Power (read: male or patriarchal) abuse...

påskkärring and påskgubbe.

Oh, diligently blogging...

I came to think of what Anna-Luise Kirkengen has written about power imbalance and tried to find it, but found something else. She writes at page 8 in her book “Inscribed bodies…”:

“Actually, my exploration of socially silenced sexual boundary violations [but not only sexual violations, but also violations of the other person's self, dignity, feelings, thoughts etc. in form of verbal, emotional, in form of outbursts, physical abuse, or implicitly or explicitly threatening with verbal abuse, withdrawal etc.??] with regard to health impact has revealed both particular and general dynamics, mutually constitutive, between individuals and society, and between violated persons and health agencies. The violated human bodies have emerged as both bodies unto or into which violence is inscribed in a literal, graphical, etching-like sense, and bodies which are inscribed into the social politics which silence the main impact of patriarchy, namely the societal structures of domination and objectification.

The etching impact of silenced violations, and the sickening impact of the medical aid offered to the violated persons are, indeed, metaphorically spoken: the double costs of patriarchy. Sexually violated bodies are, in this double sense, Inscribed Bodied.”

Who is usually the strongest? Not only physically, but also in other respects? How is this power used? And why does it has to become demonstrated, and to whom does it has to become demonstrated - and why actually? What is this abreaction about? Actually? Does it makes the person's involved coming closer? Or the opposite? Is this a form of metaphorically murdering another person? And why does one want to murder? Does this person deserve being murdered, if though not literally, so in other senses? Does this person need being pushed down? And why if so?? And this murderous rage can't it result in real murder too, after physical abuse???

When I read this and other things in her book I came to think that you can't blame the medicine and psychiatry that a person close to you doesn't get help, and go on violating this person yourself... I wonder if it can't become like that; men abusing women close to them covering it with that it's "the professionals' fault"?? That the profession violates is by no means a justification for private abuse???

And as Miller writes (page 145 in the Swedish edition of ”The Drama…”), a human being who has worked her/his own destiny’s tragedy through consciously (been able doing this, probably with help) can at last (much more) plainly apprehend her human fellow beings suffering, even if that person still has to belittle it.

She can’t make fun of (or scorn) other people’s feelings, of whatever sort they are (may be), if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue (or go on and on and on).

And can't abuse or violate another person. And this person also behaves more respectfully towards other people, and don’t abuse them either verbally, emotionally, mentally or physically, sexually. How defended that person even is so long as this person is no harm to other people!!! But of course, if this person’s defences harm other people than we have to react and point this out and maybe need to intervene and even protect a victim… But just reacting with contempt over a persons’ imperfection if it isn’t hurting anyone can be, and is, contempt and nothing less, and sitting on high horses!!?? I am very, very ironical…

And this wasn't a posting about matriarchal abuse... We all know that mothers have the first contact with the child usually, but does this grant fathers (or men) discharge from (all) responsibility??

Men are stronger physically (in general) and have more power in their voices (in general), men's voices are lower and their voices are louder usually, they usually have more power in society and have a higher status too, earn more money usually with all what follows... And as Anja wrote: if we look back on human history, who have murdered and killed the most? Who have created most harm? Yes, women have murdered and killed and created harm too!!!

I don't know if I sound tough and frank here, but...

PS. Of some reason I like Sting's song much, much better than the one I posted after the video with Sting this morning...

PPS. And I don't like the current school-politics in Sweden or our school-minister's (Jan Björklund) ideas about the school!!! I think he stands for a backlash and is really authoritarian!

Abraham and son by Rembrandt I think (the painting Miller refers to in "Thou Shalt Not Be Aware"? I.e. you shall not see?).

Real, genuine respect...

coltsfoot, tussilago or hästhov in Swedish.

Thinking loudly...

What is real, genuine respect? What would it be like? Mutually listening? What would real, genuine communication be about? Why aren't we capable of this (yes, and I am including myself in this. I have probably a lot to learn here and will probably never be full-learned, and make many mistakes the rest of my life? Be hurt and hurt, but hopefully not so bad? And having to deal with that)?

