In our time, we are witnessing an ever-increasing manifestation of
inhumanity, with the risk of becoming accustomed to it, so that we feel
helpless in the face of images of unacceptable violence, committed by
men against other men. I am referring to the recent visualizations of
torture inflicted on immigrants in detention camps, with the excuse of
hitting illegal immigrants. ---- But also to the horrifying images of
war, where we see boys and girls abandoned to horror, hunger and cold.
Then there are the many, too many women, who live apparently normal
situations, but who die at the hands of their husbands, partners or exes.
If there are those who have become accustomed to violence, so much so
that they do not recognize it when there is still time, it is precisely
women. Very often, due to an unconscious alliance that is established
between victim and executioner, the woman does not recognize violence,
she believes she is not right.
Especially if the violence is subtle, psychological and has not yet
reached physical expression. Then there is confusion, there is shame.
Getting to have the courage to admit that one is suffering violence and
ask for help is not at all facilitated by an entire culture and ideas
that are at the basis of violence against women.
This does not lessen the responsibility of the individual who strikes a
woman in any way in a single relationship. It could be argued that
certain cultural ideas generate even psychological distortions,
encouraging violence, after having contributed to the loss of humanity
in the relationship with the woman in particular. Several scholars argue
that the fertile ground for violent relationships is in the ideology of
romantic love, in the relationship in which his violence would be an
expression of his attachment to his partner and her acceptance of
violence would be an expression of her devotion to the man.
This vision of the man-woman relationship, as a heartbreaking love
inevitably accompanied by pain, is actually still rooted in our society
and traces of it can be found in popular culture and even in fairy tales
(e.g. Beauty and the Beast).
From the philosophy of Empedocles to Freudian psychoanalysis, the
juxtaposition of Eros, the god of love or principle of life and
Thanatos, who personifies hatred and death, is one of those cultural
legacies that substantially justify the coexistence of Love and Death as
a fact inherent to human life and that characterizes love relationships.
Thus violence would be explained as the emergence of an "animal
instinct" of the human being and violent men are often defined as
monsters, ogres, non-human creatures. In reality in human beings there
is no animal instinct, genetically given, that determines behavior, but
there is a psychic reality that can be sick due to the relationships
they have had. Moreover, animals are not bad, they only respond to the
survival instinct. Even from the world of information, the clarity that
would help us understand better often does not arrive. On the one hand,
in articles, essays or stories, the violent man is depicted as a
monster, as if violence in interpersonal relationships did not occur due
to a reality of inhumanity, that is, absence of humanity and therefore
lack of affection, but due to the sudden emergence of something
monstrous, something supernatural hidden inside man and out of control.
Or there are narratives in which violence is completely belittled,
normalized and deliberately confused with love that if not reciprocated,
would justify it. In both cases, it is denied that violence is a disease
of human reality, it is a pathological dimension of man. But why is it
still so difficult to talk about the disease of the individual and of
the relationship, as if the deeper psychopathological reading of the
phenomenon served to justify and relieve the violent person of
responsibility and indeed increased the sense of guilt of women who
would not have taken care of a sick person? Because underneath there is
a completely altered vision of mental illness, which derives in part
from academic, organicist psychiatry, according to which if a person
becomes ill in the mind it is as if he were struck by a disease for
which he has no responsibility. Instead, considering mental illness as
an illness of interpersonal relationships, as something that changes
depending on the relationships that are experienced, the individual is
given back the responsibility of his own life and his own choices and
also the hope of being able to change what is wrong. This could be done
as a real prevention of care of relationships starting from school,
which could make a difference compared to the dominant culture. Feminism
states that the violent person "is not ill, but a healthy child of the
patriarchy". Instead, saying that the patriarchy is a system of values
that generates sick people is another thing. The path to women's
liberation must be to seek an equal and harmonious relationship with
men, since the disparity is not biological in nature, but the result of
a wrong relationship between the sexes.
I would end with a quote from the psychiatrist Massimo Fagioli who, with
the discovery of the "Theory of Human Birth", made the man-woman
relationship the fundamental cornerstone of human evolution and
existence, freeing it from the dogmas of reason and religion and giving
back an identity, both personal and sexual, to human beings.
... "Perhaps the new man who admires, respects, accepts the creative
woman without becoming religious, must derive from the woman herself. It
is the woman who gives birth, in quotation marks obviously and not in a
biological sense, a new man who is able to accept this possibility of
women being creative. If we could first think about this, obviously, and
then do it, then perhaps we would also be able to find the solution to
certain disorders, because the first human relationship is the
relationship between a child and a woman. For at least a year or two it
is there. And if there is a sick woman there, a woman without an
identity, the child gets sick, the child comes out badly. But if the
woman manages to realize her identity, and if the man respects and helps
her identity, probably the birth of human beings and the first year of
life can develop a man different from the one that has existed for
thousands of years"
http://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
inhumanity, with the risk of becoming accustomed to it, so that we feel
helpless in the face of images of unacceptable violence, committed by
men against other men. I am referring to the recent visualizations of
torture inflicted on immigrants in detention camps, with the excuse of
hitting illegal immigrants. ---- But also to the horrifying images of
war, where we see boys and girls abandoned to horror, hunger and cold.
