The Swedish religion psychologist Owe Wikström has written a book about Sonia (from one of Dostoevsky’s books "Crime and Punishment") and goodness "Sonia's goodness: compassion in a self centered era".
Two seemingly entirely different sides of himself were activated after a difficult event in his life (his heart all of a sudden stopped when he was at a gym, when he was a couple of years over 60, but he survived).
On the one hand Wikström started to ponder over some traits in the last decades individualism and the society’s take-care-of-yourself-and-damn-about-other-people-mentality. And as the introvert book lover he also is he on the other hand pondered over the role books can play in our lives too. Thus he was moving between a societal and a humanistic level he writes.
First the society: as so many other people it seems to him as a slow cultural vicissitude has occurred. The talk about –or to use present time Swedish the ‘discours’ around – tenderness, “fellow humanity” and a self-sacrificing life, the responsibility for other people, has if not (entirely) disappeared but at least become toned down. It has become made invisible in a culture where personal moral stature has become a commodity in short supply.
The responsibility for the weak and the ones that cannot talk for themselves is largely taken no notice of.
At the same time a new ideal has grown up the stronger; the free individual, principally interested in his/her own success. The responsibility for the own, personal self-realization – to succeed and to be seen – lies at the centre. Things that can become interpreted as a sort of preposterous indication on individualism have created an enormous loneliness.
Slowly new codes have sneaked in, especially into the popular culture. They are self-evident and seldom called in question: “I first” and “Everything immediately”: in an unconstrained individualism and an urge to as quickly as possible experience as much as possible and become successful (and rich).
Words like “waiting”, ”long-rangedness”, “”wish”, “dream” or “lingering longing” are more and more rare as are the words “solidarity”, “faithfulness”, “loyalty”, “collective responsibility” or “helpfulness”.
The movement is plain: from collective to individual, from common values to the individual’s experiences, from community to loneliness. There is scepticism towards contributing to long-term societal constructions, a hesitation against politicians as well as ideological programmes. Maybe one is risking a democratic deficit when the individual is ignoring the common best.
In parallel with this there are, paradoxically, strong demands on the same society.
Popular spirituality as well as popular psychology is playing together with and very likely supporting those self-centered tendencies. My addition: But what lies at the bottom of these traits (and why are they so common, see Miller and child abuse)? And is there a sound journey into oneself too? But if you get stuck in this work, why are you? I am quite critical to many therapy-concepts...
There are too many with complete prescriptions. And there is an increasing self-centeredness.
Of course it is highly dangerous to put the responsibility for injustices on the narrow shoulders of individual people. That is to impose guilt and to moralize on wrong premises.
In this mass medial and commercial culture, so devastatingly one-sided, the focus is put on the individual’s responsibility for her/himself and her/his success (and failure, you have only yourself to blame). The unsuccessful and weak are made invisible, they land in medial shade. Of course tsunamis, earthquakes and such things are reported and written about, but ordinary sad, lonely and abandoned fellow creatures, where do we see them in those glazed magazines or in the evening press’ supplements? Instead the ones we are seeing are the ones with white rows of teeth, broad smiles, slim bodies, happily smiling people. Offered to people whom are broken with stress.
At the same time Wikström is wondering: is this a matter of class? Who can afford this continuous roaring of constant luxury? And when the whole lot is brought forward as something so easy to reach – ten points how to succeed – of course the guilt and shame is increasing for those whom the exhortation “You can if you only want” becomes a scorn. Hidden behind this myth about success there is the thought that it is the individual’s own fault if she/he is unhappy or fail My addition: and this is hardly empathic or compassionate, rather contempt for weakness, and some just don’t see those “failures”?? They are often made invisible? And surrounded with the Wall of Silence? If you don't see or notice them they don't exists!? And many keep quiet of shame (are kept quiet of shame!), and as a result don't call state of affairs in question (and this lies in many power peoples' interests!?).
Peoples’ needs on simple diagnosis's with adhering quick fixes seem to be endless.
Addition after lunch: Description of the book: The present times is showering catchwords upon us, such as ”You can become successful,” “You have to fulfil yourself!”, “You have only one life, allow yourself magnificent experiences”, “Think positively!”.
But we all know, innermost, that the existence is unpredictable. How much one even tries one can’t really govern ones life. We are, without being especially aware of it, constantly dependent on other peoples’ cares.
In the book “Sonia’s goodness” Owe Wikström is asking himself where compassion, care and talks about the good actions have gone. Has unselfishness become outdated? What happens with a society where individualism and experience-baiting is at the centre? Is it out of date talking about the individual’s personal responsibility for other people than only for him/herself? Is the self centeredness strengthened or reinforced by the popular psychology’s –believe-in-yourself-message and experience oriented spirituality?
Coming from a dramatic personal experience the author discusses how it is being the object for other peoples’ care, handed out in the weaker person’s position.
When the existence is the most fragile he recalls Sonia, the good woman in Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”. She becomes the symbol for what’s good in man. At the same time she gives us an idea about the type of model that earlier was seen as self-evident.
That it is a literary character that in this way evokes thoughts about the tenderness’ meaning and in turn leads to a discussion about the existential meaning and roles as against-powers. Questions on responsibility and goodness are discussed from different authorships, foremost Dostoevky’s, but also Torgny Lindgren (a Swedish author) and J. M. Coetze.
Struck me on a nice walk with sun and a blue sky over snow in the morning about having access to books, either (as in my case) having money so you can buy all the books you want (I want to because I write and underline in my books, and want to reread them) or through libraries accessible for all people, independent of their incomes. You can get other views of the world than the one with less or no access to books (from the whole world, describing other cultures, lives etc.).
Addition: I personally haven't read "Crime and punishment".
To be continued with more blogpostings…
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar