When the World Begins to Turn

An Essay on Living with Ménière’s Disease

There are illnesses that arrive dramatically.

A sudden diagnosis.
An ambulance.
A hospital room.
Machines.
Urgency.

And then there are illnesses that slowly enter a person’s life and remain there,
quietly rearranging existence from within.

Ménière’s disease belongs to the second kind.

I received the diagnosis in 1996.

At the time I understood very little about what it would mean.
Only later did I begin to realize that chronic illness is not merely something one has.
It becomes something one must learn to live beside.

Like weather.
Like age.
Like grief.

Not an enemy that can finally be defeated,
but a companion whose presence gradually changes the landscape of everyday life.

In the beginning it was frightening.

The first attack came one ordinary morning.
I had gotten up to go to work.
Nothing dramatic.
Nothing unusual.

Then suddenly the world lost its fixed point.

The room began to spin violently around me.
Not metaphorically.
Physically.

The floor disappeared as something reliable.
My body no longer understood where “upright” was.
I had to crawl back to bed and hold onto the mattress for hours as if it were the only stable object left in existence.

That was my first encounter with vertigo.

It is difficult to explain vertigo to someone who has never experienced it.
The word “dizziness” is too small.
Too harmless.

Vertigo is not merely feeling unsteady.

It is the terrifying discovery that the world itself no longer obeys the silent agreement between body and gravity.

The eyes cannot find rest.
The body loses trust in movement.
Space itself becomes unstable.

For many years the attacks came repeatedly.
Sometimes several times a week.
Sometimes every day.

I was working in Child Welfare during that period.
Heavy cases.
Heavy responsibility.
Human suffering entering life daily through conversations,
meetings,
reports,
emergencies.

I cannot prove that stress triggered the illness.
Science remains cautious here.
But inwardly I have never doubted the connection.

The body speaks,
even when the mind continues trying to endure.

And sometimes the body speaks through collapse.

Ménière’s disease is a disorder of the inner ear,
a tiny hidden landscape no larger than the nail on a little finger.
Inside this delicate architecture lie hearing,
balance,
orientation.

The entire human experience of equilibrium depends upon fragile structures floating silently in fluid.

I often think there is something profoundly philosophical in this.

Our sense of reality —
our simple confidence in standing,
walking,
moving through the world —
depends upon microscopic systems we rarely think about until they fail.

Only then do we understand how fragile ordinary existence truly is.

Prosper Ménière,
the French physician who first described the condition in the nineteenth century,
identified the strange combination:
vertigo,
hearing loss,
tinnitus.

But descriptions are one thing.

Living inside the condition is another.

Because chronic illness slowly changes not only the body,
but also one’s relationship to time,
space,
and vulnerability.

Even now,
after all these years,
the attacks still arrive unexpectedly.

Sometimes I can feel them approaching.

The tinnitus grows louder.
A pressure begins forming inside the head.
The hearing changes,
as though cotton has been pushed deep into the ears.
The body becomes uncertain before the mind fully understands why.

And then the attack comes.

Suddenly.

Like being thrown into a violent invisible storm while the world around you continues normally.

I have experienced attacks in cities,
in shops,
in forests,
at train stations.

The strange thing is that almost nobody notices.

Illness often becomes invisible in public space.

A person sitting quietly against a wall may appear merely tired,
or waiting,
or resting.

No one sees the chaos unfolding internally.

And perhaps this invisibility becomes one of the loneliest parts of chronic illness:
the distance between appearance and lived experience.

Usually, however, the attacks happen at home.

I pull the curtains closed.
Darkness helps.
Light becomes unbearable during severe vertigo.

Then I lie still and wait for the spinning to pass.

Sometimes for an hour.
Sometimes longer.

Afterward comes exhaustion.

Not ordinary tiredness,
but the deep bodily fatigue that follows after the nervous system has endured too much.

And then the tinnitus remains.

Always there.

A constant sound without silence.

