More on discipline…

[Edited March 19]. Some loud thoughts around the following concepts: Conformity and discipline are killers for creativity. Compassion.

The kind of discipline the current minister of education in Sweden is “recommending” is a kind that kills. Killing not only creativity, but other things, as maybe for instance compassion. And it is also lack of compassion and love it expresses, even if the ones exercising it probably claim the opposite (I think the Nanny-programmes are recommending highly manipulative things too).

This is what poisonous pedagogy is about?

Grown up fury and rage in a grown up is something else than the child’s fury and rage in a grown up?

And leveling fury and rage at scapegoats only gives temporary relief. You have to direct the anger and fury at the true, real, original source to truly and really heal and to really recover.

But there are different sorts of “discipline”: a self chosen and one that is forced upon you. You can work hard for something you really, truly and genuinely want and feel for, in that way discipline you (is discipline an adequate word in this case though?).

More about avariciousness...

Joseph Schumpeter.

[Upgraded October 3, see the end]. People here write: We have been living in the de-regulation mantra for several decades. Now the neolibberal utopia is falling as a house of cards. Even our right wing finance minister is talking about the need of regulations – international regulations.

Recently he spoke about the too greedy finance brokers on Wall Street when he got interviewed in the news here.

But isn’t the capitalism’s motive power the avariciousness?

Unregulated it eats itself up? It’s therefore a political against-power is needed which manage to redistribute and maintain a solidary society.

Neither the totally regulated nor the totally unregulated society is good?? Instead we need a sort of balance between the political and economical power? Sometimes called mixed economy, sometimes called welfare-capitalism.

Reagan-Thatcher and their armies of economists and advisers rebelled against this system to make place for a new capitalism – the neoliberal.

Regulations were torn down; laws were written/created according to the capital’s interests, the market took the political sphere over, taxes and other restrictions for the capitals’ interests were wept away. That generation’s neoliberal politicians are carrying the responsibility for the deep capitalist crisis today.

After a quarter of a century this system, which for a long time created growth but also the most gigantic redistributions of wealth in modern time, explodes or rather implodes.

In parts this break down follows because the financial sector has to become severed from the real economy. More and more fictive values were created.

Joseph Schumpeter, sceptic to the capitalism’s survival but the entrepreneurship’s special philosopher, described a theme of our time: the innovations and the new technology’s creative destroyment. That’s right; there’s much less creativity today I feel. In a time when we should have been more creative to solve different problems. Here the school has become much more theoretical for instance. Also a sign of our time. What about developing (or maintaining) the whole person?

Today there is very little creation, the more destruction. Most of all it is the belief and trust to the society which has been gnawed in pieces. A fundamental mistrust is demonstrated against the financial system, its speculative elements.

It stands in wikipedia about welfare capitalism:

“Esping-Andersen categorised three different types of welfare states in the 1990 book 'The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism'. Though increasingly criticised, these classifications remain the most commonly used in distinguishing types of modern welfare states, and offer a solid starting point in such analysis.

The three different types are the 'Social Democratic' Model, as exemplified by the Scandinavian countries and particularly Sweden; the 'Liberal' Model, often related to the USA, Canada, Australia and increasingly the United Kingdom; and thirdly, the 'Conservative' Model, which is indicative of Germany, as well as France, Austria and Italy.

Recently in the US there has been a trend away from its form of welfare capitalism, as corporations have reduced the portion of compensation paid with health care, and shifted from defined benefit pensions to employee-funded defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s.

It should be noted that the original definition of welfare capitalism, as used by the 19th century German economist, Gustav Schmoller, called for government to provide for the welfare of workers and the public, via social legislation, among other means. (And not to rely on business to do this.) While Schmoller's work is little available in English, his influence can be seen in the modern European welfare states.”

And I wonder about the roots to this, and what’s driving people creating those destructive things?

Here are different articles in Swedish newspapers and blogs, two of those I have reffered to above.

