Blaming the victim(s)…

Who has to pay (most) for the current gigantic economic crisis? The ones that caused it? And what (or who) caused it? How has it been through history, with people causing crisis and sometimes even catastrophes and the ones who have had to pay for them?

Thought on responsibility and guilt. On civil wars.

Are we directing the anger at the true or original sources? Or at other, (much more) innocent, who maybe had nothing to do with this crisis, people who have been working and taking responsibility for themselves maybe their whole lives?

Yes, each person has a responsibility for her/himself as single unit, citizen and human being, but, there’s a but…

In Owe Wikström’s last book “In defense of longing – or the melancholy in Finnish tango” he writes at pages 92-93 (referring to Albert Camus and what he has written about Sisyphus) that the human being has come into his world with the capacity (ability) to think and plan, to chose and take responsibility. Thrown into the existence and endowed with a freedom we hardly can carry – not to talk about the other side of this freedom: the responsibility and the guilt, we are standing there quite unable to act before the strange that nobody knows – and this is Camus’ point – nobody CAN know either about what this existence/life is about. Camus talks about trials running away from those ontological and moral questions – through leaning on scientific models, political ideologies or fixed belief systems.

The struggle not fleeing to the seemingly secure systems demands courage. This struggle remains the human being’s nobility mark. Why do we need those easy answers and quick fixes?

The last fifteen years (since we got a right government the first time on more than ten years), at least, we have spoken here in Sweden about “freedom under responsibility” (the power’s idea!?), for us employed for instance (and not least). And also about loyalty to the workplace and its ideas or programs. Hmmm, loyalty to what and what not??

When I was reading Wikström and thinking on other things at the same time my thoughts went this way:

Responsibility: for ourselves, but as a separate individual what’s reasonable doing? The ones taking on bigger tasks HAVE a greater responsibility and have more power (because they have more power through their position, have taken more power on them. And many people don’t want to have all those responsibilities following with a lot of power, because they can imagine how it would be, how this is. Maybe we don’t get the ones hat would be the best in leader and power roles, but this is another discussion?).

But the small human being can’t accordingly disclaim ALL responsibility! The small human being has still a responsibility, but one can’t put responsibility on her for conditions (structural for instance) she as a separate individual have no possibility (or maybe slightest power) to change. We “must” condemn the right thing or person.

We ought to direct the anger and fury at those who deserve it. As Miller says; if we direct the anger at scapegoats (and not the true sources for our anger) nothing will become dissolved (we won’t really recover).

The leader also needs to have the courage to condemn systems he/she can’t beat! Because even for the one with a lot of power there can be conditions he/she can’t master or cope with, because they are beyond his/her human capacities.

Unless we don’t live in a totalitarian regime we are never totally helpless (even if it can truly and genuinely feel like that) though. Saying like this can really become misused and become a source for moralizing… And yes, it can maybe be a little dangerous.

It’s important to put the blame right and where it belongs and the responsibility where it belongs actually. And it’s probably easier blaming certain people (people with less power and societal status)?

Once again: who have to pay for what other people have caused and done? If those who have to pay (and because of this suffer in different ways, economically for instance) at least were honored and confirmed!!!

Interview with the daughter of Camus.

Seeing, hearing, or speaking no evil…

Hans Scholl, his sister Sophie Scholl, and Christoph Probst.

[Updated May 11 in the end]. When I read an exchange on a discussion forum (for wounded people!!!) I suddenly came to think of the three wise monkeys (how wise are they?). In wikipedia it stands about them that:

“The three monkeys are Mizaru, covering his eyes, who sees no evil; Kikazaru, covering his ears, who hears no evil; and Iwazaru, covering his mouth, who speaks no evil./…/

Some simply take the proverb [ordspråk] as a reminder not to be snoopy [snokande], nosy [nyfiken] and gossipy [skvallrig]./…/

Today ‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil’ is commonly used to describe someone who doesn't want to be involved in a situation, or someone turning a willful blind eye [also see Willful blindness. 'Willful' means 'avsiktlig, uppsåtlig' in Swedish] to the immorality of an act in which they are involved.”

In this (open, not closed) forum the owner (a man) abuse (some) commentators , showing an enormous insensitivity and contempt for struggling people (in my feeling), and nobody reacts except 1-3 persons of 43 members. This makes me really astonished. People continue to post as if nothing has happened.

