Catch22

Catch-22, an Introduction.

Something girls seem to know by heritage ordisposition and subconsciously, as ‘intuition,’ but most boys don't and if they do, unconsciously, as an ongoing ambition, but this is often ‘egged-on’ by competing ‘mother-figures’, i.e: Vertebrates, including ‘us,’ compete with and in each-others named ‘identity-group,’ or ‘bubble’ or ‘cloud,’ for status, and satisfaction, whether sexual, ’gender,’ family, clan, ‘social status, ’team, crew or ‘body,’ that they usher each other to ‘identify’ with and recognize, at any meeting (unless ‘keeping a low profile’). Compare the tone of their/our ‘greetings,’ to confirm this. From when mom told us what to do. What is this ‘identification?’ Our ‘bubble or our ‘frame?’ What do women want to control? We will need to dig into psychoanalysis to find out. We limit and negotiate (with) each-other in choice and acceptance of status there in. Elias(1939/65) describes a process of ‘Zwang zur Selbst zwang’ in his preface, but did he mean as in an obsession i.e: With no real self-interest, or might this have to do with evolution (cheating and theft), and is this all about gossip? Yes, but both theories are true and not mutually exclusive, i.e., Every ‘day’ of ‘creation,’ or the ‘big bang,’ may have taken about half a billion years. So we’re living in the seventh ‘day,’ us men and women, or on (sunday) vacation from competition. But not as much so among figuration-and bubble-members, like family, friends, colleagues and ideally, here’s the catch, even less, among ‘partners’ and ‘lovers.’  ‘Mums the word.’ But we know better and accept another as ‘good sports,’ if we don’t ‘betray’ each-others supposed ‘group,’ and show loyalty to‘our group,’ at the time and place.

We have our ‘dispositions’ from S. Freud(1924/76) and as he said in ‘An autobiograp-hical Study’ (’35/59 p.125): ‘Hypnosis is the formation of a group of two.’  Even if it is taboo to the 8th original sin (lying about others) and state Law (discrimination), we need not be ashamed of such conduct as long as we keep within ‘secret’ and often unconscious conduct-limiting rules and don’t compete too openly or harshly. Taboos can be seen as a forced repression of a wish. Competition and laughter happens all the time, a ‘good sport’ is accepted, overt ‘fun’ in pairs or groups isj ust that. We are no different in this respect, just more or less obsessed.This in-/excluding is also a form of co-operation, ‘help,’ and control, expected in our ‘bubbles.’, including ‘our’ defense, towards competing others, identities and figurations. We usually have an ‘us ‘n them’attitude towards each other, before we chose to ‘comply,’ even in partnerships, for pleasure, whether we realize it, like it, or not. There’s been a lot of research and speculation on ‘us’ and our ‘competitive identification’ conduct, which is also part and parcel (the advertisement)in ‘our’ co-operation-rites. It was J.Huizinga (1919/25):The Waning of the Midleages, who showed us the preposterous ambitions which abide and who proved this our ‘winning mood’ well and who summarized this in his (1938/55) HomoLudens, where he claims games to be ‘without material gain,’ which is also a denial of our sexual and identity-game (impressing-) functions. J. O.y Gasset in (1946/’58) The Idea of Theatre, and (1922/ ‘46) Idea and Belief, also demonstrated the significance of this ‘impression management.’ E. Goffman (1956), inThe Presentation of Self in Eve-ryday Life and N. Elias (1959/65) in The Esta-blished and the Outsiders, (books.Google.nl starting p.89), and countless more, among which the 4 Gospels and St. Paul’s letters in the New Testament, describe this antagonistic normality and advise us to be ‘tolerant’ or helpful, which always gives opportunity. They endlessly teach and tell us, to‘love’ sinners, the sick, strangers, neighbors, even other ‘nations,’ which did not exist then as we know them. No mean feat and emanating from temple cultures repetitive praying by harims, women, including their analysis and their ‘intentions,’ laws and wishful commandments, they hoped to, did and still do ‘keep’ in ‘their’ homes. These remnants of matriarchy persist as men ‘emancipate.’ Of course girls and women don’t see it so. Boys (and men) slowly and gradually are relieved of their castration-fears, which disappear as they grow into their ‘latency-’ phase, to see their limitations and forces, while girls (and women) in this stage must deny themselves many ‘hopes,’ they had in their eudipal ‘phase’ of life and seem to come out triumphantly in fullpower, at puberty, when they are wanted and not mistreated or forced.

The 'game'  usually seems on, whether in a ‘formal,’ (the rules are enforcedby officials) or ‘informal’ (just by the ‘housekeepers’) situation. So, to demonstrate I will write about ‘us and them’ and make clear which ‘them’ and ‘us’ is meant in all this positive (our heroes), and negative (‘cowards,’ derision and schadenfreude) gossip. It’s not easy to accept or believe that ‘our world ’(situation in a perceived hierarchy) is actually told and kept this way in parlors, papers, on radio or watching TV, in playgrounds, clubs, shops, schools and churches. We have Youtube, Twitter and Facebook now, to enforce all this figurational naming-pride, and popular TV-series like Clash of Clans,Teletubbies and last but not least: sit-coms, ‘reality-’ or talk-shows and the national and local ‘news-’ presenters who pretend to be ‘familiar’ with us and their ‘correspondents’ by first-name use, ‘welcoming to the club’ and thus to be part of ‘our home,’ too, albeit ‘just in a name,’ which may be so because we live somewhere, in a shared territory, but also a recognized or known named ‘figuration,’ like ‘L,’ ‘G,’ ‘B,’ ‘T’ and ‘Q, not forgetting the usual dominant trends of ‘M’ and ‘F,’ the previous of which usually mostly signify promiscuous availability or neurotic wantons in doubt. In the ‘media’ they present supposed ‘us ’ and them-’ conflicts as ‘news’ in ‘groups’ or parties: ‘The medium’ is the message we all seem to be longing for. ‘Anatomy is destiny,’ Freud said. We need this ‘hypnotization,’ these rites and signs, to work and collaborate, it seems, like horses in a herd. ‘News’ has to be as human drama and all love to be led, if fed.

