arguments are sometimes used (that attack the person instead of the
question), case arguments (generalisations, universal statements that only
apply to a few cases), status arguments (that appeal to someone’s prestige) and
majority arguments (that support themselves by "the masses’" way of
thinking and acting)".
Edvardsson’s
(1996, p.119) comment to an investigator’s reasoning in an expert statement is
suitable here: "The principle is to say something negative when something
positive has been said."
Ivemyr
and Lindwall (1995) write "Argumentation implies convincing someone that
something is true. (…) Actual knowledge is not necessary. It is okay to hide
behind fine formulations. By rhetoric one can get a person to realise something
he/she had not earlier realised."
5.1.3 Negative reinforcement strategy
Junttila
et al. (1994, p.28) defines this strategy "as using words that in the
context further strengthen the negative message."
Throughout
the investigations it occurs that investigators report a negative selection of
information concerning the client and her situation. Much of the information is
strengthened with negative words. Examples of strengthening words are
"very worried", "reacted very strongly", "never,
"altogether too much", "obvious signs", "complete
personality change", "lost all control" etc. (the examples are
taken from the investigations).
Andersson
and Furberg (1984, p.140) point out: "With a value-charged word, I convey
to the addressee that, according to my opinion, there is reason to harbour a
certain feeling or take over a certain position." Through repetition of
strengthening words, they can be changed into truths for the receiver. Möijer
(1989, p.50) states "Value-charged words, abstract and other vague
expressions can be used for the purpose of influencing because they are
understood so differently by different people."
5.1.4 Negative synonym strategy
The
strategy implies that, for the purpose of convincing, one describes a situation
with a number of synonyms, where the other synonyms do not convey any new
information to the reader. The words have a similar meaning and strengthen the
negative message.
The
strategy contains a repetition technique with features of parallelism. Melin
and Lange (1995, p.154) explain "Parallelism is a kind of contentual
repetition that implies that the same thought or idea is repeated and verbally
varied two or more times in some different way."
Liljestrand
(1993, p.85) believes that the meaning of the expressions is often synonymous
for the repetitions that contain parallelism.
The
negative synonym strategy also means redundancy, that if what follows in a text
can be foreseen, the continuation is unnecessary. Liljestrand (1993) explains
that a text with high redundancy contains many purposeless repetitions, things
made more precise and corrections that are unnecessary from an information
viewpoint.
5.1.5 Repetition strategy
Jansson
& Rönnbäck (1995, p.65) define this strategy "as through a strategic
repetition of certain words, one achieves a propaganda effect about that which
is said. This can be compared with proposed announcers who through repeated
advertising are able to make people experience that they have a need for
exactly the announcers’ goods."
Edvardsson
(1989, p.7) says that "values and opinions are changed into truths in the
mass media by repetition."
Liljestrand
(1993, p.82) points out that if non-literary text contains repetitions, it is
usually seen as incorrect. "It can generally be said of all repetition
that they are redundant features that do not add to the text anything of
contentual news."
In
Ivemyrs and Lindvall’s (1995) paper, it was found that repetition occurred to a
large extent in the 20 LVU investigations that they examined. "Common for
strengthening words, factual information and phrases is that all considerations
are used in a negative context. Strengthening words are used in 629 negative
contexts compared with 199 positive ones." The authors believe that
repetition is used in investigations to strengthen and put the focus on
information that supports taking custody of the child.
Liljestrand
and Arwidson (1993, p.97) say that "Many times repetition is used because
the text is incorrectly planned and poorly thought through. The reader can then
have a difficult time knowing whether it is something new that is being
conveyed – especially if in the second time it is formulated with somewhat
different words."
5.1.6 Hammer strategy
A
variation of the repetitive strategy is the hammer strategy. The strategy means
that the investigator in a stereotypical and comprehensive way is repeating his
negative understanding of the client in order to be able to influence the
reader’s understanding of the client. The investigator has "favourite words"
for describing the client. The investigator tries to "hammer" his
opinion in the reader. The strategy gives an additive effect.
The
difference between the repetitive strategy and the hammer strategy is that,
from the hammer strategy, the investigator’s special and personal understanding
of the client comes forth through descriptive favourite words that the
investigator has. Examples of words in the rhetoric case are
"remarkably", "especially", "strongly negative",
"psychic imbalance", "psychic problems", "extreme
aggression" etc. The investigator can also have favourite phrases, such as
"sudden aggressive attacks" and "sudden and strong aggressive
attacks".
Möijer
(1989, p.50) maintains that, in an argumentary language style, repetition is
used "to strengthen (hammer in) opinions and values."
5.1.7 Multi-minus strategy
This
strategy means that the investigator describes a number of negative
characteristics that he understands the client to have without having earlier
made this precise or without making more precise what he means.
It
comes out of the material analysed that an investigator presents an implicit
summary of "everything" negative that the client has done and
"all" the negative sides that the client has in order to then come to
a conclusion. The "conclusion" allows the investigator an excuse to
make a summary of everything negative he has about the client. Another possible
reason for the investigator’s reasoning can be that the information is
occasioned by the conclusion having being decided in advance.
5.1.8 Contrast strategy
The
strategy means that the text is presented so that contrasts between different
conditions take place in order to exploit these contrasts later for their own
purpose. The investigator’s argumentation has a black-white character (see e.g.
Edvardsson, 1996b).
The
strategy can be thought to be based on the social services’ "us and
them" mentality.
5.1.9 Strategy of selective use of words indicating uncertainty
The
strategy implies that the investigator generally uses uncertainty markers in
positive information about the client but not in negative information.
Uncertainty
markers are words such as "appears", "possibly",
"perhaps", "is experienced", "seems",
"probably" etc. Uncertainty markers can also be used as protection for
presenting generalisations and values about persons. Edvardsson (1996, p.176)
gives an example in which the investigator writes that "the boy seems
aggressive". Uncertainty markers are included, but the risk is still there
that the reader loses the uncertainty marker in his memory and that the
generalisation remains.
5.1.10 Generalisation strategy
The
strategy implies that one uses categorical statements that can contain words
such as always, everything, never, no one etc. This also means that the investigator’s
understanding of the client in one or a few special situations is generalised
to apply for several other situations in which the client has found himself.
This is not objectively acceptable.
"A
text can be very vague, avoid describing individual events and contain certain
generalisations with words such as never, always, continuously, each time, is,
nothing, completely. These are signs of fabulation. Reality is seldom so
monotonous." (Edvardsson, 1996, p.34). Edvardsson also points out that
generalising statements are often made without the reader being able to know
the foundation for them.
5.1.11 Strategy of making trivial statements in a negative context
The
strategy means that the investigator places a trivial statement in a context
that is negative for the client. The consequence is that the text gives the
reader an implicit negative meaning regarding the client. The trivial statement
does not need to have any connection with the text, in which it stands but can
still give a negative picture of the client.
5.2 Strategy of making the client seem pathological
Edvardsson
(1993, p.20) defines this strategy as "Trying to get a person to seem
psychically disturbed, as needing care, as someone who "feels bad", as
strongly emotional, as irrational/stupid, as aggressive, as paranoid etc."
"By
defining other people as ‘sick’ or ‘aberrant’, we no longer need to take them
so seriously. We can easily avoid the unpleasantness that others’ opinions wake
within us by dismissing the person as "abnormal" or "sick".
(Moxnes, 1987, p.115).
Edvardsson
(1989, p.23) points out: "To have the possibility of being able to
interpret everything as a sign of pathology, a certain behaviour, its opposite
and everything in between, of course means that everyone who is exposed to the
pathologising strategy can be shown to be "disturbed". The fact that
it is also theoretically difficult to penetrate with an impressive terminology
makes it an excellent means for persecution and exercising power."
Möijer
(1989), p.30) points out that professional language is abused, consciously or
unconsciously. "Some experts use professional terms to impress their
audience or sometimes simply to mislead. Others use advanced professional
language for reasons of convenience or inconsideration." It can be seen
from the material analysed that the investigators sometimes use
"professional language" to give greater strength to the
pathologisation of the client without indicating a factual foundation.
It
also comes forth that an investigator defends his decision to write that the
client has a messy home by writing that it is of an extreme nature. Edvardsson
(1991) states that there are different factors such as messiness at home,
clothing, language that make the attention of the social bureau more keen and
can lead to negative judgements about the client. The factor of messiness in
the home often comes up as an argument in investigations.
Throughout
the investigative material it comes out that the investigators make the client
appear aggressive, strange, psychically ill and need of care in several
different ways. From the investigators’ approach can be seen the strategy of
making the client seem pathological, which is an overall strategy with several
different sub-strategies.
5.2.1 Strategy of implying that the client’s criticism stems from the
client’s pathological condition
The
strategy implies that the investigator sees the client’s criticism against him
and the social service as an expression of psychic disturbance, aggression,
that the client is peculiar etc.
The
strategy of pathologising criticism violates the Swedish Constitution
(Regeringsformen 2 chap 1§), according to which all citizens have the liberty
to express thoughts, opinions and feelings. Edvardsson (1991, p.181) explains
that when the client behaves critically or aggressively toward the social
worker, this often leads to greater attention and diverse negative thoughts and
discussions among them. He further explains that it is often felt that the person
who is critical and verbally aggressive is psychically disturbed and unsuitable
to care for his or her own child. Edvardsson feels that there are no objective
grounds for this reasoning.
5.2.2 Therapy strategy
This
strategy means that one maintains that a person needs therapy without giving
objective reasons for the statement or reporting professional competence for
making such a statement. An uncritical reader is easily influenced by the fact
that a person uses "psychological therapy terms" and professional
language and thus neglects to further investigate how the statement has come to
be made.
5.2.3 Strategy of making the client seem peculiar
This
strategy implies that the investigator makes the client appear
"peculiar", "extreme", "difficult to predict",
"unpredictable" etc. without giving an objective basis for this. The
strategy was supposed to have occurred during the witch trials of the 1600s and
can be seen also in psychiatric textbooks and reasonings. The strategy ignores
the client’s integrating with situations.
5.2.4 Strategy of making the
client’s behaviour seem too intense
In
this strategy, the investigator describes the client’s behaviour categorically
as "sudden", "intense" etc. The description has a negative
content. To describe a person as "sudden" can facilitate the
appearance of the person as "peculiar".
5.2.5 Strategy of
persecution by use of the fundamental attribution error
This
strategy implies ascribing the individual the cause of an event without
examining the influence of the situation.
Smith
(1993, p.607) explains that people have an obvious tendency to overestimate the
role of personal factors and to underestimate the effect of the situation when
we explain others’ behaviour. The tendency is so strong and is used so often
that it is called "the fundamental attribution error". In the
"rhetoric case", an investigator describes the client as aggressive
several times without having looked at the situation factors that may have
influenced her behaviour.
"In
the fundamental attribution error (see e.g. Hewstone, 1989) situation factors
can be made to be individual characteristics. This is an exceedingly common
phenomenon." (Edvardsson, 1996, p.99).
5.2.6 Scapegoat strategy
This
strategy implies that the investigator and others use the client’s personality
and behaviour as a cause for many of the problems that have occurred. All
responsibility is put on the client while the investigator can excuse his or
her own and others’ mistakes.
Moxnes
(1987, p.121) explains: "Being a scapegoat implies that, without being
guilty, one can be the object of others’ anger so that they do not need to feel
guilty. Only the scapegoat himself and the person who stands outside the social
game can see the innocence of the scapegoat." Moxnes refers to Jaques, who
believes that the creation of scapegoats has its grounds in the projection of
the poor side of a person on others.
5.2.7 Strategy of calling
attention to non-existent "facts"
In
this strategy, the investigator and others mention situations etc. that have
not occurred. The argumentation gives an intimation that there have been
grounds for suspecting the client. The strategy consists of two sub-strategies.
Means
that the investigator mentions weaknesses that the client does not have. The
argumentation gives an intimation that there have been grounds for suspecting
the client of this. The investigator’s view of the client has influenced the
argumentation.
The
strategy implies that the investigator mentions different behaviour/actions
that the client has not displayed or done.
5.3 Suppression
strategy
This
strategy implies a conscious or unconscious suppression of information and an
avoidance of being precise, which leads to a situation in which important facts
do not come to the attention of the reader and can thus not influence the
reader’s understanding. The reader is given a false picture of the
investigation (cf. Edvardsson, 1996b). Naess (1981, chap. 6) states in his
third primary norm for objectivity that information may not be such that the
reader can misunderstand the author’s message or that the reader can interpret
the information in another way than the author. If one violates this norm, the
information can not be seen as objective. Edvardsson (1996, p.43) emphasises
that "It is important that the selection of situations and material is
balanced according to the Constitution’s demands for objectivity and impartiality.
Positive circumstances must not be withheld."
Janis
and Mann (1979, p.58) list five patterns for thought processes in
decision-making. One of the patterns is called defensive avoidance. This
implies that one ignores available information that can disclose disadvantages
in the alternative chosen. This suppression strategy is an overall strategy
with several sub-strategies.
5.3.1 Strategy of ignoring
the client’s perspective
Junttila
et al. (1994, p.40)
defines the strategy of ignoring the client perspective: "The client
perspective means that one takes into consideration the client’s understanding,
experience, ideas, suggestions, own feelings, resources, networks etc. Ignoring
the client perspective makes the client seem like an object."
Edvardsson
(1996, p.59) says "The client perspective is necessary for solving
problems and for fulfilling impartiality, objectivity, democracy, legal
security and ethics in investigations. A practice in which the client’s views
are not ascribed any great value is destructive and an expression for elitist
"us and them" thinking."
Ignoring
the client perspective occurs in the text analysed, e.g. when the investigators
have not critically examined the material, have not given the sources of the
information and have not considered alternative interpretations or
explanations. The investigators have also ignored the client’s version of
different events and situations. Edvardsson (1991, p.168) ascribes the
consideration of clients’ understandings, experiences, criticism, ideas and suggestions
great importance. He makes the point that such information is ignored to a
large extent in today’s social work.
5.3.2 Strategy of vagueness
"This
strategy implies that vague and imprecise information is offered in the
investigation. The investigator in a matter must according to RF chap 9§
observe objectivity. He/she may not include vague or unobjective statements in
his or her investigation that allow the reader to interpret the material in his
own way but must be clear in all ways so that no unnecessary misunderstandings
occur." (Stenberg, 1995, p.30)
The
vagueness strategy includes what Naess 81981, p.105) calls "biased
ambiguity"; "A text section should not be of the kind that there is a
large risk for misunderstanding on the part of the listeners." Naess
(p.115) also maintains that "abuse of language, especially through use of
weaknesses in being precise, paves the way for all common forms of lack of
objectivity. As regards being precise, it is also easiest to fight a lack of
objectivity. The method of being precise is thus of great importance."
5.3.3 Strategy of gradually
suppressing details
Through
one’s way of writing, one can perform a successive suppression in the text. In
concrete terms, this may mean that the investigator rewrites the text so that
the emphasis on the issue in question is not as obvious.
Using
the strategy of gradually suppressing details, an investigator can
decontextualise, that is, the situation information is removed or withheld,
which results in the description taking on a completely different significance
for the reader. Edvardsson (1996, p.99) writes: "Decontextualised
information leads to incorrect interpretations and incorrect judgements.
Decontextualisation is often used for the purpose of propaganda (among other
situations in investigations in the social service)."
5.3.4 Strategy of using the
impersonal form
This
strategy implies that one writes such that the subject is lacking in the
sentence or that the subject consists of the word "one". The
consequence is that the reader does not know who has made the statement, has a
certain opinion etc. It is up to the reader to interpret the message of the
investigator.
By
writing "one", the reader is given the impression that there are more
than one behind the statement, which may be the intention of the investigator.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.32) points out: "Information sources must without exception be
reported for the obvious reason that information shall be able to be checked
and exposed to source criticism by other involved parties. (…) A piece of
information shall have a personal source or a document source. It shall always
be clear what information the investigator stands for." Edvardsson also
says that "if it is considered possible that someone would like to check a
piece of information, then this information should be provided with a source
that is so detailed that the source can directly be sought without extra
research."
5.4 Exaggeration
strategy
In
this strategy, material, events etc. are exaggerated and corrected,
unconsciously or consciously, so that the understanding of the author shall be
better presented and/or to convince the reader that the understanding of the
author is correct.
The
exaggeration strategy is an overall strategy with several sub-strategies.
5.4.1 Quantitative strategy
"Quantitative
strategy means that the investigation contains a great deal of quantitative
text. This has the purpose of trying to get the reader to see the investigation
as well done, comprehensive and well developed." (Skog, 1996, p.19)
The
strategy is used when there is little information that supports an intervention
by an authority. The statements of the authority analysed here do not contain
discussions that speak for or against taking custody but instead are uniformly
for taking custody. True for all the statements by the authority is that it is
primarily negative facts that are presented and documented. The description is
devoted mostly to characteristics of the mother, at which she appears to be
alone in being the bearer of the problems.
5.4.2 Fabulation strategy
In
this strategy, the investigator has an underlying purpose, consciously or
unconsciously, that makes him or her present and correct material so that it achieves
his or her purpose. The consequence is that the investigator presents
information that does not have an objective basis.
The
fabulation strategy can occur when the investigator generalises, exaggerates or
shifts from making intimations to presenting them as certain facts. In the
material examined, the fabulation strategy occurs a number of times when the
investigator changed a text as it was being cited. This is expressed through
words being removed, added, changed or that sentences have been changed in
other ways.
Edvardsson
(1993, p.20) defines fabulation as "presenting incorrect or vague,
generalising (and sometimes obviously unrealistic) information without giving
objective grounds and often in an unobjective, biased context, often also
without reporting the source."
5.4.3 Strategy of gradual
intensification
This
strategy implies a gradual intensification in the text by using a certain way
of writing. This may mean that an event is first describe to then make a
generalisation. A variation of fabulation is gradual intensification of
certainty and information.
5.4.4 Lying strategy
In
this strategy, a statement is consciously made although the author knows that
it is a lie. Lying is a technique for convincing (cf. Scharnberg, 1996) in
which one consciously misleads the listener by e.g. hiding and producing
incorrect information.
A
fabulated event can lead to lying: "Fabulated versions tend to become
increasingly more extreme and comprehensive, as time goes by. The cause derives
from the changed adaptation level." (Scharnberg, 1996, p.89)
Lies
can be presented in different ways. Anderberg (1993, p.44) makes a point of
this. "Of course, conscious lies also occur. There is the clear lie, which
consists of saying something when one knows that that is not the case. But
being misleading by concealing the truth can be just as effective and appears
to some people like a golden middle road between lies and unpleasant truths.
The result is often the same."
Deux,
Dane and Wrightsman (1993, p.136) refer to Rosnow’s conditions, under which it
is easier to believe a lie. The first condition occurs when the listener is
generally uncertain. Lies are believable when listeners can use them to lighten
ambiguity and create predictability. The other condition occurs when the
listener experiences personal worry and is affected by the rumour’s result. The
third occurs if the lies contain a kernel of truth, when they are more
believable than completed fabulated lies. Finally, it is more probable that
rumours will be believed when the listeners’ degree of involvement in the
result of the rumour is low. This means that the less that listeners are
directly involved in the result, the more probable it is that they will believe
a misleading communication and spread it further to others.
5.4.5 Strategy of presenting
irrelevant information
This
strategy implies that the investigator presents information that does not have
relevance for the investigation in question.
The
information can be brought forth in order to paint a black picture of the
client or to emphasise an understanding of the client and the decisions the
investigator wants the investigation to lead to. Objective grounds for the
information are most often lacking. It can first seem that the information has
no significance for the situation as a whole, but when many such statements are
made…
5.4.6 Implicit theory
strategy
This
strategy uses a theory about something without a scientific basis and presents
it as though it were a truth. Edvardsson (1991, p.182) describes different
factors (e.g. messiness in the home, being critical toward the social service)
that intensify the attention of the social bureau and are included as an
argument in investigations, while other factors are hidden in the
investigator’s head because they are not considered suitable as an argument.
"In socio-psychology, we speak about "implicit personality
theories", i.e. implicit, often incorrect ideas of the kind "if
characteristic X exists, then characteristic Y also exists". For example,
"in the case of social subsidy, immigrant and aggressive, there is danger
for the child."
Implicit
personality theories are probably used by the investigators in the rhetoric
case.
5.4.7 Strategy of
exploiting and exaggerating events
Edvardsson
(1989, p.14) defines this strategy as "using relatively trivial events,
whose significance is exaggerated because the person involved has contact with
the social service authority. Otherwise the events would hardly lead to any
consequences."