Addition later in the morning: delegation has been something popular on work-places here. The bosses delegate responsibility to their employees. Give them responsibility. Of course that's good in many ways, people can grow by this. But - it can also be misused (and is misused I can lively imagine quite ironically). Responsibility can be delegated that the boss ought to take! Bosses can push responsibility and (a lot of) work away. Including the risk of being blamed!?

Can it be something similar with the economy, the society, politics: the ones in power are pushing the responsibility away on a diffuse, not visible or touchable market? Who is then to blame?

And about greed: some claim that greed isn't only bad, that it makes people want to work hard etc. But I would claim that there in fact exists people who works hard with no such drives!! But with other drives and motives. Just with the wish to create something good, not only for themselves - OR for others, but for us all.

Yes, what are driving us?? What are our motives/motivations? Why are we driven by what we are driven? Do we have to remain the same a whole life? Can we change and do we ought to change?

In the shower I thought further on responsibility. People are paid fantasy-salaries (get bonuses and retirement-insurances) for their work because of the enormous responsibility. Bosses on lower levels are also more well-paid than earlier. Even though they are told to delegate work...

But it differs on what sort of responsibility you have... We working with human beings aren't worth a scrap of what those high paid people are worth! What does that say? About what we value as a society and in the (whole) world?

And it was this with limitless needs again... To value oneself, or not value oneself... What's sound and what's not sound?

The Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes about children who have been taught to share at a too early age (something most of us have learned more or less too), and the results of this later. Resulting in that we can't do anything if we don't get anything back. Other people have learned not to value anything they do too...

Upgraded October 3: A Swedish leader writer this morning:

“Few governments and as few economists confess anything else than laissez-faire. But now these market liberal doctrines are tried.”

He also writes that the nonplussedness as a matter of fact is fundamental (grounded on principles), yes, epidemic and ideological.

Yes, that about responsibility? Convenient and handy to blame the market? You can just leave everything to the market; a phenomenon you can’t touch upon.

What does this say actually?

This about responsibility and blame…

Creativity…

In the car home from work I had a lot of thoughts… We discussed a “new” form of cooperation at work. Initiated by us piano teachers originally. The discussion didn’t become especially “hot”, people looked or felt moderately interested.

We (the piano teachers and colleagues from other instrument groups) think people are working in many different, separate music schools. We would want to work more over the borders, for our own and our pupils' sake. At the same time we (on the whole workplace) have spoken about creating we-feeling.

It started to boil inside when nobody seemed to be interested, all sat there quiet. I felt very provoked. Of course you can wonder why I felt provoked, but this is another question and post I think.

I thought a lot for myself sitting there. This “we-feeling” we try to create by quite superficial means, as having parties and “funny” games. The rebellion in me was awoken?? Forced fun isn’t fun; funny games aren’t funny if they are forced on you! And this forced fun can become humiliating for some too?

And in the car I thought further… Are many of us so stressed and tired? And this stress and tiredness makes us less creative? We get stuck in certain thought-patterns and are incapable of thinking in other and/or new? And at the same time many maybe also feel they OUGHT to be creative, much more creative. Which rather add to the stress instead of lessens it! People can land in a viscous circle.

And I also came to think about the topic stimulation: neither over nor under stimulation are good. None of them are good in long term. Maybe short term stimulation (in form of stress for instance) can make you create big things, but you don’t if the stress and press continues year after year. And who knows what happens during this time either? If your life and relations are stable you can manage a longer time, but what makes sure nothing will happen?

Under stimulation is bad too! People also need to use their powers…

And on top comes the tricky things with balance… And we have to be allowed making mistakes!

I got an email this morning from a friend, about manipulation... Would want to write a separate posting about this, a brief one. But now I think I am going to take a bike ride first. Then home for some supper and maybe some more writing.

