A good way to assess a country's true psychology is to look at how it treats other nations.
The UK's relations with Europe and the rest of the world are currently going through a radical reconfiguration, thanks to Brexit. But equally, the way that the UK government is handling Brexit and its relations with its near neighbours in Europe is also highly-revealing in telling us the true nature of the country's leaders, and their motivations. As a result of this, European observers of the negotiation process between the UK and the EU are having to sharply re-evaluate their preconceptions about Britain's sense of morality. They are beginning to realise that Britain's honesty and transparency can no longer be taken for granted. They realise that Britain is behaving like a "troublemaker".
Divide and rule
When the chips are down, Britain's government has an instinct for devious behaviour (in particular towards its own population).The British government's negotiation strategy with the EU (if it can be coherently said to have one), seems to follow on from the same tactics, which Britain also once used when it was an Imperial power.
Back in the day, the British government's strategy for keeping the colonies under control was one of "divide and rule". In India, this was about balancing the different ethnic sides off against each other. The tensions between those sides (e.g. Hindu versus Muslim) were then stoked by Britain as a deliberate policy to sabotage the growing independence movement. This then made post-independence violence all the more certain; as we know, millions died in violence during those population exchanges. Earlier in Britain's rule over India, we had the Indian Mutiny, which caused widespread devastation, and also numerous famines over time that caused the deaths of millions, to the general indifference of its British rulers.
Closer to home, and another example of "divide and rule" that is often forgotten by Britain's population, was the treatment of Ireland: the land "across the (St George's) channel" that was effectively Britain's colony, with much of its Catholic population treated as virtual slave labour. Institutional indifference led to the potato famine, causing the deaths of millions, and the widespread depopulation of Ireland. Meanwhile, there was Northern Ireland, where again, Britain's ignorance of its bloody past and persecution towards the Ulster Catholic minority, is widespread. As we see, the policy of "divide and rule" is still at the heart of how the government runs the country even today, thanks to the DUP. And that doesn't even mention the current government's arrogant attitude towards the Irish government as part of its negotiations with the EU (more on that later).
The same could be said of Britain's rule over Palestine, where the Arab majority were played off against the Jewish minority. As the violence between them and their British overlords got increasingly out of hand, the British left the whole mess to the newly-created UN, who were totally unable to deal with the situation. As with "divide and rule" in Ireland, the Middle East is still dealing with the after effects of that today.
Britain, as an Imperial power, therefore had a long reputation for dealing with its colonies in a Machiavellian manner. The three mentioned, India, Ireland and Palestine, are just a few of the more glaring examples. There are many others. Of course, this strategy was common among all "Imperial powers", and Britain was very far from the worst in this regard. However, the cases of India, Ireland and Palestine are three stains on Britain's colonial record - in terms of the collective human impact of their policies - that stand out even among other acts of colonial infamy by other powers. Britain may not have used torture on an mass scale like some other Imperial powers, but it would be naive in the extreme to think of Britain as a paragon on Imperial virtue, like as it has been with some, nostalgic over the past.
The manner in which the UK government has dealt with the EU during the negotiations follows the same path. On one hand, Britain's Prime Minister talks of wanting a "deep and special partnership" with the EU based on trust and co-operation. But on the other, while negotiations are ongoing with the EU as a whole, her government (and the PM herself) seeks to drive clefts within the nations of the EU itself. Firstly, Theresa May and her ministers engage in the type of diplomacy that looks for issues that individual members of the EU might agree with Britain on, separately from the rest of the EU; the purpose of this is to build some kind of "inner coalition" within the EU that might be more supportive towards Britain's goals. Secondly, in the case of Germany, David Davis seems to be on a strategy to win over the support of its industrialists that would then act a some kind of "lobby" to pressure Angela Merkel on Britain's behalf. In this case, it is like developing a "cleft within a cleft". His comments just recently, where he blamed France and Germany for holding up the negotiations, support the view that Britain's strategy is to drive wedges between nations, as well as even wedges between interest groups in the nations themselves.
These two examples show not only the glaring lack of tact of Britain's government, but also reveal its government's true motivations: treating Europe as a kind of "colony" that can be manipulated and exploited to achieve its goals.
Looking at this objectively, it paints a very poor picture for Britain as a nation to be trusted. Not only is it being devious; it is being tactless. And everyone can see it.
It is almost reminiscent of the tactless behaviour and self-defeating diplomatic strategy of Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II. When he came to power, he wanted Germany to be a great power, but also one that had good relations with its neighbours. Through a series of misjudgments, Germany fell out of favour with Britain, Russia and France, leading the Kaiser to look for alliances with nations that others were wary to be close to. This left Germany diplomatically-isolated from the major Imperial powers, leading its government to seek self-reliance as the best form of defence. We know where that ended.
