Outlook on knowledge and man, insecurity, neoauthoritarianism…

Yes, what sort of outlook on knowledge (what you learn about yourself besides plain fact knowledge) do the ones governing* the schools today have (are they denying that you are also learning things about yourself, and others, besides the "fact" knowledge, facts somebody maybe have chosen too**)? And what outlook on man?

*(read: the ones with the highest power, in this case the politicans, whom the people have voted for. Today maybe in a sort of request for "strong" leaders, father-figures? Wanting simple solutions in a complex society and world, a world with many confused young and grownups. In a confusion that's very often denied too? And those, the denying, are probably the most dangerous!? More dangerous the greater the denial is about these things and the more power they get and are given).

** And maybe that doesn't have to be wrong or harmful, if you declare that you (or somebody else) have chosen those facts. You can encourage the child or student to search for more facts and knowledge in parallel or something in that style.

There are neoauthoritarian winds today everywhere in the society it feels. Obey and keep quiet.

Obey and don’t think yourself. As the old time’s upbringing.

The Swedish pediatrician Lars Gustafsson writes in one of his books, with the title that would be something in the style "Guiding Chldren" ("Lotsa barn"), that it’s the history’s own irony that authoritarian limit setting seems to have become highest fashion once again.

Even though most people today aren’t for earlier times abusive, and by inclinations to violence characterized childrearing, you can wonder if a parent of the type being a plain authority is only good. And Gustafsson still meets people who are minimizing and belittling the effects of corporal punishment of children. Probably claiming that it didn’t harm them or other people.

“Look, they (people of older times) are functioning today!”

But how? What have they missed and lost? Would their lives have turned out maybe entirely differently if they hadn't gotten the upbringing they got?

Addition: But there are other forms of violence too. And physical violence probably still exists even though it's actually criminal. And corporal punishment co-exist with other sorts of violence and abuse and other sorts of lack of respect for the child.

A basic idea in all authoritarian upbringings is that the grownups know best. The children are seen as undeveloped and still injudicious or even foolish. It’s the grownups who have the experience and the general view and therefore it’s best if they decide. Children shall learn what the grownups have to say and obey their orders.

Words like order and consequence are strongly emphasized. Punishments are important (and once again punishments are much more than just corporal) and children have to learn the consequences of erroneous behavior. And it’s the adults who decide what’s right and what’s wrong. And where does the erroneous behavior originate from?

The drawbacks of an authoritarian upbringing are many. One is that the hierarchal decision order often is leading to bad decisions (both here and there I would add). If the grownup knows best everything’s so far so good. But this is in many cases not the case.

Sidetrack: And why doesn’t democracy work neither in small nor in big circumstances so many times? And is this proof that we should skip the whole democracy-idea, as some claim?

Another problem with an authoritarian upbringing is that it's neighbor with violence. As soon as a human being seizes power over another there's risk for abuse.

The big damage arises when we give us the right to lose our heads, for example because “we know best” and afterwards try to justify abuse with for example the words

“You have in fact deserved this, so that’s that!”

The risk for this is greater within the fame of an authoritarian upbringing.

But the absolutely greatest risk with an authoritarian upbringing is probably formulated by the American child psychiatrist Bruno Bettelheim - and this I thought was interesting and probably very true - namely that an authoritarian upbringing leads to children lacking in independency and that this sort of upbringing makes it more difficult for the child to build both a capacity for decisions and an own inner norm system.

I would add that the other side of the coin can become the opposite; you know best (maybe try to convince yourself, sometimes unconsciously).

The result is now that we as grownups are confused now and then! Because of OUR early history (and things we haven't been able to process, because there's still a lot of denial about these things and their effects), where we couldn’t trust our feelings and reactions. Weren’t allowed to call things in question really or see them as wrong (blind obedience in a more or less authoritarian climate), because the way we were raised and treated was supported in the society and the traditional way of raising kids.

Which is no excuse for what we have suffered and missed, however. For the confusion we now struggle with because of the treatment we received. That have lead to that we don’t have contact with feelings which would lead, guide - and also adequately protect us.

And insecure people are on top often met and treated with contempt for weakness… We easily look up to and admire the secure, who “knows”, and down on the insecure!?

Contentment contra dissatisfaction…

Here and there one sees tendencies to scorn people who are truly feeling well, having it good and being happy Wikström thinks. The ones capable of sitting on a park sofa or bench enjoying life, being relaxed, whistling.

Contentment being in glaring contrast to the dissatisfaction’s culture building on something that all the time has to be taken care of because it isn’t good enough – it can be everything from body, home, partner, garden, kitchen or age – everything has to get through a make-over.

The conception that the human being isn’t good enough as she is has in itself become a profitable business concept. To begin with creating dissatisfaction first is the prerequisite for attracting us to buying different services or commodities which in turn shall cure the anxiety you have created in the first place.

Actually this is nothing new.

Everyday life isn’t a natural flow of things just happening, rolling on and passing further. Rather it’s about a lot of mini-projects. Those projects have to become prepared, then made and at last evaluated. There is often also a product or service said to solve the problem. This constant dwelling on different alternatives creates a longing for simple advices. Through those one is searching ways out from this/the age’s confusedness.

In the early 21^st century it seems as it isn’t the body that is the problem. Rather it is the self-image that has become a problem. When the identity has become vague and floating, and most boundaries are rubbed out, it’s up to each one of us to form – or why not buy – a self-image (from where comes this diffuse self-image? Exploited and misused). Great psychological efforts are made to get oneself a clear(er) self-esteem via clothes, poses, journeys, styles, language, and gestures.

The shame that you aren’t happy leads to accusations of oneself, unless everything isn’t disguised in diffuse bodily symptoms. However, after all it is more accepted being burnout and stressed to pieces than being a failure (unsuccessful).

Endless needs for self-help books, with everything from Dr Phil, Wayne Dyer or “good old” Benjamin Spock. Through tangible advices the human being is offered easy ways (quick fixes) through the present age’s longing for the successful life. The self-help books offer the perfect illusion: that all everyday problems are solvable. And if people don’t become happy, fail etc. they accuse themselves (even more maybe).

What does this have with goodness to do? Maybe in this way: The amount of alternatives the human being is constantly exposed to – in purpose to making her/his life better – is making the strength left for people (being with them, caring for another person etc.) smaller and diminished. The human being has a certain amount of psychological energy at her/his disposal. If then big parts of the power she has is occupied with the time it takes pondering over the ocean of alternatives available and the choices she constantly has to make to maximize the “withdrawal” from this life, yes, then she gets less powers and strengths over for paying attention to other people and even less for helping.

And people who has nothing “to give”, people who are uninteresting or hard, those demanding attention or who are depressed, the ones disturbing one’s own time – those you aren’t able to manage or deal with.

Calling the self-realization as the most important norm in this era in question (or certain forms of it) is like swearing in the church. And yet; the anxiety is increasing, loneliness is increasing, many people seem not even to be present in their own lives, their gazes are shifting.

The self has become a project (not always to the best?). Adolescence is trying new identities. But the problem is that this construction of identity is never ended, it continues high up in ages. On top it demands more and more energy and has to become renegotiated constantly. My addition: you can wonder why we are so confused, what lies in the bottom. And it can be a good thing when people can develop (and change, within limits though too) all their lives too. But, as maybe a lot of other things, the focusing on oneself can become too much and unsound?

Wikström thinks the collective identity-generators have become made more and more suspicious. Everything collective is suspicious.

Then a lot depends/hinges on the individual’s own creativity and strength. And why are some more creative and strong than other people is my wonder?

Wikström thinks this is on good and bad. The confidence on the individual’s possibilities is enormous. A strong individualism linked to optimism certainly creates creativity and success in a few, the ones with strong personalities, who grew up in stable environments. Dandelion children (as we call them) have always been there, but their successes belong to the exceptions. And the talk about “being your own happiness’s blacksmith” (as we say) becomes cynical for the ones whose life is descended into a social room where class, gender or ethnic conditions constitute the main reason for ones misfortune or destitution.

The Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden on children's rights...

from a walk today.

picture taken from here "Who is Lena Nyberg?"

[Slightly edited and updated December 14].

Yesterday at one of my workplaces I read the article ”We need an entirely different school debate”, from ”Nattvandrarmagasinet” number 2 Oktober 2008, where the Children’s Ombudsman in Sweden Lena Nyberg gave her thoughts on the school and children. In my a little free translation from Swedish:

Lena Nyberg spoke about adults in school and thinks the competence in the personnel is altogether crucial.

I agree. Something we need to develop, and need help developing, and talking about we working in the school or with young people in health care etc.

She thinks that it is important that adults manage to see the students. Children need to be seen and motivated she says. So we need to see ourselves in the first place (my addition).

“Today the school most often has an adult perspective I think is very out-of-date, obsolete. We shall raise our kids to independent individuals, who can call things/phenomena in question, be critical, curious and eager to learn. Besides they shall gradually be competitive in a European and international world, and put Sweden on the map.

Against this we have a school system where the idea in many respect is that the students shall be quiet, disciplined and do as they are told. This doesn’t fit together so to speak.”

she declares and looks like a real warrior!!!!

“We need an entirely new school debate!

Yes, a school debate where important questions about the basis of values [värdegrundsfrågor] are at the focus.”

She asks for a mutual respect between us adults and our children and young people. My comment: But it is this with power imbalance. So this with showing respect lies more on the adult… Or the greatest responsibility in this respect lies on the adult.

She also speaks about children’s right to culture. She thinks aesthetic learning processes are interesting, as well as their connection to the article 12 in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the article she thinks is a great tool when we shall meet children’s and young people’s needs.

It reads as follows:

Article 12

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.

For Lena it is evident that children are entitled to culture and different ways of expressing themselves. An important tool helping them to create a better self-esteem and thus a greater safety, as she expresses it.

I agree. And this goes along with ideas like the ones in Reggio Emilia for instance. And her ideas about respect for the child with the work in the Summerhill school.

When it comes to the spare time and sports sector she has a clear opinion.

“The children and young people of our time are consumers. If there is money there is a great selection of spare time, but the risk is that we get a dividing up between those who can afford and those who can’t afford.

The sports activities play an important role. /…/

My only wish is that they [the ones responsible there] could better meet each individual’s needs, so that each one can continue with her/his big interest so long as he/she wishes and that one became even better in reaching more children and young people.”

It suddenly struck me yesterday in the middle of everything (there has been a couple of articles about aesthetic expressions and occupations recently, maybe because of coming changes in our gymnasium education that are announced) about the ones in power in Sweden today (the politicians, especially in our current government): do they begrudge young people being alive, free, autonomous, self-secure in a healthy and genuine way?

That they (the ones in power) aren't genuinely alive, free, autonomous, is that why they are now talking so much (entirely) about discipline, grades etc.??? And not about other solutions? And is that he reason why they see the problems in school as they see?

But we aren't born in this way. We weren't born emotionally numb or dead. We became that way. But we don't have to continue being like this. However, the work to recover can be really tough. Really, really tough. Think if we hadn't become harmed in the first place! Thinking loudly here...

Sidetrack: people should become encouraged to raise their voices instead of the opposite!? Even if their language isn't perfect! Their spelling and grammar has flaws. How many voices aren't silenced? How many voices aren't censored that shouldn't have been censored? And are there people screaming loudly and taking up all the space that maybe shouldn't have all this space? Why do they need all this space? Quite ironic.

I know of a girl struggling with everything on her own. Trying to understand, to develop on her own. Afraid of taking too much space, feeling shame and gilt because she did. Whose fault was this actually?

And I was tipped about this open letter to President Barack Obama from Alice Miller and other Children’s Rights Advocates by a person standing very close to me.

