The indifference as hidden violence - on social dilution…

the beauty of the nature (photo: S. Thomas).

One of the chapters in Wikström’s book has the title “The indifference as hidden violence – on social dilution.”

There he writes that many seem to have a proper job finding themselves. They are working hard on finding themselves.

Too many reference points are in constant movement. New ideals come and pass in a few weeks. The compass needle isn’t even spinning. It has disappeared.

The share of time people see real persons seem to be shorter and shorter compared to the time occupied with ‘social’ relations with people one don’t know except via media.

And this is tragic, and all too common? But why is it like this?

Since the human being is playing together with more and more people (all TV-series’ different gestalts not to forget) at the same time as she meets them during more fleeting spaces of time a social dilution occurs. When the human being – as a pure survival instinct – is thinning her relations to other people out, it becomes the more important to cultivate her own inner being. My addition: maybe needed too?

He writes further about something I think is interesting: passivity constitutes hidden violence. Many people distance themselves from physical violence in words. In the next moment they show that they assuredly want but cannot manage to get into other peoples’ sufferings. Maybe the present time’s wealthy north-European is witnessing the sort of cruelties that in the future will be seen as as barbaric as the abuse of women seem for us today: the leaning back indifference.

But is it the people in power, with most resources, who do something, are taking responsibility? Or who are they working or even fighting for? Who are trying to take the burden on their shoulders instead? Even though they have just a fraction of the money and power other people have. Who take the guilt on them? Who are accusing themselves for being indifferent, selfish, thinking only on themselves, and who are not?

It’s not a social construction; women and children in Africa are starving to death by actual undernourishment, while people in the rich world are buying bigger and bigger and more gasoline consuming SUVs. This is called omission sin. Embarrassed he writes this to himself too (though I am not sure he owns a SUV!).

Maybe it’s so that those same persons whom once upon the time were eating lentil soup, stood on the barricades and accused the big companies for arrogance now are members of the cigar smokers club or the fountain pen’s association. Large-eyed kids are seeing their parents betraying their old youth ideals:

“Not even they are caring, why should we then?”

They (those parents) are showing the arrogance and cynicism they reacted at once?

Showing moral pathos is seen with suspiciousness:

“Wasn’t the 68-generation a little overstrung? Look at the big golf bags they are conveying to Arlanda now [airport outside Stockholm] and what sort of wines they are tasting in Toscana!”

Consumism, entrepreneurship, profit maximizing, Neoliberalism and market powers, buy and sell are code words. They are seldom called in question.

So the questions return – who sees the weak and try to do something – commonly and long-term. Where are the models whose pathos apply to other people, to the ones that cannot manage, cannot afford or aren’t strong?

Who are showing placards where it is written that how positively a person even thinks about himself there is fragility in the existence/life nobody can turn away from? The tragedy comes sooner or less.

Then “if you want a thing done well, do it yourself” isn’t true or the solution, but the human being is entirely in the hands of other people. So who liberates and canalizes the engagement potential (many people are only interested in their own personal projects entirely, are only seeing themselves?? And why?)?

See Arthur Silber in his essay "The Indifference and Denial that Kills" . I also searched on the obedience culture on Silber's blogg and got this hit.

Old authoritarian raising methods are coming back…

Torment written by Ingmar Bergman.

[Updated and a little edited during the whole day]. From an article "Björklund more and more resembles a politician's Caligula" in which you can read that, with some right you can say that, Sweden’s leading school pedagogues are raging against the government’s school politics, or the lack of such politics:

The one and only solution are Nanny-ideals; more discipline, more grades, more tests. Something sounding like “the good old school, from the good old time”: the teacher standing in the teacher’s desk, pointers, chalk and detentions quite ironically.

On Wednesday Sweden’s current school minister Jan Björklund debated these things with the pedagogy professor Mats Ekholm in a morning sofa on TV (you can watch this debate here till March 18 2009 only).

