sreda, 16. junij 2010

OCENA KNJIGE: ALICE MILLER: DRAMA JE BITI OTROK (IN ISKANJE RESNICE O SEBI)* Zoran Pavlovič**

OCENA KNJIGE:
ALICE MILLER: DRAMA JE
BITI OTROK (IN ISKANJE
RESNICE O SEBI)*
Zoran Pavlovič**


Prvo izdajo drobne knjižice Drama nadarjenega otroka (Das Drama des begibten
Kindes), ki je ponesla glas o leta 1923 rojeni švicarski psihoanalitičarki Alice Miller
po svetu, je založba Suhrkamp objavila že leta 1979. Ce torej ne gre za noviteto, je
morala odločitev za slovensko izdajo temeljiti na oceni, da gre za (zdaj že) klasično
delo, ki mu v poldrugem desetletju aktualnost ni pošla, ki pa so ga drugi doslej spregledovali.
Delo dejansko dobro prestaja test časa. Število prevodov, izdaj in ponatisov
narašča.
V čem je skrivnost uspeha Alice Miller? Nedvomno v številu pismenih in beročih
ljudi (nekdanjih "nadarjenih otrok"), ki v Drami prepoznajo svojo zgodbo, namreč
zgodbo otroka sicer skrbne matere, katere ljubezen pa so morali "zaslužiti" z zadovoljevanjem
njenih čustvenih potreb. Zato ostajajo trajno oropani za stik s svojimi
lastnimi potrebami, razcepljeni na "dobri" (sprejeti) in "slabi" (potisnjeni) del. Prepoznajo
se pogosto na dramatičen način: knjiga se dotakne marsikaterega mehanizma,
ki se ga poslužujemo v obrambo pred bolečim razkritjem, načenja idealizirano
podobo staršev, podira koncept, da morajo otroci marsikaj potrpeti "v njihovo lastno
dobro", brez predsodkov se loteva samoumevnih predpostavk, "občih mest" ravnanja
z otrokom. Samo za primer, "za pokušino": bolj ali manj smo prepričani, da morata
roditelja nasproti otroku nastopati enotno in ne smeta izražati nesoglasij; kakor že
temu rečemo, ne smeta si vzajemno "rušiti avtoritete", otroka ne smeta "begati" s
protislovnimi sporočili. Avtorica pa se prav nasprotno sprašuje, zakaj mora biti
ravno otrok, ki je najmanjši in najšibkejši, vedno sam nasproti neomajnemu zidu
dveh mogočnežev.
* (Naslov izvirnika: Das Drama des begabten Kindes und die Suche dem wahren Selbst, Suhrkamp Verlag,
Frankfurt am Main 1991). Založba Tangram, Ljubljana 1993. 154 strani. Spremni esej: dr. Miran
Možina, dr. Bernard Stritih: Narcizem kot metafora o drami individuacije nadarjenih, pridnih in
ubogljivih ljudi v zahodni kulturi. 62 strani.
** Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani
Drama in druga dela Alice Miller, ki so sledila, pa niso vznemirljiva le zaradi
sporočil, ki jih prinašajo; pravzaprav lahko podobna najdemo še marsikje. Učinkovit
je predvsem njen način pisanja. Alice Miller je dobra pisateljica. Bralca ne poskuša
poniževati z uporabo tehničnega žargona, pri tem pa zavoljo poljudnosti ne žrtvuje
strokovnosti. Predvsem pa: vsa dela so izrazito osebno obarvana, vendar pa čustvena
angažiranost pri Ahce Miller ne izzveni kot "spodrsljaj", temveč ravno kot
ključno sporočilo, ki omogoča (in terja) podobno angažirano branje: Millerjeva se v
(nepotrebnem?) spopadu med otrokom in kulturo dosledno, zavzeto in dokončno
postavlja na stran otroka. Pri tem pa na le njej lasten način odkriva tragično v
vsakodnevnem, in dokazuje bralcu, kako pomanjkljivo je naše razumevanje lastnega
otroštva, otrokovih potreb in otrokovega dejanskega položaja v odrasli družbi.
Njena zgodba o drami otroštva, dolga doslej že sedem naslovov, se z Dramo
nadarjenega otroka (le zakaj je slovenski naslov drugačen?), ki je študija o narcistični
motnji, začenja. Poskusimo kratko povzeti temeljno sporočilo.
V sodobnem svetu, meni Millerjeva, človeka ne more reševati pred negotovostjo
skupinska pripadnost; trdnost mora najti v sebi. Prav zato se terapevt/psihoanalitik
pogosto srečuje z osebami s poškodovanim samovrednotenjem in samosprejemanjem,
kar se navzven kaže v mnogih oblikah, ekstremno pa kot depresija ali pa
grandioznost - ki sta, paradoksalno, dve manifestaciji iste motnje. Kajti žrtve
grandioznosti so ljudje, ki so navzven uspešni, pogosto celo briljantni, vendar pa jim
uspehi ne morejo napolniti notranje praznine, občutka nepotešenosti. "Za menifestno
grandioznostjo stalno preži depresija in za depresivnim razpoloženjem se večkrat
skrivajo nezavedne ali zavestne, vendar odcepljene grandiozne fantazije. Pravzaprav
je grandioznost obramba pred depresijo, depresija pa obramba pred globoko
bolečino zaradi izgube samega sebe." (str. 63)
Razlaga gre nekako takole: negotova mati, ki sama trpi za narcistično motnjo, zavestno,
še bolj pa nezavedno, naslavlja na otroka mnoga pričakovanja. Med njimi
ima posebno težo pričakovanje, da bo od otroka dobila tisto brezpogojno ljubezen,
za katero je bila prikrajšana s strani lastne matere. Otrok, življenjsko odvisen od materine
ljubezni, se kmalu nauči, da ta ljubezen ni brezpogojno prisotna. Da jo obdrži,
se je pripravljen tudi odpovedati tistim delom sebstva, ki mater ogrožajo. Bolj ko je
nadarjen, bolj ko ima razvite "antene" za materine potrebe, bolje mu gre od rok. V
končni posledici se nadarjeni otrok brez težav nauči prosocialnega vedenja, a za
ceno masivne poškodbe sebstva, in v škodo naravnega oblikovanja taistega vedenja.
Kajti, meni Alice Miller, "otrok, ki je smel biti dovolj dolgo "egoističen",
"pohlepen", "asocialen", sam nekoč začuti spontano veselje do tega, da deli in daje.
Otrok, ki je bil "vzgojen" za potrebe staršev, tega veselja mogoče nikoli ne doživi,
čeprav zavedajoč se dolžnosti deli in daje, pri tem pa trpi, ker drugi niso tako "dobri",
kakor je sam. Tako vzgojeni odrasli bodo skušali ta "altruizem" čim hitreje
"vbiti v glavo" tudi svojim otrokom in pri nadarjenih otrocih je to zelo lahko. Ampak
za kakšno ceno!" (str. 15) V naslednji generaciji se kajpak zgodba ponovi.
Ključ do narcizma, "zaljubljenosti vase", "egocentričnosti" je torej pomanjkanje
brezpogojne ljubezni zanesljivega roditelja v tistem obdobju zgodnjega otroštva, ki
ga označuje "zdravi narcizem", in v katerem otrok potrebuje občutiti, daje ves sprejet,
tak kot je, povsem običajen otrok, z vsemi svojimi naravnimi vzgibi. (Spomnimo
se, tudi znameniti R. Laing je nekoč dejal, da je biti sprejet ali zavrnjen vsa razlika
na tem svetu.) Sprejet mora biti kot posebna, ločena oseba, ne pa kot organ oz.
podaljšek roditelja. V izogib zamenjevanju avtentičnega sprejemanja otroka z "obsesivno
ljubeznijo", kot je sodobno starševstvo označil zgodovinar družine Philip
Ari_s, Alice Miller dodaja pomembno misel: "Takšen razvoj pa lahko omogoči tudi
ne posebno prisrčna mati, da le otroka ne ovira. V tem primeru namreč otrok lahko
pri drugih osebah vzame, česar ne najde pri svoji materi. Različne raziskave potrjujejo
neverjetno sposobnost zdravega otroka, da izrabi vsako, še tako skromno
čustveno "hrano" (spodbudo) v okolju." (str. 57) Žal je posebna težava otrok v
sodobni družbi prav ta, da je socialni svet majhnega otroka omejen na zelo skrčeno
število odraslih, ki jih lahko uporabi v ta namen.
Okrevanje, med katerim prizadeta oseba šele razvije avtentično sebstvo in integrira
predhodno odtujene dele, svoj "slabi" in zaničevani del, je mogoče šele, ko oseba
prikliče potisnjena čustva iz otroštva. To pa je zelo boleč proces, ki ga je mogoče uspešno
izpeljati le v varnem in empatičnem okolju, torej v terapevtskem kontekstu.
Dokončan proces žalovanja za otroštvom, za katerega je bila oseba ogoljufana, ima
za uspe.šno reintegracijo temeljni pomen.
Ljudje, ki so v otroštvu izostrili občutljivost za potrebe drugega, jo ohranijo tudi
kasneje. Med njimi se na primer redno rekrutirajo terapevti in psihoanalitiki. Toda če
terapevt ni predelal lastne narcistične motnje, se znajde s klientom v začaranem krogu.
Dobro bosta shajala v prvi fazi terapije, ko bo klient postregel terapevtu s tistim, kar si
ta želi - narcistično motena oseba je kajpak izmojstrila prepoznavanje potreb matere že
v primarni situaciji. Terapevt pa utegne izgubiti tla pod nogami, ko bo v drugi fazi, ko
se razvije transfema nevroza (če do druge faze sploh pride, saj je lahko že prva faza
ocenjena kot terapevtski uspeh, ne da bi se karkoli bistvenega zgodilo), klient pričel
preizkušati brezpogojno ljubezen "matere", ko bo torej postal nejevoljen, siten, čudaški,
agresiven. Če v tej fazi terapevt "izgine", ker njegov narcizem takega razvoja ne
prenese, je oseba prisiljena na ponoven poskus, z drugim terapevtom (kar se lahko
sprevrže v neskončno iskanje), ali pa se pogrezne v še globljo depresijo.
Ostanimo pri tem okleščenem okvirju, ki skuša predstaviti temeljno sporočilo. Pri
primerih, posameznostih in mnogih pronicljivih prebliskih se žal ne utegnemo ustavljati.