In a different context, Britain's government seem to be repeating many of the same kind of blunders: making enemies where it should be making friends; while in seeking to divide existing alliances, the only effect this has is to unite them against itself as their common agitator. This kind of "imperialistic approach" will only end in failure, while showing to others that Britain's motivations are antagonistic in nature.
"Special treatment"
Apart from the Imperialistic strategy of "divide and rule", there is the UK government's (equally Imperialistic) mindset of expecting the EU to do everything for them, give in to all their demands, while offering little in return.
This is the lazily-entitled mindset that Britain had seen in remission during its membership of the EU. In many ways, joining the EU was an admission of Britain's relative weakness in the post-Imperial world. As it was not in a position to make demands, it allowed Britain an opportunity to reshape its own sense of identity. Brexit represents a backwards step to the entitled, patronising attitude that the country had during its colonial past: nothing is ever Britain's fault.
David Davis seems to summarise this mentality well: a monoglot who is incapable of understanding even the basics of his brief, or seeming to care. To him, Brexit all seems like a bit of a lark. As far as he sees it, Britain has already offered "compromises" (I struggle to think of any), and so the onus is on the EU to do the same. This attitude ignores the fact that the EU is simply following its own rules, as clearly laid out in statute in the Lisbon treaty. This has been explained repeatedly to Davis, who never seems to listen. The EU is not setting out to "punish" Britain; it is simply explaining the rules as they stand, and what is and isn't possible within that framework. But Britain's government wants the EU to ignore its own rules in order to indulge its wishes. In its lazily-entitled thinking, Britain has all the bearing of a haughty Imperialist of yesteryear that expects "foreign lackeys" to do all its work for it, while it wallows in its own self-satisfaction, ordering others around.
For some reason, Britain thinks it should be entitled to some kind of extra-legal cloud-cuckoo land where it gets "special treatment" from the rest of the world.
Expecting "special treatment" on one hand, while enacting a strategy of "divide and rule" on the other, Britain's government has simply slipped back into the lazy Imperialistic pretensions of a hundred years ago, but minus the Empire.
While the negotiations with the EU continue, the rest of the world (who Britain expects to have preferential trade agreements with) must look on with a mixture of bemusement and bafflement. If Britain can't even negotiate properly with its supposed "friends and allies", what chance has it got against anyone else?
Saturday, November 18, 2017
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Brexit and British pathology: the "three men in a pub" analogy
I've reached the stage where it feels as though Brexit is government policy organised by three drunk guys in a pub.
If you've ever been in a pub during a week-day afternoon, when it is more likely to be populated by problem drinkers, you might recognise the analogy. After a few drinks, conversation inevitably descends to a few core topics, that all revolve around the issue of culture: sport, identity and history.
When not talking about football, rugby or cricket (depending on the men's background), conversation drifts to broader cultural issues: things like immigration, cultural assimilation of said foreigners, how the face of Britain has changed over the years, and so on. Linked issues like gender identity may get a look-in on the conversation. Of course, politics also runs through all of this as well, as issues of cultural identity also raise issues like Britain's wider place in the world. In short, the narrative can gradually devolve to one of men feeling dis-empowered in the modern age; somehow emasculated, and that a sense of Britain's decline is tied in with their own sense of losing pride in their male identity. Men together, after a few drinks, love talking about themselves, but always in a wider context of their sense of identity and culture. Things that they would never say when sober they feel free to say when drunk, as if their inner id has been unleashed.
This is one of the reasons that British male culture (or pathology) is so schizophrenic - they feel restrained by the wider culture into a certain type of taciturn modesty in everyday life, which then results in a kind of repressed "inner demon" being unleashed when drunk. It also explains the propensity for drunken violence so common on British streets after dark. This "pathology" is something I want to explore in more detail.
"Take Back Control"
This may all sound familiar (hopefully, it does). The "culture wars" that seem to have been unleashed by the forces behind Brexit are the same ones that are behind the wider rise of Populism, and the ugly undercurrent that is somehow "rehabilitating" the politics of Fascism. In a different context, the same could well be said for the rise of Islamic extremism.
Ultimately, it can be argued it boils down to a "loss of masculinity", for what these events all share is a primal desire for "men to be men". The rise of women's rights, the disruptive effects of globalisation and then the financial crisis all accumulated the core issue of loss of power. What this means in a British context (for that is the focus of this article) is about "taking back control", epitomised in the brilliantly-concise and innately-primal slogan of the "Brexiteers". This explains one part of why Britain chose to leave the EU. Apart from the wider cultural context (more on that later), the "Brexiteers" in government knew how to manipulate the "pathology" of the British psyche to make the referendum seem a question of British freedom versus European dictatorship. If we classify "culture" as meaning "history plus identity", we can begin to see how the "three men in a pub" analogy is something ingrained into the British psyche. It's no wonder that part of Nigel Farage's appeal was the constant association of him with a pint in his hand, thus subconsciously putting him on the side of the "man in the street" (or the pub). In a different way, Boris Johnson, as one of the leading "Brexiteers" in government, was able to inject his own brand of charisma into the referendum campaign, thus ensuring that the side for leaving the EU had all the most easily-identifiable personalities.
It was emotional appeals that won the day, rather than rational argument. Like how the "man in the pub" can never be rationally argued against without provoking violence, the arguments of those in favour of the EU were never going to win over the "Brexiteer" ideas that were all about "pie in the sky" thinking. There was never one moment when the arguments for leaving the EU were decisively shot down, because, in a way, there were no real arguments for leaving; there were only "beliefs". In the same way that an atheist can never truly win argument against faith (because it misses the point), Brexit is a faith-based ideology that requires a suspension of disbelief. We'll look at some of those "beliefs" below.
"This sceptred isle"
Part of the identity issues mentioned earlier naturally come down to national history shaping the national psyche. The obvious fact that Britain is an island plays a fundamental part to that, which leads to two well-understood "truths": a) that Britain hasn't been invaded for a thousand years, and b) that we have historically been apart from continental Europe.
Britain's role in the Second World War is still, seventy years on, an integral part of the national psyche. For the "three men in the pub", this is what our national identity is all about, and fundamentally shapes our relationship with Europe. The fact that the country wasn't invaded during that war (as well as Dunkirk - more on that later - "the plucky underdog") emotionally stands for a lot to "the man in the pub". It infers that Britain is different (i.e. "special"). This lends itself to a complacency about life in the modern world; that because Britain was able to stand apart and free in the Second World War, suggests we'd be able to do the same again today. Because Britain was a victor of both World Wars, it infers that we'd be a victor in the world again today. The fact that all this was possible through a combination of luck, happenstance and outside factors is ignored. In a sense, Britain's experience of war in the 20th century was cosmetic compared to that experienced on the continent.
In the industrial era, Britain never experienced mass displacement of refugees, entire cities levelled, or real starvation. It has never experienced a real "national humiliation", like many nations of Europe have. It has never experienced Fascism first-hand, either. It is this "luck" that the "man in the pub" confuses with "destiny", and therefore adds to the complacency that supports his "pie in the sky" assertions over Brexit, as well as his faith that Fascism could have never happened in Britain anyway.
To take a more recent example of this complacency, Britain winning the Falklands War was, to a large extent, pure luck. If Britain had lost that war (which was always likely), the sense of national humiliation would have been profound. The Thatcher government wouldn't have lasted long, and Britain's national psyche would have been shattered. But we won, and so Britain's belief in its own indestructibility continued to the present day. A "Hard Brexit" would be a real test of that indestructibility.
Likewise, the fact that Britain's success as a nation came about through world empire rather than entanglements in Europe is another part of the narrative for "the man in the pub". Even the term "Brexiteer" sounds vaguely romantic, like the word "buccaneer", evoking the travails of Britain (or more exactly, England) as a vibrant, sea-faring nation of the world. This goes back to the time before Britain's involvement in continental wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, while looking at more recent centuries, evokes instead the successes of the empire. Put in this light, Europe's closeness to Britain feels almost incidental to its history.
More generally, historians understand that Britain's relationship with Europe is complex. While in general Britain's role on the continent was often as a semi-detached observer, it has had a part to play in Europe for centuries, even if only for the self-interested reason of maintaining the balance of power. This is exactly one reason why Britain joined the EU in the first place: to maintain its influence on the major players from inside the club, rather than as an impotent outside observer. But Brexit relegates us to exactly that role, if not worse: by our actions turning ourselves into a "troublesome neighbour". Again, the "man in the pub" is not interested in the wider picture or the more strategic outcome: he is only interested in defending his narrow sense of self.
"The plucky underdog"
As mentioned earlier, there is also an element of the "Dunkirk spirit" to the British pathology and Brexit. For some reason, British psychology is to "stick up for the underdog", which is also an integral part of our sporting culture. Wars that the country has been involved with have often had an element of needing to side with the "bullied" underling in the conflict. The most glaring modern example was being on the side of Serbia against Austria in the First World War (although Serbia was the clear aggressor in being a state sponsor of terrorism against Austria), while it was Germany's invasion of Belgium (as a path to attacking France) that was the ultimate trigger for British involvement.
This strong sense of a "moral code" and right from wrong is a part of British psyche. One reason why many British people still seem set on their course to leave the EU come what may is due to this feeling that to back out would "betray" the point of the vote. No argument can be reasonably put against this belief, as it is exactly that: a "belief". The vote was cast, we are leaving, and that is that. To backtrack on that would be anathema.
Another part of British pathology is the celebration of the "glorious failure". Going back to Serbia, this nation is one glaring example of how "glorious failure" can utterly dominate its pathology. Defeat of the Serbs by the Ottoman Turks in 1389 at the Battle Of Kosovo was given a moment of glory when one of the battle's last acts was the death of the victorious Sultan. Thus although Serbia was defeated, it went down fighting in glory. And this is what led the Serbia's emotional attachment to Kosovo, and all the bloodshed there in the late 1990s.
