‘motives:’ The markers these for rules of thumb of‘recognition,’ of ‘identification’ and ‘loyalty’ (to a supposed clan, nowcalled a ’bubble’), which we share. They are presented in our (body-) languageand in C.Darwin’s (1872) ‘Expression of the Emotions,’ and in E T Halls (1959)‘The Silent Language,’ (see p.104), initially in greetings. By doing this weurge each-other to ‘identify’ to some figuration (as N Elias called them), andto submission to its rules of thumb (of the ‘us’). We promise not to be athreat to one-anothers territory and resources, and to recognize expected loyalties.That is the ratio of these rituals and a responsibility forriests,volunteers and anybody even pretending ‘charisma.’ The ‘reification’ is onlythe pass-word (to ‘us’) or the catchword (for ‘them’) among the figurationalmarkers, familiar names and markers, we all treat like our own furniture. Theloss of which can threaten us and what we consider ‘our’ world andhome and that triggers defensive, panicky, even aggressive reactions. This canhappen, when entering a ‘group,’ by invitation or not, but a wink or a nod canget you in ’usually, at least as a guest for now. It happens all the time in our ‘figurated groups’ and thus poses athreat to‘our’‘science’ and even The Church. We can, after all, only‘describe.’ But descriptive parbles can be revealing and can teach inclusion of‘personalities’ and ‘identities,’ and make markets for co-operative work better and more open, or closed. We need not callthis ‘theory,’ but writing parables can be done truthfully and seriously.
This should not, however be done solemnly as in aritual, except when actually ‘entering’ and staying in such a ‘group’ for awhile. ‘Sociology’ should not be one of them, unless it is declared as such. Wefeel helpless when excluded or ignored and to be an ignoramus means death inour female dreams, yes, those too, and mine.
Theses: Political Correctness and expectedidentification as figuration.
The remnants of matriarchy do not individualize anysoon, and girls fear this more than men for obvious reasons. So we always did have religion and ‘science,’ to help us be together moreproductively. The Catholic practice of Rosary-praying, like the Muslimas and Jews in the back of the Mosque or Schul, may seem monotonous, but many ‘intentions’ are negotiated during it. If we see this coercive mechanism as continuation of Church-culture and N Elias (1927/67) ‘Court Society,’ it is easy to picture as continuing in a nation-state, its assurance, insurance and its monopoly on weaponry, which I hardly dare call ‘progress,’ but which it is, for better or for worse.
We just care lesswhat opinionated women say, or how they say it,as we all used to. They will have to convince, notby their ‘mama’-function.
‘Persons, humans,all ‘individualize’ and become less inferiority-complex-prone, but mostlythey resist changes to their ‘figurations’ and the bubbles they ‘belong’ to. Sincewe’re all bouncing around in our ‘bubbles,’ being reminded of ‘reality,’depending on where and ‘who’ we are. We ‘anti-figurate’ any perceivedfiguration-changes to the prides and prejudices of the figurations we ‘chose’to ‘identify’ with long ago. Figurations are under constant pressure from ‘themedia’ to change our, if ‘individual ways,’ to ‘integrate,’ for instance, witha ‘majority-figuration.’ Not necessarily only among ethnic or church-figurationsand ‘bubbles,’ they may well remain competing voluntary institutions andpersons, as long as they are not subsidized by the state, which turns them to‘statehood.’
Women, in themean time, only wokely, when it is their interest of showing off power, adhereto or try to ‘shame’ others to comply to, i.e: ‘inclusiveness,’ climate and‘feminist equality’ ‘improvement,’ which it usually isn’t. But power toinfluence it still is in politics or any club or clan.
Should we not getoff our high ‘scientific,’ religious, ‘stately,’‘medical’ or otherwise ‘ideological’ or ‘cultural’ horses and start justimproving the normal (closing of) business to everyone eligible, by makingThese Processes conscious to them and so opening up markets, where possible.Only some of us may be in a position to do so, or contrarily to profitmalignantly from subsidies, and those are responsible. ‘Lay people,’ or thosenot ‘in the know’ will resist such a change while they think that is theirduty, interest, loyalty or that it just is their pride, belief and beingthemselves. Bewailing victimized ‘peoples’ only ‘shames or derides who onemight hope to protect.
2. After many years of such ground-work,observations may be compared to debunking and satire in media of the past, suchas prints, cartoons and papers and even etiquette and fashion-rule-inquiriesand to what dynasty, faction or figuration seems to wield power locally ornationally in time. Then this could add-up to become a real-life andlong-term Sociology. Figuration lasts for long, and only changes in shocks withmoving beneficiaries and victims, like the Moroccan and Turkish immigrants’kids in the Bijlmermeer, who now a ‘majority,’excluding ‘black’ kids fromSurinam parents from tolerance and contribution.
3.There is the ‘morality’ of all this ‘vulnerable’ identification hunger: The better we know it the lessvulnerable we are and the more figuration-information is spread, which is notthe figurational bubbly ‘news-’gossip itself, the more ‘humor’ and the lessfigurational conflict there will be. Humor on ones figurations deficiencies (notuncommon among women) and normal politeness promotes tolerance and lessensthese bubbly ‘affective’ and effective shaming-tensions, we ‘feel.’
4.The above-cited ‘abhorrence’ (disgust) from Elias (’67) is apparentlythe politically correct (‘woke’-shame or -guilt we feel, when threatening to bedemoted in a ‘home-’ identity or ‘woke’ bubble (which they always are), andfigurational mother-substitute: Parrallel to the as-always speculating, whileencouraging ‘ours’ and booing and debunking ‘theirs’ and other popularout-groups during a match in the ‘home-stadium.’ Better take this lessfigurationally or bubbly and not too ‘personally,’ even if our intuitionscares us. It is only in the minds of a few intellectuals, and most women, thatany possible offending is a no-no. It is the civil-servants and priests, likepolice, teachers at school and all ‘social’ workers, that expect everybody tobe ‘politically’ correct everywhere, anytime, and this is only a bit paranoyaof me, because we are being surveyed. Then there is this naturally competingdichotomous attitude which Elias warns us against as a war-refugee. Were wedigitized in ‘the cloud,’ born in it, or was it there first? One may know many‘figurated’ enormities by heart, which women do usually, and recognize thefigurational markers, but those who do, can rarely perform the accompanyingbody-language signs, like ‘giving’ a ‘box’ instead of a handshake and a‘smile or wink,’ grin, or shake of the head. Women, are a lot better at it.Realize that, slow as the amalgam of individual processes through generationsseems, having started pre-history, many know and ignore or ‘take’ all sorts offigurational insults with a ‘pinch of salt.’ But not all can and only ifrelying on their own resources or a lack of shame, instead of some figurational ‘pride.’ This parochialism is waning againstresistance from a growing majority, not from one ‘bubble,’ but mostly male and not ‘statistically’ defined bubbles.
5.The individuation and dematriarchization are opposing processes, it seems: Onecomes at the cost of matriarchy and leaves less ‘room’ for it, it seems, whenwe consider Christianity, Islam and Court-society a continuation of what isleft of Temple Matriarchy, and a means of power-exertion in a competingsociety with more male identification. Not just religious institutions areremnants of this, but also the editing and presentation of news andeducators stories, employed by governments, hierarchy in small firms, theJudiciary, schools, health’services’ and many political parties in ‘OurDemocracies' which Blumer H (‘67) describes. The services organized arerun by party-members nephews or (once-)friends. We buy what commercials tellus to, the pimping of brands (re)makes ‘loyalty’ to old or newly definedfigurations. But most victimized figurations still oppose new allegiances andcherish ‘their’ rules and (more female) markers, for a long time, even at‘its,’ own peril, just like Elias predicted.
6.This ‘de-matriarching,’ should not be moralised positively or otherwise. It’swhat we are in, be it only heredeterilly (sometimes heretically), fromtoddler-education. It has been a ‘cause’ (in both senses), of many wars, andpeace-times in the past. We do recognise, however, the wide-spread feeling ofloss of influence by women, especially the among ‘women’s-libbers.’ Thingsdidn’t get worse for any human ‘sex,’ just less hierarchical. We do stillcompete for one-another, but we found better ways to co-operate. Theoften derided meritocracy-trend gives better chances to those being more orless excluded. There is as always ‘Love,’ friendship with sex to me and also servitude,plus the dick, to young women, plus wishful power-thinking, and even ‘care.’ Theymust compete with their beauty and attraction, so the men don’t even notice. Butmen get wise and fight back, contributing less and forcing women to work too,in return. There’s always an eudipal triad at work.
7.Matriarchy has its merits, like the making of a hierarchical labour-market forpeoples functioning, that benefits families more, if not always all or most. Webetter watch the ‘grapevine,’ excluding the continuous T.V.-presentesses andwell-wishers, who idealise real concerns. It has its functions, as do allchoirs, commenters, applauses and voice-overs. Just do not let them confuseyou, but do ask: Qui Bono? Why? Go and sin nomore! It’s not algebra, we meetdenials everywhere.
8.The ‘secrecy-aspect’ of all figuration-, choir-,
board and backseat opinion, or gossip, is part andparcel of the ‘agreed’ markers, so it is not difficult to find some of thefiguration-markers, i.e: ‘who’ onelooks or speaks like (accent?). The secretness of informationis not overtly so, it’s repressed to subconscious in the‘figuration.’
9. Obsessed, digitized, dichotomous analysisis ‘official science’ everywhere. What is conscious to us ornot cannot be proven, but people just talking away playfully, in a team, onlyselectively remember the hierarchically agreed on ‘facts.’
10. Iadmit it, it’s as much the eyeas the beholder, as any ‘concluding’ onour ways of life is a framestory-frame. We ‘need’ common‘beliefs’ and assumptions to cooperateas sports, in-stead of fight. ‘Science’ is an assumptionof truth. K Popper told us to declareour biases, along with his hated (Elias)‘nomenclature,’ but from what we’ve learnt from S Freud in practice; Itbeing all about the pleasure-unpleasure principle (see A + S Freud, 1933, Add. I + III p2). I think it even better to ‘declare,’ or at least to be on the watch for what is not declared inthis respect, and this is usually also the ‘F-word,’ which we hear more andmore in parlys, about the purpose we compete for or refrain from.
It is all about ‘pleasure’ v.s. anxiety and the power to influence as the purpose of this repression ofoedipal and toddler-memories and protracted behavior, seems obvious, but itwill not free us from this shame or guilt, even if laughed away. Popper wouldhave admitted that with hindsight it is unlikely to falsify outcomes ofexperiments on our past ‘toddler-clan-behavior.’ If, we could declare obsessions,we wouldn’t go wrong anymore. Nevertheless this conundrum is neglected andrepressed in ‘the Humanities,’ which retains ‘its’ignorance by staing ‘woke’ and respected. If we then consider that 40%of our working age population is statistically at work and that 1/3 to 1/2 arein (semi-) public service, including Universities, schools, (mental)hospitals, on the dole, pension, subsidies, we can estimate how ‘biased’
‘we’ must be, in our ‘contribution’ to ‘society.’
We can’t do this away with the dichotomy: For oragainst ‘methodical individualism,’ reconciliation is required: What we see iswhat we get.
K Horney* (’50), the psychoanalyst, describes the obsessionsof ‘the west’ from a behaviorist point of view: ‘(-) I shall assume that theself-effacing partner is a woman and the aggressive one a man. (-)self-effacement has nothing to do with femininity or aggressive arrogancewith masculinity. Both are exquisitely neurotic phenomena.’ (but) ‘Hermood depends upon whether his attitude toward her is positive or negative.’(p247).
In (1939/59) Female Psychology, she adds a more real picture than Freud admittedly could:
Still these cases that emanate from an unhappy individual history of particular neurotic entanglementsarise clearly from unfortunate individual development. This descriptionmight give the impression that the two sets, social and individual, areseparated from each other.This is not the case. I believe I can show in each instance that the typedescribed can develop in this direction on individual factors and I would posethat in this type of woman, which is usual, only minor personal difficulties are enough to force the girl into this feminine role. (Ch. 7-8, FK).
She poses to me a treacherous oedipal dichotomy,
because some ladies pretend and I am, as a ‘male,’from when I was toddler, still in oedipal conflict, unconsciously at ‘war,’ but“Anatomy is destiny,” Freud predicted, ot just ‘gut-feeling.’