By
making an incomplete list and avoiding other factors, interpretations,
hypotheses and alternate decisions, only the investigator’s understanding is
presented. Edvardsson calls this thought error "imperfecta
enumeratio". Other means that an investigator can use to create evidence
for his hypothesis is by so called perceptual distortion, i.e. "thinking
that one sees and hears what is expected, despite the fact that reality is not
so. Black and blue marks can be thought to be larger than they are, statements
are understood in a different way than was meant by the speaker, clients are
experienced as threatening when they question something etc." (Edvardsson,
1996, p.98)
Edvardsson
(1996, p.98) points out that people one-sidedly seek and construct things that
speak for a special hypothesis and at the same time withhold conflicting
information (confirmation bias).
5.4.8 Strategy of
collecting negative historical events of little or no relevance
Jäderqvist
et al. (1994, p.28) defines this strategy as "a purposeful search for
negative historical material."
Edvardsson
(1996, p.51) emphasises "Trivial negatively valued information is often
collected that has little to do with the picture as a whole. To oppressively
focus on and exaggerate small fragments is not compatible with protecting the
whole picture. An important dimension in striving for a whole picture is time
dimensions (then-now-future/goal). History should not as in some investigative
texts be over-emphasised and allowed to become a hinder."
History
should be included in an investigation but its information must then have
relevance for the purpose of the investigation. Misleading, irrelevant
information that is used to create evidence for the investigator’s opinion of
the client does not add anything to the purpose of the investigation.
5.4.9 Strategy of
referring to unspecified others
The
strategy implies that unspecified "voices" are used to show that
there are others who have noticed what one is describing or have the same
understanding that one has. This is done without there being objective grounds.
Edvardsson (1996b, p.6) writes: "It is nearly trivial to confirm that
information that lacks a personal source or lacks corroboration can not be
directed toward a person when there is a claim to objectivity and ethics."
5.4.10 Presumptive
strategy
Jansson
and Rönnbäck (1995) define the presumptive strategy: "one presumes that
something is true and then seeks signs and arguments to gain further support
for what one presumes." This can mean that the investigator presumes that
the client has different personality features, behaves in different ways etc.
without giving objective grounds for his presumptions. The information is
presented so that the reader can understand it as a truth, which may be the
investigator’s purpose.
5.5 Control and power
strategy
This
strategy implies that the authority claims to control the client’s whole
existence and that the authority exploits its power against the client.
Edvardsson
(1986, p.10) refers to Minuchin, who presents different criteria for control
and exercising power in the family. Minuchin et al. found the following:
When
authorities use total control and power strategies against the client, the
client is forced to what Edvardsson calls counterstrategies, "i.e.
offensive actions to protect himself or win over the authorities."
Examples of counterstrategies on the part of the client in the rhetoric case
are her appeal for discontinuance of LVU care.
The
control and power strategy has different sub-strategies.
5.5.1 Provocative strategy
Edvardsson
(1996, p.131) explains: "Provocation is a method to get adults to say and
do things during the investigation period that can be used against them later.
How investigators or other representatives of the authority have behaved is not
usually included in the text."
A
consequence of the provocative strategy is that the person exposed to
provocation feels wrongly judged and wrongly treated and thus can become angry,
sad etc. This can later be used against them by persons working for the
authority.
"The
authority’s work approach can seem rather aggressive to many people, both as
applies to encroachment and through behaviour and language as well."
(Edvardsson, 1989, p.8)
5.5.2 Strategy of trying to
accuse the client of lying
This
strategy means that persons at the authority make efforts, prepare themselves
and exploit their position of power to "expose" the client for having
lied without having objective grounds for their actions.
5.5.3 Anti-democratic
strategy
The
strategy implies that the investigator ignores the client’s democratic rights
and instead cites the client’s behaviour as evidence that there are psychic
problems, aggression etc.
"The
investigator does not have the right in a democratic society to intimate on the
grounds of his personal or his group’s values that certain normal variations,
e.g. being interested in sports or not liking persons at an authority, would be
better or worse than others. In such a case, there is an ideological activity
in investigative work." (Edvardsson, 1996, p.13)
5.5.4 Strategy of presenting
insulting values and comments
This
strategy implies presenting values and comments that are insulting to the
client.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.14) calls attention to ethical requirements on investigative work:
"To write e.g. negative, specially value-charged statements about someone without
reporting the basis for them can not be considered acceptable from either an
objective or an ethical viewpoint."
"When
language is used as a means to influence our feelings – when it is affective –
it has a strong effect, almost like physical violence." (Hayakawa, 1973,
p.88)
5.5.5 Strategy of restricting
the credibility of others’ opinions
This
strategy means that persons who support the client’s standpoint are removed by
the investigator’s argumentation by restricting their validity. The strategy
also means that the investigator seeks evidence that the client is aggressive,
has psychic problems, is not understanding etc. in order later to refer to the
evidence "found" so that the validity of the client’s opinions is
restricted.
5.6 The social authority
knows best
Below
are described five different strategies through which it appears that the
authorities have an understanding about themselves that they are better than
the client, that they know best.
Edvardsson
(1989, p.14) discovered in his analysis of a case that there was no confession
from the authority at all that information was incorrect or that judgements had
been incorrect or any comments about contradictions, in spite of the fact that
incorrect and doubtful information with resulting incorrect judgements existed
in the social investigation. Edvardsson comments that there was no
self-criticism from persons at the authority. The infallibility syndrome thus
comes out very strongly. Confessing an error would undermine the myth about the
wisdom of the authorities.
5.6.1 Strategy of
emphasising social authorities’ resources
Jäderqvist
(1994, p.15) defined this strategy as "calling attention to the
authority’s resources and withholding the client’s own resources."
It
can be seen in the material examined that the investigators overlook the
client’s resources and instead mention only society’s/the authority’s
resources. Edvardsson (1996, p.61) points out that "Making inventories of
and mobilising resources are more important than making a comprehensive search
for errors and loading investigative texts with negative and trivial
information. Discussing resources with the people involved often leads to
mobilisation of the resources that the person involved has or their surrounding
environment has." Edvardsson (1986b, p.15) concludes that "resource
thinking is strongly directed toward external, formal resources, i.e. the
social service’s ecology is seen as important in terms of resources. Resources
that the individual has and that the individual’s close social environment has
are seen as relatively unimportant." "Investigating people’s own
resources appears in a persecutory context not at all as important as seeking
to document as many weaknesses as possible" (Edvardsson, 1989, p.11)
5.6.2 Strategy of overconfidence
in oneself and others
"In
this strategy, one has an overconfidence in oneself and an overconfidence in
others. One believes in experts without critically examining their statements
and evidence." (Jansson and Rönnbäck, 1995)
Ivemyr
and Lindwall (1995) comment that, in advertising, experts’ statements are used
to give weight to the message. In the same way, according to them, doctors’ and
psychologists’ statements are used in LVU investigations to confirm the
investigator’s judgement.
Möijer
(1989, p. 76) mentions the concept of "belief in authority", i.e.
that listeners want to see the speaker as an authority with reliable expert
knowledge. That which agrees with the listeners’ own ideas is taken entirely to
be true. This probably exists among those who use the strategy of
overconfidence in himself and others.
Jansson
and Rönnbäck (1995, p.24) call attention to Juslin, who feels that "the
phenomenon of overconfidence is showed by an altogether too low firing accuracy
compared with the expressed level of self-confidence, e.g. only 70% correct
when one was 100% sure, only 65% correct when one was 90% sure etc.
5.6.3 Strategy of
exceeding the limits of one’s competence
Jansson
and Rönnbäck (1995, p.46) define this strategy as "not keeping oneself to
one’s professional area but making statements in other professional areas in
which one lacks competence." Edvardsson (1996, p.41) comments
"Reliability is also influenced by competence. It happens occasionally
that investigators without medical or clinical psychiatric/psychological
competence make medical judgements and perhaps even pronounce people sick. An
investigator shall be aware of signs of poor health but refer the judgement to
professionals with suitable competence."
When
an investigator uses a strategy of exceeding the limits of his competence, the
strategy also includes the strategy of overconfidence in himself and others.
The investigator overestimates his own competence, consciously or
unconsciously.
5.6.4 Moralising strategy
The
strategy means that the investigator’s implicit morals occur in the text and
are used as arguments against the client.
"People
living in a democratic society are granted the right to be different, not only
uniformly adapted to the openness ideal that some people cherish."
(Edvardsson, 1989, p.27)
5.6.5 Strategy of justifying
yourself and your actions
This
strategy implies that the investigator(s) have realised that they have used
stronger measures, actions than what was necessary and thus have tried to
justify themselves by saying negative things about the client or blaming the
client.
Edvardsson
(1993, p.20) states concerning the social welfare worker’s documents "that
organisation personnel strongly tend to write in things that justify their own
actions. (…) Motivations that have an effect, but are not socially acceptable,
are not written in."
5.7 Strategy of
stressing one’s own experience
In
this strategy, investigators, officials etc. add their own experiences, feelings,
arguments etc. in order to convince the reader of his own standpoint. These
experiences lack objective grounds. This technique allows for unlimited
fabrication of evidence via the use of the investigator’s emotional life.
Edvardsson
(1996b) describes two different branches,
"Feel-believe-think-experience" culture and gossip culture, which
support one another. The gossip culture, with its careless, verbal transferral
of information, imprecise language and absence of corroborating information,
creates an unreliable foundation. The nature of gossip is also its direction
toward fabricating negative information. The
"feel-believe-think-experience" culture is not only a question of an
unprofessional choice of words. There is often no reasonable objective basis.
It is up to one and all in our country to "feel, think" etc. whatever
they want, but it is suitable to differentiate between relevant states of
things in a family and irrelevant feelings and experiences of an
investigator/official. If an investigator, reviewer etc. feels
"worry" for a child, this is not a state of affairs in the family but
in the person who has given the information. Such comments shall obviously not
be written in journals or in social acts other than possibly as a comment about
an emotional source of error in the investigative work (although it is never
depicted this way).
Edvardsson
(1991, p.171) points out that social bureau investigations and testimonials are
much characterised by prevailing pseudo-objective ways of writing: "The
subjectivity is hidden and attempts are made to get the text to seem as
objective and valid as possible, even if there is both doubt, strong feelings
and values underneath."
The
strategy of stressing one’s own experience has different sub-strategies:
5.7.1 Strategy of making
vague references to experiences
This
strategy implies that investigators, officials etc. present different
experiences to the reader without reporting who has had the experience in
question.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.32) maintains that "Information sources must without exception be
reported for the obvious reason that information shall be able to be checked
and exposed to source criticism by others involved. (…) A piece of information
shall have a personal source or a document source."
"Information
that includes values lacks a truth value, i.e. it can not be determined by the
receiver as true or false." (Möijer, 1989, p.32)
5.7.2 Strategy of
ascribing an experience to the client
The
strategy implies that the investigator/official ascribes the client experiences
and feelings without giving an objective basis for this.
The
strategy is used by the investigator so that he or she will appear to be
understanding and as "evidence" and an explanation for the client’s
behaviour.
5.7.3 Strategy of ascribing
a negative attitude to the client
This
strategy implies that the investigator etc. ascribes the client a negative
attitude without giving objective foundations for this, in order to use this
against the client later on.
5.8 Interpretational
strategy
In
this strategy, the investigator presents interpretations without giving an
objective basis. The investigator’s interpretation is affected by his or her
preconceived ideas, personality, thoughts etc.
"We
see wrong, hear wrong, interpret wrong and remember wrong owing to what we
already have inside us of preconceived ideas. Feelings, habitual thought
patterns etc. and owing to the influence of the social surroundings (group
pressure, uniformity, dependency, so called twisted group thinking)." (Edvardsson,
1993a, p.7)
Anderberg
(1993, p.40) mentions sources of error in witnesses’ statements. This can be
compared with the investigator’s interpretations of events and behaviour in an
investigation. He comments that interpretations are steered by previous impressions
and that "It is obvious that the error that occurs already when we see and
listen and that is later strengthened in interpretation becomes further twisted
when it falls into the machinery of the memory." Anderberg explains that
the twisting is primarily "intensifications" – the events that are
important to the viewer are enlarged – and "evenings-out" – the
events that are unimportant in the person’s world of ideas become smaller or
disappear completely, although they – objectively seen – can be very important.
"These errors take on large proportions when the message is spread
further."
One
of Edvardsson’s (1996, p.13) basic demands for an investigation is that
"conclusions and judgements shall logically fall together with the basic
material presented. If the material allows for alternative interpretations,
these shall be reported. If reasonable foundations are lacking,
conclusions/judgements shall not be given."
The
strategy has different sub-strategies:
5.8.1 Strategy of using
strategic interpretation
Janssons
and Rönnbäck (1995, p.50) define this strategy as "presenting
interpretations that suit one’s own opinions and purposes and thus overlook
other conceivable and possible interpretations."
Sjöberg
(1989) describes different sources of error in human judgements: "It has
been shown that people are strongly affected by their own theories and
hypotheses. A few hypothetical thoughts early in a piece of work can come to
steer completely in the rest of the work so that one shuts oneself off to
alternative explanations. Additional information is not viewed seriously or
excuses are made for it."
In
the strategy of strategic interpretation, there is bolstering (exaggerate of
certain conditions) and de-emphasising (reducing the importance of or
withholding certain conditions) so that an interpretation on which the
investigator has become fixed shall appear to be the right one. In this
strategy, investigators also make the thought error of "imperfecta
enumeratio", which means that facts, circumstances, objections,
interpretations, solutions, resources etc are not fully accounted for.
5.8.2 Strategy of using
signs as evidence
This
strategy means that the investigator "sees" signs in the client which
are used as evidence to show that her hypothesis is correct. This is presented
without providing any objective basis.
Edvardsson
(1996, p.44) points out: "to claim that there are signs of addiction,
anxiety, mental disturbance, problems in relations, sexual abuse etc. without
clarifying the evidence is propaganda, not investigation."
Edvardsson
(p.89) explains the supporting "principle of addition": "With an
interpretation without objective grounds, it is easy to >>show<<
anything one desires, e.g immaturity, mental disturbance, bad home environment,
sexual abuse, by adding trivial (or imaginary) signs (..) One can find trivial
signs for all children and adults, especially if one can influence them through
e.g expectation, provocations".
Edvardsson
(1991, p.203) states "One popular way of persecuting in many cases is to
make higher demands on parents in contact with the social authorities than on
other parents. Various, commonly occurring, normal phenomena are turned into
signs and evidence that are used against the parents.
5.8.3 Strategy of
interpreting everything negatively
Edvardsson
(1989, p.8) defines this strategy: "Certain everyday phenomena become,
when described in an investigation, negatively interpreted depending on the
context and sometimes also depending on the fact that they are diffuse and can
be interpreted in different ways.
Since
the investigator and the readers are inclined to look for shortcomings in the
persons in question, the negative interpretation is often taken for granted.
5.8.4 Negative prognosis
strategy
This
strategy means that the investigator predicts the client's future in negative
terms, and in doing so she obtains an explanation for her own behaviour.
Edvardsson
(1989, p.38) points out: "Our prognoses are affected by our system of
values. (..) Lack of basic critical consciousness leads to theories and
hypotheses becoming dangerous tools of power."
Ivemyr
and Lindwall (1995) explain a trick used to persuade people, which is called
"begging-the-question", i.e. one assumes what is to be proved. This
technique of persuasion would appear to be used by investigators who practise
negative prognosis strategy."
6. DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
Elizabeth
Edner is the single mother of Anne Edner, born February 7, 1990. Elizabeth was
born and brought up in England. She has an elder daughter named Anita, who was
born in 1967. Elizabeth studied at university when Anita was small. In the
seventies Elizabeth moved to Sweden, where she married a Swedish man. She
worked as an English teacher for various adult educational associations.
Elizabeth also studied at university level in Sweden. The couple divorced in
the eighties. Elizabeth moved to Göteborg in 1987.
The
social welfare service in Lundby came into contact with Elizabeth in connection
with the birth of Anne, when the almoner at the Women’s Clinic got in touch
with them. The almoner had information that Elizabeth had undergone care
because of problems with alcohol, and the staff at the Women’s Clinic
understood that Elizabeth lived in isolation.
On
her return home, Elizabeth was given a home sister and home therapist who acted
in the role of parents. The social welfare service was of the opinion that it
was difficult to establish positive and constructive contact with Elizabeth.
Anne was taken into immediate care in October 1990, after Elizabeth had been
found drunk. Elizabeth and Anne were placed in a family clinic, from which they
absconded one week later. Elizabeth made herself unavailable to the social
welfare service for three weeks. In December the Social Welfare Board decided
that the immediate care should cease.
In
January 1991, Anne was taken into immediate care on the basis of an anonymous
report. Anne was placed in a temporary foster home. The social welfare service
was of the opinion that Elizabeth was in need of comprehensive treatment and
was incapable of looking after Anne. According to the decision of the County
Administrative Court of 22 February, 1991, Anne was to be taken into care under
LVU. In July 1991 Anne’s period of settling into a foster home was started.
1.
Actors in the case of Anne Edner
|
Elizabeth
Edner |
mother
of Anne |
|
Leif
Ås |
father
of Anne |
|
Anita Edner |
sister of Anne |
|
Berta Bergvall |
mother-in-law
of Elizabeth |
|
Stella
Ström |
emergency
mother |
|
Ella
Röd |
mother
in the foster home |
|
Kent
Röd |
father
in the foster home |
|
Lena
Grön |
secretary
at KFUM |
|
Jörgen Träd |
Pastor in Partille |
|
Sara
Isaksson |
pre-school
teacher |
|
Bryan
Morris |
Consul
General, British Consulate |
|
Klara
Sen |
registered
psychologist, reg. psychotherapist |
|
Ruby
Harrold-Claesson |
Elizabeth’s
lawyer |
|
Maria
Såg |
home
therapist |
|
Gerd
Svan |
social-welfare
secretary, dealing with case |
|
Gudrun
Malign |
social-welfare
secretary, dealing with case |
|
Henrietta
Harpun |
social-welfare
secretary, dealing with case |
|
Martin
Flis |
1st
social-welfare secretary, head of section |
|
Britta
Flås |
1st
social-welfare secretary |
|
Alun
Näbb |
1st
social-welfare secretary |
|
Bo
Räfsa |
chairman
of the social welfare board, Lundby |
|
Irene
Saltgurka |
vice-chairman
of social welfare committee |
|
Babsan
Orange |
staff,
Västans family welfare clinic |
|
Babsan
Stel |
staff,
Västans family welfare clinic |
|
Klara
Rödgrön |
social
welfare secretary, Birkahemmet |
|
Linnéa Klor |
psychologist, Birkahemmet |
|
Hedvig Appelgren |
therapist at STAC |
|
Frida Blå |
almoner, Sahlgrenska Hospital |
|
Lena Kula |
foster
home secretary |
|
Ola
Kantig |
social
welfare consultant, County |
|
Minna
Lön |
chief
medical officer, Partille adult psychiatric clinic |
|
Jonas
Nöjd |
senior
physician, Sahlgrenska Hospital |
|
Gösta
Holst |
senior
physician, child psychiatric outpatient care |
|
Håkan
Elmén |
paediatrician,
child welfare centre, Lundby |
1990-29-10
Anne
was taken into immediate care under LVU, Para. 6. The reason was, according to
the social welfare service, that Elizabeth had been found drunk. Anne was placed
at Kyrkby children’s home the evening of the same day.
1990-11-07
The
county administrative court confirmed the immediate care order of Anne.
1990-11-09
Anne
and Elizabeth were placed at Västans family welfare clinic.
1990-11-15
Elizabeth
absconded with her daughter from Västans family welfare clinic. The social
welfare service requests assistance from the police.
1990-12-04
Decision
taken to cancel immediate care of Anne under LVU, Para. 6.
1991-01-08
Anne
is taken into immediate care under LVU, Para. 6, and transferred to Birka
children’s home. Anne is taken into care for the reason stated in the report to
the emergency social welfare office, Dec. 28, 1990.
1991-01-10
Anne
is placed in a temporary foster home.
1991-02-22
The
county administrative court consented to the request for LVU for Anne.
Elizabeth and her lawyer appealed against the decision.
1991-05-29
The
administrative court of appeal upholds the decision of the county
administrative court.
1991-07-01
Anne
is placed in a foster home, with the married couple Röd in Fjärås.
