What has become of the social dimension in the santiy discussion?

Discussions about the sanity in criminal cases is in great focus for the time being in Norway. Is a man who has killed 77 innocent people sane or not? Should he be punished or treated with psychological therapy? Scholars disagree and the debate is difficult to understand for many outsiders. I have worked with sex offenders and their victims for many years and met the same attitudes in society as in the current terrorist case in Norway. My question is "what has become of the social dimension in the santiy discussion?" Let me reflect on this question by drawing upon sex crimes as an example. 

It is very common to explain a sexual criminals as being so-called mentally ill. "He / she must be completely insane" -is a very common reaction. "He / she is mentally ill, he/she had no ability to control him-/herself, he / she could not help it." The difficulty with such statements is that they deprive the person a responsibility for their action. There are of course elements of the mental, emotional, and relationship problems in this. Often, defense lawyers also try to highlight elements of a difficult childhood as mitigating circumstances during a trial, however, perceiving sexual abuse of children only as a result of an individual psychological state of being allows the roots to this tremendous crime to grow deeper and stronger. The basis for this behavior has also to do with a value system associated with sexuality in our society and attitudes towards what is good or bad, feminine or masculine behavior.

In relation to the last statement the following statement can be of interest. A magazine in the United States called Single Life-the interactive magizine for Wisconsin and Illinois published an article entitled: "What I want from women." A series of structured questions were posed to men who were in the bars around the Milwakee area. Among the questions was: "What qualities are most important in women?" 

A typical response is exemplified by the following quote: "The quality I like best is the combination of innocence and seductive behavior. This is very attractive. Subject to the equally appealing is vulnerability, helplessness ...". 

Janus (1981), in his book The Death of Innocence, cites many men who he interviewed in connection with their use of child prostitutes. Many of these men turned out to be almost eager to be interviewed and far from being "ashamed" they were almost polemical in his description of his experiences.

          "Everything is so much easier with children. You do not get some of that horrible sarcasm that some of these old whores come with ... I think that the whores get old very soon. I've known some girls like everything in 20 years can be both sarcastic and bitter. It's as if your life is by going beyond them, I'd rather be with someone who is at the beginning of the journey. "

          And

          "There is absolutely nothing wrong with a man gets his satisfaction wherever he wants to get it. I do no wrong. I've never done anything bad to anyone. I pay what it costs ... I like others are well aware on all the various revolutions that have taken place in the social and sexual life in the western world in the last 20 years ... I see absolutely no reason why I should feel the need to justify or defend my personal preference for very young pre-pubertal girl. " 

It is worth noting that the last subject in the interview above states his arguments connected to important civil rights and his own alleged, and in my view totally unjustified, "right" to use children for his own sexual gratification. 

It's so clear that there is an urgent need to clarify and debate the social values ​​and community values ​​that allow a likely increasing the number of adults to consider their own sexual gratification as a "right" and to regard this right as a superior mental and perhaps physical destruction of a child.Sam Janus establishes a far more important right:

          "The most important right that a child has the right to develop at their own pace in their own time. Children need protection, security, much private time and in addition a kind of benign lack of management so that they can detect the even at their own pace and in pace with their peers. " 

It is up to us adults and professionals to insist that all children worldwide must be protected from adults' sexual demands, subjected to sexual violence, prostitution, pornography, rape, sexual abuse, incest. These different forms of actions and the right some adults mean they have to include children in their free sexual expression must be debated openly. 

I have more than a full understanding that this is overwhelmingly strong stuff. I can very well understand that it may seem simply too emotionally overwhelming for colleagues and the public to allow themselves to discuss it, to understand and to experience the truth about the sexual violence and abuse that surrounds us. But for change to be possible, we need to see these terrible truths in the eyes. The central and most difficult question is how we can change social norms and values ​​in sexual context? One of the first steps is to have more knowledge and to confront citizens with the destructive value system that we are all affected by, and like most of us are not even aware of. 

The truth / reality of the scope of serious crimes against children in sexual context - the whole industry of exploitation and the enormous rate of abuse - must be visible and must be seen. It is absolutely necessary that it is fully recognized before they can be reduced and perhaps one day eradicated. The protection of children against sexual abuse and exploitation is a prerequisite for the development of a society that is worth to be entered into our children's children. It must break into the cycle of sexual abuse if we are to build a future that will give each individual, adults who have children from sexual violence and abuse.

