About religious beliefs, fundamentalism - and collective passivity…

Barbara Ehrenreich.

Ehrenreich said at the Meltdown Forum that “we” have believed that the market will take care of everything FOR us and all poor will eventually become wealthy, that everything eventually will become okay. Like a religious belief.

A belief on a higher power that will take care of everything, a power that’s fair, just and caring about us all. We shall just trust and rely on this invisible power.

She also spoke about a collective passivity in the footsteps of these beliefs (in the market and capitalism). A belief and "reliance" that we don’t have to concern ourselves with all injustices and human poverty we see around us, and following this the invisible hand will eventually come there and smooth everything out (after some of us have suffered a little bit, maybe not really died on the cross, but maybe not so far from, sacrificed for "the sin of man", again an invisible power?). Trusting that everything will eventually become fixed.

We can just lean back and trust that invisible power (and leave the responsibilities to this invisible power). Just like believing in a god (another invisible power) or a father, as small kids?

And see what Owe Wikström has written about the back-leaning indifference and indifference as hidden violence (an indifference that can result in cruelty).

Market and capitalist fundamentalists believe that the market will eventually fix everything for us.

Has this been the way of truly solving problems? Waiting for a higher power (a nature law, the nature in man?) or a (deputy) father to fix everything for us? And why hasn't this model worked so far? Because the imperfectness in man? Not because any imperfectness in this idea?

And this reliance, on a fair power (not God in this case, but capitalism and the market) excludes all true, real, flesh and blood actors? Nobody are sacrificed in the name of the market or capitalism? Or maybe who? The ones causing crisis's? Or the ones with less power and sometimes totally innocent to the crisis's? Who have done nothing but been working hard? Who are punished? And who are not punished? Is this a fair model?

Maybe there are no perfect models, but are there models that are a little more fair, to most people in the population.

How are those religious beliefs handled and by whom? In nobody’s interest? By nobody?

And they, the actors on the market, not least those with most power and money, what are they doing? Working for all our bests?

Are they almost like deputy priests for many of us? However, they aren’t named priests. And they aren’t standing in any pulpits in any churches preaching to people. Meaning that they don’t try to preach and influence us, the not questioning “congregation”? They are not making us join in the choir? And if we sing falsely, then what?

Their (our) “trust” in the market and capitalism as a power that will eventually fix everything, is that a back leaning indifference (even resulting in cruelty sometimes)? And are those relying on this power not active, but how?

Are they maybe saying that they are leaving everything to “the nature”?

And what is this “nature” actually? How is the “nature” of man? A genetic thing? A question of character?

No, I don’t think we are born evil. But there are certainly evil people in this world. And I don’t think we are born with drives for destruction, but destruction and self-destruction definitely exists…

Addition just before lunch: see the blogpostings "The Psychopath Machine" and "Crisis potential"... (both in Swedish).

You can - if only you decide you will!

photo S. Thomas.

Writing further, furiously: More from Wikströms' book (see earlier postings). In the popular self-development literature it is said that the human being just can’t blame her misfortunes on unfortunate circumstances (!!!), a sad and unfortunate childhood (!!!) or existential weariness (!!!). Who and what is she then to blame? (Herself? Her genes? Her unwillingness to do something or to change? Or what? This ought to be said out in plain words!? Shouldn't it?)

Talk about moralizing! What about what’s lying behind? Is anybody interested in that, in bringing this to light? Bringing both this and that to light! For instance how it is with many emperors' new clothes!?

The human being therefore has to “take hold of her life” and see so she is steering her soul’s bark [herself], realize (or as one says today “implement”) her innermost dreams of success. But what about the American dream?

And she shall do this “now,” live now, instead of just planning for to live, to not having to realize when she is old that she hasn’t really lived. And this is nothing wrong with actually I think. There are a lot of contradictions – and confusions here and there.

Wikström thinks the lust-principle has started to rule on a cultural level, not the postponed drive-satisfaction’s gloomy reality principle.

But what are those needs about, maybe those urgent needs, needs that have to become filled immediately? And what are those bottom and endless needs about, which can never become filled? Surrogates, substitutes? See Alice Miller here.

