‘Cos I’m a Survivor’ : Narratives of coping and resilience in recollections of difficult childhood in post-war Finland

Abs ac In pos -wa Finland housands o child en expe ienced poo upb inging, ne- glec and abuse, and had o deal wi h hei expe iences wi hou social sup- po om adul s. In his a icle we s udy how di icul and bi e expe iences ela ed o childhood c ises a e emembe ed, ein e p e ed and e amed in la e li e and in con empo a y Finland. As esea ch ma e ial we use bo h o al and w i en eminiscences o childhood in he pos -wa yea s collec ed in he pe iod 2014–2016. We a gue ha in he ecollec ions o di icul childhood coping and esilience eme ge as majo na a i e hemes. Al hough in o man s in hei childhood we e o ced o su e in silence, hey emembe hemsel es as being esilien and capable o su i ing in ad e se en i onmen s. In hei la e adul hood public collec ion o childhood memo ies has o e ed hem a sui able medium o emembe and e ame hei expe iences as meaning ul, by exposing he ‘cul u e o silence’ which p e ailed in he pos -wa Finland. Keywo ds: childhood memo ies, auma, c isis, su i al, pos -wa ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ Na a i es o Coping and Resilience in Recollec ions o Di icul Childhood in Pos -wa Finland Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen © Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-3460-7508 / h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-1967-5871 ETNOLOGIA FENNICA Vol. 45 (2018), 55–78. h ps://doi.o g/10.23991/e . 45i0.65535 This wo k is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License. 56 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ In oduc ion In his a icle we s udy how di icul and bi e expe iences in childhood a e emembe ed and ein e p e ed in la e li e. We use amewo ks o c isis o al his o y and li e s o y esea ch o de elop an unde s anding o p ocesses o emembe ing and o ge ing in li e s o ies (Leydesdo e al. 1999, 1). Ou iewpoin on he c isis o al his o y is ha ins ead o an indi idual auma ic e en , a c isis may be caused by a p olonged si ua ion whe e a child is con- s an ly neglec ed o abused in he li ing en i onmen . Violence o an indi- idual can cause las ing damage and ha e an e ec on he whole li e cou se o he ic im. (Lai inen & Uusi alo 2008, 107–108; Leydesdo e al. 1999, 9.) A ound one million Finnish child en aged 15 o less li ed hei childhood du ing he pos -wa yea s (c. 1945–60). A g ea numbe o hese child en we e a isk o expe iencing se ious dis ess and de eloping s ess- ela ed beha iou al p oblems.1 Especially ulne able we e hose child en who li ed wi h pa en (s) su e ing om subs ance abuse and possibly associa ed psy- chosocial p oblems, and child en expe iencing neglec and abuse in ca e, ei- he in os e amilies o in child en’s homes o e o m schools. App oxima e- ly 15,000 child en we e annually li ing in os e amilies and a ound 5,000 in child en’s homes and e o m schools. The numbe o Finnish adul s su e ing om subs ance abuse has been es ima ed a a ound 15,000–20,000, bu he ac ual numbe is p obably much highe .2 I is sa e o say ha housands o Finnish child en expe ienced e en s and condi ions which ‘le a ma k’, and some imes we e ‘ma ked o li e’. Indi iduals li ing hei childhood du ing he Second Wo ld Wa and i s immedia e a e ma h a e now eaching an age when hey ha e a de elopmen al need o look back on hei li es (Hu chison 2008, 407; Bu le 1974). No ma e i hey ind hei childhood expe iences nega i e o posi i e – o bo h, as he case usually is – on eaching old age peo- ple look back o de e mine he na u e o hei li es and o assess whe he ha li e has been a success ul one o no . Remembe ing and seeking knowledge abou abuse and iolence can be igh ening (Rose 1999, 164–165; He man 1997, 174–175; Leydesdo e al. 1999, 13–14). S ill, while eminiscing, su i o s y o make sense o he ea- sons why he adul s and pe pe a o s su ounding hem beha ed and ac ed as hey did, and how hey hemsel es managed o cope wi h i (No h 1998, 24–25; Kelley 1998, 262–263; Malinen & Tamminen 2017, 399–401). In his 1 We do no claim ha all child en o he ime ha e auma ic memo ies, o we e a a isk o abuse o neglec . Howe e , he ocus o he a icle is on nega i e childhood memo ies. 2 Acco ding o a gallup su ey conduc ed in 1948 six pe cen o Finnish men d ank hea ily e e y second o hi d day and ou pe cen almos daily. C . Kuusi 1948. 57 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ a icle we ask: How people ha ing expe ienced di icul ies in childhood e- membe and na a e hei s eng h and su i al in hei li e s o ies? Wha elemen s do hey ind posi i e and impo an in hei childhood when look- ing back on i oday? The li e his o y esea ch iewpoin on memo ies o childhood auma and pe sonal c isis helps o unde s and he meanings o childhood expe iences o people’s la e li e and li e cou se. As Selma Leydesdo e al. s a e, he li e s o y app oach wo ks as a way o look a he ela ion be ween an indi idual’s expe iences and wide public knowledge and ep esen a ions. (Leydesdo e al. 1999, 13.) Th ough cons uc ion, elling and e- elling pe sonal (li e) s o ies people make sense o hei li es (Sikes & Goodson 2017, 61–65). The a icle is based on he o al and w i en eminiscences o adul s ecalling and looking back on hei childhood and desc ibing hei di icul ies and cop- ing me hods. The ma e ials analysed we e collec ed on wo di e en p ojec s in which we pa icipa ed, and include bo h o al and w i en eminiscences. The ma e ials include na a i es abou childhood in biological amilies and childhood in ou -o -home ca e. Al hough ou ma e ial conce ns some imes auma ic memo ies, we ocus on he posi i e elemen s ound in li e s o ies and in e iews. Resea ch on di icul childhood o en ocuses on he expe i- ences o c isis, o e en s causing auma (see e.g. Ca e 2014; Kennedy 2006; Rose 1999). Howe e , o al and w i en eminiscences also o e in e es ing and aluable oppo uni ies o s udy how esponden s ied o ind ways o manage hei ad e se expe iences in hei childhood on a pe sonal le el, and li e wi h pain ul memo ies in la e li e and adul hood (see e.g. Sköld 2015; Søland 2015). The pu pose o ou ex is no o claim ha alking o w i ing abou pain- ul memo ies is he only solu ion o o e coming a di icul childhood. Ins ead, ou aim is o in e p e elemen s o coping and eco e y no as he only way o