Dunkirk was a famous example of Britain's "glorious failure", and it is that "Dunkirk spirit" that has shaped the narrative around Brexit. It may be difficult, the "Brexiteers" admit, but it will be glorious. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, they might say.
This kind of emotional hyperbole is typical of "the man in the pub".
"No Surrender"
This is the masculine tag-line that seems to habitually crop up in belligerent news articles about the Brexit negotiations. It evokes the Churchillian rhetoric of the Second World War, that also melds with the same attitude that more recently punctuated "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. The psychological result is something that sounds more like the drunken chant of football hooligans on tour in the continent than a coherent strategy; a juvenile stubbornness that comes from a deep-seated sense of insecurity.
When his brittle sense of self is threatened, "the man in the pub" reverts to these age-old emotional crutches. To cave in to other people's demands would be unacceptable; compromise a sign of weakness, and anathema. To back down is unthinkable. This is the same kind of masculine fragility that led to historical disasters the world over.
"Make do and mend"
"It will be fine" Boris said reassuringly about Brexit during the campaign.
Again conjuring Second World War symbolism, the "Brexiteers" conjure up Britain's past in order to describe its future. The misty-eyed perspective of "the man in the pub" looks back fondly to his youth and the "oldern days", and looks at the grim reality that it was through rose-tinted spectacles. Because Britain has a culture of "making do", it implies that even if Brexit is a disaster, people will get by and manage, just as they did during the war.
Sometimes it feels as thought everything about Brexit somehow relates to how things were "during the war". The feeling that people might somehow benefit from "lean times" also explains how many people were once highly-supportive of austerity, as though there is some innate virtue in self-deprivation.
This is another aspect of British pathology that is hard to get to grips with, or to understand its origins. Could it have its cultural roots in the "Puritan revolution", now given a second breath of life as Brexit? Going back to the masculine analogy of earlier, Brexit is also seen emotionally as a way to make people "toughen up" after having softened from years of the good life and European luxuries. It is this line of thought that leans unfavourably into the realm of Fascist ideology. Given long enough, and the drunken conversation of "three guys in a pub" will enter into realms such as "survival of the fittest", cutting away society's dead flesh by one means or another, and the restoration of the death penalty.
This is the real "Brexit Agenda": the drunken fantasies of boorish louts.
If you've ever been in a pub during a week-day afternoon, when it is more likely to be populated by problem drinkers, you might recognise the analogy. After a few drinks, conversation inevitably descends to a few core topics, that all revolve around the issue of culture: sport, identity and history.
When not talking about football, rugby or cricket (depending on the men's background), conversation drifts to broader cultural issues: things like immigration, cultural assimilation of said foreigners, how the face of Britain has changed over the years, and so on. Linked issues like gender identity may get a look-in on the conversation. Of course, politics also runs through all of this as well, as issues of cultural identity also raise issues like Britain's wider place in the world. In short, the narrative can gradually devolve to one of men feeling dis-empowered in the modern age; somehow emasculated, and that a sense of Britain's decline is tied in with their own sense of losing pride in their male identity. Men together, after a few drinks, love talking about themselves, but always in a wider context of their sense of identity and culture. Things that they would never say when sober they feel free to say when drunk, as if their inner id has been unleashed.
This is one of the reasons that British male culture (or pathology) is so schizophrenic - they feel restrained by the wider culture into a certain type of taciturn modesty in everyday life, which then results in a kind of repressed "inner demon" being unleashed when drunk. It also explains the propensity for drunken violence so common on British streets after dark. This "pathology" is something I want to explore in more detail.
"Take Back Control"
This may all sound familiar (hopefully, it does). The "culture wars" that seem to have been unleashed by the forces behind Brexit are the same ones that are behind the wider rise of Populism, and the ugly undercurrent that is somehow "rehabilitating" the politics of Fascism. In a different context, the same could well be said for the rise of Islamic extremism.
Ultimately, it can be argued it boils down to a "loss of masculinity", for what these events all share is a primal desire for "men to be men". The rise of women's rights, the disruptive effects of globalisation and then the financial crisis all accumulated the core issue of loss of power. What this means in a British context (for that is the focus of this article) is about "taking back control", epitomised in the brilliantly-concise and innately-primal slogan of the "Brexiteers". This explains one part of why Britain chose to leave the EU. Apart from the wider cultural context (more on that later), the "Brexiteers" in government knew how to manipulate the "pathology" of the British psyche to make the referendum seem a question of British freedom versus European dictatorship. If we classify "culture" as meaning "history plus identity", we can begin to see how the "three men in a pub" analogy is something ingrained into the British psyche. It's no wonder that part of Nigel Farage's appeal was the constant association of him with a pint in his hand, thus subconsciously putting him on the side of the "man in the street" (or the pub). In a different way, Boris Johnson, as one of the leading "Brexiteers" in government, was able to inject his own brand of charisma into the referendum campaign, thus ensuring that the side for leaving the EU had all the most easily-identifiable personalities.
It was emotional appeals that won the day, rather than rational argument. Like how the "man in the pub" can never be rationally argued against without provoking violence, the arguments of those in favour of the EU were never going to win over the "Brexiteer" ideas that were all about "pie in the sky" thinking. There was never one moment when the arguments for leaving the EU were decisively shot down, because, in a way, there were no real arguments for leaving; there were only "beliefs". In the same way that an atheist can never truly win argument against faith (because it misses the point), Brexit is a faith-based ideology that requires a suspension of disbelief. We'll look at some of those "beliefs" below.
"This sceptred isle"
Part of the identity issues mentioned earlier naturally come down to national history shaping the national psyche. The obvious fact that Britain is an island plays a fundamental part to that, which leads to two well-understood "truths": a) that Britain hasn't been invaded for a thousand years, and b) that we have historically been apart from continental Europe.
Britain's role in the Second World War is still, seventy years on, an integral part of the national psyche. For the "three men in the pub", this is what our national identity is all about, and fundamentally shapes our relationship with Europe. The fact that the country wasn't invaded during that war (as well as Dunkirk - more on that later - "the plucky underdog") emotionally stands for a lot to "the man in the pub". It infers that Britain is different (i.e. "special"). This lends itself to a complacency about life in the modern world; that because Britain was able to stand apart and free in the Second World War, suggests we'd be able to do the same again today. Because Britain was a victor of both World Wars, it infers that we'd be a victor in the world again today. The fact that all this was possible through a combination of luck, happenstance and outside factors is ignored. In a sense, Britain's experience of war in the 20th century was cosmetic compared to that experienced on the continent.
In the industrial era, Britain never experienced mass displacement of refugees, entire cities levelled, or real starvation. It has never experienced a real "national humiliation", like many nations of Europe have. It has never experienced Fascism first-hand, either. It is this "luck" that the "man in the pub" confuses with "destiny", and therefore adds to the complacency that supports his "pie in the sky" assertions over Brexit, as well as his faith that Fascism could have never happened in Britain anyway.
To take a more recent example of this complacency, Britain winning the Falklands War was, to a large extent, pure luck. If Britain had lost that war (which was always likely), the sense of national humiliation would have been profound. The Thatcher government wouldn't have lasted long, and Britain's national psyche would have been shattered. But we won, and so Britain's belief in its own indestructibility continued to the present day. A "Hard Brexit" would be a real test of that indestructibility.
Likewise, the fact that Britain's success as a nation came about through world empire rather than entanglements in Europe is another part of the narrative for "the man in the pub". Even the term "Brexiteer" sounds vaguely romantic, like the word "buccaneer", evoking the travails of Britain (or more exactly, England) as a vibrant, sea-faring nation of the world. This goes back to the time before Britain's involvement in continental wars of the 18th and 19th centuries, while looking at more recent centuries, evokes instead the successes of the empire. Put in this light, Europe's closeness to Britain feels almost incidental to its history.
More generally, historians understand that Britain's relationship with Europe is complex. While in general Britain's role on the continent was often as a semi-detached observer, it has had a part to play in Europe for centuries, even if only for the self-interested reason of maintaining the balance of power. This is exactly one reason why Britain joined the EU in the first place: to maintain its influence on the major players from inside the club, rather than as an impotent outside observer. But Brexit relegates us to exactly that role, if not worse: by our actions turning ourselves into a "troublesome neighbour". Again, the "man in the pub" is not interested in the wider picture or the more strategic outcome: he is only interested in defending his narrow sense of self.
"The plucky underdog"
As mentioned earlier, there is also an element of the "Dunkirk spirit" to the British pathology and Brexit. For some reason, British psychology is to "stick up for the underdog", which is also an integral part of our sporting culture. Wars that the country has been involved with have often had an element of needing to side with the "bullied" underling in the conflict. The most glaring modern example was being on the side of Serbia against Austria in the First World War (although Serbia was the clear aggressor in being a state sponsor of terrorism against Austria), while it was Germany's invasion of Belgium (as a path to attacking France) that was the ultimate trigger for British involvement.
This strong sense of a "moral code" and right from wrong is a part of British psyche. One reason why many British people still seem set on their course to leave the EU come what may is due to this feeling that to back out would "betray" the point of the vote. No argument can be reasonably put against this belief, as it is exactly that: a "belief". The vote was cast, we are leaving, and that is that. To backtrack on that would be anathema.
