More on cold glances not only from bureaucrats but also from politicians and too many people in general today…

There was a reply in the paper today, to the leader I blogged about in the posting "The cold glance of the bureaucrat..."

Some loud thinking triggered by further thoughts AND this reply now (I will probably blog about this later, both in Swedish and in English): What these politicians and bureaucrats suffer from is empathy deficits? And lack of empathy comes from the upbringing, with no doubt (with this not said I am entirely free from this myself, but I try to work on it). But this is only an explanation and no excuse for their behaviour. Now they are taking revenge for what they suffered, things they are denying the severity in, so maybe they aren’t really aware of what they are actually doing, and that is still no excuse for what the are doing, saying and how they are behaving (that about responsibility). And many are probably honouring the way they were raised and think this was "for their own good”, they needed it.

Now with power using the same means (and needing power, needing to exercise power, with all means trying to avoid all, childish, feelings of power and helplessness); authoritarian, totalitarian, looking down on people lacking in discipline (too many politicians honouring strict, rigid discipline – a backlash really, neoconservative, neoauthoritarian), believing people need to become disciplined, not spoiled, need to learn how life actually is; how hard, tough it is etc. Yes, I think the psycho-historian is right who said:

"...the more defended psychoclasses tend to lead"

And the needed work is too bothersome and laborious, the easier way is striving for power, for being the leader, on different levels; from a family-level to the highest political. Miller is right when she writes:

"It is the UNFELT, avoided and denied pain, stored up in our bodies, that drive us to repeat what have been done to."

The more power we get the more sever the consequences of an unprocessed and unfelt past for the environment. Power can be a way to avoid the truth. An effective way with severe and serious consequences.

And the ones voting for those politicians can’t see things through either, but votes for something they are familiar with, and thus feel comfortable with (how bad this even is for them in the end). They too believe in the necessity in educating people (in many cases in a humiliating manner; as humiliated as they themselves became once probably). And nobody wants to know the actual roots for things.

See Pincus on Societal approval: now it is opportune saying things that weren’t really possible saying earlier?

And it looks as if empathy can be a factor in exhaustion and burnout according to findings in stress-research (Währborg for instance).

Chewing the same things once and again - but so what? ("You stupid, k!!" the primary defence in me?).

Miller also writes something in the style that people want to claim that the problems with the youth is due to too slack (loose) upbringing, but adds that if people would want to inform themselves they will get to know that

"..it is exactly those most punished, the ones most maltreated or most severely neglected children whom find joy in destroying, and whom later glorifies the violence [violence in all forms; from the most obvious to the most subtle; as advocating more discipline in school for instance and advocating we shall avoid spoiling children and young people (but what is actually 'spoiling children'?), from physical to emotional disciplining (with for instance the wall of silence for to punish the child, and manipulate it to a desire behaviour, not listen to it, not explain to it why you are punishing it either, quite authoritarian! As our current school-minister), and maybe also sexual (though much rarer hopefully, or by manipulating this too in young people in different ways), my a little free translation and interpretation of Miller's text taken from page 188 in the Swedish edition of 'Paths of Life')."

Men’s and women’s different reactions…

Görel Wentz and Ulf Lundberg.

Struck me this morning that it stands somewhere that men and women react differently to stress, and searched for this in two books I have. One was Peter Währborg’s “Stress och den nya ohälsan” (“Stress and the new ill health”) and the other “Stessad hjärna, stressad kropp – om sambanden mellan psykisk stress och kroppslig ohälsa” (”Stressed brain, stressed body – about the connections between psychic stress and bodily ill-health”) by the professor at the Institution of Psychology and the Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS) at the university of Stockholm Ulf Lundberg and his co author Görel Wentz, journalist.

Währborg writes in his book on page 78 in the chapter “Differences between men and women” that Christina Maslach establishes that burnout looks different in men and women, even if this condition is as common in women as in men. In women the emotional exhaustion (the emptiness feeling) is more intensive and more usual. Men react with depersonalization and frigidity (känslokyla).

Lundberg and Wentz write at page 179 in their book in the chapter “Psychological differences” that in the stress research, as in so many other research areas, most studies are performed on men, For a long time one hasn’t been aware that men and women react differently to stress.

And they also write that it is rather psychological factors and sex role patterns (könsrollsmönster) which are decisive for the differences between the sex’s manners in reacting to stress.