People often ask what tinnitus sounds like.

But that question is almost impossible to answer.

It is not a sound “out there.”
It becomes part of consciousness itself.

A private acoustic world no one else can hear.

At first I fought against it constantly.

I wanted silence back.

But over the years I began to understand something important:
some forms of suffering cannot be conquered through resistance alone.

One must learn another relationship to them.

Not surrender.
Not resignation.

But coexistence.

This perhaps became the turning point in my relationship to the illness.

At some stage Ménière’s disease stopped being only an enemy.

We became companions.

Not chosen companions.
Not welcome companions.

But companions nonetheless.

And strangely enough,
acceptance altered the landscape more than anger ever did.

This does not mean the illness became easy.
There are still difficult days.
There are still attacks that drain life of energy and orientation.
There is still frustration over hearing slowly changing,
over unpredictability,
over losing control.

Control.

Perhaps that is the deepest existential wound chronic illness inflicts upon many people:
the realization that the body does not fully belong to our will.

Modern society teaches us to optimize,
master,
control,
perform.

Chronic illness quietly dismantles these illusions.

The body becomes something one must negotiate with rather than command.

And yet,
something else also emerged slowly from this altered life.

Walking.

Photography.

Silence.

Long walks became important to me.
Not as escape,
but as restoration.

I often carry a camera with me.
Over time photography became more than a hobby.
It became a form of listening.

Sometimes words are too rigid for suffering.
Images can hold ambiguity more gently.

A landscape in fog.
A road ending unexpectedly.
A boat being pulled ashore.

Such images do not explain illness.

But they may reveal something about living through it.

Perhaps this is why beauty matters so much during difficult periods of life.

Not because beauty removes suffering,
but because it allows existence to remain larger than suffering.

A single quiet evening by the water.
Light falling across trees.
Birdsong returning after an attack.
The strange peace of an empty road.

Such moments do not cure anything.

Yet they help preserve one’s relationship to the world.

Many people living with Ménière’s disease struggle not only physically,
but emotionally and socially.

Anxiety.
Withdrawal.
Exhaustion.
Isolation.

Invisible illnesses often create invisible loneliness.

And shame easily enters where weakness becomes visible.

This is why openness matters.

To speak about illness.
To allow others to know.
To refuse the silent shame society sometimes attaches to vulnerability.

Because illness is not failure.

It is part of being human.

And perhaps chronic illness teaches something modern culture struggles to understand:
that dignity does not depend upon perfect functioning.

A human being remains fully human even when balance falters,
even when hearing fades,
even when the world occasionally begins to turn.

Over the years I have tried, imperfectly, to live according to that understanding.

To walk when I can.
To rest when necessary.
To seek beauty where beauty still appears.
To let photography become a language for experiences words cannot fully hold.
To remain open toward life despite limitation.

Some days this succeeds.
Other days it does not.

But perhaps that is true for all human existence.

In the end,
living with Ménière’s disease has taught me something I did not seek to learn:

that life is less about controlling the world
than about learning how to remain present within its instability.

Even when the ground shifts beneath us.

Even when silence disappears.

Even when the world begins to turn. 

A human being remains fully human even when balance falters,

even when hearing fades,

even when the world occasionally begins to turn.

This text was written in a conversation with OpenAI/ChatGPT, which also made the illustration

Between the Brain and the Human Being

An Essay on Biology, Interpretation and the Human Being

I was sitting late in the evening reading two difficult research articles.

Outside the window the world had grown quiet. The kind of silence in which thoughts begin to deepen rather than merely continue. On the screen before me appeared words from modern neuroscience:
DNA methylation,
microglia,
oligodendrocytes,
epigenetic shifts across disorders.

The articles examined Alzheimer’s disease, autism, and schizophrenia within the same biological framework.

Three conditions.
Three profoundly different human realities.

And yet there they were,
placed beside one another in the language of brain science.

It made me stop reading for a moment.