Ekholm namely delivered a petition on the rigths of children to the school minister earlier this week, a petition that was sharply expressed.

All sorts of people (pedagogues, psychologists, grandparents, people in all sorts of occupations - and from abroad) have signed it protesting against the current government’s school politics. A reaction from the initiative takers of the petition leaning on decades of school studies, all showing the same thing, namely that demands only and slavish discipline doesn’t lead anywhere. My addition: probably causes problems instead, problems that can come much later too.

My comment: And it wasn’t much better earlier either according to a book about a study from the fifties on the discipline problems in the school then! Maybe these problems were of another kind then though, but discipline problems in the school are definitely not new!

It was long since one saw such a totally uninterested and arrogant politician in TV the author of the article wrote. Björklund openly derided the critics, cited deliberately the petition wrongly, ascribed Ekholm opinions he hasn’t expressed. Björklund lied casually for the viewers.

Ekholm and his colleagues are worried about the current societal climate and the climate of debate about children. Opinions, ideas and behaviors from people in power that has become more and more strict and a talk about the school and kids without nuances, about politicians in our current government talking about more punishments, new forms of being put in the corner for instance even though they are called something else (in a hope that this would cover what it's about up?).

According to the author of the article Björklund didn’t want any talk; he just wanted to pass his simple populist message to anxious parents forward; children need a steady hand, now we will get order. He knows that such messages go home in people. “Fuck pedagogy!”

And what was worse was that he didn’t seem to understand what use an intellectual talk about those things has. He didn’t even understand the problem formulation according to the article.

The author of the article thinks Björklund’s patronizing, superior politician style will become his flop sooner or later (my addition: it was authoritarian and arrogant!). Yes, I certainly hope so. To listen isn’t what he is best at.

See more about this petition in the earlier posting "Nanny-methods nothing for a democratic school...",

Addition just before lunch: And also see ”The obedience culture or ‘well intentioned’ violence…”; violence can be of other natures too, not only obvious, visible violence in form of spanking, but also in form of emotional abuse - and disrespect. See Andrew Vachss on this theme:

“...of all the many forms of child abuse, emotional abuse may be the cruelest and longest-lasting of all.”

"Emotional abuse is the systematic diminishment of another. It may be intentional or subconscious (or both), but it is always a course of conduct, not a single event. It is designed to reduce a child's self-concept to the point where the victim considers himself unworthy—unworthy of respect, unworthy of friendship, unworthy of the natural birthright of all children: love and protection."

And also see what Alice Miller’s for instance say, in the posting “Child abuse and politics…”

Now I have seen the talk on TV. Here are my notes: Björklund spoke about what’s “best for the children”! I was just taken aback with astonishment. Yes, he believes he is doing those things “for their own good”! And too many people think he is right, sounds reliable.

He also used the words or notions "order, peace and calmness" in school. And I don’t know if it was the programme leader or I who wondered

“But why ISN’T there calmness and peace? (And are, a little, noisy classrooms ALWAYS bad???)”

Then Ekholm tried to point out that a Markus Samuelsson has made a dissertation showing that it IS peaceful and calm in the schools and/or that many teachers CAN deal with things (with some exceptions. In the bottom of the linked site you find an abstract about his dissertation in English, and here is more information on this dissertation and its findings).

The topic or discussion why there isn’t peace and calm, when it in fact isn't, never comes up! And not either if it can be something good with children daring to talk, doing this frankly and openly! Or if we can (ought) to handle it (IF it is disturbing) without “stick and carrot” but in other ways! By the way, teachers over the world are reacting at the neoliberal winds in the school and what those mean for the school and all those working there (children and grown ups)!!

What outlook on children does Björklund have? Björklund has been talking about the importance of children getting “knowledge” in school. But he himself demonstrates the opposite; that he doesn’t respect findings from researchers and “people who knows”! And that he isn’t even familiar with what he is talking about (that he isn't familiar with school research for instance, i.e. the knowledge that in fact IS there!).