Another part of British pathology is the celebration of the "glorious failure". Going back to Serbia, this nation is one glaring example of how "glorious failure" can utterly dominate its pathology. Defeat of the Serbs by the Ottoman Turks in 1389 at the Battle Of Kosovo was given a moment of glory when one of the battle's last acts was the death of the victorious Sultan. Thus although Serbia was defeated, it went down fighting in glory. And this is what led the Serbia's emotional attachment to Kosovo, and all the bloodshed there in the late 1990s.
Dunkirk was a famous example of Britain's "glorious failure", and it is that "Dunkirk spirit" that has shaped the narrative around Brexit. It may be difficult, the "Brexiteers" admit, but it will be glorious. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees, they might say.
This kind of emotional hyperbole is typical of "the man in the pub".
"No Surrender"
This is the masculine tag-line that seems to habitually crop up in belligerent news articles about the Brexit negotiations. It evokes the Churchillian rhetoric of the Second World War, that also melds with the same attitude that more recently punctuated "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland. The psychological result is something that sounds more like the drunken chant of football hooligans on tour in the continent than a coherent strategy; a juvenile stubbornness that comes from a deep-seated sense of insecurity.
When his brittle sense of self is threatened, "the man in the pub" reverts to these age-old emotional crutches. To cave in to other people's demands would be unacceptable; compromise a sign of weakness, and anathema. To back down is unthinkable. This is the same kind of masculine fragility that led to historical disasters the world over.
"Make do and mend"
"It will be fine" Boris said reassuringly about Brexit during the campaign.
Again conjuring Second World War symbolism, the "Brexiteers" conjure up Britain's past in order to describe its future. The misty-eyed perspective of "the man in the pub" looks back fondly to his youth and the "oldern days", and looks at the grim reality that it was through rose-tinted spectacles. Because Britain has a culture of "making do", it implies that even if Brexit is a disaster, people will get by and manage, just as they did during the war.
Sometimes it feels as thought everything about Brexit somehow relates to how things were "during the war". The feeling that people might somehow benefit from "lean times" also explains how many people were once highly-supportive of austerity, as though there is some innate virtue in self-deprivation.
This is another aspect of British pathology that is hard to get to grips with, or to understand its origins. Could it have its cultural roots in the "Puritan revolution", now given a second breath of life as Brexit? Going back to the masculine analogy of earlier, Brexit is also seen emotionally as a way to make people "toughen up" after having softened from years of the good life and European luxuries. It is this line of thought that leans unfavourably into the realm of Fascist ideology. Given long enough, and the drunken conversation of "three guys in a pub" will enter into realms such as "survival of the fittest", cutting away society's dead flesh by one means or another, and the restoration of the death penalty.
This is the real "Brexit Agenda": the drunken fantasies of boorish louts.
Monday, November 13, 2017
Asperger's Syndrome: "Aspies", social behaviour and relationships
Asperger's Syndrome is a complex condition that affects how an individual interacts with and perceives the world. In layman's terms, it makes the person's brain work and think differently from others (who are "Neuro-Typical").
In this post I want to focus on how people with Asperger's Syndrome (or "aspies" for short) deal with relationships with others, in particular personal relations.
Like with some other conditions, Asperger's Syndrome can be measured on a scale, which is why there are tests for such a purpose. But this also means that there can be a wide variation in the "acuteness" of the condition, and how it portrays itself. At the far end of the scale, those with the most pronounced form of this condition are most likely to find everyday life a struggle and may well never have regular employment. At the "milder" end of the scale, those "Aspies" may well not even realise that there is anything that unusual about themselves, especially if they have a successful career in a profession they enjoy: in this case, it may well be that others will observe the individual as being somewhat "eccentric", but think little more of it.
This is why it is rare to find two "Aspies" that are exactly alike: while many aspects of behaviour may be the same, the way it portrays itself can vary tremendously, being as unique from one individual to the next. One key behaviour common among "Aspies" is a focus on special interests; but what those interests are depends on the person.
"Aspies" are typically socially-awkward and introverted, and are averse to social gatherings. They lack the social cues that most ordinary people have by instinct, thus making them often appear rude, self-centred and tactless to outsiders. For this reason, they have been compared (falsely) with narcissists, who also portray many of the same traits in their interactions with others. The key difference is that people with Asperger's Syndrome do not behave like this out of choice - it is because they inherently lack the social cues that make them unable to do things differently. A narcissist, by contrast, behaves in this way simply because he doesn't care - he lacks empathy; "Aspies" care deeply about the world around them, but are often unable to demonstrate it in an easily-accessible form. "Aspies" do not lack empathy; they simply lack the right behaviours to suitably show it. For instance, many "Aspies", if admonished for appearing to lack social affect, may be genuinely horrified by the negative effect of their actions on others, and will quickly seek to make things right. They do not seek to cause offence intentionally; they simply see things in a different way, and see it as their moral duty to explain this.