An authoritarian society…

The authoritarian school was (and is) a reflection of the society in whole? And how it was in the family, or vice versa: people looked up at teachers as authorities and representatives for the power? Now it's almost the opposite?

I have started to read the book about Lev Vygotsky “Vygotskij i praktiken – bland plugghästar och fusklappar” or “Vygotsky in praxis – among swots and crib slips” written by the psychologist Leif Strandberg (here more about him and his ideas - in Swedish though, and here about “The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement” in English).

Strandberg starts his book with a story from his first year in school (1957), when he was 7. His female teacher asked Leif how much four plus four was. Leif looked at his fingers. He bent his thumbs into the palm of his hands and saw four fingers on each hand.

“Eight!”

he replied.

“That’s right!”

his teacher said.

“But try to count in your head! So, hands on your back and now I ask again; what’s four plus three?”

Now it became more difficult for the small Leif. Having his hands on his back was difficult too in those desks then. And it was harder just counting in his head. But he managed and the teacher said he was right and that it was good he counted in his head, and that this was a sign he had “a good head for studying.”

He doesn’t know if his teacher was aware that the small boy still used his hands and fingers behind his back, but he himself started to doubt if he actually had a good head for studying!

Crib slips (fusklappar) and counting on your fingers were bad. This was almost even sinful then he writes. It was wrong whispering, wrong sending notes, wrong helping a mate, wrong taking help from a classmate and it was definitely wrong moving around the desks and in the class room.

One should sit down, all by her/himself and work silently.

One should have things in ones head. If one didn’t one had to “have it in ones legs,” and in the best case this was a sort of talent too - but of a lower quality – in the worst a defect. Some had it in the head and others in their legs.

This apprehension stamped what people in general thought about what talent was. It also stamped what science had to say about talent and intelligence; that it was something inherent. It also stamped how societies were built. In industrial communities (here at least) the ones with “heads for studying” lived highest up in beautiful villas, under them there was a wreath of talented clerks (employees?) and near the factory – where most people lived – the body of workers lived.

The notion about talent as an inner mental state of course formed how schools were organized. There were many methods for judgment, differentiation and sorting so one could "sift the wheat from the chaff" (sålla agnarna från vetet); the ones who "had it in their heads" from "practicians," secondary modern school (realskolor) from vocational schools (yrkesskolor), general courses from special courses. And at last this division felt natural and also suited the society which didn’t need so much thought-power (tankekraft) but a lot of people working with their bodies (this is different today?).

In this historical context psychological theories which confirmed intelligence as an inner mental state had a given place he thinks.

Now it looks as there is a backlash in this respect: a division AGAIN. Classifications! Not developing the whole human being any more! I wonder quite frankly if this reflects how limited our politicians are (too many of them)? And this also seems to be applauded by many other in society, not least those voting on those politicians. This is scary I think! Haven't we understood more, hasn't the society developed more, hasn't child-raising and the awareness become developed more? There are many harmed, hurt? Who don’t begrudge children possibilities in growing up in freedom to living human beings? And not begrudging other grown up people being or becoming alive?

When I read pedagogy long ago we spoke about that what sort of view on society (samhällssyn), man (människosyn) and knowledge (kunskapssyn) one has is (of course) reflected in how one handle things: how teachers meet their pupils, how schools are organized, our views on learning, peoples' inner drives etc. etc. etc. And that there exists different views on society, man and knowledge.

Strandberg meets these old views still today he thinks; views on learning, how many see learning still, and talent etc. A view on thinking and talent as inner qualities, a view that has a strong hold over our notions still he thinks.