Pa tudi sicer bi to bilo nehvaležno opravilo, saj je, kot že rečeno, pri Alice
Miller vsaj tako pomemben kot to, kar pove, tudi način, kako to pove. Povzetki so
zato nujno osiromašeni do nerazpoznavnosti in krivični. Alice Miller je preprosto
treba brati.
Vendar pa je danes brati Dramo za razumevanje Millerjeve premalo; kot sodobniki
imamo priložnost spremljati zanimiv razvoj njenega raziskovanja otroštva "še
topel". Hkrati pa je dobro Dramo prebrati pred branjem kasnejših del. V njej je namreč
razvila temeljni konceptualni aparat, poglavitne misli, ki jih kot vodilni motiv
najdemo v kasnejših variacijah. Ta rdeča nit pa ni teorija narcizma, temveč ravno
drama (ne le nadarjenega) otroka. V Drami je sicer narcistična motnja še v ospredju,
drama otroštva pa se pojavi kot njeno pojasnilo, kasneje pa drama otroštva pride v
ospredje, spreminja pa se zorni kot, s katerega jo Millerjeva osvetljuje. Rdečo nit
tvori (če tvegam resno redukcijo) nekaj točk:
1. Otrok je vedno nedolžen.
2. Otrok potrebuje konsistentno sprejetost in spoštovanje, kot enkratna in ločena
oseba.
3. Zloraba otroka je vir vse kasnejše patologije, na osebni in družbeni ravni.
4. Odrasli neizogibno težijo k temu, da svoje primanjkljaje, svoja ne-doživeta
čustva, iz-živijo na lastnih otrocih kot najpriročnejših projekcijskih platnih v povprizoritvi
(re-enactment). Zato se vzorec prenaša iz roda v rod.
5. Družba, podobno kot posamezni starši, teži k temu, da svoje potrebe prikaže
kot potrebe otroka, in na tem utemeljuje svojo nasilno pedagoško prakso.
6. Ozdravitev poteka preko rušenja "zidu molka", s stikom osebe z zanikanimi
čustvi lastnega otroštva, in procesom žalovanja, ko usahne idealizacija staršev (ki ji
je bila kot otroku nujna za preživetje, saj si ni mogla privoščiti izgube starševske
ljubezni), ko preneha kriviti sebe za lasten neuspeh in se sooči z resnico.
Že tri poglavja, ki tvorijo Dramo, so variacije na temo: v poglavjih Drama nadarjenega
otroka (v slovenskem prevodu spet Drama je biti otrok) in psihoanalitikova
narcistična motnja ter Depresija in grandioznost kot sorodni obliki narcistične motnje
orisuje zgoraj povzeto dinamiko narcistične motnje. Poglavje O zaničevanju (osebno
bi se mi zdel bolj primeren prevod O preziru; v angleščini contempt) gre korak
dalje v nakazovanju kasnejšega razvoja avtorice. Beseda teče o preziru odraslega do
šibkejšega in odvisnega bitja in njegovih potreb, o identifikaciji žrtve z agresorjem,
poleg narcistične motnje pa obravnava tudi spolne perverzije in obsesivne motnje.
Že v naslednji knjigi. Na začetku je bila vzgoja (Am Anfang war Erziehung, ^
1980; angleški prevod For your own good - The roots of violence in child-rearing), \
poseže V povsem drug kontekst, pedagogijo. Ob izdatnem sklicevanju na Črno ped- \
agogijo (Schwartz, poisonous) Katarine Rutschky ugotavlja, da se v "načrtni" vzgo- !
ji otrok skriva lastno potlačeno otroštvo odrasle družbe, in med drugim zatrdi, da |
otroci ne potrebujejo "vzgoje", pač pa "veliko mero čustvene in telesne podpore s \
strani odraslega (izdaja Virago Press 1987, str. 100)... vsa pedagogija je odveč, če je .
otrok preskrbljen z zanesljivo osebo v zgodnjem otroštvu (prav tam, str. 277)... avtentičnost
na strani staršev, njihova lastna svoboda - in ne vzgojna načela - postavljajo
naravne omejitve otroku (prav tam, str. 98)". Knjiga je pravzaprav dvodelna, j
kajti po razpravi o pedagogiji nadaljuje z analizo otroštev Adolfa Hitlerja in
množičnega morilca Juergena Bartscha. Analizi dokazujeta, da je za vsakim zloči- i
nom, velikim in majhnim, moč najti zgodovino zlorabe.
V Drami se Alice Miller (še) predstavlja kot psihoanalitičarka, vendar pa se v :
predgovoru k nemški izdaji iz leta 1991, po kateri je bil narejen slovenski prevod, od
psihoanalize povsem razločno ograjuje. "Učni sistem psihoanalize se tudi zadnjih i
deset let ni spremenil," meni avtorica, "in osebno ne poznam niti enega človeka, ki i
bi se potem, ko je preučil spoznanja mojih knjig, še hotel imenovati psihoanalitik.
Menim, da bi bilo to tudi nemogoče, kajti terapevt, ki je čustveno vstopil v svoje :
otroštvo to pa se mi zdi nujno - ne more spregledati, da psihoanaliza prav to i
preprečuje za vsako ceno." (str. 9) Alice Miller ima za sabo, kot analizand, zgodovi- j
no neuspešnih analiz, do vseh bistvenih spoznanj o lastnem otroštvu pa je prišla mi- \
mo njih. "Sama sem za proces osvobajanja potrebovala 15 let - od leta 1973, ko sem \
pri spontanem slikanju bežno zaslutila resnico, do leta 1988, ko sem jo končno!
lahko izrazila." (str. 10) Čeprav se je od psihoanalize dokončno odvrnila šele leta \
1988, pa ključ do razumevanja tega preobrata ponuja že v knjigi Ne boš se zavedal!
oz. Ne smeš se zavedati (svetopisemska oblika zapovedi; original Du solist nicht \
merken, 1981; angleški prevod Thou shalt not be aware - Society's betrial of the
child), ki gaje avtorica - življenje je polno protislovij - po,svetila 125. letnici rojstva
S. Freuda. Delo s tem srhljivim naslovom je posvečeno spolni zlorabi otrok (avtorica
v angleški izdaji izreka priznanje feministkam v ZDA, zlasti Florence Rush, za
razkrivanje resnice o teh zločinih) in sistematičnemu prikrivanju resnice o tem s
strani odraslih, pri katerem je psihoanaliza izdatno sodelovala s svojim intelektualnim
aparatom, zlasti s koncepti otroške spolnosti in fantazije. Freud je prvi na vrsti, j
saj je bil tudi prvi, kije v osebni zgodovini svojih nevrotičnih pacientov našel spol- i
no zlorabo, potem pa je (pod pritiskom kulturnega okolja) teorijo revidiral, in
zlorabe pripisal pacientovim fantazijam Ojdipalnega obdobja. Izdaji sledijo strnjene
vrste učencev. Millerjeva npr. zavrne Melanie Klein in njenega oralno, uretralno in \
analno sadističnega otroka (navajam odstavek, ki je zanimiv tudi zato, ker v njem
zgoščeno povzema sporočila prejšnjih del); "Način, kako opisuje dojenčkov •
Čustveni svet v svojih delih, je posredni izraz, kako odrasli zavrača lastni čustveni
svet, ki ga zdaj sreča v dojenčku. Zdi se mi, da tako Kleinova, s svojim "okrutnim"
dojenčkom, kot Kernberg, s svojo teorijo "prirojenega patološkega narcizma", spregledata
zgodnji reaktivni karakter otrokovega čustvenega razvoja. ... Na drugih
mestih sem poskusila pokazati, kako perverzije in obsesivne nevroze s svojimi čudnimi
simptomi odražajo nerazumevanje in zgražanje prve osebe, na katero je bil
otrok navezan, ko se je ta soočila z otrokovimi naravnimi impulzi (glej "Drama
nadarjenega otroka"). Destruktivne povprizoritve v kasnejšem življenju je prav tako
mogoče razumeti kot odgovor na dejstvo, da odrasli, zaradi svojih projekcij, vidi
otrokovo zdravo agresivnost kot obsojanja vredno in jo poskuša zadušiti (glej "Na
začetku je bila vzgoja")." (Thou shalt not be aware, izdaja Pluto Press 1985, str. 42)
V nadaljevanju kratko oriše primer moškega, ki je vsakega od svojih šestih otrok
pri štirih letih prisilil k analnemu občevanju, in komentira: "Najbrž je bilo pri isti
starosti to storjeno tudi njemu. Lahko samo upamo, da njegovemu sinu, če bo
nekega dne hotel biti analiziran, njegov analitik ne bo dejal, da prizori, ki jih opisuje,
predstavljajo njegove homoseksualne "fantazije"." (prav tam, str. 43)
Mnogim drugim terapevtskim šolam očita milejšo obliko zatajitve otroka, namreč
splošno prisotno anksiozno težnjo terapevta po spravi klienta (oz. njegovega notranjega
otroka) in njegovega roditelja. Alice Miller je, kot terapevt in kot pisec, brezpogojno
in povsem na strani otroka. Kakor zaupa avtentičnosti in umestnosti
otrokovih čustev, tako zaupa tudi avtentičnosti priklicane travme klienta, in je ne
poskuša razvrednotiti s "fantazijsko" interpretacijo. Če terapevt poskuša spraviti notranjega
otroka z njegovimi starši, še preden je ta uspel izraziti čustva jeze in
ogorčenja, ki jih je potisnil v izvirni situaciji, je terapevtski proces ustavljen, klientu
pa naloženi še hujši občutki krivde - idealizacijo staršev trpinčeni otrok namreč že
tako ali tako uporablja kot svoj obrambni mehanizem.
V naslednjem delu. Podobe nekega otroštva (original Bilder einer Kindheit, 1985)
je Alice Miller objavila nekaj svojih slik, spontano nastalih v procesu samoterapije,
in |ih pospremila s krajšim esejem o travmi in kreativnosti.
Šele za peto knjigo, Pregnana vednost (original Das erbannte Wissen, 1988; angleška
izdaja Banished knowledge - Facing childhood injuries) se mi je zdelo, da ne
prinaša ničesar bistveno novega. (Nekateri poznavalci njenega dela menijo, da ji je