Not because the research was weak.
Quite the opposite.
The science was sophisticated, ambitious, and deeply impressive.

But something in the movement itself unsettled me.

For centuries we have understood these conditions as separate worlds.

Alzheimer’s as loss.
Schizophrenia as fragmentation.
Autism as difference.

Different lives.
Different experiences.
Different forms of suffering.
Different ways of standing in the world.

Yet now biology was quietly beginning to redraw the map.

Not according to how life appears from the outside,
but according to underlying cellular processes hidden beneath experience itself.

And perhaps this is one of the great turning points of our time:
the gradual movement from diagnosis toward pattern,
from category toward system,
from isolated conditions toward interconnected biological landscapes.

The old diagnostic maps suddenly appear less solid than we once believed.

For a long time psychiatry and medicine have organized human experience through categories.
Names.
Boundaries.
Definitions.

We speak of autism,
schizophrenia,
depression,
bipolar disorder,
Alzheimer’s disease,
as though each were clearly separated territories.

But the brain itself does not seem to respect these borders.

The researchers whose work I was reading analyzed more than a thousand brains using advanced methylomic techniques.
What they discovered was not a single shared disease,
but something perhaps more interesting:
shared patterns of cellular change occurring across diagnoses.

In Alzheimer’s disease certain cellular structures gradually disappear.
In schizophrenia other systems lose balance and coordination.
In autism patterns emerge that suggest altered developmental organization from the very beginning.

Different expressions.
Different trajectories.
Different lives.

And yet all unfolding within the same biological universe:
the living brain.

This does not mean the conditions are identical.

Far from it.

A person with Alzheimer’s slowly losing memory of loved ones inhabits a reality profoundly different from the autistic child overwhelmed by sensory intensity,
or the young man struggling to distinguish inner voices from external reality.

Humanly,
existentially,
ethically,
these are not the same experiences.

And yet biology whispers something unsettling beneath our categories:

the boundaries may not be as absolute as we imagined.

Perhaps we have drawn our maps according to visible symptoms,
while the deeper terrain underneath flows more continuously.

At this point science becomes philosophical whether it intends to or not.

Because once we begin asking what these conditions share biologically,
another question inevitably follows:

What is a diagnosis, really?

Is it a disease entity existing independently in nature?

Or is it partly a human way of organizing complexity?

This is not merely a medical question.
It is also a hermeneutic one.

Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote that all understanding takes place within a horizon.

We never encounter reality directly,
without interpretation.
We always approach the world through frameworks shaped by history,
language,
culture,
science,
experience.

Modern neuroscience operates within a biological horizon.

And within that horizon its discoveries are real and important.

But no horizon is complete.

When researchers observe methylation patterns in brain tissue,
they discover something true about human biology.

Yet they do not discover what it feels like
to forget a child’s name,
to hear the world too loudly,
or to slowly lose trust in one’s own perception of reality.

Biology can describe mechanisms.

But existence is lived from within.

And perhaps this is where contemporary culture risks becoming divided against itself.

On one side:
an increasingly powerful scientific understanding of the brain.

On the other:
the irreducible inwardness of human life.

We can now visualize neural pathways with astonishing precision.
We can measure molecular shifts invisible to previous generations.
We can identify patterns across enormous datasets.

Yet the more precise our measurements become,
the more mysterious consciousness itself sometimes appears.

Martin Heidegger warned against precisely this danger:
that modern thinking might gradually transform human beings into objects available for technical analysis.

Not maliciously.
Not intentionally.
But subtly.

The human being becomes understandable primarily through what can be measured.

And what cannot be measured slowly disappears from view.

Presence.
Meaning.
Fear.
Longing.
Hope.
Silence.

But the human being is not first a biological object.

The human being is,
as Heidegger wrote,
a being-in-the-world.

We do not merely possess brains.

We live lives.

And life cannot be reduced entirely to mechanism without losing something essential.

