What’s the opposite to love?

the complex picture.

[Updated September 26]. A Swedish journalist writes in the review "What's the oppostite to love?" about a book with the title “Our Era’s Fear for Seriousness” that came 1995. In this book of thoughts the author tilted at a spirit of the time refusing to set about the large questions of society and life. To express it simpler: people (or the society in all) refused to discuss any deeper issues the author thought.

And this is still valid, and has become even worse the author thinks as you can read below. And some are wondering where all the intellectual are in debates. Why they are so silent and not reacting. They are only talking and writing about what's opportune?

But talking seriously doesn’t exclude laughter the reviewer thinks. On the contrary, these two parts have to go together. Roy Andersson, the author of the book in the review, wrote his thoughts down in a decade lined with a long neoliberal era and a gigantic retreat to the idea that "alone is strong."

And once again see what Owe Wikström writes about the individualism and the negative effects of individualism. The idea about alone is strong is that a defense mechanism, namely denial of needs, a denial that gives you a false sense of power - and strenght. Which doesn't mean that we don't have (can't have) a natural, genuine strenght.

We were in a deep economical crisis. The gulfs between the classes had started to grow again. The belief in the future was gone with the wind. The humanism was on retreat. The humor that ruled was above all the ironists, the ones making fun of seriousness and engagement. See what Alice Miller writes about irony.

There was an increased contempt for moral values, a contempt that was attacking the fundamental or basic content of the notion solidarity – to see yourself in other people. My addition: but at the same time there exists a new morality. People joked over the notion solidarity, over people who believed in solidarity and were trying to uphold such ideals, people who believed in seeing yourself in other people. How many damaged people do we actually have I can't help wondering, who have to make fun of people who try to be empathic and compassionate? What does this phenomenon say? I have my ideas.

What’s concealed in the wake of this if not a slowly growing belief in the übermensch-ideal (a super-human-being ideal) once again, which means a contempt for weakness. People blowing their trumpets: I can indeed! But this is problematic, because there are also people hiding their light under a bushel. And that's the other side of the coin. The lack of people with a sound selfesteem?

Back to the reviewer again: a contempt for weakness that once upon the time formed the breeding ground for racial biology, Nazism, concentration camps and gas chambers. There are new self-appointed master races in both Sweden and Europe today the reviewer thinks (and yes, that’s actually true, but they look differently than older times’? And see what the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius writes about narcissism).

Now a new edition of this book comes, and Andersson establishes with distress that the content in his book still is valid. No, the development has changed even more to the worse.

The simple black-and-white conception of the world begins to see its chances again.

In those musty mud puddles the extreme right is growing once again.

Profiting on a powerlessness and frustration among many of the exposed people – not least among young unemployed men.

But it’s not the patriots' hate that frightens the reviewer most, but the widespread drowsy indifference in the broad middle class. He thinks that Elie Wiesel is right when he says that

“The opposite of love isn’t hate. The opposite of love is indifference.”

Yes, it was this with the back leaning indifference.

Neoliberal dreams are crashing…

A Swedish blogger writes in a blogposting about ”The [neo]liberals Dreams are Crashing, One After the Other” that she thinks [neo]liberalism is a preliminary stage to fascism. What she has been thinking on then is that with the inequality concerning living conditions that automatically follows from such a competition and let-go-politics that is practiced now and as the [neo]liberals are cherishing, people will soon vote for pure fascists.

Or the liberals themselves will go more and more in that direction to get voters from neofascists. And it’s exactly this we see many examples of already, above all concerning the hardened attitude against immigrants.

However, now we see yet another road away from a democratic disposition to a fascistic, as the economic let-go-economy can take too. The more you cut the taxes, privatize and try to create what you assert is freedom and freedom of choice, the worse and less free things become for more and more people, while the elite is drawing away from all other people.

The result will inevitably become more criminality and more corruption in the society. In that situation the state’s countermove will become to introduce more control, more control of most things.

The leader for the Liberal Party in Sweden, Jan Björklund, has been forced to confess that the free schools haven’t been functioning as the liberals thought when they initiated those almost twenty years ago. He doesn’t care especially much if some get much worse education than others or what the segregation in and between the schools is carrying with it.

But on the other hand he doesn’t think it’s good that schools are competing about students with giving them better and better grades/marks (something many was warning for when the free school system became introduced), as seem to have been the case. So now a new control system has to become created!

Comment: and what do those control system cost? And do they lead to a greater and greater freedom quite ironically? And we have also got much more moralizing towards certain groups (from people getting on their high horses).

Citizens have become more and more efficiently controlled.

“We have to protect ourselves against terrorism”

one say, but what one actually mean is to protect the rich establishment from the “social unrest” one is anxious about and that is produced because of living segregation, unemployment, worse school-education etc. etc.

Even though more control hasn’t been a very important question for the liberals you are maybe forced to introduce more control in one privatized area after the other (Addition August 21: and the strange thing is that Swedish liberals are against control!!! Contradicting - and confusing! Do they know what they are talking about? And what is freedom actually? Note: Swedish and American liberals aren't really the same!?).

The march into fascism continues she thinks.

“Safeguard the rich’s freedom, control and toe the line for the rest.”

A commentator to this posting writes that in the liberal utopia nothing is under democratic control, the only control that is left is the capitalistic. As liberalism reduces the part of the society that’s under democratic control, the liberalism is always approaching fascism.

He thinks the capitalism is organized top-down; i.e. a total control of the society. Because the institutions that used to be democratically organized aren’t democratically organized anymore.

He thinks grades or marks only are keeping the middleclass under its arms, so he propagate for no grades or marks.

He also writes about “a simpler and more secure life.” That the biological reason why we get together in groups/societies is twofold; reproduction and security. Those are the evolutionary advantages the society gives. A society that doesn’t create security for its citizens has no raison d’ètre, because it doesn’t fulfill the basic demand on a society.

All other values a society can convey are meaningless for the organism; they are most often just metaphysic constructions.

But security can become connected with metaphysic constructions as freedom. Because if you aren’t secure you aren’t free either, and then you suffer under the fear’s and anxiety’s coercion. Therefore it’s only a seeming freedom the liberals are aiming at, but instead they get a society where all are imprisoned by fear and anxiety for the future, poor as well as rich.

Why don't neoliberals love public health?

[Updated in the text July 27].

“... I think this is an important question at issue!”

the former director-general for the Swedish National Institute of Public Health Gunnar Ågren writes in the last blogposting from his time at the National Institute of Public Health.

He thinks the first cut-off point is about whether you shall look upon health as a human right or as a commodity. If you see health as a human right this also implies an obligation to see so all get this right through common measures.

Unfortunately it becomes more and more common with a market-thinking around health where we buy more or less qualified achievements to improve our health in the same way as we, depending on income, can choose to buy shoes or shirts of different qualities and prize-levels.

The second cut-off point is about the view on the market and its ability to solve basic distribution problems and thus health problems too.

This is not a new discussion. Already in the childhood of industrialism dogmatic market advocates were inconsistent with prohibitions against child workers, industrial welfare (safety) and sanitary reforms because this would disturb the supply of labor.

Luckily there were sensible politicians, often influenced by a pressure from below, realizing that protecting laws and a better hygiene in fact was something that promoted both social and economic development.

Unfortunately the blind faith in market forces has come back in today's more globalized world, even though it has gotten a certain blow the last weeks (the financial crisis).

The National Institute of Public Health (in Sweden) is seen as a trade barrier or disturbing element in the market Ågren says.

Reform politics [today] is sometimes synonymous with lifting welfare and protection legislation away.

There is a blind faith in that (parts of) the market wealth shall trickle down on the poor and sick too.

As has become clear for instance by data presented in the Marmot Commission report there is no indication that this theory is right.

On the contrary the evidences for the opposite connection is valid.

Basic welfare, a good education system, basal health care and a good public health means that more people can work, leads to that the productivity increases and the international competitiveness increases.

The third and last cut-off point is about the individual contra the society and the state. A row of health risks lies beyond the individual's control and possibility to take responsibility for. Air pollution, poverty and income inequality are only a few examples on health risks lying beyond the individual's control.

The Institute of Public Health has been seen as something implying guardianship from authorities and something that deprives people from their possibilities taking responsibility for their own life and health.

My comment: But – this institute has never forced any individual to anything?? Maybe forced public authorities? Just come with advices to individuals to which they can take whatever attitude they want?