Ekholm tried to say that it’s important that we on a system-level have proper knowledge about how children are functioning (in different situations and respects, and that we want to learn more about this, MY addition).

Ekholm also tried to raise the topic what sort of public talk we ought to pursue in our/the society (a much more nuanced!!??), but with very little result or feedback from the school minister.

A retired university teacher, Pia Hellerz said something about frightening and alarming tendencies in our society, mirored in the school and the school politics, how we see children and the school and it's purpose. To use methods like disciplining, early grades and other control measures is to simplify for oneself she meant. So true!

And on top, Björklund said quite frankly that how the parents are raising their kids at home isn’t the politicians’ duty! They have nothing with this to do! With this he said, in my feeling and interpretation, that nobody (not we private people either belonging to the society too) except the parents have anything to do with how they are raising their kids.

What he is saying (as I see it) is that CHILDREN ARE PARENTS' PROPERTIES! But all adults, be it politicians or other people in the society, have the duty to speak up on behalf of other peoples' children when and if a child is badly treated, whether it's his/her own or another person's child, and certainly if a parent is treating his/her child badly (if we recognize this at all!!?? And not all do. We rather tend to minimize and belittle abuse, probably a lot of emotional, and both subtle and obvious abuse)!

But how parents are raising their kids are certainly their kids' business however!!??

Ekholm tried to squeeze in that he wishes we raise the demands even more on showing more consideration to children! Not the opposite! He didn’t get any response on this either from the school minister.

Yes, we ought to, IF we can! And why can’t we?

Albert Einstein:

"Modern education is competitive, nationalistic and separative. It has trained the child to regard material values as of major importance, to believe that his nation is also of major importance and superior to other nations and peoples. The general level of world information is high but usually biased, influenced by national prejudices, serving to make us citizens of our nation but not of the world."

"A human being is part of the whole, called by us the 'universe',
a part limited in time and space.
He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings,
as something separate from the rest -
a kind of optical delusion of consciousness.
This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires
and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison
by widening our circle of compassion
to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

We need to treat children with respect from the first beginning. But how should we actually handle a child showing disrespect? Who probably shows what he/she has been exposed to? Because how a child behaves is no mystery!? With treating it with more of the same? Is that the solution?

See Andrew Vachss in “You Carry the Cure In Your Own Heart. Emotional abuse of children can lead, in adulthood, to addiction, rage, a severely damaged sense of self and an inability to truly bond with others. But—if it happened to you—there is a way out.”

Freedom, autonomy, arrogance, cynicism, xenophobia, societal approval, and needs...

[Slightly edited in the evening and a little February 24, seeking, searching the words]. Quickly some notes thrown down.

On my walk this morning I thought on the notion “freedom”… What is this about? What should it be about?

I also thought on the notion autonomy, and further on arrogance and cynicism.

Miller has written about autonomy, for instance in “The Drama of the Gifted Child” (in my translation from the Swedish edition):

“A patient with ‘antennas’ for the unconscious in the therapist will immediately react on this [the therapist's needs of another, weaker person’s childish dependency on him/her]. He will quickly ‘feel’ autonomous and behave in this way if he notices [on a conscious or unconscious way] that it is important for the therapist getting autonomous patients with a secure behavior quickly. But this ‘autonomy’ ends up in depression [sooner or later], because it isn’t genuine.”

I think she is right. Many (all) patients seeking help are used to filling other persons' (parents', caregivers' and their substitutes') needs. Actually the patient isn't to blame for being stuck in depression. But many patients tend to blame themselves, blaming themselves for being failures, impossible.

Miller also writes about manipulative measures concerning depressive patients, and the vicious circle of contempt showing in too many helpers too...

She also writes,about autonomy (in the same book):

“The difficulties to experience and develop own genuine feelings results in a permanent bond that makes a demarcation [liberation] impossible./…/ …the child hasn’t gotten the opportunity to develop an own security.”

