The rise of the bystander as a complicit historical actor-By Dennis Klien

At about 3 o’clock one morning in the early spring of 1964, Kitty Genovese, 28, arrived home from the bar in New York City where she worked, as she did morning after morning. While she walked in darkness from the lot where she’d parked her car, an assailant attacked her, drove away and then returned to assault her some more. Genovese repeatedly screamed for help. Several neighbours reported hearing her but, as the story goes, no one answered her calls. The assailant left her eventually to die.

The New York Times gave the incident routine coverage: Genovese was one more victim of brutal assault on the streets of the city. But a couple of weeks later, the story made front-page news. There were no new facts or startling discoveries; what was new was the reframing of the story: where were the neighbours? How could they so heartlessly ignore the victim’s cries for help? What was just another violent crime turned into a sensational murder case. Genovese became a household name associated with what grew into a controversial story about bystanders and their complicit silence. The residents of the Mowbray, an apartment complex in Queens across the street from the crime scene, were in the unenviable position of having to defend themselves from international criticism. They asserted that it was, after all, three in the morning and they were asleep – moreover, with windows shut tight against the outside cold. Some claimed that, even if they’d called the police, they wouldn’t have responded to yet another street crime.

Bystander incrimination has taken root. Over time, bystanders were called out for summary condemnation. The activist Abbie Hoffman remarked: ‘And so you ask, “What about innocent bystanders?” But we are in a time of revolution. If you are a bystander, you are not innocent.’ The political philosopher Hannah Arendt, also writing in the 1960s, made the point by referring to the requirements of civil conduct: our ‘vicarious responsibility for things we have not done, this taking upon ourselves the consequences for things we are entirely innocent of, is the price we pay for the fact that we live our lives not by ourselves but among our fellow [citizens].’

The alleged responsibilities of bystanders acquired such moral force that critics have pushed back. Victoria Barnett, author of Bystanders: Conscience and Complicity During the Holocaust (1999), asked: ‘What lies beneath the surface [of silence]?’ suggesting that fear or perpetrator allegiance explains the reticence of onlookers. Henrik Edgren, another scholar who has written about bystanders, posits assertions that are similarly exculpatory, explaining that bystanders are often coerced from interfering in harmful acts. Offering canonic justification for bystander inertia, the evidence-based theory of the bystander effect proposed in 1968 by the social psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané argued that onlookers fail to intervene when they believe that others will.

The presumption of bystanders’ responsibility has, however, crystallised into the predominant opinion. Good Samaritan laws ratify intervention and protect ‘upstanders’ from liability. Bystander intervention is now axiomatic, a paragon of civic behaviour. Consider, by contrast, an image from the Tulsa race massacre of 1921 in Oklahoma: men and women blithely go about their business while the city within view burns. Images of lynchings are also revealing: onlookers, hardly indifferent, are downright jubilant. Nazi authorities made a point of including onlookers in their documentation of persecution. Edgren is no doubt right about the risks of intervention, but it is just as likely that German onlookers felt lucky to be on the right side of history or were even impressed with the clarity that the Nazis achieved about who belonged to the new Germany and who didn’t. Other images from the Nazi period confirm that looking on was acceptable behaviour, if not a joyful experience, often serving to bind observers into a community of privileged insiders. Images of Kristallnacht, for example, show spectators gazing inertly at a burning synagogue and urban passers-by oblivious to the effects of racially inspired vandalism.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

How to get over ‘never good enough’

Learn to spot unhealthy perfectionism, understand its emotional sources and find a way to silence that self-critical voice. by Margaret Rutherford.

‘If it’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well.’ How many times did I hear that growing up? My parents were attempting to teach me (just in case I hadn’t absorbed it from their actions) the importance of striving for excellence. They were encouraging what some psychologists call ‘constructive perfectionism’ or ‘healthy perfectionism’ – a personality trait that’s associated with finding enjoyment and even fulfilment in life from doing things as well as you possibly can. With constructive or ‘positive perfectionism’, the focus is process-oriented; you learn from mistakes or even failure. It’s generally considered a beneficial trait that’s linked with being more conscientious and self-disciplined.

