Communication...

picture taken from here.

Here some great things I found I would want to save, and keep here. The thread was about pressures people like Alice Miller (and all other struggling for these issues) have/had to resist on all sides, but it felt as this is applicable in other circumstances.

And see earlier postings on "giving and taking voice." And as van Dyke wrote:

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

(Henry van Dyke)

And I also found this in Quotations when I scrolled my blog to listen to a video:

"But with adult freedom and responsibility come the potential to break silence, to use voice and language to promote internal integration, deeper external connection, and a social transformation, Through communication – integration within ourselves and connection between individuals – we can become whole; embodied, aware, vital, powerful”

(Jennifer Freyd in the chapter “Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected” in her book “Betrayal Trauma…”)

John Stuart Mill writes in his essay on "The Subjugation of women" (1869) or “Underkuvandet av kvinnor” according to this site (also see his book "The Subjection of Women", are these two actually the same book, but with slightly different titles?):

“But was there ever any domination which did not appear natural to those who possessed it? ... the generality of the male sex cannot yet tolerate the idea of living with an equal... In the present day, power holds a smoother language, and whomsoever it oppresses, always pretends to do so for their own good...”

Translated it would be something like:

“Men fanns det någonsin någon tyranni som inte tycktes vara naturlig för den/dem som ägde (besatt) den?...

…allmängiltigheten hos det manliga könet kan dock inte tolerera idén att leva med en jämlik… Som det är idag så håller makten ett mildare språk, och vem den än förtrycker, låtsas han/hon alltid att han/hon gör det för deras eget bästa…”

From where do these needs come? Other quotations from Mill's book "The Subjection of women" see here.

The person writes that she (he) would like to see her (Alice Miller's) 'failures' given the same level of compassionate understanding that she asks for children. And she (he) does this so well; how to communicate, or how we could try to communicate… She puts things in words so well. I couldn’t find better words I think... It could have been written by me...

“Someone is always first to walk a new path; everyone who follows finds rough places left untrodden. What's more important is that she took the first steps - it is up to the rest of us to smooth the way and widen the path, without criticizing her for not finishing the whole job in one go [but we are allowed to question things, and shall question things too? But how do we do this? How can we do this to reach out with our message? And, of course, is it always possible to reach out with our messages?]."

“…we humans are just barely beginning to evolve beyond the raw violence of the jungle. We have a LONG way to go; let's not waste our energy attacking other wounded souls who, like us, are doing the best they can with damaged goods.

We're a bunch of wounded, limping, bleeding folks struggling along as best we can; let's help each other! [and not least to people trying to understand and working hard on trying to understand, who aren't mean and don't want to harm other people, and who aren't mean. And maybe also is dong this mostly on her own, in a sort of monologue. Of course she can be "misled" from time to time? Or? Even less if what she says or writes isn't really met]. To me, criticism has no place in this. And how else do we learn, you might ask? Well, there's a zen saying that goes ‘Do not teach unless asked’ (something like that). In other words, a person is not going to learn something until they're ready. So it's a waste of time to criticize.”

Yes, I think that is true, but we are allowed to question things…

”Instead, we're each responsible to try to get the healing we need, and as we heal, we become available as 'enlightened witnesses' for others who are still suffering. We are there, ready to offer a hand if and when a person asks for help.”

She (he) thinks that we use different ways in our processes of making sense of our own life experiences? We walk different paths, use different strategies, more or less? Can't we do this? Walking there in parallel? And can't this be to complement each other? Respecting each other in our struggles? So long as we don't hurt other people (or ourselves)? But this is probably not easy. Hmmm, this easily sounds so pretentious?

Continues here. Well worth reading!

Pleading the cause of the oppressed…

it looked like this on parts of the road when I drove here on Tuesday! (parking-permissions on the windscreen, not so beautiful! :-))

[Updated in the end March 29. I will perhaps proof-read this text later. I did the translation very quickly - once again. Now I am going to the town to shop food, tomato-seeds etc.]

Some blog postings triggered thoughts… About oppression and who need to plead the cause (föra talan) of the oppressed? Who ought to be spokesman to the oppressed? Who need to plead the child's/children's cause? Can the child do this on her/his own? Who need to plead to other oppressed’s cause?

There was a review of a new book about “the mother” of the Master Suppression Techniques Berit Ås. Angela Davis had said to Ås that it isn’t poverty in itself which causes rebellion. For rebellion (and questioning) to happen/occur or take place a leader from the higher societal classes ["higher societal classes" in a metaphorical sense too!!??] is needed to step forward and lead the oppressed people/person(s) and their revolts(s) [a therapist has this role too? Helping her/his client understanding, questioning, seeing as wrong, rebel against wrongdoings that were done - and are done].

I draw parallels to different relations and different levels of the society, and even to the world’s...

A child needs having someone pleading its right on the “lowest” level already… A child needs help to be able to question and see as wrong and to rebel. Without this what happens?

Children in general in society need this too!? That things are spoken about and able to speak about. That about taboos... What's unspeakable and taboo, things one isn't allowed to touch upon?