Also see the site Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment. There you can read:

The Global Initiative aims to:

• form a strong alliance of human rights agencies, key individuals and non-governmental organisations against corporal punishment;
• make corporal punishment of children visible by building a global map of its prevalence and legality, ensuring that children's views are heard and charting progress towards ending it;
• lobby state governments systematically to ban all forms of corporal punishment and to develop public education programmes;
• provide detailed technical assistance to support states with these reforms.

Also see Important Issues from The Children’s Ombudsman’s site.

About the Convention on the Rights of the Child (barnkonventionen) in Swedish. And in English.

Being together...

This morning I happened to read a strip in the local newspaper from the cartoon Nemi by Lisa Myhre, something I don't use to. But today I did of some reason...

The strip above is from another newspaper, and is another one than the one I have translated below.

One woman, Nemi (the black-haired), to the other:

"I want to be together with somebody who comes along with everything! Who sees it as a matter of course that we shall go visiting people together. We shall be a couple."

The other woman, Cyan (the blonde woman), replies:

"I want to have, I wish, somebody who understands that one has to have separate lives too."

Nemi:

"One who knows when to back away. Who doesn’t hang around all the time when the buddies comes or clings on to one when one shall go out."

Cyan:

"Are you talking about the man you want to have?"

Nemi:

"I’m talking about the man that I want you shall want to have."

!!!

The school and authoritarianism…

From an article that has been laying here for quite a while I thought was so good…

With the heading “Political Agenda corrupts the picture.” An article about school politics in Sweden and our (lousy in my strong opinion and feeling) school minister.

The author of the article writes that 30-40 years ago we had a discussion where one draw attention to the encyclopedic knowledge as one called it, namely the knowledge where you just reeled off facts without understanding connections, relations and processes in the ground (yes, deep or surface knowledge or what it’s called in English?).

One discussed grades (betyg) and saw the risks with rewarding the easily measurable knowledge.

Laboriously (with difficulty) one has walked in another direction in the school here in favour of a deeper understanding of the knowledge matters/subjects.

The students were taught to reflect, to think themselves. Yes, even to question things, state of affairs etc.

Now we are obviously turning back to the superficiality’s paradigm again!

Our school minister’s so called reforms indicates a somewhat childish way of behaving to knowledge and pedagogy. Carrots and whips (carrot and stick discipline) shall become honored again and maybe Björklund also has confused the need of a teacher’s authority with authoritarian teachers.

In the Academic world different researchers of course can have different views on science and knowledge, but they aren’t allowed to misrepresent their sources or slip when they quote.

When Björklund has talked about the alleged bad results in Swedish schools a specific, but not expressed view on knowledge is talking.

Parts of the liberal press agree with Björklund and thinks he identifies the real problems (!!!). But is it possible to identify problems when you distort the facts as the sources in fact point out?

How is the dominant liberal press’ ethics and moral when it thinks that this is an acceptable way of using source materials?

Is it the same sort of moral the Alliance (the current ruling coalition here, and hopefully not lasting) uses, and the press gladly presents as the truth, when it paints Swedish citizens black who are said to cheat Social Insurances in Sweden or say that they are working instead of being home with children that are sick? The alarm report which sketched out a picture of millions of cheating Swedes showed to be erroneous, but this they speak very quietly about!!!

If you can assert that the common welfare system is used by greedy citizens, then it’s easier to wind up.

If you can prove that a school where teachers and students try to live together in a friendly atmosphere gives bad results, that the lack of grades from the first beginning lower the students motivation, yes, then you can shout for earlier grades (betyg), harder grips, authoritarian methods.

A certain political agenda is operating here, a hidden agenda.

4,000 Swedish school kids answered an inquiry about security and wellbeing where the Swedish school reached top results. What sort of view on man does Björklund have when he chooses to overlook exactly those students’ – these young people whom in fact are experts on their own situation? Aren’t they? Does he show respect? And why not?

Of course there are things to criticize in our school, but the political platform has to be given an account of.

For example if one likes a school with military drilling more than one who negotiate (Björklund is a former officer). Quite ironically, yes.