This tension becomes especially visible in autism.

For many autistic individuals,
autism is not experienced primarily as illness.
It is experienced as a mode of perception,
a way of encountering reality.

The world may arrive differently:
through intensified sensory experience,
deep pattern recognition,
unusual forms of concentration,
or difficulties navigating social ambiguity.

There may be suffering.
There may also be beauty.

There may be exhaustion.
There may also be extraordinary clarity.

Modern biology can study these processes using the same scientific language applied to severe psychiatric or neurodegenerative disorders.

This is not wrong.

But neither is it the whole truth.

A diagnosis may describe structures and tendencies.

But it cannot contain an entire existence.

Søren Kierkegaard understood something essential here.

Truth, he argued, ultimately becomes meaningful only in relation to the single individual.

Not humanity in general.
Not abstraction.
Not statistical categories.

The individual.

The person sitting alone in a room trying to endure their own life.

No diagnostic manual can fully capture that reality.

And yet we still need diagnoses.

This is the paradox.

Without diagnoses many people would lose:
support,
rights,
recognition,
language,
community,
access to care.

Diagnostic systems create order inside overwhelming complexity.

But they also shape how human beings are seen.

Sometimes they illuminate suffering.
Sometimes they imprison identity.

A child receives a diagnosis —
and suddenly every gesture becomes interpreted through its lens.

The diagnosis explains.
But explanation can also narrow vision.

One begins seeing the category before the person.

Perhaps this is why the newest neuroscience feels both exciting and unsettling at once.

Because if the biological boundaries between diagnoses are increasingly fluid,
then the categories themselves begin to soften.

Not disappear entirely.

But soften.

And maybe this softening contains an important ethical lesson.

Human beings have always exceeded the systems designed to define them.

Psychology cannot fully contain consciousness.
Biology cannot fully contain meaning.
Neuroscience cannot fully contain existence.

The map is never the landscape.

Still,
we continue drawing maps.

Because we must.

Science matters.
Research matters.
Medicine matters.

The suffering connected to dementia,
psychosis,
depression,
and neurological difference is real.
To romanticize such realities would be deeply irresponsible.

But perhaps understanding requires two forms of vision at the same time.

One that studies the brain with scientific precision.

And another that remains open before the mystery of lived existence.

Not either–or.

But both–and.

Between biology and philosophy.
Between diagnosis and individuality.
Between explanation and meaning.
Between the measurable brain and the immeasurable human being.

Perhaps wisdom begins exactly there:
not in rejecting science,
but in refusing to let science become the only language through which human life is understood.

Because a diagnosis can describe.

But it cannot dream.
It cannot hope.
It cannot grieve.
It cannot stand silently by a window late at night wondering what it means to be human.

Only a person can do that.

And behind every brain ever placed beneath a microscope,
there has always been a human being trying — in one way or another —
to live a life within the fragile architecture of consciousness itself.

A diagnosis can describe.

But it cannot dream.

It cannot hope.

It cannot grieve.

It cannot stand silently by a window late at night wondering what it means to be human.

This text is written in a conversation with OpenAI/ChatGPT, which also made the illustration

 

The Autism Spectrum That Breathes 

There are people who enter a room and immediately understand its social atmosphere.

They sense the invisible rhythms:
when to speak,
when to laugh,
when to withdraw,
when silence has become uncomfortable.

And then there are others who first notice the sound of the fluorescent light.

Or the slight asymmetry in the arrangement of chairs.
Or the intensity of another person’s gaze.
Or the way a sentence continues echoing internally long after everyone else has moved on.

Perhaps this is where understanding must begin.

Not with diagnosis.
Not with categories.
But with different ways of encountering the world.

For many years autism was described as a spectrum stretched along a single line:
from mild to severe,
from “high functioning” to “low functioning,”
as though human existence could be arranged like temperature on a thermometer.

But lived experience has always resisted such simplicity.

