From USA...

From a very nice walk on reconstructed prairie!

The need for control, super egos, responsibility, independency, dependency…

[Slightly updated December 18. Brief addition December 19]

A blogger writes: Now we are going to become controlled down to the last detail, everything we do on the net shall become stored. Orwell’s society is here, twenty years later, but nevertheless. However more veiled.

Today we have the war against terrorism, a war we can never win. And this serves as argument for detailed control of every citizen.

The ones in power are playing on peoples’ tendencies to paranoia; in a similar manner as for instance Hitler once did to justify the Second World War?

Not so healthy leaders are playing on human being’s less healthy sides!?

Are the ones ruling today better in this respect (in not controlling people) than the former who were accused for a Big Brother Society this blogger wonders? (and are they less fundamentalistic or as much, and in some cases more?) And of course you can wonder with all right?

What about the freedom the ones ruling now spoke about before they came to the power? Was this freedom only for the economical elites’; their freedom doing as they like, to not have to contribute to all people’s welfare (including their own), while the people should become held down, in all respects, and become controlled in all ways you can think of?

Yes, I think an economist here is right who said (in my interpretation) that if the resources are distributed more equally this gains the whole societal economy, i.e. us all. And it creates a better society, than a one where we are played out against each other. Something the Scandinavian countries have shown? So far at least. But today... And in the future...

Where does the selfishness come from?

I read an article on Friday “The more we are together. When the crisis advances the ego has to back.”

There you could read that you don’t have to “sharpen your elbows” any longer. Not show your paces either. The ones used to focus on her/himself has maybe not seen this earlier/yet, but the individualism’s time has passed. The most sound would be if individuals could exists in the collective!?

For those individuals it felt right to say: I take responsibility for my own life. I trust myself. But a winner can loose the self-confidence too, when you realize that it wasn’t so easy with the self-realization. When it was shown that it wasn’t enough taking the matter into one's own hands.

A 60 hours week is always a 60 hours week. Even if you chose it yourself. How much individualist you even are, it isn’t enough, you become exhausted/burnout nevertheless.

Child psychologists tell us that our kids have been forced to develop their egos so much so they can’t function in a group at day care centers. The article writer writes that the superego is lying on lit de parade.

Disillusioned people are calling programs at the radio here to talk about old-fashioned things like “societal planning, the community and solidarity.”

However, some are feeling relief over this, among those thinking the “I” has gotten too much space.

What would a healthy “I” be? What is our true self? What needs are we striving to fulfill?

Some even admit that they are a bit malicious. One of those is the Swedish leader writer Göran Greider. In a TV-programme he seemed to have been talking about “the own responsibility.” Another Swedish writer also wrote about responsibility. Who are accused for not taking responsibility for themselves, their lives etc. And are there other people you don't demand responsibility from? The ones governing are talking quite moralistic about responsibility. But are the ruling classes taking responsibility? Are they demanded to take responsibility? Or do they cover it up as if they are taking responsibility "for people's own good"? Things that are really huring are done for our own good!? And they truly believe it is for our own good!

Greider meant that certain amount of selfishness is needed to push the development further, but the results of this selfishness ought to become distributed better to more people. I am not sure... What sort of selfishness should we have? One where we protect ourselves constructively and against real threats?

He means that the society needs solidarity values, so we dare (and can) trust (on) each other, even in the economy.

Alone is not strong, we need each other and are dependent on other people, what other people do and don’t do. What too many govening do is dividing and ruling? Getting power through diving and ruling.

The writers means that the big “I” doesn’t make us happy, not secure or rich either. Is it time for more collective solutions now?

Why are young people today so selfish or egoistic? They haven’t become brought under control enough? They have to learn to be more humble? From where does evilness come? Are we born this way? Do we have innate drives for destruction? I don't think so. I think this is something we have learned very early in life...

That many don’t seem to be why is that? Where have they learned this? What sort of role models have they had? And what society have they grown up in?

I.e. how should we raise young people, small children?

See this reader's letter to Alice Miller on obedience and being a living dead.

Addition December 19: and rebelling... If you are less harmed you rebel in a more constructive way? In a sounder and healthier way? And maybe in a more effective way? With fewer or in the best case no victims?

