Democracy, the market, individuality…

A Swedish leader or editorial writer wrote about an affair in Sweden concerning people belonging to the Moderate Party buying votes to the Swedish Parliament:

“It’s not difficult associating to enterprises and entrepreneurs when the moderates in Stockholm are shaken by the scandal with bought members.”

What they have done is not least full of enterprise. Moderate candidates to the Parliament have simply tried to make long-term investments in a well paid job in the Parliament. A revision firm is involved in the investigation of the scandal. The step isn’t far away that the Moderates are introducing themselves on the market he thinks. Even if you shall not exaggerate the scandal the question returns if there isn’t an ideological component in the whole thing.

Because it’s about a party valuing the market higher than anything else and this party’s members would prefer that the politics move away as much as possible in favor for this market.

And in such a climate the democratic voice is hardly as sacred, as in other movements where the politics’ and democracy’s power are seen as more central.

Yes, are they in fact scared to death for democracy? If they get an opportunity they want to undermine it? In favor of themselves?

The democracy’s subversive formula is as follows:

One human being – one vote. This means that the low paid person’s voice is as much worth as the billionaire’s when they are voting.

However, in the market society it’s the billionaire who has the largest influence. But what happens if the billionaire uses his resources for buying votes?

Then the politics falls to pieces. The democracy is invaded by something for it alien to its nature: the power of money.

This is already the case in a country like Italy, where the media mogul Berlusconi is governing the politics with his money and his Medias.

We don’t have such a meltdown here yet. But the Moderate scandal in Stockholm has undeniably its idea political significances.

Another leader/editorial writer writes about the same scandal; that the electoral cheaters farthest in want to make the society entirely nonpolitical. It’s the “business concept” itself, that the representative democracy’s decision makers shall have as little influence over the society as possible.

It’s how the strict right has resonated ever since this country got universal suffrage.

And apropos the much honored individuality:

“Strange to say, we have gotten parties that are for an individuality that’s sticking out for their own personal sake, but now [in the politics] are promoting a vapid conformism [to gain votes].”

And are those who are preaching the individual (the neoliberals for instance) capable of treating individuals individually instead of lumping them together as for instance accusing people for being cheaters - all of them (in the welfare systems)?

Are they giving or have they given other people the same rights as they are demanding for themselves, and do they feel that they have the corresponding duties? Yes, you can wonder.

A Swedish blogger writes about an article about this affair with the heading saying something like “The confidence for the politics is becoming damaged.” The question is if t isn’t already substantially damaged, maybe because that this old type of party politics doesn’t work anymore.

Now with the European Union why shall one vote for politicians who don’t have so much to decide over because the real right to decisions lies somewhere else. But they can lift substantial fees and pensions. In some countries the members of the Parliament has juridical immunity – if such demands are coming to Sweden we really have to look up.

In the comments to the article some commentators try to come with the old waltz that the social democrats aren’t a bit better. As if cheating in one party apologizes cheating in another.

Opportunistic so called helpers and “experts”…

Had to read the article again that triggered this posting, to see if I had misunderstood things. The original posting is below, if you are interested in my initial reactions to this article.

The authors (therapists in Norway?) are writing (in my amateur translation from Norwegian) that

“…according to our view our age is defending the violated person’s right in a too large degree and is thus avoiding self-settlement with personal and collective life values [in my understanding: people with certain personality traits aren't calling themselves in question, instead they are putting the blame on all and everyone around them; on circumstances, the family, the workplace, organizations, the society etc. It must be a big problem as they are writing an article about this? To whom are they directing this message? And what is their actual message?].

One gives free rein for supporting violated persons’ subjectivity; in serious ways this can burden children and the surroundings

[of the violated person/people? Yes, of course, and then you have to deal with this!]. /…/

It is in the nature of things that those persons don’t see their ways of being as problematic, but are instead accusing the environments. They are projective./…/

The ‘right’s-society’ takes away some of the existential responsibility – for oneself, for the community and for the society’s good.”

I just say: Phew! And have to sigh.