And this is often met with contempt for weakness, not empathy or understanding/enlightenment about the roots to this state. Too often also from so called helpers, such as therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists. And thus the person in question is stuck in shame and becomes even more tied up, even more unfree.

Contempt for weakness and instilling shame.

I also thought about needs, bottomless needs, originating in the child’s unfulfilled early needs. And those needs can never become filled afterwards, but you can acknowledge and recognize them and maybe grieve them and then be capable of filling you adult needs… Instead of the childhood needs. Trying to fill our childhood needs always causes problems, bigger or smaller.

It’s important that you don’t belittle or minimize what happened though, or rather this is even crucial for recovery to occur.

What we see (and have seen through history) are needs (for power and wealth) need that are never fulfilled, expressed in different ways, more or less violent. Persons never getting satisfied. And this is nothing we are born with is my true conviction, but has a reason.

Miller also writes about directing our anger (and other feelings) at scapegoats (symbols, symbolically dealing with early things), something that will never liberate us. Only of we direct those feelings at the true and original causes we will become liberated. Which doesn't say that any of this is easy, unfortunately. So if we could prevent this...

Yes, it’s this with xenophobia too… See for instance the American neurologist Jonathan H. Pincus and fascism (“Hitler and Hatred”), and about societal approval… See earlier posting on Pincus on terrorism. And also see earlier postings under the label bigotry.

(False or erroneous) claims of being for democracy…

[Slightly edited and updated February 24]. Anja on the blog Do nothing day writes in the blogposting "Now it is here at last" about a news paper that has started (or rather an old paper that has restarted or become reconstructed; a really needed counterweight to the almost dominant liberal and bourgeois press in Sweden today), something I thought was so well said, starting her post with quoting a journalist, Petter Larsson, when he writes that (in my free translation)

"...the political democracy – that the people are governing itself – demands economical and social equality to become real."

Anja reflects on this and writes (in my free translation)

“…this sentence summarizes a non bourgeois attitude, and the ideological ground on which the socialism and the social democracy rests. The idea that democracy is the inviolable, indivisible atom the society is [or ought to be] built up by – and this democracy demands equality to be working, to be a democracy in whole [If there is no or little equality it's no real democracy]. It says itself.

Democracy is built upon that all human beings have the same possibilities to exercise their democratic rights and duties. If a human being is in the point of an economically or socially weak (disadvantageous) position one easily lands in an unavoidable power relation to the ones having the superior (advantageous) position. This is pretty simple and easy to understand.

So the problem at the bottom, when the bourgeoisie wants to re-establish the society’s inequalities from the time before the democracy’s introduction in Sweden (before 1921) [as they are doing now, also see earlier posting on ‘The Neoliberalism and the school…’], is that the bourgeoisie never has been especially fond of the democracy-concept, something they have tried to pretend, however.”

And Anja points to another blogposting where “everything” the Moderate party in Sweden has been against is enumerated. Yes, also see the label contempt for weakness.

Addition February 24: Petter Larsson writes (a little freely):

”What we see now is how old, bad ideas have gotten a renaissance in an increasingly arrogant bourgeoisie./…/

When people are starting to be worn out (whacked) they are scolded for being cheaters, work shy and simulants and are chased to work [divide and rule/conquer, polarize people, play them out against each other; and that sort of leadership is unhealthy, not really sound]. And when people have fled from violence and oppression they have been sent back to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Then it’s time to gainsay and formulate alternatives.”

Yes, how well said, what too many leaders and people in power positions (the ruling classes) show is arrogance, he said it! And also contempt for weakness, beating their breasts, as we say, or swaggering (blowing their own trumpets). And they don't hide it today. It's opportune showing this and saying these things out loud. And on top they pretend that what they do is "for our own good"! And play on many people's tendencies in this direction. The people doesn't now what their own good is!? As arrogant leaders know?? Quite ironically.

"Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis!!!"

President Barack Obama in argument against the American (and Swedish) right's idea that tax cuts can take us out of the economic crisis.