And I know of a girl who had it easy in school, her first teacher said to her parents that she was talented. They hadn't really thought of this earlier, not really being aware of it, but she spoke early, very early. She had it easy with practical things too - and had creative talents, as in music, dancing, drawing, theater etc. Of some reasons she was allowed developing all those sides, but in other ways she was held hard and limited, restricted... Later on she sat silently at school, didn't ask the teachers for help, tried on her own, with almost everything... She didn't continue with being the one she once was... Active, creative, fantasizing...
Our current school minister want an authoritarian school back in my view and feeling to say it straight. Is it what Miller wrote: about the wild youth being a sign that they haven’t been held enough hard? When it maybe is the opposite? But held hard in other ways than earlier or mistreated in other ways, neglected etc.? Or treated in other ways with the results we see today. So what would the right medicine be? I don’t like his ideas AT ALL. And he is younger than Leif Strandberg, the author of the book I'm referring to, born 1962, thus 12 years younger than Strandberg!! What has he been exposed to during his childhood? I get so upset and filled with feelings, emotions so I don't find the words!

Strandberg wonders if we are focussing on the wrong part of the body.Think if the division in a good head for studying or practicians is a mistaken, faulty classification, and that our notion that one shall have things in the head isn’t correct and if the idea that children shall sit still, not use crib slips, not cheat and not ask class mates is wrong, yes, even mad.

Even IF the head plays a role, WHAT role does it play? How do things get into the head? Seeds planted and growing there? Is it something inherited? Does it come from the heaven?

Vygotsky meant that inner processes - what’s in the head - have been preceded by outer activities together with other people, with the support of different tools, in specific cultural contexts, milieus.

He means that it is in the outer activities the child and adult, i.e., the human being, creates the raw material (råmaterial) for inner processes. Without this raw material nothing happens in the head. Whispering, crib slips and cheating are with other words not something sinful that shall be eliminated but on the contrary something that should become encouraged and developed - because this is the base of learning.

Vygotsky means that it is in peoples' factual and practical world psychological processes have their ground, has their origin.

He talks about "activities between the heads"; what people do together. For the first, it is always about something social; our individual competences comes from different forms of interactions with other people. I learn together with others what I can do myself later. My inner thinking has been preceded by outer thinking together with others. What does reading books mean in this? Through books learning about other worlds?

Outer activities with the help of tools precedes inner work of thoughts. Without counting on the fingers, no counting in the head.

Human beings activities are always situated; they take place in specific situations such as cultural contexts, rooms, places.

The fourth characteristic for activities leading to learning and development is that they are creative; they step over given boundaries. Human beings can use not only relations, tools and situations but also recreate them. Here is a great potential for development; in peoples' creative participation in development work. See earlier posting on creativity and stress.

This with what sin is, shame, perfectionism, for your own good...

Evening thoughts...

[Updated May 8 in the end]. The book of the month in one of my book clubs was ”Glädjens pedagogik” or ”The pedagogy of Joy.” Another book was “Skapandets kraft” or “The Power of Creating.”

About the latter book you can read:

“The book describes the creativity both in theory and praxis, and the great significance of playing as a matter/material of origin and a prerequisite for all creation.”

Joy, lust, laughing, playing, having fun, even as grown up.

Once again; and all this I must be allowed to answer to too. Answer to my preferences, what is talking to me. If I am not allowed then I am maybe lees inclined to respect my pupils/students and their preferences (also on an unconscious level). But maybe I could explore my preferences even more, which they are, and their possible origins? (As if it was something wrong with MY preferences? As if I have to question them? And as if only I of some reason have to? And who is actually snobbish here?? I wonder a bit angry).

And I as giving and giving also need nourishment, so I have something to give.

A third book was about “Lärarna - om utövarna av en svår konst” or “The Teachers – about the practicians of a difficult art.” It stood about it

“Of course many teachers during the centuries have distinguished themselves as flunkeys (livered footmen) to the power and oppressors of the pupils [True!!]. On the other hand there are innumerable evidences about teachers who have been examples and models for children and adolescents in their development.”

And as to being flunkeys or footmen to the power struck me that other groups have too during history; priests (at least here), physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists etc. just to mention some? And I think many still are, how enlightened we even ought to be!

