I can't understand why the rich don't see the real assets a country has. The real assets aren't mined or drilled for. Its not oil, gas, gold, diamonds, or any other mineral deposit left by prehistoric processes. Its not 'GDP', or cars, or houses. Its people.
Without people there'd be no wealth, no power, no 'worth' to anything. People mine, drill, buy and sell those minerals. People give value to those fossils. People create wealth, allow power, spend and save. People work in the factories, shops, hospitals, post offices, clean, manufacture, build and do everything that all of us either want, or need. They care for the elderly and infirm, bury the dead, recycle the waste, do all kinds of filthy, almost impossible tasks, to keep society healthy and working. They entertain, race, play sports, inspire, philosophise, teach, encourage, contain and envelop.
But sometimes things go wrong in our heads! Hitler was definitely a troubled individual. As was Stalin, or Lenin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Attila the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Caligula, and any number of psychotic dictators throughout history in all areas of human society. So maybe therein lies the answer to my dilemma. Maybe I can understand why the rich don't appear to understand the true assets in a country.
One thing I've learned in my short time on this planet is that, by and large, we humans are pack animals. We are more successful if we work as a group. Evolutionary lessons have taught us that. We'd be no match for a tiger, or lion, or crocodile, alone. In fact, if we were to lose all the wonderful things we've created for ourselves to live in and survive on; electricity, cars, guns, pre-packed foods, houses, roads and railways, etcetera, and had only ourselves to support in the wild - we'd become extinct very soon. We don't see very well, we don't hear very well, we have no real sense of smell, comparative to other animals, in fact we're pretty useless creatures, alone! Big predators would have a field day with us. So, as a species, we learned to cooperate. Its also why we developed language - to cooperate better! Together, we're almost invincible! We can certainly keep those animal predators at bay. We're even beating bacterial and viral infections and cancers and the like! No other animal can boast that claim. Great minds getting together and solving all manner of problems. Our only real threat is - ourselves.
We have such a complex structure in our craniums, its difficult to keep the basics in focus. Most people that I've encountered in my life have one real aim - to live a full and happy life. By 'happy', I mean secure and free of disaster. I've met Asians, Chinese, Africans, Scottish, Welsh, English, Americans, Canadians, Dutch, Swiss, Italians, Irish, Spanish, Portuguese, German, West Indian, Finnish, Polish, Slovakians, Greek, the list goes on. I've met Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, even a couple of Scientologists! And many others. All have one thing in common - to live an event free, full and happy life. Virtually everybody I've met seems to want the same thing. Including me. We want the best for our families, we want the best for our friends. Its how we achieve those ends that causes friction!
Politics, religion, sport, music, art, architecture, books, films, in fact almost anything can divide us. So how does that division occur?
Well, I'm not sure, but let's start with one idea; that wealth divides. Its the thought of losing 'my' property. The things 'I've' put together for 'my' security. Underlying that thought is the fact that I'm talking about 'me'! I'm just focussing on 'my' individual needs. At this level, the fact that 'I' need 'you' hasn't impacted on 'my' sense of security. 'I' have everything 'I' need and to Hell with 'you'! What 'I've' forgotten is that 'I' need 'you' for my survival. I wonder how many of the super-rich would be willing to don an army uniform, carry a gun and go fight a war on the front lines? Or, how much of their rubbish would they be willing to haul away to the landfill? Or, go and deliver their own mail? Or, fix their own electricity supply, or go to the abattoir and kill their own cow/pig/sheep, and process the meat for their own consumption? Or, clear the sewage drains and slurry tanks? Or, design and cut their own clothes? Or, build their own homes? In fact most of the super-rich have absolutely no idea how to look after themselves! Most have inherited wealth and have never had to do anything to secure their own lives. They're simply rich. Work is for other people. 'You'! So how do they separate themselves from 'you'?
Defence mechanisms. Unconscious processes that allow us all to avoid conscious awareness of anxiety provoking thoughts. Freud was the first to introduce unconscious defence mechanisms and many of his contemporaries have discovered defences that Freud missed! Cognitive dissonance is a phrase I've used in a previous post. Is the concept of holding two opposing views in conscious awareness without conflict. Confabulation is the means to rationalising any disparity. In India, its religion that helps the super-rich deal with the guilt of seeing poor beggars in the streets. They're of a lower caste and will have a better life next time round. But in the (largely) secular West that's not such a prominent ideology. But its also not too far away when a particular psychological theory is applied.
This psychological theory is particularly Western. In fact, it was first proposed in America. We now know it as "Humanistic" psychology. The "Third Force" in therapy. First there was psychoanalysis which spawned psychodynamics. Then, to counter that, there was behaviourism which spawned cognitive behaviour therapy and rational emotive therapy. Finally, following Freud's lecture tour of the USA in 1927, there came a group of psychologists who rejected Freud's theory of the id, ego, and super-ego in constant conflict and developed theories that better suited the American mindset.
Freud believed that Americans had sublimated their libidos through religious indoctrination. Religion was indeed a prominent force in the USA, especially fundamentalist protestantism. Americans couldn't lose the "soul" to unconscious, uncontrolled processes. Austrian born psychologist Heinz Hartmann was the first to argue that the ego was the most important aspect of the psyche. He and others, including Erik H Erikson, felt that the ego searched for gratification brought about by sheer learned ability. A minor sense of 'success', such as when a child learns to ride a bike. These new ideas revolved around the idea that the ego operated independently of internal conflicts and strived for these moments of achievement. Essentially; ego was in control.
It was given this backdrop that Abraham Maslow concocted his appalling 'hierarchy of needs' pyramid! All of Maslow's hierarchical needs depend on individual emotional and physical successes. His list of "self-actualized" people reads like a "Who's Who" of the rich elite of the time, including the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt! This self-interested, egocentric model of the psyche led to Carl Rogers developing the "Person-Centred" model of therapy.
The thing is, as a therapy model, it provides the individual with personal goals. To be successful one must be aware of one's own needs and not take on the world's problems. Sounds good doesn't it? It also allows a degree of altruism - but not at the cost of one's own needs! One of the metaphors I've heard in the training of this form of therapy is: "If you were the only one who could row the lifeboat, it's no good you getting out to swim for a potential survivor!" It's obviously the drowning survivor's own efforts that should save him!
So successful is this form of therapy that it's made its way over to Britain. There are now 'person-centred' approaches to education, health and customer services. 'You' are the most important being! We must feed 'your' needs to make 'you' adopt this attitude of "can-do"! It all feels very positive. In fact that's one of the three 'core-conditions' a therapist needs for a successful outcome of person-centred therapy.
These core conditions are: "Unconditional Positive Regard", "Congruence", and a "Non-judgemental Attitude". If we examine these conditions what we soon discover is that they are mutually exclusive! The easiest is the 'non-judgemental attitude'. It is humanly impossible to be non-judgemental! We make judgements all the time and don't even give it a second thought. We judge family, friends, enemies, risk, foodstuff, news items, homes, cars, sports, you name it. Everything has been subjected to some form of judgement! Every single person we meet is judged. Even our parents! Are they in a good mood or bad? Can I get away with this today, or not? It's an automatic response to judge!
Next: 'congruence'. This, in the Rogerian text, means to be 'truly yourself'. Well, if I'm not supposed to judge, how can I be truly 'me'? I judge! The only way I can make sense of this is if I change the meaning of 'non-judgemental' to 'non-negative-judgement'. Which means that whatever my client brings to me, I cannot judge him/her negatively. However, I'm still judging, but in a positive way.
