Identification with power and contempt for weakness...

The first Pippi (picture taken from here).

Something caught my attention, and got stuck, in a blogposting about the professor in philosophy Harald Ofstad, six core components on Nazism he had identified were described. And the second one was (in my amateur translation):

"Identification with power and contempt for weakness”!!!

And I came to think on what Sunder Katwala wrote in “When is inequality unfair?” the other day:

“Just over a fifth of people take a 'traditional egalitarian' and primarily needs-based view of inequality, which is sceptical about the claims of the rich and supportive of the claims of the poor.

A similar proportion support a traditional free market pro-inequality argument that both the better-off and the poor have broadly got what they deserve. So redistribution is rejected as unfairly taking from the deserving (rich) to the undeserving (poor).”

Which means that those latter (not the former??) are supporting that demands are made on the poor – but not on the rich!!! Something I have been confronted with! And haven't understood. I was just taken aback with astonishment and became totally speechless.

Shouldn't we AT LEAST make the same demands on both, and/or ALL??? And Pippi Longstocking said something in the style:

“If you are very strong you have to be very kind.”

Anna Luise Kirkengen (among many) are talking about power imbalance and what sort of responsibility that comes for the one with more power.

And I also wonder where do such attitudes come from where you associate with the strong, powerful on behalf of the weak, powerless? However, I have my thoughts about this...

Also see this comment to Paul Krugman's posting "Kings of Pain."

Another commentator writes:

"This is part of a general pernicious belief that can be summarized as 'no pain, no gain' - that we are where we are because we are degenerate and we need to toughen up. The idea that we can work together to get gain with no pain, or even pleasure, does not compute for these people. Of course, these people are only suggesting sacrifice for others."

Demands and expectations…

…on different people. Are they the same?

Some Swedish voices on current "affairs" here:

”However, the highest up in trade and business get through the criticism gallantly because they have no moral capital to lose.”

“The moral laws in this world look like this: the ones fighting for equality always have to carry a much bigger responsibility than the ones fighting against it [right wing people get through the criticism while left wing don’t. And it’s like this it looks all over the world: you have higher demands on the ones that are supposed to be nice and think on other people. Or rather, lower or no demands on those that aren’t supposed to care about anybody else, or how you express this!?].”

“The very most of the power that is exercised in a society is produced through the economical owner conditions as we know.”

But in this world you put higher demands on those with less power and resources. And it seems to be the same all over the world (the power uses dividing and ruling as a method). Struck me on a bike ride that the Norwegian General Practitioner Anna-Luise Kirkengen talks and writes about power imbalance and what this means. With a few words this means that the one with more power has more responsibility. This doesn't mean though that the one with less power can do whatever he or she wants to the on with more power.

The more money and property you have the more power you have. Pippi Longstocking said something in the style:

“The stronger you are [the more power you have] the kinder you have to be.”

Those who have most money, property, things are they the kindest, nicest, most caring? How have they gotten their money, property, things? With what means?

The Swede Ingvar Kamprad for instance were not there for his kids I think. But he had a wife taking care of them and the home. And she stayed there for him too…

How many men of all the men in this world would back up a woman in that or a similar way? How many women haven’t had to choose between a possible career and a family?

What do we live on this earth for? What and how much should we have to sacrifice?

Addition in the evening: See earlier posting “What sort of self image – and self-esteem? On bonus and compensation scandals…”

It’s more okay when some people are bullies. Then we don't even see it many times?

Morning wonders…

What are the politicians, for instance the school politicians, playing out? They are convinced that what they are doing is “for our own good”?

I don’t know if I am mirroring a father (my own?) and his attitude: the ones in power thinks that what’s done in school shall be (so) “useful.”

But what do we actually have use of later in life?

What are we learning in school? About ourselves and the world and other people? What are we taught in school about not only school-things but also about those things (ourselves, the society, world, the life, living, being alive and similar things), or - not least about those things?

How are our school politicians brought up? What’s coloring their views? Yes, once again, the most psychologically defended tend to lead?