And in the book about Vygotsky it stood at page 55:

“I try to be as Skalman [the childbook figure; tortoise]: narrating lively, referring to the pupils opening thoughts, but I don’t hesitate saying ‘advanced things’. It’s a comfort that Vygotsky says that it doesn’t matter [isn’t wrong] if what I say in the beginning is ‘a head above’ the pupils. Even if the pupils don’t understand everything it influences them positively when I invite them to this larger (or widened) world.”

Yes that’s true? At least it was so for me (and still is?). Such things challenge me and make me want to understand. It has always done.

Showing children/pupils a world they maybe don’t know of yet really.Addition May 8: Or showing each other worlds we don't know of yet! The child showing the adult and vice versa? If we as adults could interact... An exchange, a dialogue, back and forth? We are probably not really aware, despite "enlightenment"? Do we get proper help developing these sides? Or do we have to do this work on our own? Make mistakes... Work over a longer time, maybe much longer?

Struck me what Jenson writes about Jane, who has gone in ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on codependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her coworker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to "make" her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough good at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.

Why is that? What sort of help has she got actually? Is it Jane who is at fault? Not willing to change really?

It's nothing wrong with the help she has got? It's not the help that hasn't been sufficient? A help that has only been on the surface? Is another sort of work not possible? Where she would feel unburdened?

Yes, therapy walks in the leading strings of the power too? We shall adapt to the society and the norms there, or not least to the power (how healthy is that power?). The good girl/boy in the therapists, unconsciously striving to get their parents love and "approval." I get so angry.

Or rather, our change(s) shall take place on the society's and power's terms? How shall one put this to words?

And once again:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.”

(Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

See earlier posting, on Melanie Klein, Freud etc.

Some reflections when I made lunch...

two cute 11-year old girls playing bo-peep or tittut (or what is it called in English?)

Reflections when I was making lunch. Thought further on a posting I did on my other blog (in Swedish) on "The Price for 'progress, development' and 'prosperity'..."

Creativity and stress… Under what conditions are people more creative, and under what less creative? And why? I though of the relation between stress and creativity all of a sudden… Being in a (constant) state of fight what does that mean? Maybe it stimulates to creativity to solve the problem(s) or does it and under what conditions, with what sort of (early) background? But if this becomes long term, I think it interferes with creativity in a negative way. I am thinking of the general stress and high demands in society (both in working and private/personal life, and in first hand on external demands, but also a little on internal) and needs for solving all sorts of problems on many different levels…

And being in a (constant) state of flight (consciously or unconsciously or both) what does that mean?

Over stimulation is as bad as under stimulation. Some people, both young and older, are over stimulated and others are under stimulated. What does this create? This with balance in our lives…

What are the roots to all this?

And - animals mean a lot… It became so apparent when Eskil died. Today it’s two weeks since this happened. Mom was offered Eskil’s mom Ines (8 years in November) by Eskil’s breeder. At first mom was very hesitant to this. But my oldest brother thought they should go looking at her at least. And they took her with her! It looks as she has accommodated fairly well!! And seem to be very easy to have to do with. But of course Eskil is very much missed…

Yes, animals mean A LOT!!!

Morning reflections...

from Finlandia by Jean Sibelius.

What does Jenson say?

"If you unconsciously rewrite your history the failure is inevitable."

I think she is right... Trying to understand ones problems... Why analyzing leads to so little often? If it was so that it was something about understanding with ones brain then some wouldn't have any problems? Everything would have been solved long ago? (but intellect and intelligence isn't wrong in itself, and don't have to interfere with healing I think. Maybe it could be the opposite? Yes, because you understand the mechanisms behind problems we people have?)

Thinking loudly...

From your present you can make interpretations and imagine the roots for your problems... That you was treated in a certain way, that your parents or other caretakers behaved in a certain way. But those who have managed to access their feelings and with these connected memories have sometimes experienced that it wasn't quite as they thought. And those faulty interpretations can block healing and recovery Jenson thinks? I think she can be right there.

