La Risa: Un juicio juguetón?

La risa, ¿remedio infalible para un mundo de matones?

En este ambiente de separación, confrontación, sectarismo y violencia en que vivimos, florece el matoneo (bullying). Las estadísticas muestran que en los Estados Unidos al menos un 70 por ciento de los niños han presenciado ese tipo de acoso en las escuelas y un 30 por ciento han sido víctimas, un número similar al reportado por el DANE en Colombia. En España el porcentaje es de solo 10 por ciento con variaciones por región. En Noruega se reporta un 13 por ciento. Pero este matoneo no se limita a la escuela. Se presenta en el trabajo, en la familia y últimamente en Internet.

El bullying es un acto de crueldad intencional para dominar a otro. Solo hasta el año 2014 el Centro de control de enfermedades (CDC, por sus siglas en inglés) definió oficialmente el bullying para el propósito de la investigación y el seguimiento de casos. El bullying se caracteriza por una conducta agresiva repetitiva y un desequilibrio de poder. Existe bullying directo e indirecto y se le divide en cuatro categorías: físico, verbal, relacional (como esfuerzos por dañar la reputación o relaciones del otro) y daño a la propiedad de la víctima. Con el mayor uso de los aparatos digitales, el ciberbullying se ha generalizado. Este ofrece la ventaja del anonimato para quien lo inicia y es difícil de detectar por parte de los padres y los maestros.

Las víctimas de bullying consideran el suicidio con una frecuencia de dos a nueve veces mayor que otros niños, según un estudio de la universidad de Yale.

Las consecuencias del bullying pueden ser devastadoras para un joven. En octubre del 2012, Amanda Michelle Todd, una quinceañera canadiense se suicidó después de producir un video donde compartía su desolación como víctima del ciberbullying. Fue un campanazo de alerta para el mundo entero que empezó a poner más atención.

Sin embargo, ¿dónde están los controles, las reformas, las leyes o el debate público sobre el tema? ¿Dónde está la consciencia pública que nos levanta colectivamente contra esta forma de abuso? Aunque somos más conscientes de que el problema existe, aunque se han propuesto soluciones, aunque se han emitido nuevas leyes, aún no se logra cambiar la cultura que favorece estas conductas.

No es un buen precedente que en los Estados Unidos se haya elegido presidente a un candidato que se ha caracterizado por estimular el prejuicio, la discriminación y la violencia durante sus campañas y presidencia con la aquiescencia de los medios de comunicación. Sus bravatas continuan siendo miedosas y frecuentes hasta el punto de queremos evadir las noticias y los análisis políticos de los medios, que nos dejan exhaustos, y preferimos escuchar a los comediantes que hacen circo con este personaje, con la ilusión de estar utilizando una forma menos estresante de enterarnos (pero sin el corazón apretado y los ojos llorosos) del manejo que se da a la problemática nacional e internacional.

El fundador del psicoanálisis, Sigmund Freud, consideraba el chiste una actividad lingüística del inconsciente[1]. El chiste por lo regular convierte a su sujeto en blanco sobre el que liberamos agresividad contenida. No nos digamos mentiras, el chiste, la comedia, constituyen con frecuencia otra herramienta de matoneo y aunque en ocasiones cumplan con la función de denunciar o de liberar tensión, no tienen una finalidad constructiva, no generan cambio. Los comediantes nos hacen reír a costa de aquella persona o tirano a los que se pintan como malos, ridículos o inapropiados. Y nosotros nos reímos en grupo y nos sentimos aliviados y no solo aceptamos este otro tipo de matoneo, sino que lo condonamos ¡incluso cuando se usa como crítica de los métodos de un matón! Algunos comediantes juegan un papel social de denuncia y crítica, pero a la vez corren el peligro de trivializar asuntos muy serios. El público se identifica con el comediante, y la risa permite liberar la tensión de nuestro propio enojo y canalizar agresividad; el chiste tiene pues también una función catártica. Lo triste es cuando la crítica, el juicio, la denuncia que hay detrás de los monólogos del showman, no se transforman en acción en busca de soluciones. Aunque puedan contribuir a crear consciencia, ayudan a perpetuar el statu quo. Alimentan el cinismo y la desesperanza cuando el mundo lo que más necesita es un optimismo (o un posibilismo, como diría la investigadora y autora Francesa Moore Lappé) que conlleve a la certeza de que conocemos las soluciones, de que éstas son posibles y todos podemos contribuir a ponerlas en acción.