The lightness in the existence has disappeared for many in everyday life’s trivial treadmill, confused home situations, children’s demands (justified and/or “perverted” needs because of earlier unfulfilled needs), relations that aren’t straightened out. All those things together make one want to maximize the small zone that’s left for oneself. No wonder!

Moralizing or being ironic over life style literature and dismiss it as drivel is too simple. But I want to take a step further he writes. And ponder over what those dreams are an expression of.

For some this reading leads to a lot of improvements in those particular persons’ lives.

But despite many people are trying to think positively, take command over their lives or are striving for a conscious presence, they fail. And that the popular culture constantly reminds them about that it is only on themselves the whole existence (AND success) is lying, the feeling of lack of satisfaction and self contempt increases. As self blame and shame (convenient for the power and power abusers!?).

My addition: And also the shame over how incapable and incompetent you are. So the one in question stops questioning the state of affairs out of shame (keeping silent of shame), or as she is told: has no right to complain, she has all tools and options to succeed she is told (if she is legitimately complaining she can be called spoiled)?

Blaming the victim.

We are on the one hand treated like children and on the other we are demanded taking responsibility as grown up! Damn if you do and damn if you don’t. See Berit Ås on Master Suppression Techniques.

Addition in the evening: read Oscar Flowe in "The hitting stops here!".

Motive forces…

If the only motive (propelling) force is money what society, workplaces etc. does this create? Are we making a better job with this motive force (something power and career people "firmly" believe is a drive for all people)? I wonder if (all) people are only driven by money as the main motive force? But all people need and are entitled to live a decent life.

Is this motive force (money) a good motive force for making a good job? Are we making a better job when we are rewarded with more money than our colleagues? Are we making a better job today then we did earlier (when we didn’t have individual salary or wage)? I don’t think I do. And maybe that has reasons.

What happens when people realize that they have been striving for something that will probably never occur? That they are trapped in a life where they have to work till they fall dead down? Is this freedom or slavery (serfdom)? A modern form of serfdom and slavery?

How will they react if and when they realize that other people at the same time retire at an early age (in their fifties for instance) with a much higher material standard?

How do they react when they realize that if you land in different life circumstances it hasn’t with competence to do? Or does it have with competence to do?

Is the society encouraging sound drives in people I also wonder?

And the people in power are loyal to each other (networking).

If one generalizes: loyalty, solidarity is something women devote themselves to and are interested in, men compete instead. But I don’t think we are born this way.

The grassroots are caught by helplessness and resignedness (but from where do those feelings originate? So would it be possible doing something about them?).

What would sound drives be?

Society is encouraging unsound forces in people I would assert. And this leads to the kind of inequality we see all over the world. Leads to the enormous cleavages between people.

A voice in Sweden, on bonus and retirement scandals and a woman highest up in the labor union movement (Swedish Trade and Union Confederation):

“Wanja Lundby-Wedin is made scapegoat for dissatisfaction, anxiety and indignant feelings that have become ripped open in the paths of the financial crisis. What has she done?

She has as a member of the board for AMF [insurance company, administering retirement money] approved of a ‘juicy’ retirement agreement to a former CEO.

A fact that has been available for reading in the company’s annual report for many years – as a Sverker Sörlin pointed to in Dagens Nyheter [a big newspaper here] but something nobody have breathed about earlier. It has been possible for all those capable of reading from the book to acquaint themselves with these facts [they haven’t been hidden. But I wonder, where have the press and media been? And why haven’t they reported about this? Because they take on the power’s businesses?].

But now, when people are losing their jobs and greedy CEOs are allowed to wind (fawn) and pretend that they are giving up their giant bonuses, then one go for Wanja, who as the chairwomen for Swedish Trade and Union Confederation ought to know better [and yes, in a way she ought to??]. Where all other people have been blind she should have seen. She hasn’t grabbed anything for her own sake, she has only, as all other up there, failed to adjust to a slower speed in a bolting capitalism. For this she is hated and has to become removed while the overpaid capital and trade and industry elite remain sitting biding their time.