na a ing abou childhood in he pos -wa yea s, bu as one o he possible and ellable na a i es o childhood. (See e.g. Woodiwiss 2005, 153.) Ou a icle cons i u es an e hnological iewpoin on pe sonal memo ies; wi h ou analysis o he meanings o c isis in li e s o y in e iews and w i ing we con ibu e o he discussion o childhood memo ies in e e yday li e. No ma e i we speak on a collec i e o indi idual le el, he concep o memo y has been and con inues o be essen ial in e hnological esea ch. (Kõ esaa 2004; Ko kiakangas 2005; 1996, 11–16.) As he e hnologis Ene Kõ esaa (2004, 46) pu s i , an expe ience is biog aphical because one expe iences a a ie y o hings o e he li e cou se. Also, expe iences become biog aphical when hey a e na a ed as a pa o a li e s o y. He e we ocus on he ways in which pe sonal expe iences in he pas a e in e p e ed in he p esen , and 58 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ how new in o ma ion is sough o e ame expe iences and o a ach new meanings o hem. Ma e ials, me hods and esea ch e hics The p ima y esea ch ma e ial o he a icle consis s o o al li e na a i e in- e iews and w i en eminiscences conce ning childhood in di e en ci cum- s ances in pos -wa Finland. The ma e ials we e collec ed on wo di e en p o- jec s. We use in e iews conduc ed du ing an o icial his o ical inqui y in o child abuse and neglec in ou -o -home ca e in Finland, 1937–1983 (he ea e : he Inqui y). The Inqui y was commissioned by he Finnish Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h and accomplished by a mul idisciplina y esea ch eam ep- esen ing e hnology, his o y and social wo k in he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. We we e pa o he esea ch eam. In 2014 and 2015, he eam conduc ed 299 o al in e iews conce ning iolen and abusi e childhood expe iences in ou -o -home ca e. (Hy önen, Malinen e al. 2016.) In his a icle, we ocus on expe iences om he pos -wa pe iod (c. 1945–1960), which limi s ou analy- sis o in e iewees bo n be o e 1955. We also analyse w i en ma e ials collec ed by by An i Malinen oge he wi h he Folklo e A chi e o he Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. In he collec ion called “The Wa ha Con inued in he Homes?” (2015–2016) Malinen ga he ed memo ies o how membe s o amilies, and especially child en, expe ienced he immedia e pos -wa yea s, especially in he amily con ex . The collec ion ecei ed almos 180 esponses and 1,406 pages o w i en memo ies. Mos o he esponden s we e bo n be ween he 1930s and he 1950s. In Finland and in adjacen coun ies he e is a long adi ion o collec ing expe iences and memo ies o a chi e collec ions h ough hema ic w i ing campaigns. These collec ions a e widely used in pa allel wi h o al his o y ma- e ials, e en hough di e ences in he o igins o he ma e ials mus be aken in o accoun . (Pel onen & Salmi-Niklande 2007, 5–6; Hy önen 2013b, 89–91; Hin ikus & Kõ esaa 2004.) No dic-Bal ic o al his o y esea ch has a adi ion o adap ing me hods om neighbou ing esea ch ields, o example li e w i - ing (Jaago, Kõ esaa & Rahi-Tamm 2006; Heimo 2016, 40; Hin ikus & Kõ e- saa 2004). In Finland o al his o y esea ch is o en conduc ed by e hnolo- gis s and olklo is ics wi h ex ensi e knowledge o old olklo e and memo y collec ions in Finnish a chi es. In ac , in Finnish he equi alen o he e m ‘o al his o y’ is ‘muis i ie o u kimus’, which could be ansla ed as ‘ esea ch on emembe ed in o ma ion’ (Finge oos & Haanpää 2012). Thus i includes bo h o al and w i en ma e ials. I is cha ac e is ic o o al his o y ha ma e ials a e p oduced in a dialogue, mainly be ween in e iewe and in e iewee (see e.g. Ab ams 2016, 1; Kl- 59 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ empne 2006; Po elli 2006; Kalela 2006, 83–84). Howe e , w i en ‘ emem- be ed in o ma ion’ ma e ials s o ed in an a chi e also include ea u es o di- alogue. The e is a pa y who asks ques ions conce ning pe sonal memo ies, and a pa y who answe s hose ques ions. Dialogue inc eases i pa icipan s con ac he a chi e o esea che (s) o ganizing i . E en wi hou pe sonal con- ac o he a chi e, he au ho usually w i es o someone, imagined o eal e- sponden . The olklo e schola Pauliina La ala desc ibes his kind o w i e – imagined eade -dialogue as laye ed communica ion (La ala 2005, 67–68). In he w i en ma e ial, he dialogue akes place in a longe imespan han in an in e iew. When w i ing abou hei memo ies, pa icipan s may conside ca e ully wha o w i e and how o answe he ques ions asked, whe eas dia- logue du ing an in e iew is mo e spon aneous. Howe e , his spon anei y is no simila in all in e iews, and some w i e s do no plan hei ex s bu w i e in a e y spon aneous way. (Pöysä 2015, 23–24; Pöysä 2006; Bohman 1986; Hy önen 2013b, 89–91; see also Thompson 1999.) Acco ding o Ronal J. G ele (2007, 14), a no iceable ea u e in an o al his o y in e iew is audi- ence. The o al his o y in e iew is ne e jus a con e sa ion be ween wo peo- ple in e es ed in he pas . Ins ead, bo h o he pa icipan s a e awa e o he public na u e o he dialogue. The same applies o he p ocess o w i ing down memo ies o an a chi e. In o man s know ha hei memo ies will be used by esea che s. E en hough hey do no know wha kind o esea ch hei in- e iew o w i ing will be used o in he u u e, hey ha e gi en hei consen o he use o he ma e ial hey p oduced o he a chi e. (Hels i 2000, 26–28.) O en in collec ions o memoi s and in e iews emale pa icipan s a e in he majo i y (e.g. Pöysä 2015, 22); his is also he case in ou ma e ials. How- e e , we did no in en ionally choose ou in o man s by gende , bu on he basis o hei yea o bi h. As men ioned abo e, we ha e con ined he ma e- ial o he childhood in pos -wa Finland, i.e. ou in o man s we e bo n be- ween 1930 and 1950. As a as we know, ou na a o s a e om di e en so- cial backg ounds, and place hei childhood memo ies in di e en loca ions in Finland. Howe e , he analysis ine i ably lacks he impac o social class because we do no always know he cu en posi ion o he in o man . They ha e chosen hemsel es wha o na a e, and wha hey ind impo an o ell. Two hings should be no ed abou he ma e ial used in he a icle. Fi s ly, he o al ma e ial o he a icle in pa icula ocuses on nega i e expe iences in childhood. Ob iously, we do no claim ha all child en aced di icul ies in hei childhood in pos -wa Finland. Howe e , we ha e collec ed ma e ial abou di icul ies and ocused on hem, and his mus be bo ne in mind while eading he ma e ials. Also, i is wo h poin ing ou , ha all he in o man s pa icipa ed ei he in he in e iews o esponded o he call o w i en ac- 60 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ coun s because hey ound hei childhood expe iences meaning ul. Especial- ly o hose esponding o he call o w i ing wa ime is a signi ican pa o childhood wi h e ec s all he way o adul hood. In his a icle we a gue ha by aming hei childhood expe iences as auma ic, some in o man s wan o b ing in o discussion he da k aspec s o Finnish pos -wa cul u e and especially he cos s o he so-called ‘cul u e o silence’ which o ced child en li ing in ad e se en i onmen s o su e in silence (Ki imäki 2010, 198, 207–208; Ki imäki & Hy önen 2015). The 1950s has some imes been seen as a nos algic e a o happy amilies, and some in o - man s wish o decons uc his nos algia. (On nos algia in memo ies o pos - wa Finland see e.g. Koskinen-Koi is o & Snellman 2016; S eel 2013, 251–254; Hy önen 2013a, 7.) Howe e , he ole o auma should no be o e empha- sized. A la ge numbe o Finnish child en we e able o li e hei childhood in decen and sa e en i onmen s (Malinen & Tamminen 2017, 19). Some in o - man s we e wo ied ha pos -wa amily li e is nowadays po ayed as oo gloomy and auma-cen ed. As one in o man explained: Nowadays he e is a no ion ha e e ybody was auma ized a e he wa and amily li e was e ible, o e shadowed by booze and nigh ma es […] This eels almos insul - ing o us who we e li ing in o dina y, sa e amilies. (Female, bo n 1940–45, 1285, PJS SKS KRA.) We ead ou ma e ials as o al his o y o a (di icul ) childhood. Reminis- cence is cons an mo emen back and o h in ime: he dialogue be ween in e iewe and in e iewee, o he p ocess o w i ing down one’s memo ies and sending he ex o an a chi e, akes place in he p esen , bu he pe spec- i e and ocus o he pa icipan s a e on childhood expe iences and pe sonal his o y. Thus memo ies in he esea ch ma e ial a e adul s’ in e p e a ions o childhood happenings p oduced in a dialogue. (Hels i 2000, 25; Ukkonen 2006, 183–186; G ele 2007.) We lean on an o al his o y classic, Alessand o Po elli (2006), and unde line he in e p e a i e cha ac e o bo h o al and w i en eminiscence. As ime has passed since he ac ual happenings caus- ing he pain o su e ing, he in e iews and w i en eminiscences a e mo e abou he meanings a ached o hose expe iences in la e li e han abou wha ac ually happened. (See e.g. Po elli 2006; Ab ams 2016, 18–19.) The p ocess o eading has also been cons an mo emen be ween he ma- e ial, ou no es conce ning i , and in e p e a ions, be ween esea ch li e a- u e, ma e ials and ou no es. Themes and quo a ions in he ollowing analysis a e based on ou close eading, which Jy ki Pöysä de ines as bo h eading and w i ing: eading, making no es and commen ing, and e u ning back o ead- 61 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ ing wi h in e p e a ions (Pöysä 2015, 30–32). We chose he quo a ions om he ma e ial as examples o he opics we ound impo an in ou analysis, and he e o e hey ac as ep esen a i es o he ma e ial. The aim is o aise discussion abou a ew cen al hemes ecu ing in ou ma e ial. I would be ui ul o analyse he ma e ial in g ea e de ail and discuss mo e hemes, bu so a we limi ed he ques ions o pe sonal s eng h and esilience o child en in hei childhood memo ies. We add ess memo ies o abuse, neglec and iolence in childhood as li ed expe iences o pain. Pain is no (always) physical, bu mo e o en emo ional pain ha s ems om nega i e expe iences (e.g. neglec , abuse o iolence) in childhood (e.g. Ahmed 2014, 22; Rose 1999). I should be no ed ha he ma- e ial consis s o li e na a i es o su i als. Those who did no ind a way o cope wi h hei auma ic childhood memo ies and he pain caused by hem a e no he e o ell abou i . As we lea n du ing ou ieldwo k du ing he In- qui y, many people who aced iolence, abuse o neglec in childhood su e ed om men al p oblems and om alcoholism in adul hood and died ela i ely young (Rauhala 1972; Kes ilä e al. 2012). As ou w i en ma e ials show, om he iewpoin o child en, di icul ies like insecu i y, iolence, ea o neglec also occu ed in biological amilies. Di icul childhood memo ies a e a sensi i e esea ch opic (see Hydén 2008). The e o e special emphasis is placed on esea ch e hics (Ab ams 2016, 190–194; Hy önen, Malinen e al. 2016; Malinen 2017). We ead he ma e- ial wi h espec o he oices o in o man s. By his we mean ha we do no con es hei na a i es; ins ead, we gi e space o hei na a ion, and belie e wha hey say (Ab ams 2016, 181; Kalela 2010). Ou aim is o use he ma e ial in a balanced way and con ex ualize i app op ia ely. By well-balanced use o he ma e ial we mean ha ou objec i e is o unde s and he da a as a whole, and no o emphasize any elemen abo e o he wi hou eason, e en hough he ma e ial aises many di e en emo ions in us (Klempne 2006; Malinen 2017). A ai con ex is necessa y o decen unde s anding o he expe ienc- es. I i is done w ong, he isk o anach onism inc eases. As his o ian Jo ma Kalela (2006, 84–85; 2010, 48–50), says, a ai con ex ualiza ion is a ques ion o espec o in o man s. All in o ma ion ha could help o iden i y in o man s has been dele ed om he quo es. The ma e ial conce ning ou -o -home ca e has been ano- nymized, and we will e e o in e iewees only by hei gende and yea o bi h o he nea es i e yea s (e.g. Male, bo n 1940–44). To ea in o man s equally, w i en eminiscence likewise uses he gende and yea o bi h o he 62 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ w i e o he nea es i e yea s, and wi h he abb e ia ion o he a chi e (e.g. Female, bo n 1935–39, page numbe , PJS SKS KRA).3 Resilien child en The in e p e a i e cha ac e o o al his o y na a i es is e iden in discussion abou pe sonal su i al and s eng h in a di icul childhood. While conduc - ing he in e iews wi h ca e lea e s, we asked hem wha hey d eamed abou when hey we e child en, and wha kind o hings helped hem in hei child- hood. The answe s we ecei ed a e adul s’ in e p e a ions; hey a e e lec ions on pe sonal cha ac e and posi i e ac o s in he en i onmen . This in e p e- a ion abou pe sonal quali ies ha helped h ough di icul ies is impo an when a pe son ells a s o y o he o his own li e o