More voices in Sweden about the current situation in the world...

Martin Luther.

Suddenly the word capitalism was on all our lips. Economy reporters started to pose questions about the capitalism. It’s no longer seen as only an economical system, but also as an ideology.

It was long since. The entire posting written with my amateur English...

The market mantra about the necessary deregulations maybe can be changed against a more moderate, sensible talk about a common responsibility and the policy’s power nationally and internationally at last?

Here is another one reacting at our finance minister (from the moderate party), mentioning his attack against greedy people on Wall Street. A minister advising the need for regulations, not least international regulations. But it would be "becoming" if he made a public confession the writer thinks. The moderate party is namely the party that has recommended market liberalization the strongest and put every trial to creating a balance between politics and market to scorn.

However, the writer appreciates his criticism of the neoliberalism’s ravaging.

Even the social democracy needs self-examination. Hopefully the leader of that party Mona Sahlin and their spokesman for economical things Thomas Östros will be the prime mover of endurable alternatives to the quarter-of-a-year-capitalism.

Avariciousness has always been the capitalism’s intrinsic motor. Already Martin Luther realized this when the city of Wittenberg was stricken by failure of the crop or bad harvest 1537. The prices on grains shoot up. And the grain dealers started to store grain waiting for the prices to grow even more!! In this way the capitalists could gain even more money. Consequently this became a catastrophe for the wage-workers of Wittenberg. They were forced to borrow money to be able to buy their bread (as we say). The banks raised their rates. The poor was starving.

Luther wrote a grinding (??) to the priests to preach against the usury. This was an unprecedented attack on that time’s bank and trade capitalism.

“An usurer is murdering actively. Because it isn’t only that he lets helping the hungry alone. He even pulls (jerks?) the crumbs from the mouth of the starving. /…/ The usurer doesn’t care if the whole world dies if he only gets his money.”

Luther wrote.

The usurer was considered abusing his fellow human beings situation of troubles and (justified) needs. Power abuse. Luther started out from solidarity with the ones that were poor and had least power.

“Who are stricken in first hand when you are practicing usury? Isn’t it the poor whom in the whole is stricken first and foremost?”

Luther continued with his criticism.

Through the economism culture we have all become speculators on the stock exchanges/market (for instance we place our pensions in stocks or shares nowadays!!!). We are raised thinking on biggest possible profit for our own sake. We need to re-establish the sense for a “we”, where we in fact are dependent on each other and therefore need to look so all have it good. From mutuality the solidarity grows.

Oh NO, we are not dependent on anyone!! Observe the irony. Because maybe we are both dependent and independent? We need other people at the same time as we can manage a lot of things on our own (if we aren't totally handicapped). A child who has been truly respected develop a sound (sounder than many of us) relation to dependency/independency? Isn't afraid of being dependent in certain situations, and is independent in other. A sound balance beween dependency and independency?

The capitalism is threatening the right and righteousness.

I can’t help thinking: We teach our children to think of other people and share and at the same time they are learned a contradicting message: to think of themselves. Miller writes about contradictions and confusions… And once again the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes about the effects of children being taught to share at a too early age (something she thinks almost all of us are).

I think Martin Luther was beaten as a child by the way... What did that mean to him and to many other people?

Voices in Sweden about the financial crisis and the state of affairs in the world…

the family Bonnier eating dinner.

[Slightly edited October 5, quite angrily written, so I wonder how my English was?]. Voices in Sweden about the financial crisis and the state of affairs in the world today: It has been about creating needs in a constantly, perpetually ascending spiral in societies all over the world. A have-mentality. But do we need to be slaves under consumption?

The bank bosses have gotten million bonuses and million parachutes.

The worst enemy to the finance and corporation world is contentedness.

Still the most important idea of business is to create needs and desires (or cravings) in a constantly ascending spiral. Nobody shall be satisfied.

Quite ironically: at the same time we are blamed for being too demanding!!! One of the contradictions and confusions again!?

