What Is Harassment (Moral Harassment)? — Causes and Characteristics

 

　To understand and resolve today’s problems, it is essential to know the concept of “harassment.” Alongside “a sense of hardship in living,” it would not be an exaggeration to call it one of the most important concepts in clinical practice. Hoping as many people as possible will learn about it, a licensed psychologist has compiled this summary under the supervision of a physician.

　Please have a look.

 

<Created: 2025.9.26 / Last Updated: 2025.9.26>

　※ If you wish to reproduce or otherwise use content from this site, please credit the site name as the source or include a link.

		Author of this article Ichitaro Miki (Miki Ichitaro), Licensed Psychologist (Japan) Graduated from Osaka University; completed a Master’s program at Osaka University Graduate School Over 20 years in clinical psychology. Specializes in trauma and attachment issues that cause various difficulties and a sense of “life being hard.” Numerous books (approx. 40,000 copies in total), TV appearances, production cooperation/supervision for dramas, and features in web media and magazines, including *Developmental Trauma: The Real Cause of “Life Feeling Hard.”* Click here for full profile

		Medical supervisor of this article Yoshio Iijima, M.D. (Psychosomatic Medicine, etc.) In addition to psychosomatic medicine, also a clinical psychologist, Kampo (traditional Japanese) physician, and general practitioner, with deep expertise across fields. Specializes particularly in medically unexplained symptoms and treatment of autonomic dysregulation. Click here for full profile

 

<Editorial Policy>

　• A licensed psychologist writes, explains, and highlights key points based on years of clinical experience and clients’ accounts, especially from the perspectives of attachment and trauma.

　• We refer to specialized books and objective data to the best of our ability.

　• We strive to update with the latest insights whenever possible.

　• This article has been translated from the original Japanese using AI. Therefore, it may contain unnatural translations, particularly for specialized terms.

 

 

 

Table of Contents

• What Is Moral Harassment?

• The Mechanism of Moral Harassment

　• A Communication Pattern Called Double Bind

• A Break with the “True Self”

　• The Forced Adoption of a Packaged “Interface”

　• Severance from the True Self via “Internalization” of the Package

• Control within Families (Parents, Wives, Husbands)
• Control in the Workplace (Moral Harassment, Power Harassment)
• Harassment Spreads

 

→ Related articles

　▶ “6 Key Strategies to Deal With Moral Harassment (Psychological Abuse)"

　▶ “Understanding Life Struggles: Causes and How to Overcome Them”

 

　

 

What Is Moral Harassment?

• Hirigoyen’s “Discovery” of Moral Harassment

　The harassment discussed in this article basically refers to moral harassment. <Harassment ≈ Moral Harassment>.
　Moral harassment is said to have begun to be recognized when a French psychiatrist, Marie-France Hirigoyen, published a book in 1998 summarizing its reality (Hirigoyen, *Moral Harassment* (Kinokuniya)).

 

 

• A Concept Often Misunderstood

　The term “moral harassment” (mora-hara) has become widely known, but it is also widely misunderstood. For instance, many books discuss “moral harassment,” but most amount only to case collections—event-level classifications.

　A common pattern is to list examples of abusive husbands or wives and categorize their methods. Harassment in the workplace is often labeled “power harassment” (pawa-hara), reduced to a labor-management issue, and treated somewhat narrowly.

　“Harassment” is, in fact, a much broader concept.

 

 

• Prof. Ayumu Yasutomi’s “Decolonization of the Soul” Project

　The most outstanding work is by Prof. Ayumu Yasutomi of the University of Tokyo and colleagues. In the “Decolonization of the Soul” project, researchers from the University of Tokyo, Osaka University, and others participate (Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, University of Tokyo).

　Harassment is, by its nature, hard to grasp, and their contribution in systematizing it is immense. It is also striking that university scholars are researching such issues.

　Harassment becomes visible only when one has experienced it first-hand, externalized and relativized it, and recognized its existence. It also takes having others around who share similar suffering.

