The dizziness of freedom, more about contempt for weakness and blaming the victim…

Earlier many human beings were spared from the painful choice situations because everything was embedded in a frame that was commonly decided. Assuredly this was on good and bad.

Now a new sort of loneliness is forced upon a lot of people – we are forced to choose (is this freedom? Or what sort of "freedom") and "judge" about almost everything, from the color of the toothbrush to the choice of phone company and pension insurances. This is called forced reflexivity by sociologists.

The numbers of choice-situations have become more, increased (a lot), and also become more complicated. Compared to earlier.

The responsibility weighs heavily upon the individual.

Sisyphus’s torment is rather confusion more than heavy work.

The autonomous human being the existentialists were talking about is in its way becoming replaced with the constantly insecure human being. She isn’t the one choosing between clear alternatives, but rather more and more irresolute and hesitating (if she doesn’t hide this both to herself and to other people).

Addition: who are gaining most on this insecurity and confusedness?

The choice situations don’t correspond with assets of time for reflections. Sisyphus the younger is at risk of becoming hit by paralysis over how to act.

If Sisyphus the younger becomes sick, stressed to pieces or unhappy depends entirely upon himself. And if he becomes unemployed this is due to lack of success in getting a winning personality and thus being capable of walking successfully from an interview after having written an impressing curriculum vitae. If he is insecure or being in agony over the future it’s because he isn’t good enough at getting friends, he fails thinking positively, that he hasn’t succeeded in the art of making impressions on other people OR because he has problems expressing himself.

Quickly the new market’s entrepreneurs and life style coaches are there to exploit Sisyphus the younger's situation. New markets are profiting on and maybe even trying to increase his feelings of insecurity and confusedness.

My addition: yes, for the ones who can afford these coaches and can pay for advices and therapy. The others are left behind, entirely. And this is their fault entirely. Has nothing with structures to do!?

No wonder if people resort to magical thinking? And also see the leaning back indifference in a recent posting; "Indifference as hidden violence..."

Struck me, we have an expression here called "collective punishment"... And it seems as this expression isn't ours exclusively!! :)

When I was searching for a special article I found this one "Rich Get Poorer. Poor Disappear" ending like this:

"If that sounds politically unfeasible, consider this: When Clinton was cutting welfare and food stamps in the 90s, the poor were still an easily marginalized group, subjected to the nastiest sorts of racial and gender stereotyping. They were lazy, promiscuous, addicted, deadbeats, as whole choruses of conservative experts announced. Thanks to the recession, however – and I knew there had to be a bright side – the ranks of the poor are swelling every day with failed business owners, office workers, salespeople, and long-time homeowners. Stereotype that! As the poor and the formerly middle class Nouveau Poor become the American majority, they will finally have the clout to get their needs met."

Chomsky on applying standards on ourselves we apply to others (hmmm...):

The need for control, super egos, responsibility, independency, dependency…

[Slightly updated December 18. Brief addition December 19]

A blogger writes: Now we are going to become controlled down to the last detail, everything we do on the net shall become stored. Orwell’s society is here, twenty years later, but nevertheless. However more veiled.

Today we have the war against terrorism, a war we can never win. And this serves as argument for detailed control of every citizen.

The ones in power are playing on peoples’ tendencies to paranoia; in a similar manner as for instance Hitler once did to justify the Second World War?

Not so healthy leaders are playing on human being’s less healthy sides!?

Are the ones ruling today better in this respect (in not controlling people) than the former who were accused for a Big Brother Society this blogger wonders? (and are they less fundamentalistic or as much, and in some cases more?) And of course you can wonder with all right?

What about the freedom the ones ruling now spoke about before they came to the power? Was this freedom only for the economical elites’; their freedom doing as they like, to not have to contribute to all people’s welfare (including their own), while the people should become held down, in all respects, and become controlled in all ways you can think of?

Yes, I think an economist here is right who said (in my interpretation) that if the resources are distributed more equally this gains the whole societal economy, i.e. us all. And it creates a better society, than a one where we are played out against each other. Something the Scandinavian countries have shown? So far at least. But today... And in the future...

Where does the selfishness come from?

I read an article on Friday “The more we are together. When the crisis advances the ego has to back.”

There you could read that you don’t have to “sharpen your elbows” any longer. Not show your paces either. The ones used to focus on her/himself has maybe not seen this earlier/yet, but the individualism’s time has passed. The most sound would be if individuals could exists in the collective!?

For those individuals it felt right to say: I take responsibility for my own life. I trust myself. But a winner can loose the self-confidence too, when you realize that it wasn’t so easy with the self-realization. When it was shown that it wasn’t enough taking the matter into one's own hands.

A 60 hours week is always a 60 hours week. Even if you chose it yourself. How much individualist you even are, it isn’t enough, you become exhausted/burnout nevertheless.

Child psychologists tell us that our kids have been forced to develop their egos so much so they can’t function in a group at day care centers. The article writer writes that the superego is lying on lit de parade.

Disillusioned people are calling programs at the radio here to talk about old-fashioned things like “societal planning, the community and solidarity.”

However, some are feeling relief over this, among those thinking the “I” has gotten too much space.

What would a healthy “I” be? What is our true self? What needs are we striving to fulfill?

Some even admit that they are a bit malicious. One of those is the Swedish leader writer Göran Greider. In a TV-programme he seemed to have been talking about “the own responsibility.” Another Swedish writer also wrote about responsibility. Who are accused for not taking responsibility for themselves, their lives etc. And are there other people you don't demand responsibility from? The ones governing are talking quite moralistic about responsibility. But are the ruling classes taking responsibility? Are they demanded to take responsibility? Or do they cover it up as if they are taking responsibility "for people's own good"? Things that are really huring are done for our own good!? And they truly believe it is for our own good!

Greider meant that certain amount of selfishness is needed to push the development further, but the results of this selfishness ought to become distributed better to more people. I am not sure... What sort of selfishness should we have? One where we protect ourselves constructively and against real threats?

He means that the society needs solidarity values, so we dare (and can) trust (on) each other, even in the economy.

Alone is not strong, we need each other and are dependent on other people, what other people do and don’t do. What too many govening do is dividing and ruling? Getting power through diving and ruling.

