The dizziness of freedom, more about contempt for weakness and blaming the victim…

Earlier many human beings were spared from the painful choice situations because everything was embedded in a frame that was commonly decided. Assuredly this was on good and bad.

Now a new sort of loneliness is forced upon a lot of people – we are forced to choose (is this freedom? Or what sort of "freedom") and "judge" about almost everything, from the color of the toothbrush to the choice of phone company and pension insurances. This is called forced reflexivity by sociologists.

The numbers of choice-situations have become more, increased (a lot), and also become more complicated. Compared to earlier.

The responsibility weighs heavily upon the individual.

Sisyphus’s torment is rather confusion more than heavy work.

The autonomous human being the existentialists were talking about is in its way becoming replaced with the constantly insecure human being. She isn’t the one choosing between clear alternatives, but rather more and more irresolute and hesitating (if she doesn’t hide this both to herself and to other people).

Addition: who are gaining most on this insecurity and confusedness?

The choice situations don’t correspond with assets of time for reflections. Sisyphus the younger is at risk of becoming hit by paralysis over how to act.

If Sisyphus the younger becomes sick, stressed to pieces or unhappy depends entirely upon himself. And if he becomes unemployed this is due to lack of success in getting a winning personality and thus being capable of walking successfully from an interview after having written an impressing curriculum vitae. If he is insecure or being in agony over the future it’s because he isn’t good enough at getting friends, he fails thinking positively, that he hasn’t succeeded in the art of making impressions on other people OR because he has problems expressing himself.

Quickly the new market’s entrepreneurs and life style coaches are there to exploit Sisyphus the younger's situation. New markets are profiting on and maybe even trying to increase his feelings of insecurity and confusedness.

My addition: yes, for the ones who can afford these coaches and can pay for advices and therapy. The others are left behind, entirely. And this is their fault entirely. Has nothing with structures to do!?

No wonder if people resort to magical thinking? And also see the leaning back indifference in a recent posting; "Indifference as hidden violence..."

Struck me, we have an expression here called "collective punishment"... And it seems as this expression isn't ours exclusively!! :)

When I was searching for a special article I found this one "Rich Get Poorer. Poor Disappear" ending like this:

"If that sounds politically unfeasible, consider this: When Clinton was cutting welfare and food stamps in the 90s, the poor were still an easily marginalized group, subjected to the nastiest sorts of racial and gender stereotyping. They were lazy, promiscuous, addicted, deadbeats, as whole choruses of conservative experts announced. Thanks to the recession, however – and I knew there had to be a bright side – the ranks of the poor are swelling every day with failed business owners, office workers, salespeople, and long-time homeowners. Stereotype that! As the poor and the formerly middle class Nouveau Poor become the American majority, they will finally have the clout to get their needs met."

Chomsky on applying standards on ourselves we apply to others (hmmm...):

Individualism…

Wikström writes further about that the philosophy of life-enjoyment has in turn become idealized, commercialized and exploited. What follows from this is that the one that cannot afford or feels unfairly treated and therefore evidently becomes tired and unenterprising or weak, disappears and is seen as a deterrent example on a human being who isn’t successful.

But the happiness or success myth means that aging, destruction and death are made invisible.

The existence’s fundamental tragic is at risk of becoming denied and concealed by too simple diagnosis made by the speedy answers' prophets; the success ideal can create a despair that becomes twofold heavy because lack of success is described as the individuals own fault.

The individualism is disregarding structural or political factors behind this lostness. Factors like class, ethnicity, and gender – social injustices – are almost vanished in the popular culture’s images of the good life – not to talk about the insight about the need for common forces for changes.

Wikström writes that the more he looks himself around the more he sees a lack. In the strong confidence to the individual’s own ability – the American dream – there is an equally big leaving the weak individuals social and economical needs and justified demands out of account. It is as if weakness and fragility has become on equal footing with stupidity, dumbness. See Alice Miller on contempt for weakness. This means that instead of a common fight, opposition and revolt, many turn their disappointment inwards:

“I have to blame myself. It’s probably my own fault. I ought to think more positively, attend a course, and learn how to style my personality.”