Which brings us to the most important condition; 'unconditional positive regard'. Roughly translated as 'love'. The kind a good parent gives to their offspring. Unconditional love. So, I meet a stranger who has a problem. (For ease of writing only, male.) He tells me he's been having an affair with a younger girl and his wife doesn't know about it. So far, so good. In another life, I can imagine I might be tempted to stray. He also tells me his Christian values prevent him from continuing the affair, but he cannot face being honest with his wife for fear of losing her, all of which is causing great anxiety. I'm with him on this. I don't need to be negative about his religion, even though I'm an atheist, because it's his belief system given to him by his parents and the community he lives in. So all's ok, right now. I'll stay with it. Then he tells me that he finds it difficult to tell the girl it's over. I can understand that. If a relationship has developed then someone's going to get hurt. I press ever so slightly to find out if the girl is from his home community. My thoughts are moving to the possibility that there might be some risk to his marriage if the girl behaves jealously. He tells me she's a pupil at his wife's school! I'm now very quiet! He continues to tell me that his wife runs an infant school! I'm gagging to ask him how old this girl is. But I'm afraid of the answer. He talks about her as if she's an adult, but something tells me he's not giving me the whole story. I remain quiet. Eventually he reaches a point where he tells me that if anyone in the community were to discover their relationship he would be in serious trouble!
I'll leave you to ponder that one! In the meantime I'll ask the question: How much "unconditional positive regard" are you feeling for this guy, right now?
These 'core-conditions' for person-centred counselling are totally unworkable. But they give a sense of something 'positive'. A sense that you're trying to reach your client. When reading what little theory there is behind it, you may be led to believe that it is totally compatible with the 'spiritual' aspect of a person. In reality, it's just about making a person feel good about themselves - whatever the problem.
The negative side to all this nonsense is the perception of people having choices in their lives. We look at our drowning man and say: "You should've learned to swim. You had the opportunity!" Anyone stuck at the bottom of the 'hierarchy of needs' obviously made the wrong choices in life, yes? Because of which they weren't able to build a business, buy a house, become the boss, 'self-actualize'. They obviously blew their chances in some deliberate, self-destructive way, didn't they? And being congruent, not judging negatively and offering them unconditional positive regard you can say: "Never mind fella, better luck next time!" and walk away with the spoils. (Because you wouldn't want to risk drowning in the lower depths of your own hierarchy of needs in case you couldn't row your own boat to safety, eh?)
So there's my answer - Ego psychology based "person-centred" reasoning for not realising the true value of people. Too busy rowing away with a boat full of your stuff!
This psychological theory is particularly Western. In fact, it was first proposed in America. We now know it as "Humanistic" psychology. The "Third Force" in therapy. First there was psychoanalysis which spawned psychodynamics. Then, to counter that, there was behaviourism which spawned cognitive behaviour therapy and rational emotive therapy. Finally, following Freud's lecture tour of the USA in 1927, there came a group of psychologists who rejected Freud's theory of the id, ego, and super-ego in constant conflict and developed theories that better suited the American mindset.
Freud believed that Americans had sublimated their libidos through religious indoctrination. Religion was indeed a prominent force in the USA, especially fundamentalist protestantism. Americans couldn't lose the "soul" to unconscious, uncontrolled processes. Austrian born psychologist Heinz Hartmann was the first to argue that the ego was the most important aspect of the psyche. He and others, including Erik H Erikson, felt that the ego searched for gratification brought about by sheer learned ability. A minor sense of 'success', such as when a child learns to ride a bike. These new ideas revolved around the idea that the ego operated independently of internal conflicts and strived for these moments of achievement. Essentially; ego was in control.
It was given this backdrop that Abraham Maslow concocted his appalling 'hierarchy of needs' pyramid! All of Maslow's hierarchical needs depend on individual emotional and physical successes. His list of "self-actualized" people reads like a "Who's Who" of the rich elite of the time, including the likes of Eleanor Roosevelt! This self-interested, egocentric model of the psyche led to Carl Rogers developing the "Person-Centred" model of therapy.
The thing is, as a therapy model, it provides the individual with personal goals. To be successful one must be aware of one's own needs and not take on the world's problems. Sounds good doesn't it? It also allows a degree of altruism - but not at the cost of one's own needs! One of the metaphors I've heard in the training of this form of therapy is: "If you were the only one who could row the lifeboat, it's no good you getting out to swim for a potential survivor!" It's obviously the drowning survivor's own efforts that should save him!