people who unde s and he social wo ld o he na a i e (S eedman 2009, 210). When we asked abou coping4 du ing he in e iews wi h ca e lea e s, he mos common immedia e eply was: “I canno say how I su i ed. I do no know.” A e i s saying ha hey did no know how hey su i ed, he in e - iewees usually e alua ed hei pe sonal cha ac e s in a ew wo ds. Howe e , he i s eac ion o he ques ion was o en absence o ecall. This has no , i seems, so much o do wi h lack o sel -knowledge, bu a he o concep s o silence and ellabili y. (Ko jonen-Kuusipuu o & Kuusis o-A ponen 2017, 10–11; Sa olainen 2017, 30–31; Rose 1999, 164, 175–176; Robinson 1981, 63; Hydén 2008.) Neglec o child en has been a ep essed, o go en opic bo h on a socio-cul u al le el and on a pe sonal le el. One o he aims o he Inqui y was o b ing he opic o he ligh o day and in o open discussion: o ecognize socie y’s ailu es in he p o ec ion o child en. On a pe sonal le el, a di icul childhood in os e ca e o in an ins i u ion has long been a shame- ul opic wi h a po en ial o s igma. Some o ou in e iewees had ne e alk- ed abou i ou side he immedia e amily, and hese childhood memo ies a e no included in amily na a i es. (Abou amily na a i es see Siim 2016.) Fo many o ou in o man s bo h in he w i en and o al ma e ials, no com- munica i e con ex o elling a na a i e o di icul ies in childhood exis ed, and in o man s did no deem hei li e na a i es wo h elling socie y abou (Sa olainen 2017, 32; Robinson 1981, 63). In he o al and w i en ma e ials used in he a icle, he silence was b oken. In he li e w i ings and o al in e - iews analysed on ou esea ch p ojec s, pa icipan s had a chance o pu in o 3 Quo a ions ansla ed by he au ho s o he a icle and p oo ead by Vi ginia Ma ila. The code a e each quo e is an abb e ia ion o he a chi e collec ion in Finnish. PJS= The Wa ha Con inued in he Homes, SKS KRA = Folklo e A chi es o he Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. 4 The ques ion was usually in one o m o ano he : “Wha helped you o su i e? How did you cope?” 63 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ wo ds and desc ibe bo h hei di icul childhood expe iences and na a i es o s eng h and su i al. Thei eelings o pain became wo h elling. Pe sonal quali ies ha e no been impo an only in childhood bu con- inue o be indispensable when some o he in e iewees also s uggled in hei cu en li es. Labelling onesel as a ‘su i o ’ helps o cons uc a cohe - en li e na a i e, and o make a dis inc ion be ween onesel and o he s, i.e. hose who did no su i e. “Se en o hem did hemsel es in s aigh away. Bu I su i ed, ’cos I’m a su i o .” (Female, bo n 1935–39.) Suicides o o h- e iolen dea hs o iends a e a conc e e opposi e o a pe sonal expe ience o su i al and s eng h. In e iewees know ha hey possess quali ies o s eng hs ha some o he s do no ha e. “Well, my own gu s. Tha ’s one. The oughe you a e he be e you cope. And like I said, he weake ones, well hey killed hemsel es. They couldn’ s and being placed in ca e.” (Female, bo n 1950–54.) Usually in e iewees cha ac e ize hemsel es wi h a ibu es ha desc ibe esis ance and s amina. A woman bo n in he 1930s, who was bea en in a child en’s home i s ells abou he posi i e na u e and abili y o laugh as he esou ce o ene gy and su i al. Howe e , a posi i e a i ude o li e does no exclude s ubbo nness o a de e mined na u e, as she con inues la e in he na a i e: “And like, he e was no hing like wha hey’ e go oday, all ha c isis ca e and wha no , he e was ne e hem, you jus had o ge on wi h i you sel . I’ e been p e y ough like, o ge by.” (Female, bo n 1930– 34.) Th ough compa ison o p esen ca e o su i o s o auma ic e en s she seems o con ince bo h he sel and he in e iewe s abou he s eng h and capabili y o esilience. Imagina ion, he abili y o see o he and be e u u es, was also an es- sen ial coping mechanism o some child en. (On d eams and u u e hopes in memo ies o you h in 1940–55 see Jouhki 2014, 241–243.) A man bo n in 1945 emembe s how his childhood was cha ac e ized by he po e y, oo - lessness and shame o his pa en s, who we e o ced o lea e hei home on he Ka elian Is hmus du ing he wa . As a boy he had only ew iends, bu e en as a lonely boy his imagina ion helped him o cope wi h his nega i e eelings. He con inually d eamed o being a pilo and o wha he could become as an adul . (Man, bo n 1945–49, p. 1256, PJS SKS KRA.) D eaming abou be e u u e and becoming an adul wi h powe o make one’s own decisions, is one me hod o su i al ha cons an ly comes up in he ma e ials. Desc ibing a me hod o su i al h ough pe sonal quali ies imp o es one’s unde s anding o onesel and one’s abili y o adap o di icul ies and mee hem. By esilience we mean capaci y o adap a ion despi e challenging ci - cums ances, and look a i mo e as a p ocess han as a ea u e o pe sonali y (Mas en 2014; Malinen 2017, 26). In hese na a i es ha dly any ex e nal 70 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ Since he 1990s he e has been g owing public in e es in he human con- sequences o expe iencing wa , genocides and human disas e s, including ailu es in educa ion and upb inging, and bo h o he p e iously men ioned p ojec s e lec his in e es . When collec ing ma e ials o he Inqui y, we no iced he s ong impac o ques ions asked in an in e iew. As all pa ici- pan s knew ha he opic o he Inqui y was neglec o child en, ha dly any posi i e expe iences o ou -o -home ca e we e ela ed spon aneously. We had o exp essly elici posi i e hings i we wan ed o hea hem, bu many o he pa icipan s we e p epa ed o ell us mainly nega i e hings as sugges ed in he call o a end o in e iews. (See Swain 2015, 22–24.) Ka e Douglas has no ed ha au obiog aphies o childhood in he 21s cen u y seem o challenge he p e ailing idea o he mid- wen ie h cen u y as a ‘golden age’ o amily. Many ecen au obiog aphies o e no only nos algic, bu also mo e di e se ep esen a ions o childhood, including hemes like po e y, iolence and abuse. Howe e , Douglas unde lines ha hese au obiog aphies do no only e-cons uc he so-called my hical childhood. They also e lec cu en ideas and in e es s ega ding childhood. (Douglas 2010, 41–42, 170–172.) In ou esea ch ma e ial he in o man s ha e chosen o ecoun e y sen- si i e in o ma ion ega ding hei amily ela ions and li e and examine he dynamics o pos -wa amily and ins i u ional li e. I