Yet perfectionism can have a darker side. The American academic and author Brené Brown defined this kind of perfectionism in her first book, The Gifts of Imperfection (2010), as ‘a self-destructive and addictive belief system that fuels this primary thought: if I look perfect, live perfectly, and do everything perfectly, I can avoid or minimise the painful feelings of shame, judgment and blame.’ This form of perfectionism, which is fuelled by inner shame that must be quelled, involves trying to constantly meet perceived expectations of what ‘perfect’ is. This perfectionism isn’t fulfilling and it’s far from enjoyable. Yet many people feel it’s mandatory to look as if all is perfect. They believe that not to do so would imply imperfection.

This is what’s known in the wider psychological literature as ‘unhealthy perfectionism’ or ‘destructive perfectionism’. In this case, the purpose has nothing to do with process. It’s goal-oriented. It’s driven. It’s pressured. And I believe it’s increasingly contributing to mental health problems.

Constructive perfectionists, let’s say if they’re swimmers, want to beat their personal best. That brings with it all kinds of positive vibes. Winning the race is great, if indeed they do.

But destructive perfectionists want to be the perfect swimmer. And winning every race is the goal; if not, shame says to them that they have little to no value or worth.

Many perfectionistic people will fall somewhere on a spectrum between the two poles. But in my clinical practice I’ve noticed another issue. Ironically, destructive perfectionists might not even recognise themselves as perfectionists, because they never believe their best is good enough. There’s always the next achievement. And then the next. And the next.

So, what are the roots of destructive perfectionism? I believe people often develop this way of thinking and being when they grow up without a sense of support, safety and nurturing. It can also be a reaction to childhood trauma or extreme cultural expectations, where appearing perfect becomes a mandatory strategy to emotionally survive, and where vulnerability is disdained.

Over the past decade, I’ve treated more and more people who didn’t quite know why they’d come to therapy. They’d erected huge barriers against revealing any kind of emotional pain; I wondered if they even had the capability of expressing such feelings. Outwardly, they didn’t seem depressed at all; the descriptions of their issues sounded more like the result of overwork, fatigue or mild anxiety.

My interpretation is that they were destructive perfectionists who were running out of steam, but not sure what, if anything, was wrong. Their emotional pain was expertly, and often unconsciously, hidden.

If I asked them if they were depressed, I’d hear a firm denial. ‘I have too many blessings in my life.’ If I questioned whether or not their childhood provided safety and security, they’d laugh and deny or discount any kind of problem. Or sometimes they’d become very quiet and look out the window, as if they wished they were anywhere but my office.

Yet as they returned for more sessions, they’d slowly risk sharing one shame-filled secret after another. Their seemingly impenetrable cloak of silence would slowly slip off, only to reveal tremendous loneliness and despair.

And in many cases, as they let down their guard, I found they could also understand that what was ‘wrong’ or unhealthy might not fit the rubric of classic depression. But it was just as real. And just as damaging.

I began researching the popular literature about perfectionism, shame and fear of vulnerability. I found a wealth of research and writings about the importance of vulnerability and the cost of shame by the aforementioned Brown, the much earlier thoughts on ‘covert depression’ by the author and family therapist Terrence Real, and the book Self-Compassion (2015) by the psychologist Kristin Neff. But crucially I couldn’t find anything for the general public about the relationship between perfectionism and a form of potentially serious depression.

So, drawing on the experiences and stories of the many clients I’ve seen in my practice over 25 years, I formulated my own ideas about this distinct problem and how it can be addressed most effectively and compassionately. My work – laid out in my book Perfectly Hidden Depression (2019) – is based on how a dangerous kind of perfectionism-fuelled depression can affect someone’s life; how even if someone scores low on a standard depression inventory, they can be living with deep-seated emotional difficulties and unresolved traumatic experiences that might ultimately threaten their will to live. This is the syndrome I call ‘perfectly hidden depression’.