How do they use their power? A power they “need”? Why do they need it? What sort of need for power is sound, healthy? Are all needs for power unhealthy, unsound?

Are they abusing it, by forwarding suppressed things on the rising generation (when it comes to for instance school, an issue I have been blogging about recently, triggered by the last Pedagogical Magazine I got and things I have read and feel and react at)?

Are they begrudging young people to stay alive (or to recover from being emotionally killed), to develop all their human potentials? I suspect they don’t, because they were robbed from this early in life, and they deny this fact. Which is sad (even tragic) for them, but is, mildly said/expressed, problematic in the power positions they have gotten now.

And another question is why do people elect such politicians? I think it’s because so many people in the world have the same experiences!? And then they applaud all sorts of harder grips, think discipline is needed etc.

Or is it a question of money? (Being without anything else to blame!!?) There are limited amounts of money in the society/world for for instance the school? But is that the truth actually? Quite ironically.

And there are limited amounts of money for a lot of other things?? Are there?

Neoliberalism is another religion, teaching, with its gurus!!?? Is it better than other teachings, religions? What has it caused? Has it made the world better?

Solidarity – to oneself, to other people, to the world, nature…

I baked Lucy cats yesterday.

[Slightly edited in the evening and updated December 3]. One of my bosses said on a meeting recently that he had read (or heard about) an investigation about people born in the nineties showing that those people are much more individualistic than any other generation. He didn't describe it as this individualism was something positive in my ears and feelings. My interpretation was that they are selfish and don't really care about other people. But has grown people always thought like this about the younger generations (with a self-ironic smile and a deep sigh).

These young people have a greater propensity for immediate satisfaction of their needs he said I think. They put themselves in the first place/room… If I remember right. They are (only) loyal to themselves.

Sidetrack: I also reacted at colleagues I got in the beginning of the nineties (colleagues coming directly from their education), colleagues who were born in the sixties (as our minister of education, whose ideas I don't like at all), they were so strict and authoritarian towards our students, sounded so totalitarian in their judgments! Yes, they sounded like this at least, it's maybe possible that they weren't really like this in practical work, I don't know.

I reacted at what my boss said, as if we just have to accept that young people are like this... And I also raised my voice on this meeting. Have thought further on this a little, among a lot of other things I have in my mind.

Does the one have to exclude the other? Can’t you be loyal both to yourself and to the community (so long as the community is really worth this of course)? Does the individual exclude the collective or vice versa? Can’t, and shouldn’t, the collective treat or meet, each individual with real, genuine, deep respect? And can't an individual feel loyalty towards a group, a community? So long as it is worth it, yes!?

Are those two opposites? Do they have to be? And if they are, why are they?

I try to imagine; if we managed to meet the child with true, genuine respect from the first beginning, in the first place, respect for its feelings, needs, reactions, expressions etc. wouldn’t that individual be capable of showing true, genuine respect to what is worth her or his respect? And make that person more capable of constructively dealing with difficult people, conditions etc.

I also came to think of John Cleese and one of the books he wrote with his therapist Robin Skinner, about leaders, more and less healthy ones. For instance what they had to say about Hitler and Stalin. I searched the book in my book cases and read quickly that they mean that Hitler belonged to the right-extremists and Stalin to the left-extremists briefly said!?

But I think I have to reread what they wrote better before I write more about it…

And I also came to think about shame again of some reason, as a raising method, even used (by people in the power) to steer adult people into things they otherwise wouldn't have agreed to or would have strongly protested against... Would it be possible steering people with shame if they had become better treated (truly respectfully treated) earliest in life?

The young people growing up during the former decade (the nineties), grew up during a time when the grown up world had less time for them; parents more occupied than ever, and there were less grown up people in school, because of the steel bath in the economy then...

There’s a lot at work now too… This was really quickly written...

Some quick reflections December 3: we have been told (encouraged) the last more then ten years at work to say what we think. Told not to talk in the corridors. But do people really - and if not why? Have they started doing this more? Or maybe even less? And the ones that are speaking up - how are they seen and/or met? Are they maybe exploding over states of affairs? And sensitive to not outspoken things? Is it a little "you shall but you shall not"? Which is one of the Master Suppression Techniques?