Territorial Instinct

In the huge south-east estate of Amsterdam, built as high-rise in the 1960-ties and later more in the 70-ties as lower-rise rows, called ‘Bijlmermeer,’ many tens of thousands of people from our former colony Surinam came to live with their families, if they could pay the fare and already earned wages (many‘educated’ civil servants). The Bijlmermeer was a community-housing project, meant for the babyboomers and later also for migrant workers invited here. It was not popular among Amsterdammers, only partly inhabited and a financial loss to the city’s housing corportions. So these Surinamers were given these large flats, on a subsidized rent, but few other people wanted to live there and those who did were mostly on the dole or a pension, also on subsidized rent. They had little choice either and ‘we’ (poor whites) were not expecting such an invasion. Surinamers had been to Dutch-speaking schools and churches.They now have ‘nationalized’ in larger Dutch families than the others and are ¼ of the populace. Migrants from north- and west-Africa or Turkey are the otherhalf of the population, and all still only seem to know ‘orders,’ they do not negotiate work-methods among each-other, but just take orders, and less responsibility (and pay) at work, though younger are getting better at this a‘cultural’ difference.
The old ‘whites’ hardly attend a mass or ‘services’ in the churches built for them, still subsidized by the municipality as welland are thus ‘ruled’ by an ‘old’ Dutch elite of ‘friends’ from political parties and municipal ‘services.’ Their figurations and municipally subsidized dependants such as the few old church-‘officials’ left, are quasi-elites, that still form the board of the trust that owns and exploits the mainchurch-buildings that are both deemed both protestant and Catholic. There are also a few mosques, housed in subsidized or ‘lent’ buildings and controlled by a municipal or old-boys ‘board.’ The church-brands and hard-won franchises are ‘kidnapped’ slowly by ‘worldly powers,’ even if by ‘volunteers,’ just like privately owned buildings by civil-servants ‘regulation’ and taxes. To ‘us Christians, ’whether from the few ‘old’ whites left or from the many Surinam (parents) that live here for more than 40 years now, this should seem a God-given blessing. ‘We’ don’t worry about ‘our’ church-finances, unless ‘we’ have a part-time subsidized job with the landlord-trust. The Surinam parents or their kids make little use of this ‘blessing in disguise,’ while their church-attendance is much higher. The ‘old white’ and poorer ‘crew’ never understood their formerly Surinam competitors, refused to be interested.
‘Them’ (from Surinam), grew larger families and were in a job all this time, which the ‘old crew,’ still on the dole or a pension, were not.
So there’s a lot of envious gossip about kids and cars going on and likely the ex-Surinam families don’t think much of their ‘old’ counterparts, are proud of what they’ve achieved and rightly so.
They had ‘their own’ church built, which mostly ‘houses’ the more blackish former Surinam families, incuding the many black Catholics among them, gotten‘out of the Surinam jungle long ago by priests. The more Indian-looking ex-Surinamers form a large minority (1/3-1/2). After the slave-trade was more or less ended in the Caribbean. Indian, Chinese and Javanese ‘coolies,’ were hired in Surinam at the end of the 19th century, replacing the slaves that ran away when competed with by ‘British’ (and ‘Dutch’) ‘coolies.’ The Surinam families invested and spent to build ‘their own’ church, called ‘Wi Eegi Kerki’ (Our Own Church), which is exploited by the Evangelical Hernhüter or E.B.G, also extant in Surinam. They ‘ask’ a 10% fee as church-tax from their ‘flock’ (‘our’ church-services are practically free), or at least to buy a lot every week at E25, and they do a lot of beneficial social work, from lunch for their single-mum-families, at least every Sunday, to rapping-sessions for youths and also in ‘our slavery-past’ work-out classes (that teach what’s owed). Now we all started out as little ‘slave-toddlers’ when first ‘ disciplined,’ so such a ‘class,’ or figuration, can seem to be an emancipator to anyone. Apparently ‘they’ do all this with their own ‘cultural’ signs, rites and communicational rules of thumb. The ‘young’whites, of whom there are not so many and the many single mums from former Surinam parents can well use such simple ‘social’ support. The E.B.G.-church does a lot for these mums and their kids, at a price (for the guys), but the ‘old’ or even ‘new whites’ do not, they hardly attend Church anymore. Little in the way of kids-housekeeping or feeding or playing opportunities there. There is a kids-service planned, but few make use of it, finding it boring or too ‘disciplined.’ Only in the old Duivendrecht-Church of St. Urbanus, which is situated centrally, but in a different municipality, some ex-Surinam kids (but not the ‘black’ ones) attend, but they are not the many now mixed black (formerly) Catholic kids we could expect, while there’s a large estate with many of them close-by, across a railway-levvy, called Venserpolder. The kids in these side-shows make a lot of noise and produce little more than pre-printed color-in cartoons, when led back into, at the end of Mass. It could seem that all this was planned by vicious ‘old cronies,’ but it is a hopeful beginning, even if blacks are not welcomed with lunch, like at the E.B.G.-services. It’s not ‘cool’ to be victimized, so that this is even denied by the victims, who may be doing fine, but should long have been ‘integrated better,’ in school and job-opportunities. Their fathers and mothers were most of the proud, taxed earners these forty years at Bijlmermeer, whose parents were often civil-servants in Surinam, even if there are the by now ‘old’ drop-outs on barbiturates (nighttime) and pep or methadone (mornings) from municipal ‘mental services.’ Like everyone else nowadays with a ‘PTSS’ diagnosis, they feel robbed, as no real cures are on offer: A dead-end street-feeling of being cancelled-out pervades. This ‘feeling’ is also ‘played-out.’ Heroes are only recognized when they are anti- social-hierarchy (The establishment), although many also, have ‘done’ quite well in the mean time. The mostly of mixed blood Surinamers, who call themselves ‘Hindu’ and attend mass with ‘us ’look in many ways like Europeans and Indians. The ‘darker’ ones, the creoles, as they are still called in Surinam, but the part-indians hate to be called ‘coolies,’ as their colonial elites used to, but are often rather dark or very white (‘patats’), which suggests that they do still discriminate strongly in their partner-choices. It is well known that the level of single mothers is very high too, which suggests less strong family-ties and more ‘social injustice’ in this rather visible ‘black’ considered and difficult to ‘place’ portion of those, who lack a recognized ‘identity’ or figuration among themselves. In the anti-discrimination policies of the end of the 20^th Century they did well as nurses and bus-drivers, as they were often already families incivil-service in Surinam. They have their ‘own’ choir and ‘volunteers’ in church, but ‘We,’ (us whites), turn away from any blacks and Africans usually and do not consider ‘them’ up to scratch and envy their families and wealth all the same. Practically all the ensuing gossip to and from has to pass through school-class-kids or playground-kids and(single) mums, in bars, ‘social media’ and church-choir and sports-talk-shops, including the pestering of each other with denunciation and the self-appraisal that is usual among kids and women. These ‘ideas,’ described by H. Becker(1963) in Outsiders, are long-standing and do not seem to change overtly while they are denied and ‘work’ as a ‘self-fulfilling prophesy.’ They do however need to be replenished for any ‘group-pride’ to stay. Now the ‘old’ whites are dying out and the better-off ex-Surinam families are attending less here. Church and church-exploitation is shrinking and ‘us whites’ are beginning to realize the only way to keep the churches going is to‘modernize,’ or ‘be different.’ ‘Blacks’ are considered, but still not the dark Surinamers, who seem to be doing fine, even if there is hatred and neglectat school, pestering each-other. Some Ghanaians are welcomed, in a politically correct good effort made. I’ve been singing in four church-choirs the 20 yearsI lived here and have learnt to cooperate with several ‘thems,’ whether from Surinam, elsewhere, ‘another’ sex, or both. We take care together, from where ever ‘one’ is. At the same time the buildings-exploiters and their subsidized cronies, complain about ‘their’ attendance and likely mean ‘our’ dwindling turnover. But they begin to realize and fear the necessary inclusion of former Surinam families, who have shamed them and of whom many, probably halfwere Catholics in Surinam, but are not in ‘our’church-bubble,’ where they are a large majority by now. A controversial missal with prayers and hymns by an ex-communicated Catholic priest who has gone commercial on his own in ‘The New Love Church,’ is permanently used, but is not appropriate to needs and problems of successful or one-parent, former Surinam-families and makes mockery of a Catholic Mass. Children’s-play is not allowed, even after Mass and lunch may be essential, but it is forbidden to cook in the well fitted-out kitchen. We all have sorrow, anger and frustration in common, prides that are never addressed, except for the‘old gossip,’ quite out of date by now (in the 3rd generation), but has kept upits typical ‘behind-the-scenes’ denunciation, always denied in public or ‘up-stage,’ as E Goffman would have it. It seems only ‘suspicious’ to a few. In Church some ‘blacks’ (to ‘whites’), who consider themselves ‘Hindu’ come and are treated politely, but not so at school. Most of them are of mixeddescent, called ‘colored,’ but are very dark mulats with a lot of ‘pride.’
They do behave shyly, usually deferrant, when bluffingly (not nicely) greeted, as kidsand women do when they feel neglected.
Now last year the Catholic Church ordained four young priests from east-Asia and appointed some new assistants to a much larger area and population including all of ‘East-Amsterdam,’ which is partly 19^th C. and partly new built (on water),but almost as populated as ‘our Bijlmermeer’ area. ‘We’ see the young priests seldomly. They live at the Urbanus church and understandably have other things to do apart from showing ‘face’ in the ‘old’ Bijlmermeer, where almost everything is run by municipally subsidized ‘volunteers,’ with their owncash-flows in choirs, meals after service, lotteries, bazaar, collections and outings by bus. We do however, practically only ‘get’ masses now by ‘old’ former priests who can’t sing or ‘follow’ the‘service-headers’ and pictures, that are projected behind them with a beamer by the ‘volunteers.’ This disappoints with ‘mistakes’ made and also reassures the‘old-crony’ pride, but not that of the ‘Hindus’ i.e; who ‘stay mum.’ We had a few months weekly wednesday-evening ‘vespers,’ last spring, where the choir sang and its conductor read lectures on the ‘shamefulness of Jesus nakedness,’ and ‘our own.’ An interesting topic maybe but nobody attended, it cost a lot of effort and left ‘priest’ and choir without an audience. A social engineer at work? The wife maybe? The more authoritarian, Surinam Christians and Muslim ‘believers,’reject such comparisons, to name but a few ‘figurations’ and bubbles, whichdepend on the eudipal disposition of the beholder of them (male and/or female).

The weekly ‘bazaar’ (jumble-sale) is organized by a foundation and former politician and makes more money than all weekly church-collections combined. It’s a great meeting place for old cronies, who have their scheduled meetings for each ‘subgroup,’ according to denominations and locations. They keep no financial accounts and benefit from the ‘churches’ tax-free status and their toleration by the officials. They do a lot of good besides, but of their behind-the-scenes-meetings in ‘church,’ noone ever hears, which gives them the power to do business as they please. All this has evolved through the years, and the ‘players’ from these ‘sub-scenes’ feel (by now) that it is ‘their’ church or job in it and pretend this to be so even if it isn’t officially, but just practically. To an average ‘Christian,’ attending ‘Mass’or a ‘service,’ this all seems a little unreal, with some of these hardnosed‘ volunteers,’ running the respective shows and in a not-ordinary way being ‘modern,’ but alienating any ‘out-group’ including the by now ‘old’ Surinamers, who have already built their own church but who may well feel betrayed or ‘leftout,’ Catholic or Protestant. It is useful and normal that people swap household goods and share cheap meals, especially those single mums with their kids.

This is a normal church-service both allover Africa and in Surinam, where this is only one of the few ‘worldly’ social services and a separate collection is held every week for these meals inwhite boxes. This work always belonged to ‘the Church’ and the Mosque, maybe justnot in it. But it is very beneficial, and even attracts muslima mothers to the bazaar in church every week. ‘Groupwise’ this still seems a ‘problem,’ but inpractice it is not, even if ‘they’ seem a little ‘shy’ and do not join‘us’

2^nd generation Muslima in thechurch-bazaar, chatting with volunteer salesperson, March 2015.

with meals ‘behind-the-scenes,’ which ‘formally’ they could, as they are advertised during the Bazaar. The ‘volunteers’ are not interested in shame, but only in pride and certainly deny their own shaming. They get irritated if reminded of it. We must be careful ascribing ‘feelings’ to participants, they were already traumatized, feigning, or inferencing.

We compete, for pleasure

And so does the gossip, also in the many ‘new’ churches catering for ‘their believers,’ for better or for worse. Bynow we are practically all Dutch nationals who were educated here, so there is an opportunity to ‘make good,’ if recognized by a Church or school. Surinamers became busdrivers or nurses and did their thing, they practically all do but the young ones come to church less, unless there’s a playground or party like the St. Patrick’s sing-song, a summer barbecue or breakfast or lunch, which a few churches organize around their services. These events could well attract the (rather few) Muslim offspring who now have a hard time, being pestered in school, especially by ex-Surinam youths v.v., orat the jobs they can hardly get. Just ‘normal’ politeness is usually enough to lighten up faces and they obviously need the service, as do all the single orjust lonely mums and their little ones, that may prefer to stay out of the hands of expansive ‘youth officers.’ The ‘games’ of typifying stories remain, where toddler-realm is monopoly.

