Can Self – But Need to Have Other People…

”…the needs of realizing the individual’s responsibility for her/his own situation and her/his relation.”

Sounds quite moralizing…

I read a blogposting which made me smile and my eyes glitter, the quotations in the beginning comes from that posting. Written by a female Swedish blogger Jenny W. (whose postings I have written about earlier). She is so angry, sarcastic, and ironic or how I shall express it. Rebellious? Questioning? So refreshingly! She points to contradictions in the society I think…

Her posting has the title “Can Self – But Need to Have Others…”

She writes apropos texts, written by two female writers, Anne Heberlein and Isobel Hadley Kapmtz, on the question of personal responsibility, which she on the one hand thinks has a “fresh strike” and on the other are at risk of simplifying all that is difficult… From a bitter complaining to the dashing cheering on oneself and others, the two poles or opposites. Yes, it was this with the “positive thinking”!! Which awakes applauses everywhere. The clever girl (boy)!!

She writes that she should want to embroider things about the importance of understanding the weight and meaning of “institutions” (in this case the institution which the family is, and preferably the nuclear, with mum, dad and children. One shall not live alone or two men/women together. And definitely NOT two people of the same sex WITH children. And two grown ups of different gender without children are suspicious too for many. But she also reflects over other sorts of “institutions”, but this posting is mainly about the family though).

An understanding of the weight of institutions she thinks is entirely absent in both the texts, and also in a remarkable way in the Swedish understanding generally. If I interpret her right she thinks (with my words) that we speak quite moralizing about that we are slaves under psychic ill health (exhaustions, burnout etc.) and sex-addictions!!

But she wonders (quite ironically in my interpretation) why we don’t question phenomena like when we hear people saying they want to get married ”to have a really fun party”??

“But no! Fuck all that ridiculous talk about such things. It’s bullshit that one can believe in a thousand year old and more tradition and doing a nice party of it, while one miraculously are spared from all depressive cultural duties.”

Quietly: No, that sort of superficiality we hardly question!

She thinks that the weight of these long traditions (the deep cultural representations as she describes or expresses them) we live in and have around us has to become problematized at the same time as we discuss personal responsibility. Messages many people probably feel the weight of, and at least need to get relieved from to some extent. She thinks that if one doesn’t have any feeling for this weight one is more tone-deaf than would be acceptable… Yes, this is very, very insensitive. What’s the problem if nobody is harmed??

A pretty dangerous quality (this insensitivity) in other circumstances she thinks.

She wonders upon the vehement, furious trend of family-living which rolls over the world, as she writes.

“Yes, why is it so damn popular managing things on ones own at the same time as we obviously need to have people tightly around us – i.e. [having] the family [around us].”

She writes about the talk, in the debate about the own success managing or making things, and the question of the family as a poof of “how simple it is in fact”! But in it she can at least discern (skönja) a climate which doesn’t further (or promote) women’s will and possibilities talking about their troubles in their relations (and men also loose on this!! As their children; not least seen to what sort of models those parents and their marriages and all other relations and ideas they have are. But also to live in such families. The hypocrisy I grew up with too, maybe a bit different, but in many ways still there. Yes, it is this with painting things rosy, not talking openly about how things in fact are and how we maybe can change and handle them better and more constructively without harming anyone. No matter what gender. Just talking more openly about them would mean a lot).

She also mentions all life-style magazines and fitting-up-stuff (all make over programs of different sorts. See Thomas Johansson here in Sweden for instance and his ”Make over mania”! See earlier posting "The Pursuit of Harmony...") and wonders how many she has to mention and point to to prove what she is trying to say.

Things are described or brought forward as measures worth striving for (living in a certain way and after certain patterns, not outspoken “rules,” and here it is a backlash again, my comment) while they at the same time are institutions which have been created during millennia for the continued existence of the society – and that continued existence has not leant on an overwhelming interest for the women’s need, have they, however? But of course, pairing and making children gives one something, especially as the human species is a flock-animal. And life isn’t in first hand about lots of injury-minimizing measures, but one has to be allowed to try even if the odds are low, so to speak, as she writes. You must be allowed to fail she means. Without getting judged, rejected or moralized over, yes.

“But jeeez, how many men there are walking around I wouldn’t want to share responsibility or every day life with, however.

Then we come to another aspect I would want to write about too: the tendency that all those debates are starting to be about glorifying oneself and not least the finest we have here in the equal Sweden: our equal men.”

In a book (grounded on a dissertation??) they established that one of the biggest threats to the freedom and peace of women seem to be the normative notion in women themselves that equal lives are finer and better then unequal.

And she writes:

“At the same time it’s always you yourself who has to live your life [in some way or another, and try to manage it the best one is capable!!] and that one has to dare being bothersome, hard as stone and hard-working to reach ones goals, if it’s what’s demanded. Here is a whole Swedish culture one has to do something about. Anyhow, I haven’t got more time. The society and my duties are calling. My family, or the group [son and ‘husband’] as I use to call it, is in another town doing other things. For them, for me and for the country and the world: now I have to work.”

In a PS. she writes about the admirable in divorcing. Her apprehension is that the one divorcing is a truly successful person seen from a self-realizing point of view. Because it is very heavy things we are playing with when one gets married. Getting divorced is therefore damn hard core.

Yes, I think this Jenny doesn’t want to moralize over people’s struggles and troubles… On the contrary…

Politics and poisonous pedagogy…

Are there parallels?

“It doesn’t matter! One has to dress (so one doesn’t freeze)!”

That it is chilly indoors, one has to adjust to simply? Chilliness out of no reason, because it isn’t about lack of money that is the cause to the cool temperature...

“It doesn’t matter!”

about being controlled concerning the use of the telephone. Again not because there is lack of money.

For having no needs or demands (at all) you can get a reward? Or prize? A big, “glorious” reward? Storms of applauds? Very upset writing...

Making things wrong is a catastrophe? You can’t get loved unless you aren’t perfect (= conditional love)? Perfect in every single little detail and respect (and therapists in therapy: how do they see those high demands on perfection, very ironically? As a character flaw?)? And noone will ever become… Or rather; they didn’t love because they couldn’t, their lack of love had nothing to do with the child. Their inability to love didn’t come from the child’s character. But this is too painful to realize. It is easier and less painful blaming oneself.

There is a stubborn refusal to take proper care of herself.

A burden of responsibility, and guilt, was put on the child(ren). A heavy burden…

The children couldn’t develop freely; use their energy on their own development. Tied up with invisible ties…

Everything should be perfect: perfectly fixed up, the children neat and cute and well-mannered and modest, the garden later perfect as the yard, the etiquette was important (in a way)… If it hadn’t been perfect (and when it wasn’t, because it was seldom perfect) what then?

Very often (if not always) grading the food she has made: too little (or much) salt, to this and that... Depreciating. So as to be in advance of an (or two) internalized parents??? Proving to them she knows how bad she is?? I wonder how much I have got of this??

My one year younger brother uses to tease and says:

"They weren't enough salted these meatballs, too much pepper..."

He too being in advance of her self-critics, phew!??

Yes, this with the cleverness…. And when you can’t manage being that perfect of whatever reason, not least out of age, what then?

Can that mother truly love or be there? Occupied with other things, herself not least… And of course all this fixing up, being the perfect wife, mother and also lady of the house for people dad could take unexpectedly with him from work (we lived at his work-places).

And what our politicians show is contempt?? Contempt for people, and not (genuine) respect or a wide variety of feelings either… Oh yes, strong feelings, but against and NOT FOR!!

They believe in the poisonous pedagogy: For your own good we need to… They think they need to educate and teach people. Passing the contempt for weakness further they learned very early in life and have kept denied behind many, many locks? Tragic and very damaging (destructive) because there unprocessed things befalls other people! So the effects can be really harmful, yes, even disastrous!

I saw the leaders of the alliance parties yesterday on TV and couldn’t watch further, wanted to vomit at their appearance… And the school minister said something that was filled with malicious pleasure and even enjoyment, delight.

How does one handle this attitude from the politicians, of malicious pleasure, of contempt for people and for weakness and all other similar attitudes? In the most constructive, really efficient way, in the constructive way?

Their attitude probably triggers a wide variety of reactions in people: in some as me disgust, in others it functions as approval of the same contempt and of treating other people, some people badly… In other harmed people this attitude from our politicians causes thunderous applauses, enjoyment and yes, malicious pleasure, but they don’t know why and they don’t care about why?? The pleasure when people get “corrected” and punished and suffer because of the punishment, the more the better, whether they deserve it or not, that doesn’t matter at all?

In others this attitude of contemptuous attitude and entire lack of sensitivity and empathy causes another reaction, which comes as automatically, triggers something, but with another result; rather a strong against-reaction??

Early experiences all these never have gotten help questioning and seeing as wrong, but now afterwards regard as love and for their own good?? We needed to learn?? Measure executed by complete individuals, standing high above us??

But what did we learn?

Our school minister, whose ideas I dislike from deep in my heart, is educated officer, major I think. Some use the expression baton-major… And his ideas are applauded by horribly many! What have he and they experienced? And haven’t child-raising improved more since I was a child???

One can get afraid of the dark for less…

Yes, “the more defended tend to lead”???

After a 30-minutes walk in rain, coming home almost like a drowned cat: How does one teach children respect? Genuine, real respect? And the lack of respect: Where does it come from? Why don’t they show respect? Can it be because of lack of respect? And that they have been treated disrespectfully? Probably from earliest in life?

Is the right measure more of the same? Is punishment the right measure? Or what should we try with, do?

The power can punish without being forced to explain why he is punishing?? Authoritarian, totalitarian!

I will write more about this later… Referring to what Miller writes about poisonous pedagogy and politics…

Addition in the evening: In fact Arthur Silber writes about similar things in his essay “Four More Months of This Crap? Noooo…” And writes great as usual. I have to smile at this title!!! Addition July 3: I have blogged about this essay (translated parts to Swedish) here.

I have to quote:

“…in an article I wrote two and a half years ago, I set out what I consider a significant part of the explanation. (Precisely how these dynamics initially take root and the often complex ways in which they operate require a longer explanation, which is the one I hope to get to in the future.) In ‘The Roots of the Politics of Power,’ I noted Alice Miller's term ‘poisonous pedagogy’ and her explanation of its meaning:

‘Poisonous pedagogy is a phrase I use to refer to the kind of parenting and education aimed at breaking a child's will and making that child into an obedient subject by means of overt or covert coercion, manipulation, and emotional blackmail.

In my books For Your Own Good and Thou Shall Not Be Aware, I have explained the concept using concrete examples. In my other books I have repeatedly stressed how the mendacious mentality behind this approach to dealing with children can leave long-lasting imprints on the way we think and relate to one another in our adult lives.’

In introducing a further excerpt from Miller, I wrote:

The following is from one of her first books, Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. We should note the revealing subtitle: Society's Betrayal of the Child. As Miller once again makes clear, it is our childhood experiences -- and learning to internalize completely the obedience-denial-idealization mechanism -- that explain so much of our adult behavior.

And those earliest experiences and their resulting psychological damage also throw light on the nature of politics and political debate.

Here is Miller:

‘There is a good deal else that would not exist without 'poisonous pedagogy.' It would be inconceivable, for example, for politicians mouthing empty cliches to attain the highest positions of power by democratic means. But since voters, who as children would normally have been capable of seeing through [see the child in 'The Emperors New Clothes'] these cliches with the aid of their feelings, were specifically forbidden to do so in their early years, they lose this ability as adults. The capacity to experience the strong feelings of childhood and puberty (which are so often stifled by child-rearing methods, beatings, or even drugs) could provide the individual with an important means of orientation with which he or she could easily determine whether politicians are speaking from genuine experience or are merely parroting time-worn platitudes for the sake of manipulating voters. Our whole system of raising and educating children provides the power-hungry with a ready-made railway network they can use to reach the destination of their choice. They need only push the buttons that parents and educators have already installed.’”

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.

Helga – part 3…

Helga replied that she had needed those six months to get more clarity. Now she thought she had come so far so she would have written to Michelle on her own, without being reminded.

“When you went to Peru it was as if you had died. You probably think this sounds strange, because of course you were reachable, I could have written. I could have replied to your loving letters to keep our contact going. But I couldn’t.

Even if I wrote kind letters to you I experienced myself as cut off from you for ever. For a long time I couldn’t understand this.

It was not until we met half a year ago I found the key which had been missing during the whole long therapy.

First it was Brigit who found it strange that I hardly knew anything about you. She wanted to know how it was when you left ten years ago. I didn’t remember. This surprised me. She said:

“How strange! Your best friend goes so far away, and you have no memory of your farewell? Did you feel abandoned then, after her departure?”

“No,”

I answered,

“I didn’t feel anything at all.”

I said these words calmly, surprised myself over my equanimity. But I discovered that I in some sense felt defiant, as a hurt child who isn’t possible to speak to.

"How come?"

I wondered.

"Brigit is kind; there is no need to react like that to her. She wants to help me. There is no reason for me to reject her."

At this simple truth my defiance broke down, I don’t know why it came then, but I started to cry. Now I suddenly felt the pain in being abandoned (the pain I had refused to feel and had held from myself when you left and with it memories of the whole event). At last I understood how motivated this was.”

When Helga was four her father had died. She was left with her mother, whom had a lot of problems herself and was incapable of giving Helga any security. A mother who strictly controlled her and at the same time clung firmly to her, because she needed someone and there was noone else but Helga. Helga had to take care of and fill her mothers needs and think of her.

It was impossible for Helga to feel or show her sorrow and despair over the loss of her father in her mother’s presence. Her mother first and foremost expected self-restraint from Helga and a good manner, but no expressions of emotions (but, once again, self-control!!!), not least as she was jealous to Helga’s love to her father.

Helga had to cleverly accept that her father was gone, i.e. silently and without emotions “accept” it.

Helga experienced Michelle’s departure in the same way. She couldn’t cry, as if somebody had forbidden it, and in a way she metaphorically "buried" Michelle.

Michelle’s mother had used all opportunities to teach Helga good manners. And maybe Helga thought that if she behaved well her father would return? Helga got used to not posing questions, this was forbidden (she had to figure things out on her own? And as good as she could on her own?).

After Michelle had left Helga met a man, but when she got pregnant this man left her, because he didn’t want the child. Helga had to handle all this. But her inner tension showed in difficulties to sleep. She started to take sleeping pills, and had to take stronger and stronger dozes till she realized that she had to do something about it. And thus the therapy.

But this therapy left her in the same childish state of helplessness and dependency, and the powerless anger which this led to, and she didn’t know how she should be able to change the state of affairs. She didn’t succeed in getting any use at all of all her crying. This state lasted for several years. And it was only the therapist who (greatly) benefited on this.

This man profited on Helga’s constant crying and idealized transference, instead of settling it, and Helga couldn’t break the vicious circle. She had got stuck at the same level as the little girl, who can’t understand what is done to her.

The therapist systematically depreciated all people whom stood her near, even Michelle and her co-workers and cousins, so at last she had noone else but him.

Helga thought the therapist only had figured out how he could intensify people’s childish needs, which aren’t possible to fulfill any more, till they were unendurable, to mitigate them with promises about cure. To reach this cure people are prepared to let themselves be exploited in different ways; economically, emotionally and sexually.

But this affair was so good that he probably saw no need to help her even if he had had those prerequisites, which he hadn’t.

The sexual violation often plays a special role. The women’s humiliation and the alleged intimacy shall prevent them from seeing the one through who is using them.

Helga thought that the sexual relation had given her an illusion of love, and as her therapist stayed alive she could tolerate his infidelity. What she had feared the most was her father’s death, because this had meant that she was handed out to her mother’s universally prevailing power.

But what she to whatever prize had tried to avoid occurred. She had become limitlessly dependent on a person who made her believe that he wanted and could help her, and who without hesitation or doubts wanted to drive her into a psychosis, only for to cover up what he himself had done.

Already with her mother Helga had experienced being talked away from her observations and thus made deeply insecure on her senses; on what she saw, heard, sensed (see Mellody on excessive control of reality or överdriven kontroll av verkligheten). She was so used to this that she had no chance of becoming aware that her therapist did the same thing to her once again. But much more consciously and skilfully.

It wasn’t until she met Brigit that she understood why she had let herself be blended for such a long time by this human being. And been able doing this with Brigit’s help in only six months.

He even succeeded in making her believe in his healing powers by showing her written “proofs”; letters from “healed”, which much later showed to be falsified. Emotionally she had got stuck as the small daughter in this relation, a daughter bravely enduring with her mother in the hope that she should “deserve” her father's return.

She had met with a man who had specialized in exploiting his patients’ special distresses as much as possible for his own aims

What gave him so much power over Helga were her early denied sorrow and the defence against the helplessness she had felt then. He now awoke this in the grown up woman, added fuel to it and exploited it.

When Helga met Michelle again then, six months ago, she wasn’t capable of telling her all she now had told her. It was the return of Michelle that helped her getting access to her history.