Real, genuine respect...

coltsfoot, tussilago or hästhov in Swedish.

Thinking loudly...

What is real, genuine respect? What would it be like? Mutually listening? What would real, genuine communication be about? Why aren't we capable of this (yes, and I am including myself in this. I have probably a lot to learn here and will probably never be full-learned, and make many mistakes the rest of my life? Be hurt and hurt, but hopefully not so bad? And having to deal with that)?

A Swedish woman Lisa Gåhlmark has written a book "Skönheter och odjur" (Makadam, 2005) . I haven't read it, but have been searching on it. In one of these articles it stands:

”Samma mönster går igen i den västerländska historien; mental avtrubbning och förtingligande av den andre, som börjar i relationen till djur, blir en hållning och ett sätt att behandla andra människor på främmande kontinenter, så kallade främlingar.

Gålmark lyfte något som för många är okänt - att de flesta av slavarna som arbetade på plantagerna i Västindien och USA var kvinnor. För att få människor att begå den typen av handlingar, att fängsla mängder av människor, så jämförde man slavarna med djur. Eftersom djur redan var förslavade kunde erfarenheterna och kunskapen därifrån överföras på människor. Djur blev så att säga ’träningsobjekt’ för den vite mannens förtryck mot andra. Människor behandlades som djur redan behandlades. Mest groteskt användes modellen av nazisterna. Det var ingen slump att just agronomer var de som utvecklade koncentrationslägren. Systemet var redan utvecklat på djur i den industriella djurslakten.

’Vad vill vi vara för människa?’, frågade Gålmark. ’Vill vi ha ett samhälle som bygger på kuvande, våld och dödande? Eller vill vi vara den människa som får använda sin samarbetsförmåga, sin kreativitet och empati och som bygger samhällen som kan bevara den här planeten?’ För, som Lisa Gålmark betonade: ’Människomanssamhällets sätt att exploatera jorden och förtrycka människor och djur kommer att leda till en total katastrof. Det är dags att punktera myten om det goda livet i västvärlden.’

’Det är inte underordnade grupper som ska tävla om resurserna och pengarna’, var ett uttalande som Gålmark återvände till flera gånger under sin föreläsning. Detta för att poängtera att inga förtryckta grupper egentligen står emot varandra [eller borde inte stå emot varandra, men kan nog spelas ut mot varandra??]. Maktanalysen måste alltid finnas där. Ett exempel där pensionärers rättigheter ställts emot djurens rättigheter lyftes här.”

A summary of the Swedish text: Gåhlmark talks about similar patterns throughout the Western history; a mental blunting and “förtingligande or reification” in Swedish (förtingligande is making a person and/or animal a thing, a non-feeling object, yes, thing or article). In English it seems to be this. Starting in our relation to animals she thinks (but I think it starts in childhood, and probably earliest in life and this in turn influences our behavior towards other weaker or in our power, to which animal belongs, or can belong. Hmmm, yes, I grew up in an environment with a lot of domestic animals, and yes, I saw things, which I reacted on and against). A sort of attitude and a way of treating other people on foreign continents, so called strangers, (seeing them) as animals.

Yes, do we (I) see another human being in front of us (me) always or very little as a real human being, a living, sensing, feeling? Why don't we (I) if we (I) don't? And can this be even more difficult if you only write to each others? But what is excused there either? And is it just to leave an abusive relation/circumstance neither here nor there? And is this an excuse either for the abuser: you can leave if this doesn't suite you! You are an adult now, with adult options, possibilities? You aren't a helpless or powerless child any more! So... It's up to you! Does this grant discharge?? I don't think so... How incapable of leaving a bad realtion or circumstance noone is allowed to abuse that person. And, by the way, abusing a paralyzed, a person not capable of leaving, what is that? Power abuse? Contempt for weakness? And what more? Tormenting another person, and maybe enjoying it (or just showing plain disgust to) the other person? What is that about?

Can all be provoked doing this? And what is needed to provoke such things (the victims fault, is it)? The victim who has drawn this upon him/her?? Which legitimizes abuse?? And often is used to legitimize abuse?

And in one of the texts (or both) "reification" was mentioned together with alienation.

To be able to treat people as has been done through history, starting with serfs, slaves and later the prisoners in Nazi concentration-camps (and later in other prisons, and not only in prisons), you view and compare these people with animals. Animals became training-objects she thinks for the white man’s oppression.

And animals were the first scapegoats for many children? Kicking and/or beating them more or less cruelly??

The most grotesque expression was what the Nazis did. She thinks it was no coincidence that it was agronomists who developed the concentration camps. How to slaughter animals was already developed and now used on human beings.

She wonders what sort of man we want to be. Do we want a society building on subduing, violence and killing? Or do we want to be the man allowed to use our ability to cooperate, our creativity and empathy, building societies which can preserve this planet? (but can't this be used to oppress too?? If one part speaks out for instance... You can accuse this person for being a lousy cooperator!??). Because as she also says, human society's way of exploiting the earth and oppress human beings and animals will lead to a total catastrophe. It’s time to puncture the myth about the good life in the Western world.