Two people may share the same diagnosis while inhabiting reality in profoundly different ways.

One may struggle with speech yet perceive emotional nuances with extraordinary depth.
Another may appear socially fluent while living in constant sensory exhaustion.
One seeks structure to survive chaos.
Another experiences chaos inside structure itself.

The old linear model cannot contain such differences.

And perhaps the problem lies not only in the model,
but in our deeper longing to simplify what is inherently complex.

Recent research has therefore begun to speak differently about autism.
Not as a single continuum,
but as a multidimensional field of traits and experiences:
sensory sensitivity,
attention,
emotional intensity,
pattern recognition,
social communication,
need for predictability,
cognitive focus.

This shift matters.

Not because science has finally “solved” autism,
but because the map has become slightly more humble.

A multidimensional understanding allows movement.
Breathing.
Contradiction.
Variation.

It acknowledges that two people can stand close together diagnostically while living in entirely different experiential worlds.

Yet even this richer model remains, in the end, a map viewed from outside.

And there is always something that escapes observation.

Something inward.
Something lived.

Vincent van Gogh once wrote:

“I dream my painting, and then I paint my dream.”

There is something deeply familiar in those words.

Not necessarily because autism creates artistic genius —
that romantic myth helps no one —
but because many people on the spectrum describe existence itself as unusually vivid, overwhelming, textured, or intense.

The world does not merely appear.

It arrives.

Light arrives.
Sound arrives.
Words arrive.
Human presence arrives.

Sometimes gently.
Sometimes like weather.

And perhaps this is why many autistic individuals speak of exhaustion not simply as tiredness,
but as saturation.

Too much entering consciousness at once.

Modern neuroscience can describe fragments of this process.
It can measure sensory processing, attentional patterns, neurological variation.

But measurement alone cannot tell us what it feels like
when ordinary existence becomes acoustically, emotionally, or perceptually amplified.

At this point philosophy becomes necessary.

Not as abstract speculation,
but as another language for human experience.

Friedrich Nietzsche warned repeatedly against confusing our descriptions of reality with reality itself.
What we call truth, he argued, is often merely an interpretation that has become culturally dominant.

This insight matters profoundly here.

Because every diagnostic system reflects not only scientific discovery,
but also cultural assumptions about what counts as “normal” perception,
“appropriate” behavior,
or “functional” sociality.

The autistic person therefore often grows up inside interpretations created by others.

Observed.
Measured.
Explained.

But not always understood.

And understanding is something different.

Martin Heidegger perhaps comes closer than most philosophers to illuminating this distinction.
Human beings, he argued, are never detached observers standing outside the world.
We are always already immersed within it.

We do not first think and then exist.

We exist first.

We are beings-in-the-world.

From such a perspective autism cannot simply be reduced to a list of traits.
It becomes a particular mode of openness toward existence itself.

A different way the world discloses itself.

The same room.
The same conversation.
The same landscape.

Yet not quite the same world.

Some people move easily through social ambiguity.
Others experience every encounter consciously,
analytically,
sometimes painfully.

Some intuitively filter sensory information.
Others receive experience almost unfiltered.

Neither condition is morally superior.

They are different modes of inhabiting reality.

And perhaps modern society misunderstands this because contemporary culture values speed above depth.

Fast communication.
Fast interpretation.
Fast emotional signaling.

But many autistic individuals live differently in time.

More slowly.
More intensely.
More carefully.

Words may need silence around them before they can be understood.

This can appear socially hesitant from outside.
Yet inwardly it may reflect not absence of thought,
but an excess of it.

Søren Kierkegaard wrote that “the crowd is untruth.”

By this he did not mean that community is meaningless,
but that individuality easily disappears beneath collective expectations.

No diagnosis,
however accurate,
can finally explain a person.

Because every human being remains more than any category assigned to them.

The danger of all systems —
medical,
psychological,
philosophical —
is that they begin seeing individuals as examples of theory rather than singular existences.