Also see the article (in Swedish) “The Crusade Against the Welfare or the Swedish Elite’s Violent Revolt.”

Yippee! I loose my job – or For my Own Good…

from Christmas fair (market).

In a leader the Swedish writer Johan Ehrenberg writes that sometimes you read things making you understand that those saying there only exists one world are wrong. It has to be many parallel worlds, at least ONE globe more seen to how some are resonating.

Björn Lindgren on The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise says:

“The one loosing her/his job is forced doing something about her/his situation, which becomes a boost or a big step forward!“

Or:

“Half of those losing their jobs are winning on the wave of notices [losing their jobs].”

Is he living on another planet than we other people? Ehrenberg wonders. See earlier posting on working life (in Swedish).

On this planet a security-sickness is ruling, with people not understanding their own best and people don’t daring or caring to move further. How good that there are companies wanting to fire people so something good can happen to them!

Because, you know, all problems are individual problems! You are the problem yourself and you are the solution yourself.

My comment: Yes, of course we have responsibility for ourselves each of us!!! But how is it actually with taking responsibility? And how about golden parachutes (fallskärmsavtal)?

If you try to tell such an ideologist that half of those notices (varsel) are leading to tremendous personal troubles and those who are said to ”become happy” by being fired in fact should have been capable of changing both jobs and direction of work and life anyway, this is like shouting right into nowhere.

They just can’t understand this. Because their ideology makes them blind. Do they understand what the word “freedom” means?

Freedom is being able to choose things yourself, being able to change your life because you want to. Being able to choose between different jobs and not – because of the fear of loosing your incomes - becoming tied up with what is there.

Because the reason why people don’t change jobs is due to insecurity. Not because of security.

The freedom The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise is describing is something entirely different.

It is being forced under threat, a change somebody is forcing upon you. Not freedom. As individual you have to “do the best of the situation” (of course), i.e., try thinking positively and move on. But to draw the conclusion that being fired is GOOD is to live on another planet.

Our government is saying that the finance market in the bottom is sound… Our prime minister is the last fundamentalist among the ruling? He recently said something about corrections in the market, something in the style that if people don’t ask for Swedish cars, there has to be corrections in the market. I don’t know… There are many statements that are really confusing! Because people (in for instance the ones with power) don’t know hat they are actually talking about, they are drive by forces they have denied and suppressed early? And we are used to confusions from early in life many of us more or less, so we are more or less lacking capacities to see confusions and contradictions through really??

July 2003, thus 5 years before the crisis, according to the archives, a Bernie Saunders wondered in the American congress, what world Alan Greenspan is living in! If he had any clue or idea what was going on or happening outside the finance-institutes marble-walls (see John Cleese and Robin Skinner on having interests besides politics/work). About Bernie Saunders see here.

Saunders said something in the style that he was worried because he didn’t think Greenspan understood what sort of needs the middle and working class families have. Instead he thought Greenspan only saw as his duty to represent the wealthy people and the big corporations. He suspected that Greenspan simply doesn’t know what is happening out there in the real world. Greenspan was at this time talking about a growing economy…

Saunders tried with saying:

"But the last three years we have lost three million jobs in the private sector. The long-term unemployment has become three folded. 1, 4 million people have lost their health insurance. Millions of pensioners can’t afford medicine. The middle class can’t send their children to college."

Greenspan replied:

”We have the highest living standard in the world.”

“Not at all,”

Saunders replied.

“Look at Scandinavia, where the citizens have considerably higher living standard when it comes to education, health care and jobs where they are decently paid.”

Greenspan:

“But we have the highest living standard for a country of this size at least.”

But what country did he compare the USA with? Indonesia maybe? Or maybe Brazil? Pakistan? Bangladesh?

And economical experts are wondering how things could turn out as they have.

Also read "Dominic Lawson: In a hidden corner of the EU, defenceless children are suffering unimaginable cruelty."