And I don't know; people who has and had "good hand" with animals around me are they better human beings? Better with their relations to other human beings? Or is their good hand with animals something else? I think I have had such people around me - and still have.

It’s not the oppressed groups who shall compete about the resources or money, Gåhlmark comes back to once and again. To emphasize that oppressed groups aren’t (or shouldn’t be) opposed to each others (but we are played out against each others!!??), in the interest of the power (and this occurred already in the family? But is still no excuse for behaving in the same way as grown ups, towards either weaker or equals!??).

Why is one group’s rights put against another ones?

Yes, the ones in power have interests in this??

But where did this all start actually?? Didn’t it start in the family? And already there the parents were excused (and excused themselves) with their early childhood experiences (which also proves that only insight isn’t enough??), with marital problems, a heavy workload etc. Pushing the responsibility away??

And even blaming God that they got unexpectedly pregnant, not so seldom!! Ones again pushing the responsibility away. And in rapes (even verbal, emotional rapes) pushing the responsibility away, by saying it was the other part's fault??

"It's all your fault! Everything is wrong with you (but nothing is wrong with me)!"

And I came to think: is there anything that excuses abuse? Even to the worst criminal??

Gåhlmark seems to talk about superiority and/or suborder, and about dichotomies… An either/or perspective and the problems with this? Where there only exist two alternatives. Either you are superior OR you are the suborder?

And there are other dichotomies: either you are man or you are woman (there are no its!!??), either you are white or you are black, either you are adult or you are a child, either you are human being or you are an animal, either you are heterosexual or you are homosexual (or bi-sexual!!), either you are normal or disabled, either you are rich or poor, either you are intelligent or unintelligent etc.

In one case we belong to the superior group, in another to the suborder group. So in one case you can be an oppressor and in another the oppressed!? But is it right to meet abuse with abuse? Ever?

But from where comes this need to oppress? To oppress the weaker if one gets the opportunity? The need to use ones superiority, power, strength (physical, verbal etc.) when one gets the chance?

And do all use this possibility or even need to use it if (or when) they get it? Why do some need it and others not?

But sadly many of us need to exercise power?? And very few don’t have these needs?

And never the two meet??

And, still, I wonder if abuse ever is justified? If it is justified to meet abuse with abuse? An once again: what responsibility do we have as adults? Can we blame our early childhood (how many parents haven’t done this)? How many abusers haven’t done this?

And radically; can we excuse with unconscious things either??

About these things we can talk in all endlessness… And we have also done that!!?? Throughout history…

Oh, this was very intellectual?? God forbid!!!? Either one isn't intellectual enough or too intellectual?? But working with young people has that colored my way of speaking, my way of expressing myself, the words and expressions I use? In short the sort of language I use?

I wonder if I didn't express myself differently when I for instance studied pedagogy 25 years ago on distance at the University in Uppsala (because I didn't think I was good enough teacher)? And why was I so insecure or unsure? I who had got everything offered on a silver plate (something I ought to be punished for and ought to apologize for, apologize to whom and why)? Had I (what do anyone know about that, and no wonder there are wars in the world)?? And by the way, what does a child need actually??

A female physician I had contact with for a period (1994-2000), quite wise and I still feel fairly warm for her, pointed out to me that I had managed both this and that, she seemed to think I needed to be reminded about this. Yes, despite all that insecurity!!?? Despite my "favorable" upbringing (and who can judge about that, and who knows how it was, and do I have to account for it either, or excuse my whole life through that I was brought up in this middle-class, observe, not over-class, family??? And maybe I have the right to give my confidences only to those I feel for and think I want to give them too, if my confidences are worth anything at all?? Or if I am worth anything at all? And if I don't value myself, does that mean I deserve contempt or disrespect or something? A sort of contempt for, such, "weakness"? How disgusting, isn't it?).

And actually, I also "took myself in the collar" when I was 10, and went back to school after a (deep) crisis. I think I just decided to do that?? I guess I have done that later in life too? Cleverly... Even with hardly any support. And shall I apologize for this too? My eventual strength?

This female physician also said (to my surprise), that:

"He is afraid of strong women!!"

I dropped my chin (was taken aback?).

"What?? Does she think I am a 'strong woman'?? And is he maybe afraid of ME???"

I got totally dumb.

Such thoughts didn't exist at all in my wildest imagination?? I don't know what this resulted in: best not challenge this? Not embarrass this man (my boss then - a man)!? Another thing I had to control and check??

And in spite of my shyness I can also be fairly spontaneous?? Yes, there is a both/and?? And then I had started to bloom? Started to take space? Not so afraid of being seen?

And how was it now with the Master Suppression Techniques?

Yes, what are the consequences of contempt for weakness??

And can there exist an oppression in the opposite direction so to say: you can be exposed to oppression if (when) you come from a "class" above another too?? And what is this? (and why do classes exist at all?? Aren't we worth alike actually?? Is this only a lot of fine talk? Excuse my naivety).

What do I deserve? Because I am so bad, unlovable, too intellectualizing, not intellectual enough, too little in my feelings and emotions, or maybe too much? Too insensitive, or too sensitive? Aslo see about the Primary defense. And about False power denial of needs.

And do prejudices only exist in one direction?