A Swedish woman Lisa Gåhlmark has written a book "Skönheter och odjur" (Makadam, 2005) . I haven't read it, but have been searching on it. In one of these articles it stands:

”Samma mönster går igen i den västerländska historien; mental avtrubbning och förtingligande av den andre, som börjar i relationen till djur, blir en hållning och ett sätt att behandla andra människor på främmande kontinenter, så kallade främlingar.

Gålmark lyfte något som för många är okänt - att de flesta av slavarna som arbetade på plantagerna i Västindien och USA var kvinnor. För att få människor att begå den typen av handlingar, att fängsla mängder av människor, så jämförde man slavarna med djur. Eftersom djur redan var förslavade kunde erfarenheterna och kunskapen därifrån överföras på människor. Djur blev så att säga ’träningsobjekt’ för den vite mannens förtryck mot andra. Människor behandlades som djur redan behandlades. Mest groteskt användes modellen av nazisterna. Det var ingen slump att just agronomer var de som utvecklade koncentrationslägren. Systemet var redan utvecklat på djur i den industriella djurslakten.

’Vad vill vi vara för människa?’, frågade Gålmark. ’Vill vi ha ett samhälle som bygger på kuvande, våld och dödande? Eller vill vi vara den människa som får använda sin samarbetsförmåga, sin kreativitet och empati och som bygger samhällen som kan bevara den här planeten?’ För, som Lisa Gålmark betonade: ’Människomanssamhällets sätt att exploatera jorden och förtrycka människor och djur kommer att leda till en total katastrof. Det är dags att punktera myten om det goda livet i västvärlden.’

’Det är inte underordnade grupper som ska tävla om resurserna och pengarna’, var ett uttalande som Gålmark återvände till flera gånger under sin föreläsning. Detta för att poängtera att inga förtryckta grupper egentligen står emot varandra [eller borde inte stå emot varandra, men kan nog spelas ut mot varandra??]. Maktanalysen måste alltid finnas där. Ett exempel där pensionärers rättigheter ställts emot djurens rättigheter lyftes här.”

A summary of the Swedish text: Gåhlmark talks about similar patterns throughout the Western history; a mental blunting and “förtingligande or reification” in Swedish (förtingligande is making a person and/or animal a thing, a non-feeling object, yes, thing or article). In English it seems to be this. Starting in our relation to animals she thinks (but I think it starts in childhood, and probably earliest in life and this in turn influences our behavior towards other weaker or in our power, to which animal belongs, or can belong. Hmmm, yes, I grew up in an environment with a lot of domestic animals, and yes, I saw things, which I reacted on and against). A sort of attitude and a way of treating other people on foreign continents, so called strangers, (seeing them) as animals.

Yes, do we (I) see another human being in front of us (me) always or very little as a real human being, a living, sensing, feeling? Why don't we (I) if we (I) don't? And can this be even more difficult if you only write to each others? But what is excused there either? And is it just to leave an abusive relation/circumstance neither here nor there? And is this an excuse either for the abuser: you can leave if this doesn't suite you! You are an adult now, with adult options, possibilities? You aren't a helpless or powerless child any more! So... It's up to you! Does this grant discharge?? I don't think so... How incapable of leaving a bad realtion or circumstance noone is allowed to abuse that person. And, by the way, abusing a paralyzed, a person not capable of leaving, what is that? Power abuse? Contempt for weakness? And what more? Tormenting another person, and maybe enjoying it (or just showing plain disgust to) the other person? What is that about?

Can all be provoked doing this? And what is needed to provoke such things (the victims fault, is it)? The victim who has drawn this upon him/her?? Which legitimizes abuse?? And often is used to legitimize abuse?

And in one of the texts (or both) "reification" was mentioned together with alienation.

To be able to treat people as has been done through history, starting with serfs, slaves and later the prisoners in Nazi concentration-camps (and later in other prisons, and not only in prisons), you view and compare these people with animals. Animals became training-objects she thinks for the white man’s oppression.

And animals were the first scapegoats for many children? Kicking and/or beating them more or less cruelly??

The most grotesque expression was what the Nazis did. She thinks it was no coincidence that it was agronomists who developed the concentration camps. How to slaughter animals was already developed and now used on human beings.