seems ha he so-called ‘cul u e o silence’ was el o be especially ha m ul o young child en. Fo ex- ample, i child en we e le alone wi h hei con lic ing emo ions, and he be- ha iou o he adul s was le unexplained, he child en had a ionalised e en s by hemsel es. They had li le chance o seeing o unde s anding he eal ea- sons, and hey o en blamed hemsel es o he adul s’ beha iou , and ca ied eelings o guil and shame o yea s o e en decades. The need o unde s and ca egi e s’ pas beha iou is especially g ea when child en we e neglec ed and e en abused by hose expec ed o gi e hem secu i y, wa m h and e en lo e. In he Finnish pos -wa amilies he ‘cul u e o silence’ emana ed no only om he pa en s’ need o o ge and o adjus o new social con ex s, bu also om hei belie ha disclosing no hing abou he ho o s o he wa was c u- cial o hei child en’s no mal de elopmen . Due o his ‘cul u e o silence’, hei pa en ’s expe iences o he wa and i s a e ma h emained blank in he amily eco d (see e.g. Ki imäki 2010, 198, 207–208; Ki imäki & Hy önen 2015). The same applies o child en li ing in ou -o -home ca e. The e was a aci ag eemen , bo h in he amilies and ins i u ional se ings, o lea e di - icul expe iences unspoken and o keep hem de ached om e e yday li e. (E.g. Haika i 2009, 101; Vehkalah i 2015, 234.) Child en in u n o en became sensi i e o hei pa en s’ need o keep silen . No explana ion was p o ided 71 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ o he incomp ehensible and some imes igh ening conduc o a he s, o example hei nigh ma es. In he os e homes and ins i u ions child en we e e en less able o ell any- one abou hei expe iences o make sense o hem. I , o example, inma es in e o m school e bally c i icized he iolen beha iou o a s a membe , his could o en lead o u he iolen ac s and expe iences. When lea ing ca e os e child en and o me inma es o e o ms schools we e in a be e posi ion o disclose and sha e hei expe iences. Howe e , as he Inqui y e- eals, many o hose lea ing ‘ca e’ el unable o disclose hei expe iences o abuse, possibly due o he s igma ela ing o hei pas and he associa ed shame. All his means ha ypically child en and young people placed in esi- den ial ins i u ions had o deal wi h hei emo ions p i a ely, by hemsel es. In hei e o o unde s and wha happened o hem and hei amilies du - ing he Second Wo ld Wa and i s a e ma h, he o me child en ha e since he ea ly 1990s ga he ed and sha ed s o ies abou he li es o hei pa en s and amilies. When we conduc ed in e iews du ing he Inqui y and collec ed w i en ma e ials on a la e p ojec , all he pa icipan s engaged wi h us ol- un a ily. Many o hose con ibu ing o he “The Wa ha Con inued in he Homes?” collec ion explained how by u ning o new s udies on he auma o wa hey acqui ed a new unde s anding o hei e e an a he s’ beha iou and symp oms. (Eg. Female, bo n 1940-1944, 184; Female, bo n 1935-1939; Female, bo n 1950-1954, 428; Male, bo n 1945-1950, 734.) Responden s we e p o oundly in e es ed in esea ch ha helps hem o unde s and he educa- ion and ca e hey ecei ed in bo h hei own homes and in ins i u ional en i- onmen s. The same applies o ca e-lea e s who we e in e iewed du ing he Finnish Inqui y. Many o hem desc ibed how a new cogni i e unde s anding had helped hem o iew hei pa en s and e en hose who mis ea ed hem in ins i u ions in a new ligh . This has e en enabled some o hem o o gi e hei childhood abuse s. A signi ican numbe o esponden s in he “The Wa ha Con inued in he Homes?” collec ion ha e been able o come o e ms wi h hei o en con lic - ing and pain ul childhood memo ies (Malinen & Tamminen 2017). Mos o he esponden s amed hemsel es as esilien child en and adul s who ha e managed o o e come auma ic childhood expe iences. I is in e es ing ha in ou ma e ial he e a e only ew men ions o how esponden s p ocessed hei auma ic memo ies in la e li e. Fo some o he in e iewees o he In- qui y an oppo uni y o ell hei li e s o y had a he apeu ic meaning, and o he s had alked abou hei childhood wi h a he apis o deal wi h hei memo ies h ough w i ing. Some o hem ound i impo an o alk abou 72 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ hei expe iences, some did no ind i necessa y a all. (See also Hy önen, Malinen e al. 2016.) Some imes a small ligh is enough: coping wi h c isis In his a icle we a gue ha emembe ing pain ul childhood memo ies is a pa o ou in o man s’ cu en sel -concep in hei (la e) adul hood, when hey eel a need o make sense o pas , di icul e en s. Many o hem do no wish o o ge he childhood pain, bu o unde s and and accep i . People wi h di icul childhood expe iences use eminiscing as a way o e ame and esol e pas e en s. In ou case s udy he con lic ing and pain ul memo ies we e loca ed in he expe iences o Finnish pos -wa childhood. Thousands o Finnish child en expe ienced poo upb inging, neglec and abuse, and had o deal wi h hei expe iences wi hou social suppo om adul s. Ye a signi i- can numbe o esponden s we e able o e ame o a ach posi i e mean- ings o hei con lic ing childhood memo ies in a leas h ee di e en ways: Fi s ly, i seems ha mos o he esponden s s udied amed hemsel es as esilien child en, who had inne s eng h and capabili ies o sel -mas e y and adap a ion. Fo many in o man s i ini ially seemed di icul o de ine he p ecise elemen ha helped hem h ough di icul ies. When asked abou i , hey desc ibed hei men al s eng h, esilience, cou age and s amina. In ad- di ion, especially in child en’s ins i u ions, i was impo an o lea n he igh kind o beha iou : o adap onesel , o be quie enough bu a he same ime ough enough. To ha e a hobby o a iend, in he bes cases a us ed adul , is impo an when pa icipan s look back a hei childhood. F om a me hod- ological iewpoin i is no ewo hy ha in o al in e iews pa icipan s o en ind i di icul o desc ibe hei su i al s a egies. As desc ibed abo e, many o hem i s eac ed o ques ion by saying hey do no know o emembe . When esponding o a call o heme w i ing, pa icipan s ha e mo e ime o conside wha hey wish o ell. Thus coping mechanisms a e also desc ibed mo e e lec i ely in w i en li e na a i es. Secondly, we conside ed he meaning o he na u al wo ld and animals in eminiscences o su i al. Adul s ypically belie ed ha child en adap suc- cess ully o e en he mos d as ic li e changes and di icul li ing condi ions due hei na u al esilience (Ka én 2010). Qui e o en child en and young peo- ple expe iencing ad e si ies in childhood had o deal wi h hei emo ions p i- a ely, by hemsel es. Ye as ou ma e ials show, child en claim o ha e ound peace, es o a ion and wa m h by in e ac ing wi h na u e, companion animals and pe s, which as p o ec i e ac o s back up child en’s esilience. (Abou e- silience see Mas en 2014.) Connec ing wi h na u e and seeking com o om company o animals is also a way o na a e onesel as an ac i e agen in one’s 73 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ own li e. Na u e o e s a way o ind a ay o ligh e en in he middle o da k expe iences, bu one needs o be ac i e o see i . Acco ding o ou ma e ial, in e ac ion wi h na u e is a ea u e o child en’s esilience. Thi dly, one majo heme eme ging om he eminiscence collec ions was esponden s’ need o unde s and hei pa en s’ pas beha iou . This was na u- ally especially impo an o child en who we e neglec ed and e en abused by hose who we e expec ed o gi e hem secu i y, wa m h and e en lo e. When eminiscing abou hei childhood in la e adul hood i seems ha hese o - me child en wan ed o con ex ualize hei ad e se expe iences by ying o lea n mo e abou he li es o hei ca egi e s and childhood en i onmen s, and e en seek o gi eness. The esponden s we e especially eage o sha e hei expe iences on ‘cul u e o silence’ and bu dens o coping by hemsel es. The eminiscence o he pain, as memo ies usually a e, is a cons an mo e- men be ween pas and p esen . Focusing on pain does no mean unde lining i s powe , o gi ing i oo much oom. F om he pe spec i e o he cul u al s udy o c isis, we ha e shown ha he concep o coping is impo an . In- s ead o aking pa in wha Sa a Ahmed (2014, 33–34) calls he ‘ e ishisa ion o he wound’, we a gue ha na a i es o healing and eco e y do no mean o ge ing he pain o i s causes. Silence does no mean o ge ing (Sa olai- nen 2017, 31; see also Ki ss, Kõ esaa & Lau is in 2004), and e en hough pain ul memo ies a e a ely ecoun ed o ou side s, hey s ill ha e a powe ul ole in he cu en li es o many o ou pa icipan s (Hy önen, Malinen e al. 2016, 139–159). Fu he mo e, we sugges ha esea ch on di icul childhood memo ies and li e s o ies including auma ic childhood could also pay mo e a en ion o na a i es o esilience and ways o coping. The ocus on pain and he cause o auma is impo an , bu as ou analysis shows, in e es ing aspec s may eme ge including posi i e elemen s. The whole pic u e appea s mo e comple e i bo h posi i e and auma ic memo ies a e gi en space and a e deemed wo h ecoun ing. We p opose ha he need o comp ehend he p eca ious, iolen o abusi e en i onmen , which is clea ly desc ibed bo h in he w i en memo y ma e i- als and explained du ing in e iews, can also be in e p e ed as a way o ec- oncile a di icul pas . Th ough hei na a i es, su i o s y o make sense o he beha iou o adul s in hei childhood. Ha m done o a child in he pas has also i s p esen and i s u u e. By be e unde s anding o he ways hey hemsel es managed o cope wi h i , many in o man s also econs uc un- de s anding o hemsel es as child en. Th ough analysis o posi i e aspec s in na a i es o a di icul childhood, i is possible o inc ease dialogue be ween pas and p esen in pe sonal li e s o ies. 74 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Ou special hanks o he esea ch eam o he his o ical inqui y in o child abuse and neglec in ou -o -home ca e in Finland, 1937–1983. We also wish o hank anonymous e iewe s o hei commen s and ques ions. The esea ch was unded by Kone Founda ion (Hy önen) and Academy o Finland Cen e o Excellence in His o y o Expe iences, Uni e si y o Tam- pe e (Malinen). AUTHORS Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen, PhD, is a pos doc o al esea che o e hnology in he Uni- e si y o Jy äskylä, and an a ilia e membe in he Academy o Finland Cen e o Excellence in he His o y o Expe iences a he Uni e si y o Tampe e. Cu en ly Hy önen s udies memo ies o child wel a e in 20 h cen u y Finland wi h und- ing om Kone Founda ion. An i Malinen, PhD, is a pos doc o al esea che in he Academy o Fin- land Cen e o Excellence in he His o y o Expe iences a he Uni e si y o Tampe e. Malinen has specialized in he his o y o childhood and amily li e. SOURCES Resea ch Ma e ial In e iews Las ensuojelun sijaishuollon epäkohda ja las en kal oinkoh elu 1937–1983. [His o ical inqui y in o child abuse and neglec in child p o ec ion ins i u ions and os e homes in Finland, 1937–83]. The esea ch ma e ial is s o ed a he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Depa men o His o y and E hnology. A he ime o w i ing his a icle, he p ocess o s o ing he ma e ial in he Finnish Social Science Da a A chi e, Tampe e, is ongoing. W i en ma e ials Folklo e A chi e o he Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. Pe heissä ja kunu so a? [The Wa ha Con inued in he Homes?] (2015–2016) (PJS SKS KRA) Bibliog aphy Ab ams, Lynn. 2016. O al his o y heo y. 2nd edi ion. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Ahmed, Sa a. 2014. The Cul u al Poli ics o Emo ion. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni e si y P ess. Bohman, S e an. 1986. The People’s S o y. On he collec ion and analysis o au obio- g aphical ma e ials. Me hodological Ques ions No. 3. S ockholm: No diska Musee . 75 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ Bu le , Robe . N. 1974. “Success ul Aging and he Role o he Li e Re iew.” Jou nal o he Ame ican Ge ia ics Socie y 22 (12): 529–535. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1974. b04823.x Ca e, Ma k. 2014. “In oduc ion: Wha emains. Re lec ions on C isis O al His o y.” In Lis ening on he edge: O al his o y in he a e ma h o c isis, edi ed by Ma k Ca e, and S ephen M. Sloan, 1–14. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Chawla, Louise 2014. “Child en’s Engagemen wi h he Na u al Wo ld as a G ound o Healing.” In G eening in he Red Zone: Disas e , Resilience and Communi y G eening, edi ed by M. E. K asny & K. G. Tidball, 111–124. Heidelbe g:Sp inge . Douglas, Ka e. 2010. Con es ing Childhood: Au obiog aphy, T auma, and Memo y. New B unswick, N.J.: Ru ge s Uni e si y P ess. Finge oos, Ou i, and Haanpää, Riina. 2012. “Fundamen al Issues in Finnish O al His o y S udies.” O al His o y 40 (2): 81–92. Finnegan, Ru h. 2006. “Family My hs, Memo ies and In e iewing.” In The O al His o y Reade , edi ed by Robe Pe ks, and Alis ai Thomson, 177–183. 