The writers means that the big “I” doesn’t make us happy, not secure or rich either. Is it time for more collective solutions now?

Why are young people today so selfish or egoistic? They haven’t become brought under control enough? They have to learn to be more humble? From where does evilness come? Are we born this way? Do we have innate drives for destruction? I don't think so. I think this is something we have learned very early in life...

That many don’t seem to be why is that? Where have they learned this? What sort of role models have they had? And what society have they grown up in?

I.e. how should we raise young people, small children?

See this reader's letter to Alice Miller on obedience and being a living dead.

Addition December 19: and rebelling... If you are less harmed you rebel in a more constructive way? In a sounder and healthier way? And maybe in a more effective way? With fewer or in the best case no victims?

The zombies are attacking…

zombie.

Yesterday I watched “Stars on Ice” on TV, and today I read the article "Zombierna anfaller" ("The zombies are attacking") by the Swedish journalist Maria-Pia Boëthius, and I have also started to read the book “Stridens skönhet och sorg” (in English something in the style “The fight’s (or battle’s) beauty and sorrow”) by the Swedish historian Peter Englund, with portraits of ordinary people during the WWI built on real accounts and real people - and what I read, and am reading, made me think. You can read parts of the book here (in Swedish).

Boëthius writes (in my a little free amateur translation):

“That journalists are nasty at work doesn’t mean anything? Hey? Yes, they are only playing their roles. What!? The typical case is Alex Schulman, or we can call him ‘Alex Schulman’. Because he doesn’t exist in real life, he says himself. The bullying style is just a funny gimmick.”

Alex Schulman was invited to the Swedish radio apropos bloggers and that he had become unfairly flown on the throat by another Swedish journalist in a debate-program in Swedish TV because of his nasty style as blogger for one of our biggest evening papers.

Now it was revealed that it isn’t the real Schulman that is nasty in the blog, but his fictive self! He has taken the literary and, as one could understand, the heavy burden on his shoulders being the one flying on peoples’ throats.

Boëthius draws parallels to when she and her siblings were children and her brother had a brilliant creation, namely California, whom was identical twin with her brother, but a twin their parents didn’t know of. Sometimes her brother and California changed places, especially when he was up to some mischief. Then it was of course shown that her brother always was innocent.

Boëthius wonders where all those probably million fantasy-mates people had when they were children have disappeared. She wonders if not many of them have gotten jobs on Swedish newspapers (and on papers, and other media, in the world?).

My reflection, spontaneously, over what Boëthius wrote was:

“...not taking on the responsibility for (what you say or do or who you are)!"

And it also struck me that Alice Miller has written about cynicism and irony in one of or both her last two books.

I also reacted quite a lot at the jury members in “Stars on Ice” and what they said to the ones competing during the competition, their style of saying it and the content in what they said. I don’t think what they were saying and how they said it was fun at all. And not entertaining either. And not interesting. They were just nasty! Nasty for the competing people's own good? But they could probably handle it as they were grown ups. But the young people in "Idol"!?? See Bob Scharf on "Reality TV".

I have only read the first 30 pages (of over 600) in the book “The fight’s beauty and sorrow” and my interpretation so far is that people actually didn’t know why that war started. The conflicts underlying it weren’t so big so they hadn’t been insoluble and the war wasn’t unavoidable at all. But there was an excited rhetoric and a high-pitched worked up propaganda, and all this contributed to making the war unavoidable when it was viewed as unavoidable. Many people seemed to go out into the war with high expectations to fight for their country! And people at home said goodbye with flags and music! Many people didn’t seem to really realize how horrible a war actually is!

The American neurologist Jonathan Pincus writes about societal approval unleashing drives in people harmed early in life… See the earlier posting “Evilness and responsibility…” and earlier postings under the label Trent Scaggs.

Alice Miller writes at page 206 in her book “The Body Never Lies”:

“Inability to face up to the sufferings undergone in childhood can be observed both in the form of religious obedience and in cynicism, irony and other forms of self-alienation frequently masquerading as philosophy or literature.”

And at page 139 she writes:

“…feelings (one’s own and those of others), are something to be jeered at [hånad, gjord narr av]. In show business and journalism the art of irony is a well-paid commodity, so it is possible to make a great deal of money with the suppression of one’s feelings. Even if one ultimately risks losing contact with oneself and merely functioning as a mask, an ‘as if’ personality, there are always drugs, alcohol, and other substances to fall back on. Derision pays well, money is no object. /…/

But because these emotions are not genuine, not linked up with the true story of the body, the effect is bound to wear off [avta] after a time. Higher and higher doses are required to fill up the void left by childhood.”

So you need more and more and more until you can face up to the things underlying...

Silent reflections...

Yes, it’s strange: children need regulations and restrictions. Because of their inherited traits and drives??

But adult people don’t need any regulations or restrictions? Or some DO need, but others don’t!?? It depends. On what actually (quite ironically)? On what power you have? How much money you have? And who has the power and money in this world?

If we were capable of showing children true, genuine respect, then…?

Now we have to use other means!? Threats, manipulation, regulations, limit setting etc.

There are boundaries and boundaries.

We treat our children differently, because they have different needs we say!? Girls (already the very small, yes, the small baby) have certain needs, boys (small boys, already the small baby-boy) others we claim (what are those claims actually about?). (And) what do we actually know about those needs or what are those ideas actually mirroring? Are those ideas a protection against a too painful truth? And an excuse for how we behave, how we actually feel, that we don't feel the same for the different individuals? The solution to that is to admit that we feel differently, it's just like that it is!!?

A female cousin actually admitted recently that girls and boys are valued differently! Boys are a little more worth... She doesn't have any brothers, as I have, only a (2 year older) sister. Admitted that her mother values boys and girls differently. She had namely just met my two brothers and was so charmed by them! It felt to me that she would never say anything like this about the female part of the "family"!!! How cute, charmy, nice etc. a female part was... But do I as grown up need such a confirmation? And if I do, why?

But both boys and girls are probably badly treated, anyway... In different and the same ways... But this causes problems later, bigger or smaller (was this also a/the reason for treating the small child badly, so she/he didn't think...??? Thinking she/he was something worth, worth being loved, worth treated good, respected,valued).