And what does a child actually need (respectful treatment for its person, feelings etc.)? What does a grown up need? What are righteous, justified needs for a human being in a society, things we all need and which are justified for all living human beings?

All with power of different degrees have more responsibility for what they do, say, behave etc. towards the one under him/her. Journalists have responsibility for what they write…

The postings which triggered this posting were written from a feminist view(stand?)point…

About how it is in society today, and how it was. And a common denominator is that there is a real backlash in society. Which I agree to too.

I want to translate from the texts:

Ås is influenced by the Norwegian psychologist Robert Levin (a former teacher of hers?). According to him and his research the democratic leadership is the most effective, functions most effectively, and the authoritarian leadership results in discord, dissension and bad cooperation in the groups exposed to this sort of leadership [thinking of our quite authoritarian school-minister Jan Björklund, leader of the liberal party here, and other authoritarian 'leaderships' such as those in therapies, help-forums etc. What does an authoritarian leadership cause in these, and what has it caused?].

Ås and the interviewer, and author of the book about Ås, thinks that the society in fact is leaning on an invisible women-cultural basis, that would fall apart, fall to pieces, if women one day decided to come out on strike (if they should say: No, we don't find ourselves in this!?). This culture is held together with women’s unpaid jobs, the work which isn’t valued, isn’t paid and isn’t spoken of but is taken for granted – as the air we breathe. Ås also says that it is the exploitation of women which characterizes the man’s culture.

And back to what Angela Davis said; that it isn’t poverty in itself which cause rebellion. A leader from the higher societal classes is needed for rebellion. A reflection from me: and to these “higher societal classes” mothers belong for children, fathers too, men for women in many occasions (because men still have more power, a higher status etc.) etc. etc. …

The reviewer writes that today when the individualism is highest fashion and the prevailing liberal ideology claims that all are unrestrictedly egoistic [but why are we if we are???] we are made blind to this fact.

Of course this lays in the oppressors interests, that we all get suspicious towards these persons fighting for many people’s rights and not least that we dispatch those people fighting for groups they themselves aren’t part of, don't belong to [as Cecilia von Krusenstjerna, daughter to the former VD for Volvo P. G. Gyllenhammar in a discussion-program recently about "Are we on our way back to a maiden-society? (having servants again)"!!]. Nonetheless such a disinterested, altruistic behaviour has been the condition, not only for the working-class’ climbing from unrestrained sucking out, but also for women’s liberation. For example, without the support from men women’s fight for equality would have been in vain.

The reviewer thinks on J. S. Mills standpoints, as well as the men which made it possible for women getting Academic exams and work with research despite powerful critics from contemporary co-brothers.

That Berit Ås is very critical to the neoliberalism’s emphasis on the egoism and the individualization of society you can’t miss. She believes in teamwork and cooperation, on the thesis that together we are strong; alone we can’t bring any change about.

But I would add that teamwork and cooperation shouldn't be a prescription in everything we do either; that all have to be involved in everything!!?? Must one exclude the other though? Because, yes, I need my own time and I need a certain amount of freedom... The collective doesn't have to (and shall/should not) exclude the individual... I am an individualist too, but also need people around me!? Does the collective have to exclude the individual or vice versa, the individual exclude the collective*? What would be the soundest? What did Pia Mellody say about independence/dependence?

A younger woman than the reviewer above writes in another posting, on her blog:

“It feels a little cliché-like to say, but it’s true that we live in a time, an era, with an enormous fixation on appearances and looks [is this blog a satire upon this, or only about joking and having fun???], where human dignity is converted into bridges of the noses, rows of teeth and body-shapes [Aren't we good as we are, and if not why not? Do we need to be perfect? In every sense? Being superhuman beings? People rebelling through self-destructiveness and/or destructiveness? And the power, stand in for our parents, tells us whom, what and how we ought to be? Yes, what is actually human dignity?]? Or, we are already there?

I often walk over the cemetery to my work, an old cemetery in central Uppsala, with mossy stones over great dead men and their more or less deeply, under the forgetfulness’ anonymity, buried spouses. A picture of past times./…/

…that one still is there with the wave of life and its strong forces of sickness, and just establish, accept, the dead ones implacable suborder.”

Quotes from Angela Davis:

"Progressive art can assist people to learn not only about the objective forces at work in the society in which they live, but also about the intensely social character of their interior lives. Ultimately, it can propel [driva fram] people toward social emancipation [social frigörelse]."

"Imprisonment [fångenskap] has become the response of first resort to far too many of our social problems."

Was tipped by a friend about the shorter version on “Psychopathy and Consumerism” titled “Consumerism the fastest Growing Religion” – thanks!

Addition March 29: as you can rad in the article above about consumerism.

“Few societies could imagine themselves surviving very long when one of their central institutions was advocating unrestrained greed.”

And what is this need about? About early unfulfilled needs? And see about "Seven Deadly sins"!! In Swedish here. But what are they about in turn too?

And see about John Dewey and the progressivism!