A winter’s tale…

From youtube:

"When Godess Freyja and her putti company appear on the winter sky in a chariot driven by cats it is time to celebrate the arrival of the first snow. Well I made it up because Freyja was really the Godess of Fertility but then again, maybe she is pregnant with snow and gives birth to all the little snow flakes of which some become stars to lighten up the winter darkness and some drop down on earth to just lie there for a while and twinkle back to the stars. or she just inspires people to invent some new myths while waiting for spring.

Music by Lars-Erik Larsson (1908-1986), En vintersaga (The Winter's Tale) Op.18 The Stockholm Sinfonietta, Jan-Olov Wedin cond. (rec. 1980-81)"

The Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden on children's rights...

from a walk today.

picture taken from here "Who is Lena Nyberg?"

[Slightly edited and updated December 14].

Yesterday at one of my workplaces I read the article ”We need an entirely different school debate”, from ”Nattvandrarmagasinet” number 2 Oktober 2008, where the Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden Lena Nyberg gave her thoughts on the school and children. In my a little free translation from Swedish:

Lena Nyberg spoke about adults in school and thinks the competence in the personnel is altogether crucial.

I agree. Something we need to develop, and need help developing, and talking about we working in the school or with young people in health care etc.

She thinks that it is important that adults manage to see the students. Children need to be seen and motivated she says. So we need to see ourselves in the first place (my addition).

“Today the school most often has an adult perspective I think is very out-of-date, obsolete. We shall raise our kids to independent individuals, who can call things/phenomena in question, be critical, curious and eager to learn. Besides they shall gradually be competitive in a European and international world, and put Sweden on the map.

Against this we have a school system where the idea in many respect is that the students shall be quiet, disciplined and do as they are told. This doesn’t fit together so to speak.”

she declares and looks like a real warrior!!!!

“We need an entirely new school debate!

Yes, a school debate where important questions about the basis of values [värdegrundsfrågor] are at the focus.”

She asks for a mutual respect between us adults and our children and young people. My comment: But it is this with power imbalance. So this with showing respect lies more on the adult… Or the greatest responsibility in this respect lies on the adult.

She also speaks about children’s right to culture. She thinks aesthetic learning processes are interesting, as well as their connection to the article 12 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the article she thinks is a great tool when we shall meet children’s and young people’s needs.

It reads as follows:

Article 12

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

For Lena it is evident that children are entitled to culture and different ways of expressing themselves. An important tool helping them to create a better self-esteem and thus a greater safety, as she expresses it.

I agree. And this goes along with ideas like the ones in Reggio Emilia for instance. And her ideas about respect for the child with the work in the Summerhill school.

When it comes to the spare time and sports sector she has a clear opinion.

“The children and young people of our time are consumers. If there is money there is a great selection of spare time, but the risk is that we get a dividing up between those who can afford and those who can’t afford.

The sports activities play an important role. /…/

My only wish is that they [the ones responsible there] could better meet each individual’s needs, so that each one can continue with her/his big interest so long as he/she wishes and that one became even better in reaching more children and young people.”

It suddenly struck me yesterday in the middle of everything (there has been a couple of articles about aesthetic expressions and occupations recently, maybe because of coming changes in our gymnasium education that are announced) about the ones in power in Sweden today (the politicians, especially in our current government): do they begrudge young people being alive, free, autonomous, self-secure in a healthy and genuine way?

That they (the ones in power) aren't genuinely alive, free, autonomous, is that why they are now talking so much (entirely) about discipline, grades etc.??? And not about other solutions? And is that he reason why they see the problems in school as they see?

But we aren't born in this way. We weren't born emotionally numb or dead. We became that way. But we don't have to continue being like this. However, the work to recover can be really tough. Really, really tough. Think if we hadn't become harmed in the first place! Thinking loudly here...

Sidetrack: people should become encouraged to raise their voices instead of the opposite!? Even if their language isn't perfect! Their spelling and grammar has flaws. How many voices aren't silenced? How many voices aren't censored that shouldn't have been censored? And are there people screaming loudly and taking up all the space that maybe shouldn't have all this space? Why do they need all this space? Quite ironic.

I know of a girl struggling with everything on her own. Trying to understand, to develop on her own. Afraid of taking too much space, feeling shame and gilt because she did. Whose fault was this actually?

And I was tipped about this open letter to President Barack Obama from Alice Miller and other Children’s Rights Advocates by a person standing very close to me.