The dad not seeing his daughter, treating her as she didn’t exist and wasn't worth a nickel, as she was stupid, very little knowing. Treating her with contempt. Contempt for weakness, for insecurity… Treating her like she was shit.

The mother beating her small (and later also not so small) son… Beating HIS self-confidence out of him in a certain way.

What can we do about this later, when those two are grown up? Who has to think of who? Who has to do something about this? Who has the responsibility for making something, changing things? Only the woman? Or only the man? Or should the work come from them both actually? Don’t both of them have responsibility for trying to change the state of affairs?

Struggling on my own with everything, all different things... With differing results... Really.

More voices in Sweden about the current situation in the world...

Martin Luther.

Suddenly the word capitalism was on all our lips. Economy reporters started to pose questions about the capitalism. It’s no longer seen as only an economical system, but also as an ideology.

It was long since. The entire posting written with my amateur English...

The market mantra about the necessary deregulations maybe can be changed against a more moderate, sensible talk about a common responsibility and the policy’s power nationally and internationally at last?

Here is another one reacting at our finance minister (from the moderate party), mentioning his attack against greedy people on Wall Street. A minister advising the need for regulations, not least international regulations. But it would be "becoming" if he made a public confession the writer thinks. The moderate party is namely the party that has recommended market liberalization the strongest and put every trial to creating a balance between politics and market to scorn.

However, the writer appreciates his criticism of the neoliberalism’s ravaging.

Even the social democracy needs self-examination. Hopefully the leader of that party Mona Sahlin and their spokesman for economical things Thomas Östros will be the prime mover of endurable alternatives to the quarter-of-a-year-capitalism.

Avariciousness has always been the capitalism’s intrinsic motor. Already Martin Luther realized this when the city of Wittenberg was stricken by failure of the crop or bad harvest 1537. The prices on grains shoot up. And the grain dealers started to store grain waiting for the prices to grow even more!! In this way the capitalists could gain even more money. Consequently this became a catastrophe for the wage-workers of Wittenberg. They were forced to borrow money to be able to buy their bread (as we say). The banks raised their rates. The poor was starving.

Luther wrote a grinding (??) to the priests to preach against the usury. This was an unprecedented attack on that time’s bank and trade capitalism.

“An usurer is murdering actively. Because it isn’t only that he lets helping the hungry alone. He even pulls (jerks?) the crumbs from the mouth of the starving. /…/ The usurer doesn’t care if the whole world dies if he only gets his money.”

Luther wrote.

The usurer was considered abusing his fellow human beings situation of troubles and (justified) needs. Power abuse. Luther started out from solidarity with the ones that were poor and had least power.

“Who are stricken in first hand when you are practicing usury? Isn’t it the poor whom in the whole is stricken first and foremost?”

Luther continued with his criticism.

Through the economism culture we have all become speculators on the stock exchanges/market (for instance we place our pensions in stocks or shares nowadays!!!). We are raised thinking on biggest possible profit for our own sake. We need to re-establish the sense for a “we”, where we in fact are dependent on each other and therefore need to look so all have it good. From mutuality the solidarity grows.

Oh NO, we are not dependent on anyone!! Observe the irony. Because maybe we are both dependent and independent? We need other people at the same time as we can manage a lot of things on our own (if we aren't totally handicapped). A child who has been truly respected develop a sound (sounder than many of us) relation to dependency/independency? Isn't afraid of being dependent in certain situations, and is independent in other. A sound balance beween dependency and independency?

The capitalism is threatening the right and righteousness.

I can’t help thinking: We teach our children to think of other people and share and at the same time they are learned a contradicting message: to think of themselves. Miller writes about contradictions and confusions… And once again the Dutch therapist Ingeborg Bosch writes about the effects of children being taught to share at a too early age (something she thinks almost all of us are).

I think Martin Luther was beaten as a child by the way... What did that mean to him and to many other people?

Being loved...

an expression of true individuality (from Poland-trip last week)?

The inability of really trusting and believing people saying they appreciate, like or even love you where does it come from? From a mom and dad who couldn't show true, genuine, unconditional love from deepest in their hearts? A love the very small child needed, but a love the adult shouldn't have to need.

Whose problem is that? Shouldn't they question their inabilities?

If they can't or won't do this work whose responsibility is this?

Many questions, but I think I know what I feel...

I would want to write about being forced to adjust, and to take too much responsibility too early, and the different results of that, later... Something I started to reflect upon when we walked there in a group in Poland last week...

Civil courage...

taking a nap!!

I read something in "Rediscovering the True Self" by Ingeborg Bosch at page 143-144.

I think it was the physician Christina Doctare who pointed out in her book "Brain Stress" (came 1999, and I have a book with a dedication from her, but I didn't get it in person) from where "civil courage" origins? "Courage" comes from the French "coeur" which means "heart"... So civil courage to her means the heart or feelings are involved. About her at Wikipedia (only in Swedish).

Bosch writes Chapter 5, "Taking responsibility for our feelings":

"We usually live more or less impulsively [not an excuse for everything??], and when things go wrong we blame the other person, the world, fate or ultimately God [or ourselves].

Research by Jones and Nisbett has shown how we are all prone to this basic attitude. Actors tend to attribute their actions to external factors, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to personal dispositions of the actor. /.../

[An] example is the Watergate scandal. '...Many of the participants in that affair maintained that they were simply following executive orders, while 'higher-ups' argued that they had acted out of a concern for national security. All the actors in short made external attributions. But by the summer of 1974, a majority of citizens - observers via the press - saw the participants as corrupt, power-hungry, and paranoid. The observers made internal attributions.' This is called the actor-observer effect."

At this site it stands about their ideas:

"Jones and Nisbett's (1971) proposition that actors favor environmental attribution and observers personal attribution was investigated. Subjects attributed causality from two perspectives (observer versus role-playing actor) for verbally-described behaviors which varied in desirability (low versus moderate versus high). The results suggested that motivational considerations mediated actor-observer attributional differences. While observers attributed more personal cause than did actors at all levels of desirability, this actor-observer difference was attenuated as behavioral desirability increased. Actor-observer differences were not evidenced on environmental attribution, suggesting that perspective differences represent a differential salience of personal causes for actors and observers."