She wonders what sort of man we want to be. Do we want a society building on subduing, violence and killing? Or do we want to be the man allowed to use our ability to cooperate, our creativity and empathy, building societies which can preserve this planet? (but can't this be used to oppress too?? If one part speaks out for instance... You can accuse this person for being a lousy cooperator!??). Because as she also says, human society's way of exploiting the earth and oppress human beings and animals will lead to a total catastrophe. It’s time to puncture the myth about the good life in the Western world.

And I don't know; people who has and had "good hand" with animals around me are they better human beings? Better with their relations to other human beings? Or is their good hand with animals something else? I think I have had such people around me - and still have.

It’s not the oppressed groups who shall compete about the resources or money, Gåhlmark comes back to once and again. To emphasize that oppressed groups aren’t (or shouldn’t be) opposed to each others (but we are played out against each others!!??), in the interest of the power (and this occurred already in the family? But is still no excuse for behaving in the same way as grown ups, towards either weaker or equals!??).

Why is one group’s rights put against another ones?

Yes, the ones in power have interests in this??

But where did this all start actually?? Didn’t it start in the family? And already there the parents were excused (and excused themselves) with their early childhood experiences (which also proves that only insight isn’t enough??), with marital problems, a heavy workload etc. Pushing the responsibility away??

And even blaming God that they got unexpectedly pregnant, not so seldom!! Ones again pushing the responsibility away. And in rapes (even verbal, emotional rapes) pushing the responsibility away, by saying it was the other part's fault??

"It's all your fault! Everything is wrong with you (but nothing is wrong with me)!"

And I came to think: is there anything that excuses abuse? Even to the worst criminal??

Gåhlmark seems to talk about superiority and/or suborder, and about dichotomies… An either/or perspective and the problems with this? Where there only exist two alternatives. Either you are superior OR you are the suborder?

And there are other dichotomies: either you are man or you are woman (there are no its!!??), either you are white or you are black, either you are adult or you are a child, either you are human being or you are an animal, either you are heterosexual or you are homosexual (or bi-sexual!!), either you are normal or disabled, either you are rich or poor, either you are intelligent or unintelligent etc.

In one case we belong to the superior group, in another to the suborder group. So in one case you can be an oppressor and in another the oppressed!? But is it right to meet abuse with abuse? Ever?

But from where comes this need to oppress? To oppress the weaker if one gets the opportunity? The need to use ones superiority, power, strength (physical, verbal etc.) when one gets the chance?

And do all use this possibility or even need to use it if (or when) they get it? Why do some need it and others not?

But sadly many of us need to exercise power?? And very few don’t have these needs?

And never the two meet??

And, still, I wonder if abuse ever is justified? If it is justified to meet abuse with abuse? An once again: what responsibility do we have as adults? Can we blame our early childhood (how many parents haven’t done this)? How many abusers haven’t done this?

And radically; can we excuse with unconscious things either??

About these things we can talk in all endlessness… And we have also done that!!?? Throughout history…

Oh, this was very intellectual?? God forbid!!!? Either one isn't intellectual enough or too intellectual?? But working with young people has that colored my way of speaking, my way of expressing myself, the words and expressions I use? In short the sort of language I use?

I wonder if I didn't express myself differently when I for instance studied pedagogy 25 years ago on distance at the University in Uppsala (because I didn't think I was good enough teacher)? And why was I so insecure or unsure? I who had got everything offered on a silver plate (something I ought to be punished for and ought to apologize for, apologize to whom and why)? Had I (what do anyone know about that, and no wonder there are wars in the world)?? And by the way, what does a child need actually??

A female physician I had contact with for a period (1994-2000), quite wise and I still feel fairly warm for her, pointed out to me that I had managed both this and that, she seemed to think I needed to be reminded about this. Yes, despite all that insecurity!!?? Despite my "favorable" upbringing (and who can judge about that, and who knows how it was, and do I have to account for it either, or excuse my whole life through that I was brought up in this middle-class, observe, not over-class, family??? And maybe I have the right to give my confidences only to those I feel for and think I want to give them too, if my confidences are worth anything at all?? Or if I am worth anything at all? And if I don't value myself, does that mean I deserve contempt or disrespect or something? A sort of contempt for, such, "weakness"? How disgusting, isn't it?).