　If you’re surrounded by people saying, “The world is unfair—get used to it,” your sense that something is wrong with harassment can easily be brushed aside. What is crucial in harassment is the cunning mechanism of control woven into communication. Prof. Yasutomi elucidates this.

 

 

 

• Foundational Research

　The foundation includes anthropologist Gregory Bateson’s double-bind theory; psychiatrist Arno Gruen’s “betrayal of the self” (Arno Gruen, *The Insanity of Normality* (Seidosha)); and psychologist Alice Miller’s “poisonous pedagogy” (Alice Miller, *For Your Own Good* (Shinyo-sha)).

 

 

• Harassment Becoming Widely Exposed

　In recent years, many aspects of harassment have been brought to light. So-called “black companies” (exploitative firms) have been condemned for controlling and exploiting employees through harassment. Given how hard it is for an individual to notice, perhaps society is trying to break away from an abnormal state.

 

　The “discovery” of harassment is not merely about solving individual problems; it is epoch-making for living true to our hearts as human beings.

 

 

 

• Relationship Between <Harassment ≈ Moral Harassment> and Specific Forms Such as Power Harassment and Sexual Harassment

　Harassment is a broad concept encompassing the control of others by degrading their humanity through various means. It is nearly synonymous with “moral harassment.” Depending on the setting or method, it appears as specific forms such as “power harassment,” “sexual harassment,” or “academic harassment.”

 

　It may be easiest to understand as: <Harassment ≈ Moral Harassment> ⇒ depending on the setting/method, it is called “power harassment,” “sexual harassment,” “academic harassment,” etc.

 

 

 

The Mechanism of Moral Harassment

* The following is summarized primarily in line with Prof. Ayumu Yasutomi’s research.

Reference) → “Ayumu Yasutomi & Seiichiro Honjo, *Harassment Chains* (Kobunsha),” etc.

 

● A Communication Pattern Called Double Bind

　Harassment, which can be a root of “life feeling hard,” rests on a communication mechanism called the double bind.

 

　“Double bind” is a communication pattern identified by Gregory Bateson in 1956. He proposed it as a cause of schizophrenia (it is no longer regarded as a direct cause today).

 

• How a Double Bind Works

　A double bind operates as follows. Here is a plain-language explanation:

1. With a negative intention (malice, irritation, etc.)

2. Send a prohibition or negative message to the other person (First message)
　
　　　↓ The recipient senses something is off.

3. Send a message that contradicts or conceals #2 (Second message)

　　　↓ The recipient is confused and begins to doubt their own senses.

　※ Even steps 1–3 suffice to form a double bind.

4. Add “You must not escape this situation” or “Don’t tell anyone” (Third message)

5. The person comes to believe that this irrational situation is normal and “that’s just how the world is.”

　※ If the surrounding reality treats the irrationality as normal, it is further strengthened. ※ When others respond to consultation by validating the irrationality (“You share the blame,” “It’s your responsibility,” “Both sides are at fault”), this is called “second harassment” (Fourth message).

　This is the process. When contradictory messages are embedded, people become confused and paralyzed.

 

 

• Examples of Double Bind

　For example:

 

Parent–child example:

1. The parent is irritated.
2. The parent scolds a child playing at home: “Go study.”

　　The child objects—“Why can’t I play?”
　　(feels something is off)

3. The parent says, “I’m saying this for your own good” (a concealing message).
　
　　※ The child is confused; their intuition is that the parent is just venting irritation.

4. “If you don’t study, no dinner” (forbids escaping the situation).

　　※ The child feels dissatisfied but concludes they are at fault.

5. Other kids say “everyone’s parents are like that,”
　　and the irrationality becomes “normal.”

　　※ “I’m a bad kid” becomes the narrative.