It also struck me: what do our behaviours towards animals reflect? I could write a separate posting about this, as I grew up with animal and saw things (and probably didn't see things too) and have people in my family of origin working with animals (so I think I know them as persons too, but maybe I don't? I wonder if they are different when family-members aren't present??)... My dad and the two siblings coming after me (a brother and a sister) were/are agronomists with domestic animals as Major (huvudämne in Swedish).

And I wish I could relax as the dog Eskil!! (the dog and cat on the picture are not mine! :-))

Hat...

from music-video recording February 2007 (balancing the content below!?).

About hatred and its origins, and targets for this hatred... Inspired by "Paths of Life" from the last chapter "Reflections". Also see "Adolf Hitler: How Could a Monster Succeed in Blinding a Nation? by Alice Miller."

---

[Uppdaterad i slutet 23 och 24 februari]. Inspirerad av Miller i kapitet "Hur uppstår hat?" i boken "Vägar i livet":

De destruktiva följderna av våld mot barn kan manifestera sig redan i ungdomen, till exempel i tyrannisk behandling av yngre syskon, i våldsdåd eller rentav mord. Så därför räcker det inte bara att i en terapi att fördöma ett äldre (eller yngre??) syskons handlingar (vilket kan vara nog så viktigt), utan gå vidare också och fördöma de vuxna som inte skyddade mot dessa saker!? Men jag har en känsla av att ganska många (kanske de flesta) terapeuter inte klarar detta!??? Att anklaga ett syskon är inte fullt lika livsfarligt som att anklaga och ifrågasätta föräldrar!?? Så detta förra går "relativt" lätt?? För trots allt ganska få terapeuter har på allvar ifrågasatt sina egna föräldrar? Möjligen har de gjort detta på en ganska ytlig och kanske enbart intellektuell nivå? De har bara tänkt och resonerat sig till "upplysning"?? Men om det är så kan de inte heller förstå sina klienter riktigt (eller i värsta fall ganska litet)?

Det är detta Miller beskriver i "Deception Kills Love". I en artikel som handlar om en dansk författare och dennes bok om sina upplevelser av sexuella övergrepp av en pedofil. Bearbetandet av dessa övergrepp i vuxen ålder, därför att han börjat må dåligt (övergrepp som han blev utsatt för under några år runt inträdet i tonåren), räckte dock inte för att befria honom från ångesten.

Miller menar (i min tolkning?) att förklaringen till detta är att författaren inte fick hjälp att gå vidare i terapin, till att ifrågasätta sina föräldrar, som anförtrodde sin son till denne man, sättet de gjorde detta på. Sveket att de inte såg och inte förmådde skydda honom?

Miller beskriver förbudet att ifrågasätta sina egna föräldrar och den påföljande ångesten över detta, att kroppen sa en sak som var strängt förbjuden att dra upp i ljuset?? Förstärkt av terapeutens (omedvetna) rädsla, med medföljande förbud att artikulera detta; ifrågasätta färldrarnas oförmåga, handlande och få tillåtelse att fördöma detta??

Och för att återgå till ursprungsämnet: den vuxne har tyvärr ytterligare medel till sitt förfogande för att föra detta förnekade våld vidare. Bland annat kan han/hon ideologisera våldet så raffinerat och utöva våldet så subtilt att han/hon till och med kan framställa det som något gott, som

”för den andres bästa”.

och på det viset liksom rättfärdiga det.

Och ju mindre beredd han/hon är att revidera sitt bedrägeri och självbedrägeri, desto tyngre blir konsekvenserna av hans handlande för andra.

Dvs. i den mån man är beredd att ifrågasätta desto mindre skada åstadkommer man, desto mindre blir konsekvenserna av ens handlingar/handlande. Så allt arbete man gör, alla insikter man skaffar sig (känslomässigt och intellektuellt) är av godo och skyddar en från att skada andra alltför illa (liksom skyddar en förhoppningsvis mot att skada en själv)!?

De barn som har turen att träffa ett hjälpande vittne (även ett omedvetet hjälpande, omedvetet men ändå vetande vittne) kan hjälpa barnet att litet mer aktivt se den lidna oförrätten (hjälpa barnet att ifrågasätta det som skett och betrakta som fel och i bästa fall helt fördöma det som skedde. Viulket oftast är förbjudet, för man ska ju förstå föräldrarna och deras situation och att de själva blivit skadade!!) och bearbeta det som hänt i mer eller mindre grad. Dessa barn blir inte våldsverkare senare kanske i någon grad trots att de kanske blivit misshandlade psykiskt och fysiskt och kanske även sexuellt och i vissa fall även grovt misshandlade. Detta menar Miller är förklaringen till att inte alla misshandlade barn själva blir grova förövare (och jag tror att Miller har rätt här, jag tror inte vi är födda med så dåliga gener eller drifter. Naturligtvis kan jag ha fel här, men varför inte utgå från denna hypotes? Och prova den?? Skulle detta skada någon? I så fall hur? För det är klart att man kanske inte ska ägna sig åt något som riskerar att orsaka skada!?).

Miller skriver på sidan 181 i "Vägar i livet":

"I detta sammanhang skulle man visserligen kunna resonera som Sigmund Freud gjorde på det sexuella området och säga: Om de flesta människor som barn har blivit misshandlade eller emotionellt försummade kan det inte vara någon patogen faktor vid uppkomsten av brottslighet, för i så fall hade de flesta utvecklats till mördare. Men detta resonemang bortser från själva det faktum att det inte är traumat i sig som direkt leder till att det bildas neuroser och till kriminella levnadsbanor, utan sättet på vilket de bearbetas."

Ja, antag att ganska många av oss, kanske väldigt många, varit utsatta för diverse "mildare" och subtilare saker... Och att omgivningen i många fall kanske inte var totalt konsekvent eller genomauktoritär... Kanske har många (fler än vi vill tro) varit utsatta för saker och det finns en anledning att kollektivt förneka detta, att minimera och bagatellisera en massa saker: otillbörlig beröring, nyp, daskar, utskällningar m.m.

Och kanske riktar de/vi detta istället "bara" mot sig/oss själva, i självdestruktivitet, självanklagelser osv.? Och/eller mot svagare...