Organizations…

Some loud thinking: We had some meetings yesterday at work (as we use to have every Tuesday)… I thought further on them. We have bosses, but they aren’t really leading our workplace. Of course our goal is to teach young people playing instruments, play in ensembles/orchestras, sing in choirs etc. So what’s the problem?

Some of us probably think this is no problem: it’s quite plain and clear what we are going to do. But how are we doing it, and why are we doing this? What do we want to achieve or create? What view do we have on what we do? Is it obvious we have the same views? Is this no problem for the activities?

It’s a risk we are working in all different directions, with more or less different goals. This can cause different things… Can cause what we call “gravel in the machinery”! Problems of different kinds and degrees, probably problems we don’t understand. Because we are so sure everybody have the same view and almost the same ambitions as I do. We don’t understand that we actually have different views on what we are doing, where we are going or striving, because we have never spoken about it.

And we as employed are only going to do as we are told, we don’t need to understand why we are going to for instance fill in questionnaires, why we are going to have to have checking-against-talks all of the sudden with out bosses, when we already have developmental-talks and wage-talks.

People don’t dare to ask loudly and some probably don’t care either. Some manage to just plainly “go their own way”!

However, is this respectful to us, that things aren’t explained more, we jus have to accept things coming from above, just swallow it? As we aren’t thinking and reflecting creatures! We are like a flock of sheep!!! Grazing around!

My strong reactions on this probably have explanations in my early experiences!!! I can imagine what experiences. Biggest sister among a lot of siblings. A role I continue to play easily… I am not sure I know all the details though… But my reactions you can only dismiss with reference to possible early experiences? They are nothing to take seriously?

And on top, what model is this in our contacts and work with out students? I believe in information, in telling the students what is planned and why things are as they are, if needed I try to answer why I/we do as we do…

And I think we ought to become treated in the same way, as thinking, reflecting, living human beings, i.e. who are feeling and sensing things.

Is this about really cooperating?

Working with people can be really “complicated”… And I don’t say this is easy to achieve. But maybe not THAT difficult.

And people with problems with boundaries can have immense problems in unclear structures. And many of those land in exhaustions. More today than ever. But they are rather blamed than helped or understood. Told “You have to set limits!!!”

Hmmmm, is it because they weren’t limited when they were children? Somebody should have limited them? Why? Because it was something in their character that needed this? Something they ought to be ashamed of – and hide in many cases???

An efficient way of silencing them!!?? By blaming them, and making them ashamed. They shall not question the structures?? For instance. And - think positively.

The better tings are anchored (as we say) the more smoothly the work goes!??? And we can use our energy much, much better?? Make an even better job and become less tired (some of us at least)...

I read an article about depression (in MåBra 2008/12), where it stood something in the style that education can be good on many levels, in the sense that studies makes you capable of seeking information and solve problems, something you can have a great help of in trying situations. Studies gives you a better self confidence and more social contacts they meant in this article.

But of course you can wonder what the hen or the egg is?? What came first...

Yes, I have read a lot about those things during a period, because I reacted so strongly at the stupidity around me!

Yes, this is true:

"Organizations take on characteristics of the people running them./.../ There's always pressure within groups to conform, anyway. The top monkey exerts the most pressure."

And I think Alice Miller is right when she says:

"She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue." (Alice Miller in my amateur translation from Swedish).

The power elite…

Another Swedish voice:

It struck me after watching a TV-programme about the financial crisis, that when one says that one has learned something from the crisis after 1929, one means in first hand that one now has rescued the economical elite.

After the crash 1929 the politicians tried to apply a liberal economic policy, not saving any banks but letting them go bankrupt, cutting taxes and saving on public expenses. This was the method then.

This caused a super depression. Instead one started to apply Keynes ideas and in USA the New Deal was introduced which was about paying money to unemployed and poor, through investing in public activities and infrastructure which created jobs for all those unemployed. The result was a recovery in the economy. After this the war (WWII) of course came.