Desafortunadamente, este mundo en el que vivimos adopta el bullying a todo nivel como un mecanismo protector, perpetuador de la cultura predominante. Las consecuencias del aislamiento, ridiculización y otras formas de acoso emocional, verbal y físico que caracterizan al llamado bullying, causan sufrimiento a las víctimas. Nada más opuesto a la creación de una cultura solidaria y al florecimiento de la compasión y el amor que una cultura que fomente el odio y el desprecio. La existencia del matoneo desde el nivel de la escuela primaria hasta el del presidente del país que se considera el más poderoso del mundo, son un síntoma de los males que padece la humanidad. Entonces, el bullying se extiende desde el nivel individual hasta las relaciones internacionales y se valida con la, aparentemente inocua, charada. Pero el mal que nos afecta no se va a curar a punta de risa. Un elemento positivo del chiste sería su potencial para generar vergüenza y cambiar el comportamiento, pero esto solo sucede en una persona que tenga consciencia de sí. Por otra parte, vale la pena preguntarse si en la medida en que los procederes que antes generaban vergüenza se vuelven comunes y aceptables y hasta graciosos (el comportamiento de un borracho en público, por ejemplo, o incluso la interpretación jocosa de una figura como la del presidente de los Estados Unidos en shows como Saturday Night Live[2]), esto permite, promueve o incluso incita a la imitación de esas conductas y en vez de tener una función crítica, la burla contribuye a la trivialización de un asunto muy serio.

[1] “El chiste es un juicio juguetón”, decía Ernst Kuno Berthold Fischer, filósofo, historiador y crítico del siglo XIX en quien basó Freud su trabajo de investigación sobre el tema.

[2] El actor Alex Baldwin se ha preguntado acertadamente si su impresión de Donald Trump hizo al presidente simpático para un público que debiera más bien ser crítico de sus acciones.

Dueños de este mundo globalizado

Por Silvia Casabianca

El sociólogo y filósofo polaco Zygmunt Bauman, fallecido a comienzos del 2017, se pronunció sobre la fragilidad de los vínculos entre humanos en tiempos de inseguridad, típica de este mundo constantemente cambiante y globalizado. En esta vida moderna caracterizada por su liquidez (fluidez) no existen vínculos permanentes, todos los acuerdos son temporales, decía Bauman, y el lazo que ate cualquier vínculo debe dejarse suficientemente suelto para que pueda
desamarrarse de nuevo, tan pronta y fácilmente como sea posible, si las circunstancias cambian.

La polarización creciente

Bauman fue uno de los ideólogos que alentaron el movimiento de oposición contra el G-20 con sus prolíficos escritos (60 libros) sobre el cambio constante: la variación en modas e intereses, de sueños y de miedos; cambios en las relaciones, en las identidades y en la economía global. El alertó sobre el poder de las corporaciones. Se refirió a la polarización creciente entre las élites y el resto de la población y al desinterés del público por el destino y situación de millares de personas que hoy viven en condiciones infrahumanas. Anticipó también cómo la disputa por el control de los mercados mundiales afectaría la suerte de las poblaciones e individuos más vulnerables.
Vale preguntar si nos hemos desensibilizado frente a las tragedias que suceden en otros rincones del mundo. ¿Dónde está nuestra empatía, nuestra solidaridad?

Bauman y otros opositores del G-20 han protestado ante el hecho de que un puñado de burócratas y de jefes de Estado se arroguen el derecho a tomar las decisiones sobre el destino de millones de seres humanos y, además, impongan coercitivamente dichas decisiones. En resumidas cuentas, se oponen a que el modelo patriarcal se extienda a las relaciones de poder a nivel mundial. El Grupo de los 20 (G-20) está constituido por los 19 países más ricos del mundo y la Unión Europea. Es un foro que plantea como su objetivo la consulta y colaboración entre países miembros y discute temas relacionados con el sistema financiero internacional, especialmente la relación entre países industrializados y economías emergentes, según dicen, para garantizar la estabilidad financiera internacional.
Aunque este grupo de ricas naciones se presenta como modelo de preocupación por el destino del mundo, el acceso al agua y la comida, el medio ambiente y la amenaza nuclear, los opositores del G-20 consideran que este no está precisamente movido por razones altruistas. Por el contrario, el G-20, dicen, se parece más bien a una congregación de depredadores complotando la repartición de la riqueza y el acceso a los recursos que todavía quedan en el mundo. No se trata de un grupo creado para escuchar a las naciones pobres ni para explorar sus necesidades únicas y no tiene entre sus objetivos el respetar su legado cultural o su idiosincrasia. Aunque se presenten como redentores y hablen extensamente del Acuerdo de París y la importancia de proteger el medioambiente y el planeta, la preocupación de fondo parece más bien
orientada a asegurar el control del mercado de las soluciones sostenibles cuando, dados los retos que presenta el consumo de combustibles fósiles en tiempos del calentamiento global, estas se conviertan inevitablemente en el gran negocio del siglo XXI.
Cuando las naciones del mundo se ven abocadas a competir por los recursos y el poder en lugar de ejercitar su prerrogativa soberana para desarrollar formas de vida basadas en la autodeterminación, la asociación voluntaria y la coexistencia pacífica, nadie gana. Ni siquiera ganan los países más poderosos de la tierra, declaran los opositores del G-20.

Los responsables
¿A qué, o a quiénes, debemos la crisis financiera, el calentamiento global, la violencia étnica, la crisis de los refugiados? ¿En manos de quién o mejor, de quiénes, está concentrado el poder en este planeta? ¿Y, cuáles son los verdaderos motivos que guían las acciones del Grupo de los 20 que pretende jugar el papel de redentor?
La competencia es a muerte por controlar los medios de comunicación y los recursos naturales. En este contexto la palabra democracia pierde contenido, pero gana en cambio terreno el populismo, porque hay que mantener la ilusión de que los gobernantes representan los intereses y la voz del pueblo y es necesario abanderar una libertad y una fraternidad que no existen.
Para Zygmunt Bauman, la libertad tiene un significado diferente al que comúnmente se le asigna. En su libro Freedom (Libertad), publicado en 1988 por la Universidad de Minnesota, el sociólogo considera que la libertad no existe como condición universal, sino que la sociedad moderna creó un concepto de libertad ligado al poder y al privilegio. Esto se evidenciaría en el hecho de que la libertad de unos se consigue a expensas de la falta de libertad de otros (caso del prisionero frente a los guardas, el trabajador frente a su patrón), los gobiernos se dan el lujo de otorgar o restringir libertades y, en un sistema donde prima el individualismo, la perspectiva del hombre cambia en cuanto a su responsabilidad para con sus semejantes y con su comunidad, con la colectividad y hacia sí mismo.
En este contexto, es la indignación empática, que nos hace desear que los culpables de este desastroso estado de cosas en el mundo paguen por las consecuencias de sus acciones.
Si no se respeta el derecho a la autodeterminación de los pueblos –irrespetarla es un gesto de agresión– existirá siempre un germen de indignación y aún, de violencia. Si no se promueve la coexistencia pacífica, la colaboración y la asociación voluntaria, no existirán empatía, compasión o solidaridad y ni siquiera verdadero progreso para nadie.

La disputa por el dominio de los recursos naturales en un mundo sobrepoblado genera guerras, invasiones e innumerables tragedias humanas. Basta observar el sufrimiento psicológico de los niños expuestos a los horrores de la guerra. O los miles de jovencitos reclutados para guerrear o forzados a cometer atentados suicidas. Los múltiples éxodos, el creciente número de refugiados, las condiciones en los campamentos donde se alojan, la escasez de recursos para quienes le
huyen a la guerra, son testimonio suficiente para corroborar que no vamos por el camino de la solidaridad; al contrario, transitamos por el camino equivocado.

La razón de nuestro enojo

Dr. Silvia Casabianca

Advertencia: hablo en primera persona.

Parto de la creencia de que cada uno de nosotros es único y que mis experiencias y conclusiones pueden no ser aplicables a los demás. La ventaja de hablar en primera persona es que no me da vergüenza revelar mi sombra. Quizás esto invite a otros, a veces, a juzgarme, y su juicio se basará en el hecho de que, además (o a pesar) de haber obtenido dos doctorados y de haber estudiado materialismo histórico y dialéctico, he practicado y enseñado también filosofías orientales que encuentro fascinantes y holísticas. Entre ellas, dos prácticas de medicina energética: una japonesa, llamada Reiki y otra china, llamada Chi Kung médico. Y he recorrido un camino que se puede llamar espiritual desde que tengo conciencia propia.

Predico que debiéramos amarnos los unos a los otros con la consciencia de que es imposible amar a un opresor y que la opresión es el principal obstáculo para la empatía y la compasión. Escribo sobre un Homo Amandi, un ser ideal hacia el que podemos evolucionar conscientemente, si no destruimos primero el planeta. Pero, entonces, ¿cómo explicar que no he logrado pulir mi lado “feo”?

Siendo humanos, no creo que logremos algún día abstraernos de la sociedad o aniquilar el ego. Ni siquiera creo que debamos deshacernos de él. El llamado ego (el de Freud o el de Lacan o el de uso cotidiano) juega un papel regulador de nuestra dimensión física. Si bien es cierto que nos causa muchos problemas, estamos a salvo cuando logramos habitar también ese aspecto nuestro que a veces conocemos como alma (no una que se salva y se va al cielo o el infierno, sino el alma entendida como ese aspecto luminoso en nosotros que logra sobreponerse a nuestra sombra, a nuestro lado más oscuro), la parte de nosotros que nos permite sentirnos hermanados con otros y responsables tanto de nuestro cuerpo como de un planeta que hemos convertido en basurero.

Consciencia de separación

No sé si puedo adherir a la creencia de que somos seres espirituales viviendo una experiencia humana. Para mí, este sería un postulado lineal. Implicaría aceptar una separación artificial entre aspectos físicos y espirituales de nuestro ser, siendo que ambos son parte de un todo. El problema es esta conciencia de separación y fragmentación que mantenemos. Creemos que o somos luz o somos sombra, que si no eres mi amigo, por fuerza has de ser mi enemigo, que si estoy en lo correcto, tú estás equivocado. Pero, ¿qué tal mirar al mundo desde una perspectiva dialéctica?

Otros lo han intentado y no voy a citar a Hegel o a Marx, sino a un escritor: Khalil Gibran y su obra maestra, El Profeta, o a un prolífico poeta: Rabindranath Tagore, porque ambos entendieron nuestra dualidad, la dialéctica de la vida que explica la alegría como un aspecto de la tristeza, por ejemplo. Ambos se sentaron con adultos y jóvenes, con personas de diversas procedencias y creencias, de desigual educación y riqueza material. Pensaron la fuerza en función de la unión de voluntades, no como una competencia donde siempre hay ganadores y derrotados. Los enemigos de la paz, al fin y al cabo, los enemigos del amor, los enemigos de la prosperidad general, son, al final, solo un puñado de poderosos que aniquilan física, emocional y mentalmente a las grandes mayorías.

También tengo problemas creyendo que estamos en este mundo para aprender y evolucionar… Si somos parte del todo, eso que suele llamarse alma ya lo tiene todo, lo sabe todo. Y me gusta pensar que la materia de la que está hecho el universo es el amor como un algo que aglutina, une, crece, y que nuestra existencia es una embarcada en una aventura fantástica. Sí, ¿por qué no? Habitar un cuerpo puede ser parte de una aventura, que, para esa parte del ser que aún no hemos desentrañado, no está hecha de materia mensurable (la conciencia) y que sería imposible experimentar si no fuera por su aspecto físico.

Esa aventura nos hace cada vez más conscientes de nuestra totalidad.

Una cuestión de poder

Cuando leí a Richard Bach por primera vez, no buscaba una respuesta, pero su explicación de por qué nos enojamos me tocó una fibra sensible. ¿Podrá ser? Siempre existe, decía, una cuestión de poder detrás de nuestro enojo. Por muchos años, puse a prueba esa hipótesis y, al menos para mí, funcionaba como explicación, así que la compartí con otros. Me fui dando cuenta de que, cuando me enojaba con, por ejemplo, esa persona que no brindaba un buen servicio al cliente por teléfono, mi enojo respondía a un sentimiento de “¿quién se cree que soy? ¿No puede darse cuenta de que no soy una tonta? ¿Por qué me habla como si yo no supiera nada del tema que le estoy consultando?”