Och när det gäller sexuella övergrepp så menar Miller att förövarna inte kommer ihåg vad de själva fick utstå, dvs. att de själva varit utsatta. Om en terapi är möjlig visar det sig att det är sin egen historia de har iscensatt i åratal, om och om igen.

Men rent allmänt så är inte vetande automatiskt något skydd, dvs. att man vet att man blev slagen, utskälld, och kanske inte heller att man blev sexuellt utnyttjad!? Man måste ha bearbetat det hela på ett någorlunda djupt plan. Dvs. ha fått ifrågasätta det och betrakta det som fel. Se t.ex. pappan som reagerade på sin egen pappa, som ör länge sedan förödmjukade sin son genom att skälla ut honom inför andra. Denna pappautsatte sina egna barn för samma saker, trots att han visste vad han själv varit utsatt för.

Jo, man behöver även ha integrerat det hela på någon känslomässig nivå? Vetande, minnesbild o.d. är inte tillräcklig!

Ett medvetet vetande är omöjligt för barnet utan ett hjälpande vittne. Barnet måste tränga bort eller förneka delar eller hela traumat. Och synen på VAD som är traumatiskt har också utvecklats?? Att kränkningar inte bara är av fysisk och sexuell natur, utan också handlar om känslomässiga kränkningar (vilka kanske är ÄNNU vanligare?). Men samhällets förnekande kan plötsligt liksom slå till igen. Ja, det kollektiva förnekandet kan slå till igen. Och man börjar bagatellisera och minimera betydelsen och allvaret i diverse kränkningar (se om Reich senare).

Miller skriver på sidan 168 i ”Vägar i livet”:

”Först när man inser den egentliga orsaken och förstår den naturliga reaktionen på oförrätter kan det blinda, på oskyldiga projicerade hatet upplösas. Dess funktion, att dölja sanningen, blir hädanefter överflödigt.”

Kom att tänka på mitt i skrivandet att man kan anse det vara berättigat att liksom "uppfostra" andra och tala om sanningar för dem... Och då kan det handla om ett försvar mot att inse sina egna sanningar, med den åtföljande smärtan, det försvar Bosch kallar för falsk makt-vrede? Ja, det svåra att inse vad som faktiskt ÄR berättigat och vad som INTE ÄR berättigat?? Där vi tyvärr ofta blivit förvirradgjorda?? Vissa tror att de förtjänar den behandling de får (första eller ursprungligt försvar) och andra anser att andra förtjänar den behandling de utsätter dem för!??? Och ofta "dras" dessa till varandra!??

Tillägg 23 februari: Miller skriver på sidan 170 i "Vägar i livet" om dagens terrorister som dödar och torterar främmande människor som inte har gjort dem något ont:

"...men varken deras aningslöshet idag eller deras en gång undertryckta och nu förnekade vrede rättfärdigar på något sätt deras extrema destruktivitet eller kan göra anspråk på vårt medlidande."

Och detta gäller andra våldsverkare också (även på politisk nivå och på en massa andra nivåer och i en massa andra sammanhang också)!! Och på sidan 171 om Hitler:

"Därmed kunde han också ursäkta faderns övergrepp, för fadern var ju bara ett offer för den onde och allsmäktige juden."

Och slutligen på sidan 187 om det misshandlade barnet:

"Det har ju lärt sig att den starkare har rätt att bruka sin makt godtyckligt./.../

...[han kommer] att böja sig för auktoriteter och spela herre över de svagare, enligt det despotiska mönster han som barn erfarit av sina uppfostrare."

Men fortfarande är en taskig barndom (vare sig medveten eller omedveten) ingen ursäkt för att den senare vuxne begår övergrepp av kanske något slag, vare sig stort eller smått?? Det befriar en inte heller från ansvar. Jag tycker Miller uttrycker detta ganska bra.

Se också om en anna sorts övergrepp (och om man så vill våld) i inlägget "Kön, genus och lojalitet." Ytterligare ett inlägg som jag måst gå och grunna på, men som är så suveränt! I all dess ilska!!! :-)

Tillägg 24 februari: En dansk man, född 1956, har skrivit en bok om sin far. En far som slog honom och som missbrukade hans syster sexuellt. Denne man säger sig forfarande älska sin far - och förstå honom (varför han gjorde som han gjorde mot sina barn). Dvs. han har förlåtit honom?

Se här, här, här och här om denna bok.

Jag tänker på det Miller skrivit om Hitler (se ovan). Om att Hitler riktade sitt hat mot syndabockar, genom att på "något sätt" ursäkta faderns övergrepp, för han (fadern) var ju ett offer för den onde juden... Och hur många fäder (och också mödrar) har inte barn måst förstå?? Men att vuxna fortsätter att göra detta...

Och återigen tänker jag på det Miller skriver om Wilhelm Reich. Miller skriver på sidan 162-163 om Wilhelm Reich:

"...föreställningen om den infantila sexualiteten, som Reich övertog från Freud och senare har vidareutvecklat, har jag aldrig kunnat dela med honom. I min bok 'Den bannlysta vetskapen' företrädde jag den åsikten att Freud med konceptet infantil sexualitet hade lagt locket på ifråga om de svåra följderna av övergrepp mot barn. Jag skrev: 'Något liknande gjorde senare också Wilhelm Reich. Han utvecklade en teori som skulle hjälpa honom att avvärja smärtan hos den tidigt och ständigt utnyttjade pojke som han en gång var. Istället för att känna hur ont det gör när man blir bedragen av de vuxna som man litar på och är försvarlös inför övergreppen, har Wilhelm Reich i hela sitt liv /.../ påstått: jag ville det själv, jag behövde det, alla barn behöver det!'[och vad har dessa båda auktoriteters privata och 'yrkesmässiga' förnekande inneburit för en oerhörd mängd människor?]

Denna utsaga bygger på Myron Sharafs Reichbiografi, enligt vilken Reich ska ha berättat att han redan vid fyra års ålder kände till det sexuella livets alla hemligheter, och detta tack vare husjungfrun som brukade ta honom till sig i sin säng och undervisa honom i sexuella lekar./.../ Förnekandet av barndomens smärta har /.../ vittgående följder, som inte begränsar sig till det privata familjeområdet utan till och med kan leda till politiska omvälvningar [förföljelse av vissa grupper, till och med mord och utrotning av människor osv., förutom övergrepp inom familjen...]."

