Democracy, the market, individuality…

A Swedish leader or editorial writer wrote about an affair in Sweden concerning people belonging to the Moderate Party buying votes to the Swedish Parliament:

“It’s not difficult associating to enterprises and entrepreneurs when the moderates in Stockholm are shaken by the scandal with bought members.”

What they have done is not least full of enterprise. Moderate candidates to the Parliament have simply tried to make long-term investments in a well paid job in the Parliament. A revision firm is involved in the investigation of the scandal. The step isn’t far away that the Moderates are introducing themselves on the market he thinks. Even if you shall not exaggerate the scandal the question returns if there isn’t an ideological component in the whole thing.

Because it’s about a party valuing the market higher than anything else and this party’s members would prefer that the politics move away as much as possible in favor for this market.

And in such a climate the democratic voice is hardly as sacred, as in other movements where the politics’ and democracy’s power are seen as more central.

Yes, are they in fact scared to death for democracy? If they get an opportunity they want to undermine it? In favor of themselves?

The democracy’s subversive formula is as follows:

One human being – one vote. This means that the low paid person’s voice is as much worth as the billionaire’s when they are voting.

However, in the market society it’s the billionaire who has the largest influence. But what happens if the billionaire uses his resources for buying votes?

Then the politics falls to pieces. The democracy is invaded by something for it alien to its nature: the power of money.

This is already the case in a country like Italy, where the media mogul Berlusconi is governing the politics with his money and his Medias.

We don’t have such a meltdown here yet. But the Moderate scandal in Stockholm has undeniably its idea political significances.

Another leader/editorial writer writes about the same scandal; that the electoral cheaters farthest in want to make the society entirely nonpolitical. It’s the “business concept” itself, that the representative democracy’s decision makers shall have as little influence over the society as possible.

It’s how the strict right has resonated ever since this country got universal suffrage.

And apropos the much honored individuality:

“Strange to say, we have gotten parties that are for an individuality that’s sticking out for their own personal sake, but now [in the politics] are promoting a vapid conformism [to gain votes].”

And are those who are preaching the individual (the neoliberals for instance) capable of treating individuals individually instead of lumping them together as for instance accusing people for being cheaters - all of them (in the welfare systems)?

Are they giving or have they given other people the same rights as they are demanding for themselves, and do they feel that they have the corresponding duties? Yes, you can wonder.

A Swedish blogger writes about an article about this affair with the heading saying something like “The confidence for the politics is becoming damaged.” The question is if t isn’t already substantially damaged, maybe because that this old type of party politics doesn’t work anymore.

Now with the European Union why shall one vote for politicians who don’t have so much to decide over because the real right to decisions lies somewhere else. But they can lift substantial fees and pensions. In some countries the members of the Parliament has juridical immunity – if such demands are coming to Sweden we really have to look up.

In the comments to the article some commentators try to come with the old waltz that the social democrats aren’t a bit better. As if cheating in one party apologizes cheating in another.

Over and under valuation of oneself and the effects of this – societal and individual recovery...

Eurovision song contest winner 2009, a music-piece three students and I performed for a Rotary-club on their lunch-meeting on Thursday. Struck me: how would the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch interpret those lyrics?

Fairytale

Years ago when I was younger
I kinda’ liked a girl I knew.
She was mine, and we were sweethearts,
That was then, but then it’s true

I’m in love with a fairytale
Even though it hurts.
‘Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind;
I’m already cursed

Every day we started fighting,
Every night we fell in love.
No one else could make me sadder,
But no one else could lift me high above

I don’t know what I was doing
But suddenly we fell apart.
Nowadays I cannot find her.
But when I do we’ll get a brand new start

I’m in love with a fairytale
Even though it hurts.
Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind;
I’m already cursed

She’s a fairytale
Yeah
Even though it hurts.
Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind;
I’m already cursed

[Slightly updated and edited during the day]. Some morning reflections... Loudly thinking, rambling...

Over and under valuation of oneself are two sides of the same coin? I came to think about this when I had written another blogposting on wages. On VERY HIGH and VERY LOW wages and the limited stimulating effect I think they have on those persons' achievements at work, about an blind faith (over belief) in the stimualting effect of wages and earning; when it comes to certain levels (in both ends) people don't make a better job (do we with more moderate earnings make less good jobs than those paid a hunderd times more).