Pero, ¿y los asuntos familiares? ¿Por qué nos enojamos con las personas que amamos? ¿Realmente nos involucramos en luchas de poder con ellas? A veces, la respuesta parecía ser un sí rotundo, así que adopté esa respuesta sin cuestionarla.

Más tarde, los escritos de Don Miguel Ruiz me ofrecieron otra perla de sabiduría. Nos enojamos, le oí decir en una presentación en el sur de Florida, porque nos lo tomamos como algo personal, como un ataque. ¿No es así? ¡Quizás!

Allí estaba yo, probando la nueva hipótesis, combinándola con la anterior, tratando activamente de saber la verdad. Sin embargo, solo recientemente caí en la cuenta de que el enojo debe estar relacionado con el amor o la falta de él.

Comencé a notar que el enojo podía estar relacionado con que el otro no me apreciaba y lo contrario del aprecio es… el menos-precio. El enojo estaba relacionado con lo que consideramos nuestra valía.

Y había algo más: mi reacción a la falta de amabilidad del otro me alertó sobre el hecho de que necesitaba sentirme amada y, cuando alguien era injusto, odioso, indiferente o prepotente conmigo, no me sentía apreciada. Ello me desequilibraba.

Pero, ¿de dónde proviene esa suposición de que debo ser apreciada?

¿Tiene que ver con problemas no resueltos de mi pasado? O simplemente con que vivimos en un mundo jerarquizado donde nos colocamos permanentemente en escalas: Los inteligentes y los brutos. Los estudiados y los ignorantes. Los ricos y los pobres. Los que tienen poder y los desempoderados.

Y, sin embargo, tengo la percepción de que existe una parte de mí que solo conoce el amor (el amor por el trabajo, por el planeta, por los otros seres, humanos o no, por la ciencia, por el saber, por la poesía). Es mi parte más humana la que conoce algo más. Lo que nos revienta, separa y pone a rivalizar, es el miedo. Una sociedad que hemos construido sobre la base de la codicia de poder y de riqueza.

Sin embargo, la experiencia de la falta de amabilidad también me sirvió de espejo –un descubrimiento más o menos reciente: veo mi propia incapacidad de amar a los demás incondicionalmente, de aceptarlos totalmente como son. Este descubrimiento me entristeció profundamente.

No pierdo la esperanza de que, al tomar conciencia de esto, pueda trabajar en ello de manera efectiva.

¡Déjalos ser y serán aprendices!

He discrepado obstinadamente de la idea de que los niños necesitan motivación externa (ser recompensados, castigados o empujados) para poder estudiar y aprender. En cambio, creo que deberíamos seguir su ejemplo y orientar nuestros esfuerzos educativos en la dirección de los intereses de los niños. Esto –y no estrategias que provoquen ansiedad– facilitaría el aprendizaje.

El difunto autor y educador estadounidense John Holt dijo: “… la ansiedad que sienten los niños al ser evaluados constantemente, su miedo al fracaso, al castigo y a la desgracia, reduce gravemente su capacidad tanto de percibir como de recordar, y los aleja del material que se está estudiando en estrategias para engañar a los profesores haciéndoles creer que saben lo que en realidad no saben”.

Observa a los jóvenes mientras, por ejemplo, están inmersos en sus videojuegos.

O míralos aprender sobre sus cantantes o ídolos deportivos favoritos. Los niños desarrollan por sí solos los conocimientos y habilidades necesarios para competir entre sí, sin la “motivación” de ningún adulto.

Lamentablemente, el mercado manipula la necesidad de socializar, encajar en un grupo y desarrollar las habilidades necesarias para satisfacer sus necesidades psicológicas de admiración y respeto que tenemos todos.

La educación debería reconocer que nos mueve una necesidad natural de aprender, especialmente sobre las cosas que nos importan, porque es una cuestión de supervivencia.

Más aún hoy en día.

Supervivencia del más apto

La noción de Darwin de que sólo sobreviven los más aptos se puede aplicar a todo lo que hacen los humanos. Los bebés aprenden a sentarse, rodar, levantarse, hablar y caminar sin que nadie les indique que deben hacerlo. Los procesos, características y comportamientos que se desarrollan durante la niñez pueden explicarse por una combinación de fuerzas biológicas (naturaleza) y condiciones ambientales (crianza).

Un código genético heredado determina el fenotipo (apariencia física), mientras que la familia, los factores socioculturales, la nutrición y la actividad física influyen en el desarrollo.