1991-08-26
The
social committee decides, with the support of Para, 14, clause 2, that the
visitations between Elizabeth and Anne should be regulated.
February
1992
Elizabeth
requests that the decision be revoked or petitions to have increased right of
visitation with Anne. The request is turned down and Elizabeth appeals to the
county administrative court.
1992-05-05
The
county administrative court does not approve the request.
1992-08-07
Official
statement with report on regulation of right of visitation according to LVU,
Para. 14, clause 2, and report on decision not to reveal Anne’s place of
residence to Elizabeth.
1992-08-17
The
social welfare committee decides to uphold the decision concerning the
regulation of the right of visitation according to Para. 14 and not to reveal
Anne’s place of residence to Elizabeth.
1993-02-19
The
country administrative court does not consent to Elizabeth’s appeal that the
regulation of the right of visitation should be reconsidered. Elizabeth appeals
to the administrative court of appeal.
May
1993
The
social welfare service considers the transfer of guardianship of Anne to the
parents in the foster home.
1993-02-19
Elizabeth’s appeal is not approved. Elizabeth then appeals to the
administrative court of appeal.
1993-09-16
The
administrative court of appeal decides that visitations shall take place once a
month for a period not exceeding 6 hours.
November
1993
Elizabeth
requests that visitations be changed to comprise 3 hours every other week. The
request was denied. Elizabeth does not appeal against the decision.
July
1994.
Elizabeth
requests that care according to LVU with regard to Anne should cease.
13
July 1994
The
chairman of the social welfare committee, Irene Saltgurka, decides to alter the
regulation of the right of visitation between Elizabeth and Anne. From once a
month 6 hours to one period of 3 hours every other week. Elizabeth appeals
against the decision.
September
1994
The
social welfare committee decides to refuse Elizabeth’s request concerning the
revocation of care according to LVU as regards Anne.
1994-09-27
At
a meeting the Lundby urban district council commissions the social
administration to investigate the conditions for transfer of guardianship.
1994-11-01
One
committee member has reservations concerning the decision of the social welfare
committee. He is of the opinion that the minutes have been altered and that he
has never approved of any transfer of care.
December
1994
The
country administrative court rejects Elizabeth’s appeal for the extension of
the right of visitation.
March
1995
Elizabeth
requests an increased number of visitations with Anne.
1995-03-30
The
family home secretary when visiting the foster home: "We talk about it
perhaps being time to open up? We’ll come back to this - not directly negative
according to the family" page from Anne’s records.
1995-09-06
Elizabeth
submits a request through her legal representative Harrold-Claesson, LLM, a
request concerning termination of care according to LVU regarding Anne, or
alternatively, an increased number of visitations between Elizabeth and Anne.
1995-10-23
Official
statement concerning Elizabeth’s request for termination of care according to
LVU regarding Anne.
1995-11-14
Lundby
urban district council, social welfare committee, decides to refuse Elizabeth’s
request concerning the termination
of care according to LVU regarding Anne.
1996-03-08
The
county administrative court decides not to consider the appeal in the right of
visitation issue as the social welfare committee had reached a new decision on
the right of visitation issue on 27 November. The county administrative court
decides to reject Elizabeth’s appeal concerning the termination of care
according to LVU regarding Anne. Elizabeth appeals against the decision of the
country administrative court to the administrative court of appeal.
1996-06-14
Official
report containing declaration to the administrative court of appeal.
Here
follow the texts from the investigations examined to demonstrate the
persecution strategies I have found. Other documents are also cited to clarify
various strategies. It is obvious from the text what documents are meant. The
quotations are italicised, and the headings of the official reports are given
to make them easier to read. Several of the quotations occur repeatedly
throughout the documents, and these are only mentioned once to avoid
repetition.
The
social welfare committee, social welfare secretary Gudrun Malign, applies for
care under Para. 1, second clause and Para. 2, LVU in respect of Anne Edner.
This
investigation comprises 14 pages, plus four certificates/references. The
official report lacks any explicit statement of the issues at hand and testing
of hypotheses. The subjective interpretation of the investigator is confused
with the basic data so that the interpretations appear to be facts. The
perspective of the client is poorly satisfied. No for-or-against testing of
different measures is done. There is no analysis of resources, and only one
care alternative is given. There are no source references for a large
proportion of the facts.
The
investigator’s opinion of Elizabeth comes out clearly in the text through the
rhetorical strategy, which is also one of the general strategies in this
investigation. The investigator has an eloquence that affects the reader in the
direction she desires.
Another
strategy that appears in the text is the strategy of making the client seem
pathological. Elizabeth is described as aggressive, isolated from the world
around her, etc., without the investigator describing when this has occurred.
The investigator makes use of the negative prognosis strategy to emphasise that
the stated care alternative is the right one.
"Current situation"
"She pointed out that she looked after her daughter in the best way
and gave her priority before cleaning and so on."
The
passage contains the strategy of ignoring the perspective of the client. The
investigator makes it sound here as if what Elizabeth says is not particularly
interesting. It is a disparaging abbreviation of a statement.
"On this occasion Elizabeth Edner was comparatively easy to reason
with, but was very anxious and found it difficult to concentrate on one thing
at a time."
In
this passage there is an implication that is difficult to see. The conclusion
that the reader makes is that when Elizabeth is relatively easy to reason with
she is very anxious and unconcentrated. What is Elizabeth like when she is
difficult to reason with? The strategies of insinuation and of making the
client seem pathological appear together. The passage also contains the
positive-negative argumentation strategy, shown by the investigator first writing
a positive statement about Elizabeth and then following this up with two
negative statements about Elizabeth. The reinforcement strategy is apparent in
such a word as "very".
"When the investigator came to Elizabeth Edner’s room at the
children’s home, she was sitting in the child’s cot and her daughter Anne Edner
sat in the junior bed. This situation affected the investigator who was
somewhat shocked. The investigator asked the mother if she and the child had
changed places, but got no answer."
This
information has nothing to do with the investigation but is included to show
something about Elizabeth, through the irrelevant feeling of the investigator.
The strategies of presenting irrelevant information and of stressing one’s own
experience are found. The investigator commits a logical error when she mixes
in her own feeling (affected, shocked) in an objective investigation, or
in the analysis of the family situation. The technique permits unlimited
fabrication of evidence by utilising the investigator’s feelings.
"During the conversation Elizabeth’s mood changed in accordance
with the subject of conversation."
This
is an irrelevant fact. What does the investigator want to show? The comment is
meaningless on account of its vagueness. The investigator is running a great
risk of perceptual distortion.
"The investigator contacted the social consultant Ola Kantig on the
County Council to discuss the matter of 7 Nov. 1990. Ola Kantig thought it was
an insidious situation if Anne Edner were at home with her mother over
the weekend."
This
passage contains the strategies of stressing one’s own experiences and of
presenting irrelevant information. The language is vague and unprofessional. By
the first sentence the investigator implies that there is something of importance
to discuss.
Elizabeth
is informed that Anne might be taken to a temporary foster home:
"Elizabeth Edner was informed of the two alternatives. She reacted
very strongly to the possibility of the child being placed in a temporary
foster home. Elizabeth was upset and desperate. She barricaded herself in her
room with the child for a while."
A
little further down comes:
"Elizabeth Edner was very upset and aggressive on these occasions,
the cause of which being that she was completely sure that she would be going
home with her daughter Anne over the weekend. When the alternative, placing her
in a temporary foster home, was presented to her, she reacted strongly and
hardly dared let the care assistant hold the child for a short while."
These
two passages come from the same page in the investigation and describe the same
situation, but the investigator describes that Elizabeth reacts in two
different ways. How much does the investigator’s description agree with the
facts? There is no admission on the part of the investigator that she herself
is involved and provokes Elizabeth’s reactions. "Upset" and "reacted
strongly" are repeated, which implies repetitive strategy. The
passages contain the provocative strategy. The investigator takes advantage of
Elizabeth’s reactions. If Elizabeth had not reacted "strongly",
it would probably have been cited as a sign of her not caring about the child.
The reinforcement strategy and the strategy of making the client seem
pathological are evident from words such as "very strongly",
"very upset", "completely sure ?" , "she reacted
strongly", "hardly" and "a short while".
"Elizabeth Edner also contacted the children’s doctor Håkan Elmén
whose support she tried to gain by asking him to prevent a possible separation
of mother and child."
The
implication is that it is Elizabeth who made Håkan Elmén wish to prevent a
separation of mother and daughter, and that Elmén is therefore partial when he
gives Elizabeth his support.
"The material existing so far on Elizabeth Edner indicated that the
child ran the risk of suffering because the mother did not provide adequate
care in certain respects. There was, however, no suspicion of Elizabeth Edner
currently abusing alcohol."
The
passage contains the vagueness strategy, the investigator does not explain what
material or what was meant by "certain respects" - the reader
has to work that out for himself. The passage is pathologising regarding
Elizabeth. The last sentence contains no-failing argumentation, which hints
that there has been a reason for suspecting Elizabeth. Why point out something
that does not exist?
"The previous evening, Wednesday, 14 November, 1990, Elizabeth
Edner had been home in her flat on some errand. She returned around 11 p.m.
accompanied by a lady who spoke English. Elizabeth Edner seemed calm and stable
when her companion left."
The
information is irrelevant. The investigator makes use of the uncertainty
epithet "seemed" in a positive statement. The passage contains
the strategy of presenting irrelevant information.
"Elizabeth’s Edner’s contact with the social welfare service in the
Lundby urban district administration"
"The staff at the Women’s Clinic were uncertain of Elizabeth
Edner’s capacity to care for her daughter as she seemed to be in poor mental condition.
She had little chance of receiving relief with practical tasks and having a
rest, as she appeared to live in isolation."
What
does "staff" mean? The source is not mentioned. The strategy
of stressing one’s own experience is revealed by "appeared" and
"seemed to be". Note the technique that the piece of
information "uncertain" is based in its turn of something that
"seemed to be". The feeling of uncertainty forms a special
case of stressing one’s own experience strategy.
"The social welfare secretary Gerd Svan never gained any normal
contact with Elizabeth Edner. Elizabeth Edner experienced the situations when
the social welfare secretary was in her home as threatening and had fits of
aggression against the social welfare secretary so that it was impossible to
carry on a normal conversation."
The
passage contains the strategy of making the client seem pathological and the
reinforcement strategies, apparent in words such as "never",
"was impossible", "fit" and "normal
conversation". Elizabeth stands out as strange and abnormal. The
strategy of persecution by use of the fundamental attribution error is evident.
Alternative explanations, for example, that the personal chemistry between the
investigator and Elizabeth does not function or that the investigator provokes
Elizabeth’s behaviour, are not considered. How does the investigator know that
Elizabeth experienced the visits as threatening? The strategy of ascribing an
experience to the client is revealed. The investigator generalises in that she
writes "the situations" - evidence of the vagueness strategy.
"The social welfare secretary Gerd Svan, who was an investigator in
the matter earlier, has not been able to establish normal treatment contact
with Elizabeth Edner. The reason for this has been that Elizabeth Edner has
felt that the social welfare secretary has not been a support but a threat to
her integrity and independence. Elizabeth Edner has perceived advice and tips
from both the social welfare secretary and the home therapist as reprimands and
has then reacted with aggressiveness."
The
passage contains the strategy of making the client seem pathological, which is
revealed by the strategy of making the client seem peculiar, the strategy of
ascribing an experience to the client, vagueness, and by the use of the term "aggressiveness".
This results in Elizabeth appearing aggressive, abnormal, and as a person
who cannot cope with accepting a friendly action such as "advice and
tips". The vagueness strategy is apparent in the investigator’s use of
the standard term "aggressiveness" with its pathological
connotations. The action of the social welfare secretary is presented as
positive by words such as "support", "advice and tips",
and the reason for the situation is laid at Elizabeth’s door and not at Gerd
Svan’s.
"The social welfare secretary felt that the home visits to
Elizabeth Edner were injurious to the child, as Elizabeth Edner was aggressive
towards the social welfare secretary. This led to the social welfare secretary
reducing the number of home visits to a minimum."
The
passage contains the strategy of stressing one’s own experience; the feelings
of the social welfare secretary are not objective grounds, which means that
objective grounds and precision are lacking. It may, for example, have been the
home visits that were injurious to Anne, not Elizabeth’s protective behaviour
against the social welfare secretary. That the visits could be perceived as
aggressive is not pointed out; the social welfare secretary commits the logical
error "the doctrine of no effect". What does Elizabeth is "aggressive"
mean? Both the vagueness strategy and the strategy of making the client
seem pathological occur. By pointing out that the social welfare secretary
leaves, she does right and Elizabeth wrong. There is a hint that Elizabeth
should understand that she is injuring the child - the moralising strategy and
the scapegoat strategy, in other words.
"Conversations with Elizabeth Edner"
"The reason for the planned home visit was the report Lena Grön had
made on Oct. 8, 1990."
This
information contains the fabulation strategy; an arbitrary stepping up of
earlier information occurs. Earlier in the official report the investigator
writes that Lena Grön had contacted the social welfare secretary at the child
welfare clinic to make an enquiry about Elizabeth’s chance of obtaining help
with household tasks. A report and an enquiry are not the same thing.
"During the conversations the investigator has had with Elizabeth
Edner, she has been, by turns, ready to discuss and hostile towards the social
welfare secretary and others around her. Her lability in these situations may
be a sign of the pressure she has experienced when she has felt herself
to be unfairly treated and powerless in the face of her daughter being taken
into care. It has been difficult to prevent Elizabeth Edner’s aggressive
attacks and get her to listen to the investigator’s arguments."
The
suppression strategy is apparent in that there is no precise definition of what
the investigator means by "arguments". The strategy of
attributing an experience to the client is revealed by the words "pressure
she has experienced" and "felt herself". The
situations referred to are not defined; what does the investigator mean by "others
around her"? The vagueness strategy is apparent. The passage contains
the strategies of making the client seem pathological and making her criticism
seem pathological, which is shown by the description of Elizabeth as labile and
so aggressive and hostile to everybody that it is impossible to speak with her.
"Assessment"
"According to the report from Västans family care clinic, Elizabeth
Edner does not have fixed times for food and rest for Anne. Elizabeth
breast-feeds Anne even when she is not hungry but also to comfort her when she
is fretful for other reasons."
The
moralising strategy is apparent in that the investigator compares Elizabeth’s
breast-feeding with her own implicit ideal, and provides no scientific support
for it whatsoever.
The
investigator and the writers of the reference use the implicit theory strategy:
children should be breast-fed only at fixed times, and for that reason
Elizabeth is treating Anne incorrectly.
The
investigator uses the strategy of gradual intensification. In the report from
Västan’s family care clinic it says: "She is breast-fed frequently and
maybe not only when she is hungry but also when she is fretful for other
reasons". The investigator has deleted the marker of uncertainty
"perhaps" and added "to comfort her". From an objective
point of view, the text could just as easily been written so that Elizabeth
received approval for good care of the child.
"Elizabeth Edner has mental problems that are expressed in the form
of depression and easily aroused anxiety. Elizabeth Edner is very sensitive to
criticism and often experiences that people have a negative attitude towards
her, according to Dr. Morgan at the Partille adult psychiatric clinic. In
recent years Elizabeth Edner has not been treated for the mental problems but,
according to Dr. Morgan, Elizabeth Edner has felt that she has failed in life,
and then the mental problems have been intensified."
Dr.
Morgan writes in his medical certificate; "Pat. has been troubled by
depression and easily aroused anxiety since adolescence". Morgan does not
write anything about "mental problems that are expressed" in
different forms. Here the investigator makes use of the fabulation strategy and
the strategy of gradual intensification to reinforce the certificate’s
inference of a pathological condition. Morgan writes: "often
experiences people as having a negative attitude towards her"; the
investigator changes as having to "that have". Morgan
then writes: "During our contact 1986 to 1987 the pat. was often
depressed. She thought that life felt as if it had ended and that she had
failed. Her mental problems were intensified." The investigator interprets
the text in her own way, and gets it to sound as Elizabeth thinks that she has
failed in life and that is why the mental problems have become worse.
Repetitive strategy is apparent in that the phrase "mental
problems" is repeated three times.
"Elizabeth Edner’s behaviour in the situations in which she feels
under pressure is characterised by fits of aggression when she is so upset and
occupied with her own thoughts that it is difficult to have any conversational
contact with her at all. The social welfare secretary Gerd Svan has experienced
such situations on her home visits, when she has concluded that it was not
meaningful to try starting any conversation with Elizabeth Edner."
What
situations are meant? There is lack of precision and the vagueness strategy is
evident. The passage contains the strategy of making the client seem
pathological, apparent in that the social welfare secretary has concluded that
it is not meaningful to talk with Elizabeth, because Elizabeth has fits of
aggression, is upset and egocentric and is difficult to gain contact with. We
find the strategy of ascribing the client an experience without stating any
grounds in facts. The strategy of making the client’s criticism seem
pathological is apparent in the way the investigator dismisses Elizabeth’s
criticism, pleading as an excuse that Elizabeth is too "aggressive".
"The investigator has seen Elizabeth Edner’s behaviour during these
outbreaks of aggression and not succeeded in getting her to listen to reason.
It has then concerned the taking into care of her daughter Anne and a possible
separation of mother and child."
The
passage makes the client seem pathological; "outbreaks of
aggression" may be a question of a reaction that suits the situation.
The vagueness strategy is apparent. This is the investigator’s assessment of
behaviour. Generalising and evaluative concepts such as, e.g., aggressiveness,
should be replaced by the actual state of things. The investigator disregards
her own impact, "the doctrine of no influence" (cf. Edvardsson, 1996)
probably describes the investigator’s way of thinking.
"The pattern in Elizabeth Edner’s behaviour is, in the
investigator’s view, that her negative attitude to people often results in
every detail stated being understood by Elizabeth Edner as criticism or
accusations. Elizabeth gets upset about what she understands as criticism and
then becomes so aggressive and ruthless in the way she expresses herself that
she forgets Anne in the meantime."
The
strategy of persecution by use of the fundamental attribution error is apparent
as the investigator does not consider alternative interpretations of
Elizabeth’s behaviour, but draws the conclusion that it is Elizabeth’s
personality that makes her react as she does, and that it cannot depend on the
situation.
In
the investigator’s conclusions the strategy of making the client seem
pathological is also seen. How does the investigator know that Elizabeth has a
negative attitude towards people? Here we find the strategies of ascribing a
negative attitude to the client and ascribing an experience to the client.
The
above statement has no basis in fact, since there are no details of the events
referred to, and the vagueness strategy is apparent. The negative synonym
strategy is evident in that the investigator writes both "aggressive"
and "ruthless". The generalisation strategy is evident when
the investigator writes "the pattern in Elizabeth Edner’s behaviour
is".
"Elizabeth Edner had problems with alcohol in the eighties which
were very serious at times so that she needed treatment. She was treated under
LVM (The Care of Alcoholics and Drug Abusers Act) for two months in 1986 at
Scheléegården for her alcoholism."
This
is mentioned earlier under the heading "in conclusion there are the
following facts about Elizabeth Edner", and is an example of
repetitive strategy. The strategy of presenting irrelevant information is evident,
as the historical information is irrelevant in the context and is included just
to remind and influence the reader. The reinforcement strategy is apparent in
the words "very serious". In the last sentence in the passage
the word "alcoholism" is repeated and built on - the full-stop
could have been put after "Scheléegården".
"Elizabeth Edner has not expressed any insight into how her
intoxicated state the day Anne was taken into care had a negative effect on her
daughter."
The
strategy of calling attention to non-existent facts, i.e. of mentioning
behaviour that did not occur, seems here to have arisen from an underlying
conception on the part of the investigator.
"During the period of investigation up to 15 Nov., 1990, when
‘Elizabeth Edner absconded from Västan, the investigator was of the opinion
that Elizabeth Edner was not prone to drinking alcohol in order to become
intoxicated."
What
does the investigator mean? The passage is difficult to understand and leaves
the reader to interpret the content himself. This is evidence of the
non-deficiency argumentation strategy.
"Elizabeth Edner has mental problems that are expressed mainly as
easily aroused anxiety and great sensitivity to criticism. She has a negative
attitude to the people around her (…) The investigator’s opinion is that Anne
Edner runs the risk of being harmed by Elizabeth Edner having mental problems
that lead to Elizabeth shutting out other adults from her life."
The
investigator is making use of rhetorical strategy together with the strategy of
exceeding the limits of her competence. The investigator is not qualified to
draw the conclusions she does, with its negative prognosis strategy. The
strategy of overconfidence in oneself and the strategy of ascribing the client
a negative attitude can be seen. The passage is an example of the strategy of
making the client seem pathological. The generalisation strategy is revealed in
that the investigator writes "has", "is", etc.
"Elizabeth Edner’s instability may affect her relationship with her
daughter in that Anne Edner may come to lead a life of insecurity and
uncertainty as the mother is incapable of meeting the different demands that
the child will make as she grows up. Anne Edner needs to be given the
opportunity to make social contact with adults outside the family and also
other children."
Every
child needs to be given the opportunity to make social contacts. Instead, the
investigator should have pointed to concrete situations that make it impossible
for Elizabeth to provide social contacts. The rhetorical and pathologisation
strategies are found here. The passage reveals the strategy overconfidence in
oneself and others and the strategy of exceeding the limits of one’s
competence. The investigator writes "Elizabeth’s Edner’s
instability" .. in what respect .. in relation to the investigator?
The generalisation strategy is evident. The negative synonym strategy is seen
in the words the investigator writes: "insecurity" and "uncertainty"
- the second word does not add anything to the facts. The passage is an example
of the negative prognosis strategy, since the investigator uses a
"may" technique for making negative prognoses, focusing on negative
future possibilities.
"Anne Edner also runs the risk of being damaged emotionally because
the mother Elizabeth Edner shows low/little tolerance towards people in general
and easily withdraws and isolates herself when she feels she is being
criticised."
This
is the investigator’s view, and the strategy overconfidence in oneself and
others is evident. The negative prognosis strategy is seen when the
investigator exceeds her authority by claiming that Elizabeth has low tolerance
towards people in general, and that this constitutes a risk to Anne. The
investigator contradicts herself when she, time and time again, writes that
Elizabeth is aggressive, eccentric and looks for support from people she does
not know, and then, as in the above passage, that Elizabeth easily withdraws
and isolates herself when she feels that she is being criticised. Furthermore, the
basic frequency in the general population of withdrawal on being criticised
should be significant.
The
repetitive strategy is evident in the passage "assessment" as
the word "risk" occurs in eight different contexts, and the
word "runs" occurs five times.
This
official report is an application for a compulsory care order for Anne Edner.
The investigation comprises 18 pages, plus a reference and four
statements/reports. The official in charge is Gudrun Malign.
There
is no explicit statement of the problem, and for and against testing of
alternative solutions does not occur. The perspective of the client is poorly
satisfied.
The
vagueness and insinuation strategies come out clearly in this investigation.
The investigator lapses into arguments that contain little fact but a great
deal of her own opinions. Quantitative strategy is evident in that the
investigator repeats much from the previous investigation and in that
irrelevant information has been included.
"Present situation"
"The investigator had already booked a time for a home visit to
Elizabeth Edner for January 2, 1991, but had received a written message that
she would not be home that day. However, the investigator made two attempts to
carry out the home visit with the section manager Martin Flis on that day but
without success."
Why
were two attempts made to carry out the home visit when Elizabeth had sent a
message that she would not be at home? The passage contains the total control
and power strategy and the strategy of trying to accuse the client of lying.
"On January 3, 1991 the investigator contacted Ramona Miles, who
helped the reporter to make the actual emergency report regarding Anne Edner’s
home conditions. Miles states that the reporter said that Elizabeth Edner
breastfed Anne for short periods even though she was not sober. There was no
food at home and the reporter bought a pizza and was worried what the mother
would do when the child cried."
On
a supplementary page marked Elizabeth, the following is to be found concerning
the conversation with Miles: "He was very upset about the conditions in
the home for the sake of the child. Elizabeth was not sober and nursed the
child for periods of 30 seconds, thought it was enough (…) The man changed the
child’s nappy as he thought it was needed, he had by the way never changed a
child’s nappy before. The man was mostly worried about what the mother would do
when the child cried when she herself was not sober and very agitated. He was
afraid that she would "go beyond the limit" (…) There was no food at
home so the man bought a pizza, which the child was allowed to eat."
I
refer to Bo Edvardsson (1996, p.67), "If it is obvious that a report is
not based on fact, it should be written off. It is important that a report be
carefully documented and that the ones who make it are requested to give
precise details and descriptions of the situation.(…) No value can be ascribed
to information in anonymous reports until they have been checked in another
reliable way.(…) The past and present relationship of the reporter to the
reportee should been enquired into as a matter of routine to reveal if there is
any disqualification or hidden motive."
The
investigator makes use of the strategy of gradually suppressing details when
she rewrites the reporter’s version for the official report, and commits the
logical error of taking things out of context.
The
strategy of ignoring the perspective of the client is found here in that
Elizabeth’s version is not included in the official report. Great importance
was attached to this report in the decision made on January 3, 1991 about
taking Anne into immediate, compulsory care.
"The material so far available on Elizabeth Edner implied that the
child was at risk because the mother lacked in caring for her daughter in some
respects."
The
vagueness strategy comes out in that the passage has no precise details at all,
which also makes it irrelevant information. The passage does not have any
connection at all with the rest of the text in the paragraph "present
situation". The insinuation strategy is seen in that the investigator
hints at something that the reader has to interpret for himself.
"Conversation with Elizabeth Edner"
"The investigator presented the causes for concern regarding Anne Edner’s
development. Elizabeth Edner’s unstable mental health and the social isolation
that Elizabeth Edner is understood to be living in. Elizabeth Edner appears to
have an over-strong symbiotic bond with her daughter considering Anne’s age,
and it can have an unfavourable effect on Anne Edner’s emotional
development."
The
passage contains rhetorical strategy, revealed in the words "causes for
concern", "unstable mental health", "an over-strong
symbiotic bond", "unfavourable".. "emotional
development", which together are well formulated to get the reader to
conclude that it must be true. Nothing concrete is said about what is referred
to. The investigator is exceeding the limits of her competence when she makes
the diagnosis about a symbiotic bond between mother and daughter. Anne was one
year old. The strategy of making the client seem pathological is apparent in
the passage through words such as "causes for concern",
"unstable mental health", "social isolation", etc. The
strategy of making vague references to experiences is seen when the
investigator writes "is understood".
"Assessment"
"It is likely that Anne Edner runs the risk of being harmed by the
mother Elizabeth Edner’s mental instability, her low tolerance in relation to
other adults and the risk of her abusing alcohol when she feels under
stress."
The
passage makes Elizabeth out to be pathological. The investigator repeats what
was previously written in the official report, by making use of the negative
prognosis strategy. The investigator makes use of rhetorical strategy to
persuade the reader to believe what she writes. What the inattentive reader
does not notice is that the investigator uses three markers of uncertainty. "likely
runs the risk" does not really say very much, and the same applies to
the statements "risk of being harmed" and "risk of her
abusing alcohol when she feels under stress." What is meant by a
"risk" that is based on another "risk"? The text is
unfathomable.
"It has been established that Elizabeth Edner has been inebriated on
three occasions, 29 October, 1990, 27 December, 1990 and 3 January
1991, that her condition could have damaged the health and development of Anne
Edner. These situations are the basis for the immediate care order that
has been carried out."
The
passage contains the vagueness strategy, which is revealed by the lack of
precision regarding the situations meant, and by the fact that the sources of
information are not given. An inattentive reader probably does not bother to
check the facts, and thus cannot discover the lying strategy that the
investigator uses. The most recent decision regarding taking in charge was made
on 3 January, 1991. In the report dated 7 January 1991, the investigator writes:
"On 4 January 1991 the pastor in Partille Jörgen Träd rings to the
investigator and tells her that he was with Elizabeth Edner the evening before.
(…) Edner was inebriated but was able to walk according to Träd (…). It is
judged on the grounds of the on duty report 28 December 1990 and Träd’s
observations 3 January 1991 that there was a considerable risk of Anne Edner’s
health and development being damaged in the home. With the above background the
decision to issue an immediate care order according to paragraph 6 was made on
3 January 1991."
The
investigator refers to Träd’s observations as if they were the reason for the
care order even though she did not receive the information until the day after
the decision had been made about the immediate care order.
"there are clear signs that Elizabeth Edner is not capable of
handling stress situations and daily setbacks in a constructive way."
What
"clear signs"? The passage is imprecise and makes the client
seem pathological. The vagueness strategy is apparent. The investigator
generalises; on what factual grounds does the investigator base her statement?
"With regard to the emotional relationship between Elizabeth and
Anne Edner, there is a strong and warm contact between them. What appears
strange is that Elizabeth appears to a large extent to use the closeness and
bodily contact with her daughter for the sake of her own security. Because of
this strong bond, it has not been possible to gradually tone down this
fundamental and early symbiosis for the child, which is normal for a child in
the second year of its life. It is probable that the strong symbiotic bond
between mother and daughter can suppress Anne Edner’s ability to express her
own needs to the mother."
Here
are found the strategies of positive-negative argumentation and of making the
client seem pathological. The first part is positive but is then followed by
the suggestion that Elizabeth uses their relationship for her own needs. The
investigator’s conclusions exceed the limits of her competence, since what the
investigator suggests has not appeared in any certificate. On what factual
grounds does the investigator base her conclusion? The investigator makes an
interpretation without any concrete basis. The passage also contains rhetorical
strategy. The reinforcement strategy is shown in such words as
"strange", "to a large extent", "strong" and
"probable".
The
investigator uses the negative prognosis strategy when she asserts that
Elizabeth and Anne’s relationship "can" suppress Anne’s
ability to express her needs to her mother; there is no factual basis. By using
the word "appears", the investigator makes uses of the
strategy of making vague reference to someone’s experience.
"lack of routines for food and rest is probably a sign of Elizabeth
Edner’s emotional lability, and this impairs the child’s chance of a harmonious
daily rhythm."
The
investigator is exceeding the limits of her competence when she makes use of
the strategy of strategic interpretation and the exaggeration strategy. An
example of another possible interpretation is that the infant Anne does not
"allow" routines when she is at Västan’s Family Care Centre. The
passage has a pathologising tone with respect to Elizabeth.
"Care plan"
"As regards Elizabeth Edner’s attitude towards care in an
institution with her daughter, there are conflicting messages, since she says
that most of all she wants to be with her daughter and that it does not matter
where they are. On the other hand, Elizabeth Edner says that she doesn’t like
being in institutions."
The
investigator’s interpretation of "conflicting messages" has
the effect of making the client seem pathological and provides fabrication of
evidence. The only thing that Elizabeth is reported to have said about care in
an institution is that she "she doesn’t like being in
institutions". It is not obvious that Elizabeth included the
institution in the first utterance referred to.
7.3 Official report 1991-04-08
This
official statement is a report to the administrative court of appeal in respect
of an appeal submitted by Elizabeth Edner and her representative. The investigation
comprises 19 pages, plus five appendices containing official report from
310191, three certificates from various people, and an opinion. Gudrun Malign
was the official in charge of the investigation.
The
perspective of the client consists of a negative description of Elizabeth’s
background, and there is no description of Elizabeth’s resources. The problem
analysis done by the investigator is slanted so as to reinforce the
investigator’s viewpoint. It contains irrelevant, negative facts about Elizabeth,
and the investigator’s subjective, emotionally charged interpretations.
Criticism of the sources of information is lacking, and there is no
presentation of the issues in question.
The
general strategies are collecting negative historical events of little or no
relevance, rhetorical strategy and quantitative strategy. The investigator
launches into long arguments where she makes use of, i.a., the strategies
positive-negative argumentation, making the client seem pathological, negative
reinforcement and the rhetorical strategy.
"Elizabeth Edner’s background"
When
Elizabeth appealed against the judgement of the county administrative court to
the administrative court of appeal, the social committee made a counter-move
with the help of the social-welfare service. The investigator introduces a
supplementary background description, 2½ pages long, where "the
information is mainly derived from the material that formed the basis of an
application from the county administration in 1986 for care according to the Care
of Alcoholics and Drug Abusers Act for Elizabeth Edner". On these
pages there appear trivial facts about Elizabeth that may have been included in
order to denigrate Elizabeth. Here the investigator includes 11-year-old facts
without stating the source or indicating the person/s who provided the
information. Here we find the strategy of collecting negative historical events
of little or no relevance.
"Elizabeth Edner reacts strongly to alcohol and has shown
pathological alcohol reactions. She has completely changed her personality,
become aggressive, gives vent to her feelings and lost all control. She has
behaved in a destructive way and broken things." Nothing is said about who supplied
this information, or where it came from; the vagueness strategy is used. "completely"
and "all" are signs of fabulation and constitute a negative
reinforcement strategy. The strategy of collecting negative historical events
is found.
"On several occasions there were scenes in Elizabeth Edner’s flat
when she broke window panes and other objects. The police were summoned to her
flat on several occasions. In the autumn of 1985 Elizabeth Edner was prosecuted
for drawing a knife on a man."
I
ask myself here what does several occasions mean and what occasions are
referred to? The wording is vague, no details are given. The strategies of
presenting irrelevant information and collecting negative historic information
are found.
"During this period Elizabeth Edner rang round to the hospital, the
social welfare board, the social emergency service, the police and even at
night to the home of Ward physicians and other staff at the hospital."
These
are old, irrelevant facts; here are the strategies of presenting irrelevant
information and collecting negative historic information.
"Elizabeth Edner tried to commit suicide with the help of tablets
and was driven to The Eastern Hospital’s ICU in a state of tablet and alcohol
intoxication. In that situation the health service declared that it had
exhausted their possibilities of giving Elizabeth Edner the required
treatment."
Who
made this statement on behalf of the health service? There is no reference to
sources. The vagueness strategy is seen here in that no details are given.
Elizabeth
submitted a complaint about the way her case was handled by the social-welfare
service in Partille to the county administration in Göteborg and Bohus county.
"The
county administration examined the handling of the case but decided 23.03.1988
to dismiss the case without taking measures. In their decision, the country
administration mentions that "the difficulties the staff on the social
welfare board had had in their contact with Elizabeth Edner had also occurred
in the country administration’s contact with her."
Here
the investigator takes up information about Elizabeth from before the time Anne
was born and holds her to blame - the collecting historic negative information
strategy. The statement implies that many "others", not only the
social-welfare service but also the county administration, think that Elizabeth
causes problems - the strategy of referring to unspecified others. The
investigator applies the strategies of presenting irrelevant information and of
exploiting and exaggerating events.
"Elizabeth
Edner has lived in Göteborg since 1987. As far as is known, she has not had any
contact with psychiatric care during this time. There was, however, very
limited information about how Elizabeth Edner’s relationships have been during
this period."
Here
the investigator hints that even if there is no information that Elizabeth did
not have contact with psychiatric care, Elizabeth probably had problems all the
same. The word "however" is especially indicative - the
strategy of exaggeration is found.
"Present situation"
"Linnéa Klor and Rödgrön declared that they felt that altogether
Elizabeth Edner’s reactions during the period of investigation and in the past
week were indications that she was too mentally unstable to be able to
completely involve herself emotionally with her child, even in the long run. They
were of the opinion that Elizabeth Edner feels extremely strong anxiety on
certain days, and then she does not see her child’s needs but is blinded in her
anxiety."
There
is no factual basis for this. The experiences of the social secretary and the
psychologist do not form a factual basis for deciding whether Elizabeth can
take care of Anne - here we have the strategies of stressing one’s own
experiences and of making the client seem pathological. The passage contains
the strategy of using signs as evidence, no alternative interpretations are
considered, for instance, that Elizabeth is under stress during the
investigation period. The investigator commits a methodological error by
ignoring the time before the investigation - what was Elizabeth like then? The
passage also contains the exaggeration strategy, as evident in the words "extremely",
"too" and "blinded". The negative prognosis
strategy comes out when the investigator writes "in the long run".
The last sentence contains a triple minus and rhetorical strategy (extremely
strong anxiety", "does not see her child’s needs", "blinded
in her anxiety".)
"This behaviour of setting fire to things in the home worried
Rödgrön and Klor further when it was repeated for the third time."
Klor’s
and Rödgrön’s anxiety does not form a factual basis, which means that it is
irrelevant information. The strategy of stressing one’s own experiences is seen
in the text. No details are given of the situations in question.
"To be encouraged in her emotional and social development, Anne
Edner must be associated with adult deputy parents in a calm and harmonious
home environment. (..) Elizabeth first needs to undergo profound therapy to be
able to take care of her child in a satisfactory way."
The
passage contains rhetorical strategy and the strategy of making the client seem
pathological. The word "must" makes it appear that it is a
matter of urgency to take Anne from Elizabeth, otherwise bad things will happen
- the strategy of insinuation.
The
insinuating strategy also appears in the way the investigator implies that
Elizabeth cannot offer Anne a "calm and harmonious home
environment". It is not the investigator’s task to predict whether
Elizabeth needs therapy or not - this is the therapy strategy.
"Klor and Rödgrön also thought that Elizabeth Edner was in such a
poor mental state that it was necessary for a doctor to assess whether she
required hospital care."
So
the investigator contacted a doctor on call, who judged that Elizabeth was not
psychotic and therefore did not write out a certificate saying that Elizabeth
was in need of institutional psychiatric care. This occurrence is an example of
the total control and power strategy.
"Anne Edner needs to be placed in a family home to be able to grow
up under secure and harmonious conditions. The time perspective is, however,
unclear as one does not know how long Elizabeth Edner’s own development towards
a more stable and secure person will take."
The
investigator utilises the insinuating strategy by hinting that Anne is not
secure in Elizabeth’s care and that it is only the social-welfare service that
can offer Anne a good home. The passage contains rhetorical strategy as shown
in the investigator’s words "secure and harmonious conditions"
and "development towards a more stable and secure person",
which both contain a double plus. The latter excerpt also contains the strategy
of making the client seem pathological, since it is implied that Elizabeth must
develop and that "one" does not know how long it will take.
The strategy of using the impersonal form is shown in the investigator’s
reference to "one".
"Elizabeth
Edner was pleased about coming to the boarding house Linnea but her mood
was unstable and she felt bothered by simple questions about her name and
address."
How
does the investigator know how Elizabeth feels? The information has the effect
of making the client seem pathological, and we see the strategy of ascribing an
experience to the client. The positive-negative argumentation strategy is seen
in the way the investigator first writes "pleased" (single
plus), then "unstable" and "disturbed by simple
questions" (double minus).
"Elizabeth Edner wanted to know what was expected of her, and the
investigator replied that she must work on the defects in her own personality,
such as lack of trust and confidence in the people around her. Edner did not
seen receptive to the investigator’s arguments as she was very upset and
anxiety-ridden."
The
investigator explains the purpose of the placement in a foster home and that
Elizabeth "must" work on her defects. A normal reaction to
such information is to be upset. The investigator uses this against Elizabeth.
The provocative strategy and the strategy of making the client seem
pathological are evident.
On
an additional page about Elizabeth, dated 120391, it states, "I return to
the need for Elizabeth to work on her own emotional disturbances before she and
Anne can live together." The investigator avoids describing the course of
the whole conversation to appear in a better light. The strategies of
withholding information and gradually suppressing details are found. I also ask
myself how the investigator can remember so much of the conversation when what
is written in the official statement is not described in the addendum? There is
nothing written about Elizabeth not being receptive to the investigator’s
argument or explanations about what defects of personality are meant. This is
the strategy of gradual intensification.
Conversation
between the investigator, Lena Kula, Klara Rödgrön and the ‘temporary mother’:
"The foster home ought to be capable of tackling the relations and
contacts with Elizabeth Edner. The question of finding a suitable family for
Anne Edner is a minor problem." The insinuating strategy consists of
hinting that Elizabeth creates such great problems that finding a suitable
family for Anne is less important.
About
the time when Elizabeth locks herself in a toilet with Anne:
"When the policeman comes and knocks on the door Elizabeth Edner
comes out with the child. After this dramatic event the visits were cancelled
for the following two days to make it clear to Elizabeth that she had exceeded
the limit of what was allowed in her treatment of her daughter."
The
authorities make use of the total control and power strategy to punish
Elizabeth by cancelling visits. This means that Anne, who is not allowed to see
her mother for two days, is also punished.
"The investigator is of the opinion that Edner’s repeated
description of Svan’s and Såg’s clothing "they came in black clothes like
black witches" are delusions that are caused by Edner’s strong
anxiety."