When the solution on gigantic social problems, the lack of equality and political questions are individualized by the popular culture’s the looking in the mirror increases.

More and more people are trying to repeat the mantra:

“I AM happy, I WILL become successful, I AM consciously present, I WILL get through well, I WILL become slim!”

He thinks he can suspect the weeping behind the tight smiles.

When he reads newspapers and is surfing on the websites on the net it is apparent that the spirituality’s interpretors as well as the feel-well-psychology’s self-appointed experts both are an expression of and are exploiting a lost culture.

In parallel with highly normal and serious channels for psychological care in the health care a more and more miscellaneous market has grown. There a lucrative line of business has become created, a profitable niche both creating and profiting on the present age’s confusion.

There is also a culturally created blindness for social tearing down, an obvious ignoring of the common responsibility for weak or old. Sometimes compensated with hearty speech about the good entrepreneurship or that people have to pull themselves together – exactly the things people aren’t capable of. Political ideologies and theologies are forced to fight against this popular culture’s individualistic rhetoric.

Everything is individualized and the blame is put on individuals entirely. How practical!?

See about "the Land of Opportunity" and a report issued by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed the United States has the third worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states. Only Mexico and Turkey ranked higher in those categories. OECD states in Western Europe, along with Japan, South Korea, Canada and Australia, all recorded better figures than the US, as did central and eastern European states, including Poland and Hungary.

To be continued...

To “understand” and “forgive”…

visited one of my old schools today (see here too.).

I had even more reflections over the phenomenon ”understanding” and ”to understand” when I drove to a service of my car and during the service of it today…

To understand OTHER people! But can you if you don’t (and haven’t been allowed or got the opportunity) to understand yourself? Doesn’t one have to start with oneself? And maybe understand not so pleasant things about oneself? Even very painful things? Truths about oneself and ones life?

Each one of us ought to have that responsibility understanding oneself?

Thought about forgiveness once again, and forgiveness connected to understanding. If you forgive you are a good, broad-minded, grown up person! But WHOM and WHAT have one understood actually? The forgiving is a higher standing human being, even morally? Is a better human being? And gets universal improvement and applauses!!!?? If you are faithful to one or both parents you get applauses! Even from so called helpers!! (therapists, psychologists etc.).

The back of forgiveness and understanding is what? Or what can it lead to?

Exploitation and being used? For some, preferably women (but probably also for many men).

You understand and forgive once again in a false hope of changing the other person/part? Or you use false power anger or false power denial of needs to avoid being forced to deal with anything that demands realization, recognition of a painful truth?

A fourth way is blaming oneself, maybe even harshly!!

And many possibly switch between these protection strategies or defenses…

And never the two really meet!

And you keep on directing things at scapegoats or symbols!? And this strategy will never solve anything. Because I think Miller is right: trying to solve your problems symbolically will never lead to recovery. Not even a slightest bit of recovery??

I think Bosch and Jenson are right here…

PS. And the whole society suffers from a cleverness mania! From cleverness at work to being able to walk further whatever has happened to you!!! Of course some manage with this!!! But why do they? And why do other people have difficulties with this? I don't think this has with genes or inherited traits to do!

I tried to find to whom Jesus said "Take your bed and go" and found a site called "The Bible-school" (Swedish site) and dropped my cheek over the underlying moralistic tone in the text!!! As I read it at least!

Digital navel-strings – shall one cut those?

Visualization of a portion of the routes on the Internet.

[Updated after lunch and in the evening, see the end of this posting]. I skimmed a magazine “Smockan” from “Sveriges musik- och kulturskoleråd” or “Sweden’s music and culture schools council” (a club for mutual admiration?? :-)) at work the other day and found an article there I thought was interesting or which made me think and not least feel “Digitala navelsträngar – ska man klippa dom?” or “Digital navel-strings – shall one cut those?” *

And I also read a leader-chronicle on “Vi mår nog inte alltid bra av att allt är offentligt” or (a little freely) “We probably don’t feel well by making all and everything public” by the leader writer and Lutheran priest Helle Klein. I thought these two articles paralleled each other.