Then there are the many, too many women, who live apparently normal
situations, but who die at the hands of their husbands, partners or exes.
If there are those who have become accustomed to violence, so much so
that they do not recognize it when there is still time, it is precisely
women. Very often, due to an unconscious alliance that is established
between victim and executioner, the woman does not recognize violence,
she believes she is not right.
Especially if the violence is subtle, psychological and has not yet
reached physical expression. Then there is confusion, there is shame.
Getting to have the courage to admit that one is suffering violence and
ask for help is not at all facilitated by an entire culture and ideas
that are at the basis of violence against women.
This does not lessen the responsibility of the individual who strikes a
woman in any way in a single relationship. It could be argued that
certain cultural ideas generate even psychological distortions,
encouraging violence, after having contributed to the loss of humanity
in the relationship with the woman in particular. Several scholars argue
that the fertile ground for violent relationships is in the ideology of
romantic love, in the relationship in which his violence would be an
expression of his attachment to his partner and her acceptance of
violence would be an expression of her devotion to the man.
This vision of the man-woman relationship, as a heartbreaking love
inevitably accompanied by pain, is actually still rooted in our society
and traces of it can be found in popular culture and even in fairy tales
(e.g. Beauty and the Beast).
From the philosophy of Empedocles to Freudian psychoanalysis, the
juxtaposition of Eros, the god of love or principle of life and
Thanatos, who personifies hatred and death, is one of those cultural
legacies that substantially justify the coexistence of Love and Death as
a fact inherent to human life and that characterizes love relationships.
Thus violence would be explained as the emergence of an "animal
instinct" of the human being and violent men are often defined as
monsters, ogres, non-human creatures. In reality in human beings there
is no animal instinct, genetically given, that determines behavior, but
there is a psychic reality that can be sick due to the relationships
they have had. Moreover, animals are not bad, they only respond to the
survival instinct. Even from the world of information, the clarity that
would help us understand better often does not arrive. On the one hand,
in articles, essays or stories, the violent man is depicted as a
monster, as if violence in interpersonal relationships did not occur due
to a reality of inhumanity, that is, absence of humanity and therefore
lack of affection, but due to the sudden emergence of something
monstrous, something supernatural hidden inside man and out of control.
Or there are narratives in which violence is completely belittled,
normalized and deliberately confused with love that if not reciprocated,
would justify it. In both cases, it is denied that violence is a disease
of human reality, it is a pathological dimension of man. But why is it
still so difficult to talk about the disease of the individual and of
the relationship, as if the deeper psychopathological reading of the
phenomenon served to justify and relieve the violent person of
responsibility and indeed increased the sense of guilt of women who
would not have taken care of a sick person? Because underneath there is
a completely altered vision of mental illness, which derives in part
from academic, organicist psychiatry, according to which if a person
becomes ill in the mind it is as if he were struck by a disease for
which he has no responsibility. Instead, considering mental illness as
an illness of interpersonal relationships, as something that changes
depending on the relationships that are experienced, the individual is
given back the responsibility of his own life and his own choices and
also the hope of being able to change what is wrong. This could be done
as a real prevention of care of relationships starting from school,
which could make a difference compared to the dominant culture. Feminism
states that the violent person "is not ill, but a healthy child of the
patriarchy". Instead, saying that the patriarchy is a system of values
that generates sick people is another thing. The path to women's
liberation must be to seek an equal and harmonious relationship with
men, since the disparity is not biological in nature, but the result of
a wrong relationship between the sexes.
I would end with a quote from the psychiatrist Massimo Fagioli who, with
the discovery of the "Theory of Human Birth", made the man-woman
relationship the fundamental cornerstone of human evolution and
existence, freeing it from the dogmas of reason and religion and giving
back an identity, both personal and sexual, to human beings.
... "Perhaps the new man who admires, respects, accepts the creative
woman without becoming religious, must derive from the woman herself. It
is the woman who gives birth, in quotation marks obviously and not in a
biological sense, a new man who is able to accept this possibility of
women being creative. If we could first think about this, obviously, and
then do it, then perhaps we would also be able to find the solution to
certain disorders, because the first human relationship is the
relationship between a child and a woman. For at least a year or two it
is there. And if there is a sick woman there, a woman without an
identity, the child gets sick, the child comes out badly. But if the
woman manages to realize her identity, and if the man respects and helps
her identity, probably the birth of human beings and the first year of
life can develop a man different from the one that has existed for
thousands of years"
http://alternativalibertaria.fdca.it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten