George W. Bush - and other phenomena in the world…

[Slightly updated January 18]. Some loud thinking, inspired by things I read and have read recently...

A leader writer in the leader "Goodbye to Bush" this morning about George W. Bush and his last speech as president (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“Yesterday George W. Bush held his retirement speech as president.

It was short, vigorous and – as superficial and petrified as always.

His eight years in the White House has made him to one of USA’s less popular presidents ever, the country’s reputation abroad is worse than ever, he leaves more ongoing wars after himself and on top a budget deficit that in itself has transferred power to financiers in Asia. But he is stuck to the conviction that the policy has been successful and the proof of that is that USA since September 11 has managed to fight terror attacks.

In his speech his fundamentalist revival Christianity revived: good and evil stand against each other in this world and no compromises are possible.

How was Bush possible? That’s the ten-thousand-crown-question, a question the historians will pose once. How could he win a second period as president? USA regressed during the 21st Century, a great deal of the population sank into a right Christian and neoconservative slough that made them incapable of understanding themselves, their country, their time/era.

Maybe Bush became the president that came to administer an American empire that at last passed zenith?

Now he retires. The world can start anew again.”

Can it? Does it? Hopefully it does.

In a local newspaper it was a review, ”The shopping culture rules our lives”, today of Zygmunt Bauman’s book “Consuming Life.”

From the review (in my amateur translation from Swedish):

“You are first and foremost consumer – everything else is of subordinate meaning. Each human being is valued first an foremost for his ability to buy and for his creditworthiness./…/

What happens to the humanity and our abilities when we are reduced to shopping creatures only?/…/

According to Bauman even we human beings are above all [above everything else; not really seen as human beings with feelings and emotions and a lot of other needs!? All needs are reduced to hat of consuming?] transformed into goods or merchandises. /…/ In this information era being invisible is like being dead [does it have to be? If you had been seenby your first caregivers?].

The dream of becoming famous attracts more and more people today. The central motif is being seen in all our medias./…/

The own self is in the center of attention./../

This hyper fast chase on kicks is called development and modernity when it in reality is about rapidly arisen consumption of narcissism and of general gossip./…/

Constantly we have to become convinced that our cars, kitchen fixtures, clothes, accessories have to become changed of different reasons. In the shopping culture the drive to throw things away is as powerful and necessary as to shop. Can we find an explanation to why so many people don’t feel well in this consumption society? Why do so many people have to eat antidepressants? Yes, in parts because this shopping culture needs clear feelings of lack of satisfaction and lack of something substantial./…/

The flight from ourselves enriches other people. /…/ We have to be on an ongoing chase for ideal ideas about our lives. Everything can become changed to something better./…/

Another gloomy consequence is a selfish society and people standing completely indifferent for notions like solidarity and human beings equal values. If a human being merely is valued as merchandise the whole idea of brotherly philosophy falls. The step from a collective society and collective responsibility to an individual and privatized societal system changes the human beings’ attitudes and ability to engage in other people.

The neoliberalism gave the shopping culture free scope more than twenty years ago. This has also in a very thorough way changed human beings attitudes, habits and opinions.”

Why are we valued so much, and sometimes only, for our outer appearance? Why aren’t we seen as living human beings and why don’t we see ourselves as living human beings, with feelings, needs, emotions etc. Or how do we see our feelings, needs, emotions? And why do we see them as we do?

Why is the own self in the center as it is? Is it a sound self centeredness? What is unsound? And from where does this self centeredness come? What would a sound development lead to?

What is real development, what would real development be? Both in the society as in individuals?

What are we lacking and what needs do we try to satisfy in different ways? Some not with consumption either!

But in other ways. Maybe sometimes very subtle and disguised…

Can true, genuine respect for individuals exist in a/the collective? If not why?

Bauman thinks that a mixed economy protects people from the capitalism’s varieties. He speaks about social rights [another Swedish leader writer wrote recently about "Forgotten rights"!!], a feeling of belonging and human solidarity. Simply a more equal society. And of course this includes new goals for politics concerning the climate, with a much more “sober” and planned consumption. He also writes about the individualisation of problems that in their bottom actually are collective [see paragraph 6 in this linked Wikipedia-article]! My comment: Yes, indivuals are blamed for problems that actually aren't their personal. But at the same time other people, preferably in power, escape their responsibilities. Quite ironically: and they are also given freedom from responsibility (liability) from the people and not least other people in power.

Yes, what are we striving for and why?