Ågren continues: Of course the ones representing the public health interest have nothing against that people are taking responsibility, on the contrary, this is praiseworthy (fantastic and something great) but there are limitations in possibilities for taking responsibility for the health.

My comment: Yes, there are things lying beyond individuals' possibilities, but there are also a lot of things we CAN do!!! Something I think Ågren agrees to too. As the Institute does.

And I also wonder, why are some people paralyzed in these respect? And why are some don't caring and taking all sorts of risks, even enormous, challenging risks? However I have my ideas about this.

What can we do about this? What shall we do about this? Shall we do something about this?

I don't think any of those attitudes are irreversible though. We aren't born in this way. We CAN recover from this (but sometimes with a lot of hard work and struggles - and pain). But the best would be if we could prevent them in the first place, by treating our kids with greatest respect! Listen to them and meet them respectfully.

In reality the break through for democracy in Sweden largely was about that representatives for non-governmental movements conquered seats in parliamentary congregations on local, regional and national levels and forced through social protection legislation, a restrictive alcohol policy, ban on child labor, basic industrial safety – mostly in opposition to those in power who used to refer to the individual's freedom because they in their privileged position didn't have any greater needs for protection laws.

How well said! How many with money and power in this world havent' been interested in NOT loosing their power position, even though they retorically speak about freedom? What would actual freedom be? Freedom of choice etc. be?

Ågren thinks that this antagonism still holds.

Just as well as there shall be individual freedom there shall also be rights to create a loyal society with the democracy as tool where people don't have to become exposed to unnecessary health risks and where all have the same rights to best possible health.

There is still a lot to do. Our era's great health risk is the unequal distribution of power, nature resources, access to health care, education, money and influence/ascendency, something we see globally AND in our own country and that deprive many human beings from many healthy years that could be used to pet cats, see grandchildren, read good books, grow roses or why not fight for social justice.

Yes, can all people do this in this world? Do all people have those choices? Does it always have with their lack of responsible taking to do? Or with things beyond the possibilities that are presented for them in the society where they live? Can all people do this in our own western societies ether? Who can and who can not, and why?

Ågren retired last fall and here is his farewell speech (in Swedish).

And here a blogposting by Ågren on "The Globalization Board – a neoliberal think tank.” About the Globalization Board.

Also read the article "Equality of What?" by the British researchers Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett and Paul Krugman in "Why markets can't cure healt Care."

Putting the student in the center...

just got this cartoon from a friend, click to make it larger.

Quite tiredly, thinking loudly: Something that has been spoken about for the last fifteen years here is “To put the student in the center.” At the same time we teachers shall compete in ways we didn't earlier (or have I forgotten how it actually was earlier, am I idealizing earlier times? But this doesn't mean I want old times back either, because it was probably other things then I don't want back now).

Fifteen years ago individual salary was introduced here too. And there are probably other similar things that was introduced then...

We are played out against each other. And many were skeptical to this and still are, thought many would become ass-kissers.

I thought the idea behind this was quite insolent too; as if we hadn't done a good job earlier and put a lot of efforts on doing a good job!

How many teachers try to prove how great they are through their students (even more than before)?

These wonders make me think further: to prove they/we are worth, love for instance? The (unconditional) love we didn't get as kids?

To prove our worth through students, in a similar manner as parents use their kids as outer signboards? Fulfilling the parents needs...

So are the students put in the center or are things done for their best?? Yes, for whose best are things actually done?

Has it become more fun working than it was before?

No, I would say.

Team work is a new model too. But do we work better together today than we did? For a good cause?

When I returned from the last vacation I also thought that

“'The state' isn't that actually WE, all people? We together? All human beings living in a country (or society)!? Not the politicians or power people, definitely not more than all we other people!? We are all entitled to raise our voices and call things in question!? And maybe we ought to do this too?”

Politicians, power people, governments aren't more than we grassroots are actually in this respect? They have only gotten our authorization, and nothing more. And actually, they ought to know this and be aware of this!?

Even in today's world we need to cooperate! We are dependent on each other, in similar, the same or different ways as earlier times' people. We are both strong and fragile, no matter if we are rich or poor.

See earlier postings on unequal societies and the connections to the health (not only among the poor, but also among the rich).

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?