Also stuck me yesterday: I have worked for some years really. During these soon 31 years the working life has really changed. And the society has changed too?? If I had entered working life during the steel-bath years how would that have been? Should I have walked on my knees, got a nervous breakdown?

Now I was "established" in working life when the steel-bath came (during the former decade). And had a foot in working-life really (have been working extra a lot too, as church-musician and accompanist). I managed to come back from a exhaustion (some turbulent years in my life, both at work and in private-life, during which I was in therapy, which I had initiated myself, because I felt I needed help). And how would it have been if I had worked with something else than a creative work I have wondered?

I have Academic points corresponding almost 6 years full time studies. During all these studies I have worked, and worked almost full time the whole time since I started music college (a private, controversial and in "front edge" then, which really suited me)... And I have paid all these studies myself too including my living. The first years with four different employers too... Till I got a full time employment at the music-school, after almost 10 years.

How come? Why did I manage this? From where comes this sort of "strength" and all "cleverness"? And I have hidden almost all this to co-workers of some reason... I have my ideas why.

And once again; if I had entered working life during the former decade how would that have been?

And playing means you have to concentrate and focus... Stress-research has shown that you are protected from damages (muscle) if you can focus when you are practising an instrument...

And some years ago I saw a programme at TV with the Swedish brain-researcher Martin Ingvar (earlier posting on him, in Swedish). He said that women have more problems in general with focusing. And men have it easier with these things. He said this with a smile. But he didn't say this had something to do with inherited traits!

Girls are trained from earliest in life being observant on other people? They can't put up a wall (focus) against the environment as many boys/men can?

But of course there are exceptions...

Do I have to apologize for anything? For what I have achieved? Through really hard work and processing... The road hasn't lied there straight...

Quietly thinking...

Yesterday I ate lunch with a former colleague, retired since 16 years... This triggered things... I was reminded of earlier times together with things in the present it triggered thoughts, reflections...

A bit angry over reactions in the present (a person struggling, with similar things as I have been struggling); do I have to apologize or even explain anything to anyone?? Things haven't been offered to me on a silver plate - at all maybe... But I don't have to give an account of anything or apologize for anything to anyone??

Of course I need to talk to people. But I am entitled to choose to whom.

Sun here, oh, how nice.

PS. Has there been any sacrifices on this journey and which? Things that are lost for ever? But these things I want to share with people I feel real confidence with only I think.

Even more about a Society in Denial...

Astrid Lindgren's "homo ludens"?

Even more about ”A Society in Denial”. Also read about "Collective Denial" and "Removing Blinders, Becoming Connected".

Addition January 17: a leader about wanting to kill the "homo ludens" ("Man the Player" see links in this blogpost to Johan Huizinga and his whole book "A Study of the Play Element in Culture"?) i.e. the living, feeling human being, shown in school-politics here in Sweden the leader-writer thinks (in my interpretation). A backlash to "harder grips"... Yes, (we) grown up people can't stand young people and their capacity to play, have fun, enjoy things, react, feel?

Can it be like this even grown up people between too?

That people with less access or connection to their feelings, emotions etc. , whether it is conscious or not, can't stand people with seemingly maybe a little more access to these things, the things they had to kill, that was robbed from them early in life, maybe even earliest in life? Things you don't want to be reminded about.

Doesn't Miller write about this somewhere; about parents killing the living human being in their child? Which doesn't exclude that they later try to restore the lost spontaneity, creativity and lost self-confidence with different measures, assuring the child of it's value, of its capacity etc. etc. etc. And the child gets confused by this... Because it isn't allowed to recognize the reasons for its problems. It can't realize this on its own either. And the grown up world join the trials to liberate he child...Phew!!

But noone want to know why all these things were killed, or how they were killed...

And that about intellectualizing... That about words... The difficulty to live as one learns... An honest wish and strive can weigh up things, can it??

