The dangers with calls for strong leaders – and hearing tramp of boots in the distance...

The Swedish professor in religion psychology Owe Wikström writes at page 44 in his book “In praise of the slowness – or the danger of driving moped through Louvren”(2001) that the age in which we live is formed both by collective (I hardly dare to write this word!!) and personal factors: with a coarse simplification you could say that the divided society is playing together with individualistic personalities. These two processes strengthen each other.

If they are brought together breeding grounds are created for the relativism that appears, the ad hoc* attitudes that often characterizes religious as well as political ideology. Nothing has the obvious' strength. The collective values and Christian interpretations have eroded (and when collective values have eroded many go back to religion; as is the case in for instance a big country like USA?? A strict, moralizing).

Each person has become more deserted to her/himself, to find her/his own way in life. My addition: And an enormous burden can be (and is) laid on the individual's shoulders.

But if the manifoldness becomes confused and straggly you can soon have presentiments of tramps of boots in the distance. The calls for strong leaders, clear command(ment)s and simple solutions can be attractive sooner than we can anticipate.

At least a couple of Swedish bloggers are writing about returning Nazi and fascist tendencies in the society not only here in Sweden...

But see the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus on the underlying causes for fascism in the chapter "Hitler and Hatred" in his book "Base Instinct - What Makes Killers Kill."

*From the Swedish Wikipedia: “Ad hoc kan även användas om ett felslut, där man anpassar sitt argument efter situationen genom att lägga till premisser som inte ingick i det ursprungliga argumentet. (Exempel: 'Jag har aldrig druckit alkohol.' 'Men du tog ju ett glas vin till maten.' 'Ja, men jag har aldrig druckit mig redlös.') Jfr ingen sann skotte, generalisering.”

Alexithymia is increasing in the world... Why? And what is this about?

Language and talents…

More loud thinking (quite ironical): emotional language is put lower than intellectual. Emotions are put lower than intelligence. The intellectual (and not least intelligent) is put higher than the emotional! Many musicians though have the language too, to a high degree and a lot of other talents. But many of us don’t really have the words; use the music-language instead to express things. And artistic expressions is needed, and have always been through history even back to ancient times, to express things we don’t have words for really? Especially emotional things?

And once again see the phenomenon alexithymia, a phenomenon researchers think is increasing in this world. And one can wonder: why is that? Why do more and more people lack emotional language? Is it only a question of that we become more and more people in the world? Or what is it about? An inherent trait/gene? (I don't think so though! I think this is something we have been taught early in life effectively. But it is possible doing something about. Probably with a lot of struggles and efforts though, which wouldn't have been needed if we had been allowed to express our feelings/emotions from the first beginning).

I came to think that this means that "children’s and women’s language" is put lower? Because in general they use a more emotional language? But there are exceptions of course!!! In both directions.

Is this a question of being taken seriously (i.e., being met with real, genuine respect)… Something that isn’t given to everybody.

You shall have your feelings, emotions under control, or at least have these under control to a certain degree? You shall express yourself in a balanced way, and preferably with the best language possible! Otherwise you can keep quiet or you get corrected or not even listened to or read!

And you know the grammar syntax, vocabulary are important! You don’t get a second chance to explain yourself better, by being asked what you really mean!!

Isn’t there a contempt involved here? A contempt for children (or the child)? A contempt for weakness in fact?

“Don’t be so childish!!”

People get embarrassed on behalf of you!? This we (I) have to avoid!!!

And these things aren’t only expressed in spoken words, but by other means: silence (the wall of silence), you aren’t taken any notice of, disregarded etc.

You can withdraw in a lot of manners, not only emotionally but also physically. But a grown up has choices here, choices a child didn’t have! A grown up can deal with this, if she/he isn’t so (too) paralysed by her/his passed.

We have had to repress HOW painful these things were, many of us can’t even slightly recall HOW painful? We are made insensitive to different degrees to these things. Which is no excuse but only an explanation.

Once again I noticed the phenomenon “talking above ones head” I think… But it didn’t bother me so much as it did. I hope! I just noticed it with a slight smile, a bit ironical smile… Talking in riddles here? Never mind. I allow myself that.

I have been taught that men are better (in general), because they have their emotions in check and don’t get carried away with their emotions (as they are born like this)! Thus they are more reliable. At the same time I am learned/taught to being sensitive, caring, thinking on.

Or they (not least mom I guess) have at least tried to teach me!!! I don’t think she consider her trials there especially successful!! I will never become that sensitive or caring or thinking on never ever! Not in her eyes at least. I will remain that selfish, egoistic, only thinking on myself. In contrast to maybe ALL my siblings?? To be honest.