In short, "Aspies" find social interactions and relationships hard work. Because they inherently lack the social cues necessary (i.e. their brains "work differently"), they often don't know what to say, what to do, or how to react in social situations. "Small talk" and keeping a conversation flowing naturally is something they can find exhausting; partly because they lack the ability, and partly also due to the "logical" aspect to their thinking - if the conversation lacks a "purpose", they may fail to see the point of it.
It is for this reason that, from childhood, they find it difficult to make friends; what friends they may make could be limited to small number of close companions, and those friends could well be soul-mates in the same bind as themselves, or more soulful children who take kindly to their awkward (but well-meant) behaviour.
The flip side to this social awkwardness is that, in childhood, they are much more likely than other children to be bullied for their "odd" behaviour. While there are those children who might make "aspies" under their wing (so to speak), there are those that will seek to make fun of them. This is where the frustration that "aspies" feel in social interaction can turn to anger: this anger may well them be "internalised" in the form of depression and self-seclusion from others. In a world where social interactions seem so difficult and hurtful, the "aspie" child may see the only safe option is to refuse to interact. This is a natural reaction, but also one that would reinforce the negative perspective that the child with Asperger's Syndrome already has to interactions with others: his interactions with others are bad, therefore people must be bad. This is the self-destructive cycle that this can lead to, if allowed to fester.
This "self-destructive cycle" is a manifestation of some of the kind of glaringly-negative headlines that have been seen about "Asperger's Syndrome" in the news: the cases of "aspie" stalkers, or worse, that have made their victim's lives a living hell. But these cases are self-evidently extreme cases, where any diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is more likely incidental than an explanation. It is just as easy to find extreme cases of crime for "Neuro-typical" people.
As mentioned, "Aspies" tend to see the world "logically", and so see the purpose of conversation in a similarly-logical manner. On the one hand, they will say what is needed to be said, and often not much more. They will answer a question, but volunteer little more if they see no point to it. They will follow an instruction, but literally, without picking up any social inferences intended. They will find it difficult to know how to react to anything requiring a sudden emotional response. And as already explained, they will find "small talk" an ordeal, or any need to prolong a conversation into areas that they have little interest in.
But equally, when they want to know something, they will continue the line of inquiry until they have explored the subject to satisfaction. Due to how their brains are wired, "Aspies" are lovers of detail, whether it be spatially (e.g. in art or design), scientifically, or otherwise. They will ask questions about things they want to know about, sometimes to the point of incomprehensible detail. Likewise, any conversation on topics of their interest may turn into them going into the minutiae of the subject. For the listener, this may give the impression of having to listen to an excruciating bore.
For these reasons, relationships for "Aspies" can be as difficult for the other person as much as for the "aspie" themselves. As said earlier, "Aspies" have the same capability for empathy as anyone else; they simply demonstrate it in a different way. Due to their "logical" manner of thinking, intimate relationships might be pursued and maintained in a less-than-conventional way: "aspies" are unlikely to see the utility of "romance" or dating in the orthodox manner (partly because they lack the social skills).
If anything, a bonding relationship is more likely to come from the "Neuro-typical" partner's direction. Due to their socially-awkward nature, partners drawn to them may well see them almost as "lost puppies", who can sense the potential in their highly-moral centre, hidden under an eccentric personality. The "aspie" struggles to express his emotions to his partner, even though he will probably care about them deeply.
The key to making a relationship a success is understanding the nature of the condition, and finding methods that allow the "aspie" to express themselves easily. For example, it is about understanding that the "aspie" not regularly using those "three little words" wouldn't be because he doesn't feel them, but because he feels they shouldn't need to be said: if his affection for the partner has been stated once, it is meant to mean forever (😍). To reiterate what was implied before, when an "aspie" says something, it's because he means it! Although an "aspie" may well not always shower their partner with attention (and is likely to highly value - and need - their own space), when that attention is given, it means a great deal to them.
On that heart-warming note, we can say that although "aspies" can find relationships very hard work at times, they can also be all that more rewarding in the long-run, if there is proper understanding.
In this post I want to focus on how people with Asperger's Syndrome (or "aspies" for short) deal with relationships with others, in particular personal relations.
Like with some other conditions, Asperger's Syndrome can be measured on a scale, which is why there are tests for such a purpose. But this also means that there can be a wide variation in the "acuteness" of the condition, and how it portrays itself. At the far end of the scale, those with the most pronounced form of this condition are most likely to find everyday life a struggle and may well never have regular employment. At the "milder" end of the scale, those "Aspies" may well not even realise that there is anything that unusual about themselves, especially if they have a successful career in a profession they enjoy: in this case, it may well be that others will observe the individual as being somewhat "eccentric", but think little more of it.
This is why it is rare to find two "Aspies" that are exactly alike: while many aspects of behaviour may be the same, the way it portrays itself can vary tremendously, being as unique from one individual to the next. One key behaviour common among "Aspies" is a focus on special interests; but what those interests are depends on the person.