The sad thing: we probably don't see our blind spots... Despite "all awareness in the world" even?? And this causes a lot of misunderstandings and misinterpretations (maybe in both directions; we get stuck with people we should leave and avoid those that we shouldn't avoid), misunderstandings and misinterpretations which we aren't aware of at all many times too?? And maybe live our whole lives avoiding things that would be good for us, and being stuck with people and circumstances that are less good...

Not realizing what is/was in reach actually? Resulting in tragedies seen to what we have lost, if we were capable of seeing this?

That about communication too...

Silently thinking... That about power-abuse, and the defense False Power Anger... Ranging from irritation (and maybe impatiens) to real anger or even fury? See earlier blogpost "A father...", "A child..." and "A mother...".

---

Bosch om "Defences..." på svenska, sidorna 78-81 i den holländska terapeuten Ingeborg Bosch bok ”Rediscovering the True Self – A search for truth and healing. New insights combined with a comprehensive self-healing program” i min amatöröversättning:

”Det är viktigt att inse att mycket av det som vi anser vara vår inneboende natur i själva verket är en försvarsmekanism som verkar nästan hela tiden.

Vilken än vår försvarsstrategi är vid en given tidpunkt, så använder vi alla tre försvaren [ursprungligt försvar, falskt hopp och falsk makt förnekande av behov eller falsk makt vrede]. De flesta av oss identifierar oss huvudsakligen med antingen falskt hopp eller en variation av falsk makt, men långt nere känner vi alla den oundkomliga dragkraften från det ursprungliga försvaret.

Det är intressant att undersöka hur dessa tre olika försvar arbetar tillsammans i förhållande till en symbol. När ett försvar inte fungerar så skiftar vi vanligtvis över till ett annat och, om det är nödvändigt, till ytterligare ett annat. Till exempel kan vi gå från ett beteende att behaga/tillfredsställa (falskt hopp) till vrede (falsk makt) till att känna oss ovärdiga kärlek (ursprungligt försvar). Eller från att förneka att vi känner oss sårade (falsk makt) till att försöka bli uppskattade (falskt hopp) till att känna oss skyldiga (ursprungligt försvar). Eller så kan vi förflytta oss direkt från att försöka lyckas (falskt hopp) till irritation (falsk makt) till att känna oss inkapabla (ursprungligt försvar). Eller vi kan gå från att känna oss värdelösa (ursprungligt försvar) till att känna oss arga (falsk makt) eller att försöka lyckas (falskt hopp) etc. Alla kombinationer är möjliga. Det är som att röra sig i en cirkel, vi kan röra oss på alla olika sätt.

Människor som identifierar sig mer med falskt hopp, visar vanligtvis sitt ursprungliga försvar ganska ofta. Föreställ dig Teresa, en medelålders kvinna som har vigt sitt liv åt sin man och sina barn och sitt hem. Hon ser sig själv som en typisk hemmafru. Även om det är hennes val att vara hemmafru, så känner hon sig ofta missnöjd med sitt liv. Hon försöker att tillfredsställa sin familj genom att sätta deras önskningar framför sina egna (falskt hopp). Men det spelar ingen roll hur hårt hon än anstränger sig för att tillfredsställa sin man och sina barn, så känner hon sig sällan uppskattad av dem för det hon gör. Under denna avsaknad av uppskattning är hennes självuppskattning ganska negativ (ursprungligt försvar).

Hon ser sig själv som en ointressant, tråkig person som inte har något verkligt värde för någon i denna värld. Hon gråter ofta över sitt liv och känner sig då hopplös och värdelös. Ändå försöker hon fortsatt att tillfredsställa sin familj (falskt hopp) i ett försöka att vinna deras kärlek och när de inte verkar uppskattande, känner hon sig värdelös (ursprungligt försvar) istället för att möta sanningen/verkligheten av sitt förflutna som denna symboliska situation för upp: barnet som hon var, var inte uppskattat av sina vårdnadsgivare. Så hon återvänder än en gång till att sätta sin familj önskningar framför sina egna i hopp om att hitta/få uppskattning.

Människor som identifierar sig mer med falsk makt tenderar att dölja sina ursprungliga försvar. Dessa personer ser vanligen starka och kompetenta ut och döljer ursprungligtförsvarkänslor som ’Jag är dålig’ eller ’Jag är inte god nog’. Ett exempel på detta skulle kunna vara Herman. I tidig fyrtioårsålder har han gjort en ganska rejäl karriär och är nu vd (?) för ett stort och lyckosamt företag. Hans managementstil är ganska auktoritär. Han visar litet hänsyn mot sina anställda och tillbringar vanligtvis knappast någon tid med dem alls. På möten tar han upp det mesta av tiden och han verkar alltid vara mycket säker på sig själv och på sina idéer. Hans anställda har aldrig sett en skymt av tvivel i Hermans ögon.

Under detta järnyttre känner Herman dock ofta känslor av yttersta ensamhet, därför att han känner att han inte kan dela några av de tvivel han har om affärerna eller sig själv med någon. Han är övertygad om att varje yttring av svaghet inte är riktigt tillåten för en vd för ett företag. Han försöker till och med dölja självtvivlen för sig själv så gott han kan. Han känner sig ofta som en ’dålig’ person som inte går att tycka om (ursprungligt försvar). Vanligtvis när dessa störande tankar och känslor kommer upp, upptäcker han att det hjälper att bli upprörd över någon annans uppträdande. Detta avleder hans uppmärksamhet från de negativa tankarna han har om sig själv och ger honom en upprättad känsla av falsk makt igen. Till nästa gång osv.

Detta typiska exempel visar hur någon som är engagerad i falsk makt döljer sitt ursprungliga försvar mycket mer än den som är mer benägen att använda falskt hopp. Det är inte troligt att auktoritativa eller ’coola’ personer (de två ansiktena/yttringarna för falsk makt) faller i gråt och uttrycker hur till exempel värdelösa, skyldiga eller dåliga de är /…/

Som slutsats, det finns tre sätt att försvara oss [enligt Bosch och Jenson, eller det är i alla fall dessa tre de jobbar utifrån eller anser mest betydelsefulla?] mot barndomssmärta, genom att ersätta den gamla verkligheten med en inbillad sådan: falskt hopp, falsk makt, ursprungligt försvar. Alla tre kallas förnekande, därför att deras inneboende natur är att förneka sanningen: den gamla verkligheten som den verkligen var. Varje gång som vi engagerar oss i någon av dessa tre försvarsmekanismer, betyder det att gammal smärta har vidrörts av en symbol och vi försvarar oss mot att känna denna smärta genom att tro på en illusion [vi fortsätter att skydda oss mot något som vi inte längre behöver skydda oss emot, mot saker som redan hänt och varit. Sanningar vi då som barn inte skulle ha överlevt. Och dess upplevelser finns fortfarande lagrade i vår kropp och i hjärnan]:

Falskt hopp; Jag kan få det jag behöver, bara jag…

Falsk makt - förnekande av behov: Jag bryr mig inte/behöver ingenting, Jag har det bra/är okej, ingenting pågår här.

Falsk makt – aggressivitet: Det är ditt fel, du är inte något bra, du har fel osv.

Ursprungligt försvar: Det är något fel på mig, Jag är inget bra, det är mitt fel, jag är skyldig, Jag kan inte osv. [klandrande av en själv].

När vi engagerar oss i våra försvar betyder det därför att vi tror på en illusion. Vi tror på denna illusion därför att barnet vi var, inte kunde möta smärtan över att veta sanningen. Men att som vuxen tro på illusionen, kommer bara att skjuta sanningen bort ifrån oss ännu mer bakom än ännu tjockare mur av förnekande och göra helande mindre och mindre troligt.”