La naturaleza nos dota de ciertos talentos y habilidades que facilitan aprendizajes específicos, y el sistema educativo debería ofrecer a todos la oportunidad de desarrollar esos dones.

Nuestro desempeño y creatividad mejorarían enormemente si pudiéramos sentirnos cómodos y seguros haciendo lo que estamos haciendo.

La humanidad se está volviendo cada vez más intensivo en conocimiento

Estoy de acuerdo con la apreciación del fallecido gurú de la gestión, Peter Drucker, quien dijo: “De ahora en adelante, la clave es el conocimiento. El mundo se está volviendo intensivo no tanto en mano de obra, material y energía, sino en conocimiento.”

Pero eso lo sabes instintivamente. Instas a tu hijo a obtener un diploma de escuela secundaria y luego a esperar entrar a la universidad confiando en que encontrará mejores oportunidades laborales si obtiene una educación.

También sabes que cuando buscas trabajo, para cualquier empleador, tu valor personal dependerá de tu experiencia y formación, en otras palabras, de tus conocimientos.

Pero dirigir los currículos de las escuelas a triunfar en las pruebas que empujan a los estudiantes a devorar y memorizar contenidos, porque la admisión a la universidad depende de los puntajes del SAT y el promedio de calificaciones (GPA), no ayuda.

¿Son los educadores conscientes del nivel de ansiedad que crean estas pruebas? ¿De la posible relación entre exámenes, miedo al fracaso y aversión a la escuela?

Un niño es por naturaleza un explorador

Los bebés primero exploran el mundo poniéndose cosas a su alcance en la boca. Luego se alejan gateando y continúan explorando: agarran objetos del suelo, los prueban, los golpean, los arrojan tratando de entender qué son, qué función tienen.

Los bebés aprenden a sentarse y a pararse mediante un proceso repetitivo de prueba y error. Probar comportamientos que les den –con suerte– lo que quieren marca sus interacciones con las personas.

Creo que tenemos la culpa de estropear la tendencia natural del niño a explorar el entorno y aprender de él.

Los abrazamos

Con pocas excepciones, los que comenzaron como emocionantes por qués del niño de tres años pasan de ser lindos a ser una molestia (porque estamos ocupados en “asuntos más importantes”) y pronto nos cansamos de responder al interminable flujo de preguntas. Los abrazamos, tal vez.

Luego vamos y los distraemos con dibujos animados (para que no nos interrumpan) que comienzan a modular su comportamiento (porque estamos ocupados haciendo “cosas más importantes”). Y cuando por fin van a la escuela, básicamente los atamos a la silla y les exigimos atención concentrada.

Si demuestran intereses particulares, se les considera una distracción para el grupo. Olvidamos que todos los caminos conducen a Roma.

La curiosidad podría generar oportunidades de aprendizaje

Me he imaginado una escuela donde la maestra del jardín de infantes sería lo suficientemente inteligente e intuitiva como para permitir que el niño corra detrás de la colorida mariposa que se extravió en el aula.

La profesora podría utilizar la mariposa como un bonito pretexto para explicar formas y colores, proporciones, aerodinámica, gravedad y simetría (entre otros principios básicos de matemáticas y física) de una forma natural y comprensible. Y podría pedir a los niños que hicieran un dibujo del insecto para que aprendieran a expresar y representar el mundo en el que viven.

Pero lamentablemente nuestro sistema escolar empuja al maestro no solo a cumplir con las normas del colegio, sino a ofrecer resultados cuantitativamente mesurables, sin importar si el niño desarrolló o no habilidades de otro tipo.

The challenge of a renaissance soul

So, was there really something amiss with me? Even with this notion gnawing at me, I wouldn’t have rewritten a single word of my life’s narrative. It had been perfect just as it was, trials, tribulations, and all. I had learned abundantly, shared generously, and my life had always revolved around educating, healing, and writing. The uncertainty about anything else felt perfectly acceptable.

Having been away from my hometown for years, I missed the opportunity to attend alumni reunions or homecoming events in two decades. Then the Alma Mater invited us to celebrate our 25th medical school graduation anniversary. Out of the original 30 medical students, the 18 of us that graduated together were a spirited group of dreamers, eager to make a difference in the world.

Upon arriving at the gathering, I faced a stark realization that time had indeed marched on. My peers resembled our former professors, not just because they had shed their student attire, but also because each were showing gray hair and a touch of middle-age paunch (not me, I thought). As they shared updates on the years gone by, a second intriguing revelation struck me. Each of them had realized their dreams while I was still navigating the world. Or, as a dear friend in their sixties put it, I was still figuring out what I wanted to be when I grew up. However, no matter how young I felt, I was undeniably an adult. I had been married (and subsequently divorced), raised a remarkable daughter, fulfilled my earlier promise to serve the less fortunate, crisscrossed my country, ventured into the publishing industry, contributed articles to various publications, was on the verge of publishing my first book, had traveled to Canada to become an art therapist, and established a non-profit focused on youth alongside an innovative school.

Choosing Art Therapy as a second career was driven by the desire to add a new approach to my work with young individuals. It also felt like the perfect moment to amalgamate all my passions: to converge the roles of healer, educator, and artist.

Until then, I had never echoed my parents’ concerns about the need to find a “stable and secure life.” Even though I hadn’t amassed much wealth, I was quite content with my learning process and achievements and felt my life had been exceedingly engaging, meaningful.

However, looking at my friends, it struck me how early, at 20 or 22, they had known exactly what they wanted for their lives. Now, in midlife, they appeared accomplished and prosperous.

I had reasons then to suspect that I was an adult grappling with attention deficit disorder. I even consulted my Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), and some of the criteria did seem to apply. So, was there really something amiss with me? Even with this notion gnawing at me, I wouldn’t have rewritten a single word of my life’s narrative. It had been perfect just as it was, trials, tribulations, and all. I had learned abundantly, shared generously, and my life had always revolved around educating, healing, and writing. The uncertainty about anything else felt perfectly acceptable.

A few years prior to the gathering, fresh from Canada with a wealth of knowledge about mental health stereotypes (apologies: “diagnoses”), I vowed that, in order to become a “fully functional, stable adult,” the time had come for me to settle down. I would reside in the same place for more than the customary average of three to five years in one place, which had been my norm, and devote myself to a single specialty.

Was it truly feasible? Life, it seemed, had other plans for me. Although I did stay put for 13 years, I held three part-time jobs, ran a non-profit, and maintained a private clientele. And then, I relocated to the United States when circumstances grew challenging in my homeland. I started from scratch in Florida, and had to be really creative to make a living. I went to massage school so that I could continue to offer Reiki treatments (had recently become a Reiki Master), I became a Trager practitioner, I got my mental health license after a few years, I became a consultant for a massage school’s continuing education department, created a business to promote holistic healing, wrote for several publications, published a few books, and I opened a Holistic Center in Bonita Springs.

Over time, I came to truly value what I had gleaned from my myriad passions and occupations. I even discovered that there was a label for my type of personality, and that it had gained acceptance, even becoming trendy. They call us Renaissance souls. According to the person credited with coining the term, author Margaret Lobenstine (Secrets of the Renaissance Soul), adaptable souls like us stand a better chance of thriving in a world that’s very fluid. Our diverse passions and experiences have made us adaptable, resilient, and capable of offering more than just a narrow set of skills in the job market.

Anger, the deadliest sin

By Silvia Casabianca

You may remember. In 2007, we were shocked with the news:

A Southcorean, “Seung-Hui Cho, 23, an English major, killed 32 people and committed suicide at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history.”

As we were reminded by this deadly event, anger has the power to ruin families and lead humans to committing unthinkable acts.

In the aftermath of killings like this one, full-size WHYs hammer our mind. Seung-Hui Cho killed his mates without a word of warning. He had enough cold blood to leave the campus after killing two, email his videos and come back to continue with the killings on campus. Do we need to ask why? 

It’s easy to excuse ourselves from any responsibility here by saying that this man was sick, that his classmates “innocently” tormented him because of his bizarre behavior and that they could not have anticipated the impact of the bullying on him or that the real origin of his mental health symptoms was in the poisonous effects of chemicals from his family’s dry cleaning business.

In a public statement, his sister said that his family, “never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence.”

Why not?

How is it possible that not one single person perceived the magnitude of the anger Cho had bottled in, anger which ended in such a fatal episode? Maybe we have learned to view anger as an inevitable part of life, a human “nature” feature, an emotion that does not necessarily need to be overcome, and that many even accept and justify presenting us with the image of a biblical wrathful Jehovah, or of a loving Jesus who was still capable of enough ire to whip merchants out the Temple.