Also see the site Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment. There you can read:

The Global Initiative aims to:

• form a strong alliance of human rights agencies, key individuals and non-governmental organisations against corporal punishment;
• make corporal punishment of children visible by building a global map of its prevalence and legality, ensuring that children's views are heard and charting progress towards ending it;
• lobby state governments systematically to ban all forms of corporal punishment and to develop public education programmes;
• provide detailed technical assistance to support states with these reforms.

Also see Important Issues from The Children’s Ombudsman’s site.

About the Convention on the Rights of the Child (barnkonventionen) in Swedish. And in English.

Human rights or survival of the fittest...

It stood in a small notice in a local newspaper “Human rights- the only way”. The UN declaration about the human rights "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" celebrates 60 years. Progressive and forward aiming thoughts worth celebrating. Namely all human beings equal rights. All peoples’ freedom. Fight against death penalty, torture and other injustices.

If only good powers prevailed and the bad could be combated.

A wish in vain!? But where does evilness come from? See earlier postings on evil child (monster child) and evilness . And how do we fight this?

Further thoughts: The organization at work is a real mess… The last decade with the economic steel bath a lot of people became burnout or “just” exhausted, preferably women have become. The conditions have become worse at workplaces… Not better or improved. People have become more and more selfish. Nobody care about anybody else. All have so enough with their own affairs. All only care about their own things.

A Thursday some weeks ago I met a female colleague at town and she muttered very angrily there. She was on her way to a lunch concert. Now it was the guitarists turn. Guitarists with guests. The other guitar teachers are men. My female colleague is the only female guitar teacher and her master (major?) is actually not guitar. She switched to recorder during her precollege education.

She said that she had to take the whole responsibility for the concert. All men left everything to her.

“But let it break down!”

I tried to say to her.

No, she said she couldn’t.

Oh, those stupid women!!! Do they have to take the responsibility always!?? Well, she can only blame herself!!! Then. It’s her own fault if she becomes exhausted!! Of course she has responsibility for herself and for her health and wellbeing. Everything is put solely on individual persons’ shoulders though… The workplaces or anyone in power have nothing with this to do. And if you can’t handle things, well, then you can just founder! Survival of the fittest.

Commentators on blogs and to articles in the newspapers are mostly men. And most of them are neoliberals. And they are really, really rude! Many probably what you would call Internet-trolls. Scaring other more reasonable people away. Taking up all the space. Shouting loudest and most, till nobody else is heard. Of course you can wonder where this comes from. Why they are like this. And how to deal with this. If you shall deal with it at all, and who shall deal with it? Whose duty dealing with it?

Of course you can wonder who shall solve the problem(s)…

In the meantime people can founder!!!???

What sort of people remain after a while? Only the toughest, hardest? The ones with empathy deficits?

I thought about this with focusing yesterday during and after our lunch concert with our cleverest students. And what Cleese and Skinner wrote about the politicians reaching the power. That it’s more likely that the ones only focused on politics reach the top, gets the most power. I couldn’t help drawing parallels to my profession and being successful there.

One of our former students is now student at the Conservatory. His aim was and still is becoming the best! And he is on his way. And this is a young man (16 years I think) who has some autism traits. So, yeah, he can focus in a way many other people can’t and don’t.

At the concert yesterday a young woman played a movement from a Handel-sonata. She has played it so well and it has been so fun playing with her. She is new in the group and has made a great progress since she sought to this course only half a year ago. She is a girl you really can rely on! Taking responsibility, thinking of others etc. She presented the concert in the beginning. Was asked only an hour before, and she said yes and did it excellently.

But when she should play her solo she was a bit too nervous… And missed things she hadn't missed before.

High demands on her together with thinking on others, i.e. not only focused on what she should do, but on a lot of other things.

And such people can founder!!!!! They have to change! The (most) selfish people don't have to change, because we can't change them? Or?

Is it the most talented that reach the top – always? Is it the most worthy? The best people? What sort of society would be a good one for people to live in? How do we create this sort of society? Is it possible to create? Or is it only survival of the fittest it is about?

What is important? Reaching the top? Being, becoming the best? Can all be the best? And if you don’t become, then what? Or?

Who and what is rewarded in the society? Is it really as van Dyke says:

"Use what talent you possess - the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best."

If you aren’t the best you can be the most attractive, the most beautiful??? The youngest, strongest?

Van Dyke has also said:

“To desire and strive to be of some service to the world, to aim at doing something which shall really increase the happiness and welfare and virtue of mankind - this is a choice which is possible for all of us; and surely it is a good haven to sail for."

Martin Luther King Jr. said:

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

And E. Sue Blume has said:

"Protecting the innocent is not a job for only the survivor. It is a job for all of us. As long as those who are directly charged with their care are abusing that trust, if the rest of us do not take on the job, these children are being sacrificed."

I am entitled to speak up, as woman, as belonging to the weak sex, from my perspective and my experiences, from what I have read, heard, seen, sensed, am I not? Entitled to question and see as wrong? And react strongly against? Or should I become silenced? Is my voice worth being silenced? Am I stupid, don't I have anything to come with?

Till anybody can truly and genuinely convince me about something else, that conditions and people aren't as I see them and experience them? Do I have to protect the already strong and powerful? Unless they don't really deserve it? Because human rights are for them too!

Kirkengen for instance has spoken about power imbalance, and what responsibility that comes with that... A somewhat greater responsibility or at least an awareness about the fact that there exists a power imbalance in a relation, as between a doctor and his/her patient/client, a teacher and her/his student etc.

Power abuse, power hunger, power exercise, power misuse are also phenomena that exists. How do we deal with them? Can or should the society deal with them?

And there also exists the phenomenon power of definition.

Yes, Judith Herman writes about the silence from the bystander, too... More postings on the label Judith Lewis Herman here.

Addition in the evening: see this article "The return of the society" (in Swedish).

Yippee! I loose my job – or For my Own Good…

from Christmas fair (market).

In a leader the Swedish writer Johan Ehrenberg writes that sometimes you read things making you understand that those saying there only exists one world are wrong. It has to be many parallel worlds, at least ONE globe more seen to how some are resonating.

Björn Lindgren on The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise says:

“The one loosing her/his job is forced doing something about her/his situation, which becomes a boost or a big step forward!“

Or:

“Half of those losing their jobs are winning on the wave of notices [losing their jobs].”

Is he living on another planet than we other people? Ehrenberg wonders. See earlier posting on working life (in Swedish).

On this planet a security-sickness is ruling, with people not understanding their own best and people don’t daring or caring to move further. How good that there are companies wanting to fire people so something good can happen to them!

Because, you know, all problems are individual problems! You are the problem yourself and you are the solution yourself.

My comment: Yes, of course we have responsibility for ourselves each of us!!! But how is it actually with taking responsibility? And how about golden parachutes (fallskärmsavtal)?

If you try to tell such an ideologist that half of those notices (varsel) are leading to tremendous personal troubles and those who are said to ”become happy” by being fired in fact should have been capable of changing both jobs and direction of work and life anyway, this is like shouting right into nowhere.

They just can’t understand this. Because their ideology makes them blind. Do they understand what the word “freedom” means?

Freedom is being able to choose things yourself, being able to change your life because you want to. Being able to choose between different jobs and not – because of the fear of loosing your incomes - becoming tied up with what is there.

Because the reason why people don’t change jobs is due to insecurity. Not because of security.

The freedom The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise is describing is something entirely different.

It is being forced under threat, a change somebody is forcing upon you. Not freedom. As individual you have to “do the best of the situation” (of course), i.e., try thinking positively and move on. But to draw the conclusion that being fired is GOOD is to live on another planet.

Our government is saying that the finance market in the bottom is sound… Our prime minister is the last fundamentalist among the ruling? He recently said something about corrections in the market, something in the style that if people don’t ask for Swedish cars, there has to be corrections in the market. I don’t know… There are many statements that are really confusing! Because people (in for instance the ones with power) don’t know hat they are actually talking about, they are drive by forces they have denied and suppressed early? And we are used to confusions from early in life many of us more or less, so we are more or less lacking capacities to see confusions and contradictions through really??

July 2003, thus 5 years before the crisis, according to the archives, a Bernie Saunders wondered in the American congress, what world Alan Greenspan is living in! If he had any clue or idea what was going on or happening outside the finance-institutes marble-walls (see John Cleese and Robin Skinner on having interests besides politics/work). About Bernie Saunders see here.

Saunders said something in the style that he was worried because he didn’t think Greenspan understood what sort of needs the middle and working class families have. Instead he thought Greenspan only saw as his duty to represent the wealthy people and the big corporations. He suspected that Greenspan simply doesn’t know what is happening out there in the real world. Greenspan was at this time talking about a growing economy…

Saunders tried with saying:

"But the last three years we have lost three million jobs in the private sector. The long-term unemployment has become three folded. 1, 4 million people have lost their health insurance. Millions of pensioners can’t afford medicine. The middle class can’t send their children to college."