And actually, I also "took myself in the collar" when I was 10, and went back to school after a (deep) crisis. I think I just decided to do that?? I guess I have done that later in life too? Cleverly... Even with hardly any support. And shall I apologize for this too? My eventual strength?

This female physician also said (to my surprise), that:

"He is afraid of strong women!!"

I dropped my chin (was taken aback?).

"What?? Does she think I am a 'strong woman'?? And is he maybe afraid of ME???"

I got totally dumb.

Such thoughts didn't exist at all in my wildest imagination?? I don't know what this resulted in: best not challenge this? Not embarrass this man (my boss then - a man)!? Another thing I had to control and check??

And in spite of my shyness I can also be fairly spontaneous?? Yes, there is a both/and?? And then I had started to bloom? Started to take space? Not so afraid of being seen?

And how was it now with the Master Suppression Techniques?

Yes, what are the consequences of contempt for weakness??

And can there exist an oppression in the opposite direction so to say: you can be exposed to oppression if (when) you come from a "class" above another too?? And what is this? (and why do classes exist at all?? Aren't we worth alike actually?? Is this only a lot of fine talk? Excuse my naivety).

What do I deserve? Because I am so bad, unlovable, too intellectualizing, not intellectual enough, too little in my feelings and emotions, or maybe too much? Too insensitive, or too sensitive? Aslo see about the Primary defense. And about False power denial of needs.

And do prejudices only exist in one direction?

Master suppression techniques...

In another circumstance I searched on the Master Suppression Techniques and found this, translated to English:

"The Master suppression techniques were a framework articulated by Berit Ås to describe five means by which women are or were subjugated in Western patriarchical societies.

The techniques are:

• Make Invisible [surround that person with silence for instance, as if she/he doesn't exist?]
  
• Ridicule
• Withhold Information
• Damn If You Do And Damn If You Don’t
• Heap Blame and Put to Shame"

The roots to this, to this need (whether it's conscious or not)? If I had time I would refer to things Ingeborg Bosch has written I think... The need of bullying (spela översittare).

But I want to add that Ås has pointed out that the use of these techniques can occur not only men towards women, but also women between etc. Used when someone need to exercise power, maybe feel more powerful and knowing, put her/himself above whether it is conscious or unconscious...

What legitimacies bullying of any kind? How big or small, even the most subtle... Can one blame early childhood abuse? And who is responsible for that early abuse actually? And later: is that early abuse to blame for what you do or say, for your actings today? Some small, silent wonders...

Hmmm, that about being well mannered... And what is actually done for my own good? Of real care? Of real concern? What matters and what is important actually?

PS. I have written a blogposting about "Women's voices"... About singing-technique and being able to raise your voice (even technically), even if singing is something I just slightly touched upon in my two music-educations. Over whose voices are dominating, everywhere, even on the net (and who is listened to and seen and heard?).

And it is a bit funny that I have been method-trained in teaching singing... I don't think I know much there... But enough to reflect on these topics (do I know anything about anything I wonder silently?).

If you are very strong you have to be very kind…

I thought more on power and the power of defining things for others either as parent, other grownup or in society on different levels... And wondered who had said “If you are very strong you have to be very kind”. It was Pippi who had said that…

Then I found this here (click on "Pippi Longstocking" in the margin to the left):

“On the outskirts of a tiny little town was a neglected garden. In the garden stood an old house, and in that house lived Pippi Longstocking. She was nine years old, and she lived there all alone. She had no mother or father, which was actually quite nice, because it meant that no one could tell her that she had to go to bed just when she was having most fun. And no one could make her take cod liver oil when she would rather eat sweets.

Once upon a time Pippi did have a father whom she loved very much. And of course she once had a mother too, but that was so long ago that she couldn't remember her at all. Her mother died when Pippi was a tiny little baby, lying in her cot and crying so terribly that no one could stand to come near. Pippi thought that her mother was now up in heaven, peering down at her daughter through a hole.

Pippi would often wave to her and say, 'Don't worry! I can always look after myself!'