pravzaprav pošla inspiracija, ko je prenehala prakticirati analizo in se je povsem
posvetila pisanju.) Morda mi je zato "popustila pozornost", in nisem niti opazil, kdaj
sta izšli zadnji dve knjigi. Skriti ključ (Das gemiedene Schluessel, 1988) in Porušiti
zid molka (Abbruch der Schweigermauer, 1990), tako da ju še ne poznam.
Nekaj novega pa je vendarle prinesla tudi Pregnana vednost: izraženo radikalnost
v odnosu do staršev.
Alice Miller je ena jezna gospa. Jezna zaradi nespoštovanja in nerazumevanja
otrok, pretepanja, spolnih zlorab, in zatajevanja vsega tega s strani odraslega sveta.
Videti je, da je iz knjige v knjigo postajala bolj jezna. V Drami je še zelo prizanesljiva
do staršev - kajti v tej knjigi je vendarle še največji greh staršev, da si želijo imeti
nekoga, kijih bo tako ljubil, kot jih niso lastni starši nikoli; njihove slepe pege so
nezavedne: "Zavestno skušajo pošteno in po svojih najboljših možnostih napraviti
vse, kar se da. Nezavedno pa se v odnosu da lastnih otrok nadaljuje tragika otroštva
staršev." (Drama, str. 45) Toda potem, ko se je izdatneje ukvarjala z bolj grobimi
oblikami telesnega in zlasti spolnega nasilja nad otroci, jo strpnost mineva. V Pregnani
vednosti se izrecno zoperstavlja stališčem, da je treba staršem, ki trpinčijo in
zlorabljajo otroke, "pomagati". Nasprotno, treba jih je spraviti pred obličje pravice.
To je edini način, da se veriga nasilja, ki .se prenaša iz roda v rod, prekine.
Alice Miller je v svojih delih razvila visok standard ravnanja z otroci. Pravzaprav
nič višjega kakor si ga želimo za ravnanje z nami samimi, le da je opozorila, da pri
otroku na to radi pozabimo, da je narcizem majhnega otroka zdrav, da nam otrok ne
sme poslužiti za zadovoljevanje tistih čustvenih potreb, ki bi jih morala zadovoljiti
lastna mati, itd. V Pregnani vednosti pa je konsekvence svojega izvajanja prignala
do skrajnega roba, saj meni, naj ljudje, ki niso tega čustvenega standarda otroku
pripravljeni nuditi, nimajo otrok. Skrajna točka absurda? Morda. Kajti ne gre le za
to, da odrasli pogosto uvidijo (ali pa sploh ne uvidijo), kaj in kohko otrok potrebuje
ter kaj in koliko so mu zmožni nuditi šele takrat, ko otrok že na ves glas joka. Gre
tudi za to, da je analogna zahteva morda uporabna za vsako drugo "pogodbeno"
razmerje, le za razmerje med staršem in otrokom ne. Ljudje pač imajo otroke, naj so
njihovi motivi za to taki ali drugačni (poleg naravnega programa). Čeprav po sodobnih
merilih otrok staršem ne pripada več kot njihova lastnina, pa jim pripada, ali bolje,
oni pripadajo otroku kot njegova usoda. Nobene avtoritete ni, ki naj bi določila,
kdo naj bi smel imeti otroke, in kdo ne. Bi si želeli živeti v svetu, v katerem bi tak
organ obstajal? Toda saj so tudi za domače živali določeni neki standardi ravnanja,
in družba sme ukrepati v primeru njihovega trpinčenja. Za otroke pa smemo menda
pričakovati kaj več kot za domače živali? Kajpak. Država ima po črki zakona in po
standardih vsebovanih v mednarodnih pravnih aktih možnost in obveznost posredovanja
v družini, v kateri je otrok ogrožen. Otroka je mogoče odvzeti, roditeljsko
pravico tudi. (Res pa je tudi, da so zakoni za zaščito živali obstajali prej kakor pa
tisti za zaščito trpinčenega otroka.) Le da so kriteriji za tako posredovanje postavljeni
veliko višje na piramidi nasilja, kakor pa kriteriji Millerjeve (ki pravzaprav
predlaga predvsem naj se ljudje sami bolj odgovorno odločajo, ali in koliko otrok
bodo imeli, ne da bi jih čustveno prikrajševali). Pod pragom intervencije ostaja veliko
nevidnega nasilja, čustvena zloraba pa v celoti. (Seveda, če si ne želimo živeti v
družbi, v kateri bi družinsko življenje bilo gosto prepreženo z nadzorovanjem, mora
tako tudi ostati.)
Alice Miller se s svojim pisanjem vključuje in obenem spodbuja širše civilizacijsko
dogajanje, ki ga označuje dvig občutljivosti za otfokov^položaj v družbi, ki jo
pač obvladujejo odrasli, ter za otrokove potrebe in pravice, vključno z njihovo
pravno formulacijo. Pomembno znamenje, lahko bi rekli kar mejni kamen tega
procesa je sprejem Konvencije Združenih narodov o otrokovih pravicah (1989) kot
prvega celovitega mednarodnega kodeksa pravic otroka. Konvencija je akt mednarodnega
prava, delo Alice Miller pa je najmočnejše na kočljivem področju, kamor
neposredno pravno varstvo težko poseže, na področju odnosov staršev in otrok, ter
subtilnih psiholoških zlorab oz. psiholoških pravic otroka. Po svetu (zlasti v ZDA)
sicer potekajo prizadevanja, usmerjena k objektiviranju psihološkega trpinčenja oz.
k razvijanju kriterijev za njegovo opredeljevanje, ki bi med drugim poslužili tudi kot
osnova za družbeno posredovanje za zaščito ogroženega otroka. Tem, pretežno empirično-
pozitivističnim prizadevanjem, dodajajo dela klinično usmerjenih piscev,
kakršna je Millerjeva, ključno razsežnost: odpirajo oči in razvijajo empatijo bralstva
do bistva problema. Skozi vrsto primerov in z zvestobo otrokovi plati resnice Alice
Miller spreminja optiko, skozi katero smo navajeni zreti na naše otroke in na naš
odnos do njih. To je verjetno največja vrednost njenega dela, odziv bralcev pa zagotavlja,
da Alice Miller s pisanjem, podobno kot je to delala z risanjem, ne razrešuje
zgolj svoje lastne travme.
Bralec je gotovo ugotovil, da pričujoča recenzija ni posebno kritično naravnana.
Mimo tega, da želim spodbuditi k branju Drame, ne pa od njega odvrniti, imam za to
vsaj dva razloga. Prvič, prepričan sem, daje treba to knjižico najprej odprto sprejeti.
OCmA KNJIGE: AUCEMJIJ£R: DRAMA JE BmOTROC 137
njena sporočila pa dobro premisliti, preden se nanjo morebiti ozremo tudi s kritičnim
očesom. V nasprotnem primeru lahko prenagljena kritika kaže le na to, da je bila
napisana na osnovi prvega čustvenega odziva oz. na osnovi odpora (v psihoanalitskem
smislu). Drugič, prav tako sem prepričan, da kritičnih odzivov in zavračanja
ne bo manjkalo.
Drama, kljub tekočemu in živemu stilu pisanja, namreč nikakor ni "lahkotno"
branje. Skritemu "otroku v odraslem" njena opredeljenost ugaja, toda starši, ki se
vsakodnevno soočajo s težavnostjo lastnega "poklica", utegnejo občutiti, da jih
Millerjeva neusmiljeno kara. Knjiga navdušuje s svežimi vpogledi, toda slišal sem
tudi ocene (prav od navdušenih bralcev), da hkrati "deprimirá", izziva občutja
krivde. Zakaj pravzaprav? Ker se jasneje zavemo potreb svojih otrok in hkrati svojih
nezmožnosti, da bi jih zadovoljili? Ali morda zato, ker nismo uspeli zadostiti
pričakovanjem "matere"?
Pri kom bo Drama izzvala največjo notranjo resonanco? Kajpak, pri narcistično
motenem izobraženem bralcu, z razvito občutljivostjo za potrebe drugega, ker je
moral skrbeti za čustvene potrebe svoje matere. Deluje Drama nanj "terapevtsko",
ga uspe, kot odraslega človeka, odgovornega za nedoraslo bitje, obrniti k potrebam
otroka? Ne nujno. V spremnem eseju h knjigi izvemo, da "narcis" v resnici ni učljiv.
"Temeljno življenjsko protislovje med zaščitniško in skrbno mamo, ki pa po drugi
strani od svojega otroka zahteva "nemogoče", je, da ta otrok sam pri sebi razvije
imaginarno dopolnilo lastnemu jazu (grandioznost), ki se zlije z idealiziranim materinskim
zaščitnikom. Vsa mreža odnosov in komunikacij se ureja okrog tega
glavnega vzorca na tak način, da tudi najboljša terapevtska pomoč praviloma ne
seže k tistemu majhnemu jazu, ki si ne zna pomagati, ampak jo porabi drugi del, ki
služi vzdrževanju grandioznosti." (str. 182)
Alice Miller zatrjuje, daje narcistično moteni pacient še kako dostopen terapevtski
pomoči, če je le terapevt resnični advokat potlačenega otroka v odraslem (ne pa
agent varovanja idealiziranih staršev), tako da osebi omogoči stik z avtentičnimi,
vendar davno odcepljenimi čustvi; toda branje knjige še ni terapija. Zato lahko
učinek resnično ustreza opisu v spremnem eseju. Bleščeči vpogledi delujejo kot
odrešujoča, očiščujoča katarza, a že v naslednjem trenutku je narcistični bralec
očaran nad lastno notranjo lepoto in senzibiliteto (saj tako dobro razume, kaj je
Millerjeva hotela povedati; "deprimiranost" zaradi lastne nepopolnosti se tudi zlahka
uvrsti sem), nadaljnje ravnanje z lastnimi otroci pa tako in tako vodi še nadalje
nezavedna prisila ponavljanja vzorca in nuja po zapolnjevanju čustvenega primanjkljaja,
nekaj malega pa prispevajo tudi težave tega nepopolnega vsakodnevnega
življenja. "Groza in tragika tega očaranja je tam, kjer naj bi človek občutil dobroto
svojega življenja," najdemo dalje v eseju, "pa se zgodi, da tudi sam sebe očara in v