Yes, we are raised and met differently from the beginning, because we are seen differently and the demands are put differently on us? But don't small children, no matter what sex (or for that matter what individual the small child is) , have the same needs, and maybe exactly the same needs (is it true that different individuals has different needs? Or can belief/idea be about the parents needs, a projection of their totally unconscious needs? And IF different individuals should have different needs: are they SO different? And IF children have different needs, can it be that they entered this world in different ways? Things we grown ups aren't sensitive to maybe at all or very little? Because we in turn had to make ourselves insensitive to survive?)?

And later we take our early unfulfilled needs out in different ways and on different persons, in different circumstances, some have more power than others and others less, so the effects of this are more or less large and directed on different targets (the more power a person has the more damage his/her unprocessed has?).

And that we take our unfulfilled needs out in different ways always causes problems, bigger or smaller, and misinterpretations and misunderstandings? Bigger or smaller wars?

---

And there was a small article in the local newspaper about the incest man in Austria, where it stood that he was a classical tyrant... He was big and strong? And had much more physical strength and power than, at least, his wife and daughters? Which he didn't hesitate to use at all.

And it already stands about this case in wikipedia!

And which are the consequences of child abuse - on the political level? For who we vote on in elections? If we vote at all? If we want a savior, maybe even a "strong leader" solving all our problems and keeping things in order by punishing those who don't live in a certain way, and how the leader sees criminals (criminals need hard punishments for instance) etc. etc.? If we believe we have influence on things on different levels (in our private life, at the work place, in the society, in the world) or if we don't think we have? If we are still paralyzed with unprocessed helplessness or not? Because we were so badly treated, and had no protector?

And if we fight for things so they don't harm ourselves either...

And our (really lousy) current government uses the classical tool with scapegoats! Gathering people in chasing certain groups like those on sick pay. I am rally horrified over many of our politicians, whom are younger than me many of them, over the views the have and give expression to. Really horrified.

And I have thought for long that it is opportune to chase the ones on sick pay for instance, because most of those on sick pay are women. At least here. I have thought for myself that if it had been more men on sick pay the politicians would have taken steps in preventing illness due to stress and work place conditions/work environment (psychosocial not least).

Playing on many people’s tendencies to contempt for weakness? Beating their breasts!

Hysteria…

Jean Martin Charcot.

Peter Währborg also writes about hysteria in his book (a book which is in Swedish, so the text below is my amateur translation and interpretation of his text), at page 87-88 in a chapter called “Neocortical stress reactions.”

He writes that stress influences the behaviour. Memory, concentration, attention and other neuropsychological functions deteriorate during stress. During severe stress an even more pronounced reduction of higher mental and cortical functions can occur. This state has been described by Jean Martin Charcot (also see here about him) in the end of the nineteenth century and fascinated one of his visitors, namely Sigmund Freud.

This state is called hysteria. Wärhborg writes that it is a state whose physiology is almost unknown. It can be described as a sort of mental “playing dead reaction” (apparent death).where an active as well as a passive symptomatology can appear. In the former case symptoms like paralysis (förlamning), dumbness (stumhet), disequilibrium (balansrubbning) and vomiting appear. Passive symptoms are reduced feelings (nedsatt känsel), blindness, deafness, tunnel vision, failing off of smell (bortfall av lukten) and insensitiveness for pain. Characterized by what the French psychologist and prominent pupil to Charcot, Pierre Janet, once described as “la belle indifference.”

Easily influenced (påverkbarhet) without critical thinking, i.e., suggestibility and earlier occurrence (förekomst) of similar episodes are other important clues to this diagnosis.

Hysteria is characterized by a symptom-picture which is nearly related to the neocortical function. Often these symptoms appear swift as a lightning, not seldom in connection with a trauma for which the individual is lacking strategies handling. One can always discuss if hysteria shall be seen as a stress related syndrome he writes.

Judith Lewis Herman writes about hysteria, Charcot and Freud in her book "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror", see for instance the chapter “A Forgotten History.”

It starts with (page 7):

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion. Repeatedly in the past century, similar lines of inquiry have been taken up and abruptly abandoned, only to be discovered much later. Classic documents of fifty or one hundred years ago often read like contemporary works. Though this field has in fact an abundant and rich tradition, it has been periodically forgotten and must be periodically reclaimed.”

And I wonder if the drive theory can occur in other clothing during history too? More or less disguised? Even today? All sorts of ideas about what is driving people... Ideas that are defences rather?

A boss said:

"You are flexible [extremely stretchable??], innovative, don’t get stuck in a problem but try to see/seek solutions, you take own initiatives, are working independently… You have a broad ground to stand on."

Phew...

Incongruence between different infrastructures…

the hard working miners got brännvin as wage for their work (about brännvin in Swedish, Swedes started burning brännvin already 600 years ago). Needed to benumb themselves to survive their hard lives? More photos from this area.

[Updated with a video in the end] Peter Währborg (see the other postings about him here) writes at page 308 in the book mentioned in these postings about incongruence* between different infrastructures. He says that stress occurs not only as a phenomenon within different infrastructures when “intern oppositions/antagonisms (? Motsättningar in Swedish)” are at hand. Stress is also an expression for the incongruence which occurs between infrastructures. He gives us an example:

A child needs access to long term and unbroken relationships to adults for its harmonic development. If the social system doesn’t provide with resources which make this possible we get problems. The grown up individual often thinks he or she should be more at home with the children (or spouse?), this is a common apprehension (uppfattning). And thinks he/she ought to this and that. See earlier posting on "Surrogate mirrors..."

However, the social system also provide with more and partially contradicting values, as you ought to have an education, be successful etc. The norm and valuation systems (värderingssystem) are indistinct and therefore this creates conflicts within the particular individual. This conflict can in turn be enough for causing that biological stress reactions are started.

He thinks that stress has occurred since the origin of man. The decisive difference between then and now is its extension and seriousness now. Which can be ascribed the society’s faster and faster change.

During the agrarian period the social stress was minor, but there existed another societal control (much harder in a way). The society was more marked or clear (tydligt) because the society was smaller. People could handle things "better" then (including internal problems, problems due to child abuse, or they turned mad?) because the information flow wasn’t as enormous as it is today and the social structure not as complicated.

With the industrial society and later the information society the demands started to grow. Social, psychic and biologic stress became more usual because the demands on adaptation to the variable (to changes) increased.

Währborg discusses two types of stress in his book: the aggressive or the exhaustion or fatigue stress.

Nothing above is new though?

And doesn’t Miller write about this? Earlier people could handle things "better", because they knew nothing else than what was present in their small world there and then.

And aggressions (and all different feelings) got other outlets then?

And what are aggressions about? What do aggressions lead to? What do needs for power lead to? Both on a private, personal level as on a societal and even global level? Do we handle things constructively or are we driven by more or less conscious emotions, feelings or needs?

Some people are (brutally) forced to process their early things? For their survival... And what about the society in whole??

*with congruence he means homogeneity or grade of accordance, for example between a thought and a feeling. Incongruence is the opposite.

The Roots of Violence:

Psychosocial stressors in children…

from the Swedish child-film Dunderklumpen (1974, English site here and Swedish here), I have played the first tune with a couple of pupils.

Peter Währborg (see former posting "Empathy and Stress...") also writes about children and psychosocial stressors at page 79-81 in his book (mentioned in the former posting).

He writes that in the main the same things which are stressing children are stressing adults.

The most important stressors are emotionally significant separations, for instance parents divorce, but also getting new teachers and classmates. When children loose a part of the body because of illness or accident they react with a powerful stress reaction, as when a person whom is important dies or moves. Children lives in a world which is a little bigger than adults understand Wärhborg writes.

Discomfort (vantrisel) being in a school and a class which only causes social and psychic suffering is of course not fun and causes (sometimes severe) stress in children. If you experience (thinks) you don’t manage especially well in school each failure gives new proofs on your insufficiency or inadequacy. The self esteem is jeopardized, and the inability to live up to the demands parents, teachers or others put turns into chronic stress.

Difficult relations are another source of stress in children. It looks as children in this case reacts more equal to grown up women, i.e., they react more pronounced on difficult relations than men do.

Children have many different sorts of relations which can play a significant or important role for the risk developing stress (my addition: and for minimizing the bad effects?).

Especially powerful are the stress reactions in children exposed to insulting “specific treatment” (särbehandling) or victimization (?) such as mobbing. (See this pdf-file on "Victimization at Work" from the Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health).

Währborg thinks that children’s sensitivity means that the best would be if the classes were small and stable.

Encroachments (abuse), accidents, maltreatment or other severe traumas also causes stress. Sometimes this stress state is of a more serious nature, so called Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Not least children who have immigrated can carry things with them that they haven’t got any opportunity to process.

