It lies in the profit's interest that stress becomes individualized...

af Chapman, Stockholm, with the Royal Palace in the background.

[Updated July 28]. The Swedish professor in religion psychology Owe Wikström writes in his book “In praise of the slowness – or the danger of driving moped though Louvren”(2001) in my quick amateur-translation from Swedish that:

“Laying the blame for exhaustion on the individual solely is directly devastating, especially in times when fewer people has to do more things on a shorter time.

It lies in the profit's interest that stress becomes individualized [and that people start to blame themselves!!! Who are blaming themselves and who are not? The ones that ought to?? Or? We are punished for other people's doings???].

Structural reasons are momentary more expensive to take care of, but cheaper in longterm for the [whole] society.

That's the reason why it's important that the slowness' culture isn't made banal or becomes reduced to the private individual's task. It's also about politics and society.”

But of course each individual has a responsibility for her/himself, what she/he does to other people, to and for the society too!! But those two things, each individual's responsibility and the responsibility those with more power have, doesn't have to exclude each other or how you shall express it. There ARE things (structural) you can't master on your own!

Addition in the evening: Read Sunder Katwala (Guardian) in "When is inequality unfair?" And Paul Krugman in "Kings of Pain."

Addition July 28: When I read George Montbiot in "Politically Transmitted Disease" I had to smile a little. He ends his article with:

”When Unicef compared teenage pregnancy rates in different parts of the world, it found that the Netherlands had the rich world’s lowest incidence – five births per 1000 girls – and the US had the highest: 53 per 1000(16). Unicef explained that the Dutch had 'more open attitudes towards sex and sex education, including contraception.' There was no 'shame or embarrassment' about asking for help. In the US, however, 'contraceptive advice and services may be formally available, but in a ‘closed’ atmosphere of embarrassment and secrecy.'

Obama’s new budget aims to change all this, by investing in 'evidence-based' education programmes(17). The conservatives have gone ballistic: evidence is the enemy. They still insist that American children should be deprived of sex education, lied to about contraception and maintained in a state of mediaevel ignorance. If their own children end up with syphilis or unwanted babies, that, it seems, is a price they will pay for preserving their beliefs. The denialogues are now loudly insisting that STDs and pregnancies have risen because Bush’s programme didn’t go far enough. The further it went, the worse these problems got.”

Education and talking openly about those things seem to be preventive!! Even though some maintain that other programmes with worse results didn't go far enough.

He starts it as follows:

“All of us are in denial. Without it we couldn’t get through life. Were we to confront the implications of mortality, were we to comprehend all we have done to the world and its people, we wouldn’t get out of bed in the morning. To engage comprehensively with reality is to succumb to despair. Without denial there is no hope.

But some people make a doctrine of it. American conservatism could be described as a movement of denialogues, people whose ideology is based on disavowing physical realities. This applies to their views on evolution, climate change, foreign affairs and fiscal policy. The Vietnam war would have been won, were it not for the pinko chickens at home. Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaida. Everyone has an equal chance of becoming CEO. Universal healthcare is a communist plot. Segregation wasn’t that bad. As one of George Bush’s aides said, 'We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'

Collective denial has consequences. A new study by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that during the latter years of the Bush presidency, America’s steady progress in reducing teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases was shoved into reverse(2).”

George W. Bush - and other phenomena in the world…

[Slightly updated January 18]. Some loud thinking, inspired by things I read and have read recently...

A leader writer in the leader "Goodbye to Bush" this morning about George W. Bush and his last speech as president (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“Yesterday George W. Bush held his retirement speech as president.

It was short, vigorous and – as superficial and petrified as always.

His eight years in the White House has made him to one of USA’s less popular presidents ever, the country’s reputation abroad is worse than ever, he leaves more ongoing wars after himself and on top a budget deficit that in itself has transferred power to financiers in Asia. But he is stuck to the conviction that the policy has been successful and the proof of that is that USA since September 11 has managed to fight terror attacks.

In his speech his fundamentalist revival Christianity revived: good and evil stand against each other in this world and no compromises are possible.