It stood about the bourgeois’ scale of value and view on man. Are there people wanting to live outside their (the bourgeois’) conception of the world, in another world we think is possible a writer wonders?

Can the time come when having two cars will be seen as something embarrassing and not – as it is now – something enviable.

One writer writes that the modern “extortion”, with the help of media, advertisement, pr-consults, lifestyle-agents and trademarks, forces a lifestyle on people that has shown to be deeply destructive, but all this is (or could be, even if I think it is difficult, with all the pressure around) something one can do something about oneself, in contrast to the wage-slavery during the former turn of the century.

In the middle of this I saw that tonight (or tomorrow, I didn’t look properly) they are sending a new version of “Let’s dance”, this time the competitors are learning to dance on ice (with skates!!). Yes, this is what people are entertained with…

One can rebel against oneself and ones own have-desire, the desire you have been enticed into. You can start to grin at medias holding up the rich as models and idols (as even the newspaper ICA-kuriren here in Sweden started to a couple of years ago, and then I unsubscribed); the same medias who have been worshiping the finance-men and managers whom now have thrown the world into crisis. Haven’t they “forfeited their pound”?

No, they need to make even worse things?? But people lower on the status-scale failing aren't apologized, sometimes at all. Yes, people are treated differently, depending on their status, where on the scale they stand. What about people's equal value only seen to the fact that they are born to this world? Quite ironically. And others get ashamed for much smaller "crimes”!! That about proportions…

This obsession with the rich and successful, supplied by the media, doesn’t it all of a sudden feel incredibly out-of-date?

One person here writes about (not least) a moral fiasco for Bush, for a politics that has failed so much and in so many areas.

Does the free market actually function? Isn’t it ruled by a few actors actually?

One writer thinks it would be honorable if the ones analyzing the finance-capital as a positive, creative power in the economy some years ago (the written words are still there, and can be read even today), stating that the new global market with all its insurances and reinsurances is sound, could apologize for their analysis. Admit to what they wrote some years ago.

Or that they at least could search on the words “the economy’s ability to function” and get surprised over that they only a few years ago thought that a big welfare state and high taxes are checking for the (the economic, and overall) “growth.” Sweden and the Scandinavian countries are proofs that a big welfare state and quite high taxes aren't curbing for the economical growth? But our current government is now rapidly destroying this? (but the situation here hasn't made us lazy workers I think. We are, or have been, hard workers? And interested in other countries and phenomena in the world? Our society hasn't been a closed society, even if we have had social democratic, i.e., "left wing", government for long? But a government that has turned more and more to the right, yes!).

The most usual prevarication today is the statement that the problem is about “anonymous owners”, which means owners not steered by a steady “owner hand”, like the Wallenberg’s or Bonnier’s in Sweden.

People try to earn money on money, instead of investing them in our real lives.

The financial crisis isn’t an accident, but an element belonging to the capitalism.

It’s the taxpayers who have to pay for the speculators loans, instead of seeing their money going to school, care and nursing, or what it’s called in English. All those instances are forced aside by what the (many times well paid) speculators have done.

The ones winning on all this are the members in corporations’ managements, because the system makes so they get their bonuses and bizarre wages apart from the fact if the businesses goes well or not.

It’s a myth that the market is stable; the ones winning on these situations are those living on the differences in prizes, so what’s happening isn’t an accident.

How can one interpret our current finance minister saying that the world economy is influenced by “raw avariciousness”?

Can there be two comments to this?

1/ He is an eager supporter of market economy and this statement only reinforces the myth that this ought not to happen, that the crisis has nothing to do with the system itself.

2/ On top of it he individualizes the problem. He says that the speculators are greedy in the same manner as he says that the ones with no job are lazy!

What we see now is a saving-action for the capitalism. There is no movement which can take over. What’s so dangerous about our time is that there is no strong worker’s movement, and this increases the risk somebody else takes over, in the worst case the fascism.

See the American neurologist Jonathan Pincus on his findings, and further about perversion and perverted needs.

Texts I have used in this posting you find here.