Some have so limitless and bottomless needs because of early bad treatment and disrespect from their early caregivers (when it comes to a child's rightful and legitimate needs of deep respect for its feelings, its body, its boundaries, its integrity and good will and wish to love and become loved). And these losses can in some result in that they can never get enough of money, power etc. ( not getting those early needs filled is so painful for a child so it has to suppress its natural reaction to those things, and the later adult try to fill these needs in ways that harm themselves and other people, more the more power they have or get, so long as the person in question is in no or little contact with these things).

And other people who were treated badly early in their lives think they aren't worth a penny, not even worth a decent living maybe (they have to earn their whole living and right to exist in this world they can come to believe. And they can continue striving and struggling for this their whole life. If they should come to live on the street they would maybe think they don't deserve anything better).

The results of bad treatment are different in different people, probably depending on many different factors; on what sort of defense/s you (authomatically) used as a child, what role you were allotted by your caregivers etc. etc.

A child reflects the respect she or he got as a child. In respect or disrespect for her/himself and in her/his respect or disrespect for other people. I think. In if she/he thinks she/he is good enough as she/he is.

But a child doesn't chose defenses. Was it forced to adopt a certain role and thus certain defenses, attitudes?

And some people are stuck in denial and will never admit to what they have been through, and those persons are the most dangerous for other people? Those are the really dangerous people in this world?

And other people live in such conditions and circumstances so they are forced to do something, to process, or to founder. They have no other choice.

How do we see this in the society, what are the visble effects of this?

For instance that some never doubt that they have the rights to for instance their huge wages and an enormous power... And other people don't believe they deserve hardly anything. Are maybe even keeping silent of shame and don't raise their voices at all or ever.

We will probably never succeed in trying to enlighten the ones that never would doubt their rights.

Can we convince the ones under-valuating themselves either really? With this not said we shouldn't try!?

Can we continue calling state of affairs in the world in question? Both on a societal and a familial level (and a global)?AND point to the underlying factors, not least those earliest in life!??

And try to process our own experiences both as a child and as a later adult?

Probably an enormous struggle for many of us, and probably extremely painful. Many of us will probably only slightly touch upon the pain that our early caregivers' treatment and behavior caused.

Professionals ought to point at what maltreatment cause, and what maltreatment actually is! So we rather prevent it. Because it is so difficult to come to terms with later. Difficult, but possible with a lot of struggles. And some will only slightly recover. Some not at all, because they became so badly treated so they can't face the truth.

But it is as Miller says; if professionals should start doing this it would be to blame parents. And they are “afraid” of doing this, even because of personal reasons (standing up against their own parents and questioning what THEY did)? They are not only protecting parents in general, but not least their own parents? Or they are afraid of their own parents so they don't dare talking publicly about this, in a plain talk about those things.

They are so afraid for (the) punishment from their parents if they should dare to raise their voices, afraid even if those parents should happen to be dead and not actually capable of punishing them. Yes, we are all so afraid of our parents, to some degree!!?? Some very afraid and some not so much. But so many of us are that those topics are still so taboo to talk about!!!!???

But if people should start talking about those things much more openly in the society and stop denying those facts many people would recover from their abuse and wouldn't even need therapy. We aren't doomed. Even the most severely damaged have recovered. Even if we became harmed (and damaged) we CAN recover. But the best would be if we could prevent child abuse (of ALL kinds: physical, sexual, emotional) as much as possible. Because of all the efforts it takes to recover from it!!!!!!

Professionals ought to know this, they who are working with those (most) damaged poeople!!! And stop talking about that "each generation has to reclaim their own" (what? Life?).

Blaming the victim(s)…

Who has to pay (most) for the current gigantic economic crisis? The ones that caused it? And what (or who) caused it? How has it been through history, with people causing crisis and sometimes even catastrophes and the ones who have had to pay for them?

Thought on responsibility and guilt. On civil wars.

Are we directing the anger at the true or original sources? Or at other, (much more) innocent, who maybe had nothing to do with this crisis, people who have been working and taking responsibility for themselves maybe their whole lives?

Yes, each person has a responsibility for her/himself as single unit, citizen and human being, but, there’s a but…

In Owe Wikström’s last book “In defense of longing – or the melancholy in Finnish tango” he writes at pages 92-93 (referring to Albert Camus and what he has written about Sisyphus) that the human being has come into his world with the capacity (ability) to think and plan, to chose and take responsibility. Thrown into the existence and endowed with a freedom we hardly can carry – not to talk about the other side of this freedom: the responsibility and the guilt, we are standing there quite unable to act before the strange that nobody knows – and this is Camus’ point – nobody CAN know either about what this existence/life is about. Camus talks about trials running away from those ontological and moral questions – through leaning on scientific models, political ideologies or fixed belief systems.

The struggle not fleeing to the seemingly secure systems demands courage. This struggle remains the human being’s nobility mark. Why do we need those easy answers and quick fixes?

The last fifteen years (since we got a right government the first time on more than ten years), at least, we have spoken here in Sweden about “freedom under responsibility” (the power’s idea!?), for us employed for instance (and not least). And also about loyalty to the workplace and its ideas or programs. Hmmm, loyalty to what and what not??

When I was reading Wikström and thinking on other things at the same time my thoughts went this way:

Responsibility: for ourselves, but as a separate individual what’s reasonable doing? The ones taking on bigger tasks HAVE a greater responsibility and have more power (because they have more power through their position, have taken more power on them. And many people don’t want to have all those responsibilities following with a lot of power, because they can imagine how it would be, how this is. Maybe we don’t get the ones hat would be the best in leader and power roles, but this is another discussion?).

But the small human being can’t accordingly disclaim ALL responsibility! The small human being has still a responsibility, but one can’t put responsibility on her for conditions (structural for instance) she as a separate individual have no possibility (or maybe slightest power) to change. We “must” condemn the right thing or person.

We ought to direct the anger and fury at those who deserve it. As Miller says; if we direct the anger at scapegoats (and not the true sources for our anger) nothing will become dissolved (we won’t really recover).

The leader also needs to have the courage to condemn systems he/she can’t beat! Because even for the one with a lot of power there can be conditions he/she can’t master or cope with, because they are beyond his/her human capacities.

Unless we don’t live in a totalitarian regime we are never totally helpless (even if it can truly and genuinely feel like that) though. Saying like this can really become misused and become a source for moralizing… And yes, it can maybe be a little dangerous.

It’s important to put the blame right and where it belongs and the responsibility where it belongs actually. And it’s probably easier blaming certain people (people with less power and societal status)?

Once again: who have to pay for what other people have caused and done? If those who have to pay (and because of this suffer in different ways, economically for instance) at least were honored and confirmed!!!

Interview with the daughter of Camus.

Contempt for weakness…

Fyodor Dostoevsky.

The Swedish religion psychologist Owe Wikström has written a book about Sonia (from one of Dostoevsky’s books "Crime and Punishment") and goodness "Sonia's goodness: compassion in a self centered era".

Two seemingly entirely different sides of himself were activated after a difficult event in his life (his heart all of a sudden stopped when he was at a gym, when he was a couple of years over 60, but he survived).

On the one hand Wikström started to ponder over some traits in the last decades individualism and the society’s take-care-of-yourself-and-damn-about-other-people-mentality. And as the introvert book lover he also is he on the other hand pondered over the role books can play in our lives too. Thus he was moving between a societal and a humanistic level he writes.

First the society: as so many other people it seems to him as a slow cultural vicissitude has occurred. The talk about –or to use present time Swedish the ‘discours’ around – tenderness, “fellow humanity” and a self-sacrificing life, the responsibility for other people, has if not (entirely) disappeared but at least become toned down. It has become made invisible in a culture where personal moral stature has become a commodity in short supply.

The responsibility for the weak and the ones that cannot talk for themselves is largely taken no notice of.

At the same time a new ideal has grown up the stronger; the free individual, principally interested in his/her own success. The responsibility for the own, personal self-realization – to succeed and to be seen – lies at the centre. Things that can become interpreted as a sort of preposterous indication on individualism have created an enormous loneliness.

Slowly new codes have sneaked in, especially into the popular culture. They are self-evident and seldom called in question: “I first” and “Everything immediately”: in an unconstrained individualism and an urge to as quickly as possible experience as much as possible and become successful (and rich).

Words like “waiting”, ”long-rangedness”, “”wish”, “dream” or “lingering longing” are more and more rare as are the words “solidarity”, “faithfulness”, “loyalty”, “collective responsibility” or “helpfulness”.

The movement is plain: from collective to individual, from common values to the individual’s experiences, from community to loneliness. There is scepticism towards contributing to long-term societal constructions, a hesitation against politicians as well as ideological programmes. Maybe one is risking a democratic deficit when the individual is ignoring the common best.

In parallel with this there are, paradoxically, strong demands on the same society.

Popular spirituality as well as popular psychology is playing together with and very likely supporting those self-centered tendencies. My addition: But what lies at the bottom of these traits (and why are they so common, see Miller and child abuse)? And is there a sound journey into oneself too? But if you get stuck in this work, why are you? I am quite critical to many therapy-concepts...

There are too many with complete prescriptions. And there is an increasing self-centeredness.

Of course it is highly dangerous to put the responsibility for injustices on the narrow shoulders of individual people. That is to impose guilt and to moralize on wrong premises.

In this mass medial and commercial culture, so devastatingly one-sided, the focus is put on the individual’s responsibility for her/himself and her/his success (and failure, you have only yourself to blame). The unsuccessful and weak are made invisible, they land in medial shade. Of course tsunamis, earthquakes and such things are reported and written about, but ordinary sad, lonely and abandoned fellow creatures, where do we see them in those glazed magazines or in the evening press’ supplements? Instead the ones we are seeing are the ones with white rows of teeth, broad smiles, slim bodies, happily smiling people. Offered to people whom are broken with stress.

At the same time Wikström is wondering: is this a matter of class? Who can afford this continuous roaring of constant luxury? And when the whole lot is brought forward as something so easy to reach – ten points how to succeed – of course the guilt and shame is increasing for those whom the exhortation “You can if you only want” becomes a scorn. Hidden behind this myth about success there is the thought that it is the individual’s own fault if she/he is unhappy or fail My addition: and this is hardly empathic or compassionate, rather contempt for weakness, and some just don’t see those “failures”?? They are often made invisible? And surrounded with the Wall of Silence? If you don't see or notice them they don't exists!? And many keep quiet of shame (are kept quiet of shame!), and as a result don't call state of affairs in question (and this lies in many power peoples' interests!?).

Peoples’ needs on simple diagnosis's with adhering quick fixes seem to be endless.

Addition after lunch: Description of the book: The present times is showering catchwords upon us, such as ”You can become successful,” “You have to fulfil yourself!”, “You have only one life, allow yourself magnificent experiences”, “Think positively!”.

But we all know, innermost, that the existence is unpredictable. How much one even tries one can’t really govern ones life. We are, without being especially aware of it, constantly dependent on other peoples’ cares.

In the book “Sonia’s goodness” Owe Wikström is asking himself where compassion, care and talks about the good actions have gone. Has unselfishness become outdated? What happens with a society where individualism and experience-baiting is at the centre? Is it out of date talking about the individual’s personal responsibility for other people than only for him/herself? Is the self centeredness strengthened or reinforced by the popular psychology’s –believe-in-yourself-message and experience oriented spirituality?

Coming from a dramatic personal experience the author discusses how it is being the object for other peoples’ care, handed out in the weaker person’s position.

When the existence is the most fragile he recalls Sonia, the good woman in Dostoevsky’s novel “Crime and Punishment”. She becomes the symbol for what’s good in man. At the same time she gives us an idea about the type of model that earlier was seen as self-evident.

That it is a literary character that in this way evokes thoughts about the tenderness’ meaning and in turn leads to a discussion about the existential meaning and roles as against-powers. Questions on responsibility and goodness are discussed from different authorships, foremost Dostoevky’s, but also Torgny Lindgren (a Swedish author) and J. M. Coetze.

Struck me on a nice walk with sun and a blue sky over snow in the morning about having access to books, either (as in my case) having money so you can buy all the books you want (I want to because I write and underline in my books, and want to reread them) or through libraries accessible for all people, independent of their incomes. You can get other views of the world than the one with less or no access to books (from the whole world, describing other cultures, lives etc.).

Addition: I personally haven't read "Crime and punishment".

To be continued with more blogpostings…

Can Self – But Need to Have Other People…

”…the needs of realizing the individual’s responsibility for her/his own situation and her/his relation.”

Sounds quite moralizing…

I read a blogposting which made me smile and my eyes glitter, the quotations in the beginning comes from that posting. Written by a female Swedish blogger Jenny W. (whose postings I have written about earlier). She is so angry, sarcastic, and ironic or how I shall express it. Rebellious? Questioning? So refreshingly! She points to contradictions in the society I think…

Her posting has the title “Can Self – But Need to Have Others…”

She writes apropos texts, written by two female writers, Anne Heberlein and Isobel Hadley Kapmtz, on the question of personal responsibility, which she on the one hand thinks has a “fresh strike” and on the other are at risk of simplifying all that is difficult… From a bitter complaining to the dashing cheering on oneself and others, the two poles or opposites. Yes, it was this with the “positive thinking”!! Which awakes applauses everywhere. The clever girl (boy)!!