The 11Th commandmentwas and is: Do not get caught leaving ‘the family,’ whichmakes it very hard for any stigma or‘Schande’ to be relieved, after such a change, intoa well-defined society or bubble, after leaving another. The well-knownidealized exception to this rule isthe parable or lesson of theProdigal Son from Luke ch.15.11.
The nilth commandment, from Genesis(Bible) and preceding the 10 from Deuteronomy, is or are ‘Go away’ and‘multiply.’ Freud thought this to be the prohibition of incest,but it also has an ambivalentrelation to the 11thcommandment, which is:Thou shalt not want (from Ps.23), which also encourages women in that they‘should’ lack nothing. Both these commandments are implicit, denyingreality in that everybody knows that ‘going awayfrom ones bubble is considered irreversible(so that you cannot comeback without being derided), for all who wereexcluded or exiled and then ‘fled’ or left, to slip into another‘figuration,’ at some ‘others’ cost. Figuration- and framing-theory may predictwhat will become of them, us and the bubble-figuration-work done by any‘populace,’of whichever figurational’ interdependence.
The question about usefulness and legitimacy of these marked dichotomies we keep up for so long,even if unproductive, lies in its origin, oedipal conflict and it is passedon, from generation to generation. Also we have fierceopposition against calling ‘bubbl-’definitions in question. It scares anyparty or anyone considering him or herself part and parcel of asocietal bubble or figuration and which we all do by ‘disposition,’ in theFreudian sense of our character then, when having left our ‘oedipal phase.’ Isit our nature or nurture? Failure or lossoss will be substituted with anobstinacy and in a fixation. The woke ambivalence end even our phobias have anevolutional function; It keeps competitors awake, even lazy ones.
We are not the same when our interests differ:Solidarity and approval are earned. If one chooses celibacy or to live onless than they hoped for, or were able to get, whether from weakness orloyalty, they should recognize and take responsibility in these sexually orovertly differing assumed bubbles and interest-groups. We can raise our voicesbeneficially to all, even without resorting to a tradition, like the gay-, theCatholic, the Muslim, or even ‘Communications science.’ They are all named andshamed as a whole. They will become more individuated traditions in the end,but it is still irresistible to ‘gloat,’ to almost all of us from time to timeand it is wise to respect another’s ‘pride’ as long as we can’t all dowithout it. We may tone it down a bit and have a shmirk. Shames are unresolvedoedipal conflicts repeated and cannot be accounted to victimized or‘protected’ figurations. We make fun of competing ‘groups/bubbles’ and playblame-games and jokes for unlikely ‘offences.’ We still seem to ‘need’ to, to‘feel OK’ (or ‘better than,’ an ‘affect’) and that is often a black-and-whitething, and another obsession: We’ll do better, as we did before, gradually,wars were always our recurrent state, also when a large stream of hardly employablemen and later their (extended) family members manage to swim, hike or are‘saved’ to northern Europe during a financial crisis of zero interest, aftertaking the plunge. It just seems, they cannot be sent off or to, ‘come back’ totheir homes and bubbles.
These obsessions have had a Function in Evolution butare diminishing while being newly imported. A little cool, ‘fuzzy logic’ andthe willingness to defend borders could make a huge difference here. There’s noend to this free pension, mental care and housing-wanting people from the eastand south. It is quite feasible to calculate the value of a Syrian passportand/or fleeing-story, which gets one into the EU and is for sale on any smartphone. European states will be forced bypeople, who were educated with the stick to be ‘productive,’ even if wealthierthan the poorest of ‘them,’ as they usally pay traffickers.
Societal insurance costs half our commercial turnoverin taxes, which doesn’t worry civil-servants, who just see work andopportunities. It’s not difficult to get the ‘figurative Christian rules’ orto feel sick (of poverty), or behave childishly and ‘we’ are very naïve by‘feeling’ shame and wanting (usually) others to ‘help.’ Here’s when push comesto shove. Nothing to do with ‘populism.’Anyone in a fast growing Asian,African or Middle-East-economy, can find it on Google.
C Cooley, H Blumer, N Elias and E Goffman tried to explain sociology and psychology,if only in a behaviorist sense, with our herd(y) need ofhypnotization* and acknowledgement. Shame, as weknow from S Freud, is hurt pride, repeated or ‘copied’ separation-fear,displaced guilty feelings
ofearly painful and traumatic loss we all know.