2nd edi ion. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Go lieb, B. H. 1997. “Concep ual and Measu emen Issues in he S udy o Coping wi h Ch onic S ess.” In Coping wi h Ch onic S ess, edi ed by B. H. Go lieb, 3–40. New Yo k: Plenum P ess. G ele, Ronald J. 2007. “Re lec ions on he p ac ice o o al his o y. Re ie ing wha we can om an ea lie c i ique.” Suomen An opologi: Jou nal o he Finnish An h opological Socie y 32 (4): 11–23. Haika i, Janne. 2009. La u auki elämään. Sippolan koulukodin his o ia 1909–2009. Kou ola: Sippolan kouluko i. Heimo, Anne. 2016. “No dic-Bal ic o al his o y on he mo e.” O al his o y 44 (2): 37–46. Hels i, Hilkka. 2000. Ko isynny ys en aikaan. E nologinen u kimus äi iyden ja äi iys a- lis uksen kon lik eis a. Suomalaisen Ki jallisuuden Seu an Toimi uksia 785. Helsinki: Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. He man, Judi h Lewis. 1997. T auma and eco e y. The a e ma h o iolence – om domes ic abuse o poli ical e o . New Yo k: Basic Books. Hin ikus, Ru , and Kõ esaa , Ene. 2004. “A B ie O e iew o Li e His o y Collec ion and Resea ch in Es onia.” In She who emembe s su i es. In e p e ing Es onian Women’s Pos -So ie Li e S o ies, edi ed by Tiina Ki ss, Ene Kõ esaa , and Maiju Lau is in, 19–34. Ta u: Ta u Uni e si y P ess. Hu chison, Elizabe h D. 2008. Dimensions o Human Beha io : The Changing Li e Cou se. Sage Publica ions. Hydén, Ma ga e a. 2008. “Na a ing Sensi i e Topics.” In Doing Na a i e Resea ch, edi ed by Molly And ews, Co inne Squi e, and Ma ia Tamboukou, 122–136. London: SAGE Publica ions Hyde , Tina. 2005. Wa , Con lic and Play. Maidenhead & New Yo k: Open Uni e si y P ess. Hy önen, Ki si-Ma ia. 2013a.“Monikas oinen 1950-luku”. InOnnen aika? Valoja ja a joja 1950-lu ulla, edi ed by Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen, and Keijo Ran anen, 7–13. Jy äskylä: A ena Kus annus Oy. Hy önen, Ki si-Ma ia. 2013b. “Ha dwo king women: Nos algia and women’s memo ies o paid wo k in Finland in 1940s.” O al His o y 42 (2): 87–99. Hy önen, Ki si-Ma ia, Malinen, An i, Salenius, Paula, Haika i, Janne, Ma kkola, Pi jo, Ku onen, Ma jo, and Koi is o, Johanna. 2016. Las ensuojelun sijaishuollon epäkohda ja las en kal oinkoh elu 1937–1983. [His o ical inqui y in o child abuse and neglec in child p o ec ion ins i u ions and os e homes in Finland, 1937–83]. Publica ions o he Minis y o Social A ai s and Heal h 2016:22. Helsinki. 76 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ Jaago, Tiiu, Kõ esaa , Ene, and Rahi-Tamm, Aigi. 2006. “O al his o y and li e s o ies as a esea ch a ea in Es onian his o y, olklo is ics and e hnology.” Elo e 13 (1): 1–15. Accessed Oc obe 10, 2018. h p://www.elo e. i/a kis o/1_06/jk 1_06.pd Jouhki, Essi. 2014. “Nuo uus opin iellä – Vuosina 1940–55 syn yneiden muis o kou- lunuo uudes a.” In Nuo uuden sukupol e . Moni ie eisiä näkökulmia nuo uu een eilen ja änään, edi ed by Kaisa Vehkalah i, and Leena Suu pää, 226–249. Helsinki: Nuo iso u kimus e kos o / Nuo iso u kimusseu a. Kaa lenkaski, Taija. 2012. Ke omuksia lehmäs ä. Tu kimus ja ihmisen ja ko ieläimen kul - uu isen suh een aken umises a. Joensuu: Suomen Kansan ie ouden Tu kijain Seu a. Kai ola-B egenhøj, Annikki. 2003. “The Na a o ’s Emo ions.” In Dynamics o T adi ion. Pe spec i es on O al Poe y and Folk Belie , edi ed by Lo e Ta kka, 329–342. S udia Fennica Folklo is ica 13. Helsinki: Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. Kalela, Jo ma. 2006. ”Muis i iedon näkökulma his o iaan.” In Muis i ie o u kimus. Me odologisia kysymyksiä, edi ed by Ou i Finge oos, Riina Haanpää, Anne Heimo, and Ulla-Maija Pel onen, 67–92. Tie olipas 214. Helsinki: Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. Kalela, Jo ma. 2010. ”His o ian aken amisen mieli ja u kijan alinna .” In Medeias a p onssiso u iin. Kuka ekee mennees ä his o iaa? edi ed by Pe i G önholm, and Anna Si ula, 40–59. His o ia mi ablis 6. Tu ku: Tu un his o iallinen yhdis ys. Ka én, Pe i. 2010. Humani aa isuuden a jossa: polii ise ekijä las ensii oissa Ruo siin so iemme aikana ja niiden jälkeen. Helsinki: Uni e si y o Helsinki. Kennedy, Rosanne. 2006. “S olen gene a ions’ es imony. T auma, his o iog aphy, and he ques ion o ‘ u h’.” In O al His o y Reade , edi ed by Robe Pe ks and Alis ai Thomson, 506–520. 2nd edi ion. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Kelley, Douglas. 1998. “The communica ion o o gi eness.” Communica ion S udies 49 (3): 255–271. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10510979809368535 Kes ilä, Lau a, Paananen, Reija, Väisänen, An i, Muu i, Anu, Me ikukka, Ma ko, Heino, Ta ja, and Gissle , Mika. 2012. ”Kodin ulkopuolelle sijoi amisen iski ekijä – ekis- e ipohjainen seu an a u kimus Suomessa uonna 1987 syn yneis ä.” Yh eiskun a- poli iikka 77 (1): 34–52. Ki ss, Tiina, Kõ esaa , Ene, and Lau is in, Ma ju (ed.). 2004. She Who Remembe s Su - i es. In e p e ing Es onian Women’s Pos -So ie Li e S o ies. Ta o: Ta u Uni e si y P ess. Ki imäki, Ville. 2010. “Sodan ampau ama anhemmuus.” In Sodan kas a ama , edi ed by Sa i Nä e, Jenni Ki es, and Juha Sil ala, 186–209. Helsinki: WSOY. Ki imäki, Ville, and Hy önen, Ki si-Ma ia (eds.). 2015. Rauha on auha. Suomalaise ja sodan pää yminen 1944–1950. Tampe e: Vas apaino. Klempne , Ma k. 2006. “Na iga ing li e e iew in e iews wi h su i o s o auma.” In O al His o y Reade , edi ed by Robe Pe ks, and Alis ai Thomson. 2nd edi ion, 198–210. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Ko jonen-Kuusipu o, K is iina, and Kuusis o-A ponen, Anna-Kaisa. 2017. “Muis elun mone muodo – ke omus, kehollisuus ja hiljaisuus paikan ie ämisen apoina.” Elo e 24 (1): 1–17. Accessed Augus 28, 2018. h p://www.elo e. i/a kis o/1-17/ko jonen-kuusipu o-kuusis o-a ponen.pd Ko kiakangas, Pi jo. 1996. Muis ois a aken u a lapsuus. Ag aa inen pe in ö lapsuuden yön eon ja leikkien muis elussa. Kansa ie eellinen a kis o 42. Helsinki: Suomen muinaismuis oyhdis ys. Ko kiakangas, Pi jo. 2005. ”Muis ois a ulkin aan – muis i ja muis eluaineis o e nologian u kimuksessa.” In Polkuja e nologisiin mene elmiin, edi ed by Pi jo Ko kiakangas, Pia Olsson, and Helena Ruo sala. E hnos- oimi e 11, 129–147. Helsinki: E hnos y. Kuusi, Pekka. 