trenutku, ki bi lahko pomenil začetek treznenja, že ustvarja pesniško podobo, kije le
še nova čaša ti.ste nevarne (morda sploh najbolj nevarne) odvisnosti, ki se kaže tako,
da ta človek čuti, da je vredno živeti le, ko je pijan samega sebe." (str. 183) Če vas
ob branju knjige popade, poleg deprimiranosti in navdušenja, da bi svojo družino izpostavili
strokovni superviziji, bo to zanesljiv znak, da bi brezupno radi ustregli
starševskemu glasu, ne pa potrebam lastnih otrok.
V najslabšem primeru lahko torej knjiga v narcistični kulturi še celo utrjuje
vzorec ukvarjanja s samim seboj, saj ne zadošča za resničen preboj. Lahko ostane
brez vsakršnega resnega učinka, kot se je to že prej zgodilo vsej, sicer zelo
priljubljeni humanistični psihologiji. Toda z določeno mero optimizma se mi vendarle
zdi, da vsaj na ravni "kognitivne terapije" družbe mora zapustiti kako sled.
Sporočilo, daje za otroka še najbolje, če mu dovolimo biti povsem navaden otrok.
ljubek in siten, velikodušen in egoističen, dišeč in umazan, odvisen in samostojen,
majhen in hkrati velik, je dovolj razločno. Morda bo tudi nas same razbremenilo pritiska,
da smo dovolj dobri samo, če smo popolni. Če sprejmemo, da moramo življenje
pač preživeti nepopolni, vendar toliko pošteno, kohkor zmoremo, bomo lažje
sprejeli tudi dejstvo, da smo našim otrokom usoda. Potem bodo morda tudi otroci
deležni manj neusmiljenih projekcij.
— ^; —
Spremni esej Mirana Možine in Bernarda Stritiha je nenavadno obsežen (več kot
60 strani drobnega tiska), poglobljen in informativen. Nedvomno zasluži, da ga avtorja
na nekaterih manj jasnih mestih dodatno razvijeta in objavita v samostojni izdaji.
V zvezi z Dramo Millerjeve so za nestrokovnjaka (kamor, da ne bo pomote,
štejem tudi sam) bogate informacije o teoriji narcizma močno koristno dopolnilo
Drami; zgornji citati so iz dela, ki se mi osebno zdi najboljši, o mehanizmih, s katerimi
se narcistična osebnost upira zorenju in ovira proces terapevtske intervencije.
Vendar pa skorajda obžalujem, da je prav to besedilo pospremilo prvi prevod, s
katerim se delo Alice Miller predstavlja slovenskemu občinstvu. Ne gre le za to, da
je esej precej bolj zahtevno branje od same Drame, in zato ne more olajšati
razumevanja besedila, ki ga spremlja. Tudi ne za sam občutek, da gre v eseju za
nekaj pravzaprav povsem drugega kot v delu Millerjeve, da ga preveva nek drug
duh. Kar mi zbuja tak občutek, je najbrž dejstvo, da sta se avtorja eseja osredotočila
na problematiko narcizma, medtem ko imam sam vtis, utemeljen na njenih kasnejših
delih, da je študija o narcizmu za Millerjevo bila iztočnica, vendar pa ni ostala pri
tem, da bi kulturo narcizma hranila z razpravljanjem o njem (narcizem = ukvarjanje
s samim seboj), temveč se je posvetila položaju otrok, ki ga (položaj) odrasli dokaj
slabo razumemo, pri varovanju katerega (otroka) ima moč zakona precej težav, in ki
je nedolžna žrtev "kulture" odraslih. Žal avtorja eseja Drame nista povezala s kasnejšim
delom Millerjeve, razen čisto zadnje knjige. Porušiti zid molka. (Da je Drama
vreden prispevek tudi k teoriji narcizma, in da knjigo v osnovi sploh visoko cenita,
pa sta Možina in Stritih veliko bolj razločno povedala ob javni predstavitvi ob izidu
knjige kakor pa v eseju, ki je natisnjen.)
Bolj od vsega tega obžalujem, da sta Dramo pospremila z zvrhanim košem svaril.
Očitek, da je to in ono v delu Alice Miller "nevarno", se v eseju pojavlja kaj pogosto.
Sam se nimam za poklicnega zagovornika Alice Miller, ki bi želel braniti njeno
delo pred kritikami do zadnje pike, a kratko malo moram reči, da se mi zdi tolikšna
bojazen pred učinkom te knjižice na občinstvo preprosto odveč.
Zdi se mi pravzaprav, da pisca z esejem naredita vtis, ki ga v resnici nista želela
narediti. Kritika je namreč namenjena "brušenju" ekstremne radikalnosti, enostranskosti
in poenostavitvam v delu Alice Miller, naredi pa vtis, kakor da zadeva samo
jedro.
Omenil sem že, daje Millerjeva v knjigah po Drami postajala vedno bolj jezna. Z
avtorjema se strinjam, da je ob tem podlegla nekaterim skušnjavam poenostavljanja
(morda zato, da bi njeno sporočilo v čim bolj jasni obliki prišlo do bralca, neobremenjeno
s kompleksnostjo empiričnega sveta - breme relativiziranja je prepustila
kritikom). Tako je nenadoma, če se ustavim pri posamičnem primeru v ponazoritev,
etiologija individualne patologije (zloraba v otroštvu) postala monokavzalna razlaga
za vse tegobe tega sveta; take redukcije po analogiji pa se ne obnesejo najbolje. Osebno
so se mi podobni spodrsljaji zdeli povsem nepomembni in se mi ni zdelo, da
kaj zmanjšujejo vrednost vpogleda v zlorabo otroštva kot vir osebne tragedije, ki pa
jo žitve nedvomno širijo v svoj socialni prostor. V eseju se zdi, kakor da gre za
resno pomanjkljivost v mišljenju Alice Miller. To in nekatere sorodne kritike avtorja
naslavljata na zadnjo knjigo Millerjeve, vendar tako, da pade senca tudi na
Dramo, ki je s tem ne bi bilo treba obremenjevati. Ker pa v oceno ne vključujeta
vmesnih del, nastane vtis, kakor da avtorica po Drami ni več ustvarila ničesar
omembe vrednega.
Ker tej recenziji primanjkuje prostora, meni pa kompetentnosti za razpravo o vseh
zanimivih temah, ki jih odpira esej, bi se rad ob koncu bežno dotaknil le še vprašanja
nujnosti priklica avtentične vsebine otroštva (na osebni ravni) in nujnosti podiranja
zidu molka o zlorabi otrok (na družbeni ravni). Alice Miller zagovarja oboje, avtorja
eseja sta do obojega skeptična. "Ukvarjanje s preteklostjo se pogosto pokaže
kot hoja po močvirju, kjer se tako pacient kot terapevt pogrezneta v neskončno in
neplodno spominjanje." (str. 161) Esej pušča vtis, da Millerjeva pacientu vsiljuje
resnico njegovega otroštva. Nič ne bi moglo biti bolj tuje vtisu, ki ga je name naredilo
branje njenih del. Težko presodim, kako je pravzaprav s tem, toda Millerjeva
pravi, da resnica privre na dan, če ji je le kdo pripravljen resnično prisluhniti, če
zmore prenesti testiranje brezpogojne ljubezni in če ne zahteva, da mora otrok v pacientu
razumeti tudi razloge onega drugega, nekdaj mogočnega roditelja. Morda se
je Millerjeva prav zaradi "neplodnega spominjanja" odvrnila od psihoanalize in v
predgovoru predlaga terapijo po Konradu Sttbacherju, o kateri žal ne vem ničesar,
avtorja eseja pa je tudi ne komentirata. Ni pa se odvrnila od stališča, da je resnica, če
se le uspemo dokopati do nje, najbolj terapevtska. Možina in Stritih sta bolj naklonjena
"tukaj in zdaj" pristopom, v posebnem poglavju pa razpravljata o "trenutkih
preseganja narcistične problematike" (str. 192 in dalje). Pišeta tudi o nadarjenih
posameznikih, ki so uspeli lastno ranjenost tako dobro integrirati, da je njihovo življenje
postalo umetniško delo. Skorajda se zdi, kot da je ranjenost posebne vrste
blagoslov. Problem vidim v tem, da večini drugih to ne uspeva tako dobro. Ljudje se
na travmo različno odzivajo, tako tudi otroci. Raziskovalci na zahodu ugotavljajo,
da je za otroke, "odporne na stres" ("stress-resistant") značilno to, da imajo v svoji
zgodovini izkušnjo pozitivnega odnosa z vsaj eno zanesljivo osebo, na kateri gradijo
svojo pozitivno samopodobo. Ta otroku daje moč, ki jo potrebuje, da se lahko na
življenjske težave odziva konstruktivno. Ključ odpornosti na zlorabo je odsotnost
zlorabe oz. dejavna ljubezen v odločilnem formativnem obdobju.
Ko gre za zlorabo otroka, Alice Miller terja rušenje zidu molka. "Molk je lahko
tudi zlato," pravita avtorja eseja (str. 159), ki se bojita, da bi spodbujeni s pravičniškim
pisanjem Millerjeve prenagljeno "planili čez mejo še neznanega" (str.
158), in opozarjata na mnoge katastrofalne posledice družbenih intervencij v
moteno družino. Molk lahko tudi ni zlato, bi rad odvrnil; prepričan sem, da mi
Možina in Stritih ne bi oporekala. Država nikoli ne intervenira "ravno prav". Če ne
intervenira dovolj odločno, bo poslušala očitke, ko bo zlorabljeni otrok v zasebnosti
doma podlegel poškodbam. Če bo intervenirala prepogosto, bo poslušala očitke, da
izvaja vojno nasproti družini. Toda samo, če bo posredovala nespametno, prenagljeno
in neodgovorno, ne da bi za to imela potrebno znanje, občutljivost in materialno
opremo, bo morala poslušati tudi očitke, da so posledice katastrofalne. Molk
ne more biti odgovor; treba je iskati pametne načine za zavarovanje ogroženega
otroka in odpravljanje njegove prezpravnosti v "idili" uničenega doma. Pa tudi če bi
bil (saj smo tudi doslej nekako preživeli, kljub stoletnemu molku, kajne?), zdaj je že
prepozno. Skrinjica je že odprta.

nedelja, 16. maj 2010

Power of Thoughts

Few people think what they think they think

Few people think what they think they think. Do you know what you think about? The answer is revealed by the life you lead. If you are happy and successful, you are thinking thoughts of happiness and success. If you are wading through an endless stream of problems and finding life painful to bear, it is caused by thoughts of doubt, failure, anger, helplessness, incompetence, and pain. In other words, whether you think life is miserable or great, you're correct, for life is whatever you think it is.

Yes, I'm writing about our THOUGHTS again. This article is prompted by a reader's question, "When you are facing one disaster after another, making compromise after compromise and failing your family time and time again, how does one keep getting up to face the next problem without losing the will to live?"

Let me begin my issuing a few warnings.

1. If you are so mired in problems that you are on the brink of depression, you may be unable to work things out without professional help. If this is your situation, visit a counselor or mental health professional at once. Your life is too precious to dawdle away.

2. Even if you have some semblance of control over your thoughts, if you are entrenched in dark thoughts, it may not be possible for you to see the sun unaided. In other words, the thoughts I share may fall on deaf ears. As Nietzsche said, "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." If you cannot hear the music, what I say will make no sense to you. If that is the case, seek professional help to get you to the point where you can start to help yourself.

3. When we face one disaster after another, it reinforces the false belief that the cause of our suffering is external events. Be careful not to get caught up in this lie. The problem lies within. It is your thoughts. And you can change your thoughts for the better. Positive thoughts lead to positive feelings, positive behavior, positive consequences, positive beliefs, and a positive life.

4. When you are used to living a life of negativity, any advice you get may appear more like salt in the wounds than as help. That is, you are likely to interpret sound advice as a personal attack. Rather than help you, it may appear to you that the only thing your friends are interested in is in blaming you for your unfortunate circumstances. Because you interpret offers of help as personal attacks, you will resist and fight any thoughts that you are responsible and that you can change. Instead of changing yourself, you will insist that the world change for you, which it will not. The result is endless frustration, with no progress in sight.

5. When you become enmeshed in a web of negative thinking, you are likely to develop a victim's mentality. You will cry out to be rescued. "Help me! Save me! I don't want to change. I don't want to accept responsibility. I don't want to make an effort and work hard. I don't want to struggle. No, I don't want any of that. All I want is to be saved. Won't you rescue me?" All such pleas for help are made in vain. Don't seek to be rescued. Instead, try to reach the point, with or without the help of others, where you will be able to rescue yourself. You are the only one who can do it.

Now, let's look at what some of the brightest minds had to say about the power of thought:

"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: Our life is the creation of our mind. Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own unguarded thoughts. But once mastered, no one can help you as much." Buddha (568 ~ 488 BC)

"A man's life is what his thoughts make of it. Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking." Marcus Aurelius (121 ~ 180 AD)

"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." William Shakespeare (1564 ~ 1616)

"Our life always expresses the result of our dominant thoughts." Soren Kierkegaard (1813 ~ 1855)

"All that you accomplish or fail to accomplish with your life is the direct result of your thoughts. You are today where your thoughts have brought you; you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you." James Allen (1864 ~ 1912)

You may think that what you think about is unimportant, but your thoughts are the bricks you use to build your life. Negative thoughts build a prison. Positive thoughts build a comfortable home. But beware of intruders in your home. Beware of a home invasion. When a sudden disaster strikes, don't let negative thoughts ransack your home; don't allow these intruders to steal your happiness. Chase uninvited guests out of your home (mind).

How can you master yourself and master life unless you master your thoughts?
But how do we master our thoughts? Although the techniques are simple and straightforward, I cannot cover them in any detail in such a brief article. However, I can refer you to two modern classics. These short and powerful documents are ESSENTIAL READING. The first is Ralph Waldo Trine's "Character Building Thought Power," which was written in 1899. The second is "As a Man Thinketh," by James Allen (1864 ~ 1912). There is nothing to buy; you can read both documents at http://cornerstone.wwwhubs.com/framepage.htm.

So, what is my advice to our reader? Simply this: if you cannot help yourself, get outside help at once. And if you can help yourself, read, study, apply, and master the material in the above two documents. Welcome the challenge that faces you. With effort and patience you can change your thoughts and change your life. After all, "There are only three conditions necessary for the acquisition of any physical skill, mental power, moral virtue or personal excellence. The COURAGE to try something you do not know how to do, the PATIENCE to try again once you have discovered that you don't know how to do it and the PERSEVERANCE to renew the trial, as many times as necessary, until you do know how to do it." (Thanks, Bruce, for this quote which comes from "The Five Western Philosophies from Plato to Christianity," written in the 1920s) Finally, have faith in yourself. And remember the words of William Sloan Coffin, "Faith is not believing without proof, it is trusting without reservation." Trust yourself. You can do it. Start today. Start now.

We mustn't be surprised by calamities and hardship. Such obstacles are the admission ticket to life and a small price to pay to gain admission to the endless joy that await those with a positive outlook. Let's abandon the attitude of a victim and replace it with that of a victor. So, when the going gets tough, keep in mind the following poem (author unknown):

I asked God to give me happiness.
God said, "No. I give you blessings. Happiness is up to you."

I asked God to spare me pain.
God said, "No. Suffering draws you apart from worldly cares and brings you closer to me."

I asked God to make my spirit grow.
God said, "No. You must grow on your own, but I will prune you to make you fruitful."

I asked for all things that I might enjoy life.
God said, "No. I will give you life so that you may enjoy all things."

I asked God to help me help those weaker than myself.
God said... "Ahhhh, finally you got the idea."


http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/thoughts.htm

sobota, 8. maj 2010

The Wealth Divide The Growing Gap in the United States Between the Rich and the Rest

An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.


Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff:
Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff:
Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.

Wealth — strictly financial savings — provides security to individuals in the event of sickness, job loss or marital separation. Assets provide a kind of safety blanket that people can rely on in case their income gets interrupted.

Wealth is also more directly related to political power. People who have large amounts of wealth can make political contributions. In some cases, they can use that money to run for office themselves, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

MM: What are the best sources for information on wealth?
Wolff:
The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.

Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.

They have a special supplement sample that they rely on to provide information about high income households. Wealth turns out to be highly skewed, so that a very small proportion of families owns a very large share of total wealth. Most surveys miss these families. But the Survey of Consumer Finances uses information provided by the Internal Revenue Service to construct a special supplemental sample on high income households, so they can zero in on the high wealth holders.

MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?
Wolff:
The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.

This is the most easily understood measure.

There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, which is pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.

MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?
Wolff:
We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.

Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.

Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff:
The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

This is a very concentrated distribution.

MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?
Wolff:
The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.

MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?
Wolff:
Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can’t really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.

The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.

The middle class’s major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth.

The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.

MM: What happens when you disaggregate the data by race?
Wolff:
There you find something very striking. Most people are aware that African-American families don’t earn as much as white families. The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family.

MM: Are you able to do a comparable analysis by gender?
Wolff:
It is hard to separate out husbands and wives. Most assets are jointly held, so it is not really possible to separate which assets are owned by husband and which by wife. Even when things are specifically owned by one spouse or another, the other spouse usually has some residual lien on the assets, as we know from various divorce proceedings. If a pension account is owned by the husband and the family splits up, the wife typically gets some ownership of the pension assets. The same thing is true for an unincorporated business owned by the husband. It really is not that easy to separate out gender ownership in the family.

What we do know is that single women, or single women with children, have much lower levels of wealth than married couples.

MM: How does the U.S. wealth profile compare to other countries?
Wolff:
We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.

Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.

What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years.

MM: To what extent is the wealth inequality trend simply reflective of the rising level of income inequality?
Wolff:
Part of it reflects underlying increases in income inequality, but the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we’ve had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices.

MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff:
I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.

So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.

As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.

MM: Apart from the absolute level of wealth of people at the bottom of the spectrum, why should inequality itself be a matter of concern?
Wolff:
I think there are two rationales. The first is basically a moral or ethical position. A lot of people think it is morally bad for there to be wide gaps, wide disparities in well being in a society.

If that is not convincing to a person, the second reason is that inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.

Typically when countries are more equal, educational achievement and benefits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlands, Germany or even France. So the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance.

MM: To what extent is inequality addressed through tax policy?
Wolff:
One reason we have such high levels of inequality, compared to other advanced industrial countries, is because of our tax and, I would add, our social expenditure system. We have much lower taxes than almost every Western European country. And we have a less progressive tax system than almost every Western European country. As a result, the rich in this country manage to retain a much higher share of their income than they do in other countries, and this enables them to accumulate a much higher amount of wealth than the rich in other countries.

Certainly our tax system has helped to stimulate the rise of inequality in this country.

We have a much lower level of income support for poor families than do Western European countries or Canada. Social policy in Europe, Canada and Japan does a lot more to reduce economic disparities created by the marketplace than we do in this country. We have much higher poverty rates than do other advanced industrialized countries.

MM: Do you favor a wealth tax?
Wolff:
I’ve proposed a separate tax on wealth, which actually exists in a dozen European countries. This has helped to lessen inequality in European countries. It is also, I think, a fairer tax. If you think about taxes that reflect a family’s ability to pay, a family’s ability to pay is a reflection of their income, but also of their wealth holdings. A broader kind of tax of this nature, would not only produce more tax revenue, which we desperately need, but it would be a fairer tax, and also help to reduce the level of inequality in this country.

MM: In broad outlines, how would you structure such a tax?
Wolff:
I would model it after the Swiss system, which I think is a pretty fair system. It would be a progressive tax. In the United States, the first $250,000 of wealth would be exempt from the tax. That would exclude 80 percent of all families. The tax would increase at increments, starting out at .2 percent from about $250,000 to $500,000. The marginal rate would go up to .4 percent from $500,000 to $1 million, and then to .6 percent from a $1 million to $5 million, and then to .8 thereafter.

It would not be a very severe tax. In fact, the loading charges on most mutual funds are typically of the order of 1 or 2 percent. It would not be an onerous tax, but it could raise about $60 billion annually. Eighty percent of families would pay nothing, and 95 percent of families would pay less than $1,000. It would really only affect very rich families.

MM: Do you recommend non-tax approaches to deal with inequality as well?
Wolff:
I think we have to provide a much broader safety net in this country.

There are lots of things that we should do to strengthen our income support system. We can expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now a fairly substantial aid to poor families, but which can be improved.

The minimum wage has fallen by about 35 percent in real terms since its peak in 1968. We should think about restoring the minimum wage to where it used to be. That would help a lot of low-income families.

The unemployment insurance system is in a real mess; only about one third of unemployed persons actually get unemployment benefits, either because they don’t qualify or because they exhaust their benefits after six months. Typically the replacement rate is about 35 or 40 percent. In the Netherlands, the replacement rate is 80 percent. Our unemployment insurance system is much less generous than in other industrialized countries and can certainly be shored up.

Of course, the welfare system is in a total state of disrepair, since it provides very restrictive coverage. Even before the switchover from AFDC to TANF with the 1996 welfare reform bill, real welfare payments had declined by about 50 percent between 1975 and 1996. So we had already experienced an enormous erosion in welfare benefits, even before we adopted this new system.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

The Wealth Divide The Growing Gap in the United States Between the Rich and the Rest

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest


An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.

In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth.

Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff:
Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff:
Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.

Wealth — strictly financial savings — provides security to individuals in the event of sickness, job loss or marital separation. Assets provide a kind of safety blanket that people can rely on in case their income gets interrupted.

Wealth is also more directly related to political power. People who have large amounts of wealth can make political contributions. In some cases, they can use that money to run for office themselves, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

MM: What are the best sources for information on wealth?
Wolff:
The best way of measuring wealth is to use household surveys, where interviewers ask households, from a very detailed form, about the assets they own, and the kinds of debts and other liabilities they have run up. Household surveys provide the main source of information on wealth distribution.

Of these household surveys — there are now about five or six surveys that ask wealth questions in the United States — probably the best source is the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances.

They have a special supplement sample that they rely on to provide information about high income households. Wealth turns out to be highly skewed, so that a very small proportion of families owns a very large share of total wealth. Most surveys miss these families. But the Survey of Consumer Finances uses information provided by the Internal Revenue Service to construct a special supplemental sample on high income households, so they can zero in on the high wealth holders.

MM: How do economists measure levels of equality and inequality?
Wolff:
The most common measure used, and the most understandable is: what share of total wealth is owned by the richest households, typically the top 1 percent. In the United States, in the last survey year, 1998, the richest 1 percent of households owned 38 percent of all wealth.

This is the most easily understood measure.

There is also another measure called the Gini coefficient. It measures the concentration of wealth at different percentile levels, and does an overall computation. It is an index that goes from zero to one, one being the most unequal. Wealth inequality in the United States has a Gini coefficient of .82, which is pretty close to the maximum level of inequality you can have.

MM: What have been the trends of wealth inequality over the last 25 years?
Wolff:
We have had a fairly sharp increase in wealth inequality dating back to 1975 or 1976.

Prior to that, there was a protracted period when wealth inequality fell in this country, going back almost to 1929. So you have this fairly continuous downward trend from 1929, which of course was the peak of the stock market before it crashed, until just about the mid-1970s. Since then, things have really turned around, and the level of wealth inequality today is almost double what it was in the mid-1970s.

Income inequality has also risen. Most people date this rise to the early 1970s, but it hasn’t gone up nearly as dramatically as wealth inequality.

MM: What portion of the wealth is owned by the upper groups?
Wolff:
The top 5 percent own more than half of all wealth.

In 1998, they owned 59 percent of all wealth. Or to put it another way, the top 5 percent had more wealth than the remaining 95 percent of the population, collectively.

The top 20 percent owns over 80 percent of all wealth. In 1998, it owned 83 percent of all wealth.

This is a very concentrated distribution.

MM: Where does that leave the bottom tiers?
Wolff:
The bottom 20 percent basically have zero wealth. They either have no assets, or their debt equals or exceeds their assets. The bottom 20 percent has typically accumulated no savings.

A household in the middle — the median household — has wealth of about $62,000. $62,000 is not insignificant, but if you consider that the top 1 percent of households’ average wealth is $12.5 million, you can see what a difference there is in the distribution.

MM: What kind of distribution of wealth is there for the different asset components?
Wolff:
Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can’t really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.

The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.

The middle class’s major assets are their home, liquid assets like checking and savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, and pension accounts. For the average family, these assets make up 84 percent of their total wealth.

The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets. These financial assets and business equity are even more concentrated than total wealth.

MM: What happens when you disaggregate the data by race?
Wolff:
There you find something very striking. Most people are aware that African-American families don’t earn as much as white families. The average African-American family has about 60 percent of the income as the average white family. But the disparity of wealth is a lot greater. The average African-American family has only 18 percent of the wealth of the average white family.

MM: Are you able to do a comparable analysis by gender?
Wolff:
It is hard to separate out husbands and wives. Most assets are jointly held, so it is not really possible to separate which assets are owned by husband and which by wife. Even when things are specifically owned by one spouse or another, the other spouse usually has some residual lien on the assets, as we know from various divorce proceedings. If a pension account is owned by the husband and the family splits up, the wife typically gets some ownership of the pension assets. The same thing is true for an unincorporated business owned by the husband. It really is not that easy to separate out gender ownership in the family.

What we do know is that single women, or single women with children, have much lower levels of wealth than married couples.

MM: How does the U.S. wealth profile compare to other countries?
Wolff:
We are much more unequal than any other advanced industrial country.

Perhaps our closest rival in terms of inequality is Great Britain. But where the top percent in this country own 38 percent of all wealth, in Great Britain it is more like 22 or 23 percent.

What is remarkable is that this was not always the case. Up until the early 1970s, the U.S. actually had lower wealth inequality than Great Britain, and even than a country like Sweden. But things have really turned around over the last 25 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of countries have experienced lessening wealth inequality over time. The U.S. is atypical in that inequality has risen so sharply over the last 25 or 30 years.

MM: To what extent is the wealth inequality trend simply reflective of the rising level of income inequality?
Wolff:
Part of it reflects underlying increases in income inequality, but the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we’ve had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices.

MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff:
I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.

So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.

As a result, the stock market boom of the 1990s disproportionately benefited rich families. There were some gains by middle class families, but their average stock holdings were too small to make much difference in their overall wealth.

MM: Apart from the absolute level of wealth of people at the bottom of the spectrum, why should inequality itself be a matter of concern?
Wolff:
I think there are two rationales. The first is basically a moral or ethical position. A lot of people think it is morally bad for there to be wide gaps, wide disparities in well being in a society.

If that is not convincing to a person, the second reason is that inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.

Typically when countries are more equal, educational achievement and benefits are more equally distributed in the country. In a country like the United States, there are still huge disparities in resources going to education, so quality of schooling and schooling performance are unequal. If you have a society with large concentrations of poor families, average school achievement is usually a lot lower than where you have a much more homogenous middle class population, as you find in most Western European countries. So schooling suffers in this country, and, as a result, you get a labor force that is less well educated on average than in a country like the Netherlands, Germany or even France. So the high level of inequality results in less human capital being developed in this country, which ultimately affects economic performance.

MM: To what extent is inequality addressed through tax policy?
Wolff:
One reason we have such high levels of inequality, compared to other advanced industrial countries, is because of our tax and, I would add, our social expenditure system. We have much lower taxes than almost every Western European country. And we have a less progressive tax system than almost every Western European country. As a result, the rich in this country manage to retain a much higher share of their income than they do in other countries, and this enables them to accumulate a much higher amount of wealth than the rich in other countries.

Certainly our tax system has helped to stimulate the rise of inequality in this country.

We have a much lower level of income support for poor families than do Western European countries or Canada. Social policy in Europe, Canada and Japan does a lot more to reduce economic disparities created by the marketplace than we do in this country. We have much higher poverty rates than do other advanced industrialized countries.

MM: Do you favor a wealth tax?
Wolff:
I’ve proposed a separate tax on wealth, which actually exists in a dozen European countries. This has helped to lessen inequality in European countries. It is also, I think, a fairer tax. If you think about taxes that reflect a family’s ability to pay, a family’s ability to pay is a reflection of their income, but also of their wealth holdings. A broader kind of tax of this nature, would not only produce more tax revenue, which we desperately need, but it would be a fairer tax, and also help to reduce the level of inequality in this country.

MM: In broad outlines, how would you structure such a tax?
Wolff:
I would model it after the Swiss system, which I think is a pretty fair system. It would be a progressive tax. In the United States, the first $250,000 of wealth would be exempt from the tax. That would exclude 80 percent of all families. The tax would increase at increments, starting out at .2 percent from about $250,000 to $500,000. The marginal rate would go up to .4 percent from $500,000 to $1 million, and then to .6 percent from a $1 million to $5 million, and then to .8 thereafter.

It would not be a very severe tax. In fact, the loading charges on most mutual funds are typically of the order of 1 or 2 percent. It would not be an onerous tax, but it could raise about $60 billion annually. Eighty percent of families would pay nothing, and 95 percent of families would pay less than $1,000. It would really only affect very rich families.

MM: Do you recommend non-tax approaches to deal with inequality as well?
Wolff:
I think we have to provide a much broader safety net in this country.

There are lots of things that we should do to strengthen our income support system. We can expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is now a fairly substantial aid to poor families, but which can be improved.

The minimum wage has fallen by about 35 percent in real terms since its peak in 1968. We should think about restoring the minimum wage to where it used to be. That would help a lot of low-income families.

The unemployment insurance system is in a real mess; only about one third of unemployed persons actually get unemployment benefits, either because they don’t qualify or because they exhaust their benefits after six months. Typically the replacement rate is about 35 or 40 percent. In the Netherlands, the replacement rate is 80 percent. Our unemployment insurance system is much less generous than in other industrialized countries and can certainly be shored up.

Of course, the welfare system is in a total state of disrepair, since it provides very restrictive coverage. Even before the switchover from AFDC to TANF with the 1996 welfare reform bill, real welfare payments had declined by about 50 percent between 1975 and 1996. So we had already experienced an enormous erosion in welfare benefits, even before we adopted this new system.

sreda, 5. maj 2010

Vse in nič, Pismo v Oni, 4.5.2010

Vse in nič

Lep pozdrav! Sem športnica, ne bi rada povedala več, ker bi bila prepoznavna. Moja težava je v tem, ker kljub vsem uspehom osebno nisem srečna. Izhajam iz ugledne športne družine. Že kot otrok sem bila vključena v vse možne športne in druge aktivnosti, marsikaj na željo staršev, npr. šola klavirja, balet. Menim, da sem bila prikrajšana za normalno otroštvo, tako da nimam pravih prijateljev. Vsi me spodbujajo, polni visokih besed, meni pa je to začelo presedati, saj me nihče ne vpraša, kako se počutim kot ženska. In tu je problem. Nimam fanta. Vsi me imajo očitno za nedosegljivo, jaz pa se tudi ne morem komu ponujati. Moje življenje ni tisto, kar sem pričakovala, vse bolj se zapiram vase, kljub letom, ko bi bila lahko že vesela mamica. V športu res uživam, toda misel, da sem kot orodje v rokah, me sili, da bi vse opustila in zaživela normalno življenje. Zanima me vaš nasvet in ali imate svojo ordinacijo, ker bi se rada srečala z vami, če bodo moji problemi prehudi.

