On the Incomprehensible

Brief background:

A colleague, psychotherapist Viesturs Rudzītis, gave an interview published in NRA: “Women make politics non-transparent.” This interview sparked a very large discussion on social networks that did not subside for several days (in our fast-paced era, that is unusually long). Many saw offensive statements in the interview; many expressed doubts about the author’s competence, education, and so on. I tried to participate in this discussion. This is a continuation. One element of the discussion was the incomprehension expressed by Iveta Kažoka regarding the text, which can be seen here. Although I initially refused to be V. Rudzītis’s advocate or interpreter, the endless circular nature of the conversation prompted me to offer my perspective on the questions posed by Iveta Kažoka. But first:

A brief (theoretical) introduction.

We all live in one, seemingly “objective” world, which each of us grasps subjectively. It is impossible to escape our subjectivity. To survive, to cope with the world, we try to understand it. We form our theories about how the world works. Every person does this, every professional does this, including psychotherapists. This includes theories about how “the human being” works. In the context of this conversation, three “big” questions of each theory are important:

• what is a human being (for example, a biological creature, a thinking organism, or a spiritual being),
• how do problems arise (for example, hormonal imbalance, errors in thinking, or sin), and —
• how to solve problems (for example, take medication, change thinking, or make an offering at church).

Psychotherapists in their work also rely on theories that contain deep and complex answers to all three questions. Developed theoretical systems are called schools or directions of psychotherapy. There are many (for example, Freud’s psychoanalysis, Jung’s analytical psychology, existential psychotherapy, hypnosis, Gestalt therapy, and others), but each of them provides elaborate answers to all three questions. The answers differ in each school, so it is important to understand that these theories are not “objective truth.” They are theoretical conceptualizations that help better understand inner, psychic reality, but they are only theories, not reality itself. In any case, the test of each theory happens in practice — whether, based on their understanding of how the psyche works, the psychotherapist can help the specific person who has come to them. I remind you that every person also has their own understanding of how humans work. A specific psychotherapist can help a specific client when their two understandings are somewhat similar. If they are radically different, most likely the people will not understand each other, and the collaboration will not work out. And that is normal, because the psychotherapist only helps — they do not do something in the client’s place — so the quality of collaboration is essential. Although each psychotherapist “belongs” to a specific school (in which they received their psychotherapeutic education), even within one school, psychotherapists’ theoretical understanding is not completely identical. This understanding forms and changes with each client met, each book read. It is influenced by everything that happens in life — films, conversations, chance encounters, events. If a theory is not sufficiently precise or complete, it simply dies a natural death — because it is not usable. Thus, instead of the “truth” of theories, what matters is the “usability” of theories. A psychotherapist cannot rely on an incorrect (unusable) theory because they simply will not be able to help their clients. Furthermore — it is important to realize that these theories describe the invisible. The psyche itself is not an objective truth but each of our subjective experiences. Experience that each of us conceptualizes in our own way — combining our unique understanding with what we have read, heard, and concluded. If certain phenomena are absent from a person’s experience, then it is impossible to form a theory about them. Another person, in whose experience certain phenomena exist (in sufficient quantity), must somehow grasp them — find an explanation for what has occurred. Supplement their theory. And furthermore — each person also differs in their ability to conceptualize their experience, to form their understanding. People also differ in the flexibility of their created theories — openness to new experience, acknowledgment of errors. The ability to conceptualize differs among psychotherapists as well — those who have this ability most developed usually share it in written works or by teaching young colleagues. Each of us is different, and that is why life is SO interesting. Applying theory to the text appended below: Both Viesturs and Iveta have lived in the world, met various people, formed their understanding of how people work. Read various books, discussed ideas with other people — relatives, friends, acquaintances. Tested their theories in daily interactions with others. Up to this point, there is no difference. Where I see the difference — Viesturs has formed this understanding systematically and purposefully, spending many years initially studying, later in practice — meeting each client over extended periods and trying to understand and explain each phenomenon experienced by each client. Searching for answers both in his own mind, in literature, and in conversations with colleagues. Describing his understanding in several books. The difference in invested time is measured in many thousands of hours. Does this make Viesturs’s understanding “more correct” and Iveta’s “less correct” — no. For each, it is and remains their own, sufficiently good, because it works. As long as it works. And now to the “main point” — my comments (AJS) on Iveta’s (IK) comments on Viesturs’s (VR) statements. I address both by first name, as we are personally acquainted.

Comments on the comments:

