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.