Marija

Draga Marija, zelo sem vesela, da ste se odločili pisati. Imam občutek, da imate po eni strani vse v življenju: slavo, uspešnost v športu in zaželene občudovalce, po drugi stani pa nimate prisrčnosti in topline pravih prijateljev ali partnerja.

Problem je v tem, da vi kot avtentična oseba ne obstajate. Obkroženi ste s pričakovanjem staršev, občudovalcev, sponzorjev, ki jih pridno in zvesto zadovoljujete. Vendar pa so njihova pričakovanja res samo njihova, in ne vaša, zato vas to ne osrečuje. Drugi, na primer vaši starši, doživljajo prek vaših dosežkov svoje lastne neizpolnjene želje. Vi pa ne živite svojega življenja, saj niti ne veste, katere so vaše želje in potrebe, saj gresta vsa energija in čas le v to, da osrečujete druge.

Na mojo veliko radost se v vas oglaša glas nezadovoljstva. Kaj vam glas govori? Vprašajte se, kaj vi in samo vi potrebujete zase. Kaj vi želite? Prisluhnite sebi in sledite sebi. Vi ste edinstveno bitje, in ne mehanična lutka na stikala.

Pišete, da ste bili kot otrok vključeni v vse možne aktivnosti, marsikaj na željo staršev. Ugotovili ste, da ste bili prikrajšani za normalno otroštvo. Očitno je, da ste se kot otrok naučili boriti za uspeh in priznanje, vendar ne toliko na svojo željo, temveč ker so to vaši starši ali oboževalci želeli, spodbujali ali zahtevali.

Z vsakim uspehom, ko ste osrečili starše ali oboževalce, so drugi doživljali svojo zadovoljitev in užitek, medtem ko ste se vi korak za korakom bolj oddaljevali od avtentične sebe. Kot ste že sami ugotovili, ste doslej bolj orodje v rokah drugih.

Prvi korak, ki ga morate narediti, je ugotoviti, da se vaš avtentični jaz razlikuje od jaza, ki išče potrdila, dokazila ali priznanje od drugih, kot to, da je to edino, kar je veljavno in vredno v vašem življenju. Že v otroštvu ste potlačili ali zadušili svoja čustva, tako da vaša avtentična čustva niso bila izražena in zato niso mogla bila zadovoljena.

Drugi korak, ki ga morate narediti, je spoznati, da je dobiti aplavz in priznanje drugih sicer zelo zapeljivo, ampak ali je vredno cene vaše osebne sreče.

Mogoče je zdaj čas, da prevrednotite svoje življenje in ugotovite, da ni treba prodati svoje duše za priznanje drugih. Pridobljeno priznanje drugih pomeni samo površno in bežno obliko zadovoljitve v primerjavi z avtentičnim jazom, ko sam sebi daš pohvalo za uspeh, ki je dolgotrajna in osrečujoča. Pravo srečo boste občutili šele takrat, ko boste primarno odlična športnica zaradi sebe in šele potem za druge. Življenje ni le črno ali belo. Ker v športu uživate, ni treba menjati enega (športnega) življenja za drugo (osebno) življenje. Treba je samo v svojih dejanjih bolj uglasiti svoje želje z željami drugih.

Hvala, da ste me vprašali za naslov moje ordinacije, saj se zavedate, da en odgovor, čeprav je odličen začetek, ne more biti dovolj poglobljen, da preusmeri vse sile okoli vas v drugo smer, in to takoj. Kot pregovor pravi, Rim ni bil zgrajen v enem dnevu. Oglasite se pri meni na Pristaniški 3 v Kopru, z veseljem sem vam pripravljena pomagati, da skupno najdeva ključ do vaše sreče.

Dr. Marjeta Ritchie, specialistka klinične psihologije

sobota, 1. maj 2010

GOSPODARSKA KRIZA JE NATEG TISOČLETJA

Čudovit intervjuji - Anton Komat

Včeraj se je v Københavnu končal vrh o podnebnih spremembah. V preteklih mesecih in tednih
smo se naposlušali teorij o segrevanju ozračja, česar naj bi bil kriv človek, ki onesnažuje okolje
in v zrak spusti preveč ogljikovega dioksida. So pa tudi taki, ki tega ne verjamejo. Med njimi je
raziskovalec in publicist Anton Komat, ki trdi, da se naše ozračje ne segreva, pač pa da smo,
nasprotno, na pragu novega ohlajanja planeta. “Leta 2012 bo že vsem jasno, da se ozračje
ohlaja in ne segreva,” je prepričan Komat, ki je izpostavil še nekaj primerov, ko danes malemu
človeku mogočneži malajo oči in iz žepa kradejo denar. Zato je tudi napisal knjigo Umetnost
preživetja, ki jo je pred kratkim izdal v samozaložbi.
Včasih ste tudi vi verjeli hipotezi, da je za segrevanje ozračja odgovoren človek. Zdaj o
njej dvomite. Zakaj?
“Hipoteza o antropogenem izvoru pregrevanja planeta ali po domače Al Gorova hipoteza je zelo
enostavna in na prvi pogled zelo verjetna. Dvomiti sem začel, ko sem na spletu naletel na
oregonsko peticijo, v kateri je več kot 30.000 raziskovalcev protestiralo proti enoumju v
znanosti, proti favoriziranju samo ene hipoteze in onemogočanju drugače mislečih.”

GOSPODARSKA KRIZA JE NATEG TISOČLETJA
Hipoteze torej, da je na potezi človeštvo, ki mora zmanjšati izpuste ogljikovega dioksida
in s tem rešiti planet?
“Tako je. Vprašal sem se, zakaj v sodobnem svetu zatirajo drugače misleče znanstvenike, jim
odtegujejo financiranje in jih premeščajo na druga delovna mesta. Očitno gre za velike pritiske.
Potem pa sem podrobno preučil Al Gorovo teorijo in ugotovil, da sploh ne upošteva podatka, da
milijarda in 300.000 krav na našem planetu izloči ogromne količine metana, ki ima na
segrevanje ozračja večji vpliv kot vsa naša vozila skupaj. Niti besede ni v tej teoriji o globalni
goveji čredi, kar je bil drugi vzrok za moj dvom.”
Očitno obstaja tudi tretji?
“Res je. Med znanstveniki, ki zagovarjajo Al Gorovo hipotezo, ni geologov in astronomov. Prav
ti pa imajo kronske dokaze, na katere se opirajo skeptiki. Meritve temperature izvajamo zadnjih
100 let, astronomi pa pojavnost sončnih peg opazujejo že, odkar je Galileo izumil teleskop.
Geologi lahko s preučevanjem sedimentov in ledene skorje za milijone let nazaj dokaj natanko
ocenijo temperature in prisotnost ogljikovega dioksida v atmosferi našega planeta. Začel sem
tudi preučevati sistemsko teorijo, teorijo kaosa, fraktalno analizo, kar mi je klimatske
spremembe razkrilo v novi luči. Poglavitni vzrok zanje je periodično utripanje aktivnosti sonca.
Zadnja dva milijona in pol let smo imeli 34 ledenih dob. Zdaj smo na koncu zadnjega
interglaciala, začasne otoplitve, torej nas čaka nov ledenodobni sunek. Kdaj se bo začel, ne
more nihče napovedati, verjetno pa prej kot v tisoč letih.”
Kakšno povezavo ima torej ogljikov dioksid s segrevanjem?
“Količina ogljikovega dioksida v atmosferi je posledica in ne vzrok segrevanja.”
Ampak vi pravite, da se naše ozračje od leta 2005 ohlaja?
“Leta 2005 se je končalo obdobje suš. Pričenja se obdobje neurij, torej ohlajanja. Lani smo padli
v povprečju za stopinjo.”
Zakaj pa potem vsak dan poslušamo, da se ozračje segreva?
“Zato, ker ponarejajo podatke. Climategate je izbruhnil ravno zaradi tega. Nekateri znanstveniki
so iskali navodila, kaj narediti s podatki, da temperatura pada. Navodilo je bilo, naj izberejo
samo tiste podatke, ki potrjujejo segrevanje ozračja. Rusi so včeraj objavili podatek, da so na
njihovem ozemlju uporabili le tiste meritve, ki podpirajo tezo o pregrevanju, torej le četrtino vseh
meritev.”
Verjamete v teorijo zarote?
“Poglejte, od starega Rima naprej poznamo centre moči, ki odločajo. To ni nobena zarota, tako
deluje naš svet. Vsi predsedniki so samo lutke, za njimi so vedno centri moči, ki odločajo.”
Je cilj domnevnega prirejanja podatkov ustaviti gospodarski razvoj Kitajske?