IK: List of stereotypes (only at the beginning of the interview, because there EVERY thesis is filled with stupid stereotypes): 1) VR: “Men are accustomed to handling things more or less openly. Women’s world is different — through glances, sympathies, antipathies. It is more non-objective.” IK: Where is the evidence for such a loud claim? How is my “handling of things” less objective than Viesturs Rudzītis’s or Ansis Stabingis’s? AJS: Men more easily perceive the obvious (objective). Women, better than men, perceive the invisible (subjective). A classic women’s phrase that illustrates this difference is “but I clearly hinted to him that…” Significant differences in social skills are observable from the first three months of life. See here. And here are several more studies. Another thing: Viesturs is not writing about you, Iveta. He is writing about women. The fact that this is not the case for you does not mean Viesturs is wrong. Nor does it mean you are not a woman. 2) VR: “Women have a different unconscious goal than in the men’s world. In the men’s world, the goal is objective and quantitatively measurable — more money, a taller house, more wives.” IK: Inconsistent with goals characteristic of many men I know — especially those who consider self-actualization important. Evidence that men have precisely these goals? If someone does not, then they are not a man? AJS: Viesturs is talking about the unconscious goal. Unconscious — that is what is not conscious. It is impossible to talk about it, because to talk about things, they must be conscious. But even if self-actualization is a man’s conscious (to himself) and declared (to others) goal, that does not make it unmeasurable. Even to such subjective things as inner growth, peace, harmony, a man can very easily apply quantitative thinking. That is my subjective experience as a man. Regarding the difference in goals, here is one study, and here is another. 3) VR: “In the women’s world, the main thing is security and the system of guaranteeing it through power.” IK: Not so for me. Not for the majority of women I know either. Where is the evidence for such a loud claim? AJS: (I already answered above about Viesturs’s article not being personally about you). Viesturs is talking about women’s world. It is a metaphor. In nature, women’s world does not exist. What exists in nature — women give birth to children. Before that, a woman carries this child for nine months. The pregnancy period is difficult. Childbirth is difficult. Every woman knows that during this time she is limited in her ability to care for herself, for the environment, for the newborn child — for several years. Therefore, every woman has a need to somehow ensure her and her child’s safety for the period when her own capacity for action will be limited. To obtain some guarantees (for example, in the form of a marriage vow). 4) VR: “There is objective security — war or peace — and subjective security, when security comes through personal feelings — I feel or do not feel safe. In the women’s world, it is about subjective security.” IK: It is very important to me whether there is war or peace: regardless of whether it affects me personally or not. Am I not a woman? AJS: This is a continuation of the previous claim. War in general, somewhere (i.e., one that does not affect you personally) is a concept. Both men and women have various concepts; that does not differentiate the genders. But for a woman, thinking about her own child, it is important to feel safe. Just as for small children — what matters is not objective safety but the subjective feeling of safety. Once again — the fact that this is not the case for you does not mean you are not a woman. Nor does it mean Viesturs is wrong. 5) VR: “If there is a large number of women in public politics, it means that the main decision-making is happening somewhere else.” IK: Inconsistent with observations even about Latvian politics. It is precisely the “guys” who have until now been making more decisions in various saunas and at zoos. Therefore: evidence? AJS: True, this is inconsistent with observations, because in Latvian politics there has not yet been a large number of women. For a possible comparison, one might observe the transparency of the decision-making process and the amount of gossip in distinctly female and distinctly male collectives. 6) VR: “Does the Saeima really pay so much that a decent guy could go there to work and earn? But you could send a wife there to sit in interesting company. We guys will figure out among ourselves what needs to be done, and we’ll tell her how to vote.” IK: … is Rudzītis saying that female MPs and ministers are in politics so that their husbands could make decisions through them?! AJS: The salaries of MPs have been discussed quite extensively in precisely this context — whether they are worthy of a decent man, which in turn raises questions about the true motivation of Saeima deputies. About women in the Saeima: I agree that one specific example is not proof. But — do you remember a deputy named Inese Šlesere? In your opinion, was she an example of an independent and independently thinking politician? 7) VR: “I predict that with each election the proportion of women in the Saeima will increase, and when there are more than 50% women, it will become clear that the Saeima is pointless. We will have returned to feudalism, and the main decision-makers will be feudal lords, where there are ‘fathers” rights and sons’ respect for the father.” IK: What f***ing nonsense! Norway and other Scandinavian countries, where they will soon have those 50%, are therefore approaching parliamentary pointlessness? AJS: Viesturs later in the article explains how he uses the word “feudalism.” The Scandinavian countries have a different society, a different culture, so I do not know whether it is possible to apply Viesturs’s prediction to them. About today — from what I read in the public sphere, the question of decision-making not in the Saeima, but “In the Clouds or by the Sea” remains topical. Though there is no evidence for that either.

Conclusion

This article has already taken more of my time than I wished to devote to it. However, a few more things: Trying to understand why this discussion has been so unusually long-lived, one possible guess is that Viesturs has touched upon a forbidden topic. A taboo topic. A topic that everyone knows about but does not speak about — or speaks about only in a strictly regulated way. In Freud’s time, it was sex. Now one may speak about sex, but the taboo, apparently, is the differences between men and women. Recently on LTV there was a segment about a social experiment in which journalist Antra Leimane, in two different outfits (boyish and feminine), simulated a bicycle breakdown. (The video is online, but I could not find it.) The reactions of surrounding men differed radically. Such is reality. This reality has a basis, including a biological one. But one may speak about it only in a strictly defined way, which Viesturs apparently did not observe. I also see that Viesturs did not burden himself with such a fashionable thing as political correctness. With all the caveats of “I think,” “this is only my opinion,” “one could assume that,” and so on. That is why the text sounds so categorical. And creates the desire to argue. About taking offense. No text is offensive in and of itself. Whether a text offends someone depends primarily on the reader of the text. About the ideas expressed in the interview. The ideas expressed by Viesturs in his articles and elsewhere about male-female roles and relationships are consistent with ancient human truths (laws) described in Ayurveda and similar teachings. These truths live in each of us, yet they are not accessible to everyone’s comprehension. (Again, this is neither a deficiency nor a reproach; simply — each of us is different.) Many of these laws are based on the natural. Culture, on the other hand, often works against the natural. The new achievements of modern culture — feminism, equality — are values, yet they bring with them many side effects — unwanted accompanying phenomena that cause suffering, which people encounter individually. Both men and women. I and my colleagues encounter this and work with it every day. By becoming more conscious, it is possible to see these connections in oneself, in actions, in others. Finally — a bit about ethics: adherence to ethical requirements (and the code of ethics) is every psychotherapist’s duty. There are also a number of requirements that must be observed when speaking publicly. There are actions that are unequivocally and unquestionably evaluable as ethical violations. The interview published in NRA is not one of them. However, it is obvious that more discussion is needed about psychotherapists’ public statements, their form and purpose. These events and the related reactions provide good grounds for that. Good evening! Addition on the morning of February 3: Viesturs Rudzītis’s longer commentary on his blog.