They are further writing about “narcissistic violation”, “persons with violable personalities”, and that

“…the society sets few or no limits to those. They become a great burden for the family, the workplaces, the organizations, public offices and the law and order. There they can be busy with their own lawsuits. [And, on top, oh horrible thought] They often get support./…/

As mentioned earlier a certain group with serious personality disorders is quite violable./…/

In handling those setting limits is often necessary./…/

Laws and rules and regulations are protecting the violated person’s rights in regard to ‘security of law and property’, but one is only to a small degree acknowledging that this also is opening up to increasing abuse

[from those persons, of the rights and the system we have in the society! Yes, is this something new, that people are abusing their rights?].”

They are sounding like and reminding me about a Swedish leader writer.

A physician, with over 35 years as physician, said at a seminar with the heading "The Difficult Talk" (about his experiences with people in crisis, on a 10 Academic points course for music-people actually) recently, that sooner or later everybody will experience pain (and how do we dealwith it then? And why are we dealing with it in the way we do? And what sort of help are we offered in dealing with it?). This physician said a lot of great things on this seminar, which I won't refer to now, just say that maybe it's not until you are experiencing this pain that you understand those persons that can't quit their victim roles?? But for many encounters with pain won't be enough though, I think. They will continue showing empathy deficit. I think what those authors are writing about is actually a minor problem in the society, compared to other problems, with for instance people who have a lot more power, and whose unsolved and denied problems can caus a lot of troubles for people under them. For most parts those problematic people the authors are writing about are or would be possible to deal with? Of course there are extreme cases, but they are probably relatively rare. Or?

The authors are also writing about

"...nuances and balanced values."

How nuanced and balanced is this? As if they are?

In the third paragraph they are writing that

“All have to experience violations in life. It damages the self-esteem, but passes off within hours or days for most of us. However, narcissistic violations don’t pass off especially quickly; it follows the person for a long time, things doesn’t become forgiven or forgotten maybe ever.

Seen with a bystander’s eyes the starting occurrences aren’t especially serious many times [!!??]. Yet, for the violated they get big dimensions, especially with time, and these violations can engulf a lot of the life of thoughts and feelings for the person in question.”

I wonder quite ironically; why are some getting over things while others have difficulties doing this? Can it have with unprocessed early things to do? Things they haven’t gotten help from their helpers to process and understand? And when they don’t recover “as they should” according to those experts, like the ones writing this article, then it’s something wrong with those persons, not with the helper/s or her/his methods?

Alice Miller for instance has written a lot about this, and I think she is right.

Yes, people shall actually keep their mouths shut and don’t complain?

Original posting: Some more loud thinking... Written with a lot of indignation as you probably can see. I wish I could put my feelings in words better than I can. Especially the strongest in words.

I got a link to an article from a Norwegian friend, an article with a heading that would be something in the style “Complaints, Demands and Violations - On Indignation, Victim Position and Narcissism”. Written by (three?) psychologists about people who are dwelling on violations and iniquities (narcissists) and about the society that is unreflectedly defending and understanding those self occupied persons, something they are now calling in question with their article. As if nobody have done it before!?

My friend thought that what those authors were doing was to bait against people who have become violated.

For the first, I don't agree with this; that violated people are defended too much, I think it's the opposite (at least here in Sweden). (The small) "People" aren't defended by the society. On the contrary. They have become less and less defended. And this belong to a trend to blame victims. In line with ideas that we are "safety addicted" (and by the way; who are "safety addicted"?).

The authors write about people whining and grumbling about violations, complaining over all and everything, unable to take responsibility for their own lives. Demanding that other people and the society shall take responsibility for them. People are denying that they have a responsibility themselves.

I wonder, why have they written this article? What’s the purpose of it? Because it has political, societal and psychological implications (how people are treated and seen in the society, what sort of therapy help that’s offered and how people are seen in health care and thus how they are treated there)?

Yes, narcissists are a problem, but not in the sense that those authors claim. Narcissists are a big problem in other respects (that’s another blogposting though), but how widespread is this phenomenon? And if it's widespread why is it? And how do we deal with those? The authors suggest limit-setting.