It
is normal for people to add pictures to be able to describe a thing/situation
better, for instance, black as pitch, hungry as a wolf. Language full of metaphors
is accepted, i.a. in literature and probably authors are not full of "strong
anxiety" when they write in that way. Here the investigator tries to
make it a sign of delusion, which is an example of the strategy of making the
client seem pathological. Here we find the logical error, imperfecta
enumeratio, i.e. incomplete enumeration/consideration of causes,
interpretations, etc. The exaggeration strategy is shown in the arbitrary
interpretation. The information contains presumptive strategy, Elizabeth is
presumed to suffer from anxiety.
"Other contacts during the period above"
"Bryan Morris of the British Consulate-General has been contacted
by Elizabeth Edner and has helped her in various ways to put forward her views
to the investigator and head of the section."
The
investigator is using the insinuating strategy. The investigator implies that
Morris follows Elizabeth’s lead entirely and has no opinion of his own, and
that Elizabeth needs help to put forward her views.
"What characterises the contacts above and also other conversations
the investigator has had with the staff at Birkahemmet is that Elizabeth Edner
supplies some facts and omits details, to different people. This has brought
with it the risk that different people can be played against each other because
they have not had access to information."
Here
the investigator implies (insinuating strategy) that Elizabeth goes round to
people and deliberately hides information so that she herself may be seen in a
better light.
"Analysis/assessment of the problem"
"The concern for Elizabeth Edner’s situation that was expressed by
the Women’s Clinic, combined with what was known of Elizabeth’s background,
meant that it was judged as important to be able to make contact with Elizabeth
Edner and to be able to offer her support and help in various forms."
The
passage contains the strategy of stressing an experience/a feeling in that the
investigator writes that the Women’s Clinic felt "concern". The
phrase "what was known" is unspecific and a double minus. A
double plus is seen when the authority describes itself, "support"
and "help". The investigator uses an impersonal strategy by
writing "it was judged" without mentioning the subject.
"As far as can be judged, Anne Edner appears to be a normally
developed little girl, so that there is reason to believe that Anne Edner’s
first period with her mother has been good and functioned well, and that
Elizabeth Edner has managed the care of her daughter in a good way.
However, there are elements in Elizabeth’s way of caring for her
daughter and of managing her life as a single mother that are, and have been,
strange, and that have led to intervention on the part of the
social-welfare service."
The
investigator uses the positive-negative argumentation strategy; first comes the
positive information, then follows the negative information about Elizabeth. In
the positive information the investigator uses words indicating uncertainty
("as can", "appears", "believe", but not
in the negative. Here we have the strategy of selective use of words indicating
uncertainty. The last part contains the vagueness strategy, since nothing is
written about what is meant by strange elements, but it is left to the reader’s
imagination.
"The fact that Elizabeth Edner had an extremely negative attitude
towards contact with the social welfare service at first is, of course, not
something she should be blamed for. Naturally, the social welfare service has
to accept that people sometimes do not wish to have any contact, and that they
show an negative attitude to social workers. What is strange about Elizabeth
Edner’s behaviour is her strongly aggressive attitude and her sudden aggressive
outbursts against the social secretary in charge of the case. The fact that her
aggressiveness has been given full vent when the child has been in her
immediate neighbourhood, even in her arms, does not make everything less
strange."
In
this passage the investigator fabulates when she says that Elizabeth was very
negative to the social welfare service at first, since Elizabeth agreed to both
the home sister and the home therapist. The investigator appears to be
understanding, and (claims that) the social welfare service certainly accepts
people’s attitudes, but that Elizabeth’s behaviour, in particular, is not acceptable.
The strategies of making the client seem peculiar and of implying that the
client’s criticism stems from the client’s pathological condition are seen
here.
The
passage contains moralising strategy: one should not be aggressive towards an
official and not in the presence of children, and the hammer strategy, where
the investigator points out that Elizabeth is aggressive three times, "strange"
twice. The negative reinforcement strategy is seen in the use of the words: "extremely
negative", "of course", "naturally .. has",
"strange" (twice), "strongly aggressive", "sudden
aggressive outbursts", "full vent" and "even".
"Elizabeth
Edner has later shown that she is very unstable, and that can get sudden
aggressive outbursts. It seems that Elizabeth Edner finds it difficult to
control her feelings, and she therefore sometimes behaves impulsively, for
instance, with sudden fierce anger. This appears to be one of her personal
characteristics, which sometimes makes it difficult for her to come into
contact with other people."
The
investigator has in no way shown that this makes contact with anyone else
besides the investigator difficult. How does the investigator know this? The
strategy of making the client seem pathological by making her behaviour seem
too intense is shown in the words "very unstable", "sudden
aggressive outbursts", "difficult to control", "sudden
fierce anger", "makes it difficult", etc.
"An isolated life does not in itself signify any immediate risk
that Anne Edner could fare badly (…) As Anne Edner grows older, however, her
needs will change, and she will increasingly need to have contact with other
children and adults to develop in a good way.
Elizabeth Edner’s social isolation and limited contacts with the world
around her stand out as one of her peculiarities, and may perhaps also be
regarded as a result of the difficulties Elizabeth Edner has and which make her
a special person with an eccentric personality. There is reason to fear that
Elizabeth Edner would not be able to satisfy Anne’s need of independent
contacts and relations with both children and adults. A limited and perhaps
even an isolated social life would be harmful to Anne Edner and affect her
development in a negative way."
What
factual basis is there for "There is reason.."? No details are
supplied. The passage contains positive-negative argumentation strategy, as the
investigator first writes that an isolated life does not signify any risk to
Anne and then points out that Elizabeth’s isolated life and Elizabeth’s
personality are harmful to Anne.
The
passage also contains the negative synonym strategy in that the investigator
writes "social isolation" + "limited contacts" (double
minus) and "special" + "eccentric" (double minus),
which explain the same phenomenon. The phrase "affect her development
in a negative way" adds no more to the case than "harmful to
Anne Edner" has done. The investigator also combines the exaggeration
strategy with the strategy of making the client seem peculiar, as evident in
the words "peculiarities", "special",
"eccentric". The investigator takes it utterly for granted that
Elizabeth lives an asocial life and that it harms Anne, which shows the
negative prognosis strategy linked to the implicit theory strategy. The
investigator indirectly admits that she is speculation in her use of such words
as "perhaps" and "may perhaps". The way the
investigator writes is an example of rhetorical strategy.
"On several occasions in the investigative material it has appeared
that it has often been very untidy and messy in Elizabeth Edner’s home. This
has been observed both by officials from the social welfare service and by
other people visiting Elizabeth Edner."
The
passage generalises, what "occasions" are referred to, how
many times is "often", what does "very untidy and
messy" mean, who are the "other people"? Since no
details are given, we have the vagueness strategy here. Words such as "often",
"very", "both" are part of the negative reinforcement
strategy. "On several occasions" and "often" are
a double minus. When the investigator writes both "untidy" and
"messy", she is using the negative synonym strategy, the
second word adds little. The strategy of referring to unspecified others
appears in the investigator’s mentioning that other people have observed the
same thing as she has. The passage continues:
"It should be emphasised that a messy and untidy home does not
naturally in itself signify a danger to such a small child as Elizabeth Anne
Edner or is anything that could form a basis for intervention by the social
welfare service.
Furthermore, the fact is that the degree of disorder and how tidy a home
is are extremely seldom anything that is mentioned or commented on in such
situations. When they are referred to, the reason has usually been that the
conditions have been rather extreme in character. In Elizabeth Edner’s case,
one has to regard the fact that the disorder in her home has been mentioned on
several different occasions as a signal that Elizabeth Edner does not quite
have the same energy as other people or cannot manage to keep her home in a
more or less cosy state without at times letting it deteriorate into a mess
that other people react to. The underlying reasons are difficult to see, but
one could anyway probably understand it as evidence of Elizabeth Edner being in
a state of mental imbalance."
The
passage contains positive-negative argumentation and the strategy of exploiting
and exaggerating events. First the investigator excuses herself for taking up
Elizabeth’s house-cleaning by explaining that it was extreme in character and
that otherwise it wouldn’t be mentioned. This gives the strategy of making the
client seem peculiar together with the hammer strategy, where the investigator
hammers in that Elizabeth is peculiar, extreme, etc. Then comes the blackening
of Elizabeth’s character, when the investigator uses impersonal strategy to
underline that she is not the only one of this opinion, e.g. "one has
to regard the fact" and "one could anyway probably".
The
investigator claims that how tidy a home is not usually taken up in "such
situations"; here I refer to Bo Edvardsson (1997), who says it
is common for the social welfare service to take up lack of tidiness in a home
and using it against the client.
The
investigator also uses the negative synonym strategy, in "messy" +
"untidy", "the degree of disorder" + "how tidy a home
is", the second adds nothing to the argument. Reactions from others
apart from those concerned are not relevant in an investigation, so "that
others react to" is both irrelevant and non-specific - who are the "others"?
The strategy of referring to unspecified others is evident in that the
investigator exploits "other’s" reactions and points out that
it has happened on several different occasions to impress her opinion on the
reader.
Finally,
the investigator puts forward the fact that Elizabeth, who is a single mother
with an infant, has an untidy flat is a sign that Elizabeth is in a state of
mental imbalance. This is an arbitrary interpretation, exceeding the limits of
her competence, and a vague conclusion implying that many people in Sweden are
mentally imbalanced. The investigator ignores the basic rate of having an
untidy home and other explanations.
Furthermore,
the passage contains contradictions, evident in the words ‘"difficult
to see" and "one could probably anyway". The
vagueness strategy is seen in the lack of precision regarding the occasions or
circumstances referred to, which means that there is no factual basis for the
interpretation. The passage contains moralising strategy; the investigator
hints at her moral standpoint in her use of the "loaded" word "deteriorate"
.
"During the investigations that the social welfare service has
carried out, Elizabeth and Anne Edner have been observed together. One has
noticed a strong and warm emotional relationship between them. However, it has
been understood that Elizabeth to some extent uses the closeness and bodily
contact with her daughter for the sake of her own security, which is strange,
and in the long run something that could make a normal positive development
considerably more difficult for Anne Edner."
The
first part of the passage is positive, but is followed directly by the claim
that Elizabeth exploits Anne by having too strong and emotional a relation
between them; positive-negative argumentation strategy and the strategy of
making the client seem pathological are evident. The passage also contains a
fabulation strategy, since in no reference or certificate has it appeared that
Elizabeth uses their relationship for her own security’s sake - there is no
foundation in fact. If the investigator has not obtained the statement from any
certificate, this is a matter of exceeding the limits of one’s competence. Further,
I ask who is/are "one"? Here the investigator uses impersonal
strategy by writing "However, it has been understood" without
specifying the subject.
The
argumentation "in the long run" contains the negative
prognosis strategy. When the investigator puts forward her own interpretation
with the word "strange", she is using the strategy of
stressing her own experience. The strategy of gradually suppressing details is
evident, as a similar statement is found in the official statement of 31
January 1991, but there the formulation is "to a large extent" instead
of "to some extent". What made the investigator change her
mind? The change indicates that the first version was a fabulation or that the
investigator thinks that it is too obvious what she wants to bring out.
"Elizabeth Edner’s instability with sudden and strong aggressive
outbursts, her social isolation and difficulties in contacts with other people,
her inability to look after her home, and the fact that she has been
intoxicated together constitute circumstances that provide grounds for fearing
that Elizabeth is not capable of taking good care of Anne Edner. These
different factors that have been regarded as strange in Elizabeth Edner’s way
of living and looking after her daughter must in the view of the investigator
be linked with Elizabeth Edner’s background and to the mental problems and
difficulties she has had earlier. The investigator believes that Elizabeth
Edner’s behaviour may be seen as evidence that her previous problems still
remain, and that she has in no way worked on them or overcome them."
The
passage contains the strategy of making the client seem pathological, as seen
in the words "sudden and strong aggressive outbursts" (also an
example of the strategy of making the client’s behaviour seem too intense),
" is not capable", "inability", "mental problems and
difficulties", " in no way worked on".
The
multi-minus strategy is seen in the way the investigator attributes Elizabeth 6
negative characteristics in the first sentence. The investigator regards it as
a fact that Elizabeth "has difficulties in contacts with other
people" when it is her own interpretation (interpretation strategy).
The investigator’s conclusion "must be linked" does not allow
any alternatives and exceeds the limits of her competence.
"It should also be pointed out that what is stated above concerning
Elizabeth Edner and her way of looking after her daughter are mainly
circumstances that existed before the intervention of the social welfare
service in October 1990, and what immediately led to these interventions.
Elizabeth’s reaction and behaviour in these respects cannot be explained by her
being shocked by what has been done by the social welfare service when
Elizabeth and Anne Edner have been separated."
The
social welfare service implies (insinuating strategy) that they have no
influence at all on Elizabeth’s handling or the intervention; the strategy of
justifying oneself and one’s actions is seen. It would appear to be a
counter-move to Elizabeth’s appeal against the judgement of the country
administrative court.
"Since October 1990 the social welfare service has worked
intensively in this matter. One has tried to accommodate Elizabeth in various
ways and thereby create opportunities for co-operation with her,"
The
investigator uses the contrast strategy with a favourable description of the
social welfare service (triple plus), which makes Elizabeth appear in a
negative light. This may be interpreted as coming from the "we and
they" mentality of the social welfare service.
The
investigator explains the grounds for the application for care according to the
Care of Young Persons Act submitted after Anne was placed in a temporary foster
home: "Elizabeth Edner has had mental problems for many years, which
today are expressed, among other things, in great mental instability, with
sudden aggressive outbursts and a tendency to allow herself to by governed by
impulses in her behaviour. She lives in social isolation and has difficulties
in contacts with other people. Periodically she finds it difficult to look
after her home and sometimes abuses alcohol. Altogether Elizabeth Edner appears
to be a person with a highly individual personality, leading to difficulty in
adjusting to what are regarded as commonly accepted norms. These mental
problems and peculiarities of Elizabeth Edner and her periodic abuse constitute
circumstances whose consequences are that Elizabeth Edner lacks in her care of
Anne, and that there is therefore a risk of injuring Anne Edner’s health and
development. These risks exist both in the short-term perspective, primarily
because Elizabeth Edner abuses and is not capable to taking care of Anne Edner.
There is a very obvious risk of injury in a more long-term perspective, as
Elizabeth Edner’s tendency to live in isolation, her sudden aggressive
outbursts and her inability to distinguish and give priority to her daughter’s
needs before her own will have a definite effect on Anne Edner’s life, the
older Anne Edner becomes, and the greater the demands she has. Altogether, it
can be said that Elizabeth’s mental problems are of such a nature that they
will influence and mark her daughter’s life in a negative way, and that there
is therefore an obvious risk that Anne will be injured."
The
care application is not included in the appendices, which makes it impossible
for me to check from where the original information was obtained. I have talked
to Elizabeth Edner’s legal representative Ruby Harrold-Claesson on 970119, and
she assumes, as I do, that the above is a summary of earlier material, etc.,
that the social welfare service has had access to. The investigator’s style of
argumentation and use of rhetorical strategy is displayed throughout the
passage, where she summarises everything negative she has and feels about Elizabeth.
The summary contains several different strategies, the one of making the client
seem pathological, seen in the investigator’s description of Elizabeth as
aggressive, impulsive, mentally unstable, incapable of looking after Anne,
having problems of abuse, living in social isolation, etc. The multi-minus
strategy is shown in the way the investigator mentions 17 negative
characteristics, including repetition.
The
passage is a clear example of the strategies of making the client seem too
intense and seem peculiar. These are evident in words such as: "sudden
aggressive outbursts" (twice), "impulses", "highly
individual personality," "peculiarities", "difficulty in
adjusting to ..accepted norms". The negative prognosis strategy comes
out when the investigator predicts that Anne risks being injured in the
short-term perspective, and there is a "very obvious risk of
injury" and "obvious risk" from Elizabeth being as
she is. The investigator commits the logical error of having overconfidence in
our own judgement. The passage contains clear examples of the negative
reinforcement strategy, the hammer strategy and repetitive strategy, all
working together. They are seen in words such as: "for many
years", "great mental instability", "strong aggressive
outbursts", "highly individual", "risks",
"injured" (twice), "risk", "very obvious",
"injury", "needs" (twice), "sudden" (twice),
"definite effect", "obvious risk",
"difficulty" (three times), etc. There is no precise reference in
the passage to what events are meant. How does the investigator know that
Elizabeth has difficulty in contacts with other people? The strategy of
overconfidence in oneself and others is seen.
Elizabeth
was about to make a study visit to a clinic when she found out that it also
accepted HIV-positive clients - she left the train before it departed.
"The investigator considered that one should show some tolerance of
the fact that such information may be difficult for Elizabeth to accept, and
that it may affect her attitude to the Södra Målen clinic. The investigator
believes, however, that this situation serves as yet another example of the way
Elizabeth Edner allows herself to be governed by impulses, and that she all of
a sudden overthrows what has been planned for a long time."
First
comes the positive information that the investigator is understanding, then
follows fabrication of evidence by means of the implicit theory strategy -
Elizabeth’s behaviour being seen as evidence of impulsiveness with the
implication that she is a trouble-maker, especially for the person/persons the
investigator calls "one".
The
investigator commits the logical error imperfecta enumeratio (no
alternative interpretations are made) in the strategy of interpreting
everything negatively. An alternative interpretation could be that Elizabeth
made a risk assessment.
The
passage contains the strategy of making the client seem too intense, evident in
"allows herself to be governed by impulses" and "all
of a sudden overthrows", i.e. Elizabeth is presented as unpredictable
and erratic. Elizabeth should not be blamed for not wishing to take her
one-year-old daughter to a clinic where HIV-positive persons are admitted,
since the people of Sweden have freedom of opinion. This illustrates the
strategy of implying that the client’s criticism stems from the client’s
pathological condition.
"The picture of Elizabeth Edner and her problems has changed as one
has had the opportunity to get to know her better and see how she functions in
herself and with her daughter. Situations have arisen at the visitation times
at Birkahemmet where Elizabeth Edner has behaved strangely and in a way that
has not been good for Anne.
Today another assessment has been formed on the part of the social
welfare service and Birkahemmet than the one previously existing."
The
investigator does not specify what situations are meant; the vagueness strategy
and the rhetorical strategy are seen, making it necessary for the reader to
decide himself what "behaved strangely" means. This emphasises
the implication that the more "one" gets to know Elizabeth,
the more one understands that she has serious problems and behavioural patterns
that are not good for Anne, and that is why another assessment is formed. The
strategy of insinuation is evident. The expression "Elizabeth has
behaved strangely" is part of a hammer strategy that is intended,
together with other parts of the investigation, to make Elizabeth appear
mentally ill, strongly aggressive and different.
"Elizabeth Edner is assessed to be in need of comprehensive and
penetrating therapeutic treatment to be able to overcome her own mental
problems."
Nowhere
in the text is there any reference to the person who made this assessment
(impersonal strategy), so I draw the conclusion that it is the investigator
herself who has formed this assessment. The investigator is not qualified to
assess who should have therapeutic treatment or not, or how "comprehensive"
the need is. This exemplifies the strategy of exceeding the limits of one’s
competence and the therapy strategy. The passage contains the negative synonym
strategy; "comprehensive" and "penetrating" being
synonyms.
"Naturally, it is to be regretted that the care plan has been
changed, and it is highly understandable that Elizabeth Edner has reacted to
this. It is the opinion of the investigator, however, that the form of the care
plan was determined by the knowledge of Elizabeth Edner that initially existed
and on the basis of the picture of her problems that has been formed later, and
that the present altered care plan is the result of that picture of the person
Elizabeth Edner and the further circumstances that have occurred and that have
changed the picture of her problems."
The
passage contains the strategy of positive-negative argumentation and the
scapegoat strategy, since the investigator first regrets that the care plan has
been changed, saying that she understands Elizabeth’s reactions, then goes on
to imply that it is Elizabeth’s own fault. I assume that the doctrine of zero
influence has influenced the investigator’s argumentation. The passage is an
example of the strategy of making the client seem pathological and of the
rhetorical strategy. The vagueness strategy is seen in that the investigator
does not explain what "circumstances" are meant, and what picture
of Elizabeth is referred to.
"To this may be added the behaviour and reaction that Elizabeth has
shown recently and which the investigator considers underline and reinforce the
assessment previously made that Elizabeth has her own mental problems and
peculiarities that are of a serious nature, and that require much work for her
to be able to function in a good way, both in herself and in her role as mother
of Anne."
The
investigator exceeds the limits of her competence when she decides what mental
problems are of a serious nature and need "much work" - the
therapy strategy is seen. The passage contains the reinforcement strategy and
the strategy of making the client seem peculiar, as evident in the words: "underline",
"reinforce", "peculiarities", "serious nature"
and "require". What does "recently" mean?
Specific information is lacking.
"Naturally, one should take into account that a mother is strongly
affected by being involuntarily separated from her child, and consequently
reacts in a chock and desperate state. This is what could be described as
normal and generally applicable for people in similar situations to Elizabeth
Edner’s.
The investigator is of the opinion, however, that some of Elizabeth Edner’s
reactions fall outside what is generally applicable and that, instead, they
reveal her mental problems and special individual character. As an example of
this can be mentioned the situations where she has set fire to her flat, that
she has rung to the members of the social welfare committee and staff at the
social welfare office at home and begged to have her daughter back, and she has
repeatedly telephoned the chairman of the social welfare committee, Irene
Saltgurka, including a number of times at night, and when she has not got hold
of Irene Saltgurka, asked the said person’s son for help in getting Anne Edner
back, that she has visited the administrative section of the urban district
office and asked people entirely unknown to her for help, and that she has sent
postcards and letters to members of the committee, enclosing photographs of her
daughter that, in Elizabeth’s view, show how badly her daughter has fared when
taken into care.
This reaction, which appears desperate and boundless must be seen as
expressing Elizabeth’s peculiarities as a person."
In
this passage, the investigator stands out as positive and understanding about
the behaviour of mothers in care cases, but that the reaction of the client is
too desperate and boundless to be considered normal, an example of
positive-negative argumentation strategy. In her explanation, the investigator
puts forward irrelevant information that is more acceptable because it is used
in explanation, evidence of rhetorical strategy. What is meant by "the
generally applicable"? Irrelevant information about the investigator’s
perception of Elizabeth. The positive-negative argumentation strategy is very
difficult to detect, and if you read quickly without paying attention, you do
not notice the blackening of the client’s character, which contains the
reinforcement strategy with such words as: "however", "falls
outside the generally applicable", "mental problems",
"individual character", "peculiarities", "desperate
and boundless", (the last two are part of the negative synonym
strategy). The passage entirely lacks specific facts and there is no date. The
passage contains the strategies of making the client seem pathological ("mental
problems", "falls outside the generally applicable",
"desperate", "boundless") and peculiar ("falls
outside the generally applicable", "individual character",
"peculiarities").
The
passage also contains antidemocratic strategy, since the committee members
appear to have no office telephones and it is a democratic right to contact politicians.
The idea in the text appears to be that one should not make use of one’s
democratic rights or act democratically in one’s own defence. If this happens,
then there are mental problems and desperate reactions. The investigator’s
implied morals, that one should not ask complete strangers for help, write
letters to or show family snapshots to committee members, also come out in this
passage (= the moralising strategy).
The
investigator uses the strategy of persecution by use of the fundamental attribution
error when she says that Elizabeth’s reactions must be seen as an expression of
Elizabeth’s peculiarities as a person, and denies that it may have something to
do with the intervention of the social welfare service in Elizabeth’s
situation, or that it is crisis behaviour.
"On no occasion has she expressed any insight into the need of care
that the social welfare service considers to exist. Rather, Elizabeth Edner’s
attitude has been that she will agree to anything to pacify the social welfare
service, and that the important thing is being allowed to be with Anne.
Elizabeth Edner has also seen the intervention of the social welfare service in
her life as the main cause of her problems. Consent based on such an attitude
is not the kind of consent required for care to be given on a voluntary
basis."
The
passage contains the strategy of restricting the credibility of others’
opinions and the strategy of justifying oneself and one’s actions. The validity
of Elizabeth’s consent is restricted by referring to the investigator’s view
that Elizabeth does not have any insight into the need of care that the social
welfare service believes to exist. The investigator assumes that her own
standpoint is the right one. The strategy of overconfidence in oneself and
others is seen. Elizabeth’s views are used to "define away" her
consent, and the strategy of making the client’s criticism seem pathological is
evident.
"The investigator is also of the opinion that Elizabeth Edner has
shown, by her reactions concerning the plans for staying at the Södra Målen
clinic, that it is impossible to give credit to her consent. There is always a
risk that the agreements will be broken off abruptly because of Elizabeth
Edner’s sudden impulsive changes of opinion."
The
suppression strategy comes out in this passage, since the investigator does not
explain why Elizabeth changed her mind about staying at the clinic.
As
a result of Elizabeth not wishing to be with her child at Södra Målen because
they admit HIV-positive clients, the investigator says that it is impossible to
give credit to Elizabeth’s consent. The investigator uses Elizabeth’s opinions
to invalidate her consent; the exaggeration strategy and the strategy of
restricting the credibility of others’ opinions work together here. The hammer
strategy and the strategy of making the client’s behaviour seem too intense are
seen in the words: "broken off abruptly", "sudden",
"impulsive". The investigator uses the strategy of interpreting
everything negatively. An alternative interpretation is that Elizabeth analyses
the problem, and that her reaction is an appropriate one.
"Summing-up"
"Elizabeth Edner was the subject of various treatment measures in
psychiatric care during the 1980’s. This has undoubtedly contributed to a
reduction in her alcohol consumption."
The
passage contains a clear example of the insinuation strategy. The investigator
hints that Elizabeth herself has not made any contribution towards reducing her
alcohol consumption. How does the investigator know this? There is no factual
foundation for the statement.
The
investigator commits the logical error of overconfidence by writing "undoubtedly"
when it is just a matter of guesswork. The passage is self-promotion on the
part of authority, implying that Elizabeth would be incapable of reducing her
alcohol consumption without them. The strategy of strategic interpretation (for
persecution) is evident.
"The social welfare secretary Gerd Svan offered Elizabeth Edner
various forms of assistance, including contact with a home therapist. It was
Svan’s intention to support Elizabeth in her parental role and personally by
means of conversational contact However, Elizabeth refused these measures as
she thought she had no need of personal support or suchlike."
What
the investigator does not relate is that Elizabeth agreed to have the home
sister that Gerd Svan offered her, and that she also agreed to a home
therapist. By withholding this information, the investigator makes Elizabeth
appear in a poorer light than would otherwise have been the case.
"Svan felt that Elizabeth Edner was very strange in her behaviour
and points to, among other things, her extreme aggressiveness and that she did
not take her young child into consideration when she gave vent to her strong
and negative feelings."
The
strategy of making the client seem peculiar comes out in the words: "very
strange" and "extreme aggressiveness". The strategy
of stressing one’s own experience is seen in "Svan felt". The
passage also contains a contrast strategy; "young child" is
used as a contrast to the reinforcement strategy, where Elizabeth is painted as
a monster by means of such words as "very", "extreme",
"strong". No factual grounds are given, nor any reference to a
specific time.
"This assessment is based on Anne Edner’s need to be in a calm and
harmonious home environment where adult people with a mature and stable
emotional life can foster her. Elizabeth Edner is judged to be incapable of
satisfying the growing needs that Anne will have as she develops and gets
older."
It
is implied that the social welfare service can give Anne everything that
Elizabeth cannot give, and according to the investigator that is a lot,
illustrating the insinuation strategy and the strategy of emphasising the
resources of the social authorities. This text contains rhetorical strategy
very reminiscent of the jargon of politicians, such as, for example: "growing
need", "calm and harmonious home environment", "need",
"develop". The passage contains the negative prognosis strategy
and the negative synonym strategy (calm + harmonious, mature + stable). Another
strategy that appears in the passage is the one of making trivial statements in
a negative context, which easily gives the reader an implicit negative meaning
regarding the mother. Every child needs to be in a calm and harmonious home
environment, not just Anne, which makes this a trivial piece of information in
an investigation. The text also contains the strategy of making the client seem
pathological, when the investigator implies that Elizabeth is not capable of
satisfying the child’s needs, and that Elizabeth does not have a mature and
stable emotional life.
This
official report concerns the considerations concerning Elizabeth’s right of
visitation with Anne. The investigation comprises four pages. The person
handling the official report is Henrietta Harpun. There is no explicit question
at issue. The official report lacks an analysis of resources and arguments for
and against. The control and power strategy is clearly evident in the text.
"Elizabeth Edner’s situation"
"Elizabeth never started at Domen Art School (…) It may be possible
for her to start after Christmas instead, but she doesn’t know."
The
passage contains the reinforcement strategy when the investigator uses "never",
and she contradicts herself when she then points out that Elizabeth may
possibly start the course later.
"Elizabeth Edner’s situation and the relationship between Elizabeth
and Anne"
"Elizabeth writes lots of postcards to Anne. The foster home usually
collects the cards together and gives Anne a few at a time."
There
is no explanation anywhere of why the foster home uses this power strategy.
Possibly this is a way of delaying the information to the child. It may also be
a way of mixing information on the same occasion so that some information is
not so obvious. This action is a violation of integrity at the cost of Anne,
because she it is not likely that she would choose to receive the cards in
batches.
This
official report concerns Elizabeth’s petition about the withdrawal of the care
order, or alternatively, extending the right of visitation. The investigation
comprises 20 pages, plus 7 appendices. Henrietta Harpun is the person in charge
of the investigation.
The
investigation appears to be a loose collection of old investigations,
containing the opinions of the former social welfare secretary, which are
confused with the opinions of the new social secretary. The investigation
contains old, irrelevant information on Elizabeth and there is no explicit
question at issue.
A
general strategy that comes out in the text is quantitative strategy. The
investigation is similar to the phenomenon Edvardsson (1996, p. 19) calls
"naivistic collage of cuttings", which means: "The
investigations in most cases lack the questions at issue and information of
varying quality is collected, sometimes rather haphazardly - and is pasted
together."
The development of the case within the social welfare service at Lundby
up to July 1991"
"On the part of the social welfare service, it was assessed that it
was difficult to establish positive and constructive contact with Elizabeth,
whose moods frequently swung back and forth. Elizabeth was sometimes very
irritated in her conversations with the social welfare secretary and sometimes
had sudden aggressive outbursts."
The
passage contains the strategies of making the client seem too intense and
pathological. There is no basis in fact, since there are no details of, or time
reference for, the events mentioned.
"When Anne was six months old three separate reports came in within
a short period. The reports showed serious shortcomings in Anne’s home
conditions. The reports were made partly by two persons close to Elizabeth,
partly by a pre-school teacher at the open pre-school. At the time of all three
reports Elizabeth was inebriated, and there was serious anxiety concerning
Anne’s situation and fears whether Elizabeth manage to look after Anne in a
satisfactory way. These events led to Anne being taken into immediate care in
October 1990."
The
vagueness strategy is evident in that the investigator does not specify who
made the reports and when they occurred. I have reached the conclusion that the
persons meant were Sara Isaksson, Berta Bergvall and Lena Grön.
The
investigator uses the fabulation strategy when she writes that Elizabeth was
inebriated at the time of the three reports. In the first place, Grön submitted
an "enquiry whether it was possible for Elizabeth Edner to get help
with household chores" (official report 1990-11-28) to a social
welfare secretary at the Children’s Welfare Clinic; an enquiry is not the same
thing as a report. In the second place, there is no mention anywhere that
Elizabeth was inebriated at Kerstin’s and Elizabeth’s dinner in the four
previous official reports, or in the material I have access to. Neither is
there any reference to Lena Grön’s assertion: "serious anxiety
concerning Anne’s situation", or that she had "fears
whether" Elizabeth looked after Anne, as the passage implies. The fact
that the investigator does not explain the three reports in more detail
indicates that exaggeration strategy has been used.
"At the end of December a report came into the emergency office in
Göteborg about Anne and Elizabeth. According to the person making the report,
Elizabeth was intoxicated and in bad shape. The reporter was anxious about
Anne."
The
vagueness strategy is evident in this passage. No details are given of the
person who made the report, the time of the report or its contents. Someone has
written "anonymous" before "report" by hand.
"When the plans took a more concrete form later through a study
visit to the Södra Målen clinic, Elizabeth backed out at the last moment. She
did not come along when she and the social welfare secretary were supposed to
take the train to Nässjö."
The
investigator does not explain why Elizabeth backed out, that she did not wish
to stay with her child at a place where HIV-infected clients were admitted: the
suppression strategy.
"Included in the assessment was the picture of Elizabeth’s problems
that evolved more and more. It was primarily through the contacts of
Birkahemmet with Elizabeth that the picture became clear. It was obvious that
Elizabeth’s own needs were of such a comprehensive character that a treatment
aimed at strengthening her role as a mother was not sufficient. Elizabeth’s
need of treatment was considered to be of another character and of such a
nature that her own emotional needs would be satisfied. It was not considered
favourable for Anne’s emotional and social development to enter into treatment
together with Elizabeth when the treatment was focused on the child."
The
impersonal strategy is evident in the lack of a subject in many of the
sentences, e.g. "was considered", "it was not
considered". The investigator uses rhetorical strategy, shown in the
words: "aimed at strengthening her role as a mother was not
sufficient". What does this mean? The last sentence contains the
rhetorical and vagueness strategies, in that the investigator states that a
treatment focusing on the child would not benefit Anne. What factual basis does
the investigator have for this conclusion? The negative prognosis
strategy is also seen in the implication that Elizabeth’s problems "just
go on growing".
"During the whole of the spring Elizabeth gave vent to her
desperation and sought support from various people. (..) She also rang to
various officials in the administration to give vent to her anger and
disappointment."
The
passage makes the client seem pathological; Elizabeth appears desperate,
aggressive and unable to manage on her own without the support of "various
people". It is the investigator’s interpretation that Elizabeth rang
in order to "give vent" to her feelings. Elizabeth’s purpose could
have been another. Here we have the strategy of using strategic interpretation
and making the client’s criticism seem pathological.
"Elizabeth Edner’s adolescence/family situation/ housing"
"Elizabeth’s parents took care of their grandchild (Anita) a great deal as Elizabeth
was busy with her studies."
It
is hinted that Elizabeth did not have time for her first child. The information
is of no relevance to the present investigation. This is an illustration of the
strategy of collecting historical events of little or no relevance.
"Elizabeth Edner’s health/abuse of alcohol"
"Again care in accordance with LSPV ( ) in May 1991."
The
passage is reinforced with the word "again".
"She also rang to a lady in Scarborough, England, and talked
incoherently about her child that had been taken into care in Sweden."
The
passage contains the strategies of presenting irrelevant information and of
making the client seem pathological. It should be noted that the basic rate of
incoherent language in the population is probably high.
"Throughout the autumn Elizabeth continued to act in desperation
and behave in a chaotic and anxious way. Thanks to her actions the people
around her understood Elizabeth to be in a poor mental state."
How
does the investigator know what the people round about think? The strategy of
referring to unspecified others and the vagueness strategy are evident. The
reinforcement strategy is shown in the words: "throughout the
autumn" and "continued".
"Anne Edner’s situation and her needs"
"Like all other children, Anne needs care and security. She has
need of stable adults who can give love and closeness and accept Anne Edner’s
love. She needs to be in an environment that provides stimulation and
encouragement so that she can develop harmoniously. Anne Edner also needs
parents who can set limits in a loving way."
The
passage is an example of rhetorical strategy, the investigator describes what
all children need. The implication is that Elizabeth cannot satisfy these needs
Anne has.
"In her relationship with Elizabeth, Anne needs to feel secure. She
gets this security from the parents in the foster home."
The
investigator implies that Anne does not feel secure with Elizabeth. What
grounds does the investigator have for implying this?
"Meetings between Elizabeth and Anne"
"Despite the circumstances that have occurred with Elizabeth as
regards periods in hospital in the area of Göteborg and other areas, the social
welfare service in Lundby has made efforts to bring about meetings between
Elizabeth and Anne (..) Elizabeth has periodically issued threats against the
foster home, but despite this, the family has helped to see that the meetings
have occurred as planned."
The
passage is an example of the strategy of emphasising the resources of the
social authorities. The scapegoat strategy is evident in the implication that
Elizabeth causes problems that the social welfare services has to sort out. The
vagueness strategy is seen in the lack of precision regarding the events/periods
referred to.
The
reinforcement strategy is shown by the word "despite",
which is used twice. The passage illustrates the strategy of suppressing
information, since there is no mention anywhere in the report of Elizabeth’s
version of the complaints of threats.
"In July 1994 the social welfare service accommodated Elizabeth by
changing the meetings from six hours once a month to three hours every other
week. Elizabeth had been asking for such a change for some time. The decision
was based, not on Anne’s needs but exclusively in accordance with Elizabeth’s
wish for more frequent meetings."
In
this passage, it is made clear that the social welfare service certainly
does meet Elizabeth’s wishes. The strategy of emphasising the resources of the
social authorities is seen. How can the investigator know that Anne has no need
of meeting her mother more often?
"Assessment"
"Many people have involved themselves on Elizabeth’s behalf and
done a lot to help her. Many have turned to the social welfare office to try
and help Elizabeth in the contacts concerning Elizabeth. Today, it is so, as
far as we know, that most of these persons are no longer in Elizabeth’s
company".
Here
the investigator wishes to imply that Elizabeth has received great help from
outside, but has in some way lost that help for reasons that the reader has to
work out for himself. The investigator does not describe the "Many
people" in detail, except that they are people Elizabeth has turned to
herself, in other contexts, and person at care institutions: evidence of the
vagueness strategy. If Elizabeth has received help from so many people, then
the investigator should describe these services, instead of ignoring the
client’s resources.
"The most recent medical certificates, during and after forensic psychiatric
care, have in no way treated the question of whether Elizabeth’s condition can
be judged as such that she can take care of Anne Edner. The certificates show
that Elizabeth has improved during the period of institutional care and that
the improvement has been maintained."
Here
the investigator sweeps aside the validity of the medical certificates that
present positive information about Elizabeth: the strategy of restricting the
credibility of others’ opinions is seen.
"In the opinion of the social welfare service, this must be
understood in such a way that Elizabeth also has inadequate insight into her
mental problems and a lack of confidence in the possibility of receiving
treatment for her problems."
The
reinforcement strategy is seen in the word "must". If
Elizabeth does not have insight into her mental problems, how can she at the
same time believe that it is not possible to get help for her problems? The
passage is contradictory.
"In the contacts with Elizabeth Edner, Elizabeth still shows that,
when she gets agitated or in a state, she has difficulty in considering Anne
and her needs. She is then full of her own feelings and acts accordingly and
seems to completely forget Anne. There is nothing in Elizabeth’s behaviour
towards the social welfare service that indicates that she has changed or
overcome her difficulties. She is still occupied with the care order concerning
Anne and the events in connection with that. It is difficult to hold a
conversation with Elizabeth, who quickly gets into a state, starts shouting and
gets desperate. It is also important to point out that Elizabeth’s present
stability has lasted for a very short period compared with the long period of
mental illness she has behind her."
The
investigator is trying to disqualify Elizabeth’s medical certificates stating
that Elizabeth is well: the strategy of restricting the credibility of others’
opinions. The reinforcement and repetitive strategies are seen in the words: "get
into a state", "completely forget", "nothing",
"still" (twice). "full", "quickly gets into a
state", "very short", "long period".
The
passage makes Elizabeth appear pathological, since the investigator believes
that Elizabeth cannot satisfy Anne’s needs, that she is difficult to have a
conversation with, that she forgets Anne because of her feelings, that she gets
into a state and is desperate, that she has incorrigible difficulties and has a
long history of mental illness behind her.
"State", "shouting" and "desperate" make a triple
minus but describe the same behaviour; the strategy of using negative synonyms
in other words. The generalisation strategy is evident in the way the
investigator describes Elizabeth’s behaviour in certain situations as if it was
always like that.
"The doctors who have recently expressed an opinion regarding
Elizabeth have only made a statement concerning the questions of visitations.
In the view of the social welfare service, it is important to point out that
these assessments have only been made on the basis of Elizabeth’s situation and
needs. The doctor treating Elizabeth has not had any knowledge of Anne and her
situation."
The
passage contains the strategy of justifying oneself and one’s actions and also
the strategy of restricting the credibility of others’ opinions. By pointing out
that the doctors are not aware of Anne’s situation, the social welfare service
are "right" to ignore the medical certificates. The doctors may have
considered a child’s need of contact with its parent. The emphatic "only"
may be incorrect.
7.6 Official report 1996-06-14
This
official report is a opinion to the administrative court of appeal regarding
the appeal Elizabeth has submitted. The report extends to 12 pages and three
appendices. Henrietta Harpun is responsible for the report. Specific questions
at issue are lacking. The investigator’s interpretations and arguments are
presented as facts. The report illustrates the strategy of over-confidence in
oneself and others.
"Anne Edner’s circumstances during the time in care"
The
investigator refers to a certificate, dated 950324, from Klara Sen,
psychologist and therapist, requested by the social service office. The
psychologist met Anne and Ella Röd in the foster home on three occasions during
March.
"Klara Sen goes on to say;" The assurance in Anne’s behaviour
in the home is further evidence of the bond that exists with the foster home.
Klara Sen concludes that Anne has sufficient resources to create an inner
picture of her biological mother. Anne has, according to Klara, a very good
bond with the foster home and she expresses a definite will to live in the
foster home. Klara Sen also interprets part of the test results to mean that
Anne needs to be clear as to where she belongs.."
Why
does the psychologist not meet Anne together with Elizabeth at any point? It
should be obvious to the psychologist that the relationship between Anne and
Elizabeth should be observed when they are together if the certificate relates
to the transfer of care to the foster home. In the certificate it comes out
that the psychologist asks Anne questions about who she likes best, where she
wants to live etc. in the presence of Ella Röd. Children of pre-school age are
easy to influence, especially with leading questions. An additional factor that
can also influence Anne is that the foster mother is also present at the
interview. I refer to Anita Cederström (1996, s.205) :
"1.
Children of pre-school age are more sensitive to suggestion than older
children; accordingly, the younger the child, the greater the sensitivity.(…)
3.
(…) –Interviewers who ask non-leading questions, who do not have an already
established point of view from the outset, that is to say without favourite
hypotheses, do not repeat closed, yes/no and choice questions, have a greater
possibility of achieving correct descriptions.
-Interviewers
who are tolerant, non-judgemental and who do not create demand situations (for
example, by showing certain answers are rewarded) have the greatest possibility
of achieving correct descriptions.
A
leading question is formulated in such a way that there is an expectation of a
specific answer built into the actual question. Trankell (1963, s.33) points
out: "The witness has a tendency to correct himself according to the
nuances in the enquirer’s questions and behaviour that is reflected in the
latter’s expectations."
" Before the summer there had been a period when Elizabeth was
angry and irritated with the foster parents and she also threatened to kill the
foster mother."
To
whom was this threat expressed, when did it occur, what was said? The vagueness
strategy is evident. Elizabeth denies the accusation of threat; this should
also be mentioned. The suppression strategy is evident.
"Elizabeth readily becomes angry and upset in the course of
conversation and occasionally involves Anne in the conflict with the foster
parents by, for example, saying to Anne that the foster parents withhold
letters and telephone conversations from Elizabeth to her."
Elizabeth
is presented as a scapegoat, that she utilises her own daughter for her own
purposes. The scapegoat strategy and the moralising strategy are in evidence.
The strategy of making the client seem pathological is also used in that the
investigator describes Elizabeth as aggressive and that she is easily upset.
"The other appeals submitted by Elizabeth Edner"
"The social welfare service is responsible for trying to achieve
co-operation with Elizabeth Edner. Elizabeth Edner has, in the mean time, had a
negative attitude to the social welfare service and has not actively assisted
when the social welfare service has wanted to discuss the care of Anne with
her. Elizabeth has not accepted or understood the reasons for the care order,
which has led to difficulties with the work around Anne. The criticism which
Elizabeth expresses in her appeal is seen as a consequence of her inability to
see her role in that which has occurred."
The
investigator makes a scapegoat of Elizabeth; it is Elizabeth’s fault that there
is no effective co-operation between the social welfare service and Elizabeth.
The
strategy of making the client seem pathological is evident in that the
investigator points out that Elizabeth has a negative attitude, lack of
understanding and an inability to see her role in that which has occurred.
The
strategy of making the client’s criticism seem pathological is used to sweep
aside Elizabeth's criticism of the social welfare service in her appeal, which
gives the strategy of restricting the credibility of others’ opinions. No
specific reference is made to the events mentioned, resulting in no factual
basis for the investigator’s conclusions.
7.7 Case notes and additional notations.
Examples
of case notes and additional notations made by the social welfare service
regarding Elizabeth and Anne are given here to demonstrate different
strategies. A consistent feature of the material is that Ella Röd’s remarks to
Elizabeth are not included, but it is Elizabeth’s language which is commented
upon when conversations between them are referred to. This is evidence of suppression
strategy. Some of Ella Röd’s comments about Elizabeth are also reported, to
demonstrate how Elizabeth is defiled and portrayed as "mad".
Case notes Anne
910318
Meeting at Birkahemmet.
"Conveyed that Birkahemmet considers that Liz (nickname for Elizabeth)
is quite "mad". She tests others all the time, has never been hit, is
threatening, unpredictable, unpleasant, very unusual according to the temporary
mother. (..) Liz needs clear limits to be set.. Secret address?"
This
passage is an example of the strategies of making the client seem pathological
and of control and power.
920116
Ella Röd about Elizabeth
"Eva S says that she becomes entirely drained –Liz talks constantly
about her problems (over and over again the same thing)."
This
quotation makes Elizabeth seem pathological.
920203 Klara Rödgrön about Elizabeth:
"and was then stoned"
An
unprofessional statement by a social welfare service secretary.
920706
telephone conversation between the investigator and Ella Röd:
"Liz Edner has been worse than ever –rings often, repeats all old
things (gramophone record) -(…) She has got information on what has happened –
then Liz turned this against the family. Of course, she took her own life – Liz
will do so as well, and so on."
The
passage is an example of the strategy of making the client seem pathological.
921216
Conversation between the investigator and Ella Röd:
"After the heated conversation when the receiver was thrown down,
Liz rang up again and Anne answered and then Liz can control herself
(unbelievable)."
By
use of the word "unbelievable" Elizabeth is blackened.
930506
Telephone conversation between the investigator and Britta Flås:
"Britta Flås had a conversation with the curator shortly before and
was advised that she had seldom seen a person that functioned worse than
Liz."
What
does this mean? Unprofessional comments by a curator, making out the client to
be pathological. Vagueness strategy is evident in that there are no specific
details at all.
940909
Conversation with Henrietta Harpun:
"-Liz is haggard -was tipsy. Was impossible to curb .."
Harpun’s
comments are unprofessional and make Elizabeth seem pathological.
940921
Telephone conversation between the investigator and Ella Röd:
"Family. Sort out cards - avoid contact between Anne and Liz"
941012
"(the family decides when Anne is to receive the cards)."
941201
"Liz writes cards practically every day (important according to
Anita – the same when she was young). The Röd family regulate this
themselves."
These
excerpts illustrate the control and power strategy.
950202
Telephone conversation between the investigator and Ella Röd:
"This has gone quite well – Liz has been somewhat depressed (then
we feel that things work better)."
950906
"Sometimes Ella and Kent laugh when Liz rings (to themselves). This
was the day’s telling-off."
This
is an example of the strategy of insulting evaluations and comments.
Additional notations Elizabeth Edner
900213
Elizabeth is in the labour ward:
"In the course of a meeting with Liz at Sahlgrenska on the 13th
February I can establish that Liz is in a poor mental state and is generally
negative and edgy."
This
passage makes Elizabeth seem pathological.
921112
Telephone conversation between the investigator and Hedvig Appelgren:
"Liz has invested a great deal in her fight against the social
welfare services, sometimes taking priority over everything else including the
child."
What
factual basis do they have for asserting this? An alternative interpretation could
be that Elizabeth is concerned for her child. The strategy of insulting
evaluations and comments is evident.
930309
Telephone conversation between the investigator and Elizabeth:
"Liz wants to discuss the circumstances of her life when Anne was
taken into care. After a while I assess the conversation to be meaningless, for
which reason I conclude the conversation and put down the receiver."
The
investigator here uses the strategy of insulting evaluations and comments when
she writes that their conversation is meaningless.
"The Passport Question"
There
is an event that becomes evident through case notes, etc. which illustrates the
power and control strategies. It was on 12 May 1992 that Anne was first named
in case notes. Lena Kula in conversation with Ella Röd:
"We are talking about passports. Liz was positive – will arrange
it. The family is recommended to take charge of this in time. Anne is a British
citizen."
The
investigator’s recommendation is a clear example of the power and control
strategy. In the cases notes Anne from 940613, the investigator is making a
call at the home of the Röd family:
"British citizenship + passport recently arranged (…) Good that
citizenship is arranged, certain reservations regarding Liz’s attitude. The
family is encouraged to hide the passport so that Liz cannot get it."
Total
control and power strategy is evident in this passage.
Elizabeth
asked the social welfare service as well as Ella Röd about Anne’s passport but
was not permitted to see it before 22 Jan 96, when she was also took charge of
it.
In
the additional notation Elizabeth 13 Jan 96 it is stated:
"Today Liz rang me. She wants to see Anne’s passport. When I ask
why, Elizabeth says that since it was she who applied for the passport, she
should also have the right to see it. I enquire with both Kajsa Wall Gren and
Anneli Ladugård of the county council. Both are of the opinion that we should
show the passport. We have no legal right to withhold the passport."
7.8 Testimonials
The
material that has been examined shows that the social welfare service ordered a
number of testimonials from various people. This illustrates the strategy of
over-confidence in oneself and others. Another strategy, which becomes evident
is that of suppression, since any positive references about Elizabeth are
glossed over in the reports.
Alun
Näbb, first social secretary, sought further information from Dr Jonas Nöjd,
senior physician, referring to §71 of the Social Services Act. She asked eight
questions, for example:
"Have the psychotic spontaneous outbreaks mentioned, in your
judgement, connections with the ongoing abuse in Elizabeth Edner’s case?"
The
investigator poses a strongly leading question.
"Is the tendency toward desperation and despair intimately linked
with the experience of being unfairly treated by persons in authority, or is it
a general way for Elizabeth to handle frustration and powerlessness."
This
is also an example of a leading question.
The
doctor answers the questions,17-10-95, with the exception of the two specified.
"The remaining two questions are questions of judgement where I consider
that I lack the basis for these to be well considered, and neither can I see
that there is any such responsibility according to §71 of the Social Services
Act."
Letter
from Martin Flis, section manager, for Klara Rödgrön, social welfare secretary
at Birkahemmet, for a supplementary reference. Flis poses questions such as:
"-In what way is Anne at risk of injury in her health and
development on account of the mother’s behaviour/personality according to
Birkahemmet?
-What in Liz’s behaviour is considered by Birkahemmet as acute crisis
reactions and as disturbances in her personality?
(…) It is perhaps easier for you to receive the questions on paper as
the reference from Birkahemmet is very important when submitting an opinion to
the administrative court of appeal .
Martin
Flis poses leading questions exceeding the limits of his competence. He speaks
of the reference being important, to increase the pressure on Rödgrön.
Gösta
Holst, senior physician in the open child psychiatric care, gives a reference
after meeting Anne and the foster mother the 6/7 1993, for a period of 1 1/2
hours:
"I consider that one should be protective of the visiting rights
that now function. One cannot leave Anne alone with the mother. (…)
If one sees how things have gone for Anne, there is cause to be
grateful. She had all the good the mother was capable of giving her, and when
that was finished she got out in time. The greatest opposition to this
development has come from the doctors. The paediatrician who examined the girl
and issued two certificates last November at the request of the administrator
later submitted two opinions in which he expressly warned against a separation
of mother and daughter without it being established that he acted at the
request of the mother."
This
reference has been produced on the instructions of the social welfare service.
Gösta Holst expresses an opinion in respect to the relation between Anne and Elizabeth
without having met them together and without having met Elizabeth. The senior
physician finds fault with Håkan Elmén, thereby making Elmén’s references seem
unimportant. The strategies of restricting the credibility of other’s opinions
and of over-confidence in oneself and others are evident.
Information
from the foster home secretary, Lena Kula, 19931023, about Anne, before the
request from Elizabeth to take Anne home:
"Contact between Anne and her biological mother has, for the most
part, been positive for Anne, even if the current contact frequency can be
questioned. The researcher considers that at the most one contact per month
will fully satisfy Anne’s needs."
What
does the investigator base her judgement on? The passage is unspecified, vagueness
strategy is evident.
"Irrespective of the mental state Liz Edner is in, she sends
signals subconsciously to Anne about her own dissatisfaction over the
situation."
How
does the investigator know this? The statement exceeds the limits of her
competence and is unspecific.
Periodically Anne demonstrates concern for her future. She asks
questions and shows in many ways that she has received information that
jeopardises her security."
Insinuation
strategy is evident in that the investigator implies that it is Elizabeth that
has given Anne the unsettling information.
It has occurred that Anne has previously said "That’s what Ruby
said". Ella Röd has then asked who Ruby is. Anne has then answered
"She is the black lady"."
Why
does the investigator refer to this in an opinion in answer to a request to
take the child home? What does the investigator want to demonstrate? This piece
is irrelevant.
"A close and unpredictable contact can put Anne’s mental health at
risk and thereby inhibit her continued development."
Why
should a closer contact be unpredictable? Insinuation strategy is evident. The
piece contains negative prognosis strategy.
8. FINAL DISCUSSION
The
purpose of this paper has been to investigate whether persecution strategies
occur in the handling of an LVU (Care of Young Persons Act) case, as well as
seeing whether the case is lacking in objectivity and impartiality, contrary to
the stipulations of the Constitution Act.
In
my investigation, I have found that there are both persecution strategies and a
lack of objectivity and impartiality. The findings are similar to those of
earlier research into persecution strategies. (See Edvardsson 1989, 1991;
Jäderqvist et al.1994: Stenberg, 1995; Juntilla et al. 1994; Jansson and
Rönnbäck, 1995; Skog, 1996; Rönnbäck,1996).
8.1 Final analysis of persecution strategies
The
results of the examination show 56 persecution strategies/ lines of action. The
strategies are not independent of one another but overlap and complement each
other. From the official reports, two main features stand out among the lines
of action taken by the investigators. One is that power defines reality;
the other is influencing and persuading the reader.
Power defines reality
The
line of action consists in power, in this case the social welfare service,
defining reality.
The
authorities (investigators) do not consider other information, for example,
other authorities, clients etc. but act according to their own definition of
reality.
This
results in the investigator ignoring the investigations of other authorities,
drawing her own conclusions from illogical arguments, making interpretations
without factual foundation, making the clients seem pathological, making
spectacular interpretations of the signs, avoiding anything that does not
support her own conclusions, ignoring clients’ perspectives and clients’
resources, etc.
This
can even result in clients being thought of as unco-operative as they do not
respond to the investigators’ suggestions, offers of care, etc.
From
this viewpoint, evidence is produced which supports the investigators’ own
understanding of reality, that is to say, her interpretation of the client and
her situation.
A
possible interpretation is that the investigator uses persecution strategy to
be able to be the one who defines reality. (See, for example, Jansson &
Rönnbäck, 1995; Skog 1996).
Influencing and persuading the reader
Trying
to influence and persuade the reader is one of the main features of the investigator’s
line of action. The investigator tries to influence the reader to reach the
same conclusion as she has with regard to the client’s situation. The
investigator avoids definitions and descriptions of situations if, by doing so,
her own assessment gains in credibility. The investigator exaggerates possible
negative consequences, enlarges on her own positive effect, uses propaganda
techniques, generalises situations to her own advantage, etc.
This
line of action probably results in the development of various persecution
strategies.
"Universal techniques"
From
the analysed material two techniques become evident, which are used together or
independently in all of the strategies found. One of the techniques is withholding.
That is to say withholding information that is of a positive nature from the
client’s point of view and which does not support the decision/view of the
authorities. The other technique is fabrication, that is to say, the
investigator exaggerates or fabricates data with the intention of persuading
the reader that the investigator’s conclusion is correct, and that the right
decision has been taken in the investigation.
The
techniques complement each other and work together. If an investigator, for
example, avoids source references and instead refers to "one",
"many", "more," "few", etc., regarding something,
the withholding and fabrication techniques jointly give the reader an
inaccurate picture of the situation. If one uses both withholding and
fabrication techniques, a "double" effect is achieved. The techniques
complement each other until the distortion of reality reaches a high level.
That is to say, withholding and fabrication techniques lead to the fabrication
of evidence to a greater or lesser extent. Fabrication of evidence means that
one creates evidence by, for example, lying, giving rein to one’s imagination,
exaggerating, avoiding references to sources, etc., for the benefit of one’s
own point of view. (cf. Edvardsson, 1996b ).
Fabrication
of evidence can in turn lead to the investigation being biased, non-factual and
inaccurate. Data show that the less the investigator has in the way of facts,
the greater will be the fabrication of evidence.
To
achieve greater clarity, the 56 strategies found are placed in six groups
according to their purpose and similarities. These are:
Influencing the reader through language
The
group comprises 12 persecution strategies. All of the strategies are used so
that, through the use of language, the reader ends up with the same opinion as
the investigator already has. By her way of writing, the investigator steers
the thoughts of the reader. The investigator makes clear what she wishes to
emphasise in the text by linguistic manipulation. In a normal literary text, it
is not wrong to do so, but in an investigation the text should be factual and
objective, and linguistic manipulation should therefore be avoided.
The
investigator utilises rhetorical strategy, that is to say that her
linguistic ability is utilised to influence the reader in a particular direction.
Through implying certain information, the investigator steers the
investigation.
Positive-negative argumentation strategy is an effective argumentation style that is
particularly used by investigators. The strategy is difficult to detect and
uses the reader’s feelings in order to persuade. At first Elizabeth and her
situation are described in positive terms, then she is to denigrated with the
excuse that she falls outside the framework of "the normal".
Through
the generalisation strategy it is evident that the investigator uses
categorical assertions by the use of such words as no one, never, all, always,
etc. There is even evidence that a single instance in a certain situation is
generalised so as to apply in all situations. Elizabeth’s behaviour in crisis
situations is generalised through the investigator’s subjective interpretations
to be applicable in all situations.
In
the strategy of selective use of indicators of uncertainty, the
investigator distorts material/information to her advantage. The reader is
manipulated by the investigator’s assuredness in her assumptions, and likewise
the investigator’s uncertainty regarding positive information about Elizabeth.
In
the repetitive strategy, the investigator repeats specific strategic
words and phrases, and thus achieves a propaganda effect. When an investigator
repeats evaluations sufficiently often, they can become facts to the reader. In
the hammer strategy, the investigator uses favourite words in describing
Elizabeth so that the point is "hammered" into the reader. One
of the investigators uses the multi-minus strategy in a summing-up of
Elizabeth. She is assumed to have many negative characteristics that are
described in the investigation. These characteristics are repeated several
times without giving details or providing a factual basis. By making trivial
statements in a context that is negative for the client, the client is
portrayed as negative.
In
contrast strategy, the argumentation has a black-white character, with
the purpose of denigrating Elizabeth. Contrasting between different
circumstances is used to this end.
In
the negative synonym strategy, the negative reinforcement strategy has
been developed more so that several synonymous negative reinforcement words are
used in describing Elizabeth.
Making the client seem pathological
In
this group there are eight strategies. The strategy of making the client seem
pathological is the dominant strategy and is used many times in the
investigation material. Through this strategy the client/s is/are portrayed as
being in need of help. Throughout the investigations the investigator portrays
Elizabeth as being mentally ill, different, impulsive and in need of care in
different ways. The underlying purpose is to influence the reader to come to
the same conclusion and decision as the investigator.
Persecution through the fundamental attribution error is evident in that the
investigator, the staff at the women’s clinic, the staff at family clinics,
etc., have noticed certain behaviour in Elizabeth but, on reporting this
behaviour, have overlooked the effect of such aspects as environment,
situation, etc. has on Elizabeth. The way the reports are made make it appear
that it is Elizabeth’s own attributes that cause her to act in the way that she
does. No consideration is given to the fact that most of the observations have
not been made in Elizabeth Edner’s natural environment.
In
the scapegoat strategy, the authorities blame the client for everything.
The investigator identifies Elizabeth as the cause of the problems that arise
and even of the authorities’ failure to help her.
The strategies of making the client seem peculiar and making the
client’s behaviour seem too intense combine in the investigator’s description of
Elizabeth and result in a situation where the investigator uses them in the therapy
strategy. From the point of view of objectivity, the strategy of calling
attention to non-existent "facts" together with its
sub-categories is unacceptable. It is irrelevant to name situations, behaviour,
characteristics, etc. that a client does not have or does not find herself in,
in the context of an investigation.
In
some situations in the investigation material, it is evident that the
investigator ignores Elizabeth’s criticism with regard to being aggressive,
impulsive, mentally unstable, etc. By declaring that the client is sick, the
investigator can explain away the client’s criticism as an expression of mental
disturbance. Implying that the client’s criticism stems from her
pathological condition contravenes Swedish law.
Ignoring objectivity aspects
This
group contains 16 strategies, all of which ignore elementary factual aspects
and thereby contravene the Constitution Act, chap.1, §9.
Through
the suppression strategy the investigator creates a false picture of the
situation. One of the results of the strategy of ignoring the client
perspective is that important facts and data regarding the client are not
brought out. The investigator ignores the client’s wishes, perceptions,
experience, ideas, resources, network, etc. This strategy provides evidence of
"us and them" thinking within the social welfare service. It is
against the law to ignore the client’s perspective.
By
the use of vagueness strategy the investigator does not observe
objectivity. The investigator expresses herself vaguely and imprecisely
throughout the investigation material and thereby leaves the reader to
interpret the material in his/her own way.
To
get the text to fulfil her own objective, the investigator can use a
strategy of gradually suppressing details, for example, an anonymous report
is described in the investigation in such a way as to make it less noticeable.
The question is whether that particular investigator considered that the
information was too incredible for the reader to take it seriously.
A
serious mistake in the investigation is that clear source references are
frequently lacking.
In
the strategy of using the impersonal form, the investigators omit the
subject or use "one". So the reader is unable to check the content
with the source. Without the sources, the investigation is worthless. In exaggeration
strategy, the material is adjusted knowingly or unknowingly to support
their own theories. The purpose of the quantitative strategy is to give
the reader the impression that the investigators have done a thorough and
comprehensive job.
With
the help of the strategies of giving rein to one’s imagination and of lying,
the reports in the investigation have been changed. The first is used to reinforce
the authorities’ own opinions and to steer the reader’s thoughts.
The
strategy of gradual intensification is a special version of the
generalisation strategy. The investigators reinforce the certainty of the
consequences of a situation to support their own opinions and conclusions.
By
use of the strategies of collecting negative historical events of little or
no relevance and of presenting irrelevant information, the
reports/situations are developed to denigrate the client and manipulate the
reader. The investigators ignore the accepted principles when it comes to
limiting oneself to relevant facts and following ethical requirements, which
means that one respects those who are the subject of the investigation. One
investigator in particular uses the implicit theory strategy when she
describes Elizabeth and her situation. The investigator puts forward her
conclusions that Elizabeth is isolated, aggressive, has difficulty in relations
with others, etc., as if it were the truth.
By
the use of the strategy of exploiting and exaggerating events, different
types of signs and events are portrayed as evidence that observations and
perceptions of the investigators, or the ones referred to, are the correct
ones.
In
presumptive strategy it is presumed that something applies and one
subsequently seeks actively to find signs or arguments in further support of
one’s presumptions. One investigator in this case proposes that Elizabeth is
unsuitable as the custodian of her child and that the only alternative is to place
the child in a foster home.
In
the strategy of referring to unspecified others, the investigator
utilises unspecified "voices" to demonstrate that more than just her
have come to the same conclusion. To simply refer to "others" is
unacceptable and gives the impression that the investigator is giving free rein
to her imagination.
Exercising power and control
This
group contains six strategies which have in common that they are all lines of
action for how persons in authority exercise power and claim to control the
clients’ lives. The all-embracing strategy is control and power strategy,
which, for example, is evident in a situation where the foster home is
encouraged to hide the child’s passport so that Elizabeth cannot get at it.
In
the strategy of trying to accuse the client of lying, the persons in
authority endeavour to catch Elizabeth out when lying.. In the case of provocative
strategy one creates situations in events which in different ways make the client
behave in a way which can subsequently be used against her. Elizabeth is
provoked by the authorities’ demands for home visits, the investigator’s
misleading description of her, and the investigator’s occasional superior
attitude towards her, etc.
In
the antidemocratic strategy, the investigator ignores the client’s
democratic rights, for instance, of expression, thereby contravening the law.
The
strategy of insulting valuations and comments is revealed in, for
example, generalisations of an insulting nature that can damage people. The
material shows that investigators, referees, social secretaries, and others
frequently make unprofessional and disparaging statements about Elizabeth and
her situation.
In
the case of the strategy of restricting the credibility of others’
opinions, one rejects people and information that contradict the opinion of
the authorities by suggesting that the information is not valid in the
particular instance. Elizabeth’s views are also ignored with the excuse that
she is too unstable mentally, too aggressive, and lacking in understanding,
etc. to be aware of what is best for her.
"The authorities know best"
In
this group there are five strategies all of which are designed to show that the
authorities "know best". In the strategy of exceeding the
limits of one’s competence, the investigator expresses opinions about
things she is not qualified to comment on.. In that case, the reliability of
these opinions can be questioned. A possible explanation for exceeding the
limits of one’s competence may be that the strategy of over-confidence in
oneself and others is used. The investigator has complete faith in her own
judgement, which is demonstrated by the cocksureness of her opinions, which
neither include uncertainty indicators nor provide any factual basis. There are
plenty of opinions that lack any explanation as to how the person in question
came to his or her conclusion.
Overconfidence
in authorities and experts is evident in that the investigators believe
everything that is said by them without critical assessment of their opinions,
testimonials, evidence, etc. An example of this is that a psychologist is given
much space and influence within the report after having met the mother of the
foster family and Anne on one occasion for a duration of 1 ½ hours.
By
use of moralising strategy the investigator’s inferred morals are
evident in the text of the investigation and are used as an argument against
the client. The investigator overlooks how common the phenomena are amongst
other families and children and, instead, presents them as great shortcomings
in Elizabeth’s capacity to take care of her child. Elizabeth’s various
behaviour patterns are exaggerated because of her contact with the social
welfare service.
Within
the strategy of emphasising the resources of the social authorities, the
said resources are given prominence, e.g. the foster home, whilst the client
and her resources and network are toned down.
It
comes out in the investigation material that the investigator/s is/are trying
to justify themselves and others when they realise that they have
utilised more forceful actions than were necessary. Through this strategy the
client is denigrated and is held responsible for the consequences.
The
influence persons in authority have when reaching a decision about measures to
be taken is played down.
"Feel-believe-think-experience-interpret"
This
group contains nine strategies, all of which are affected by the
investigators’, and others’, own experiences, feelings, arguments, interpretations,
predispositions, etc., thereby creating non-factual and unreliable bases for
decisions. Another thing they have in common is that they are seldom presented
as the investigators’ and others’ experiences and interpretations but are,
instead, described as objective observations.
By
the strategy of stressing one’s own experience, the investigator
puts forward her own experiences and arguments to persuade the reader to accept
her point of view. This method contravenes the Constitution Act, chap 1 §9, and
should not be used in the context of investigation.
By
use of the strategies of ascribing an experience and a negative
attitude to the client, the investigator projects herself as an
understanding person and creates her own explanations for the client’s
behaviour, which are subsequently used against the client.
In
the strategy of making vague references to experience, the investigator
presents her various experiences to the reader without saying who has
experienced what.
By
the use of interpretation strategy, the investigator puts forward her
interpretations without providing any factual basis. The interpretations are
affected by the investigator’s established opinions and even by perceptual
distortion, that is to say that the investigator and others both see and hear
what they expect to see and hear even though reality may not coincide with what
they see and hear.
In
the strategy of using strategic interpretation, the investigator
justifies the conclusion already reached beforehand, thereby running the risk
of overlooking alternative interpretations which are readily lost in the case
of superficial inspection.
The
investigator exaggerates certain relationships and withholds others, so that
her own interpretations are projected as the correct ones.
In
the strategy of using signs as evidence, trivial signs are exaggerated
and used amongst other things as a basis for reporting. In this strategy, the
addition principle is sometimes used, that is to say trivial, imagined signs
are accumulated and easily result in "demonstrating" what one wishes
to show in a non-factual interpretation.
The
strategy of interpreting everything negatively is utilised when the
investigator wants to show that Elizabeth is driven by impulses, as she does
not want to make a study visit to a clinic. An alternative interpretation is
that Elizabeth made a risk analysis and concluded that there were too many
risks involved in a visit to a clinic where there were HIV-infected people in
residence.
In
the negative prognosis strategy, the investigator asserts that Anne must
be separated from Elizabeth to avoid injury, and that Elizabeth cannot give
Anne a good future or fulfil her needs. By taking this line of approach, the
investigator obtains an explanation for her opinions and behaviour.
8.1.1 Variations and similarities between the official reports
The
official report from 1991-04-08 contains the most persecution strategies. Not
simply on account of its being a large report, but also because the
administrator is extremely subjective in her explanations and interpretations,
which are also expressed as if they were the truth. The positive-negative
argumentation strategy comes out clearly in the investigation the strategy of
collecting negative historical events of little or little relevance is used
extensively. The administrating investigator is also responsible for the
reports of 1990-11-28 and 91-01-31 All three reports are characterised by the
investigator’s arguments. Positive-negative argumentation strategy is clearly in
evidence and appears to be a favourite of the investigator. The investigator
has an eloquence that is perhaps specific to this LVU case. Rhetorical
strategies are clearly evident and used throughout; hence, the name "The
Rhetoric Case".
The
client’s perspective is poorly accounted for, and source references are lacking
throughout all three reports.
In
the official reports 1994-11-29, 1995-10-23 and 1996-06-14, another social
secretary is in charge of the case. This is obvious even in the presentation of
these reports. The client’s perspective is better accounted for, and there are
also references to resource analyses.
The
official report 1995-10-23 lacks source references throughout. The sources are
handled naively and uncritically. The investigation is remarkable in that many
of the references are repeats from previous investigations. The previous
administrator’s views are mixed up with the new ones.
This
result makes me wonder how this would have looked if the administrators had
changed places. Would other conclusions have been reached and other actions
taken? This, we can only philosophise over. A possible interpretation of the
difference between the official reports is that the administrator has a great
impact on the outcome of an investigation, that the investigator has
considerable power to influence the investigation in the direction of (his) her
own subjective point of view.
8.2 Development of a persecutory work approach
Why
and how the persecution strategies arise is a question I consider myself insufficiently
knowledgeable to answer. I shall now take up the theories which I believe best
explain why persecution strategies make an appearance.
Data
provide evidence of a power struggle between the client and the investigator.
The investigator exercises power by putting forward and angling those facts
that most strongly promote taking the child into care. The investigator can
deliberately ignore positive facts about the client. The client can threaten
the investigator’s position and illicit defensive behaviour, particularly if
the client is an academic who is assertively critical. To exercise power over
the client becomes more important than proving a point. The investigator tries
to compensate, rationally or irrationally, (his) her loss of power by using the
persecution strategies. (Compare Edvardsson, 1989).
One
possible explanation for the appearance of the persecution strategies is that
the investigator experiences frustration, a feeling which arises when your own
or other needs, demands or goals are unfulfilled, which sometimes leads to
aggression.
Aggression
is the result of a person having the perception that he has been provoked and
that the intention was to provoke. This understanding equips the person with
grounds for blame, hostility and possible revenge. By these thought processes
people can create enemies and justify aggressiveness towards them. Such thought
processes can make a person with highly perceived morals behave in an
aggressive fashion. (Compare Smith, 1993, chap.19), for ex.
There
are many different thought processes people use in order to avoid feeling
guilty.
There
are many theories about how people attribute reasons and characteristics. The
way that the investigators attribute the causes to Elizabeth’ s situation and
person explains I believe, the development of the persecution strategies.
There
is ample evidence in the material that the assessors are responsible for having
committed the fundamental attribution error on several occasions. The assessors
create a negative picture of the mother and her situation by using their
hypotheses and the strategy of persecution by use of the fundamental
attribution error. Even the reader creates attributions from the text. By using
persecution strategies, the investigators are able to methodically influence
the reader’s attributions and transfer their arguments and perceptions. The
attributions become a tool for the investigator to influence the reader. If the
reader doesn’t create attributions, the persecution strategies would be
useless. (Compare Eriksson and Wiesel, 1997)
Angelöw
and Jonsson (1990, p 46) explain Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory,
"If cognitive disharmony is created when the individual receives, for
instance, new information, this theory claims that the individual tries to
eliminate or restrict the effect by the addition of further cognition, change
existing, or act in a manner which promotes harmony."
Some
data provide evidence that this phenomenon arises when the different
investigators handle the information. The investigators avoid situations,
thoughts and attitudes that could threaten the opinion that Elizabeth is a bad
mother who is unable to care for her daughter. Otherwise the investigators
could experience doubts or unpleasant feelings.
The
investigator and others in the investigative work can be subject to errors of
thought (see section 4). These errors of thought are likely to strong influence
the investigators and others to use persecution strategies in the investigative
work.
One
particular investigator in this case has a fluency of speech that is used when
Elizabeth is defamed. Her manner of relating events is similar to that used in
advertising and propaganda. In these connections, more or less emotionally
charged words are used, which are normally used to encourage us to buy a
product or to affirm a message.
It
would appear that the investigators use language in the same way, to persuade,
and opinions by medical consultants, etc., to confirm their opinion (cf. Ivemyr
& Lindwall, 1995).
In
advertising and propaganda, values are put forward that are difficult for the
reader to decide whether they are true or false. Andersson and Furberg (1984)
describe the principle of the sender’s trustworthiness. This principle makes it
easier for the investigator to use persecution strategies. Edvardsson (1996,
p173) argues "There is always a well used rhetoric which will justify
every kind of persecution."
One
possible interpretation is that "group-think" is prevalent in the
social welfare service in this case. Some of Janis’ symptoms are evident in the
text.
Symptom
2: The investigator ignores ethical and moral consequences of his decisions,
which is evidence of an unquestionable faith in the presence of moral values in
the staff employed by authorities.
Symptom
4: The investigators show that they have a stereotype view of Elizabeth as the
"enemy", which is accentuated by making her seem pathological, as too
evil and aggressive to be able to be accommodating and friendly.
Symptom
6: There is a shared illusion of unity concerning interpretations that are
adjusted to comply with the view of the majority. The investigator feels that
the social welfare service is right behind her. This is evident from the fact
that the investigator avoids information that goes against the view of the
majority and the investigator.
Even
Janis’ symptoms that demonstrate poor ability to make decisions in a group are
evident in the investigation.
It
is possible that the high conformity of the group explains the development of
persecution strategies. Conformity means that individual attitudes, behaviour
and opinions are adapted to a group standard. The individual seeks approval
from the group and avoids rejection from the group. ( See, for example. Smith,
1993).
The
group employed, for instance, in a social welfare office may have adopted some
conformity influencing the individual's thoughts and actions. Norms as to how
the administrator should handle cases are created. If the conformity becomes
too intense, the set norms can prevent constructive thinking. Instead,
stereotype thinking is developed, which influences the investigation. When
critical thought is prevented by the conformity of the group, it is easier for
the investigator to use methods that involve persecution.
Inside
cultures of organisations several phenomena may emerge that influence the
development and maintenance of persecution strategies. Moxnes (1987) has
reached the conclusion that anxiety exists among the members. The anxiety is
created by those in power, while those at the lowest end of the hierarchy
experience most anxiety. To avoid anxiety, social defence works and social
defence mechanisms are created, for example, the creation of scapegoats.
An
administrator within the social services has to be the "controller"
and the "helper" at the same time, and this can be very difficult to
handle intellectually and emotionally. Socialworkers are often exposed to too
high a workload, which can lead to stress. This in turn can lead to the client
and the social welfare ending up in a vicious "stress spiral", which
can lead to the weaker person being crushed by the more powerful person
(compare Edvardsson, 1989).
In
society there are many pressure groups like the media, government, political
groups, who all indirectly influence the work of the social worker. The society
has norms, values, thought patterns that may disturb the work of investigation.
Ylander
and Larsson-Lindman (1981) argue that the development of society is proceeding
towards increased technocracy and dehumanisation. The result of this is that
you look at the individual as an object rather than a human being with
feelings, and opinions etc. One needs knowledge of technology and economy to
obtain high posts in the social hierarchy. The technological thought process
influences social work (see, for example, Edvardsson 1984), and this can be one
reason why the perspective of the client is often missing.
Below
I have summed up my thoughts about possible reasons why the persecution
strategies are used, with the help of existing theories and of information from
the text analysis. This is done by putting forward the following hypotheses:
"The
compensation hypotheses"
When
there are few arguments pertaining to a particular case, the existing ones are
repeated over and over in the investigation. The investigators use fabrication
of evidence to give the investigation the air of being well thought through and
thoroughly considered. The reader gets the impression that there are many more
arguments than there really are (see, for example, Ivemyr and Lindwall, 1995).
"The
communication breakdown hypotheses"
The
co-operation between client and authorities evolves from having been good to
total breakdown. The client discovers that the way she is portrayed in the
investigation is misleading, her statements are changed or withheld, which
leads to her feeling bitter and suspicious towards the authorities. The
investigator perceives a reluctance to co-operate on the part of the client.
This in turn leads to an even more negative view of the client, which is
mirrored in the investigation. A vicious circle arises and the communication
breakdown is a fact (compare Stenberg,1995).
"Group-think
hypothesis"
Group-think
in the shape of negative chatting about the client appears within the
organisation and this prevents critical thought and influences the creation of
persecution strategies.
"Dissonance
hypothesis"
The
investigator experiences dissonance when positive information about the client
is put forward. In order to eliminate this feeling, he (she) avoids listening
to the kind of information which increases the feeling of dissonance. Instead,
existing negative information about the client is exaggerated, and this creates
irrelevant evidence that the decision already made is the correct one.
All
this to create consonance (harmony). (See Festinger’s dissonance theory in
Smith, 1993)
"The
help hypothesis"
The
investigator experiences a sense of well being through "rescuing"
children at risk. The investigator turns the mother/parents into the "evil
factor" that must be eliminated at any cost.
The
investigator sees himself as the irreplaceable "rescuer in need", and
therefore does what he has to do even if it is wrong.
"The
ignorance theory"
The
investigator lacks knowledge of current assessment methodology and critical
thinking.(compare Jansson and Rönnbäck,1995)
"The
conflict theory"
There
is a power struggle between the client and the investigator. To compensate the
sensation of loss of power and to take revenge on the client, the investigator
uses persecution strategies.
"The
projection hypothesis"
Work
with the LVU-investigation has caused anxiety to the investigator. To reduce
the anxiety is projected onto the client. (Compare Sivik, 1990)
"The
work situation theory"
The
investigator has a demanding job that causes anxiety and stress. The thought
processes deteriorate as a result of stress, and she is therefore unable to
perform an impartial and objective investigation.
"Attribution
hypothesis"
Through
the process attributions, it becomes evident that the investigators do not
introduce people who may make the situation more advantageous to the clients
under investigation. This method may be interpreted as a way for the
investigators to try to get support for their own hypothesis, and is one of the
reasons why the persecution strategies arise." (Eriksson and Wiesel, 1997,s.38)
"Meta-cognitive
impairment hypothesis"
Persecution
strategies arise because the attribution, perception and cognition of the
investigator are at fault and lead to defective critical thinking. In other
words, the investigator think about his own thought processes, memories,
feelings, actions, etc., in a critical manner. Ashcraft (1994, p 66) defines
meta-cognition: "The term refers to the awareness and monitoring of one’s
own cognitive system and its functioning."
There
is a relationship between cognitive processes and meta-cognitive processes. If
a person’s awareness, energy, exists in the cognitive processes, then the
person is not aware of his own potential errors of thinking, prejudices, etc.
An imbalance occurs. When the balance between the processes is good,
meta-cognitive thinking a critical quality control of one’s own thoughts.
One
or more of these hypotheses may apply. It may vary from case to case, and from
investigator to investigator. Some of the hypotheses are more speculative in
nature, such as the "Help hypothesis". The hypotheses I consider to
be the most valid are the "Communication breakdown hypothesis",
"Dissonance hypothesis", "Attribution hypothesis" and
"Compensation hypothesis."
There
is a general lack of fundamental investigative methods in the official reports
that have been examined. Clarity, purpose/the questions at issue, specific
details, the perspective of the client, reference to sources, the setting up of
hypotheses are missing throughout, resulting in a loss of reliability. The
investigators fail to satisfy the requirements of objectivity and impartiality
prescribed by the Constitution Act, Chap. 1, §9, as the basis of decisions in
the investigation. The handling of this case includes persecution strategies.