Poisonous pedagogy, manipulation, "freedom"…

Göran Harnesk.

Some morning thoughts…

I saw our current minister of education in the morning sofa this morning talking with Göran Harnesk from Children’s Right in Society about a report they had done based on phone calls they have gotten to their help phone. A report about young people becoming burnout because of the pressure in the school. In this report you can read:

“The government’s new suggestions to school law is focusing more on punishments than supporting measures, which is at risk of making it more difficult for children and young people to pick up knowledge, quite contrary to the goal the government has put up.”

Strikes me what Alice Miler writes about children who are afraid for punishment and what this causes for how they function.

And by the way, what underlying outlook on children does this Jan Björklund have? Does he (and his supporters) believe that children are born in a way so they need control, restrictions etc? I.e., that they are born with some kind of evilness or drives or something they need to control and need help to control? They will be very grateful to us if we do this, at least later when they understand better (observe the irony?

“Instead of bringing fundamental, basic deficiencies in the school system in order and trying to find methods making the student grow the government try to cure symptoms with reprimands and downright punishments. For the teenager it is crucial to become seen, independently if one is clever or fail with ones studies.”

Alice Miller and her readers on Super Nanny methods (methods that have become popular here in Sweden too).

In good old style the minister didn’t listen and doesn’t show any empathy OR interest in hearing. Quite arrogantly and authoritarian. And this is opportune today for “authorities”! Nobody reacts or question this today. Less of all the press.

The leader for the liberal party in Sweden, minister of education in the current government, wants more controls in school; more grades, more orderliness.

And this is appealing to many people, something that is so scary. A lot of people need to act things out? Taking revenge? But on who should they react actually?

Very, very ironically; yes, young people need to learn, to be taught! For their own good. No grown up people need to learn or be taught? And least of all our minister of education!? Now he has the power too refusing to learn, to be taught. He can give other people (not least young people) a lesson!?

The “strong” leader many have waited for? He doesn’t listen to people and he says that children in school need more knowledge. But he has actually proved that he is lacking knowledge himself, for instance that he doesn’t know what research or science have found. What about trusting children?

Struck me that Stiglitz writes what the deregulation politics have led to. The ideas that if you leave everything to the market, trusting the market and the people there the market will regulate itself. And this about regulations and controlling... Hmmm...

I spoke with a colleague on Sunday evening (she is soon to become retired). This talk made me think. She thinks our freedom has become limited. I couldn't help comparing: while the market (and economy) has become deregulated the work labor has become more and more regulated and controlled? Is this a coincidence?

I can’t help thinking: who needs freedom and whose ravages should become limited? What have greedy people accomplished? But, also, from where does greediness (bottomless needs) come from in the beginning?

The actors on the market (the ones who owns a lot there, not we small share holders) have been given an enormous (??) freedom? And been given this on behalf of other people’s freedom?

Yes, have we ordinary people and “workers” become less regulated? Or more? Have we been given freedom or less since I came out on the labor market? No, our work has become (much) more regulated today. But we have at the same time (no wonder!) had to hear how free we are. We can organize and plan it as we want. In MY work (as teacher in music school) we have no written curriculum, we make our own schedules.

“Look how much freedom you have!"

Somebody else telling us what an enormous freedom we have! What is freedom actually?

I can’t help thinking further. Isn’t this symptomatic for the whole labor market? People on the labor market haven’t become freer or less regulated the last 15-20-25 years? But instead more? Despite regulated markets and economies and that we have had right wing governments in many western countries, including Sweden.

Something left wing governments are accused for because they are said to have been ruling all this time and thus are he responsible for the current state of affairs, which our bourgeoisie government now is trying to rescue us from.

How would it be if we had no governments whatsoever?

Does a deregulated market mean more freedom for its workers? And for people in general?

Maybe children should need more freedom and trust instead of less. But we can’t let grown up (harmed) people free always. Writing and saying this is dangerous? Because it can become misused.

Wondering further: Who of the grown up people are we giving trust and who are we not giving trust? Who do we trust and rely on and who are we not trusting or relying on?

Yes, we can trust too much and we can trust too little. Trusting too much can be naïve? And trusting too little can resemble paranoia? (both trusting too and much and trusting too little has reasons),

Do we trust the right people? And mistrust the wrong?

How do we define what “freedom” is? In the National Encyclopedia of Sweden you can read about freedom (my amateur translation), this article is very long, 1, 5 page approximately, and I will translate the first paragraph:

“Freedom [is] a central notion in ethics and in political philosophy. The notion gets its meaning in the ethics in that way that it’s a nature law to think that if people don’t have freedom to want to and to act, they can’t neither be made responsible for her/his actions and by rights not become rewarded or punished for if she/he is acting right or wrong. There are two main interpretations for this for responsibility required freedom, according to the compatibilism it is compatible with the determinism, the thesis that all that is happening has an enough reason, while it according to the incompabilitism is incompatible with this doctrine.”