1948. Suomen iinapulma gallup u kimuksen alossa. Helsinki: O a a. 77 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ Kõ esaa , Ene. 2004. “Memo y, Time, Expe ience, and he Gaze o a Li e S o ies Re- sea che .” In She who emembe s su i es. In e p e ing Es onian Women’s Pos -So ie Li e S o ies, edi ed by Tiina Ki ss, Ene Kõ esaa , and Maiju Lau is in, 35–61. Ta u: Ta u Uni e si y P ess. Koskinen-Koi is o, Ee ika, and Snellman, Hanna (eds.). 2016. Bi e swee : E e yday Li e and Nos algia o he 1950s. Special issue o Jou nal o Finnish S udies 19 (2). Lai inen, Me ja, and Uusi alo, Taina. 2008. “Na a ii inen lähes ymis apa aumaa is en elämänkokemus en u kimuksessa.” In Na a ii iki ja – Mene elmiä ja esime kkejä, edi ed by Raimo Rajala, Ka i E. Nu mi, and Raimo Kaasila, 106–150. Ro aniemi: Lapin yliopis opaino. La ala, Pauliina. 2005. Ka se menneisyy een. Folklo is inen u kimus su un muis i ie- dos a. Helsinki: Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. Leydesdo , Selma, Dawson, G aham, Bu cha d , Na asha, and Ashplan , T.G. 1999. “In oduc ion. T auma and li e s o ies.” In T auma and li e s o ies: In e na ional pe spec i es, edi ed by Kim Lacy, Selma Leydesdo , and G aham Dawson, 1–26. London: Rou ledge. Malinen, An i. 2017. “Rauhaa auha omuu een: luonnon ja eläin en me ki ys aikeissa oloissa eläneiden las en elämässä, n. 1945–1960”. Kas a us & Aika 11 (1): 24–40. Accessed Augus 23, 2018. h ps://jou nal. i/kas a usjaaika/a icle/ iew/68703 Malinen, An i, and Tamminen, Tuomo. 2017. Jälleen aken ajien lapse . So ienjälkeinen Suomi lapsen silmin. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Mas en, Ann. 2014. O dina y Magic: Resilience in De elopmen . New Yo k, London: The Guil o d P ess. No h, Joanna. 1998. “The ‘Ideal’ o Fo gi eness: A Philosophe ’s Explo a ion.” In Explo ing Fo gi eness, edi ed by Robe D. En igh , and Joanna No h, 15–34. Madison, WI: The Uni e si y o Wisconsin P ess. Olsson, Pia. 2011. Women in dis ess. Sel -unde s anding among 20 h-cen u y Finnish u al women. Be lin: Li Ve lag. Pel onen, Ulla-Maija, and Salmi-Niklande , Ki s i. 2007. “In oduc ion: Memo y and Na - a ion – In e disciplina y discussions o o al his o y me hodology.” Suomen An opologi: Jou nal o he Finnish An h opological Socie y 32 (4): 4–10. Po elli, Alessand o. 2006. “Wha makes o al his o y di e en ?” In The O al His o y Reade , edi ed by Robe Pe ks, and Alis ai Thomson, 32–42. 2nd edi ion. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Pöysä, Jy ki. 2006. ”Kilpaki joi ukse muis i ie o u kimuksessa.” In Muis i ie o u kimus. Me odologisia kysymyksiä, edi ed by Ou i Finge oos, Riina Haanpää, Anne Heimo, and Ulla-Maija Pel onen, 221–224. Tie olipas 214. Helsinki: Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. Pöysä, Jy ki. 2015. Lähilu un ie o. Näkökulmia ki joi e un muis eluke onnan u kimuk- seen. Joensuu: Suomen Kansan ie ouden Tu kijain Seu a. Rauhala, U ho 1972. Kouluko ipoikien ja nuo iso ankien myöhemmä elämän aihee : u kimus sosiaalisen aus an, henkilökoh ais en ominaisuuksien ja lai oshoidon aiku- uksis a kouluko ipoikien ja nuo iso ankien myöhempiin elämän aiheisiin. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja e eysminis e iö. Robinson, John A. 1981. “Pe sonal na a i es econside ed.” Jou nal o Ame ican Folklo e 94 (371): 58–85. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/540776 Rose, Susan D. 1999. “Naming and claiming. The in eg a ion o auma ic expe ience and he econs uc ion o sel in su i o ’s s o ies o sexual abuse.” In T auma and li e s o ies: in e na ional pe spec i es, edi ed by Kim Lacy Roge s, Selma Leydesdo , and G aham Dawson, 160–179. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Sa olainen, Ulla. 2017. “Tellabili y, ame and silence. The eme gence o in e nmen memo y.” Na a i e Inqui y 27 (1): 24–46. h ps://doi.o g/10.1075/ni.27.1.02sa 78 Ki si-Ma ia Hy önen & An i Malinen: ‘Cos I’m a Su i o ’ Siim, Pihla Ma ia. 2016. “Family s o ies un old. Doing Family h ough P ac ices o Si- lence.” E hnologia Eu opaea 46 (2): 74–88. Sikes, Pa , and Goodson, I o . 2017. “Wha ha e you go when you’ e go a li e s o y?” In The Rou ledge In e na ional Handbook on Na a i e and Li e His o y, edi ed by I o Goodson e al., 60–71. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Sköld, Johanna. 2015. “A e ca e: Con olling and helping ca e lea e s in a communi y o os e ca e.” Jou nal o he His o y o Childhood and You h 8 (1): 75–93. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/hcy.2015.0004 Sobel, Da id. 2002. Child en’s Special Places. Explo ing he Role o Fo s, Dens, and Bush Houses in Middle Childhood. De oi : Wayne S a e Uni e si y P ess. Søland, Bi gi e. 2015. “’Ne e a be e home’: G owing up in Ame ican o phanages, 1920–1970.” Jou nal o he His o y o Childhood and You h 8 (1): 34–54. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/hcy.2015.0000 S eedman Ca olyn Kay. 2009. “S o ies.” In Emo ions. Cul u al S udies Reade , edi ed by Jenni e Ha ding, and E. Deid e P ib am, 210–221. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. S eel, Ty i. 2013. Ris eä iä e oja sa aman a jessa. Kansa ie eellisiä u kimuksia Helsingin yliopis ossa 17. Helsinki: Uni e si y o Helsinki. Swain, Shu lee. 2015. “Ins i u ionalized childhood: The o phanage emembe ed.” Jou nal o he His o y o Childhood and You h 8 (1): 17–33. h ps://doi.o g/10.1353/hcy.2015.0013 Thompson, Paul. 1999. “T auma and he long- e m li e s o y.” In T auma and li e s o ies: in e na ional pe spec i es, edi ed by Kim Lacy Roge s, Selma Leydesdo , and G aham Dawson, 232–240. London & New Yo k: Rou ledge. Ukkonen, Taina. 2006. ”Yh eis yö, uo o aiku us ja na a ii isuus muis i ie o u kimuk- sessa.” In Muis i ie o u kimus. Me odologisia kysymyksiä, edi ed by Ou i Finge oos, Riina Haanpää, Anne Heimo, and Ulla-Maija Pel onen, 175–198. Helsinki: Finnish Li e a u e Socie y. Vehkalah i, Kaisa. 2015. “Se i allinen a ina? Las ensuojelua kis ojen hiljaisuuksia.” In Sala u, hä e y, aie u. Mi en u kia piilossa ole ia ilmiöi ä, edi ed by An i Häkkinen, and Mikko Salasuo, 234–263. Tampe e: Vas apaino. Woodiwiss, Jo. 2005. “(Re)w i ing Memo ies: Childhood Sexual Abuse and E e yday Li e.” In Na a i e, Memo y and E e yday Li e, edi ed by Nancy Kelly, Ch is ine Ho ocs, Ka e Milnes, B ian Robe s, and Da id Robinson, 153–159. Hudde s ield: Uni e si y o Hudde s ield.