Look-alikes, figurations, bubble, interest groups

So is it really ‘Religion,’ or is this gossip just respective interests, that seem to ‘connect one’ insuch a ‘figuration?’ It is likely we are only subconsciously in a figuration, to many, but not to most or all anymore, as N Elias (1939/69) called ‘it,’ and E Goffman(1958)‘framed’ it, even if many are ‘in the know,’ including the victimized, who also contact each other in their own ‘up-stage’sub-cultures. These obsessions may even cause the victimized to take pride in ‘revenge’ on their pursuers, by giving a show of triumph or laughter, like teenage girls do to whistling wannabees. It often happens that such a group hangs around at a bus-stop or park-bench and laugh at passers-by, their‘out-group,’ and annoy them while being ‘untouchable,’ as the deriding ‘meanings’ are simultaneously denied, or rather, repressed, by all ‘parties.’ We may accept such assumptions (and insinuations) with K Popper (’51), as we will see shortly, but it is not, as he thought, a question of money and consumables, they are secondary, but rather of anxiety, and gratification,which we usually crave for (see 1932: Klein M, in Add. U). It is only through ‘historicism, we can get to know our childhood memories.’ Popperwrites (1951, pp. 330ff):

Freud vs. Marx (/FK)

“No more is assumed than that the science of society must coincide with the history of the development of the economic conditions of society, usually called by Marx ‘the conditions of production.’ It may benoted, in parentheses, that the Marxist term ‘production’ was certainly intended to be used in a wide sense, covering the whole economic process, including distribution and consumption. But these latter never received much attention from Marx and the Marxists. Their prevailing interest remained production in the narrow sense of the word. This is just another example of the naive historico-genetic attitude, of the belief that science must only ask for causes, so that, even in the realm of man-made things, it must ask ‘Who has made it?’ and ‘What is it made of?’ rather than ‘Who is going to use it?’ and‘ What for?’

Important for that purpose; and it is even possible to write a very good history of mathematical problems without referring to their‘economic background’ Important for that purpose; it is even possible to write a very good history of mathematical problems without referring to their economic background’

---In my opinion, the 'economic conditions’ or the ‘social relations’ of science are themes which can easily be overdone, and areliable to degenerate into platitude.)--- If we now proceed to a criticism as well as to an appreciation of Marx’s ‘historical materialism,’ or of so much of it as was presented so far, then we may distinguish two different aspects, first is historicism, the claim that the realm of social sciences coincides with that of the historical or evolutionary method, and especially with historical prophecy. This claim, I think, must be dismissed.
The second is economism (or‘materialism’), i.e. the claim that the economic organization of society, the organization of our exchange of matter with nature, is fundamental for all social institutions and for their historical development. This claim, I believe, is perfectly sound, so long as we take the term ‘fundamental’ in anordinary vague sense, not laying too much stress upon it. In other words, there can be no doubt that practically all social studies, whether institutional orhistorical, may profit if they are carried out with an eye to the ‘economic conditions’ of society. Even the history of an abstract science such asmathematics is no exception.’ In this sense, Marx’s economism can be said to represent an extremely valuable advance in the methods of social science. But, as I said before, we must not take the term ‘fundamental’ too seriously.
Marx himself undoubtedly did so. Owing to his Hegelian upbringing, he was influenced by the ancient distinction between ‘reality’ and ‘appearance,’ a distinction between what is ‘essential’ and what is ‘accidental.’ His own improvement upon Hegel (and Kant)in which he was inclined to see the identification of ‘reality ’(ourselves) with the material world (including man’s metabolism), and of ‘appearance’ with the world of thoughts or ideas. Thus all thoughts and ideas would have to be explained by reducing them to the underlying essential reality, i.e. to economic conditions and acceptance in hierarchy in relations.This philosophical view is certainly not much better than any other form of essentialism. And its repercussions in the field of method must result in anover-emphasis upon economism. For although the general importance of Marx ’seconomism can hardly be overrated, it is very easy to overrate the importance of the economic conditions in any particular case. This, however, is only aminor example of the danger of overstressing economism. Often it is sweepingly interpreted as the doctrine that all social development depends upon that of economic conditions, and especially upon the development of the physical means of production. But such a doctrine is palpably false. There is an interaction between economic conditions and ideas, and not simply a unilateral dependenceof the latter on the former. If anything, we might even assert that certain‘ideas,’ those which constitute our knowledge, are more fundamental than themore complex material means of production, as may be seen from the following consideration. Imagine that our economic system, including all machinery and all social organizations, was destroyed one day, but that technical and scientific knowledge was preserved. In such a case it might conceivably not take very long before it was reconstructed (on a smaller scale, and after many had starved). But imagine all knowledge of these matters to disappear, while the material things were preserved. This would be tantamount to what would happen if a savage tribe occupied a highly industrialized but deserted country. It would soon lead to the complete disappearance of all the material relics of civilization. (-) It may be noted in this connection that Marx’s friend, the poet H. Heine, thought very differently about these matters. ‘Markthis, ye proud men of action,’ he writes; ‘ye are nothing but unconscious instruments of the men of thought who, often in humblest seclusion, have appointed you to your inevitable task. Robespierre was merely the hand of Rousseau..’15 (Something like this might perhaps be said of the relationship between Lenin and Marx.). We see that Heine was, in Marx’s terminology, an idealist,and that he applied his idealistic interpretation of history to the French Revolution, which was one of the most important instances used by Marx in favour of his economism, and which indeed seemed to fit this doctrine not so badly if we compare it now with the Russian Revolution. Yet in spite of this heresy, Heine remained Marx’s friend.

Back to the business of identitification

Identity is assumed but must be ‘authentic’ to be respected, whether a religion, state, color, tribe or ‘gender.’ It is examined every meeting.
The Muslim parents seem to stay inside a lot.
They were Berbers, not the Arabs who once drove them into the mountains or enslaved them, orexiles in the Balkans, from Turkey or Syria. Are these neighbors and mothers still illiterate, with their kids pestered and excluded from play at school and from the job-market? These few kids cannot be ‘jihadists,’ if they have not been forced to ‘choose sides’ by their mums, their surrounding schoolkids, colleagues, or worse. By now there are more Surinam kids than there are Muslimat the schools. The Muslim form bands.
‘We,’ even less the former Surinamers, do not ‘like’ them and hardly communicate, vice versa, unless there is some ‘authority’ that ‘tells us to.’ They and their parents ‘prove’ and force their old toddler ‘decisions’ or ‘conclusions’ (un-) to eachother, when there is also other ‘authority’ that ‘tells them to.’ They or their parents probably learned the Q’ur-an, but possibly not to write. We see their mothers at the ‘bazaar,’ where we sometimes discuss what’s on offer in a cheerful way. It seems some are already ‘coming-out,’ or rather ‘in’ and they speak Dutch and deserve some help, even respect and not just service-jobs or subsidized jobs asguards or police, where ‘revenge’ is on the rise. Only maybe a hand-full very obsessed ones might deserve suspicion. We’re in an unplanned but never the less selfmade figuration, in which we force each-other into respective ‘roles, ’‘statuses’ and ‘shared identities.’ It is not just the ‘old group’ that has more than religious, or ‘spiritual’ interests. By themselves they do not try to change these childish assumptions, unless some ‘higher authority,’ i.e., a ‘hero of the clan,’ senior relative, priest, teacher, systematically deescalates these known ‘differences’ and ‘likes,’ that are only entrenchedand ‘pimped’ by the going gossip and in the ‘social media,’ that lack boundaries.‘IS’ is kept ‘alive’ in the ‘news’ this way. They must be bands of exiles orrefugees from the east or south, armed by oil-states. Making people here or there conscious of this, cannot be left to ‘the laity,’ but Church-, Mosque and Case-work must keep behind-the-scenes cronies, volunteers and ‘experience workers’ in check and will have to do their jobs vocally and confidently, not leaving its’ ‘performance’ or jobs to be directed by ‘volunteers.’ So here is what ‘charisma’ entails and anybody knows the meaning of ‘even-handedness,’ when a ‘guest’ among ‘other’peoples bubble, nations, pride-groups, families or similar people, which N.Elias calls figurations.
I will not start on the ‘jihadi-’ suspicions and fears that abide, alongside the broken dreams and the obvious anger about ‘this shaming.’
I travelled across east and northern Africa as a kid and could then get along fine with the ‘majority of  kids:’
They were good at soccer and I was not. They bent over backwards to play soccer with me and taught me to pass to front-runners, which was in both our interest. It was fun among Chagga’s (Moshi, Tanzania) and Dinka (Juba, Sudan) even when I had no sweets or money: We were a proud herd and we were fed.

Back-of-the Church course in theOLVG-church, amsterdam, /FK/20015

In most mosques, as in Jewish ‘shuls’ (except maybe ‘liberal’ ones), there is a separate, fencedoff and usually raised ‘balcony’ in the back for the women, who thus are tacitly, visually one-way, but not vocally insulated from the kneeling men. Are the-sewomen formulating their ‘societies’ rules, ‘public opinion’ (laughs,giggles) for their men only? Was this the same in Temple Culture and CourtSociety? I assume so, with its harims, courtesans and (regressed and traumatized) eunuchs or harlequins to keep peace among them and their distance frommen, who were gathering, hunting, fighting or otherwise employed. This mechanism and its function is retained in Catholic, but more so in protestant churches, where there is no celibacy, but a ‘democracy’ of a few women. This‘culture’ retains in NGO’s, municipal, i.e., mental-, garbage, schools,hospitals, universities, police, judiciary (‘Lady Justice’) and also in the many small family-businesses, that are about ¼ of businesses.