This time (today) one obviously try to guarantee the bank customers’ depositions and the banks' continued existence, so one can escape from redistributing any resources in the societies and escape investing in the public sector. (You so to say buy the middle class!!?? And sacrifice the poorest in the societies!? Because this the power elite can handle!?).

The democracy can manage a 2/3 society, without that the economical elites will have to give up or fear anything, but a 1/3 society becomes a serious threat.

This the governments can't risk?? So if the power can calm those people (the middle class?) down they don’t have to fear anything?? How utterly cynical???

Another Swedish voice on the current state of affairs in the world...

Johan Ehrenberg.

Another Swedish writer, Johan Ehrenberg in a leader this week:

There is a problem with the whole discussion about the financial collapse and the political decisions which has been taken to save the banks from the collapse. A view on the state as an independent neutral actor, whose achievements shall be seen as something “on top of” the economy. The state interlocks “because it’s best for all.”

This is a special view existing to the left, one discuss the state as something politically radical and this is maybe not so strange because the bourgeoisie puts all its energy on slandering and painting the state black, the state it at the same time is governing and dependent on.

The state is namely used of those who are in power in a society.

It’s an instrument among others to defend a bourgeois society’s continued existence; it’s actively or passively depending on what’s most profitable to the powers that govern a society.

This we can all see today. The state governed by the bourgeoisie engages in saving banks and financial systems. It does this through nationalizing it all, i.e., the state guarantees the loans and affairs of the banks, yes, in fact it guarantees affairs that haven’t yet been done.

But when it does it doesn’t “usurp” the power over the banks.

The truth is that the only stable in all this is that the state – which means all of us – are guarantors for the banks businesses nowadays.

The only which makes the system survive is that we all promise to pay if it doesn’t function.

There is nothing in political proposals that changes the banks or finance businesses. Not really.

What we see is a bourgeois state saving its own members.

Europe’s and the American states have now acted to save the finance-system, a system that didn’t manage its job (and when we ordinary people don't manage our jobs, how are we treated?). A system that instead of creating stability, created insecurity through hiding loans so nobody in the end knew who was responsible for what. The holy business-secret made so the finance businesses were capable of cheating everybody, including themselves.

Of course it’s necessary that a state has money and credits, otherwise a depression is created. But support from the state is about politics, it isn’t neutral. Let’s discuss WHAT sort of politics! Ehrenberg suggests.

The state could just as much guarantee the borrowers, one could guarantee the rate-gap, one could prohibit giving loans for speculations (which means refuse to approve of shares and other similar sorts of papers as security), take the business secrets away around the companies and one could take over the ownerships for the banks.

This would also save the financial system, without making wage earners and citizens paying the bill.

No, the state isn’t automatically on your side. It supports the bourgeois power that governs our economy and our companies.

Which – when the bank system slowly starts to get moving again – is important to remember the next time they say that “there is no money” for public investments or leveling out.

Now there is unlimited money.

To save the own power.

And at last, see the article "Bloomington Art Is Overrated"! :-) And "Indiana University - Bloomington", and at last about the Swedish politician Olof Palme.

My work...

Some loud thinking again: Forced fun. Is that respectful? Can it become almost humiliating?

And I/we have heard:

“You ought to/shall talk!”

Because many people are said to be or keep quiet.

But some are told not to talk! Actually my (female) boss said I had been he one that had talked most on the meeting I am referring to below! I got dumb hearing this, and thought the more. But felt I didn't want to argue...

I who used to be most quiet of the quiet!!!

"People don't say what they think!!"

we have heard.

"They talk in the corridors instead!"

"I don't want corridor-talk!"

our former boss (a he) said once. I dropped my cheek. And thought for myself that:

"Does this have the opposite effect? Or people rather keep totally quiet and explode when they have built up enough inside? And if you can't create this sort of communication you can't order it!"

Actually I also asked a psychologist (needed to get permission from someone? with deep self-irony):

"Am I allowed to think that they are stupid???

The psychologist got dumb. Dropped HIS cheek. And then he said:

"Yes, you ARE!"