Hvor blir det av samfunnsdimensjonen i tilregnlighetsspørsmålet?

Diskusjonen om tilregnlighet i straffesaker er i fokus for tiden i Norge. Er en mann som har drept 77 uskyldige mennesker tilregnlig eller ikke? Skal kan straffes eller behandles? De lærde strides og diskusjonen er vanskelig å forstå for mange utenforstående. Jeg har selv arbeidet med seksualforbrytere og deres ofre i mange år og møtt de samme holdninger i samfunnet her som i den pågående terrorist saken i Norge. Mitt spørsmål er hvor blir det av samfunnsdimensjonen i tilregnlighetsspørsmålet? La meg reflektere litt over dette spørsmålet ved å trekke frem seksualforbrytelser som et eksempel.

Det er meget vanlig å forklare en seksualforbryters atferd ved at han/hun er såkalt mentalt syk. "Han/hun må være fullstendig sinnsyk", -er en vanlig reaksjon. "Han/hun er syk, han hadde ikke evnen til å beherske seg, han/hun kunne ikke noe for det". Det vanskelige med slike utsagn er at de fratar krenkeren ansvar for sin forbrytelsen. Det er naturligvis elementer av psykisk, emosjonelle relasjonsproblemer i dette. Ofte vil forsvarsadvokater også forsøke å trekke frem elementer fra overgriperens vanskelig barndom som formildende omstendigheter under en rettsak Imidlertid kan det å oppfatte seksuell mishandling av barn kun som et resultat av en individuell psykisk tilstand være med å tillate røttene til denne enorme forbrytelse å gro dypere og sterkere. Grunnlaget for denne adferden ligger også i et verdisystem tilknyttet seksualitet i vårt samfunn og til holdninger overfor hva som er godt eller dårlig, feminin eller maskulin atferd.

I forhold til det siste kan det følgende sitat være av interesse. Et blad i USA som heter Singel Life- the interaktiv magizine for Wisconsin and Illinois utga en artikkel med tittelen: "What men want from women". En rekke strukturerte spørsmål ble stilt til menn som befant seg i barene rundt om i Milwakee. Blant spørsmålene var: "Hvilken egenskaper finner du mest viktig hos kvinner?"

En typisk respns er eksemplifisert ved det følgende sitat: "Kvaliteten jeg liker best er kombinasjonen av uskyld og forførerisk atferd. Dette er meget attraktivt. Forsåvidt like attraktivt er sårbarhet, hjelpeløshet...".

Janus(1981), i hans bok The Death of Innocence siterte han mange menn som han hadde intervjuet i forbindelse med deres bruk av barneprostituerte. Mange av disse menn viste seg nærmest å være ivrige etter å la seg intervjue og langt fra å "skamme seg" ble de nesten polemiske i sin beskrivelse av sine opplevelser.

          "Alt er så mye lettere med barn. Du får ikke noe av den jævlige sarkasme som noen av disse gamle luddere kommer med...Jeg synes at horer blir gamle så veldig tidlig. Jeg har kjent noen piker som alt i 20 årene kan bli både sarkastiske og bitre. Det er som om livet er ved å gå dem forbi, jeg vil heller være sammen med noen som er i begynnelsen av reisen".

          Og

          "Det er absolutt intet galt med at en mann får sin tilfredsstillelse hvor han enn ønsker å få det. Jeg gjør ingen noe galt. Jeg har aldri gjort noe vondt mot noen. Jeg betaler det det koster...jeg som andre er vel oppmerksom på alle de forskjellige revolusjoner som har gått for seg i sosial- og seksualliv i den vestlige verden i de siste 20 årene... Jeg ser overhode ingen grunn til at jeg skal føle behov for å rettferdiggjøre eller forsvare akkurat min personlige forkjærlighet for helt unge før-pubertetspiker."

Det er å bemerke at det siste subjektet intervjuet ovenfor har satt likhetstegn mellom viktige sivile rettigheter og sin egen antatte, og etter mitt syn totalt uberettigede, "rett" til å bruke barn til sin egen seksuelle tilfredsstillelse.

Det er så klart at det er et stort behov for å klargjøre og debattere de sosiale verdier eller samfunnsverdier som tillater et sannsynligvis økende antall voksne til å betrakte sin egen seksuelle tilfredsstillelse som en "rett" og å betrakte denne rett som overordnet den psykiske og kanskje fysiske destruksjon av et barn.