Alan Greenspan's personal side…

På svenska: det verkar vara den starkes rätt som gäller, kanske mer än någonsin? Se denna blogg apropå den starkes rätt (det där med arrogans igen och förakt för svaghet). Pippi Långstrump sa att "den som är jättestark måste vara jättesnäll." En kommentator på en annan blogg citerade den svenske poeten och biskopen Esaias Tegnér i följande dikt.

Väl formar den starke med svärdet sin verld,
väl flyga som örnar hans rykten;
men någon gång brytes det vandrande svärd
och örnarne fällas i flygten.
Hvad våldet må skapa är vanskligt och kort,
det dör som en stormvind i öcknen bort.

Men sanningen lefver. Bland bilor och svärd
lugn står hon med strålande pannan.
Hon leder igenom den nattliga verld,
och pekar alltjemt till en annan.
Det sanna är evigt: kring himmel och jord
genljuda från slägte till slägte dess ord.

Det rätta är evigt: ej rotas der ut
från jorden dess trampade lilja.
Eröfrar det onda all verlden till slut
så kan du det rätta dock vilja.
Förföljs det utom dig med list och våld,
sin fristad det har i ditt bröst fördold.

Och viljan som stängdes i lågande bröst
tar mandom lik Gud, och blir handling.
Det rätta får armar, det sanna får röst,
och folken stå upp till förvandling.
De offer du bragte, de faror du lopp,
de stiga som stjernor ur Lethe opp.

Och dikten är icke som blommornas doft,
som färgade bågen i skyar.
Det sköna du bildar är mera än stoft
och åldren dess anlet förnyar.
Det sköna är evigt: med fiken håg
vi fiska dess gullsand ur tidens våg.
Så fatta all sanning, så våga allt rätt,
och bilda det sköna med glädje.
De tre dö ej ut bland menskors ätt,
och till dem från tiden vi vädje.
Hvad tiden dig gaf må du ge igen,
blott det eviga bor i ditt hjerta än.

Addictions in parents and other grown up authorities…

summer-view from the middle of Sweden.

[slightly edited and updated June 26]. In the news today they say that many children are worried over parent’s internet dependency (or Internet addiction).

Many children have called Bris, Children’s Rights in Society’s worried over their parents’ Internet habits. A study from 2007 shows what influence Internet has for children’s ill-health.

“They are often filled with shame, anger and sorrow, but also questions about what they shall do.”

Mothers who are caught in Internet-playing many hours a day or fathers porn-surfing (even child porn!!!) and sex-chatting. When children get to know this they get worried and don’t know how to handle it. And Bris-Children’s Right in Society has noticed this. Last year they noticed a striking increase in the number of calls and emails from (exactly) children, not knowing how they shall solve their parent’s problems. According to an investigator at Bris this discovery can be compared with when children discover that their parent’s abuse alcohol, drugs etc. because the set of problems are the same.

“It is as shameful as addiction, and they have to handle it in the same way as other forms of addictions.”

In first hand it is parent’s visits to porn-sites children are reacting most strongly at. Most of the children calling have seen their parent’s visiting porn - and even child porn Internet-sites.

They write in the article that parent’s (and other grown ups, if they are authorities of any kind for young people my addition) ought to wonder what sort of models they are to their children or other children they are authorities for. True I think... We are or can be models in many different respects...

Addition (quickly translated and written): I searched under the label addictions and there was one on “Parasiten – the Parasite…” A swift translation of parts of that blogposting:

This year a book came in Swedish written by a man Fredrik Ljung just above 30. A book about "a drug-addicted in suit", a man newly examined from school of economics and business administration (the most prestigious in Sweden in this case), with a

“well-paid job in the finance-branch, dressed in expensive suits.”

As the author once was.

He and his companion mean they could work high pressuredly and at the same time abuse drugs without anybody noticing it.

They mean that alcohol-problems are still more common in working-life, but drug-problems are increasing (earlier drug-addictions were less common, people used alcohol instead?). These two men are now treating other people with the same problems as they had.