What my female boss above used wasn't it a Master Suppression Technique? First we are told to say what we think and then yo are told thatyou have spoken most of all on a meeting!

My piano-colleagues replied to this (when I told them later):

"And?? (what did she mean? What should you do?)"

Yes, I don't know, maybe she could have tried to meet what I said? And discuss facts? Or?

Slowly I have realized it is like this she functions; things just slip out of her mouth, and maybe she even regrets what she has said... But having this trait can't it be a problem, create problems? Putting quite high demands on people around? (do all get the same understanding though?)

My boss also said about having a lecture in communication (later a piano colleague said that our boss and another colleague had been on a lecture about communication on Monday, the day before we started): Can you learn these things by reading about them or hearing about them on a lecture? Only? Some can? But can all? I doubt on the effectiveness. But information is better than nothing?

I sat in a small group this week discussing an inquiry about the psychosocial environment at our work. After this I was quite upset. Went home for lunch. Called a colleague to pour out a little of the frustration. And succeeded to calm down!

This time of the year, making our time-plans (with he pupils) is something we all think is one of the toughest, if not THE toughest, periods of the year.

Before we got on summer vacation we got a graphical oversight over measures we need to take to make more co-workers more satisfied with the psychosocial work environment.

On this meeting this week I tried to point out how important it is to try to engage ALL at our workplace in these questions/topics (if possible). Tried to put emphasize on that about participation and engagement. The less people feel engaged and participating the less they do in work (not that I want to force anybody to anything) – and the less they reply/answer to any inquiries of any kind. If they aren’t engaged in this work and/or inquiries of this kind things can’t lead to anything. Hmmm, my impatience has grown with the years?

Only 14 of 32 teachers had replied/answered to this inquiry! I wonder what this says (IF it says anything?). That people are satisfied, and/or don't really care? Only the less satisfied have answered? OR the most satisfied? Or it's he most passionate that have answered to the inquiry?

But I am not going to beat my head bloody in trying to change these things if they don’t get real support! And with a sigh and tired smile, I don’t think our (female) boss understands what I mean. She has no real sense for making people engaged and participating; despite she is such a social person as she is. Not afraid of talking, liking parties (and big parties), having a lot of social contacts (I think)... But does this automatically mean a person can handle other people?

If she, and nobody else, understands the work environment it can be as it is.

What do I have in my backpack, influencing me in these topics? Having grown up in a big family (with five younger siblings, coming close, being big sister out in the fingertips?) a father who worked as teacher the first 6, 5 years of my life, and as headmaster till his retirement. He in turn having difficulties to subordination? Having difficulties with women… Especially with strong women?

And I think my mom actually also had teacher-tendencies! Even though she worked as nurse…

After this sidetrack, back to the meeting this week: according to the results from the inquiry people weren’t really satisfied with the psychosocial work environment. And not with the atmosphere or cooperation, and they thought that it wasn’t clear who shall do this and who shall do that, i.e. the organization of the work could become better.

People also thought that the meaningfulness on our meetings isn’t what it ought to or could be. And they didn’t think that suggestions that are put forward are leading to concrete changes/improvements.

Another thing that we could explore the consequences of was the possibilities for development (in general?).

Hmmm, and the medicine against this, and something that is thought to transform the workplace and create understanding between individuals and groups and create a “we-feeling,” is parties and playing games… Having what I would call forced fun…

But I am no kid any more (but quite girlish, something I have mixed feelings about. Is this side a protection?)!! I am a grown up person (I HOPE!!) and I want to be treated like one!

This is a workplace not a kindergarten!

This doesn’t exclude that I can’t play with my pupils, and have fun with them, and also do such things with my colleagues! But if people are forced to this it can become disrespectful and almost humiliating!?

Yes, if we were treated with real, genuine respect of bosses capable of showing this – how would that be??

Would we behave differently too with our pupils/students, colleagues, parents etc.?

Spontaneously and temperamentally writing, pouring out! Yes, I work with artistic things (do I??? How artistic is what I/we do – actually???).