 

　Another case:

1. A boss intends to control a subordinate (negative intention).
2. The boss scolds the subordinate with reasons.
　　※ The reasons are vague and open to any interpretation.
　
　　The subordinate feels unconvinced: work styles vary, and it doesn’t warrant scolding.

3. “Don’t you see how wrong you are?”
　　The boss denies the subordinate’s senses and sends a concealing message.
　　
　　※ The subordinate is confused.

4. “If you don’t understand this, you’ll never grow,”
　　“Don’t run away.”

　　※ The escape from confusion is prohibited, deepening the confusion.

5. Unable to find a reason, the subordinate seeks advice and hears:
　　“Maybe your attitude is the problem,”
　　“That’s just how companies are.”

　　※ “I’m the one who’s wrong” becomes the conclusion.

　Repeated, the subordinate loses trust in their own senses, adopts the boss’s standard as “correct,” and becomes controlled.

 

 

 

• “Society Is Made of Harassment”

　You may think, “Really? That counts as double bind?” Exactly. Prof. Yasutomi says “society is made of harassment,” it is that pervasive.

　You may think, “Isn’t this all normal?” Those who think so, while victims, may also become perpetrators—“harrassee-harassers”—doing to others what was done to them.

　The problem with double binds is this: We all have something like a “true self” or “existence,” but double binds make us doubt our senses and lose faith in ourselves. In other words, the soul is killed.

　People who lose their anchor come to depend on external norms and on others. If this happens in early childhood, one becomes more susceptible to moral harassment in adulthood. Worse, to justify the self distorted by harassment, one may scold others—“You lack manners”—and begin to harass.

　This is the process of double bind. Though hard to see, it profoundly affects us.

 

 

A Break with the “True Self”

• The Process of “Learning”

　Humans are not born as blank slates; we are born with a rich prototype of personality—what we might call the “true self.”

　As the “true self” communicates with the external world, it develops an “interface” that mediates between the two. This developmental process is called “learning.”

 

　Grounded in the emotions of the true self, we continually communicate with the external world, reorganize the “interface” through learning, and mature as we live. True parenting is like coaching so that a child can recognize and trust the senses of their true self.

 

　Suppose a child is fussy. The true self feels “tired.”

　The parent asks, “Are you hungry?”—the child keeps crying.

　Next, “Are you sleepy?”—the child keeps crying.

　The parent asks, “Are you tired?”
　The child senses the match, nods, and stops fussing.

　The child learns, “This sensation means ‘I’m tired,’” and begins to trust their own senses (the true self). The interface develops, and gradually the child can correctly recognize “tired” and communicate it to others.

 

 

• Learning Is Blocked and Trust in the True Self Is Lost

　Trust in the true self forms what we call “attachment”—a base for communication and a safe haven. Even if isolated from the external world, one can rely on the true self and learn to cope appropriately.

　But what if a parent suddenly scolds a fussy child? Or says, “You’re sleepy! Go to bed,” or “You’re always like this—so difficult!”?

　The child loses the ability to feel their senses accurately. They may misassociate “feeling tired” with “a troublesome personal quirk.” They stop trusting the sense of “I’m tired.”

 

　
　Then the interface with the true self fails to develop, and communication with the true self becomes severed. The child starts to live by the parent’s words as the “correct answer,” rather than by the true self.

　
　High-ability children may manage for a while as “good kids,” but without trust in the true self as a base, the learning needed to develop the interface falters. Communication naturally becomes awkward.

 

 

 

 

The Forced Adoption of a Packaged “Interface”

• Coming to Live as a False Self

 

　Bateson argued that as a result of double binds, people may:

　Fixate on meanings not expressed in words (paranoid type);
　Respond only to the literal meaning of words (hebephrenic type);
　Flee from communication itself (catatonic type).

　These may not cover all patterns, but various dysfunctions arise.

 

　To avoid such dysfunction, a child would ideally restore connection to the true self.
　But having been raised to suppress the true self, they cannot respond appropriately and instead forcibly adopt a packaged interface.

　By a packaged “interface,” we mean adopting, as if off-the-rack clothing, ready-made values and personas deemed “desirable” by society or by those around us.

　“The good child,”
　“The high-achieving student,”
　“The top performer at work,”
　“The perfect homemaker,”
　
and so on—coming to live a false self as if it were the real self.

 

 

• Dependence on the External

　Even this does not work well in reality. The world changes constantly, so off-the-rack clothing cannot fit every situation. Learning is needed, but the rigid outfit blocks it.

 

　What happens then is excessive dependence on external norms or on dominant individuals. Unable to learn on one’s own, one clings to external rules—“etiquette,” “manners,” “morals,” “doctrine,” “evaluation.”

 

 

• The Spread of “Poisonous Pedagogy” That Kills the Soul

　True education/parenting should gently coach the development of trust in the true self, not deny it as savage/immature or force a packaged interface.

　Children are born with unique personalities; others have no right to invade them. Yet dogmas such as “Children are bundles of selfish desires; without strict discipline they’ll run amok” still prevail, and child-rearing/education that kills the true self remains widespread.

 

　Such child-rearing/education is called “poisonous pedagogy,” criticized by Alice Miller and Arno Gruen. They argue that discipline and education in this latter sense are unnecessary. As an exemplar of a strictly disciplined personality, they cite Eichmann, who directed the Holocaust.

　Eichmann was not exceptionally cruel but an ordinary man; he carried out genocide like office work. He killed his own misgivings and feelings, adhering to party evaluations and doctrine. In court he repeated, “I only obeyed orders.” He reportedly turned pale only when admonished for not following court rules.

 

　In short, he reacted excessively to external norms but had little connection to his own senses—a soul-killed state.

　Harassment uses double binds to kill the soul.

 

 

 

Severance from the True Self via “Internalization” of the Package

　In growing up, humans should build an interface—a gateway for communication—between the true self and society. The interface means learning ways of relating and selecting information. Education/discipline is often mistaken as drilling fixed molds or packages, but that is not its true nature.

What matters is:
　1) Build trust with the true self (create a safe base).
　2) Nurture the interface (learn how to relate).
These two.

 

 

• What’s Really Needed Is to Select Rules by One’s Own Judgment

　In many cases, however, social norms or parental dictates are internalized wholesale as packages. “Internalization” means accepting a rule or norm as one’s own. This may seem necessary to function in society, but it is dangerous: if that norm emanates from a particular individual, it amounts to control.

 

　You might fear that without learning rules you’d become “primitive,” but that’s not so. Socialization is not internalizing rules; it is learning how to relate to society so you can select rules by your own judgment. You don’t have to accept them verbatim as your own.

 

　Even if, in learning a mold, you temporarily accept a package, once the interface is built you must relativize and let it go. In human development we learn social relating through our parents as mirrors, then, in adolescence, we let go of the package and become independent.

 

 

• Forced to Adopt Parental Views, You Lose Yourself

　Often, however, children are forced to accept parental views as-is, or are made to believe that doing so makes them “obedient” or “filial.” This leads to a vague yet painful sense that life is hard.

　Accepting the package as-is stunts the interface. Rather than becoming someone who can relate and decide for themselves, one becomes an inflexible “manual person.”

 

　Moreover, wholesale acceptance means losing trust in the true self—losing one’s own senses and foundation. Unable to relate to society on one’s own power, one loses oneself and becomes unstable. This mechanism is one cause of that inexplicable sense that life is hard.

 

 

• Kept Under Control Without Realizing It

　Not knowing the cause, people try to fix failures at work or in relationships, get rebuffed, lose confidence, and become shattered.

　“Internalization” is stronger in those burdened with childhood trauma or with insecure attachment. Trauma overactivates the brain, making dissociation easy. Like a web crawler spinning constantly, the mind fixates on others; the thoughts, feelings, and values of those around are internalized as one’s own.

 

　Foremost among these is the parent.
Some feel strong guilt toward parents; others feel anger.

　Because parental standards of good/evil were implanted, parents are constantly on one’s mind; the internalized package remains and keeps controlling.
　Behind moral harassment lies the mechanism of “internalization.”

 

 

　

 

Control within Families (Parents, Wives, Husbands)

 

• Undermining the Foundation in Two Patterns

　When a family member (parent, spouse, or partner) is the “harasser,” the mechanism of harassment clarifies how control is established.

　First, the attachment foundation is hollowed out in two ways:

　1) They obstruct attachment (trust in the true self + trust in family).
　2) They form dependence only on the family and obstruct trust in the true self.

　These are the two.

 

• The First Pattern

　In “1) obstructing attachment (trust in the true self + trust in family),” harassing communication prevents building trust with the true self. The person’s senses are thoroughly denied.

　For example, a child crying because they are “sleepy” is scolded as “selfish,” or something else is forced on them. If the child senses the parent’s negative intent, the parent dodges or labels the child “twisted,” denying the child’s senses.

　Direct verbal abuse over time or near neglect is also common. In this way, formation of the attachment base is thwarted—an orthodox pattern.

 

• The Second Pattern

　The other is “forming trust only toward the family (parent/spouse) while obstructing trust in the true self.” There may be no direct verbal abuse, but through skillful harassing communication the person is made to comply with the other’s will.

　Negative intent is concealed; the family retains control of good/evil; the person’s senses are denied and confused with constant mixed messages.

 

　For example, the parent appears to provide excellent care; thus the child trusts the parent. But the child does not trust the true self—because they have been led not to.

　Hence the parent is always the reference point.

　From the outside, relations look good and respectful, but in fact the parent exerts control. Lacking a trust base with the true self, the person is actually unstable; a pseudo-safe base in the parent keeps this from surfacing.

 

 

• When the Base Is Broken, Control Becomes Easy

　In the latter pattern, attachment disturbance is hard to detect and the person may not feel controlled. Yet, on closer look, they lack confidence and live a life aligned with the parent’s will. They often feel vague hardship or anxiety.

　Control may sound intense or violent, but if trust with the true self is thwarted by 18 months of age, then daily double binds via harassing communication can “gently” control a person.

　In such cases, the person may only realize it after a health breakdown; without expert support, escape can be difficult.

 

 

 

Control in the Workplace (Moral Harassment, Power Harassment)

　As highlighted in discussions of “black companies,” the workplace is a setting where harassment readily occurs.

　Employees are susceptible to harassment and control because companies are closed groups built around shared purposes and ideas; values easily become biased. There’s rarely a single “correct” way to work, yet many believe there is. More troubling, excessive intrusions into one’s humanity occur.

 

• Hard-to-Notice Workplace Harassment

　For new graduates, a first job means debuting in a new world; bosses and workplaces are a second site of attachment formation—almost “parents” of one’s adult self. The rules and norms learned there become the foundation of one’s career.

　Thus it is hard to relativize; people endure some irrationality and conform. Mid-career hires who try to fit in (“When in Rome…”) may do the same.

 

　Why do black companies proliferate? One background factor is that the more conscientious the employee, the less they see or relativize harassment.

　“Leaving” a toxic environment is the first countermeasure, but changing jobs has financial constraints. Also, people have invested their self-worth in their work, making it harder to leave.

 

 

• Exploitation Through “Meaningfulness” and Lofty Ideals

　In Japan, many workplaces still hold to sports-team-style grit ideologies. Especially in startups, journalists and sociologists have noted designs that intentionally manipulate employees’ “sense of purpose,” “ideals,” and “dreams.”

　It is good to inspire purpose. But if that prevents raising one’s voice about excessive burdens or harsh environments, it is a problem.