During my shower now I thought further on this. About bystanders. Herman has written about this for instance (and probably others too, whom I don’t know of).

And I also came to think of an example Miller uses, the Scholl siblings and "the White Rose" during WWII.

And now when I am writing I also come to think of civil courage… And whistle blowers.

Freyd writes about this too! Yes, she writes (see this former posting about "A Society in Denial...", and postings with the label Ross Cheit):

"It is perhaps why to speak no evil when evil is present is, in the end, so evil."

And once again, Miller thinks that

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings [people still struggling with their healing for instance, and maybe not so successfully], of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue."

A person who has worked her/his history through to a certain degree doesn’t behave like the owner of the forum I am thinking of (and this forum is an open forum, and the owner is a man). Miller is right: if you to a certain degree can take your own feelings seriously you can respect other people more. And truly respect them. Respect what's worth your respect and react against people and phenomena which is worth little or no respect. If you can't do that you haven't really reached that point of self-respect?

And I can't say I respect those not reacting, but who continue to post as if nothing has happened, although not only one but more people have been treated in a similar way. Haven't they seen it at last? No, I can't really admire those silent bystanders, especially NOT those who have been members for a longer time (for some years even)...

I will probably update this posting during the day. Silently: And I won't say I am very courageous... But I got so upset.

What is a constructive reaction/action? What is destructive or self destructive? How do one protect oneself in all this too?

How do one behave/do so one can go to sleep at night with a (a fairly) good conscience?

Addition: Yes, you can breach for other people in a way that harm yourself, which becomes self-destructive and maybe even destructive? What is what?

I found this article “Against Biologic Psychiatry” which I truly recommend. There it stood in the end, relevant for this posting (and for all this with psychological/psychiatric conditions/treatment/help) it feels:

“Now when a person becomes depressed, for example, they are less able to read it or interpret it as a sign that there may be a problem in their life that needs to be looked at or addressed. They are less able to question their life choices, or question for example the institutions that surround them.

They are less able to fashion their own personal or cultural critique which could potentially lead them to more fruitful directions./…/

In short, the very meanings of unhappiness are being redefined as illness. In my view this is a dismaying cultural catastrophe. I do not mean to suggest that psychiatry is solely to blame for this, given how wide a cultural shift this is. However, I do think that psychiatry has not only not resisted its role here, but actually has fulfilled it with considerable hubris [psykiatrin har inte bara motstått sin roll här, utan faktiskt också fullföljt den med avsevärd övermod/storhetsvansinne]....

I am increasingly astonished about how unable the average patient is now to articulate reasons for their unhappiness, and how readily they will accept a medical diagnosis and solution if given one by a narrow-minded psychiatrist. This is a cultural pathologic dependence on medical authority. Granted, there are patients who do fight this kind of definition and continue to search for better explanations for themselves which are less infantilizing, but in my experience this is not common.

There is a frightening choking off of the possibility for dissent and creative questioning here, a silencing of very basic questions such as what is this pain? or what is my purpose? Modern psychiatry has unconscionably participated in this pathology for its own gain and power./…/

Having said this, what I am advocating is a psychiatry which devotes itself humbly to the task of listening to patients in a way that other medical practitioners cannot. This means paying close attention to a patient's current and past narrative without attempting to control, manipulate or define it. From this position a psychiatrist can then assist the patient in raising relevant questions about their lives and pain ... Diagnosis should play a secondary and small role here, given that little is known about what these diagnoses actually mean..../…/

A more humane psychiatry, if it is even possible in today's cultural climate, must recognize the powerful potential of the uses and abuses of power if it is not to become a tool of social control and normalization. As I have outlined in this piece, these abuses of power are by no means always obvious and self-evident, and their recognition requires rigorous thought and self-examination./…/

This requires real moral awareness on the part of a psychiatrist who wishes to act intelligently.”

This psychiatrist acknowledges that a depressed person is less able in handling his/her life… And I think one shall not moralize over this - at all. That is contra productive. So starting to lecture him/her is… Bad! Wrong! Mildly said.

Addition May 11: read ”See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics”, Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker in Newsweek, May 13, 2004.