Sam Janus slår fast en atskillig viktigere rettighet:

          "Den aller viktigste rett som et barn har er retten til å utvikle seg i sitt eget tempo i sin egen tid. Barn trenger beskyttelse, trygghet, mye privat tid og i tillegg til dette en slags godartet mangel på styring slik at de kan oppdage seg selv i sitt eget tempo og i tempo med sine jevnaldrende."

Det er opp til oss voksne og som fagfolk å insistere på at alle barn over hele verden skal beskyttes fra å gis trygghet fra voksnes seksuelle krav, krav som representerer seksuell vold som kommer til uttrykk som prostitusjon, pornografi, voldtekt o.l., seksuell mishandling, incest. Disse ulike handlingsformer og synet på barnets rettigheter og voksnes rettigheter til fri seksuell utfoldelse er utvilsomt sterkt innvevde.

Jeg har mer enn full forståelse for at disse er overveldende sterke ting. Jeg kan meget vel forstå at det kan virke simpelthen for emosjonelt overveldende for kolleger og almenheten å tillate seg selv, å slippe inn til seg, å forstå og å føle/oppleve sannheten om den seksuelle vold og mishandling som omgir oss. Men for at endring skal bli mulig må vi se disse grufulle sannheter i øynene. Det sentrale og aller mest vanskelige spørsmålet er hvordan vi kan bidra til å effektuere endring når det gjelder samfunnsnormer og verdier i seksuell sammenheng? Et av de første skritt i hvert fall må vel være å opplyse og konfrontere medborgere med det helt destruktive verdisystem som vi alle er påvirket, jeg hadde nærmest sagt gjennomsyret av, og som de fleste av oss ikke engang er oppmerksomme på.

Virkeligheten/realiteten av omfanget og det himmelropende alvor av forbrytelsene mot barn i seksuelle sammenheng,- hele industrien av utnyttelse og den enorme frekvens av misbruk - må bli synlig og må bli sett. Det er fullstendig nødvendig at det blir fullt ut erkjent før de kan bli redusert og kanskje en dag utradert. Beskyttelsen av barn mot seksuelt misbruk og utnyttelse er en forutsetning for utviklingen av et samfunn som er verdt å bli ført inn i for våre barns barn. Det må brytes inn i syklusen av seksuell mishandling hvis vi skal kunne bygge en fremtid som vil gi hvert individ, voksne som barn frihet fra seksuell vold og misbruk.

Creative meaning

A contribution to a human-scientific theory of action

Aristotle

How can Aristotle help cast light over the concepts of theory and practice, the difference between doing and acting, and the importance of practical wisdom? My answer will be that teaching in our professions should be based on theory-orientated empirical research.

The problem is not only what we do, but also how we do it. Knowledge is not just the objective result or product of scientific work, as we can read as articles, doctoral dissertations or other scientific presentations, but also something we do and we call this productive activity for scientific research. This is the background for the titel “Creative meaning”. Research is a creative activity. 

Teaching and training of our professions tends to be insufficient when we stand face to face with making difficult choices. The professional knowledge that is taught in our educational institutions does not follow the quick and unforeseen changes that take place in our society. We are often forced to find our own private and quiet ways out of our difficulties with “homemade” explanations. That is why it is important to try to make visible and articulate the experience which grows forth through personal and long-lasting intercourse with everyday situations and problems. This knowledge-in-action is a perspective which is concerned with solving specific problems, but success depends on practical skill, judgment and personal competence in handling unexpected situations.

Theory and practice

Theory and practice are two of our most common dichotomies. Theory and practice are of those philosophical concepts that have become a part of our everyday language and are used to legitimate, limit, excommunicate and most of all try to explain something without really doing so. We often hear people say that “we are not theoretical, we are practical”. But what is really “theory” and what is “practice”?

            Theory and practice are amongst the oldest words in our western culture. They were created by the Greeks. We associate spontaneously theory with thinking or knowledge, and practice with doing. The first sits in our head and the other in our hands. The question is if one can think without doing, or do something without thinking. We are responsible for our actions, because we are conscious of them. Thinking can therefore be considered a form for action.

            Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics) presents a tool box which I mean can help us give some kind of perspective to these two concepts. Aristotle took words out of our everyday language and formed concepts that would become instruments for philosophical and scientific understanding. His influence on our way of thinking is enormous.

            The tool box creates a system of concepts which points to different forms of existence and knowledge. Knowledge is a most problematic word, because we often mean an objective result or a product. To know something is to have something in ones head, but also to manage or to cope with something. To know something is first and foremost an activity and about the competence this activity forms in the individual.

            Aristotle speaks of five forms of knowledge, one form for theory and two forms for practice. These can be put together in this way:

Human activity/forms of existence                               

Theory (Theoria a theoretical activity)                                  

Doing (Poiesis, a productive activity,)                             

Acting (Praxis, an activity with its own value)                

                                                                                          

Forms of knowledge

Science (Episteme)

Skill (Techne)

Practical wisdom (Fronesis)

Philosophical wisdom (Sofia)

Insight (Nous)

I will concentrate on science, skills and practical wisdom in this papir and not give so much attention to philosophical wisdom and insight. Philosophical wisdom is a combination of insight and practical wisdom. Insight is a form for intuition, an understanding we have right before we meet something without having to discuse it in words (logos).

Skills develop through long-lasting training of productive activity. We find the word theory in all European languages. One develops scientific competence by working with theoretical activities. Aristotle understands being practical on a richer and more varied level than we do today. Aristotle differs between to do and to act and this is important for Aristotle.

            Praxis has become practice, which includes both doing and acting. Aristotle meant something else. Praxis stood for our actions, but could also imply the things we do. Doing and acting was in the same way as theory, a human activity for Aristotle.

            Techne stands for the skill that productive activity (of any kind) creates in the individual. One becomes a musician by playing music. A person, who practices long enough with speaking, can become a good speaker. The word techne is often translated with art in this words old meaning. This is the same as “craftsmanship”, or some kind of practical skill.

            Fronesis is translated to Latin with prudential, which is the same as practical wisdom. This is about collecting experience over time and building up a capability to act in specific human situations.

            Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, talks about theory as a way of living. The Greek word theoria does not mean the same as the word theory as we use it today. We most often think of the objective result, the Greeks are inclined to think of the activity. With theory in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle did not mean the product of scientific activity which comes forth in compositions and is stored in texts or other information media. Aristotle meant the activity that is produced when we investigate the world around us.

            Scientific knowledge was not, as for us, the attained scientific product, not the objective result, but the subjective capacity to attain such results, through theoretical activity. Theory was for Aristotle a theoretical activity, a productive activity, even the highest form for activity a human could be concerned with. Theory was therefore also a form for doing, a productive activity. If doing is building a house, to compose melodies, to care for the sick (which constructors, musicians and nurses do), than theory is a doing which is concerned with using words objectively in different cases in order to describe them and codify and store this descriptions for the knowledge and use for others.

            This productive activity is best done by those scientists who have attained the ability to do science (episteme) through studying science (epistemology). One becomes more scientific by practicing theoretical activity, which again makes us more capable of understanding theory. A theory is therefore a special kind of activity. A scientist is a person who has learned to work with theories. Theories are the activities of a scientist, the same way as building a house is the activity of a building worker.

To conceive the concepts of Aristotle

To create concepts is not to en capsulate, but rather as pointing with a shaking finger or using a flashlight which blinks. An understanding which stems from Plato is that concepts are definable and. Plato understands all concepts as if they where geometrical. The concepts “triangles” or “horses” are identical with the contents of their definitions. One can never completely understand Aristotle if one starts with concepts that have permanent and unambiguous definitions.

            Aristotle says that one must always remember that concepts are not physical structures. We can for example talk about “shoe” as a common denominator for all shoes, but we can also divide “shoe”, “sandals”, “boots”, etc. We use the word man as in “mankind” and “human” to describe both men and woman. In some contexts we differ between human and animals and in others we say that humans are animals. Sound is both a sound and a noise. A bat is some ways a mouse and in other ways a bird. The problem arises when we think of a bat as only a mouse or a bird. 

Three different forms for human existence

Acting means “action” in its strict form, but in it’s broaden meaning acting can be understood with Aristotle as all forms of doings and in it’s broadest meaning acting means “human existence”. These forms for living are theory, doing and acting. In Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics he talks about three different forms for human existence.

Theory (Theoria)             An intellectual, theoretical life (Bios theoretikos)

Acting (Praxis)                Citizenship (Bios politikos)

Doing (Poiesis)                The rational strive for material benefit (Bios apolaustikos)

Theory and acting are something we want in it selves. Doing is a useful activity which is valuable only for the good results which it causes. Aristotle regarded “the good life” as citizenship (bios politicos), even though an intellectual, theoretical life (bios theoretikos) was a higher form for life activity. The fact that Aristotle praises theory as the highest form and most sought-after activity stems from Plato, and can creates some confusion in his way of thinking. It is clear that the concept of acting gives the best expression for human action and life form at all. Even if theory is the highest form for activity, it is acting that is the typical human paradigm for all human living.

Conclusion

We get a clear reflective form for knowledge, science (episteme), through theoretical activity, and practical wisdom (fronesis) through long-lasting reflective action (which means that we give meaning to what we do). We get competence and skills (techne) by doing something productive, by working with something creative in the existing reality. To act is not the same as to do, but it is through what we do that our actions can be seen and understood. Our skills differ from science, but at the same time it is a form for science. Science can explain, and skills help us in a productive activity. But to explain what one does is also science. Theory and science are both activities and thereby capabilities which can be learned. These words become, by help of the written language, a result of something one does; formulating thesis, constructing theories, and writing text and books. Theory and science are just forms of productive activity. The most important concept according to Aristotle in order to live a good life is acting with the corresponding capability, practical wisdom. Science is just the competence to know, while skills are the competence to do a productive activity. It is the concept of action (an understanding-creative activity) which leads to the practical wisdom of bringing forth the knowing and doing which again can create a meaningful life.

Kaare T. Pettersen

Literature:

Aristotle, [350 BC], 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ramírez, José Luis, 1995. Creative meaning. A contribution to a human-scientific theory of

action. Stockholm: Nordic School of  Planning, diss.13. (Language: Swedish).

Gjøkeredet

En hyllest til friheten

En av mine favorittfiler er mesterverket Gjøkeredet, regissert av Milos Forman. Det er en film som har vært tett trykket til alle radikales bryst siden den kom i 1975. Det er en film nesten alle har sett og mener noe om, og er helt sikkert manges absolutte favorittfilm. (Her er det lett å banne i kjerka!) Den er enhver "freaks" bibel, og er basert på Ken Keseys populære roman fra 1962 med samme navn.


Hovedsakelig er filmen en kritikk av autoriteter, og rammen er et mentalsykehus der friånden McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) skrives inn for observasjon. Han forsøker å snike seg unna pådømt tvangsarbeid av makelighetsgrunner, og håper å få soningstiden forkortet ved å spille gal. Den iskaldt kalkulerende og "saklige" søster Ratched (Louise Fletcher) representerer makten i et system som er glattpolert på utsiden, men pill råttent innvendig. Galehuset symboliserer verden.



McMurphys tilstedeværelse myker opp de vettskremte og kuede gutta på avdelingen, og det er fullt av nydelige mellommenneskelige øyeblikk. Mye flott vennskapsskildring. - Og befriende lun humor hele veien som forhindrer "klamhet". Filmen er lekende intelligent, eksempelvis i måten å beskrive den fine grensen mellom normalitet og galskap på: McMurphy oppfører seg klassisk "gal", hvorpå han spør: "Is that crazy enough for you? - You want me to take a shit on the floor?"

Et annet eksempel på øyeblikk som biter seg fast er når McMurphy agerer basketballkamp og underholder gutta foran en død TV-skjerm. Alle ser eksaltrerte opp mot TV’en som reflekterer deres ansikter. Genial regi! Filmen er full av slike nydelige grep!

Louise Flecher

Gjøkeredet er et perfekt eksempel på hvordan man bygger opp et svært vellykket manus og persongalleri. - Og hvordan man gjennomfører det. Den er verdt et grundig studium.

Milos Forman

Brad Dourif

 INGEN kunne passet bedre i rollen som McMurphy enn Nicholson, og det er UTENKELIG med noen annen enn Brad Dourif som det stammende, sky og paranoide guttebarnet Billy Bibbit som bokstavelig talt er dødsredd sin egen mor. Maken til nydelig spill!!! Både Nicholson og Louise Flecher fikk Oscar. I tillegg ble det utdelt Oscar til filmen for beste regi, manus og foto. Helt sikkert velfortjent!