First the former article which was about a lecture on the theme communication by a Micke Gunnarsson working on the web and communication bureau Noisy Cricket (Gunnarsson's own home site).

On this lecture or seminar he gave a quick history lesson, history light as they wrote, where he said that the society has developed from an agricultural society where it was demanded of people that they should be able to work with their bodies, have strong bodies to work with, and that one should be stationary and collective, to an industrial society where more education and brain was needed, with the demands being more functional and being more of a specialist (what about being a complex individual?) and where it was more focus on the individual.

But now when I reread this it strikes me that being able to think, i.e., having a brain wasn’t less necessary then probably, was it? Not even for a stone age human being! Even then people needed to figure things out to solve problems of different kinds and to anticipate or foresee the results of their actions.

He said that in today’s knowledge society communication, networks, speed and complexity is needed.

“You share knowledge in another way today, the techniques for exchanging knowledge happen all over the world.”

Being young today means largely becoming confirmed (a need becoming confirmed), it is no coincidence you can upload pictures and information about yourself on different portals on the net he said.

Children and youth need to have full control all the time, they want to know perpetually and constantly what’s going on (the need for power and control?). It’s about speed; you shall be able to find things quickly on the net. It’s also very important with contacts and networks; it’s status having a lot of contacts.

A lot of the communication happens on the net too, something media in large has realized and uses.

The second article was about a funeral of a small 10-year old girl Engla that was brutally murdered. Her funeral was sent in Swedish Television last week. And this is something that has never happened here earlier. Earlier it has only been well known people’s funerals that have been sent on TV. And it has been a hot debate on this here.

Helle Klein reflects over tendencies in the society, making everything public. She points out (which is true!!!) that the church’s all ceremonies are public, so also funerals.

According to her a lot of people use to call the editorial offices in crisis and catastrophes wanting to share their despair.

In today’s individualized world the mutuality is shaped in our collective mourning she thinks. In that sense she thinks it’s a good thing the grief isn’t privatized.

At the same time there is a narcissistic back of cancelling (en narcissistisk baksida av upphävandet av) the boarder between private and public (yes, I come to think of integrity, of boundary violations and the expressions of these things and the roots for these things). She thinks it is as if people’s sorrow doesn’t exist if the media hasn’t reported about it. The seduction in being mirrored is strong she writes.

But she doubts if we feel well in long term making everything public.

We get married in media, vi are operated in media, we talk about our marriages in media, we make love in media, we mourn in media, yes, we even die in media.

She thinks the blog-culture is the outer expression of today’s narcissism (!!). All shall get passed forward.

There are traits of elitism in the (recent) debate though. Nobody question if the great director’s funeral is televised, but televising a 10-year old girl’s funeral is awful in people’s minds.

The church need to help people safeguarding their integrity instead of making the publicity easier. We need to protect the soul from unsound exploitation she writes.

Present-day people should need the experience of being part of a context exceeding herself without that this should mean cancelling the private sphere.

She thinks it’s time preaching freedom as relation but not necessarily as publicity.

In the old popular movements (folkrörelserna) empathy was exercised in meeting with the Other person in different contexts. The human being was seen as relational and the social bonds were strongly interlaced. Today it’s different. Through TV-cameras a sort of connection, coherence is shaped, that’s true, but when the searchlights are turned off the individual stands there alone on the stage. The audience has gone home.

Klein thinks the public’s perspective is as short-sighted as the speculation on the stock. We need room for long-range seeing, where the social bonds remain, beyond the medialization’s fugitiveness. We ought to greet each other with

“See you tomorrow. We live in each other’s company.”

Human kindness needs the eye of eternity.

---

Earlier postings on autonomy, boundary violations, and integrity. How would it be if we were capable of meeting children from the first start and onwards with true, genuine respect? What sort of society would we have? How would young people's needs be?

But we would probably need help with this ourselves first, to develop awareness and sensitivity. I imagine we aren't even aware of what we do always. But of course that's no excuse! We are probably not aware of what effects our actions have emotionally on young people?

But the more we write and speak about these things the better? But I guess this will be met with denial from many people?

* In the Swedish part it stands about the naval string or navelsträng:

"Navelsträngen används ibland metaforiskt för att antyda att en person inte har frigjort sig ifrån sin moder."

Translated:

"The naval string is sometimes used metaphorically to imply or suggest that a person hasn't liberated hím/herself from her/his mother."

And it is used with a contemptuous undertone. A sort of contempt for weakness. But from where does the inability to cut the ties to one's mom come? See about autonomy above and what Miller has written about this. Something in the style that if the child hasn't got the opportunity, help and support to develop an own, genuine, true self she can't be autonomous either **(my free interpretation). And how does one help (or rather support) a person in reaching such an autonomy? Not by contempt though?

And I don't say I have come to terms with these things at all. I am still struggling, and will probably continue struggling with them! Maybe the rest of my life?

** But maybe the later grown up can disguise it's lack of autonomy very cleverly and intelligently, and fool both her/himself and the environment?? Or become too independent? Deny his/her needs of other human beings?

Updated after lunch: Sigrun at Sigrun's blog wrote that this popular Norwegian Christmas song was written on May 17, 1992, the Norwegian Constitution Day or the National Day of Norway.

Happy May 17!

En stjerne skinner i natt

Nå er den hellige time
vi står i stjerneskinn
og hører klokkene kime
nå ringes julen inn

Englene synger høyt i kor
synger om fred på vår jord
verden var aldri helt forlatt
en stjerne skinner i natt

En nyfødt kjærlighet sover
nå er guds himmel nær
vår lange vandring er over
stjernen har stanset her

Englene synger høyt i kor
synger om fred på vår jord
verden var aldri helt forlatt
en stjerne skinner i natt

Se himmlen ligger og hviler
på jordens gule strå
vi står rundt krybben og smiler
for vi er fremme nå

Nå kan vi drømme om den fred
som vi skal eie en gang
for dette barn har himmlen med
og jorden fylles med sang

~Eivind Skeie / Tore W. Aas~
---
En stjärna lyser så klar

Nu i den heliga timman
ser vi mot himlens höjd
och vi hör klockorna klinga
känner vart hjärtas fröjd.

Änglarna ger oss hopp och tro
sjunger om fred på vår jord
allt som Gud aldrig övergav
en stjärna lyser så klar

Kärleken världen behöver
vet vi att barnet bär
vår långa vandring är över
stjärnan har stannat här

Änglarna ger oss hopp och tro
sjunger om fred på vår jord
allt som Gud aldrig övergav
en stjärna lyser så klar

Himmelen ligger och slumrar
på jordens gula halm
vi känner fröjd och förundran
för vi har kommit fram

Här kan vi drömma om den fred
som vi skall äga en gång
barnet som fötts tar himlen med
och jorden fylls utav sång

Änglarna ger oss hopp och tro
sjunger om fred på vår jord
allt som Gud aldrig övergav
en stjärna lyser så klar

Updated in the evening: Thanks for the Swedish text, Sigrun! Maybe I will use this Christmas song, a song I actually haven't heard earlier. The text was very beautiful!

Näring för själen…

from a bike-tour to work, a late summer's day.

Ledare av Göran Greider igår fick mig att börja fundera… Om behov... Finns inte på webben, men jag kanske skriver mer om vad som står i den senare...

Greider inledde den med orden:

"Jag häpnar alltid över hur litet det behövs för att plötsligt känna sig hoppfull. En förmiddag läser jag ett tunt urval av ny kinesisk poesi och tycker med ens att ett kikhål i den kinesiska muren öppnar sig."

Jag reagerade med en väldigt spontan och stark känsla:

"Ja, själen behöver också näring!!!"

Och detta gav upphov till en räcka med ytterligare tankar. Om behov, förnekande av behov. Om surrogat... Om det Stettbacher kallar perverterade behov. Om andra uttryck behov tar sig. Om icke fyllda behov. Om utnyttjande (av både människor och natur). Om att försöker man ändra sin terapeut eller (alla) andra terapeuter så är misslyckandet ofrånkomligt. Jag tror inte heller att det att ändra ett dysfunktionellt beteende till ett funktionellt heller helar. Att bara handlingen leder till befrielse, även om det kanske kan kännas väldigt skönt och befriande till en början...