10 % of the employees in average on a work-place have problems with alcohol and drugs they think, and those coming to them are young, just above 30 and they have an already established pill and drug-addiction. Most of them are men, but they think women are much cleverer in hiding their problems (so THAT problem, with drug abuse, is partly hidden).

Alcohol and drug problems are overrepresented in high achieving professions and in circumstances where kick-seeking people search themselves to. Pressure achieving and a feelings of insufficiency make many seeking help in alcohol and tablets, and maybe later also drugs, to handle their live (things that drove them into these works in the first place, and on wrong premises?). Most common are marijuana and amphetamine, but cocaine is also increasing.

Silently (feeling so sad and horrified again rereading this): Hiding ones problems by using drugs of all kinds… Keeping silent of shame? And if you can’t manage things you are no real man (or woman)??? The hypocrisy! Showing a façade. And that about being “a real man" again… Does women want that sort of “real men”??? Or what sort of women want such a man?

The author thinks it is important focusing on the request (demand) for drugs, and to watch so people feel better and don’t have to resort to drug use to make their lives endurable. And this should actually have started early in life, where children ought to feel they are worthy, lovable just as they are etc. Silently: how nice is a life being drugged all the time or a lot of the time actually? Being blunt (avtrubbad) most of or the whole time? Oh, this is so sad.

What is lying at the bottom? From where comes the mania being clever and achieving? The feeling one isn’t good enough if one doesn’t achieve and even achieve enormously? The feeling one has to control oneself, or rather not being weak, but showing a (false) façade of strength?

The author said he had never had any problems getting the tablet-store renewed!! No physicians refused to prescribe new, or more, tablets (he visited 20 doctors and there were never any great problems)! This also made me think… It has been a lot (or at least some) talk about being observant towards this phenomenon, i.e. that people goes to many different physicians to get medicine, especially when it comes to calming medicine, sleeping pills (But thre hasn't been any straight talk about narcotics)… But they have found in research that women and men are treated differently by doctors, and employees at for instance the Social Insurance in Sweden etc. Treated differently because of their gender - AND thus their status in society (quite ironical)?? Women with problems are treated with more contempt and less respect!?

Ljung says he succeeded keeping himself “floating,” as he says, for eight years. He started abusing alcohol systematically when he was 19 years. During these years he changed his whole acquaintance-circle, only associated with criminals (in suits??), he was heavily in debt, had two broken relations behind him and hardly any contact with his parents. In short his life was in a real mess.

Suddenly he realized the truth; he wasn’t the successful and enviable person he had struggled so hard to become.

It stands:

“Henrik is filled with contempt, both against the society and against people in his environment and this permeates [genomsyrar] his strivings in reaching the top, which is a well paid, status-filled job on a bank in London or New York.”

Oh, how fun! And really something to strive for!! Observe the irony! The principal figure in the book is ironical, arrogant, show contempt for weakness, is floating above… The reviewer of the book earlier this year characterized the principal figure with the expressions "hubris" and "self-contempt. "

Yes, what does Miller write about irony for instance? And about addiction?

This really made me think once again…

Addition June 26: Struck me about Jane Fonda's bulimia. Also see "Starving for Attention." She thought that she was so occupied with her eating that she lived like in a glass-bubble, cut off from the environment and not really their for her children (Vanessa and Troy?). And she could slightly imagine how this for them. If I remember right. Sidetrack: but it feels as she is still in denial to a high degree, and have been "taught" forgiveness by therapists...

And I recently also read about Britt Ekland (actually Eklund!!), the Swedish actress, who has problems with osteoporosis, and it struck me this can (must) be because of constant concern about the weight. And she must have done plastic surgery (the lips??) which hasn't been really successful... I have done plastic surgery too, a (really) big (and tough) operation. I was offered another one, but at that time I had accepted how I look and didn't make a second operation... And before this operation the female doctor said she didn't think this operation was necessary, but if I wanted to make it they should make it... Oh, this is a long story...