Financial crisis, losing ones job and bonuses isn’t Wanja’s fault. Our society’s mentality isn’t her fault. My thought is the more the man on the street shuts him/herself off from the public affairs, from the local politics and doesn’t engage her/himself –in the school and care, in how people are living, jobs and the distribution from the fruits of the society – the distance to those in power, who are power professionals will increase and that’s why we are getting all those things such as bonuses and fantasy agreements.

I think our society is suffering from a political but also trade and union lack of interest and a lack of engagement from the general public.

When people leave walk-over to the power we have gotten a societal climate where the cream of those in power believe they can do whatever they like, because they don’t get any feedback from reality until it’s too late [this was pretty kindly said, quite ironically. Do they care about the man on the street, generally? Of course I think there can be and are exceptions]. And not until fantasy pensions and bonus agreements are known to people, in the gloomy light of a financial crisis, one gets upset and start to tell people off in letters to the press and voting on the net.”

Yes, the power is networking, but what are we, the men and women on the street, doing?

And why?

It has been shown that the social mobility has been greater in the Scandinavian countries (with a strong welfare state) than in countries like Great Britain and USA. See here, here and here (the first two texts are in Swedish, but maybe possible to translate and the third is in English, from New York Times).

My blogpostings have been looking very strange for a long time. But I haven't had time figuring out what it has been about. It looked much better when I started blogging. This has been really disturbing, because actually I care how my blogs are looking. I get the message that my HTML-code isn't accepted... But I have been capable of posting anyway.

The need for control, super egos, responsibility, independency, dependency…

[Slightly updated December 18. Brief addition December 19]

A blogger writes: Now we are going to become controlled down to the last detail, everything we do on the net shall become stored. Orwell’s society is here, twenty years later, but nevertheless. However more veiled.

Today we have the war against terrorism, a war we can never win. And this serves as argument for detailed control of every citizen.

The ones in power are playing on peoples’ tendencies to paranoia; in a similar manner as for instance Hitler once did to justify the Second World War?

Not so healthy leaders are playing on human being’s less healthy sides!?

Are the ones ruling today better in this respect (in not controlling people) than the former who were accused for a Big Brother Society this blogger wonders? (and are they less fundamentalistic or as much, and in some cases more?) And of course you can wonder with all right?

What about the freedom the ones ruling now spoke about before they came to the power? Was this freedom only for the economical elites’; their freedom doing as they like, to not have to contribute to all people’s welfare (including their own), while the people should become held down, in all respects, and become controlled in all ways you can think of?

Yes, I think an economist here is right who said (in my interpretation) that if the resources are distributed more equally this gains the whole societal economy, i.e. us all. And it creates a better society, than a one where we are played out against each other. Something the Scandinavian countries have shown? So far at least. But today... And in the future...

Where does the selfishness come from?

I read an article on Friday “The more we are together. When the crisis advances the ego has to back.”

There you could read that you don’t have to “sharpen your elbows” any longer. Not show your paces either. The ones used to focus on her/himself has maybe not seen this earlier/yet, but the individualism’s time has passed. The most sound would be if individuals could exists in the collective!?

For those individuals it felt right to say: I take responsibility for my own life. I trust myself. But a winner can loose the self-confidence too, when you realize that it wasn’t so easy with the self-realization. When it was shown that it wasn’t enough taking the matter into one's own hands.

A 60 hours week is always a 60 hours week. Even if you chose it yourself. How much individualist you even are, it isn’t enough, you become exhausted/burnout nevertheless.

Child psychologists tell us that our kids have been forced to develop their egos so much so they can’t function in a group at day care centers. The article writer writes that the superego is lying on lit de parade.

Disillusioned people are calling programs at the radio here to talk about old-fashioned things like “societal planning, the community and solidarity.”

However, some are feeling relief over this, among those thinking the “I” has gotten too much space.

What would a healthy “I” be? What is our true self? What needs are we striving to fulfill?