 

　A common tactic is to tout a “mission” that motivates employees while creating an atmosphere where discontent is hard to express. Having a mission can be positive—unless all complaints about irrationality and poor conditions are deflected by invoking it; that is harassment.

 

　Typical “employee codes” include:
　“Don’t complain” (complaints are negative).
　“Don’t make excuses” (don’t speak up).
　“Don’t blame the environment—everything is your choice” (it’s not the company’s fault).

　Such scripts are drilled in.
　Management can make excuses endlessly; employees are not allowed to.

　As entry management, candidates are made to superficially agree to harsh conditions before joining, making later objections harder. “You agreed when you joined, didn’t you? If it didn’t suit you, you shouldn’t have joined.” (At hiring, candidates lack leverage and cannot verify everything; joining ≠ agreeing to all terms. But it’s hard for employees to speak up.)

 

 

• The Spell of “Don’t Run Away”

　Moreover: “Don’t run away. Those who flee hardship are losers.”

　As you can see, this maps directly onto double-bind theory. Thus, trust in the true self is severed, and people are made to work until mind and body scream—or are labeled incompetent and cornered until their personhood is denied.
　Humans are non-standard; our thinking and approaches are diverse and cannot be measured by a single yardstick. Yet bosses and companies judge and deny our humanity.

 

 

• The “Dropout” Label

　Founder-CEOs are often said to have narcissistic traits; they see no need to change their views. They impose their common sense on employees and label those who feel and leave as “dropouts from the dream,” thereby binding those who remain.

 

　Those who sense the wrongness won’t join or will quietly leave. Those who don’t—especially the conscientious—try harder.

　“Isn’t that just normal at companies?”
　“To some degree, work is supposed to be tough, right?”
Such thinking prevents speaking up and leads to exploitation.

　Those under this spell even enact second harassment, unable to join hands with those who feel something is wrong. If advisors share the same view, they entangle each other further.

 

 

• Bound by “Wills” Designed by Others, Drifting from the True Self

　It’s fine to work with a sense of purpose—that’s no one else’s business. But what if that “purpose” is designed by others or imposed by peer pressure? Is it truly self-chosen?

　Black companies often engineer “purpose” and conceal coercion behind beautiful missions. A “black” boss sets workplace standards of good/evil to suit themselves, refusing to align with reality—moving the goalposts and blaming those who feel wronged.

 

　Such things are hard to prove; recipients of harassment struggle to put it into words. No matter how hard they try, they are never fulfilled; the harder they try, the farther they drift from what the true self desires.

 

 

 

Harassment Spreads

• Planting Guilt and Inferiority to Control Others

　Some people are fanatical about etiquette and attempt to impose their own ways of working, behaving—even eating—on others.

　“As a working adult, this is common sense.”
　“This is how you eat from a hot pot.”
　“This is how you should behave with a partner.”
　and so on,

　They then instill guilt and inferiority in those who do not meet their standard—because guilt effectively compels compliance.
　
　It’s understandably annoying, but these people are themselves victims (and perpetrators) of harassment.

 

 

• Internalizing Harassment

　Why? Because victims of harassment are often turned into perpetrators. Those strict about etiquette are preaching the irrationality they suffered, to justify it by imposing it on others.

　It’s well known that the abused may become abusers; “internalization” explains this.

　We are meant to ground ourselves in the true self and intuitively judge what fits us. The naked true self alone cannot relate well to society or express its intuitions; hence we nurture an interface (ways of relating) to interact.

　Etiquette and “common sense” change with time, relationships, and situations. A manual person cannot cope.

 

　
　Yet in many of our encounters, we are forced to internalize fixed, scriptural “etiquette and common sense,” word for word. In that process, double binds and other irrational behaviors destroy trust in the true self, leaving us anchorless and dependent on external rules. Instilling guilt is common.

　“You’re really irresponsible (so accept my common sense).”
　“You’re hopeless (so obey me).”
These messages fly around daily.

 

 

• Harassment Forces a “Freeze of Inner Context”

　We all intuit that “etiquette and common sense depend on people and situations,” and that “mutual respect is what matters.” But those who control the standards of etiquette move the goalposts to convenient places and then blame you for “missing the shot.”

　Even for superiors or highly placed people, etiquette is two-way communication. Etiquette and common sense are ways of relating to the world—they must remain flexible. That is their nature. The inner contexts of the parties should flex with the relationship.

 

　However, in harassment, the controlling party intentionally refuses changes of inner context, believing they have the right to instruct and punish—like a god. They consider a “freeze of inner context” permissible, and they conceal this.

　Their excuses include:
　“I’m your parent; you should listen.”
　“I’m your boss; can’t you follow orders?”
　“Don’t you realize how strange you are?”

　This is moral harassment.

 

 

• Those Who Internalize Fixed Packages Try to Force Them on Others

　In former totalitarian states, dissidents were “re-educated”; harassment creates a similar atmosphere. Questions are not tolerated; those who question are labeled the problem.

　Those who have internalized fixed “common sense/etiquette” wear, atop the true self, an “interface” and “external norms” like rigid armor.

　They faintly sense the irrationality and their own ugliness, but don’t want to see or be called out. So they insist, “This is cool—this is the true human form,” and try to impose it on others.

 

　As with fashion, thin eyebrows look odd alone, but become “cool” if many adopt them. Wearing jeans low on the hips looks sloppy alone, but becomes stylish if celebrities or many people do it.

　Those armored with fixed packages seek to increase their numbers and push them as “common sense!” The current reality—people forcing internalized packages on others—has this background. Those fussy about etiquette often do this unconsciously.

 

 

• Harassment Spreads Like Poison

　You may think “not me,” but we all do this to some degree. Awareness is essential.

　For example, a housewife who suppresses her own wishes daily may gossip with peers about another who seems to pursue hers—“Poor kids,” “She’s neglecting her responsibility”—or, if the person is famous, join online bashing.
　Someone who has worked hard in an irrational environment may view an easygoing colleague as “spoiled,” insisting “Work is supposed to be hard; irrationality is normal,” and turn harsh or cold.

 

　A person over-disciplined by parents may, after marriage, nitpick a partner’s folding, cooking, or cleaning—“You’re sloppy,” “Can’t you do basic things?”—projecting the very words once hurled at them. The examples are endless.

　Thus harassment spreads like a chain reaction, scattering its toxic fallout everywhere.

 

 

 

→ Related articles

　▶ “6 Key Strategies to Deal With Moral Harassment (Psychological Abuse)"

　▶ “Understanding Life Struggles: Causes and How to Overcome Them”

 

 

 

　※ If you wish to reproduce or otherwise use content from this site, please credit the site name as the source or include a link.

(References / Sources)

Marie-France Hirigoyen, *Moral Harassment* (Kinokuniya)

Ayumu Yasutomi & Seiichiro Honjo, *Harassment Chains* (Kobunsha)

Nobutaka Oshima, *Those Who Get Controlled* (Aoyama Life Publishing)

Alice Miller, *For Your Own Good* (Shinyo-sha)

Arno Gruen, *The Insanity of Normality* (Seidosha)

Yoko Fukao, “What Is the Decolonization of the Soul” (Seitosha)

Ayumu Yasutomi, *Who Killed the Little Prince?—The Trap of Moral Harassment* (Akashi Shoten)

Yoko Fukao, *The Fate of the “Frog Men” Who Fill Japanese Society* (Kodansha)

Yoko Fukao, *The True Nature of the “Water Bug Women” Who Devour Japanese Men* (Kodansha)

Gregory Bateson, *Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity* (Shinshisakusha, Japanese ed.)

Ayumu Yasutomi, *Techniques for Living* (Seitosha)

Ichitaro Miki, *Developmental Trauma: The Real Cause of “Life Feeling Hard”* (Discover Keisho)

etc.

::contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}