I wikipedia står det om Reich:

”Reich attributed his later interest in the study of sex and the biological basis of the emotions to his upbringing on the farm where, as he later put it, the 'natural life functions' were never hidden from him. Reich also spoke of witnessing the family's maid having intercourse with her boyfriend, and apparently later asking if he could 'play' the part of the lover. He said that, by the time he was four years old, there were no secrets about sex for him.

He was taught at home until he was 12, when his mother committed suicide after being discovered having an affair with Reich's tutor, who lived with the family. In a report supposedly about a patient, Reich wrote about how deeply the affair had affected him, that the ‘joy of life shattered, torn apart from my inmost being for the rest of my life!’

Her death was particularly brutal because of the method she chose; she drank a common household cleaner, which left her in great pain for days before she died. The tutor was sent away, and Reich was left without his mother or his teacher, and with a powerful sense of guilt.

He was sent to the all-male Czernowitz gymnasium, excelling at Latin, Greek, and the natural sciences. It appears to have been during this period that a skin condition developed that plagued him for the rest of his life. It was diagnosed as psoriasis; Reich was given medication that contained arsenic, now known to make psoriasis worse.

Reich's father was ‘completely broken’ by his wife's suicide. In or around 1914, he took out a life insurance policy, then stood for hours in a cold pond, apparently fishing, but in fact intending to commit slow suicide, according to Reich and his brother Robert. He contracted pneumonia and then tuberculosis, and died in 1914 as a result of his illness; despite his insurance policy, no money was forthcoming.

Reich managed the farm and continued with his studies, graduating in 1915 mit Stimmeneinhelligkeit (unanimous approval). In the summer of 1915, the Russians invaded Bukovina and the Reich brothers fled to Vienna, losing everything. In his Passion of Youth, Reich wrote: ‘I never saw either my homeland or my possessions again. Of a well-to-do past, nothing was left.’

‘I had read somewhere that lovers get rid of any intruder, so with wild fantasies in my brain I slipped back to my bed, my joy of life shattered, torn apart in my inmost being for my whole life!’ — Wilhelm Reich.”

Och det där om barndomsskildringar och att skratta bort saker:

"Alice Miller on Frank McCourt in her book “The Truth Will Set You Free – Overcoming Emotional Blindness and Finding Your True Self” ISBN 0-465-04585-5 pages 100-103:

“Protection and respect for the needs of a child – this is surely something we ought to be able to take for granted. But we live in a world full of people who have grown up deprived of their rights, deprived of respect /…/

Also, there is less of a tendency today to idealize and romanticize childhood; the misery frequently comes across in all its starkness. But in most autobiographies I have read the authors still maintain an emotional distance from the suffering they went through as children. Little empathy and an astounding absence of rebellion are the rule. There is no inquiry into the whys and wherefores behind the injustice, the emotional blindness and the resulting cruelty displayed by the adults, whether teachers or parents. Description is all. On every page of the brilliant book Angela’s Ashes, for example, Frank McCourt describes such cruelties in gruesome detail. But even as he recalls his childhood, he never rises up against his tormentors, attempting instead to remain living and tolerance and seeking salvation in humor.

And it is for this humor that he has been celebrated by millions of readers the world over [!!!].

But how are we to stand up for children in our society and improve their situation if we laugh at and tolerate cruelty, arrogance, and dangerous stupidity? /…/

Humor saved Frank McCourt’s life and enabled him to write his book. His readers are grateful to him for it. Many of them have shared the same fate and they want nothing more dearly than to be able to laugh it off. Laughter is good for you, so they say, and it certainly helps you survive. But laughter can also entice you to be blind. You may be able to laugh at the fact that someone has forbidden you to eat of the tree of knowledge, but that laughter will not really wake you up from the sleep. You must learn to understand the difference between good end evil if you want to understand yourself and change anything in the world as it is [yes, what is good and what is evil? What is love and what is not love? What are expressions for love and what is not? What is in fact cruel and unfair? What should we question? And what are we usually questioning and not in fact and why? What are we protecting and what not actually? What produces evilness and what would not produce evilness?].

Laughter is good for you, but only when there is reason to laugh [and then we are of course entitled to laugh, from the bottom of our stomach, body, heart, with glittering eyes]. Laughing away one’s own suffering is a form of fending off, a response that can prevent us from seeing and tapping the sources of understanding around us [but the helpless and totally dependent child, with all what mean, had to laugh it off and use a lot of other strategies to survive. And those strategies cause the adult a whole range of problems, troubles and difficulties. And it is not only to intellectually understand this… And you can’t just cope with this with all different techniques and/or methods… Or just cognitively I think. If it was many of us would be cured long ago… In a way we must realize emotionally how harmful things are and were I think].

If biographers were better informed about the details and consequences of what some indifferently call as a normal strict upbringing, they could provide us with precious material for better understanding our world. But there are not many who try to figure out how such upbringing was experienced by their subject as child.”

Evilness and responsibility...

Katrin Himmler.

When I come back from work I would like to blog about this blogposting. I needed to digest it for some days... This posting was great!!!

---

A Swedish woman, Katrin Kielos, has written a summary * of a lecture held by a Katrin Himmler in Uppsala recently. Katrin Himmlers grandfather was brother to Heinrich Himmler.

Anja is referring to this summary.

In this Kielos writes that the psyches of the SS-men have been studied by psychologists. And these studies shows that these men get high scores concerning authoritarian tendencies **, a general cynicism, a feeling that the world is evil (which Anja thinks can be used as an alibi to be evil oneself, “eat or be eaten”-arguments), identification with the power and a resistance towards human softness and weakness.

But Kielos draws conclusions that these tendencies laid there slumbering in the personality and wouldn’t have come to expression if the spirit of the age hadn’t allowed it. Anja doesn’t agree with this. She thinks that human beings have always found ways of expressing their personality and of giving vent to their needs of oppression/oppressing. She thinks a special permission isn’t necessary for this. She rather thinks that we have become well too blind to the evilness in everyday life.