But the autistic child sitting silently at the back of a classroom is not primarily a diagnostic profile.

He is a world.

A way of perceiving.
A way of suffering.
A way of hoping.
A way of enduring confusion.
A way of searching for coherence inside overwhelming complexity.

And perhaps this is where the deepest ethical question emerges.

Not:
“What is autism?”

But:
“How do we meet forms of existence different from our own?”

Can we remain open before experiences we do not immediately understand?

Can we allow another person’s perception of reality to challenge our assumptions about normality?

Albert Einstein once wrote:

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.”

Modern culture often fears mystery.
We want certainty,
clarity,
classification.

Yet human existence has never fully submitted to systems.

Not in art.
Not in love.
Not in grief.
Not in consciousness.

And not in autism.

Scientific models remain important.
They create language,
support,
recognition,
protection,
possibility for care.

But science alone cannot carry the full weight of human meaning.

For that we also need philosophy.
Poetry.
Silence.
Listening.

And perhaps above all:
humility.

Because some people do not merely think differently.

They experience reality through another rhythm of perception.

The autism spectrum therefore does not simply describe variation along a line.

It resembles something more alive than that.

A landscape.
A field of shifting intensities.
A spectrum that breathes.

And within that breathing spectrum lives not an abstraction,
but countless singular human beings,
each trying — in their own way —
to find a place in the world where existence becomes bearable,
meaningful,
and perhaps even beautiful.

A landscape.

A field of shifting intensities.

A spectrum that breathes.

This essay was written in a conversation with OpenAI/ChatGPT, which also made the illustration

 

When Shame Falls Silent

Childhood Sexual Abuse, Human Dignity, and the Long Road Back to Life

There are experiences that do not merely wound a human being, but slowly alter the way a person sees themselves. Childhood sexual abuse is one such experience. Not only because the body is violated, but because the self may gradually become filled with shame, silence, and distrust. Many who have experienced abuse as children later live with a deep sense of being damaged, different, or unworthy. Some lose faith in other people. Others lose faith in themselves.

For many years, I worked with people carrying such experiences. Later, I also explored these questions in research and academic writing. This essay grows out of an earlier book chapter published in Narratives of Risk in 2012, where I examined how Norwegian incest centers work with health risks and shame in the aftermath of childhood sexual abuse.

Yet research alone is never enough when writing about subjects like these.

Behind the theories, there are human beings.

People who once sat quietly in the back of a room, trying not to be seen. People who learned early that trust could be dangerous. People who carried a secret for years that nobody around them truly understood.

And perhaps this is where practical philosophy begins.

Not in abstract theories about humanity, but in the encounter with a person struggling to find their way back to themselves.

Shame That Cannot Find Words

The most painful consequence of sexual abuse is often not only the abuse itself. It is the shame that follows afterward.

Shame settles into the body. Into the gaze. Into the voice. Into the way a person enters a room.

Many survivors describe a feeling of being fundamentally “wrong.” Not merely that something terrible happened to them, but that they themselves are somehow damaged or corrupted. This is one of shame’s most destructive powers: it moves the blame from the act to the person.

Research on childhood sexual abuse describes a long list of psychological and physical consequences that may follow: anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, dissociation, eating disorders, relational difficulties, and chronic bodily distress.

But beneath all diagnoses there is often something even more fundamental.

A deep existential experience of having lost oneself.

The sociologist Thomas Scheff described shame as a threat to human bonds. When we feel shame, we withdraw. We attempt to hide ourselves from others. And when shame becomes overwhelming, we may also begin to hide from ourselves.

I have met people who seemed to live their entire lives in a form of inner retreat. Outwardly they functioned well. They worked, studied, raised children, smiled politely. Yet inside there was often a silent room filled with fear and self-contempt.

Some had never told their story to anyone.

Living in the Risk Society

In my original research, I attempted to understand the work of the Norwegian incest centers through the perspective of what sociologists Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens called the “risk society.”