How was Bush possible? That’s the ten-thousand-crown-question, a question the historians will pose once. How could he win a second period as president? USA regressed during the 21st Century, a great deal of the population sank into a right Christian and neoconservative slough that made them incapable of understanding themselves, their country, their time/era.

Maybe Bush became the president that came to administer an American empire that at last passed zenith?

Now he retires. The world can start anew again.”

Can it? Does it? Hopefully it does.

In a local newspaper it was a review, ”The shopping culture rules our lives”, today of Zygmunt Bauman’s book “Consuming Life.”

From the review (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“You are first and foremost consumer – everything else is of subordinate meaning. Each human being is valued first an foremost for his ability to buy and for his creditworthiness./…/

What happens to the humanity and our abilities when we are reduced to shopping creatures only?/…/

According to Bauman even we human beings are above all [above everything else; not really seen as human beings with feelings and emotions and a lot of other needs!? All needs are reduced to hat of consuming?] transformed into goods or merchandises. /…/ In this information era being invisible is like being dead [does it have to be? If you had been seenby your first caregivers?].

The dream of becoming famous attracts more and more people today. The central motif is being seen in all our medias./…/

The own self is in the center of attention./../

This hyper fast chase on kicks is called development and modernity when it in reality is about rapidly arisen consumption of narcissism and of general gossip./…/

Constantly we have to become convinced that our cars, kitchen fixtures, clothes, accessories have to become changed of different reasons. In the shopping culture the drive to throw things away is as powerful and necessary as to shop. Can we find an explanation to why so many people don’t feel well in this consumption society? Why do so many people have to eat antidepressants? Yes, in parts because this shopping culture needs clear feelings of lack of satisfaction and lack of something substantial./…/

The flight from ourselves enriches other people. /…/ We have to be on an ongoing chase for ideal ideas about our lives. Everything can become changed to something better./…/

Another gloomy consequence is a selfish society and people standing completely indifferent for notions like solidarity and human beings equal values. If a human being merely is valued as merchandise the whole idea of brotherly philosophy falls. The step from a collective society and collective responsibility to an individual and privatized societal system changes the human beings’ attitudes and ability to engage in other people.

The neoliberalism gave the shopping culture free scope more than twenty years ago. This has also in a very thorough way changed human beings attitudes, habits and opinions.”

Why are we valued so much, and sometimes only, for our outer appearance? Why aren’t we seen as living human beings and why don’t we see ourselves as living human beings, with feelings, needs, emotions etc. Or how do we see our feelings, needs, emotions? And why do we see them as we do?

Why is the own self in the center as it is? Is it a sound self centeredness? What is unsound? And from where does this self centeredness come? What would a sound development lead to?

What is real development, what would real development be? Both in the society as in individuals?

What are we lacking and what needs do we try to satisfy in different ways? Some not with consumption either!

But in other ways. Maybe sometimes very subtle and disguised…

Can true, genuine respect for individuals exist in a/the collective? If not why?

Bauman thinks that a mixed economy protects people from the capitalism’s varieties. He speaks about social rights [another Swedish leader writer wrote recently about "Forgotten rights"!!], a feeling of belonging and human solidarity. Simply a more equal society. And of course this includes new goals for politics concerning the climate, with a much more “sober” and planned consumption. He also writes about the individualisation of problems that in their bottom actually are collective [see paragraph 6 in this linked Wikipedia-article]! My comment: Yes, indivuals are blamed for problems that actually aren't their personal. But at the same time other people, preferably in power, escape their responsibilities. Quite ironically: and they are also given freedom from responsibility (liability) from the people and not least other people in power.

Yes, what are we striving for and why?

I think the roots lies in our first twenty years in life…

The roots for violence are not unknown, no.

Why do we have the leaders we have? Why are those persons seeking power?

See the following articles and essays: “Bush isn’t a Moron, He’s a Cunning Sociopath” by Bev Conover, “D.C. Shrink Diagnosis Bush as a Paranoid, Sadistic Megalomaniac”, “George W. Bush’s projection dislocation of self” by Terence O'Leary, “See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics” Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker, “So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?” by psychologist Oliver James, “The Madness of George W. Bush – A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis” by Paul Levy.