Simón Bolívar National Youth Orchestra...

the Youth Symphony Orchestra at my work place.

[Updated in the evening] Watch this, about the Simón Bolívar National Youth Orchestra. It stands about it:

"Through a system of early training and local orchestras, Venezuela has not only provided an uplifting musical experience for its at-risk youth, but also developed an orchestra that is world famous."

This orchestra sounded great. See about it at wikipedia too.

Read about Simón Bolívar (I have edited the text from wikipedia a bit in the quotation below):

“Born July 24, 1783 in Caracas, died December 17, 1830. He was one of the most important leaders of Hispanic America's successful struggle for independence from Spain.

After the triumph over the Spanish monarchy, Bolivar participated in the foundation of the Gran Colombia, a nation forming the liberated Spanish colonies. Bolivar became President of Gran Colombia from 1821 to 1830, President of Peru from 1824 to 1826 and President of Bolivia from 1825 to 1826. After the death of Bolivar in 1830 and the later dissolution of the Gran Colombia in 1831, Bolivar's legacy contributed decisively to the independence of present-day Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru and Venezuela."

Addition in the evening after a long day at work: Had to search on this youth orchestra and its conductor (since 1999) Gustavo Dudamel. In the Swedish part of Wikipedia it stands about Dudamel:

”Gustavo Dudamel, född 1981 i Barquisimeto, venzuelansk dirgent. Dudamel är sedan 1999 konstnärlig ledare för Venezuelas nationella ungdomsorkester [Simón Bolívar National Youth Orchestra]. /…/ Han är chefsdirigent för Göteborgs Symfoniker [Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra] från och med säsongen 2007/08 och även utsedd till musikalisk ledare för Los Angeles Philharmonic från och med 2009/10.”

About the video:

“Live performance of Brahms' 1st piano concerto in D minor, op. 15, with Kirill Gerstein, Gustavo Dudamel and the Simon Bolivar youth symphony orchestra.”

Civil courage...

taking a nap!!

I read something in "Rediscovering the True Self" by Ingeborg Bosch at page 143-144.

I think it was the physician Christina Doctare who pointed out in her book "Brain Stress" (came 1999, and I have a book with a dedication from her, but I didn't get it in person) from where "civil courage" origins? "Courage" comes from the French "coeur" which means "heart"... So civil courage to her means the heart or feelings are involved. About her at Wikipedia (only in Swedish).

Bosch writes Chapter 5, "Taking responsibility for our feelings":

"We usually live more or less impulsively [not an excuse for everything??], and when things go wrong we blame the other person, the world, fate or ultimately God [or ourselves].

Research by Jones and Nisbett has shown how we are all prone to this basic attitude. Actors tend to attribute their actions to external factors, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to personal dispositions of the actor. /.../

[An] example is the Watergate scandal. '...Many of the participants in that affair maintained that they were simply following executive orders, while 'higher-ups' argued that they had acted out of a concern for national security. All the actors in short made external attributions. But by the summer of 1974, a majority of citizens - observers via the press - saw the participants as corrupt, power-hungry, and paranoid. The observers made internal attributions.' This is called the actor-observer effect."

At this site it stands about their ideas:

"Jones and Nisbett's (1971) proposition that actors favor environmental attribution and observers personal attribution was investigated. Subjects attributed causality from two perspectives (observer versus role-playing actor) for verbally-described behaviors which varied in desirability (low versus moderate versus high). The results suggested that motivational considerations mediated actor-observer attributional differences. While observers attributed more personal cause than did actors at all levels of desirability, this actor-observer difference was attenuated as behavioral desirability increased. Actor-observer differences were not evidenced on environmental attribution, suggesting that perspective differences represent a differential salience of personal causes for actors and observers."

It also struck me: what do our behaviours towards animals reflect? I could write a separate posting about this, as I grew up with animal and saw things (and probably didn't see things too) and have people in my family of origin working with animals (so I think I know them as persons too, but maybe I don't? I wonder if they are different when family-members aren't present??)... My dad and the two siblings coming after me (a brother and a sister) were/are agronomists with domestic animals as Major (huvudämne in Swedish).

And I wish I could relax as the dog Eskil!! (the dog and cat on the picture are not mine! :-))