Advice for sociologists and anthropologists

Two quotes, first: M Klein (1932) Psychoana

lysis of Children (p. 159): ‘What, as a child the individual shows us in these play phantasieswill emerge in him in manhood as a necessary condition of his love life;’

Second: from N. Elias (1965) The Established and the Outsiders concluding chapter:

‘There is a certain abhorrence (bld:FK)

..against the idea that societies or (-) the figuration which individuals form with eachother exercise some power over the individuals which form them and limits their freedom. Yet whatever our wishes may be, looking at available evidence, one cannot get away from the recognition that figurations limit the scope of individualsdecisions and in many ways have a compelling force even though this power doesnot reside, as it is often made to appear, outside individuals, but merelyresults from the interdependence (and gossip/ FK) between individuals. They fear that one may (notso/FK) magically (or ‘smartly’) deprive men of their freedom merely by sayingthings. Not facing up to the fact, that figurations of individuals ( ) have acompelling power over the individuals which form them, is one of the mainfactors which prevents human beings from lessening this compelling force. Forit is only if we understand its nature better that we can hope to gain somecontrol.’

For/of what might one want control? It is mostly ouroedipal dispositions/intuition/figuration/ ‘ambition,’/ consciences andcastration-fear, not to mention penis-envy, from toddler-times, that makes usadhere to or defy a figuration. Women have the‘intuition’ that keeps them ‘loyal’to each-other. They are more vulnerable and ‘scandal-’driven, revealing the‘markers’ and behavioral rules to look for. Playing along may not seem easywhen nodding and guestimating the ‘self-’rules and markers of any ‘figuration’ to be ‘respected.’

Knowledge or power

Listen to mums and kids fantasies and chat along if necessary. But those in charge had better stop anyonecreating ‘news’ or figurations in their own interest, if not in theinterest of ‘their study.’ That’s the business of journalists. They create‘identities’ by naming categories of people and associating them with status.Professional gossip, which people crave for. Finding the dependencies can bedone with these ‘institutionalized’ and often enough repeated sources. Theyare not in hiding, if a little secretive, and keep the stigmatizing ‘evidence,’in these stubbornly little changing figurations and bubbles, but mind that thegossip is actually boring if you are not part and parcel of the same game. Itmay seem speculative, but can be made evident: We have all accepted someidentified ‘figuration,’ due to shaming, pride or intuition, or have workedthrough and accepted our losses. Be polite, even if you think you are beingtaken for a ride. This is not mere journalism, but we are recording the subconsciouslybut loyally copied gossip. Not to worry about wished ‘multi-cultural’ or‘inclusive’ well-wishing ‘wokes.’

To boot I must remind you that without ourmonotheist religious institutions and our ‘nation-state’ and its mostlyfemale wished-for school-order, we should still all be thugs and thieves. Butwe had better always ask: Who benefits by the figurationwork, ‘Qui bono?,’ when dealing with gossip or ‘news’ and we will have to make do with these ‘beliefs,’be they ‘scientific,’ religious or ideological.

Like N Elias (1939/78, Preface) warned,‘we’ are part and parcel of ‘our own’ figurationstoo and like E Goffman (1956) warned: ‘we’observers may be recognized as snoopers, snitches or spies, and cause a row.That is ordinary, but also ‘paranoia’ (Silver C 2011) and everybody reactsas-if they know these ‘mechanisms’ and takes them for granted. We areconstantly overwhelmed by this dualistic party-naming and oftenforget the hard-wares, like the comfort: i.e., the water, fertile land,real-estate, sleeping-places, food and drink and the loyalty- demanding powersexerted on us, in our meetings, ‘identiable’ dilemmas, sexual encounters. Failings,shamings and such hardships we endure in our lives of plenty so often. It is inour ‘setting,’ where shamed or sexually frustrated ones lag behind with their morecompetitive inferiority- complexes, which is either obsessive (mute), oruseful (or wished-for). The ‘loyalties’ make us compete.

We keep each-other on our feet in our herds, it seems andon our toes, by constantly but subconsciously and automatically testing each-others

Children, light and dark, playing in back gardens of Bijlmermeer suburb of Amsterdam (FK/’15)

‘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 11^Th 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 nil^th 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 11^thcommandment, 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.’

The long-term Process

Renewed matriarchal rule and the realizing of ‘self,’ as idealized by Horney, ‘framed’ by Goffmanand ‘figurated’ by Elias as ‘individualization,’ is a belief that stillprevails. We have similar ‘inner,’ toddler-conflicts. If you do not believe thetheory of matriarchal history, we have all been infants and were weaker thanthe mums that ‘disciplined us and forced our super-ego and ‘conscience’ ontous, when we (were) considered part of her, by her. We know how ‘confident’women can ‘try’ men (and women), by ordering a ‘new’ rule to a bubble, to testcompettitors deference to it. It seems many actually want to comply toa‘beauty.’What is it? Repetitious identification.

Recognition of our early mechanisms of identificationand projection causes this ‘individualization’ and bubblification in the longterm, not the strictness of our superegos or ‘civilization’ per se,which are two sides of the same coin (see 1936, Anna Freud, next from p. 37).

It may also have been so that women have been moreobsessive analysts than men and therefore easier to control by men who feign todo what ‘their’ women wish and who are simply being manipulative with ‘woke’stances in discussions, while doing what they want for themselves, as women donow, more often. It (this power and deference is probably changing ‘sides,’ oflate.

People are pressured a lot from infancy on, to adhereto all these yes-and-no-nos, do’s and don’ts, the naming and shaming. Theyrepresent ‘tradition.’ We crave for ‘freedom,’ of this ‘caring’ andimperative relation, but do not understand of what or from when or from whom.It is either instinct already present during infancy, or what inhibited itssatisfaction and gratification. That struggle is not ‘individualization,’because that could only mean struggling against one another, for pride, food,drink, shelter, like we expected, and often got, as infants. The identificationsand projections, are these ‘interdependencies,’ which make us reinventthem, with the applying affects and anxieties. The types of possibleidentifications are rather limited, according to Anna Freud (’36, Add. Ip26+), in their infantile scope of identifications and/or projections,positive or negative and passively or actively: our ‘figurated frames,’societies, communities and ‘groups’: religious, ‘ethnic,’ ‘academic’ and statelyones too. ‘Choices’ forced on us in ‘education’ are the scope of bubblesand ‘figurations.’ Its assumed ‘leaders’ are expected to be totalitarianas ‘kings,’ or the ‘figuration,’ ‘bubble,’ church, state, club, familystatus and‘identity’ can fall apart, by our undoing, if not ‘mended’ or ‘healed’by an excuse.

We worry about sovereignty of our county or city,which cannot be actors, angry or disgusted. We react to this, sometimes, with:‘populism,’but nobody known as ‘populist’ calls himself a populist.

The stigma comes by gossip: Social identification isrecognition of ones identifications by the situational ‘group’ and theadaptation to the advertised one of seven possible and recognized identificationstances: m/f//l/g/b/t/q, including the two ‘straight’ bubbles and ’clouds,’which we’re not too conscious of and never lacks ambivalence. The recurringmechanism of roles and consciences ‘force’ us to comply, to one of theseperceived and recognized ‘bubbles,’ to advertise them as ‘dispositions,’ inany family or ‘setting,’ that will accept them, as we’ll have to accept them.We confirm and enforce each-others and our own toddler-choices. There’s morethan you might think (me too), if in their toddler-time (eudipal phase), theyrejected their sexual satisfactions, which would make them neurotics, or ifthey either regressed to their oral or annal phase, according to Freud, S(1915-7) New Lectures on psychoanalysis (see add. I, pp 22+).

Beauvoir, S (1949-58) observed: ‘Thelesbian first plays at being a man, thus being lesbian itself becomes a game;A travestite goes from disguise to livery and the woman under the pretext offreeing herself from mans aggression, makes herself the slave of her personage.She did not want to confine herself to a womans situation and she imprisonsherself in that of the lesbian. Nothing gives a worse impression ofsmall-mindedness and mutilation than these claims of ‘liberated’ women. Itmust be declared: Many women declare themselves homosexual out ofself-interest.

Dichotomies and polarization

We always seem to look for causes of anyharm or glory (to or of bubbles) in the form of supposed ‘groups’ or ‘communities’and split into ‘badies’ and ‘goodies’ and I guess all of us suffer theirsuper-ego hatred of their toddler and oedipal punishments ‘away,’ denying themand glorifying them, rightly or wrongly. They represent kidtime-defeats, as pride does in general.

Most of us repress or idealize thesechildish memories this way or love to just laugh them off as fun or triumph.And as one can believe in a nation, some science or religion, one will haveto confirm these bubble ‘beliefs’ sui generis, as bastardizedprojections and identifications in bubbles, not to be ‘abhorred’ in moraloutrage, by the same common mechanisms anymore, as they also serve competingevolutionary ‘purposes.’ These ‘beliefs’ are ‘reaction formations’ and stemfrom our own kindergarten-time or earlier, and they are not easily left behindand kept as obsessions to adhere to loyally, representingold failures, defeats and mortifications, identified with and transposed tothe ‘prides’ that form our present-day bubbles, ‘selves’ and, ‘identities’inagreed ‘groups’ whether from ‘religious,’ ‘ideological’ education,fairy-tales we were told, mirroring the oedipal choices of times long ago.Must I repeat this again? This applies extra in minority-circumstances ofpeople that have been cancelled before as a ‘figuration.’ From the West, South or East, whose obsessive ‘failures’ of old arestronger, especially if parental surveyance or education was less, but more severe.There is a time-lag, as growing up with less parenting traumatizes more andleaves stronger identifications (with whoever was ‘lost’), obsessive feelings ofpride ‘self’ and ‘ego.’ The ‘historical approach’ is not enough; Comparisonswill always have to be made with analysis of our own personal history, i.e:our filogenesis, down to pre-decessors oedipal phases, where ‘mine’ will be a historyof a ‘figuration,’ and the personally felt ones of individuals as memories oftheir first ‘figurations:’ their ‘families,’ become the wished models ofrespect.