Modern human beings live surrounded by experts, institutions, and professional systems. We seek help from therapists, doctors, psychologists, and social workers. At the same time, modern societies increasingly reveal a growing distrust toward many of these systems.

For survivors of childhood sexual abuse, this becomes especially complicated.

The perpetrators are often authority figures: parents, stepparents, relatives, or adults the child depended upon.

When the person who was meant to protect becomes the one who violates, trust itself becomes dangerous.

Professional helpers may therefore also feel threatening.

It is easy to underestimate how difficult it can be for a human being to ask for help when the entire self is filled with shame. Richard Sennett once argued that asking for help can itself become humiliating. One becomes visible in one’s vulnerability. One risks losing control over how others see them.

I believe many helping systems underestimate precisely this.

We often assume that people automatically seek help when they suffer.

But many hide their pain until it becomes unbearable.

Why the Incest Centers Became Important

The Norwegian incest center movement emerged during the 1980s when a few women began sharing their experiences with each other.

Something remarkably simple happened.

Two human beings discovered that they could speak openly without being condemned.

That experience became the beginning of an entire movement.

What made the incest centers unique was that they were built upon a principle different from many traditional therapeutic institutions. Their motto became: Help toward self-help.

The people who came there were not first and foremost meant to be “treated.” They were meant to be met.

The difference is greater than we often realize.

In the focus group interviews I conducted, many participants described how difficult it was to speak during their first visits. Some simply sat quietly on the sofa. Others carefully observed the room, trying to determine whether it was safe.

This matters.

For people living with shame, safety is never automatic. It must be experienced slowly.

Respect as a Beginning

One of the most important findings in the study was the significance of respect.

Many participants described how the abuse had damaged their sense of self. They had learned to see themselves through the eyes of the perpetrator.

When a child is violated repeatedly, the child often learns that their boundaries do not matter. Over time, this may become a fundamental lack of self-respect.

This is why respect from others becomes essential.

Not as empty praise.

But as genuine human recognition.

One woman in the study said:

“To be respected for who I am. To be seen as I am. To be accepted as I am.”

It sounds simple.

But for many people, this is an experience they have rarely known.

Practical philosophy often speaks of dignity, freedom, and human worth. Yet perhaps these ideas begin in something far more concrete:

A human being met without contempt.

A room where one no longer needs to hide.

A gaze that does not wound.

The Healing Power of Human Community

Shame isolates.

Therefore healing almost always takes place in relation to other human beings.

Many participants described the decisive moment as discovering that they were not alone.

There is enormous power in that realization.

The moment a person understands:

“It is not only me.”

Some women described the incest center almost as a new family. Others said it was the first place where they truly felt believed.

To outsiders this may seem small.

But for a person who has lived for years in secrecy and silence, it can become life-changing.

Martin Buber wrote that human beings become themselves in the encounter between “I” and “Thou.” When we are treated as objects, something in our humanity diminishes. When we are encountered as subjects, we may slowly begin to rediscover ourselves.

Sexual abuse is, at its core, an objectification of a human being.

The child is used.

Healing therefore becomes a rediscovery of subjectivity itself.

A human being gradually experiences again:

“I am not merely something others use. I am a person.”

Learning to Feel Again

Many survivors learn early in life to suppress their emotions.

Some learn that crying is dangerous. Others learn that anger is forbidden. Many dissociate — disconnecting from their bodies and emotions in order to survive.

But emotions do not disappear.

They simply move underground.

In the interviews, several participants described how speaking openly about the abuse could trigger intense reactions: crying, anxiety, self-harm, or overwhelming shame.

One participant said something that stayed with me:

“They feel they have betrayed someone by telling the secret.”

This reveals something profound about the psychology of abuse.

Children often learn to protect the perpetrator.

Even as adults, speaking the truth may therefore feel dangerous.

Therapy is not merely about “talking about problems.” It is also about learning to endure the emotions that arise when truth finally finds language.

