Not loved…

I am going to visit this place, Dalhalla, this evening.

Madeleine Åsbrink in her bok "Starting Anew" at page 18:

“I was frightened to death being unloved, despised and rejected by all people, afraid of becoming totally alone.”

So she had, all her life, tried to adapt and to earn love? Being the clever, managing, and achieving. Was the eldest of three siblings?

She had to learn to say “no”. The response from her environment ranged from a clear lack of approval to acceptation of her and her boundaries. When others responded with sour looks or icing silence she at first started to question herself. She thought it was maybe wrong of her to say no and show what she stood for (did she actually know what she stood for?).

She started to choose what people she wanted to have around her in her life, who liked her for the one she was and is, and for the one she wanted to be.

This quickly led her further to a big and complicated territory for her, namely relations. Who was she in her relations? She discovered that she was the big, strong, driving, initiative-taking, responsible-taking – an one who gave.

She longed for something else, and started the journey towards mutual, reciprocal, warm and near relations. Many of her old relations disappeared during this journey, while others became deepened and new people came into her life too.

The relation with her husband came to a crisis of course. But he had started a parallel journey, and they worked things out with a lot of struggles and efforts, because she had feelings for him still. During this journey the responsibility has been put on the right places she thinks, each one of them take responsibility for their own words, actions, feelings and needs. The trust and relation had to be rebuilt again.

They have both realized that a near relation doesn’t come of itself, but is borne in a conscious work and daily efforts. Both must want to and contribute to hundred percent for a relation to blossom.

She sees herself around and thinks there aren’t many models, but in most cases it is one who wants more than the other in a relation. This makes nearness impossible, a nearness we all are longing for, but as many of us are unconsciously afraid of. Due to early experiences…

Actually Åsbrink writes about her early experiences and in the literature list Alice Miller’s “The Drama” is mentioned.

More on communication, dialog, individualism…

[May 23: the language slightly changed. I hope to the better a little]. Written in a hurry: In a leader-chronicle with the heading ”Human fellow being rather than supporter on distance” the leader-writer and priest Helle Klein reflects upon communication, active talk, dialog, being human fellow being… She writes about building bridges between the author and her/his reader. A Swedish author Stig Dagerman thought that literature should be an active talk. Involving the reader in a way of being or doing to life.

She also referred to the author Sonja Åkesson whose communicative credo was that the author must be a human fellow being. Also see here about her.

It stood about solidarity and understanding, that we are alike towards life.

If one should judge from the current debates on literature here art seems to become more and more like monologues rather than being carried by a will to a meeting with The Other Klein writes. The human being of today is either a distanced viewer of other people’s misery or totally blinded by what we call “navelskådande” (sitting watching ones navel, see about hesychasm). “Me” stands in front of “You” and the talk ceases.

She then draws parallels to the political world, to politics. We are daily reminded about this distanced “we and them” thinking in the talk about outside-ship, insurance-cheating and integration. The old popular movements are crackling. You are rather supporter than member in political parties today. The members are no longer team-players but rather a claque of supporters. The political pros manage the societal work. We others are viewers watching. As supporters we maybe get season-cards and MAYBE an autograph by the team-leader or favourite-player. But that we should have viewpoints on the play. No, that would be impossible. We can of course scream till we are hoarse (husky) in the galleries (bleachers).

Even our social democrat language (here) has lost the sense that solidarity sprouts in mutuality.

How would it be if the strategists invited to a realization of the vision about a social and democratic society?

Is it time for the campaign: the politician as human fellow being? How realistic?

And today there is a leader in a local newspaper here about the biggest party to the right, the Moderate party, saying that this party isn’t democratic either (something we don’t really expect however).

The leaders have turned more and more authoritarian again, it looks (feels) as they are thinking they are doing what they are doing for "our own good"? As if they think they know best what our best is (talk about having high thoughts about themselves). Authoritarian – you don’t have to listen, you can sail above people arrogantly.

And at last; I found "A disobedient child is worthy of death"! There it stands in the beginning:

“FIRST BIBLE LESSON: MATTHEW 19:19

‘HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER: and, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.’

SECOND BIBLE LESSON: LUKE 2:51

‘And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.’

GOLDEN TEXT: MATTHEW 15:4

‘For God commanded, saying, HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER: and, HE THAT CURSETH FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM DIE THE DEATH.'"

Many still live after this?

What sort of models do we have? Why have we voted for those (lousy, yes, I think they are :-)) politicians?