I think the roots lies in our first twenty years in life…

The roots for violence are not unknown, no.

Why do we have the leaders we have? Why are those persons seeking power?

See the following articles and essays: “Bush isn’t a Moron, He’s a Cunning Sociopath” by Bev Conover, “D.C. Shrink Diagnosis Bush as a Paranoid, Sadistic Megalomaniac”, “George W. Bush’s projection dislocation of self” by Terence O'Leary, “See No Evil -- A political psychologist explains the roles denial, emotion and childhood punishment play in politics” Michael Milburn interviewed by Brian Braiker, “So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?” by psychologist Oliver James, “The Madness of George W. Bush – A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis” by Paul Levy.

Neoconservatism, neomoralism, perfectionism…

There's a wave of neoconservatism and moralizing over the whole (western) world is it? Ideas that weren't really opportune twenty years ago you express openly today with no shame at all!

Loud thinking around and about things I have read recently, I don’t have any real solutions to these things though, am just wondering, thinking, reflecting over things:

A Swedish journalist about Susan Faludi’s last book “The Terror Dream – Myth and Misogyny in an insecure America” (misogyny is hatred of women, though covered up in today's world as much as earlier?? And, yes, there is a backlash in the society in many respects!!! And I have actually started to read this book!) in the article “My Home Is My Sorrow – Ira Mallik About the Dream That Cracked – and Gender Equality”:

“…September 11 became the starting shot for a medial idealization of the housewife, the family, childbirth and the man as provider.”

She compares what Faludi writes concerning USA with the state of things in Sweden; calling it the building of the home (isn’t it a form of regression we see, regression in an insecure world? People are seeking comfort in idealizing the family, because that early family had “flaws” and they can't admit to that, when this image is triggered we people regress. The more flaws the family had and the person hasn’t processed this or come to terms with it, the more he/she regresses to earlier stages? And this also occurs on societal levels, when a whole society is in crisis, then many become more conservative for instance, we can see a neoconservatism and a new moralizing? Sometimes harsh?):

“With the renovation, the weekend cottage summerhouse and the upkeep of the private house, the parent generation’s traditional gender role division is maintained. Dad cuts the grass and does the joinery; mom works hard, potters about and decorates [see the Swedish painter Carl Larsson whose wife, Karin, also was painter originally, she let her artistic talents and interests out in the family, in the shadow/shade of her husband]. The common prison is decorated with Italian glazed tiles. The dream wasn’t to spend all free time renovating. The dream wasn’t either to look after the kids when the husband was renovating.

The perfection which, as soon as the putty has dried, is completed, seem to be the explosive paste which transforms the love relation to bloody rags and bitter wars, about leases on the place to live and the weekend cottage summerhouse.

All which shall manifest our selves in the home [instead of our true selves??]/.../

Ironically enough it is the same homes that shall manifest the middle class status and the

successful self [being good enough!?] which threatens to become transformed into a prison.

You have to pay money for interests each month and this demands a high and steady income./…/

Hopefully we can start to talk about all peoples’ rights to a decent living instead of fancy and cool kitchens and the right making a good bargain on ones living.”

Yeah, we have to have perfect homes, be perfect, look perfect, express ourselves perfectly (if you don’t you can keep quite) and have perfect lives… Being perfect partners, lovers, workers... So those having problems with perfectionism gets problems too in such a society, problems which had been smaller in another society?? No wonder burnouts, exhaustions – and broken relations!??)

Another article yesterday in a newspaper I bought “Should we get divorced more often?” with representatives for both the outer alternatives “Yes” and “No”. Where the woman Cecilia Gyllenhammar (daughter to the former CEO for Volvo, Pehr Gyllenhammar) said

“Yes! Follow your heart.”

(I didn’t find this article on the web but another one on the same theme).

She says:

“Dead marriages create a milieu without dynamics and beliefs in the future. It makes me crazy thinking of how other people ave answers on how our lives are. Don’t let outer pressure and moral rule. Follow your heart; allow yourself a rich sex life.”

The journalist asks her:

“Do you think more people would divorce if they could afford it?”

Cecilia G. answers:

“Yes, I know from my surrounding that people having it damn [economically] well have to change living area or even to one with a lower status. They are cowards and don’t dare to break up from old patterns and ideals [on top it's great shame not succeeding - or maybe even being left]. The society has to be there and see so people aren’t forced to stay in marriages. We have to prevent so the right [right wing people] doesn’t let our moral govern our lives once again, so the marriages aren’t strengthened in the society.”

We ought to wonder what healthy and sound relations are, and how to create them?? Because even if we are entirely independent we need other people!! Even autonomous people need other peoples in their lives. And a truly autonomous person doesn’t even think or reflect over this, but just has other people around, in healthier relations than many other people have?? And if they don't have people around they don't blame themselves, as if this is their fault?? And shouldnt't become blamed...

A sound, autonomous person can admit to her/his needs, wishes, and desires?

A man, Marcus Birro, has a different view on if it is too easy to divorce.

“Of course there are people feeling very lonely in a relation, but it is nevertheless a defeat with a divorce [yes, something to grieve!?]. Giving up is a loss [yes, and you have to grieve a loss].

The love is stronger than the self-centered cynicism that is rewarded in the society. The ultimate proof of this is that people can marry four times and really believe that it shall function each time, despite that all knows that it can go to hell.”

But he also wonders:

“Is it better being stuck in an emotional desert just because you want to continue driving a golf-car during the weekends?”

Yes, there has been a lot of hypocrisy, and selfishness… How it looks on the surface…

People stayed together earlier who should have divorced!?? Or who should have worked their problems through and gotten help with it too. But because of the moral and taboos people couldn’t talk openly about their problems, maybe at all! And many also became scorned:

"Oh yeah, now you are coming here and complaining! You should have listened to me/us in the first place!"

Or something. So instead of helping people solving mistakes, people became punished, and many times didn't really work anything out. Didn't work things ot that could have been worked out, or in the worst cases didn't work a divorce through for all involved parts best... Or was stuck in a bad relation.

I think it was like this not more far away than in my parent’s generation, where nobody is divorced… Were/are their marriages better and established on better grounds?

Alice Miller has written a lot about traditional morality in the society and its results in her last books... No, what she talks about,and have been talking about for the last 30 years, isn't quite appropriate any more? Not as it was 15-20 years ago??

Are we dealing with the most painful things here though? I.e. our relations with our parents from the first beginning? Betrayals, disappointments, making our lives more difficult than they had to be, maybe far more difficult and painful than they ought to be??

And people don't get proper help dealing with this from their therapists, counselors, helpers! Because it isn't only about understanding those things on an intellectual level! But understanding it on an emotional - to some degree...

What is the eager glorification of the family about? How are the actual experiences of the early family actually for the biggest promoters of the family? Because they are promoting it in a quite moralizing way? How sound are those people?

And that about power, the needs for it and leaders again... See earlier posting with the label "backward psycho classes" and the essay "Leaders" by Bob Scharf, that the more defended psycho classes tend to lead!!! Yes,so it is!? This is what we see in the society and world!!?? With some (few) exceptions!?

Evening thoughts...

[Updated May 8 in the end]. The book of the month in one of my book clubs was ”Glädjens pedagogik” or ”The pedagogy of Joy.” Another book was “Skapandets kraft” or “The Power of Creating.”

About the latter book you can read:

“The book describes the creativity both in theory and praxis, and the great significance of playing as a matter/material of origin and a prerequisite for all creation.”

Joy, lust, laughing, playing, having fun, even as grown up.

Once again; and all this I must be allowed to answer to too. Answer to my preferences, what is talking to me. If I am not allowed then I am maybe lees inclined to respect my pupils/students and their preferences (also on an unconscious level). But maybe I could explore my preferences even more, which they are, and their possible origins? (As if it was something wrong with MY preferences? As if I have to question them? And as if only I of some reason have to? And who is actually snobbish here?? I wonder a bit angry).

And I as giving and giving also need nourishment, so I have something to give.

A third book was about “Lärarna - om utövarna av en svår konst” or “The Teachers – about the practicians of a difficult art.” It stood about it

“Of course many teachers during the centuries have distinguished themselves as flunkeys (livered footmen) to the power and oppressors of the pupils [True!!]. On the other hand there are innumerable evidences about teachers who have been examples and models for children and adolescents in their development.”

And as to being flunkeys or footmen to the power struck me that other groups have too during history; priests (at least here), physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists etc. just to mention some? And I think many still are, how enlightened we even ought to be!

And in the book about Vygotsky it stood at page 55:

“I try to be as Skalman [the childbook figure; tortoise]: narrating lively, referring to the pupils opening thoughts, but I don’t hesitate saying ‘advanced things’. It’s a comfort that Vygotsky says that it doesn’t matter [isn’t wrong] if what I say in the beginning is ‘a head above’ the pupils. Even if the pupils don’t understand everything it influences them positively when I invite them to this larger (or widened) world.”