But of course the men who had the ideas about this project – the Holocaust, to kill all Jews (and other not desired) – had great use of a certain sort of people, and without this sort of people this project wouldn’t have been able to perform.

The problem with the notion that ”the society sanctions evilness” is that this frees the perpetrators from (any) responsibility and gives the responsibility to the people who didn’t act. A classical manoeuvre. The one that has acted wrongly can with a thesis like this in his (her) back always ask

“Why didn’t anyone hinder me from committing those inhuman crimes?”

Another problem with this thesis is that one makes an assumption about the silent mass’s obvious goodness. Where does one get this from? If the big mass in Germany, let’s say 75% of the population, in fact thought it was RIGHT to kill the Jewish part of the population, their neighbours and co-workers, how can one then see this mass as good? Isn’t it a big difference if one is a viewer/bystander to what’s happening because you agree, or if you are a bystander/viewer because you belong to a minority and you are scared to death?

Isn’t it a big difference for how we see the world, and on a, supposed, “innate evilness which can lie slumbering in us ALL” which comes to expression when the environment sanctions this? Blaming that, instead of taking responsibility?? Hiding behind this explanation??

Kielos sees it as a mystery that “ordinary people commits wholesale murders", but think if evil people in fact are common?? We would want that good people were the most common, but think if the world doesn’t looks like that? If evil people who in fact CAN hurt others very badly, deliberately, in cold blood, are common, how shall we then view the world?

During the homicide in Rwanda almost all ordinary people joined the murdering. But all didn’t join. All couldn’t just go from being ”ordinary people” to effective and cold-blooded murderers. And isn’t it more interesting to emphasize this – that ALL in fact aren’t capable of hurting their fellow human being – than nagging about “the mystery about evilness” as if we can’t do anything about the evilness, as if it was a natural law, a law saying that we all can have this evilness in us. Couldn’t we welcome the fact instead that there are people who succeed in resisting the environments sanctions of sadistic behavior and in spite of this don’t revert to cruelness themselves?

Couldn’t we assume that we ALL can become as these persons, that goodness and integrity in fact is slumbering in us all??

Anja refers to another woman touching this topic too she thinks, and if she interprets her right she says that:

“The notion/idea that injustices are maintained through ‘unconsciousness’ I see as a typical cowardly resort for liberals (and for many other bullies)…”

And the oppression of women is a consequence of thousand years of old thinking in which women ARE less worth, and thus deserves their lot in life - and deserves their destiny and the treatment they are exposed to.

Seen in its historical perspective neither massacres of whole populations nor oppression of women are mysterious.

And how hurt you have ever become this is no excuse for your own bad behavior - either… It can be an explanation, but not an excuse…

But there are also differences on the crimes that are committed and to whom they are committed!?? Some are worse than others… And the relation (not least seen to power) also contributes to how big or little harm that is done…

But I think it is true that societal approval can be dangerous, too… And lift lids... But crimes or abuse are not excused with that you yourself have been abused, neither as a child nor as grown up??

See about Trent Scaggs for instance too.

Addition February 22: So neither maternal NOR paternal abuse we were exposed to is an excuse for our (whether we are women or men) abuse of neither children (own or others) nor other adults (lovers, friends, coworkers, colleagues, employees etc.)...

And, yes, men are bullied too!!! By not only other men, but also by women. And of course that's wrong, independently of how much or little that man (or woman) is capable of protecting him (her)self properly!!!

Yes, are we allowed to behave badly towards "weak" people?? Does it matter if the other part is "strong" or "weak"? Of what reason that person is "strong" or "weak"?? Yes, that about contempt for weakness!!?? To which the "weak" sex belongs too??

Yes, I know of men contemptuous over weakness in their wife and children, "weakness" in both their daughters and in their sons... An enormous contempt even, pushing them forward in a queue!! And who made them so careful (and/or unsure of themselves) in the first place I wonder quite ironically.

What is this contempt about? A contempt seen as justification for (in the "best" cases) lecturing the weak, unknowing, a permission to teach her/him (in general or to teach her/him a lesson), or in the worst cases for the most heinous abuse (in the worst cases to murders). You are "allowed"(are you? Who have given you that permission?) to pour contempt, including everything ranging from irritation to anger, over the "weak" (contempt for what actually)?

Justification for contemptuous behavior - and lack of respect and sensitivity in different degrees (or lack of "understanding").

** High-scoring when it came to authoritarian tendencies as:

• Enclosing conventional bourgeois values
• Uncritical attitude towards authorities
• A wish to punish persons breaking conventional values
• Resistance to subjectivity and imaginativeness [being alive, living, feeling, sensing etc.]
• Belief in the destiny’s predestination
• A belief on the world as a dangerous place
• Identification with the power
• A general cynicism

---

Jo, visst är det en backlash i samhället!! Maria-Pia Boëthius skriver som vanligt bra och intressant i sin krönika "Manligheten spänner musklerna", se också "Liberalismen är lagligt våld" av Petter Nilsson om hur våld definieras- och om legitimerat våld!! Och slutligen bloggen "Ett hjärta RÖTT" om vissa debattörers härjande i bloggosfären och via nätet... Och allt detta tycker jag hör ihop med de senaste blogginläggen här!

Boëthius skriver bland annat (nu citerar jag friskt nedan!!):

"En hotad manlighet mobiliserar. Med våld. Med allt som spränger bort inbillad vekhet och kvinnlighet. Det handlar om en massiv backlash./.../

Ett nytt ord för fria män skulle hånas sönder och samman av dagens makt och dess medier. Det ingår i deras uppgift./.../

Spännande forskning och böcker berättar om vad som händer när kvinnors frigörelse går 'för långt'. Den mest kända är Klaus Theleweits bok om upprinnelsen till andra världskriget: Mansfantasier./.../

...när kvinnor börjat frigöra sig svarar makten med krig för att återföra männen till den 'äkta' manligheten och sätta kvinnorna på plats./.../

När talibanerna grep makten i Afghanistan på 90-talet var deras första åtgärd att frånta kvinnorna alla mänskliga rättigheter, stänga in dem i hemmen och lagstifta om att de måste dra en säck över huvudet i form av burka om de visade sig offentligt./.../

...mäns feminisering och försvagning nu måste hejdas [ja, absolut!!!].

...alliansregeringens nu påbörjade nedmontering av Sverige som världens mest jämställda land./.../

Att ha fel eller få rätt är inte det viktiga, alla tankebanor är värda att pröva [därför ger Boëthius sig tillåtelse att göra detta i denna artikel?]./.../

Enligt gammal maktteori är det bara ett krigshot mot Europa som skulle kunna blixtena européerna./.../

Männen måste återmobiliseras till krigiskhet i det 'förslappade' väst [ja, det är ju verkligen nödvändigt!! Hur ska det annars gå?]. /.../

...vädja till manlighetens ansvarskänsla. /.../

...detta Carl Bildt jobbar för, knappast [för] Sverige, som han ju ser som en omodern statsbildning [för en så modern man som han!?]./.../

För alla de män som inte känner igen sig är det också dags att mobilisera – i helt nya tankebanor."

Och Nilsson (samt se kommentarer och reaktioner på den citerade texten här, med mer om vissa debattörers debatteknik):

"Den kontroversielle slovenske filosofen Slavoj Zizek har i dagarna kommit ut med en ny bok om våld. Vad är det då som är kontroversiellt med hans senaste bok? Han diskuterar vilka kriterier som avgör vad som ska betraktas som våld och kommer till slutsatsen att själva de mekanismerna är våldsamma./.../

...lära oss att se sammanhanget mellan subjektivt våld, symboliskt våld och sådant våld som håller systemet i gång [men vad är det för slags system som måste hållas igång med våldsmedel??]. Den första sorten är den som bekymrar västerlänningar i allmänhet och ges stort utrymme i medierna: busar på gatorna, ungdomar i förorten, terrorister i turistparadiset. De två övriga bekymrar oss mindre än de borde. Språket är inte bara ett medium för kärlek, fred och förståelse, utan också ett redskap för våldsutövning./.../

Jag skulle definiera våld som att en människa på något vis försöker tvinga någon annan att ingå i en viss relation, att agera mot sin egen vilja. Enligt den definitionen så är våldet allestädes närvarande i vårt samhälle [jo, jag tror att han har rätt; det finns en massa våld omkring oss som vi inte erkänner - eller vill se!?]./.../

Således är privategendomen eller ägandet av produktionsmedel, även om vi tar ett extremt (men högst realistiskt) exempel där någon lever i enormt överflöd bredvid någon som svälter ihjäl, inte att se som en våldsrelation.

Det är, i den vardagliga debatten, mindre våldsamt att låta en person svälta ihjäl i enlighet med rådande egendomsförhållanden än att ifrågasätta dem [dessa egendomsförhållandena] genom att ta av överflödet och fördela det till de svältande.

Stöld är således mer våldsamt än döden genom svält. Strejk är mer våldsamt än invaliditet genom arbetsskada. Att paja en ruta är mer våldsamt än att stödja den etniska resningen på västbanken osv [ja, nog är det bakvända världen!!!].

Det stora problemet när vårt våld ifrågasätts är helt enkelt att det våld på vilket det liberala samhället bygger varit så effektivt i sitt osynliggörande av sig självt. Därför är det svårt att övertyga människor om att status quo är ett våldsamt tillstånd./.../

Det är inte fel i sig, de flesta kommunister jag känner har ägnat mycket tid till att kritisera realsocialismens misslyckanden. Men när får vi se en upplysningskampanj om imperalistiska kapitalistiska krig?

Hur många skolbarn vet att 'världens största demokrati' störtade demokratiska regeringar i Chile, massmördade opposition i Nicaragua, sköt sig fram i Dominikanska republiken? Kort sagt, varför får vi läsa om Gulag och inte om School of the Americas?

Vi vet alla att liberalismen påstår sig stå för individens friheter och möjligheter, en jämlik demokrati och den bästa av alla världar. Vi borde också få lära oss, att likt realsocialismens försök, är realliberalismens verkliga resultat något helt annat. För där bomberna slår ned bryr man sig inte om de kommer i frihetens namn./.../

Detta innebär givetvis inte att alla som segrar borde anses som rättmätiga segrare /.../

Man kan i strikt mening inte rättfärdiga medel med mål, eftersom man i efterhand aldrig kan säga exakt vilka medel som var nödvändiga för vilka mål."

Se tidigare bloggpostningar om "Altruism" och "boundary violations".

* "En god [??] bror.

Katrin Himmlers farfar var bror till Heinrich Himmler, ledare för SS i Nazityskland. Så länge hon kan minnas har hennes familj gömt, glömt och stoppat undan. Men när hon förälskade sig i en judisk man började hon rota i sin egen historia.

Resultatet blev boken Die Brüder Himmler utifrån vilken hon i går talade i Uppsala.

Heinrich Himmler var en ung man på 43 år, djupt förälskad i sin sekreterare och en engagerad far när han som huvudarkitekt för Förintelsen administrerade mord på sex miljoner människor. Katrin Himmler beskriver hur åren mellan 1933 och 1945 var lyckliga och harmoniska för hela släkten. Just att den personliga lyckan kunde ligga tillsynes parallellt med ondskan gav hennes farmor svårigheter att i efterhand reflektera över vad hon varit en del av. Ljuva minnen ställde sig i vägen.

Katrin Himmlers bidrag till bilden av sin farfarsbror är att förmedla den respekt han fick från familj och vänner. Heinrich Himmler var inte det svarta fåret i den fina högborgerliga familjen. Tvärtom.

Den fina högborgerliga familjen stödde Heinrich ideologiskt och profiterade ekonomiskt på nazismen men var mer pragmatiska. De blev inte massmördare./.../

...de fick höga värden på vad psykologer brukar kalla för F-skalan, ett personlighetstest för auktoritära tendenser: Omfattande av konventionella borgerliga värderingar. Okritisk attityd gentemot auktoriteter. Önskan att straffa personer som bryter mot konventionella värderingar. Motstånd till subjektivitet och fantasifullhet. Tro på ödets förutbestämdhet. Tro på världen som en farlig plats. Identifikation med makten. Allmän cynism."