So successful is this form of therapy that it's made its way over to Britain. There are now 'person-centred' approaches to education, health and customer services. 'You' are the most important being! We must feed 'your' needs to make 'you' adopt this attitude of "can-do"! It all feels very positive. In fact that's one of the three 'core-conditions' a therapist needs for a successful outcome of person-centred therapy.
These core conditions are: "Unconditional Positive Regard", "Congruence", and a "Non-judgemental Attitude". If we examine these conditions what we soon discover is that they are mutually exclusive! The easiest is the 'non-judgemental attitude'. It is humanly impossible to be non-judgemental! We make judgements all the time and don't even give it a second thought. We judge family, friends, enemies, risk, foodstuff, news items, homes, cars, sports, you name it. Everything has been subjected to some form of judgement! Every single person we meet is judged. Even our parents! Are they in a good mood or bad? Can I get away with this today, or not? It's an automatic response to judge!
Next: 'congruence'. This, in the Rogerian text, means to be 'truly yourself'. Well, if I'm not supposed to judge, how can I be truly 'me'? I judge! The only way I can make sense of this is if I change the meaning of 'non-judgemental' to 'non-negative-judgement'. Which means that whatever my client brings to me, I cannot judge him/her negatively. However, I'm still judging, but in a positive way.
Which brings us to the most important condition; 'unconditional positive regard'. Roughly translated as 'love'. The kind a good parent gives to their offspring. Unconditional love. So, I meet a stranger who has a problem. (For ease of writing only, male.) He tells me he's been having an affair with a younger girl and his wife doesn't know about it. So far, so good. In another life, I can imagine I might be tempted to stray. He also tells me his Christian values prevent him from continuing the affair, but he cannot face being honest with his wife for fear of losing her, all of which is causing great anxiety. I'm with him on this. I don't need to be negative about his religion, even though I'm an atheist, because it's his belief system given to him by his parents and the community he lives in. So all's ok, right now. I'll stay with it. Then he tells me that he finds it difficult to tell the girl it's over. I can understand that. If a relationship has developed then someone's going to get hurt. I press ever so slightly to find out if the girl is from his home community. My thoughts are moving to the possibility that there might be some risk to his marriage if the girl behaves jealously. He tells me she's a pupil at his wife's school! I'm now very quiet! He continues to tell me that his wife runs an infant school! I'm gagging to ask him how old this girl is. But I'm afraid of the answer. He talks about her as if she's an adult, but something tells me he's not giving me the whole story. I remain quiet. Eventually he reaches a point where he tells me that if anyone in the community were to discover their relationship he would be in serious trouble!
I'll leave you to ponder that one! In the meantime I'll ask the question: How much "unconditional positive regard" are you feeling for this guy, right now?
These 'core-conditions' for person-centred counselling are totally unworkable. But they give a sense of something 'positive'. A sense that you're trying to reach your client. When reading what little theory there is behind it, you may be led to believe that it is totally compatible with the 'spiritual' aspect of a person. In reality, it's just about making a person feel good about themselves - whatever the problem.
The negative side to all this nonsense is the perception of people having choices in their lives. We look at our drowning man and say: "You should've learned to swim. You had the opportunity!" Anyone stuck at the bottom of the 'hierarchy of needs' obviously made the wrong choices in life, yes? Because of which they weren't able to build a business, buy a house, become the boss, 'self-actualize'. They obviously blew their chances in some deliberate, self-destructive way, didn't they? And being congruent, not judging negatively and offering them unconditional positive regard you can say: "Never mind fella, better luck next time!" and walk away with the spoils. (Because you wouldn't want to risk drowning in the lower depths of your own hierarchy of needs in case you couldn't row your own boat to safety, eh?)
So there's my answer - Ego psychology based "person-centred" reasoning for not realising the true value of people. Too busy rowing away with a boat full of your stuff!
No comments:
Post a Comment