I just simply wonder, can “freedom” for one person be the opposite for another?

To avoid empathy deficits we need to preserve all sides that are natural in a child. Not only develop "knowledge" in children in school.

Research has shown that many bright people are suffering from empathy deficits... But I believe they aren't born in this way. And our minister of education isn't demonstrating that he is respecting knowledge himself either actually!

Addition: On a blog whose owner is chairperson for the youth organizations in Sweden I found another blogposting about the BRIS-report. And I want to translate it.

The heading of it is in the style “A little anxiety for the future has nobody died from, have they?”

“I hope more people are catching on to the BRIS [Children’s Right in Society] debate today about young people’s performance anxiety. It’s surprisingly quiet from politicians’ side about the statistics that is pointing to young people’s ill-health, lack of support, loneliness, exposure, vulnerability, anxiety.

Yes, most young people today have an iPod, access to the net and freedom to chose. But is this a measure that most young people are feeling well? Children’s Right in Society put the finger on the lack of understanding from the environment for how a young person can experience her/his life situation.

It’s possible to find some explanations,* but you can’t wink at (close your eyes) to the consequences.”

How well said!

* See another blogger in the blogposting "The man who is afraid of safety" reacting at the (arrogant) talk on safety-addiction. Minimizing and belittling grassroots needs in contempt for weakness and nothing else!

And I have wondered, and can't help continue wondering, are those screaming loudest about freedom actually prepared to give (all) other people freedom? And those who have been and still are for (total) deregulations (when it comes to economy) are they for less regulations and controls for the work labor? Or maybe even for more regulations and controls. But maybe they are using other expressions for those things and with this they are covering their "ambitions" or purposes up (rhetoric).

After lunch quickly: Quite ironically: Those neoliberals talking loudly about freedom do they begrudge other people freedom; to express themselves for instance, and to express diverging opinions? Do those neoliberals show real, genuine respect towards other people? More respect for other people and their freedom (of choice, thinking etc.) than the man on the street shows?

The only important for them is that they get freedom if nobody else gets it they don’t care or that’s not their business?

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.

Outlook on mankind…

from the site about The Woodwose

[Slightly updated May 24 in the end]. Went out onto the balcony with a letter from a friend to read it, enjoying the evening-sun. She had written things that together with other things I have read recently in a local newspaper triggered thoughts and feelings. I just HAD to go in to write, even before I had finished reading the letter!

She wrote about (inner) demands on being “useful,” or rather “of use/service to” (nyttig), and “successful,” which she doesn’t think she is at all. And all this has grown to a high mountain, making her even more paralyzed (my maybe a little free interpretation, angry on her behalf), even though this person has a lot of resources really of many different kinds. In a very long paragraph she also succeeds mentioning demands on “effectiveness” and “cleverness” too. Oh, I can vomit on it! I can recognize myself in this, a little silently? But it takes other expressions in me?

For the first it can certainly be too much of that!! And for the second this is high fashion now everywhere in society (and in the world)? I googled on “högsta mode” or “highest fashion” and got a lot of hits. One was that it is highest fashion to manipulate - in the advertising branch. In an article with the heading “Now it’s highest fashion manipulating” you can read (in a one year old article, in Swedish) that the campaigns of the future will have their ground in new biological and psychological discoveries!! Be about how to reach the subconscious. People are talking more and more about how we can manipulate others with knowledge about the body and brain. Used already??

But that was actually a sidetrack.

What I thought out there on my balcony was that today’s (right, conservative and bourgeois) politicians believe that one change people with punishments!

We use to talk about using “whip or carrot” (piska eller morot). These politicians' method is using the whip, not carrots (what are they playing out? In fact I wonder!). And this spring from their view on man strikes me, as if this was a new thought! A tired smile. There is a lot of talk about misusing the systems. I wondered their on my balcony quite ironically, sarcastically

“Do people? How many? And if people do – why??”

And I wonder too - who do?

And could and should one do something about that instead? Or is this impossible? Very naïve of me? And if we spoke about these things openly…

No, I definitely don’t like what politicians are doing now – at all. And I DON’T like the politicians who have the power now, at all.

Words that come for me: moralizing, contempt for weakness…

It stands in the Swedish part of wikipedia about “människosyn” or “view on man”:

”Människosyn kan sägas stå för de föreställningar om människan, såväl teoretiska idéer som praktiska antaganden, av allmän natur som vi antas omfatta. Dessa består då i föreställningar eller teorier om hurdana människor faktiskt i allmänhet är.”