Some even admit that they are a bit malicious. One of those is the Swedish leader writer Göran Greider. In a TV-programme he seemed to have been talking about “the own responsibility.” Another Swedish writer also wrote about responsibility. Who are accused for not taking responsibility for themselves, their lives etc. And are there other people you don't demand responsibility from? The ones governing are talking quite moralistic about responsibility. But are the ruling classes taking responsibility? Are they demanded to take responsibility? Or do they cover it up as if they are taking responsibility "for people's own good"? Things that are really huring are done for our own good!? And they truly believe it is for our own good!

Greider meant that certain amount of selfishness is needed to push the development further, but the results of this selfishness ought to become distributed better to more people. I am not sure... What sort of selfishness should we have? One where we protect ourselves constructively and against real threats?

He means that the society needs solidarity values, so we dare (and can) trust (on) each other, even in the economy.

Alone is not strong, we need each other and are dependent on other people, what other people do and don’t do. What too many govening do is dividing and ruling? Getting power through diving and ruling.

The writers means that the big “I” doesn’t make us happy, not secure or rich either. Is it time for more collective solutions now?

Why are young people today so selfish or egoistic? They haven’t become brought under control enough? They have to learn to be more humble? From where does evilness come? Are we born this way? Do we have innate drives for destruction? I don't think so. I think this is something we have learned very early in life...

That many don’t seem to be why is that? Where have they learned this? What sort of role models have they had? And what society have they grown up in?

I.e. how should we raise young people, small children?

See this reader's letter to Alice Miller on obedience and being a living dead.

Addition December 19: and rebelling... If you are less harmed you rebel in a more constructive way? In a sounder and healthier way? And maybe in a more effective way? With fewer or in the best case no victims?

Hysteria…

Jean Martin Charcot.

Peter Währborg also writes about hysteria in his book (a book which is in Swedish, so the text below is my amateur translation and interpretation of his text), at page 87-88 in a chapter called “Neocortical stress reactions.”

He writes that stress influences the behaviour. Memory, concentration, attention and other neuropsychological functions deteriorate during stress. During severe stress an even more pronounced reduction of higher mental and cortical functions can occur. This state has been described by Jean Martin Charcot (also see here about him) in the end of the nineteenth century and fascinated one of his visitors, namely Sigmund Freud.

This state is called hysteria. Wärhborg writes that it is a state whose physiology is almost unknown. It can be described as a sort of mental “playing dead reaction” (apparent death).where an active as well as a passive symptomatology can appear. In the former case symptoms like paralysis (förlamning), dumbness (stumhet), disequilibrium (balansrubbning) and vomiting appear. Passive symptoms are reduced feelings (nedsatt känsel), blindness, deafness, tunnel vision, failing off of smell (bortfall av lukten) and insensitiveness for pain. Characterized by what the French psychologist and prominent pupil to Charcot, Pierre Janet, once described as “la belle indifference.”

Easily influenced (påverkbarhet) without critical thinking, i.e., suggestibility and earlier occurrence (förekomst) of similar episodes are other important clues to this diagnosis.

Hysteria is characterized by a symptom-picture which is nearly related to the neocortical function. Often these symptoms appear swift as a lightning, not seldom in connection with a trauma for which the individual is lacking strategies handling. One can always discuss if hysteria shall be seen as a stress related syndrome he writes.

Judith Lewis Herman writes about hysteria, Charcot and Freud in her book "Trauma and Recovery - From Domestic Violence to Political Terror", see for instance the chapter “A Forgotten History.”

It starts with (page 7):

“The study of psychological trauma has a curious history – one of episodic amnesia. Periods of active investigation have alternated with periods of oblivion. Repeatedly in the past century, similar lines of inquiry have been taken up and abruptly abandoned, only to be discovered much later. Classic documents of fifty or one hundred years ago often read like contemporary works. Though this field has in fact an abundant and rich tradition, it has been periodically forgotten and must be periodically reclaimed.”

And I wonder if the drive theory can occur in other clothing during history too? More or less disguised? Even today? All sorts of ideas about what is driving people... Ideas that are defences rather?

A boss said:

"You are flexible [extremely stretchable??], innovative, don’t get stuck in a problem but try to see/seek solutions, you take own initiatives, are working independently… You have a broad ground to stand on."

Phew...