This with sensitivity is one of probably many contradictions! On one occasion being insensitive is acknowledged and praised, in another NOT. Depending on who is insensitive/sensitive?? Depending on the glasses you see through? (how they are colored).

And that about getting carried away with uncontrolled emotions: on other occasions this isn’t/wasn’t even noticed!! Namely when the father (and later brothers) came home from work and poured all his (their) frustrations out on the family, and not least the kids (relatives; siblings, and not least sisters). But it was worse for the wife; because she was more sensitive than the kids, who were less sensitive?? And the kids was spared compared to the wife!!! (observe the irony!!!)

To be continued… I am going to take a shower now. Have a lot more on my mind (wrote a lot down in my note-book this morning before I sat down at the computer).

Narratives - and information...

But how do we come to terms with all these things? It’s all hopeless and depressing?

One way is trying to inform?

I also saw (once again) the chapter “Narratives” in Kirkengen’s book “Inscribed bodies…” At page 55 she writes:

“Dialogues about the impact of life world experiences on individuals include personal memories and reflections. To these, statements or judgments are related, shaped as narrative accounts. In the human sciences, there exists a multidisciplinary agreement that a central part of human communication is embedded in the telling of stories. This is mirrored in the universality of story-telling, and in the grammar structures constituting a linguistic matrix for stories found in all human languages. The story itself resembles a natural psychological unit in emotional life. Such stories present as internally consistent interpretations or reconstructions of presently understood past, experienced present and anticipated future.”

Came to think about findings around alexithymia. A Swedish stress researcher Peter Währborg wrote in one of his books about alexithymia, i.e. lack of emotional language, and the problems with this; if you have problems expressing your feelings you are at risk of developing heart-diseases. He has found similar things in immigrants he writes, who of natural reasons “don’t have the language”. Or can there be other reasons (too) to the development of heart-diseases in those persons? And my dad had no heart-problems at all! Despite I wouldn’t say he had a well developed emotional language, or expressed what he felt or had it, and definitely not in emotional terms/words (instead in outbursts). So he was an exception from those with a well developed emotional language (but he had the language in other senses?? and expressed himself in other ways?), which confirms the rule??

Earlier postings under the label alexithymia.

When I searched on alexithymia I found this article ”How do one know what is right and what is wrong?”, where it for instance stood (my translation from Swedish a little freely) that the…

“… ‘intuitionists’ [those going on their intuition] don’t excommunicate the reason (or common sense). The modern society exposes us to a long row of new moral dilemmas and crisis our ancestors never met or were exposed to./…/

In our ‘modern’ choice-situations there are no intuitive flashes which swift as a lightening guides us. Then we must access our frontal lobe and weigh for and against. Such a combined emotion and thought process is laborious and takes a long time [longer than the intuitive flashes which guided our earliest ancestors?], or at least it ought to take time if the mankind, love and the planet shall survive on longer term.”

(Silent reflection: k, the spontaneous and "quick" and fast reacting!? Going on emotions, but also on intellect?? Of some accused for being too intellectual or only intellectual? Other people are disturbed by the spontaneity? Or how does the environment actually sees this? "What people think." I am both spontaneous and shy - and thinking?? All in one??? One can't satisfy all? Is it necessary and who are important actually in this world, for me? And for whom am I worth something; valuable, appreciated...?)

The author of the article writes that we have to try to stand living in a time which despite all its inspiring modernity and all its good democracy is morally totally confused (???). She speculates that there are no moral patent-solutions on what is right and what is wrong (but still there are, when it comes how to treating other people!?). And continues:

“Then it feels good when Zimmer [she had read the book “Soul made flesh” by Carl Zimmer] reminds me about that humankind’s moral has been shaped during millions of years and that this moral above all is about caring about other people.”

Hmmm, words, words, words... (a Wall of Words? Putting it up against other people: don't come near! Don't come here!? A protection against disappointment?)

Words aren't enough either? Sometimes you just need a hug with no words at all, a wordless expression of care, maybe only meeting another person's eyes, encouraging, caring??

To be continued I think (I would like to quote Kirkengen further)...

PS. Stuck at the computer on my way to the shower and washing the dishes:

Strong – not weak, having no needs or feelings. Being “strong” was important – and justified abuse? Because if you didn’t feel, then what harm did violence or abuse cause, and you could also be accused of being both too sensitive, oversensitive and totally insensitive and not caring!? A catch 22-situation?

Controlling your feelings was admired (and is socially admired)? At least in some who had the responsibility of thinking of others and controlling their feelings (and needs?), while others uncontrolled outbursts were allowed? Confusing!? Contradicting!?? Why this difference? It was no difference? You saw wrong (Thou Shalt Not Be Aware)?

And never the two meet?? But this is what they wanted?

Review of "Inscribed bodies..." by Vincent J. Felitti.