And narcissism has different degrees in individuals too, hasn't it?

And it’s true that there are a lot of “individualists” in the society today. See what the Swedish professor in religion psychology Owe Wikström has written about "individualism". Sidetrack: some think there were more “personalities” earlier. But this is also another blogposting.

Back to the article: Are you born too sensitive to violations and to narcissist and how do you cure it? Is it possible to cure? Also another blogposting probably. However, I’m touching on this later in this posting.

Again I'm wondering what is underlying articles like these? Is it that the society can’t afford all those who are playing helpless and powerless victims; can’t (economically) afford people who are demanding that the society shall take responsibility for them, and solve everything for them?

And what about golden parachuts? No, that's something entirelly different!?

Too many so called helpers (therapists, counselors, psychologists etc) are opportunists (that is in my feeling adopting a/the neoliberal agenda), and are actually nothing but turncoats and (maybe) even cowards (vänder kappan fegt efter vinden).

I wonder ironically; how many people are in fact complaining and demanding too much (and those who are complaining and demanding are they always the ones that have most reasons to complain)? How many people are unable to take responsibility for their own lives, and if there are, what’s the solution to this? And can it be that people are victims for systems and circumstances they have no power to change?

And, are there forces interested in that we all start to believe that it’s a big, and for the society even, a disastrous problem? But are there in fact much bigger problems in the society? And other, bigger, problems with narcissists? More worth bringing up on the agenda and trying to solve?

And that about perverted needs, about denial of needs and is consequeces?

Is it rather an even larger problem that so few people are calling things in question, instead struggling with their lives, clenching their teeth, pulling themselves together? That “the good people are keeping quiet”?

This is the political implication of an article like this one. And there have come several articles the last years in this style. It’s okay to do this in the society today. The society approves of this? The impersonal “society”. But who is the impersonal “society” in this case? In whose interest are those views and opinions spread, in nobody’s? Are they spread for the best of us all?

Is it an even larger problem that SO many are obedient and keeping quiet? Taught to obey and keep quiet? Taught very early in life to be obedient and keeping quiet? Not to see, hear and speak? And not doing this as the clear-eyed, not damaged child in the Emperor’s New Clothes?

And what is the root to these traits of having too big demands and claiming too much from other people and the society? (And actually among those claiming too much, who are the biggest problem for other people and the society? Those with little or a lot of power?)

The psychological side of it.

I would claim it’s that those “helpers” don’t dare to see them. Do they care about those roots? Yes, Alice Miller is right: those helpers are afraid of calling their own parents (or early caretakers) in question, but now want to prove to those parents how clever they are and how many clients they have cured and thus get “love” and “respect” even if it’s very late in life. Probably with similar methods that were used on them.

Yes,

“Don’t complain unnecessarily! Be a clever boy/girl!”

“Pull yourself up by your bootstraps”.

Yes, the small boy or girl had no other alternatives, and probably survived by doing like this, this strategy was necessary then. But later this becomes a problem for the individual and for the society, especially if this person gets a lot of power. And the most defended tend to lead.

And that the helpers are actually moralizing over their clients means that they actually can’t help anybody in the long run either, LEAST of all those who are “unnecessarily complaining, and dwelling over their miserable lives.” And even if these therapists admitted to their own early history and have been able of feeling some of that early pain it’s not sure they can cure all harmed people.

No, those “helpers” don’t have any other tools than to “teach” their clients and/or patients new thoughts, feelings and strategies? But the changes that will come are only superficial and will only cure the least damaged and traumatized. Is this what Alice Miller calls poisonous pedagogy?

And this with being stuck in a victim role should also need a separate blogposting. Therapists like Jean Jenson and Ingeborg Bosch have written about this.

What people like the authors of this article are showing is contempt for weakness, and actually contempt for the small children they themselves once were. And they probably have all reasons for those feelings. But they shouldn’t work as therapists or helpers.

When their clients and patients are the victims for their helpers’ fears (and actually probably personal denial) then it’s not really possible to understand and forgive their posture.