Translated it would be something in the style:

“One can say that 'view on man' stand for the notions and ideas on man, both in form of theoretical and practical assumptions; of general nature we are assumed to embrace. These then consist of notions or theories how human beings in fact are in general.”

But when I studied pedagogy, we learned that "view on man" is different for different people and also changes from time to time (as can "view on society" or "samhällssyn"), all don't embrace the same views on man thus. But from where does the view on man originate in specific individuals? I have my ideas...

Also see this article “More whip than carrot” or "Mer piska än morot" (in Swedish though). And here a posting on “Natives and savages – on arrogance, ignorance, overweening confidence, intolerance and all people’s equal worth (or value?).”

I have practiced with four pupils/students this afternoon for a little more than two hours, for a concert in a little more than a week, a concert that is going to become filmed for a DVD we have been filming (with "professional cameramen") since New Year. Phew! I accompanied them on piano. Tomorrow and on Friday I am sitting in a jury listening to candidates to a course where the students get extended education, a course with our cleverest (!!!) pupils thus.

Maybe I should practice half an hour more myself and then take a bath before bedtime?

Addition May 24: Naomi Klein said that "Information is shock resistance" and that's true not only what concern the sort of politics she writes about. One can try to inform oneself... TRY to raise ones awareness and ones clear seeing. And hopefully protect oneself in that way, and avoid contributing to damage done?

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...

Men’s and women’s different reactions…

Görel Wentz and Ulf Lundberg.

Struck me this morning that it stands somewhere that men and women react differently to stress, and searched for this in two books I have. One was Peter Währborg’s “Stress och den nya ohälsan” (“Stress and the new ill health”) and the other “Stessad hjärna, stressad kropp – om sambanden mellan psykisk stress och kroppslig ohälsa” (”Stressed brain, stressed body – about the connections between psychic stress and bodily ill-health”) by the professor at the Institution of Psychology and the Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS) at the university of Stockholm Ulf Lundberg and his co author Görel Wentz, journalist.

Währborg writes in his book on page 78 in the chapter “Differences between men and women” that Christina Maslach establishes that burnout looks different in men and women, even if this condition is as common in women as in men. In women the emotional exhaustion (the emptiness feeling) is more intensive and more usual. Men react with depersonalization and frigidity (känslokyla).

Lundberg and Wentz write at page 179 in their book in the chapter “Psychological differences” that in the stress research, as in so many other research areas, most studies are performed on men, For a long time one hasn’t been aware that men and women react differently to stress.

And they also write that it is rather psychological factors and sex role patterns (könsrollsmönster) which are decisive for the differences between the sex’s manners in reacting to stress.

Yes, we are raised and met differently from the beginning, because we are seen differently and the demands are put differently on us? But don't small children, no matter what sex (or for that matter what individual the small child is) , have the same needs, and maybe exactly the same needs (is it true that different individuals has different needs? Or can belief/idea be about the parents needs, a projection of their totally unconscious needs? And IF different individuals should have different needs: are they SO different? And IF children have different needs, can it be that they entered this world in different ways? Things we grown ups aren't sensitive to maybe at all or very little? Because we in turn had to make ourselves insensitive to survive?)?

And later we take our early unfulfilled needs out in different ways and on different persons, in different circumstances, some have more power than others and others less, so the effects of this are more or less large and directed on different targets (the more power a person has the more damage his/her unprocessed has?).

And that we take our unfulfilled needs out in different ways always causes problems, bigger or smaller, and misinterpretations and misunderstandings? Bigger or smaller wars?

---

And there was a small article in the local newspaper about the incest man in Austria, where it stood that he was a classical tyrant... He was big and strong? And had much more physical strength and power than, at least, his wife and daughters? Which he didn't hesitate to use at all.

And it already stands about this case in wikipedia!

And which are the consequences of child abuse - on the political level? For who we vote on in elections? If we vote at all? If we want a savior, maybe even a "strong leader" solving all our problems and keeping things in order by punishing those who don't live in a certain way, and how the leader sees criminals (criminals need hard punishments for instance) etc. etc.? If we believe we have influence on things on different levels (in our private life, at the work place, in the society, in the world) or if we don't think we have? If we are still paralyzed with unprocessed helplessness or not? Because we were so badly treated, and had no protector?

And if we fight for things so they don't harm ourselves either...

And our (really lousy) current government uses the classical tool with scapegoats! Gathering people in chasing certain groups like those on sick pay. I am rally horrified over many of our politicians, whom are younger than me many of them, over the views the have and give expression to. Really horrified.

And I have thought for long that it is opportune to chase the ones on sick pay for instance, because most of those on sick pay are women. At least here. I have thought for myself that if it had been more men on sick pay the politicians would have taken steps in preventing illness due to stress and work place conditions/work environment (psychosocial not least).

Playing on many people’s tendencies to contempt for weakness? Beating their breasts!