It may seem a bold conclusion, but withreading the Freuds observations in the Addenda, itwill be less so. The mechanisms are known by our youths by now, except maybethose of battered or just neglected minorities, (old) leaders, ‘teachers,’ or‘mothers,’ that don’t take no for an answer and who were also excluded frommodern peer education. Allow more personal history and less rules to complywith in humanity-papers, with more sympathy for writers toddler-memoriesand of solving of our mystery-conflicts. That requires determination, fuzzylogic, honesty, courage and mourning.When looking for freedom, inspiration, our‘soul,’ humor, liberation, nostalgia, psychology, theology, pathology,esotery, religion, the occult, sociology, anthropology, spirituality, love,togetherness, warmth, dreams, fun and games, glory, morality, romance, prideand even for a new ‘strategy,’ change, heaven, enlightenment and respect, weare usually only after our own identifications of our own oedipal figurationas would-be ‘collective’ childhoods, because we ‘love’ and want them. To bereminded, zap from Comedy Central to Disney for a while and observe the‘comedy,’ cartoons, drama, horror and sci-fi. Look at your e-mails, sms,twitters and ‘apps,’ with gutturals: ha-has, a-ahs, aus, hee-hees, screams,wows, aarghs, khs. tschs, eeks, (o)ohs and ahs, thumping or patting each-otherwith ‘looks,’grins, etc; and hoarseness, distorted voices, like musicalinstruments, toddlers, neanderthals, and chimps. We often, refer to each-othernow ‘informally,’ a distinction phased out of the English language and anyslang. On ‘the continent,’ we said ‘thou’ to each-other in any meeting, butit’s fading there too. This probably means that we are getting more consciousof these internalized, wished relations, our intuition/ambition, and arecontrolling them better as a result, with a guilty ‘feeling’ of loss or‘shame.’ ‘Wer die Sehnsucht (longing, yearning) kennt, weiss (knows,knows) was ich leide,’ (suffer) said J von Goethe (1821). We address each-other increasingly again as-if we were brothers andsisters, whatever we suffered as toddlers, as usualin clubs, sports, parties, Church, rural places and small business, wherehierarchy thrives. This was not so before the war, when a lot more ‘slang’ (femininestreet-talk) was spoken, also by men, to be considered one of ‘us’ and ‘honestly’ notlied to (mercifully), as ‘family,’ while jesting and teasing went on normally.

We need to feel our bubbly identifications , pay for it and you are presumably considered exclusive, special andthus ‘loved.’ And that’s a lie too.

The dichotomies we love so much, we still handle them subconsciously, but they shouldnot be ignored or rejected for they are reflections of past choices, notvoluntarily made, though we still wish for them. We expect and accept to be‘medicalized’ (with psychiatry), when only anxious or ‘unloved.’ We know from marketing and clinical psychology research, thatdecisions are usually already made when we find rationalizations for them.They are ‘figurational memories’ we cling to as-if they were ‘our’ homes,towns and families, where we revisit and wonder whether we belong there andif it all (still) belongs to us. If we’ admit it proudly, or not (shamefully),‘we,’ (mankind at least and not just me) ‘need’ to ‘belong’ to a named ‘world,’if only at least a wished and ‘figurated’ one. With Anna Freud (1932) wecannot deny any longer that sexual life begins long before puberty, whichmakes the organization we want re-identification or re-introjection with/inrecognizable ‘bubbles’, passively or actively, positively or negatively by thepleasure-principle and whichever gave most e(pre-) oedipally, then. Confirmthis from experience with ‘national-socialism,’ when Germans felt robbedbetween the wars (with ‘Versailles’). We feel securer now than ever, so oureducators can afford the passive introjection, at others expense, which we‘love.’

Emotions

Alice Miller (1980/83), the Germanpsychoanalyst, etc. wrote on ‘roots of violence:’“Theparents, faultless while they were alive, are automatically promoted to angelsupon their death, leaving a hell of self-reproach as a legacy to theirchildren. Since it is unlikely that anyone these children knew willconfirm their earlier negative impressions of their parents, they must keepthem to themselves and think themselves very wicked for having them. It wouldhave been no different for the thirteen-year-old Hitler when he lost hisfather. (-) Who would have acknowledged to the boy his fathers (or hismother’s/FK) cruelty and brutality then, if even today biographers stillattempt to describe those regular beatings as (..well-meant). Since Klara, hismother extended her reverence for her husband even after his deathto her pipes, we can scarcely imagine that her son would have been allowed toconfide his true feelings to her” (or later anyone else/FK). Dump the prideand gain the ‘self-confidence’ from kindergarten, accept humiliations,necessary self-control and ‘hate of superego’ (guilt), reality fromthen coming back!

We can thus distinguish 2³/2 expected typesof figurations: s(traight), g+l, and t+b and: ‘outsiders’ Thesemarkers we all distinguish are ambivalent, can change around (if at will), bemulti-poled or feigned. They are not ‘groups’ with ‘rights’ to be allocated toas such, because they are not static, sometimes malleable and always part of agame. The ‘dialectics’ of Hegel, Heidegger and Merton (1949-68) are reinventedfrom within ourselves, and typical of all human choices. All mammals noticeextremes better. We all had to make choices, always a gamble, including ouroedipal ones: There are 3 digital (1/0) and there is only one analogdimension(s) to ‘figurations:’ Pride, vanity and ambivalence, which are thesame.

Observe that: The ‘g+l’ or gay and lesbian-identified persons and ‘groups’ are more ambivalent and more hierarchical than their ‘straight’ counterparts, despite their ‘humour’ and railing over what they ‘love’ and that they dominate media ‘narrative,’ with first names use,wigs, and constant pouting (with teeth), as-if all contestants and their‘public’ were all siblings.

All relation-types usually ‘espouse’ an active and apassive partner. ‘G + L’s’ are feared and resented as ‘liberated,’ mostly fortheir seeming promiscuity and ‘happiness.’ (Horney K (1951) The ‘wow and X-factor:’huge, strong, delightful, is the same. Women are more competitive, think theyare ‘worse off.’ The 2^nd and 3^rd worlds have more ‘L+G’combos and singles than the 1^st, even if suppressed by Judiciary,police, (church) and mosque. All we see is what it looks like; The ‘L+G-‘combo’s were there before the ‘straight’ duos. ’Straight’ evolved to be lesshierarchical. ‘L+G’s’ then, are the immanent upcoming heterosexuals of theirfuture, that needs not be in ‘the west.’ ‘West-’ or ‘north-people’ will notinsure ‘L+G’s’ from ‘south’ or ‘east,’ and that would not do them any good. This‘helping’ with such ‘good’ intentions has caused many wars in the past. All‘we’ can do is help ‘them’ with more commerce over there and more tolerance.They will have to ‘fight-out’ their ambivalence and repress it with their‘civilization,’ as ‘we’ did. This applies increasingly to women in general, 2^ndand3^rdworld people and the other mammals. Hierarchy, or ‘de-

votion,’ which is diminishing fast, is what all long for, ‘romance,’ call it ‘love.’

We may conclude that the ‘g+l’ combo’s and groups werethere first, as ongoing love/hate fights, from which the now prevalent, lessambivalent, hierarchical and sadomasochist relations evolved. Consequently the‘l+g’ combos are both more prevalent and more subdued than in ‘the west.’ Thelimit-less urge to be ‘respected,’ is a post-poned oedipal choice,’ westernerscannot resolve. They ‘want’ more, or think they ‘deserve’ even more, than ‘us’rich, zealous ‘westerners.’ Dichotomies?Interesting! Love, destiny, envy!

Do we ever grow up? Who is ‘responsible?’ Lies, Lies, and it’s no-one in particular. In a ‘democracy,’ ‘bosses’ of utilities, can deny their clientsservices they’ve already paid taxes for, or admit others to compete for‘free.’ That power has its limits, where the ‘bosses’ are always part of a sortof a ‘court’ of assumed bosses and/or their spouses, like party-members whoobtained a civil position in the past, whose parties may have lost their mandate,i.e. in a municipal board. In the end, it will only be those in a ‘court ofmilitary power,’ a medical function, in schools, providers of shelter or police,who can threaten or extort the taxed to let them ‘do’ more, as we know fromElias introduction (1969): ‘State-formation.’ Are appointed ‘bosses’ in their‘courts’ ‘grown-up?’ Not if they ‘believe.’ With J O y Gasset (1922),‘theatre,’ movies and stories are only accepted as such when written from arecognised oedipal toddler scope, of which there are only 4, if dominant/activevs. deferent/passive is not counted as a ‘typical relation,’ because it alwaysis, or male/female, which is a static given, not a choice, even if it isoften considered so and ‘played-out.’. In Church only 2 are allowed andrespected (‘holy trinity,’incl. ‘the Soul.’), or we wouldn’t know what toexpect in our agreed ‘belief’ or social rules. We call ‘scientific,’ objective,or ‘nonfiction’ only so if they are made by one of them, lesbian or gay, i.e,one of the regular ‘outsiders.’ They are less than 1/5^th of all,but ‘growing,’ if taken very broadly and include the ‘manifest,’ who don’tqualify when their wish is ‘only just’ a ‘figurated’ family. At puberty thereis no such ‘choice’ anymore, except after painstaking analysis, with nosuccess or definitive ‘choice’ guaranteed and much insecurity of ‘identity.’Judging from our youths dressing-habits, nowadays, with lots of color,accessories, torn (off) trousers and strange haircuts.The availability-signalsand ‘markers’ still stay the same all over the world. Youngsters are more freeto express and ‘play on’ sexual orientations.

The question: What’s in a name? gives: Claimants oedipal appearances as kings, queensor ‘good’ beggars; which it’s all about in these games of attainment, where ambivalencereigns. State, Church and Islam, are long-term solutions for our castration-complexes.Me too! Men incorporated their mothers complexes in their super-egos by herdisciplining education.

So what is what we call ‘woke’ about? Itmust be the diminishing influence of who or what is supposedly vulnerable orvictim, like LGBT’s, sick people, blacks, ‘nature,’ or ‘the system,’ ‘wanting’to be ‘inclusive’ of the vulnerable nobody is. It presumes a hierarchy andimperative language.

Two biases are usually found in social surveys:

1: Survivor bias, which‘advises’ positively on policies: Firms that do not survive raised minimum wages are not likely to ‘advise’ againstthem; and 2. twofold bias, which erroneously advises against policies: Many ‘markers’of these ‘groups’coincide, like being‘white,’ blond and blue-eyed. Deduction is digital choice by assumed rule,of which many seem to ‘even-out,’ but ‘subjectivity’ can never be all wrong andstatistical ‘proof’ certainly can be. Examples or single instances are so oftenpresented as proof of ‘the news’ and the ‘evening-out’ happens depending ondifferent theories and speculations from ‘field-relations’ or ‘correspondents.Theories and ‘conclusions are made explicit later or are to be guessed at. Theresulting dichotomies nevertheless tend to become less extreme and more‘gray-scaled’by comparisons of successive researchers, (not journalists or ‘witnesses’), ifadjusted by them on the way. Witnesses usually do dichotomise. There is no suchthing as black or white here, but we are evolved in a competitive male v.s.female pre-destination. We adher to many identifications and prides quiteunconsciously, we ‘know’, but can’t give it a name to advertise. The taboo oneven thinking about ‘sex’ is still very active. The ‘innocent’ are guilty too.

Everybody or at least the large majority think possible or ‘true’ what they ‘like.’ Thatis the wishful Process and Freuds pleasure principle. We evolve and compete,in the dichotomies we always had to ‘choose’ from, to be ‘understood.’ It isnot more state or conscience, but more consciousness of our own childhoodmemories and knowledge and acceptance of ours and those of others. Shame isgossip and esteem. All this dichotomous wishful thinking results in a vain hob-by,a ‘wish,’ to make ‘decisions’ about anything we have little control of: For ‘power?’We’re only prone to what hurt us before, and to its dichotomies, even if wehave suppress(ed) ‘bad’ memories with their associated names. And that’s ‘theNews’ in the media, or, it is considered as such by many and so gets its value inthe news-market.

To judge anyone (‘in power’), we must compareour own private toddler (hi-)stories, when everything we recognize at first isPlato’s ‘appearance-reality,’ or what we (and he) subconsciously craved for andwant, which is not Aristotles ‘matter-reality,’ and which requires psycho-analyticalself-inspection, for which the Freuds, Sigmund and Anna, gave us the toolsa century ago, suppressed by our ‘educators’ for laughing-stock reasons, ofwhich all can be read, after the next Agatha Christie citations. In themean-time we’re still being misleaded and given what we ‘believe’ we ‘want,’ by‘the services.’ History does repeat itself. We wish dreams were common, butthey’re not that common. Girls and boys want different things.Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but you get to play at ‘The 4-Clicks,’ (thestyles), incl. ‘ the familiar ‘us and them;’ But barking dogs don’t bite and amiss is as good as a (s)mile. Here our ‘sexual drive’ surfaces, alwaysshamefully and derisive.

Please start by always distinguishing threes,or more opportunities as in ‘The Holy Trinity,’ and stop seeing only bifurcalextremes, that seem so lucid and ‘brilliant.’ There are so many lessdiscriminating ‘theories,’ always! Sexes are sentenced to and againsteach-other in our herds, but luckily We have always had Religions and a hostof ideologies, ‘fake-news,’ propaganda and ‘parties-representatives,’ vying forour ‘support,’ whichbuys them influence. Like it or not, beauty doesn’t countfor as much anymore, men are emancipating too. It is not just a theory, thateven those neuroses, sexual frustration and jealousies and spite have afunction in the strength and evolution of societies: Girls mother boys andforce do’s and don’ts, consciences, ‘super-ego’ in them, but not so much intheir girls. Girls identify to do and want mostly their mothers tasks, even if bisexually or male-identified and still influence their boys and so they ‘help’anybody she might want to depend on her. So the men keep competing as to‘raise’ the statuses of their moms and spouses and most do so all their livesin ‘love-’ relations, which all women seem to ‘love’ (or prefer). This‘authoritative mechanism,’ spirals and keeps us doing whatever it takes for herto ‘come,’ ‘get off’ and have ‘her home.’ The youngsters in thenorth-West, seem to ‘even-out’ in this respect, but we must not assume menand women want the same and at the same price.

Women are again getting more outspoken,loud, ‘confident and superior in the expanding media, they dress colourfullyand more revealingly and act regressively, flirt and pout, which‘charms’ guys, who also pout increasingly. Actually they are just still hookedon their old consciences and fears: The girls are ‘fighting back,’ now theyare again expected to earn their own living (and housing). This is not new,women had to do this with their spouses absent, hunting, gathering, if able.Men ‘respect’ this, but (l)earn to overcome their (female) consciences, whilstrecognizing their interdependence: A liberation. These ‘traditions,’ or perks,do not change easily. Why should we give them up:? Elias ‘process ofindividualization,’ and interdependence, in the long term, the human condition,dynamically showing its source: The mutual early development of the sexes. Youand I worry about the ‘morality’ in this. We have: The 10 Commandments, ‘Statelaws,’ gossip, easy vengeance, as laughs, crying, shame, some control ofeach-other and some desperate people; Freuds never ending pleasure-unpleasureprinciple guiding our future worlds and making most ‘activism’ detrimental tosome or all, but they know that. Adam Smiths ‘invisible hand,’ will make all dothe work.

The 6 clicks-persons (incl. the passive andthe active or m+f), is the real ‘victim’ and is controlled and ‘cared for’ inthe north-West, at a terribly forbidding cost to the economies and itstaxpayers, but the ‘Nr. 3s,’ or the ‘4s,’ do not anymore always comply, if theywear their typically yellow shirts, just as many of their subsidized ‘helpers’do professionally and protest against these supposed ‘helpers’too. I’ll notexpand on all ‘clicks,’ as they are all well-known and often resented by theNr. 1s, the bulk of the tax-payers in all societies. The civil-servant‘helpers,’ often posing as ‘volunteers,’ and their ‘clients,’ allwearing yellow shirts in their ‘demonstrations,’ are a divided lot, whichexplains the violent eruptions at rallies. ‘They’ have even succeeded inpresenting themselves as ‘politically correct’ or ‘woke’ in the media, and in getting fundedby the state democratically on reputation andthe ‘juice’ in the ‘official’ media with their idealistic reporters.

The supposedly benefitting ‘outsiders’ (silly, stranger, black, misfit, cripple, ‘mad,’ etc.), are subjected to a very complicated and very ‘legal’ regime. They are certainly not free to enterprise or work where they want to or could or at what (De Swaan1988). Everyone’s ‘click,’ style or ‘class’ is defined by early identification choices, which were then gambled on digitally (1-0) and choices to adhere to the few recognizable markers, like charitability, ‘altruism,’ cleanliness and/orcompeting as a general tool to one’s pleasure seeking and stress-avoiding strategy, which is then recognized or not as female, male, good, bad or a bitof both. We exaggerate.During our young lives we are advertising these‘choices,’ also roles and ‘beliefs,’ which can stay volatile or ‘plastic,’ depending on the prides and their ambivalences of our own consciences and compliance. Villages, city-states, ‘grew’ from carers and their ‘cared’ inhostels or inns, on through roads between cities, where lonely people seeked company. So did hospitals and the utilities we depend on. We control each-other by charming, attracting, withholding care or sex and ‘overwhelming’ with ‘confident’ordering about, to the ‘choices’ we make. Not everyone complies. You can fool some people sometimes, but not all the time: Dichotomies are not an inductive choice, they are named analyses.

* Control-freaks we are

We are used to being ‘patronized,’ us humans actually want to be yelled at (and cared for’): We ‘feel safe,’ ‘atease’ and ‘looked after,’ by the female control freaks, as they are familiar (likeour mothers) and for what we craved for as toddlers. Recognize this? Any addiction is unconscious craving for relief from our suppressed, feelingly remembered directives from our keeper, then. All’s fair in love, but not as hierarchical, with every one-in-six a stylish ‘click.’ Wished for parent(s), yet still we ‘want out.’ Everyone has their traumas and losses, if long‘forgotten.’ No reason for ‘shame, ’except for the gossip, which we ‘don’t do:’ Guilt from loss exists, as the Freuds observed. Accept the pig in the poke you are, me too, be proud, there’s always some pleasure to be gained. Beware of the always wishful ‘truth,’ do not flee from it. Give me the Christian treatment anytime, it’s good for you, supposedly harmless and if it hadn´t been inventedit would be, which it is, everywhere. The analytic, dichotomic and bipartisan or disectic approach to any questionor curiosity is the most primitive intellectual tool with a phylogenetic and inherited origin. Nature and consequently a lot of nurture too, in our case.It’s relatively coarse and requires a ‘theory,’ guess or gamble, i.e. the‘frame’(-work), angle or dimension of approach, to execute. We are mostly raised by mothers and female carers and that turns out to be a burden on the boys as guardians of their carers ‘status,’ ‘respect’or freedom from ‘shame.’ They still consider them a part of themselves and carriers of their ‘status,’ which seems low to them. A question of ‘deserving’better.

This ‘pride-thing’ keeps everybody fighting and surviving. Dichotomies tend to specify and average out communicated observations, if the analyzed ‘facts’ (of life) are at all remembered. No need to begrudge the forgotten facts, or the ‘theories’ invented to sustain them. Only the wished-for ‘goodies’ really count, even if (funny) ‘bad news’ and ‘pride.’ What if we did not have our proud and caring women, and their figuration, the largest of all? Created dichotomies are our named ‘communities’ for survival in all competitions.‘Wrong’ ones get corrected. Dichotomies are its markers with distinguishing‘theories,’ that preserve society and thus they are figurated.

Descriptive ‘Conclusion’

Created dichotomies are supposed and wished, but also mean competition; ‘wrong-,’ choice ones usually get corrected, or are ‘relearned,’ but some are retained obsessively. They are the traditions, with names; often of territories, ‘homes’ and places, or ‘local’ heroes or ‘icons.’ They are also our childish and gossipy ‘figurations’ and can be collected in larger, more abstract ones, like sports clubs, nation-states or religions. These dichotomies carry a negative or positive valuation, i.e.:praise/blame, idylle/scandal, alive/dead, love/ hate, white/ black (skin),left or woke/ right, huge/ tiny, abstract/nitty-gritty, digital/analog,hard-working/lazy, open/closed, wow/disgust, hairy/bald, ugly/beautiful(‘sexy’), awed/derised, +winner/loser, ‘sport’/addict, icon/ nobody,‘on-top’/hurt, green/red, black/white, expensive/ cheap, classy/dog,honored/despised, decent/ shabby, right/wrong, in-/credible, wicked/boring,respected/loathed, genuine/fake (markers),‘dis-/obeyed’ (marker-valuation),reticent/ gung-ho, compliant/maverick, introvert/extravert, un-/tidy,mighty/humble, rebel/softy, victim/winner and fe-/male, all closely associatedwith ‘self-esteem.’ They are perceived as the outspoken rules and markers, often ambivalent and extreme in valuation, in a constant struggle, when gossiped, even if we do know better, there is probable acception!

These conditional symbolic markers, for other dichotomic figurations/bubbles, which are adopted and ‘pimped’ by ourselves, sometimes only pretending to be ‘established,’ or ‘respected:’ Essential for wannabees or how one looks, to others.

More over, by associating a negatively pimped dichotomy to another more positive one, or vice versa, it is possible, if pimped enough, to assign or swap the second valuation for the first in the supposed ‘general’ perception or ‘narrative.’ A ‘bad’ figuration for a good one or not unknown one, orgiving a good (-enough-) one a ‘bad’ name, while raising the stakes for anothers ‘own’ assumed figuration-standard, pride or status.

It is perceived as ‘rule of law,’ by many and a way to exert power over and to ‘discipline’ others, debunk,‘throw them out,’ or to‘keep them within’ and to promote one in/of ones figuration.

By default we’re always biased when part of a figurated ‘bubble.’ With the conditional nick-name, we use our ‘gut-feeling,’ which is kept ‘unconscious’ or ‘secret’, even denied and not said aloud, but demonstrated and communicated clearly nonetheless by pouts (There are so many,it’s a language in itself, either ‘open’ or ‘closed’), always sympathetic and nods, winks, frowns, cackles, growls, nudges, gesticulations, pointing (=no),hand-waving, shrugs, ‘kicks’, ‘rolls’ and of hands-in the air, thumbing noses, gasping, just looking at, scratching, rolling eyes, to breathe-talk, smile(anticipated glory or threat), bow, shake, pirouette, crooked pouting, showing off the size of something and making a humble or victorious impression accordingly; and all the gutterals mentioned on p.18. Women, again mostly, butal ways denied, and men too, that usually do not have a clue. People depend emotionally on conditional obsessions in the long-term.‘Owned bubbles’ are considered ‘life-savers,’ keepers of competition-parties, our strength and ‘togetherness,’ and are also our ‘tools’ for ‘clever’ communicators,‘snitches’ and manipulators. We are so suggestible along these ‘scopes,’ which are usually no more than a handful of loyally kept dichotomy-theories with their ‘added value(s),’ like The Ten Commandments.’ Only when dealing with M.D.-s or lawyers and maybe some hobby-figurations and, last but not least: lover-pairs(‘hypnosis is a group of two’ /S. Freud/ ’21-2), these ‘rules-of-thumb’ can get legion and complicated. But it’s only a handful in most (figurated) bubbles.The tradition-factor keeps them simple enough to oversee.

Our ongoing struggle

In the mass-media, it’s how the ‘cookie crumbles,’ it’s entertaining to most of us, interdependently(not) feeling ‘alone’ or ‘ashamed’ (being gossiped about), in our ‘herds’ and supposed ‘communities,’ a term often misused by statisticians and mass-mediaanalysts, as-if they are actors or representatives of a bubble,’ although ambitious ‘leaders’ may well act as such and get away with it, or be ‘blamed’ for ‘its’ faults, in a recurring ‘blame-game’ in a figuration, seemingly ‘incrisis,’ like unemployment, disease, fire or draught, shaming or real sexual frustration: ‘Never waste a good crisis’ is an old advice among women and dealers in general: This rule/marker dependency may get so widespread, that people massively feel afraid of losing their ‘respect,’ or ‘home’ and unconsciously for being castrated (again). Divide and rule: Eat, drink, care, work,fuck, or not. Today only ‘feminists’ read Freud.

We are held, responsible and do this, sometimes consciously planned, but mostly not, depending on the ‘morality’ of the actor: DeoVolente! ‘Take the lead,’ or ‘‘charge,’ by introducing a competition, figuration or ‘theme’ or concept. Try it with a bunch of kids and ask them a rhetorical question. Do they answer? Sure! We are prone to this probing intimidation and to defer tos uch seemingly haphazard ‘orders,’ which is what they are.

The dichotomy of ‘the sexes’ is the largest,

most prominent, but also mostly denied ‘identity.’ As a figuration, though and as a ‘marker,’ it is considered a legitimization (orv.v.), in most popular figurations and bubbles. It must be an extreme, or an undevided‘ name.’ You’re someone or you don’t exist and are likely not to be ‘tolerated’ and ‘cancelled out.’ All this, provided one at least ‘tries’ to be ‘respected,’ or ‘to belong’ and defers to the supposed hierarchy of the named and known bubble, at the risk of being contested, mostly by women in the ‘female role,’ because in the last instance they are supposed to consent as ‘host.’. When men ‘take charge,’ if only by their dependent, instinctive longing and thus deferring ‘spouse-roles,’ by doing women a ‘favor,’ showing them their ‘admiration,’ as ‘lover-boys’ do, while likely ‘enemies’ or competitors may be debunked, but are also praised a little , when they feel shame at the deriding, or theft of‘respect,’ which could seem cowardly and could cause guilty feelings of jealousy or envy.

It’s only human but no different than in any herd. There’s always discussion, and fun about these situations of being ‘recognized,’ or not. In ‘our’ pandemic-time, one must show deferrence too to the women’s care and is legitimately surveyed by them, as it obviously is their ‘prerogative’ in all such games, like partner- and recognition-choice. We were (almost) all taught and disciplined first, once, by our mothers, ‘them,’ and thus apparently, by a female bubble. It could be ‘their’ last strand, when they cannot rely on automatic respect for ‘beauty’ or their laughter and derision anymore.

In these trying days we all realize it’s not just the girls who are at stake, when nobody bothers about the economy or productivity while money is printed digitally: Charisma, authority? We all hope for glory and influence, in our gamy encounters.

Guilty feelings are real or supposed losses, including loss of ‘stature,’ like the supposed ‘castration’ of women, always denied, which women are often teased or derided with. Their ‘power’ is diminished by this enigma. Themen, of-course, need encouragement too from, but like women, to ensure they will not be ‘castrated’ too, which is their unconscious, but unreal fear, coming out.

The ladies, however soon find out how sexually attractive they can make themselves by showing off their femaleness and by gesticulating their readiness to ‘give in,’ or to comply. This ensures their chances of being satisfied too and always gets them very excited. They even talk about this amongst one-another. So they know and exploit the ‘taboo’ too. They’re usually considered smarter.

How ‘possible is all this? Where’s the proof? I promise, I’ve seen/heard it all in my 72 years on the planet and: Figurations are collections of identifications, but dichotomies too, i.e. what we now call ‘bubbles:’ Elias ’figurations’ all over! We name anything we might ‘own’ or wish for.’Names’ spread with wishes: A language emerges by our reifications (‘thinging,’naming) and classing them among our peers, be they persons, named phenomena, people with certain attributes,or features and institutionalizing these to assumed bubbles in a hierarchy: I did it too! We were statisticians all the time and we make our ‘guesses.’ Sorry, but many think this ‘knowledge’ and these wishes are power in a hierarchy, felt as pride and honor:

Self-fulfilling prophecies make our languages.

We ‘analyze’ and assume a cause we want! Both your home-made dichotomy and ‘theory’ by association. In time, the ‘truth’ may emerge contrarily.

Women are experiencing loss of power. They, especially ‘black’ ones, go about as an enlarged persiflage of their ‘selves,’ which they choose themselves. They wear slacks (1950+), mini-skirts (1960+), a cleavage and wear less to impress. They blondify their hair or bind it in strings or wear blonde, long-haired wigs and ‘walk the line.’ At the same time, all ‘gender-‘ and discussion of sexual competition, is considered or felt to be ‘dirty.’ Enyone must be clean and green to be acceptable, it seems. Many men are scared by this exhibitionism, which buys the girls influence for a while. With these, other dichotomies evolve continuously, through the ages. Coloured people often feel inferior by their having been disregarded or teased, along with their ‘normal ’toddlery frustrations, and are often in ‘opposition,’ complain about all ‘authority’ and ‘higher’ status figures, which they still consider‘whites,’ or, ‘hindus’ and all ‘officials.’ The list goes on.

What this means for their educational and motheringwork and their offspring, can only be guessed at over the generations, but it goes on steadily, believe you me. In the long run the abstination keeps women in power, but sadly unhappy. Of course the ‘lower class’ have their remedy: They do fuck, for pleasure, or a home and stature-chance, but sometimes they get infected. So, there’s more lies, theft, violence and grandeur at Bijlmermeer.

People often think they own their neighbours (‘stuff) in their gossip. The gradual changing of sex- and power relations in societies (see theses: 4;p.10), from matriarchic fights, ‘help,’ and theft, to more patriarchic and reasonable, cannot be proven with statistics: It’s qualitative, but obvious.

All we can do with a little shine of ‘the Sciences,’ or rather years-nalism, is to give relevant and comparable examples and samples that are still valid in the mid-term. Of (secondary) observations. Good journalism is the best we’ll ever do. With these sub-, and unconscious wishes and ‘self-’ definitions and identities, we are in limbo if we don’t keep on testing the theories and ‘well-meant’ lies, to help them seem real, which they do become if ‘believed’ by enough ‘interested’ hearers or onlookers that in turn ‘speak-out to enough people who do the same and makes them ‘media,’a ‘narrative’ and a wanted ‘frame.’

But rebels abound and are respected by many for being a little paranoid, which can be helpful in research efforts. We conclude: The passive, analytical and hierarchical ‘ways’ have come about with the feminine sex in our evolution, along with chorus-like commentary, non-verbals and gutturals: laughs, schrieks and jaw-dropping‘wows.’

Language is female:They had to barter, not to fight.

But they are in retreat and what is ‘woke?’ Most people see ‘woke’as primitive female interests and opportunities of housing, beauty, greatness, liquids, helping needy, a ‘wound, ’tear (both ways), cave, babies, power, vulnerability, pain, secrecy and fights, they had to (or barter, not to lose), to suffer, clean/se, feed and save ‘the world’or situation (by‘magic,’or ‘smartness,’ but preferably by) ‘their men, suffering or deprecating ‘others.’The superstitions, ‘bubbles’ and ‘figurations’ we ‘love,’ ‘own’ and identify ’with: To‘belong,’ with our belongings, certainties and territories. This exempts hardly anybody from lying and cheating about their ‘status’ towards others and themselves, or to demand to admire and to be admired and complimented and obeyed, or else be ‘cancelled.’

‘Feminists’ rediscovered their old competitive tricks, they feel ‘left out,’ which they were in a way, over time. They claim what thei’re losing to be a ‘right,’ even succeed in ‘shaming’ whoever is left with some trauma and feels left themselves. We expect to brag about the ‘shared’ bubbles, or to be considered ‘depressed,’ or even as ‘enemies,’ and then cancelled, as so many, coloured immigrants children have suffered at primary schools, which they still resent and wish to be compensatedfor and also ‘feel’ enormous pride for, even at a later age. It’s a mechanism when ‘open wounds’ are advertized and in mass-‘media.’.

I’m not debunking females, but noting changes.

To enable one to gobble-up such a ‘greater’ ‘thing’ and to be ‘part of it,’ which is a repetition of oral phase (our first) behavior and a regression. It is considered ‘survival, ’understood and accepted as such, with all the accompanying euphemistic and often even biblical wordings, ‘eh-ehs’ and ‘hee-hees,’in the game of love and manipulation of and into it. Next we have some splendid textualized talk with gutterals, from Agatha Christie and then ‘Our beginnings,’as seen by Sigmund Freud(1915-‘17/-‘33) in New Lectures on Psychoanalysis, From (1938-9) Moses and Monotheism (his last work) then, (1905/16), but abridged: (1972)by E. Mosbacher: Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, and then some by A. Mitscherlich, S. de Beauvoir and E.T. Hall. You may recall some of it from way-back-when. I am grateful to N. Elias for his ‘thing- naming’ advice about our anthropomorphing, which even I still do, I admit it takes quite a bit of ‘undoing’ old prides not to. , But Elias cancelled the role (and ‘function’) of the sex-taboo also: It protects from disease, orphans and over-population; It is like magic or being ‘smart,’to women that are active and like to set rules of engagement when among men or potential ‘partners.’ They test their obedience and devotion and ‘love.’ Men often accept this, when they have not been battered enough or are in ‘want.’ Just the analysing won’t do, nor will Chat-GPT, which does no more, with many seemingly precise or ‘huge’ numbers, (double) names, titles, aliases, nicknames and citations about ‘their’ highs, (records) and lows, pains and gains, to make text seem more ‘fealy.’ We must learn to accept or not and to compare these ‘selves’ to know any other identifications, whether ‘made-up’in the game or real.

A course on societal moleculogy, with identifications of parents and teachers identifications, multiplied or replaced, always with the ambivalent MFLGBTPoles (P=protestant or sheite religious), not as in a choice,but it is as in chemistry, it’s there, like the Post-Traumatic-Stress-Syndromes, we hide.

This‘doubt,’and ‘secrecy’ about our wishes and interests elucidates them to be more conscious, at least to those educated, by ‘the media,’ Of course this education is always biased to the control-wishes of the ‘educator’ (me?) and we all know how ideologically fervent our primary and secondary school-teachers were, even if we sympathized. The same goes for all ‘news-,‘ and ‘social’ media we now hear and see so much of as weread less for comparison. A lot to learn and remember and to ‘weed- and pick out,’ which is the real education, if you ask me, and which processhas no end if we do not learn to revoke earlier choices (..is to eat humblepie) and convictions, whether identified with or just pretending. We’re so proud. One caveat here is, that we easily tend to present abstractions, which are generalized interpretations of observations, so that empty rhetoric ensues, but I must admit that that last sentence is a good example of such a case, which, however is not so empty of meaning, because the abstractions ‘fit,’ do not overlap in meaning, or remain undefined, which initself may lead to ‘static’ meanings, that are not ‘for ever.’ We (me too) unfairly insist to be for ever, as we wish.

Everyone has his/her male and female ‘sides’ too and these ‘other’ sides go deep: They are there in all their ambivalence. Men pout too and girls will fight each-other or beleaguerers, in the play-ground or later if cornered in a cul-de-sac situation. But they will also seek these out as very exciting, or being ‘vulnerable,’ as they also have these ‘desires.’

Calling oneself ‘non-binary’is an excuse and only exists as lazines r passive resistance. Girls are competitive among each-other for the(ir)winning status of their ‘heroes.’

If we do wish for an explanation, I conclude that these male and female ‘sides,’or rather identifications, often grouped to recognizable ‘bubbles,’ with by now commonly used letter-names, which are only rough and pamphlettized to media-narrative categories that only very partially might characterize any character.This bubble becomes part of anybodies ‘unknown,’ and secret game of representation and the management of it. Most strongly in case of those who may have or want (of) ‘something to hide:’ Like victims of exclusion/cancelling, or just easy targets for status-loss.These include anyone or any bubble that is considered ‘high-class,’ and who or that may have a ‘trusted’ or representative function, like policing of ‘members company-’ work. Setting of work-rules for these individuals,

 in bubbles or known categories of them is a typically female-‘side-‘thing. Especially the ‘male’ or ‘female-‘considered parts of this behavior are under scrutiny and are a cause for bothderision and moral-outrage, also in the media. They emerge and are politicised in TV-shows, athome, clubs, schools, in our bubbles.Thanks, Dit e-mailadres wordt beveiligd tegen spambots. JavaScript dient ingeschakeld te zijn om het te bekijken. (72).

P.S: To eat ‘humble-pie,’ or to grieve is not mens ‘department’at all. ‘Bubbles,’our identification-collection, burst or dissolveand leave trauma’s that do not heal and of which memories stay unconscious and repressed. We all have ‘em, so search for the ‘bad’ feelings and the dreams that are what’s behind our sublimations, obsessions and interests. They’re what makes us ‘tick,’or not: These subconscious memories of our pampered toddler existence, including our ‘other sides,’ which we should accept and learn to appreciate, must most probably still ‘emancipate’ and grow in confidence and empathy for others ambivalences.

Elias was right cancelling anthropomorphing (reïfyingand naming situations) and studying the figurations, bubbles and our ‘spirits’ and ‘ghosts’in-stead. I could not include his introduction to‘The Civilizing Process,’which is available on Archive.org. With his ‘figurations,’ which we fantasise with Freuds ‘pleasure-unpleasure-principle,’with our own megalomaniac dreams,usually denied or replaced with ‘spiritual’ utterings or rituals, like the other taboos (which seem to be‘magic’ or ‘smart’ (to many women and any mans female ‘side.’), and also the sexual-ones, when one has been ‘teased’ in kindergarten, i.e: for colour, LGBT, ADHD,or shyness (autism or ‘Post-Traumatic Stress-Syndrome.’).This inferiority-complex was and is rife in psycho-analytical dream-analyses. Nothing closer to home: Grieving hurts, relieves and strengthens, we need it, badly.

MuslimasatChurch-bazaar,searchingforclothestowear.Lookattheirpouts:desire,ambition,compensation?