She writes that she should want to embroider things about the importance of understanding the weight and meaning of “institutions” (in this case the institution which the family is, and preferably the nuclear, with mum, dad and children. One shall not live alone or two men/women together. And definitely NOT two people of the same sex WITH children. And two grown ups of different gender without children are suspicious too for many. But she also reflects over other sorts of “institutions”, but this posting is mainly about the family though).

An understanding of the weight of institutions she thinks is entirely absent in both the texts, and also in a remarkable way in the Swedish understanding generally. If I interpret her right she thinks (with my words) that we speak quite moralizing about that we are slaves under psychic ill health (exhaustions, burnout etc.) and sex-addictions!!

But she wonders (quite ironically in my interpretation) why we don’t question phenomena like when we hear people saying they want to get married ”to have a really fun party”??

“But no! Fuck all that ridiculous talk about such things. It’s bullshit that one can believe in a thousand year old and more tradition and doing a nice party of it, while one miraculously are spared from all depressive cultural duties.”

Quietly: No, that sort of superficiality we hardly question!

She thinks that the weight of these long traditions (the deep cultural representations as she describes or expresses them) we live in and have around us has to become problematized at the same time as we discuss personal responsibility. Messages many people probably feel the weight of, and at least need to get relieved from to some extent. She thinks that if one doesn’t have any feeling for this weight one is more tone-deaf than would be acceptable… Yes, this is very, very insensitive. What’s the problem if nobody is harmed??

A pretty dangerous quality (this insensitivity) in other circumstances she thinks.

She wonders upon the vehement, furious trend of family-living which rolls over the world, as she writes.

“Yes, why is it so damn popular managing things on ones own at the same time as we obviously need to have people tightly around us – i.e. [having] the family [around us].”

She writes about the talk, in the debate about the own success managing or making things, and the question of the family as a poof of “how simple it is in fact”! But in it she can at least discern (skönja) a climate which doesn’t further (or promote) women’s will and possibilities talking about their troubles in their relations (and men also loose on this!! As their children; not least seen to what sort of models those parents and their marriages and all other relations and ideas they have are. But also to live in such families. The hypocrisy I grew up with too, maybe a bit different, but in many ways still there. Yes, it is this with painting things rosy, not talking openly about how things in fact are and how we maybe can change and handle them better and more constructively without harming anyone. No matter what gender. Just talking more openly about them would mean a lot).

She also mentions all life-style magazines and fitting-up-stuff (all make over programs of different sorts. See Thomas Johansson here in Sweden for instance and his ”Make over mania”! See earlier posting "The Pursuit of Harmony...") and wonders how many she has to mention and point to to prove what she is trying to say.

Things are described or brought forward as measures worth striving for (living in a certain way and after certain patterns, not outspoken “rules,” and here it is a backlash again, my comment) while they at the same time are institutions which have been created during millennia for the continued existence of the society – and that continued existence has not leant on an overwhelming interest for the women’s need, have they, however? But of course, pairing and making children gives one something, especially as the human species is a flock-animal. And life isn’t in first hand about lots of injury-minimizing measures, but one has to be allowed to try even if the odds are low, so to speak, as she writes. You must be allowed to fail she means. Without getting judged, rejected or moralized over, yes.

“But jeeez, how many men there are walking around I wouldn’t want to share responsibility or every day life with, however.

Then we come to another aspect I would want to write about too: the tendency that all those debates are starting to be about glorifying oneself and not least the finest we have here in the equal Sweden: our equal men.”

In a book (grounded on a dissertation??) they established that one of the biggest threats to the freedom and peace of women seem to be the normative notion in women themselves that equal lives are finer and better then unequal.

And she writes:

“At the same time it’s always you yourself who has to live your life [in some way or another, and try to manage it the best one is capable!!] and that one has to dare being bothersome, hard as stone and hard-working to reach ones goals, if it’s what’s demanded. Here is a whole Swedish culture one has to do something about. Anyhow, I haven’t got more time. The society and my duties are calling. My family, or the group [son and ‘husband’] as I use to call it, is in another town doing other things. For them, for me and for the country and the world: now I have to work.”

In a PS. she writes about the admirable in divorcing. Her apprehension is that the one divorcing is a truly successful person seen from a self-realizing point of view. Because it is very heavy things we are playing with when one gets married. Getting divorced is therefore damn hard core.

Yes, I think this Jenny doesn’t want to moralize over people’s struggles and troubles… On the contrary…