Währborg also mentions time and decision conflicts as a source for stress reactions in children something we also see in adults. When children feel powerlessness or that they don’t have control over their situation they react with stress.

Children suffer more seriously because of lack of security and social stability. The family-situation plays an important role in this (in moderating, and in moderating both this and that?). Here it isn’t only a question of interaction-patterns in the family but also about events happening to the family.

My brief reflections: We have tended to minimize and belittle things children experience, and to sweep it under the rug? And it was even more so earlier? If you didn’t talk about bigger and smaller events or traumas they didn’t harm one thought. And the child and whole events became surrounded by silence.

See about the ACE-study here and here.

Empathy and stress...

Updated in the evening: The Swedish stress-researcher Peter Währborg (see photo above) writes in his book ”Stress och den nya ohälsan” (“Stress and the new ill health”) at page 63 in the (under-)chapter “Övriga psykologiska stressorer” (“Other psychological Stressors”) to the chapter "Stressorer" (Stressors"?), that there is an abundance (uppsjö) of psychological conditions which can redeem (utlösa) stress.

He writes that empathy, defined as the ability to compassion, has shown to be associated with an increased degree of stress-physiological activity in their research. Maybe this is surprising to some he writes, but at the same time this isn’t entirely unreasonable.

An engagement in others and for others can in a moral sense be seen as positive, but for the individual form/create strain (skapa påfrestning) and stress.

He also writes that we can discern (skönja) two principal, main causes to psychic stress. At the one hand the ones that depends on the primary emotional reaction which occurs with, for instance, a separation and on the other these which primarily depends on our personal philosophy (föreställningsvärld). The former we can group as emotional and the latter as cognitive stressors he writes.

And on page 62 he writes about Harlow’s research on monkeys, I see now, in the (under)chapter with the title “Separationer och förluster” (“Separations and losses”).

He thinks that separations and losses (especially of relations which play a central role for well being) seem to be a particularly significant psychological factor behind the development of stress, something that has been shown in many experiments, but also in studies which his group has done on children exposed to involuntary separations.

But how does one come to terms with this (eventual vulnerability to stress and burn out)? By changing ones thoughts or using other popular methods today?

I think one should need something else… Maybe I come back to this later.

A comment to my earlier posting on Balancing made me think...

Addition in the evening: I read further in the book by Währborg. At page 78-79 he writes about the differences between men and women. It’s during the last (one or two?) decades one has noticed the differences between the genders in scientific studies.

A lot talks for (??) that the women’s health has deteriorated generally, at least in how the health is experienced subjectively. Stress-related troubles have increased, especially in young women.

According to Währborg Christina Maslach (earlier postings on Maslach and Leiter and on Währborg) has established that burn out looks different in men and women, even if the condition is about equally distributed (?) between the sexes.

In women the emotional exhaustion (feelings of emptiness) are more intense and usual. Men react with depersonalization and frigidity more often instead.

More recent research has shown that women more often than men develop relation-related stress.

There is also much that talks for that women feel (subjectively?) more stressed than men. In Währborg’s research they have found that women experience time-pressure more often than men, and think they are easier stressed and they are more often sad or depressed. They experience powerlessness more often than men and perform their duties “to whatever price.”

Interestingly enough women describe themselves as more empathic than men does (!!), when this at the same time vary in correlation (samvarierar) positively with occurrence in stress substances as noradrenalin and adrenalin in the blood.

The last-mentioned finding is especially interesting as empathy is apprehended as a positive feeling. Women in works which put big and lengthy demands on empathy (for instance people in health-care, teachers etc.) are at greater risk that this capacity for empathy becomes a stressor. This is in fact maybe not so strange, as compassion with another person implies both a strong feeling but also powerlessness.

Währborg thinks that a conclusion one can draw is that women to a higher degree than men experience stress in their relations. Besides empathy (a natural feeling in many relations on good and bad) seem to generate stress.

Währborg also writes that the sleeping-time has decreased considerably (page 83). Before Thomas Edison invented the incandescent lamp (glödlampan) we slept nine to ten hours in average per night. Now we sleep just below seven hours per night. And the sleeping quality has successively been worse.

Through measuring the brainwaves (EEG) and melatonin one has found that it is worries for the coming day which above all causes worse sleeping quality with shorter periods of deep recovery-sleep (??).

Sleeping troubles are more common in women than men.

But there are probably exceptions...

I wonder where the roots for all this lies... Maybe more about this later... And maybe also write about what Währborg writes about children and stress.