GOSPODARSKA KRIZA JE NATEG TISOČLETJA
“Nafte imamo še za 40 do 50 let. Zato je vse dražja, glavna nahajališča pa so pod vojaškim
nadzorom. Zahod za tranzicijo na novo energetsko osnovo potrebuje 20 do 30 let. To je bistvo
Kjota in Københavna. Zaradi pritiska na energente je treba zaustaviti rast novih velikanov:
Kitajske, Indije, Brazilije, Južne Afrike … Če bi njihovo gospodarstvo raslo od 8 do 10 odstotkov
na leto, bi čez 25 let potrebovali nov planet. Tega pa nimamo. Zato je vojaški konflikt za vire
neizbežen. V tem pogledu je københavnski vrh čisto v redu. Tudi pozivi, da moramo varčevati
energijo, paziti pri izpustih, zmanjšati onesnaževanje, nehati uničevati gozdove. To je vse prav.
Vzroka globalnih problemov pa ne rešuje. Največji problem postaja znanost, ki pridobiva značaj
ideologije. Če dejstva ne gredo v koncept zamisli, jih ponaredijo. Grozljivo je, kako znanost
uporablja metode inkvizicije, le da danes ne gorijo grmade, ker so metode bolj sofisticirane.”
Kaj je torej vzrok težav?
“Filozofija ekonomije neomejene rasti bruto domačega proizvoda. Edini primer, ki je v naravi
primerljiv s to noro ekonomijo, je rak. Zanj pa vemo, kako se konča. Ubije gostitelja in sebe.
Svet bo rešila samo nična rast, stacionarna ekonomija. Porabiti bomo morali samo toliko, kolikor
narava lahko obnovi in mi recikliramo. Ne pa, da proizvajamo neskončne gore odpadkov in
žremo nepovratne vire. Bolje bi bilo proizvajati kvalitetno blago, ki ga lahko vzdržujemo in
servisiramo. Koliko stvari, ki jih kupimo, zavržemo prej kot v enem letu!”
Pa se naši voditelji tega zavedajo?
“Seveda ne. Poglejte samo, kako rešujejo finančno krizo. Na način, kot je nastala: s
povečevanjem potrošnje. Na ljudi v času gospodarske krize in brezposelnosti vendar ne gre
pritiskati, naj več trošijo! Gospodarsko krizo in človeštvo lahko reši le stacionarna ekonomija.
Model zanjo obstaja, naredili so ga nemški ekonomisti v času naftne krize v 70. letih prejšnjega
stoletja.”
Mislite na skupino okrog Willyja Brandta?
“Da. Brandtova skupina je obudila zamisel Johna Stuarta Milla iz leta 1848, ki je napovedal, da
bo ekonomija prešla v stacionarno rast, ko bo zahod dosegel visoko stopnjo znanj in
gospodarskega razvoja. To pa se ni zgodilo.”
Zakaj ne?
“Ko so odkrili severnomorsko nafto in tehnologijo ploščadi, so na to rešitev za človeštvo
pozabili. Obenem pa je Henry Kissinger postavil novo doktrino sveta, ki pravi takole: Kdor ima
nafto, ima nadzor nad državami. Kdor ima nadzor nad hrano, ima nadzor nad ljudmi. Kdor ima
nadzor nad financami, ima nadzor nad svetom. Ta nadzor je danes z globalizacijo dosežen.
Kissinger je kapital sedmih največjih naftnih korporacij usmeril v industrializacijo kmetijstva,
naftno in prehransko industrijo pa povezal še s farmacijo. Ključna v tej zgodbi so tudi semena.
Danes imamo pet korporacij, ki združujejo proizvodnjo hrane, semen, farmacijo in gensko
tehnologijo: Monsanto, Novartis, Aventis, DuPont in AstaZeneca. To je konglomerat, ki vodi
svet.”

GOSPODARSKA KRIZA JE NATEG TISOČLETJA
Je sploh še mogoče obuditi Brandtov model?
“Če bomo svet reševali na način zločina, kot to počnemo danes, bomo doživeli katastrofo. Svet
potrebuje tragedijo v smislu antične tragedije, da se oba pola združita in v sintezi nastane nekaj
novega. Tragično bo to soočenje za tiste, ki imajo danes moč in meč. Če pa ne bomo prišli do
spoznanja, da smo vsi na isti Noetovi barki, bomo namesto tragedije za nekatere doživeli
katastrofo vsi ljudje.”
Kaj lahko v tej situaciji stori posameznik?
“Vse. Zdaj imamo vsi bolj tanke denarnice in smo pozorni, kaj kupujemo. Tisto, kar bomo
kupovali, bodo trgovci dajali na police, pa naj si bo to krama ali kvalitetno blago, ki ga lahko
servisiramo in vzdržujemo. Nihče na tem svetu ne bo ničesar storil namesto nas. Oblast sodi na
intenzivno psihoterapijo, popolnoma je zgubila stik z ljudmi z realnostjo. A samozadostna oblast
je kot milni mehurček. Ko bodo ljudje prevzeli stvari v svoje roke in začeli ozaveščeno krmariti
svoja življenja, bo vse drugače. Vsak dan smo na volitvah. Kar smo zavozili globalno, bomo
morali reševati lokalno. V ZDA trenutno 50 milijonov ljudi hrano dobiva na državne karte. Nikoli
v zgodovini se kaj takega še ni zgodilo. Zato zdaj Američani okopavajo vrtičke in sejejo solato.”
Se nam tudi v Sloveniji lahko zgodi kaj takega?
“Glede hrane prav mogoče. Dve tretjini je uvažamo, v 70. letih prejšnjega stoletja pa smo jo tri
četrtine pridelali sami. Energija ne bo tak problem, saj imamo še popolnoma neizkoriščeno
geotermalno energijo. Podobno je tudi s solarno. Pa veliko gozdov imamo. Obdelovalno zemljo,
ki jo imamo skoraj najmanj v Evropi, pa namenjamo pridelavi hrane za živali. To je absurd
slovenskega kmetijskega kaosa. Dokaz, da živimo v nori državi, je tudi to, da politika favorizira
potrošnjo energentov, ker od tega pobira davek. Tudi pritisk kapitala na naravne vire je
strahoten. Vojna za vodo v Sloveniji že poteka.”
Res? Kje?
“Vsakič, ko kupimo vodo v plastenki, smo kupili privatno vodo in se odrekli vodi iz pipe, ki je
javna dobrina in zastonj. Plačujemo samo njeno distribucijo in vzdrževanje javnih vodovodov.
Če zanemarimo dejstvo, da hormonski motilci v plastiki ubijajo spolnost in povzročajo raka, bi
se morali zavedati, da je voda v plastenkah vsaj 2000-krat dražja od tiste iz vodovoda. Bolj ko
bomo kupovali to vodo, večji bo pritisk kapitala na črpališča. In nekega lepega dne se bomo
zbudili in ugotovili, da polovico vodnih virov zasedajo privatne polnilnice.”
Kdaj pa nam bodo začeli zaračunavati zrak?
“Saj davek na izpuste ogljikovega dioksida ni nič drugega kot obdavčitev zraka! Zaradi te fame
okrog ogljikovega dioksida bo energija zdaj dražja za okrog 30 odstotkov. Princip kjotskega
protokola, ki se nadaljuje s Københavnom, je prav obdavčitev tistih, ki izpuščajo ogljikov
dioksid. Termoelektrarna Šoštanj plačuje milijardne kazni za izpuste. Mar mislite, da tega ne bo
vštela v ceno električne energije?”

GOSPODARSKA KRIZA JE NATEG TISOČLETJA
Kaj bi morali še vedeti o današnjem svetu, pa si morda ne upamo vprašati?
“Da je gospodarska kriza nateg tisočletja. Poncijeva piramida se je zrušila in treba jo je postaviti
nazaj. To pa ni mogoče ob gospodarski rasti, ki je nižja kot 3 do 4 odstotke. Zakaj politike in
ekonomiste zadene kap, ko začnem govoriti o stacionarni ekonomiji? Ker ekonomija kraje pade!
Če bi jaz šel v kazino in zaigral milijon evrov, potem pa bi se oglasil pri predsedniku vlade in ga
prosil, naj mi nakaže milijon, ker ne morem živeti, bi me verjetno poslal v norišnico.”
Hočete reči, da bi komu drugemu ta denar dal?
“Seveda, bankam! Ampak ne milijona, pač pa več trilijonov. 50 trilijonov dolarjev, to je 50.000
milijard dolarjev našega denarja je izginilo. To je nateg, ki ga bodo plačevale še generacije za
nami. Da bo gospodarska rast zagotovila delovna mesta, je čista laž. Samo denar se bo še
naprej pretakal od ljudi navzgor. Mehanizem pobiranja denarja pa je jasen: davki, inflacija … V
ZDA že tiskajo denar. Kitajska noče kupiti njihovih državnih obveznic, in so nasedli.”

Je bil zato Barack Obama pred kratkim na Kitajskem?
“Seveda, vbogajme jih je šel prosit!”

Kam je torej treba vreči bombo?
“Nobenih bomb ni potrebno metati. To lahko naredimo drugače. Ves ta sistem lahko uničimo v
trenutku, če se nehamo zadolževati in vsi naenkrat dvignemo svoj denar z bančnih računov.
Vsa voda bo stekla iz bazena in pošast, ki plava v njej, bo nasedla. Mar ni to dober recept? Ali
veste, da je v vsakem predmetu, ki ga kupimo, vsaj 50-odstotni delež obresti?”

Ste optimist ali pesimist?
“Težko bi se opredelil. Rešitev vidim v konceptu svobodne družbe, ki ga je utemeljil filozof Karl
Popper. Nihče ga ni maral, ne kapitalisti ne komunisti, ker je njegov koncept smrtno nevaren za
današnji neoliberalen svet. Pravi, da je vsak človek toliko pameten, da lahko prebere katerikoli
znanstveni vir in ima o tem svoje mnenje. Ne potrebuje ekspertov in komisij, ki odločajo o
njegovem življenju. O stvareh lahko odločajo samo tisti, ki so neposredno prizadeti, torej ljudje.”
Videti je, da ljudje vse bolj prevzemajo stvari v svoje roke …
“Ljudje so si začeli sami urejati življenje, kar je sijajno. Dokaz za to je tudi odklonilen odnos do
cepljenja proti novi gripi, kljub vsem pritiskom in medijski kampanji. Internet, t. i. blogosfera, je
danes bolj kredibilen vir informacij kot svetovne agencije. Erazem Rotterdamski je napisal
Hvalnico norosti, ki je v srednjem veku postavila temelje za renesanso duha. To potrebujemo
tudi danes. Postali smo brezbrižni, otopeli, obenem pa histerični in malce shizofreni. V našem
globalnem eksperimentu smo dosegli dno. Potrebujemo novo upanje, nov vzgon za novo
civilizacijo, novo renesanso duha. Če pa je edina vrednota denar, potem adijo kultura. Človek
danes beži pred soočenjem z družino, partnerjem, prijatelji, s samim seboj. Gre v supermarket,
dela kariero in vozi avto. Prižge televizijo in se odklopi. Moramo se soočiti sami s sabo,

GOSPODARSKA KRIZA JE NATEG TISOČLETJA
predvsem pa se moramo ustaviti. Stara modrost pravi, ustavi se in prišel boš.”
Bi nam priporočili še kakšno knjigo?
“Propad civilizacij Jareda Diamonda je sijajno branje. Nekatere močne in cvetoče kulture so v
zgodovini propadle zaradi povsem banalnih vzrokov. Vsak nerešen problem predstavlja domino,
in ko je domin preveč, zadostuje že majhen sunek, da vse podre. Primerjava z današnjim
časom je zato več kot koristna.”