Greenspan replied:

”We have the highest living standard in the world.”

“Not at all,”

Saunders replied.

“Look at Scandinavia, where the citizens have considerably higher living standard when it comes to education, health care and jobs where they are decently paid.”

Greenspan:

“But we have the highest living standard for a country of this size at least.”

But what country did he compare the USA with? Indonesia maybe? Or maybe Brazil? Pakistan? Bangladesh?

And economical experts are wondering how things could turn out as they have.

Also read "Dominic Lawson: In a hidden corner of the EU, defenceless children are suffering unimaginable cruelty."

The significance of childhood for how healthy the politics is that is practised – and is possible to practise…

When I was writing the recent blogposting about solidarity I came to think of something I read in one of the books John Cleese has written together with his therapist Robin Skynner “Life and How to Survive It” (the Swedish edition). I wrote a blogposting in Swedish about this.

First I want to add that I don’t believe in all their ideas on why people get psychologically ill, are having psychological problems or how to come to terms with them.

However, here I want to quote a little freely from the chapter about "changes for everybody."

Politicians dividing people in ”we” and ”them”, whom always need somebody to blame when things have gone wrong, aren’t really psychologically healthy.

They have less contact with the reality and their opinions are less gone through. Instead we are seeing their deep-rooted emotional attitudes (whom they maybe aren’t aware of).

On average they are more polarized, more prejudiced towards political opponents and thus less capable of seeing the whole picture and work towards the most reasonable compromises, as the soundest in every party are capable of.

Both Stalinists and Nazis were very authoritarian and totally paranoiac.

Differences, disunity and debate are important to be able to make proper political decisions, for they show the whole row of possibilities and through comparing and choosing among those we can make changes in consensus (without manipulation or brainwashing or anything: my comment).

See earlier postings about cults.

The soundest politicians have a lot of other interests in life besides the politics.

The sounder have less needs controlling other people. They are less interested in power for its own sake and more anxious or eager sharing it, as far as possible, giving power to other people in the society.

And when changes are desirable they try to bring those about through convincing people, instead of forcing changes on them. But again: not through manipulation. Sooner or less people will see manipulation through. And if they don’t we will see the results anyway; in a less good working society, workplace, family etc.

The people in the current system getting power are maybe the ones that least of all should have it. But the ones who ought to have the power are held back by the others, because that’s how our system is working. You obtain influence in a party by investing all your time and energy on it – something you are more apt to if you are obsessed by it and don’t have any other real interests.

Thus it’s the human beings whom have less on the side of politics, and the ones with the greatest power-hunger, who get disproportionate big influence and force the sounder and more moderate holding more extreme opinions than they should have otherwise. Which in turn increases the polarization further and conjure more extreme opinions up than most people usually would entertain.

The governing in Great Britain has largely consisted of foisting minority opinions on the citizens, with the result that a great part of the population don’t feel represented in the political process(es).

I wonder: Can this demoralize people? Create cynicism in the worst case and create cynicism if it continues a longer time?

The decisions that are working are the ones that are obtained through a thorough and open discussion where diverging opinions are welcomed and listened to, leading to a real and widely spread unity or in the worst case that decisions are taken by a management one feels is acting with the WHOLE systems best for its eyes.

A bit ironic: for our own good!!??

But this sounds a little as the Summerhill school!

One-sided (or badly supported: my addition) made decisions aren’t lasting. Instead of solving problems they maintain the sad processes in the political apparatus that makes so decisions never are what they ought to be, but always are an exaggerated reaction against the last one-sided decision. The result becomes an endless oscillation between extremes giving overcompensation for what you have lost on the earlier decision.

My comment: The ones that are governing are in many cases governing through dividing and ruling.

The result can become a society that is less sound, more authoritarian, more polarized and group-selfish.

My comment: Exactly what we are seeing.

The trick is finding people whom are less one-eyed.

My comment: why are people one-eyed? Why don’t we have healthier leaders? Or healthier societies?

If I use rhetoric people are paying back with the same coin and we don’t get anywhere. Only in the healthiest contexts we are safe/secure enough to encourage all becoming independent and to express what they feel.

Yes, as the meetings at Summerhill!?