"Aspies" are typically socially-awkward and introverted, and are averse to social gatherings. They lack the social cues that most ordinary people have by instinct, thus making them often appear rude, self-centred and tactless to outsiders. For this reason, they have been compared (falsely) with narcissists, who also portray many of the same traits in their interactions with others. The key difference is that people with Asperger's Syndrome do not behave like this out of choice - it is because they inherently lack the social cues that make them unable to do things differently. A narcissist, by contrast, behaves in this way simply because he doesn't care - he lacks empathy; "Aspies" care deeply about the world around them, but are often unable to demonstrate it in an easily-accessible form. "Aspies" do not lack empathy; they simply lack the right behaviours to suitably show it. For instance, many "Aspies", if admonished for appearing to lack social affect, may be genuinely horrified by the negative effect of their actions on others, and will quickly seek to make things right. They do not seek to cause offence intentionally; they simply see things in a different way, and see it as their moral duty to explain this.
In short, "Aspies" find social interactions and relationships hard work. Because they inherently lack the social cues necessary (i.e. their brains "work differently"), they often don't know what to say, what to do, or how to react in social situations. "Small talk" and keeping a conversation flowing naturally is something they can find exhausting; partly because they lack the ability, and partly also due to the "logical" aspect to their thinking - if the conversation lacks a "purpose", they may fail to see the point of it.
It is for this reason that, from childhood, they find it difficult to make friends; what friends they may make could be limited to small number of close companions, and those friends could well be soul-mates in the same bind as themselves, or more soulful children who take kindly to their awkward (but well-meant) behaviour.
The flip side to this social awkwardness is that, in childhood, they are much more likely than other children to be bullied for their "odd" behaviour. While there are those children who might make "aspies" under their wing (so to speak), there are those that will seek to make fun of them. This is where the frustration that "aspies" feel in social interaction can turn to anger: this anger may well them be "internalised" in the form of depression and self-seclusion from others. In a world where social interactions seem so difficult and hurtful, the "aspie" child may see the only safe option is to refuse to interact. This is a natural reaction, but also one that would reinforce the negative perspective that the child with Asperger's Syndrome already has to interactions with others: his interactions with others are bad, therefore people must be bad. This is the self-destructive cycle that this can lead to, if allowed to fester.
This "self-destructive cycle" is a manifestation of some of the kind of glaringly-negative headlines that have been seen about "Asperger's Syndrome" in the news: the cases of "aspie" stalkers, or worse, that have made their victim's lives a living hell. But these cases are self-evidently extreme cases, where any diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome is more likely incidental than an explanation. It is just as easy to find extreme cases of crime for "Neuro-typical" people.
As mentioned, "Aspies" tend to see the world "logically", and so see the purpose of conversation in a similarly-logical manner. On the one hand, they will say what is needed to be said, and often not much more. They will answer a question, but volunteer little more if they see no point to it. They will follow an instruction, but literally, without picking up any social inferences intended. They will find it difficult to know how to react to anything requiring a sudden emotional response. And as already explained, they will find "small talk" an ordeal, or any need to prolong a conversation into areas that they have little interest in.
But equally, when they want to know something, they will continue the line of inquiry until they have explored the subject to satisfaction. Due to how their brains are wired, "Aspies" are lovers of detail, whether it be spatially (e.g. in art or design), scientifically, or otherwise. They will ask questions about things they want to know about, sometimes to the point of incomprehensible detail. Likewise, any conversation on topics of their interest may turn into them going into the minutiae of the subject. For the listener, this may give the impression of having to listen to an excruciating bore.
For these reasons, relationships for "Aspies" can be as difficult for the other person as much as for the "aspie" themselves. As said earlier, "Aspies" have the same capability for empathy as anyone else; they simply demonstrate it in a different way. Due to their "logical" manner of thinking, intimate relationships might be pursued and maintained in a less-than-conventional way: "aspies" are unlikely to see the utility of "romance" or dating in the orthodox manner (partly because they lack the social skills).
If anything, a bonding relationship is more likely to come from the "Neuro-typical" partner's direction. Due to their socially-awkward nature, partners drawn to them may well see them almost as "lost puppies", who can sense the potential in their highly-moral centre, hidden under an eccentric personality. The "aspie" struggles to express his emotions to his partner, even though he will probably care about them deeply.
The key to making a relationship a success is understanding the nature of the condition, and finding methods that allow the "aspie" to express themselves easily. For example, it is about understanding that the "aspie" not regularly using those "three little words" wouldn't be because he doesn't feel them, but because he feels they shouldn't need to be said: if his affection for the partner has been stated once, it is meant to mean forever (😍). To reiterate what was implied before, when an "aspie" says something, it's because he means it! Although an "aspie" may well not always shower their partner with attention (and is likely to highly value - and need - their own space), when that attention is given, it means a great deal to them.
On that heart-warming note, we can say that although "aspies" can find relationships very hard work at times, they can also be all that more rewarding in the long-run, if there is proper understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)