”Jamen, nu vet du ju! Nu är det ju bara att bete sig på ett annat sätt, tänka på ett annat sätt osv.!!! (Vad, varför gör du inte et??? Varför går du inte ut i livet och gör det???).”

Jag tror inte på diverse tekniker, det där med manipulation, manipulativa koncept… Jo, de hyfsat intelligenta kan nog både det ena och det andra!!! Alla duktiga pojkar och flickor klarar nog det - en gång till och en gång till och kanske ytterligare en gång... Men vad har ändrats i slutänden? Och återigen jag att inte vi kan ändra en enda terapeut!!! Jo, skulle vilja skriva om detta med terapi, guruer, makt...

Och tänkte återigen på det där med att tysta röster… Om det där att

”...om du inte kliver upp där och uttrycker dig perfekt och mer än perfekt – fulländat… Inte förr får (bör) du upphäva din röst!!”

Du får inte börja upphäva den om du (ens) har små skavanker!!?? Använda den röst du har just här och nu, prova den röst du har, som du börjar utveckla och just genom övning erhålla färdighet!??? För när någonsin får manfärdighet? Finns den bara där helt plötsligt? Är den kanske medfödd? Så att du bara stiger upp där och kan??

För det är ju ganska genant om du inte gör det (tillräckligt) perfekt!? Något som i sanningens namn nog inte bara kommer från en själv utan också från (vissa) i omgivningen!??

Och hur många röster har därför aldrig höjts (hur många miljoner genom århundradena, ja, årtusendena?)?? Hur många har därför aldrig ansett sig värdiga att artikulera eller yttra sig?? Och, jo, är det inte så att vissa röster tystas (hur omedvetet det nu än sker)?? handlar det inte om översittar-, härskartendenser öäven på den allra lägsta nivån, även mellan dem som kanske egentligen har ganska liten makt och inflytande i samhället, håller inte även de på med detta (som någon slags kompensation, om än kanske omedveten)? Även av så kallat "upplysta"!!??

Det där att leva som man lär... Som nog är svårare än vi tror, ibland??

”Varför är så många människor besatta av den makt och kontroll över andra som rikedom (eller våld) kan ge? Varför finns det så mycket strider och hat i vår värld? Varför dödar medlemmarna av en viss religiös eller etnisk grupp medlemmar av andra grupper? Varför får så många människor diagnosen depression? Varför är det så stor efterfrågan på stämningshöjande medicin?

Det är uppenbart att vi inte är riktigt ’tillräkneliga’. Någonting djupt inom oss har inte blivit tillfredsställt. Jag tror att ’någonting’ är spädbarnets behov av kärlek. Det barn du var kan aldrig få den kärleken – igenting tillfredsställer detta djupa behov. Men sörjandet har kraft att läka oss – det kan göra oss hela igen och låta oss återerövra våra liv.” (Jean Jenson i ”Att återerövra sitt liv" s. 172-173).”

Men, nej, detta sker inte lätt... Det finns inga quick fixes, hur trevligt det än skulle vara...

---

Some silent thoughts after a bike-tour: on needs, surrogate needs, perverted needs. The expressions it take on different levels... A leader yesterday triggered a lot of thoughts...

Yesterday at work, after three meetings (awaking feelings, emotions, thoughts...) when I waited for my first pupil I threw some words down... What is worth living for?? What am I striving for? Saving the whole world, or what? Taking the risk that the whole world will collapse?? Let it happen!? “God’s will be done!?” Taking all and everything on my small, tiny shoulders?? Who should I rescue first??? And who can I rescue (and not least: who wants, and needs, to be rescued??? Honestly! And maybe; who needs to be rescued most?)?

What holes d we try to fill? What needs do we try to fill?

About silencing forces again... Who has been silenced? And who keep on raising their voices? Who did never speak up? Because they never thought they did it good enough for instance, their way of speaking up wasn't good enough?

Open, genuine, real communication... The longing for that... The search for that, the lack of it... Now some lunch here.

All earlier postings with the label Göran Greider (both in English and in Swedish).

Addition January 24: What is nourishment for the soul and what do we actually need?