I’ve identified 10 traits that manifest in the daily decision-making and behaviour of people who exhibit signs of this syndrome:

  • You are highly perfectionistic, fuelled by a constant, critical inner voice of intense shame or fear.
  • You demonstrate a heightened or excessive sense of responsibility and look for solutions.
  • You have difficulty accepting and expressing painful emotions, remaining more analytical or ‘in your head’.
  • You discount, dismiss or deny abuse or trauma from the past, or the present.
  • You worry a great deal (but hide that habit) and avoid situations where you’re not in control.
  • You are highly focused on tasks and others’ expectations, using accomplishment as a way to feel validated. Yet as the last accomplishment fades, new pressure assumes itself, and any success is discounted.
  • You have an active and sincere concern for the wellbeing of others, while allowing few (if any) into your inner world.
  • You hold a strong belief in ‘counting your blessings’ and feel that any other stance reflects a lack of gratitude.
  • You have emotional difficulty with personal intimacy but demonstrate significant professional success.
  • You might have accompanying mental health issues that involve anxiety and control issues, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), panic and/or eating disorders.

If you read these 10 traits and find that many or all of them match you, then hopefully this is in some sense reassuring – it might give you an inkling of why you feel the way you do, how you haven’t known what was wrong and have been ashamed to even consider it. If suddenly a light has come on – you recognise that you can’t bring yourself to share any vulnerability; or perhaps you recognise these traits in someone else, then first – breathe. And know this: I’ve found there is an antidote to perfectly hidden depression – self-acceptance.

Full article

posted by f.sheikh

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ends truce by warning ‘incompetent’ Democratic party

Did ” defund the police” and BLM scared white America to vote Republican in local elections?

New York representative denies Movement for Black Lives and Green New Deal cost seats.

The truce is over. The failure of the party to operate an online strategy “in a real way that exhibits competence”, Ocasio-Cortez told the Times, made it hypocritical for the party to advance criticism of progressive messaging.

“If I lost my election, and I went out and I said: ‘This is moderates’ fault. This is because you didn’t let us have a floor vote on Medicare for all.’ And they opened the hood on my campaign, and they found that I only spent $5,000 on TV ads the week before the election?” Ocasio-Cortez said. “They would laugh. And that’s what they look like right now trying to blame the Movement for Black Lives for their loss.”

Full article

posted by f, Sheikh

Vulnerable Yet Vital

The dance of love and lore between grandparent and grandchild is at the center, not the fringes, of our evolutionary story.

On an evolutionary timescale, Homo sapiens emerged only quite recently. Yet in that short time, we have evolved a particularly weird life history, with a much longer childhood and old age than other animals. In particular, we’re very different from our closest primate relatives. By at least age seven, chimpanzees provide as much food as they consume, and they rarely live past 50 – there’s no chimp equivalent of human menopause. Even in forager cultures, where growing up is accelerated, children aren’t self-sufficient until they’re at least 15. What’s more, even in communities without access to modern medicine, if you make it past childhood you might well live into your 70s. We live some 20 years longer than chimpanzees and, except for a few whale species, particularly orcas, we are the only mammals who systematically outlive our fertility.

The extended childhood is especially puzzling because, as parents know, children are expensive, and that was true long before college tuition and summer camp. Adults have always had to feed and protect the young, and early human brain development uses up a tremendous amount of energy – more than 60 per cent of four-year-olds’ calories go to the brain at rest, compared with around 20 per cent for adults. Humans also have babies every couple of years, much more frequently than chimps, so they stack up even more of those helpless, hungry-brained children.

Chimpanzee mothers do almost all the childrearing. But humans evolved exceptionally extended and varied sources of caregiving to deal with their costly babies, including fathers who take care of the kids, post-menopausal grandmothers, and ‘alloparents’ – other people who help to raise children. Prairie-vole dads, orca-whale grandmothers and rhesus-monkey alloparents also help to raise babies, but these kinds of care are rare among mammals. No other species except humans appears to have all three kinds of care.

These changes in life history evolved at the same time as dramatic changes in human brains and minds. We have many more neurons than other primates. And we developed striking abilities to learn and invent, communicate and cooperate, and create and transmit culture. New analyses of fossil records show that humans evolved their large brains and distinctive capacities in parallel with their longer childhood and old age. Our unique human vulnerabilities somehow emerged in concert with our unique human strengths. Just how are these two kinds of changes related? Researchers from biology, psychology and anthropology have recently begun to work together in order to answer these questions – answers that help to explain what makes us distinctively human.

https://aeon.co/essays/why-childhood-and-old-age-are-key-to-our-human-capacities?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=71c4f05265-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_11_08_11_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-71c4f05265-69109725http://www.thinkersforumusablog.org/wp-admin/post-new.php