All vertebrates guard each-other jealously. Apparently, but only that, we all construct our ‘self’by old analytical (1/0) choices, but a summary can hide or deny the long-termProcess and its causations, even if describing all ‘traumatic,’ repressed ortabooed family-feuds, should do. Filogenesis, similarity of human babies andadult baboons, in language and signalling is not recognized enough, but C Darwincertainly did that, in his (1872) ‘Expression of the Emotions.’ Thereifications mystify as far as they hide our sexual object-orientation: Thesedichotomies still seem ‘inherent,’ even if of our own making, which we bothdebunk and glorify, as thei’re ambivalent and identified with.
All ‘news-features’ are polemized and dramatized accidents,‘crises,’including those obtained from official statistics or with kalashnikowsand/ or draught. Behaviorist observation is not enough to study mankind,there is more to know, that we have in common. There’s only a few ‘types’ofus.
Certain traumata and neuroses in man are enforced by evolution, whichmakes them all the more prevalent. Some even have individual advantages. Weshould have the courage to stay close to our toddler-times ‘home,’ definitionsand forgive the trespassers along our way, if we wish to describe them and toprescribe the better or fewer laws and companies to control these diminishingherd-feelings. Planned, as in a personalized contest in ‘democracies,’ all‘nominees’ are said to ‘represent’ some ‘party’ we are expected to ‘identify’with (Blumer H ’67). Those who were not schooled for long and girls (not thesame anymore) know the ‘Rules of Thumb’ that are likely to apply better: Theyhave intuition, preliminary and mutually accepted hierarchy, but the femalesusually still sell the stuff the males produce. Our neuroses, normal andabnormal, define our emotions, feelings, affects. They are a communicationalgiven, better not denied. A pity psychologists do just that, when concoctingD.S.M.-quasi-diagnoses and prescribing uppers and downers and thehospitalization some crave. Shame, guilt and pride are replicas of earlyeducation and gets passed on over generations. M Foucault (1975/84)describes the way the ‘nation-states’ and all sorts of ‘representatives’control their figurational herds as a spiral of control of pleasures,rewarding officials with more pleasures.
‘Not because having tried to erect too rigid or (-) abarrier against sexuality, society succeeded in giving rise to a whole perverseoutbreak and a long pathology of the sexual instinct. We must not imagine thatthe objective of saying no to all these things that were formerly toleratedattracted notice and a pejorative designation when they came to give aregulative to the one function as mechanismwithtypesof sexuality,adoubleimpetus:Pleasure-powerthatwascapableofreproducinglabor power and form the family. (Foucault’76, p. 47)’
‘Society’ doing anything is an impossible reification but, from all the figurational ‘work’ havingbeen done, this seems to be so. Causes and Process are represented by ‘trends’and ‘institutional facts.’ ‘(-) A world where these relations couldno longer operate in the same way: The relation of superiority (-) in thehousehold, over the wife (outside/FK) had to be associated with (-) reciprocityand equality.’ (F1984p95).
Shame is only felt in so far we’ve been traumatized in early life and is diminishing in western‘cultures,’ as long as we’re so efficient, but not as yet in Africa or theMiddle-East, where the pain and anxiety are still more prevalent. We see thatthe burgeoning state-control cannot go on forever because of it’sinefficiency, until minorities revolt. But another ‘bubble:’ ‘homosexuals’ was‘figurated,’ to be controlled in a different way; ‘medicalized.’ Wealready see this with the so-figurated ‘populists,’ gaining ground in‘the West,’ but more prevalent in the (Middle) East and Africa. Pampered‘westerners’ realize what’s at stake, with ‘freedoms’ and respected privacy.Few ‘trespassers’ of this ‘secret’ (G Simmel 1906) are needed for this plight,but almost nobody dares to admit or mention it. Freudian analysts, gays andlesbians often do, even if they are ambivalent about it, supporting‘refugees’ and ‘outsiders,’ just like any (woke) woman would, usually, as theymore often use the imperative when addressing ‘others.’ It yields power,opportunities and supposed status, or ‘class,’ in our overt recognition-gameof hierarchy, and ‘status.’