The Slow Return of Trust

Perhaps the most difficult task after childhood sexual abuse is learning to trust again.

When trust is first broken in childhood, distrust often follows into adult life. Some become extremely cautious. Others become vulnerable to new violations because they have never learned healthy boundaries.

One woman in the study described how she repeatedly entered relationships where she was exploited because she had learned to adapt herself entirely to others. Eventually, she no longer trusted anyone.

This is tragic.

Because human beings need trust in order to live.

Not naïve trust.

But the fundamental experience that some people genuinely wish us well.

Anthony Giddens argued that identity in modern society becomes a reflexive project. We continually create ourselves through the stories we tell about our lives. But how does one do this when one’s own story is filled with shame and fear?

Perhaps it begins with small experiences.

A human being who listens.

A room where silence is allowed.

A relationship where one is finally permitted to say no.

For many survivors, the ability to say no is itself a completely new experience.

From Problems to Possibilities

One particularly interesting finding in the study was that many employees at the incest centers gradually moved away from an exclusive focus on problems.

Instead, they began asking different questions:

What gives life strength?

What creates new experiences?

What allows hope to emerge?

These are also deeply philosophical questions.

Human beings are never merely the sum of their traumas.

Even in those who have suffered greatly, there often remains a quiet life force. A longing for meaning. A will to continue living.

Sometimes we see this most clearly in those who have stood closest to despair.

I have met people who, after years of shame, slowly began to rediscover themselves. Not because the pain disappeared, but because they were no longer alone with it.

There is a profound difference between pain and lonely pain.

That difference may become decisive.

Practical Philosophy and Human Dignity

What can practical philosophy contribute to such questions?

Perhaps first and foremost a reminder that human beings are never merely diagnoses or case descriptions.

Behind every clinical concept there is a person struggling to continue living with their own history.

Practical philosophy also reminds us of something else:

Human dignity does not disappear because a human being has been violated.

It may be hidden.

It may be wounded.

It may nearly vanish beneath the darkness of shame.

But it is not entirely lost.

This is why helping others becomes more than therapeutic technique. It becomes a way of meeting another human being that makes it possible to believe in one’s own worth again.

This requires more than competence.

It requires presence.

Silence.

Patience.

And sometimes the courage to remain close to another person’s pain without turning away.

A Quiet Ending

When I look back upon this work today, it is not primarily the theories I remember.

I remember the voices.

The people who dared to speak.

The pauses during conversations.

The silence after difficult words.

And I remember how much courage it takes to become whole again after being violated as a child.

Perhaps that is why I still believe that hope is not primarily a theory.

Hope often begins in the presence of another human being.

Someone who quietly says:

You do not need to hide here.

References

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 243–267.

Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.

Beck, U. (2007). World at risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of the research. Psychological Bulletin, 99(1), 66–77.

Buber, M. (1970). I and Thou. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Cooley, C. H. (2006). Human nature and the social order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1902)

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Kaufman, G., & Raphael, L. (1996). Coming out of shame: Transforming gay and lesbian lives. New York: Doubleday.

Mossige, S., & Stefansen, K. (2007). Violence and abuse against children and adolescents. Oslo: NOVA.

Pettersen, K. T. (2009). An exploration into the concept and phenomenon of shame within the context of child sexual abuse. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU).

Sennett, R. (2003). Respect in a world of inequality. New York: W. W. Norton.

Skårderud, F. (2001). The voices of shame: Silence, eloquence and rage in the therapeutic room. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening, 121(13), 1613–1617.

Turner, J. H., & Stets, J. E. (2005). The sociology of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

United Nations. (2006). The United Nations Secretary-General’s study on violence against children. Geneva: United Nations.

Hope often begins in the presence of another human being.

Someone who quietly says:

You do not need to hide here.

The text here is written in a conversation with OpenAI/ChatGPT, which also made the illustration