But Pippi had not forgotten her father. He was a sea captain who sailed the great seas, and Pippi had sailed with him on his ship until one day a big storm blew him overboard and he disappeared. But Pippi was sure that one day he would come back. She didn't believe that he had drowned. She believed that he had washed ashore on an island that was inhabited by natives and that her father had become king of them all. He walked around wearing a gold crown on his head all day long.

But Pippi had not forgotten her father. He was a sea captain who sailed the great seas, and Pippi had sailed with him on his ship until one day a big storm blew him overboard and he disappeared. But Pippi was sure that one day he would come back. She didn't believe that he had drowned. She believed that he had washed ashore on an island that was inhabited by natives and that her father had become king of them all. He walked around wearing a gold crown on his head all day long.

'My mamma is an angel, and my pappa is king of the natives. Not all children have such fine parents, let me tell you,' Pippi used to say with delight. 'And as soon as my pappa builds himself a ship, he'll come back to get me, and then I'll be a native princess. Yippee, what fun that will be!'”

A child (re)assuring herself?

Här finns texten ovan på svenska (klicka på "Pippi Långstrump" i marginalen till vänster).

About who defines the problem and wonders what “knowledge” actually is…

I got a tip about an article in a Norwegian newspaper on “Everything isn’t relative”.

Knowledge based (evidence based?) praxis puts the emphasis on diagnosis’. And as a friend wrote: WHO defines what the problem is actually??

When I am reading the debate article I come to think about that with empathy… And earlier thoughts about empathy deficits… I link all earlier postings with the label “empathy deficits” here; the eventual reader can chose what to read…

The beginning of the article in Norwegian:

”Hva er kunn­skap? Hva kan vi vite noe om? Hvor­dan kom­mer vi til er­kjen­nel­se? Dis­ku­sjo­nen om kunn­skaps­grunn­la­get for valg av til­tak på vik­ti­ge sam­funns­om­rå­der er for­ank­ret i de grunn­leg­gen­de vi­ten­skaps­teo­re­tis­ke spørs­må­le­ne.

De svar som gis, får et kon­kret, prak­tisk inn­hold idet de pre­ger hver­da­gen både for dem som gir og de som mot­tar vel­ferds­tje­nes­ter. Det­te er alt­så ikke aka­de­misk fli­se­spik­ke­ri, men en dis­ku­sjon om hva pa­si­en­ter skal bli møtt med i hel­se­tje­nes­ten, hva ele­ver skal bli møtt med på sko­len og hva for­eld­re og barn skal bli møtt med i bar­ne­ver­net.”

In Swedish (my interpretation and understanding, or misunderstanding, probably involved in the translation too):

”Vad är kunskap? Vad kan vi veta något om? Hur kommer vi till vetande/erkännande? Diskussionen om kunskapsunderlaget för val av hur vi handlar inom viktiga områden i samhället är förankrade i grundläggande vetenskapsteoretiska frågeställningar.

De svar som ges får ett konkret, praktiskt innehåll genom att de präglar vardagen både för dem som ger och dem som tar emot välfärdstjänster. Detta är alltså inte akademiskt språk, utan en diskussion om vad patienter ska bli mötta med i hälsovården, vad elever ska bli mötta med i skolan och vad föräldrar och barn ska bli mötta med i barnevernet (skydd för barn).”

In a sender-in in a local newspaper this morning a retired teacher wrote about what she thinks we value in school, and have always valued and the consequences of this, what we reward and, underlying; what does children learn about themselves in school? What have they learned? Which maybe strengthens (and have strengthened) what they have with them from home. And children are forced to go to school. I refer to this sender in here.

And all children aren’t acting out either, someone pointed to somewhere else (I don't know where now)… Some are playing the role extremely well of being satisfied, well adapted, clever… Hiding for the entire grown up environment how they actually feel and have it?

How shall I express this? I try: The way in which power is exercised can be very subtle, and maybe not always so conscious (denied from the part of the parent to such a degree), but the stronger the compulsion or coercion to exercise this power is and the subtler this is exercised (and the more denied this fact is from the part of the one in power/the parent) the more confused the child can become?

I think I know such a child very well…

In the middle of writing I got a phone-call from one of my nephews, turning 16 on Friday, January 25. He invited me for birthday celebrations on Saturday! :-) Of course I am booking that! I am so fond of my nephews (they are three) and niece...