Yes that’s true? At least it was so for me (and still is?). Such things challenge me and make me want to understand. It has always done.

Showing children/pupils a world they maybe don’t know of yet really.Addition May 8: Or showing each other worlds we don't know of yet! The child showing the adult and vice versa? If we as adults could interact... An exchange, a dialogue, back and forth? We are probably not really aware, despite "enlightenment"? Do we get proper help developing these sides? Or do we have to do this work on our own? Make mistakes... Work over a longer time, maybe much longer?

Struck me what Jenson writes about Jane, who has gone in ACA or CODA meetings once a week more than one year and read many self help books on codependency and dysfunctional families. She has leaned to tell her husband that she doesn't want to go fishing on their vacations or meet his family each Christmas and that the children shall have a say in this too (putting a stop to things). She doesn't let her coworker put his arm around her any more just like that (posing boundaries), she has stopped calling her mom many times a day to "make" her go to mammography (refusing a responsibility that isn't hers), and she has created routines so all share the work in the household.

Jane still feels hurt, angry, embittered, set aside, neglected, ignored, afraid of saying and even thinking certain things. She can't just relax and read a good book or take a walk (and enjoy it). She is still depreciating herself, feels insufficient as wife and mother, and wonders if she is doing enough good at work. She thinks she is mean to her husband and kids and that she ought to control her temper better. Insights which have developed in parallel with her new understanding of herself. Despite all she has done and tried to change as the good girl, satisfying the therapists (and the other members) in the group(s) she has joined.

Why is that? What sort of help has she got actually? Is it Jane who is at fault? Not willing to change really?

It's nothing wrong with the help she has got? It's not the help that hasn't been sufficient? A help that has only been on the surface? Is another sort of work not possible? Where she would feel unburdened?

Yes, therapy walks in the leading strings of the power too? We shall adapt to the society and the norms there, or not least to the power (how healthy is that power?). The good girl/boy in the therapists, unconsciously striving to get their parents love and "approval." I get so angry.

Or rather, our change(s) shall take place on the society's and power's terms? How shall one put this to words?

And once again:

“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.”

(Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book).

See earlier posting, on Melanie Klein, Freud etc.

Your genuine self...

about Walpurgis Eve and 1 May here.

Something I read gave me an aha-experience (when I searched on aha-experience "Eureka!!" came up), a person thinking that all creative activity, whatever, is a communication with ones genuine, true self. You have to ask all the time (during the creative activity) what you want, what you like, what awakes you to life - and then express this. A sort of research into oneself? To shape or form yourself. Maybe this is even more important for a person who has been indistinct or vague and to a high degree invisible.

But this isn’t always the case I would say as working in an artistic profession!!! There are so much there what you shall and not shall, what you shall like and not like, work with or not!!! And we shall be sensitive to our pupils and their needs and wishes. But does these two have to be opposites?

Yes – and I must be allowed this too was what struck me!! I must be allowed to prefer some sorts of creative expressions more than other, because I feel for them. At least privately! Even if I have to use music in my work I am not always very fond of.

But this doesn’t have to mean I put what I prefer above other expressions! But, of course it can be so too; that people put their own before other people’s choices and preferences, thinking this is better than other peoples' choices. Many times they/we do. Is this even more forbidden for me than for others?

I have a male colleague just above 30 having very strong preferences for certain music, composers etc. And who also strongly dislikes other forms, sorts, composers, even instruments!!

My preferences, what I like more or most; in music, in other artistic expressions is me. Or an expression for what my history has formed me to. Maybe which can make me visible and distinct more and more, the more I listen to this, which I think I haven't really done. Something I should answer to much more than I do? Not be ashamed of or silence or make invisible?

Allow myself gladly.

Because this is me, what I feel for, what communicates with me!

And I read something else which also made me wonder and react strongly at against this morning before I went to work (and hadn't time blog about it then) what Miller said about true enlightenment…Had to search for it. Found it in my amateur translation from this posting:

Miller writes (page 145 in the Swedish edition of ”The Drama…”) that a human being who has worked her/his own destiny’s tragedy through consciously 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 [people still struggling with their healing for instance, and maybe not so successfully], of whatever sort they are, if she can take her own feelings seriously. She will not let the vicious circle of contempt continue."