However, we know better. And from this painful lesson and the many more mass killings that have happened since, we may learn that it would do a lot more good to our society if people understood God and Jesus as synonyms of joy and love and compassion.

Why was Cho so lonely that nobody helped him overcome his anger, calm his fears, resolve his hatred? After the killings, it is difficult to say that it was “none of our business.” We won’t be the same after mass murders happen. It is our business.

In addition to the profound compassion that I feel for the families and friends of those sacrificed in mass killings, at the level of my soul I feel also a deep compassion for people like Cho, a person who seemingly lived a tortured life, and I pledge to advocate not only for a zero-tolerance-to-violence society but for a zero-tolerance-to-indifference world.

These events might not be part of our conversations after a few weeks, but they will not easily be forgotten. We might choose to forgive the murderers and question the responsibility of those who couldn’t prevent the tragedy. However, I am aware that nothing positive would come from hating a murderer or just pointing fingers.

Of course, the above are not the only questions that came to mind.

If, from a spiritual standpoint, we are all one, what is our responsibility in this situation, as a society?  “We fell down with everyone in that classroom,” a blogger said referring to the victims of the VA killings, and I share the feeling. Let the questioning that seek explanation to delayed warnings and delayed response to the threats be.

I comfort myself after such sad days thinking that after a terrible act of violence like this strikes our hearts, it, extraordinarily enough, also opens the gates to appreciating life in its fullest (imagine what those who were spared feel now!), to reflecting on contributing to building a compassionate society, of learning and teaching socioemotional skills at home and in schools.

Let’s take a moment each day to express our love to our fellow humans who are mourning dear ones after these tragedies occur, including the family of the gunmen. And then, take another moment to feel our responsibility to promote a world where we truly support each other.

Spiritual seeking or fashionable Secret

By Silvia Casabianca

You complain: “Life is difficult, unfair and lonely. My efforts are seldom acknowledged or rewarded. I don’t have the family, job, house, car or friends that I deserve. Not only life is not as it should be, but I cannot change the world to my convenience. Or, can I?” But then came The Secret (the movie, the CD, the book).

“Oh, you certainly can, because you create the world you live in with your thoughts, your words and your actions,” the masters say. “Just learn the principles of the ‘Law of Attraction’ and all you desire will be manifested. If it doesn’t work, just review if you are using the principles properly: find out what you’re doing wrong.”

“This is The Secret to everything – the secret to unlimited joy, health, money, relationships, love, youth: everything you have ever wanted,” read the promise delivered on The Secret’s first official web page. A misnomer by now, The Secret carries a message that caught the attention of the world in a way that perhaps none of the former publications on spirituality, religion or how to become rich in three seconds have.

So, if you crave an abundant, a worry-free life, and you haven’t seen the movie or bought the book, what are you waiting for? Besides, it’s not the only book on the topic. You can get Ask and It Is Given: Learning to Manifest Your Desires, by Esther Hicks or The Master Key System, by Charles F. Haanel, to name a few.

In the past 50 years or so, the Americas, from Alaska to La Patagonia, have been flooded with information on spiritual, religious and metaphysical matters. Most of the material presumably comes from the East or from esoteric knowledge that was previously withheld from the public. This knowledge has been marketed through books, CDs, DVDs, movies, social media and charismatic speakers. Shall we hypothesize that spirituality provides more answers than science? Even though science has dug deeper and deeper and to the level of the most minuscule particles life is made of, it would seem that the answers it provides do not suffice. In our quest for meaning, it’s not the amazing biomarkers helping doctors in early detection of cancer, the trip to Mars, or the development of fiber optics, and artificial intelligence, but the feeling that God is reachable what brings hope to people whose lives have been stricken by disease or scarcity.

Back in 2001, the economist Paul Zane Pilzer reported that Americans were spending $200 billion annually on wellness, from fitness clubs to vitamins. Well, in 2022, the industry surpassed the $450 billion mark.

Although wellness and nutritional products have reached a plateau and have faced the threat of limitations brought about by regulation of supplements and vitamins by the FDA, the industry continues to hold the promise of getting to the trillion-dollar mark soon. However, a glance at the incredible success of such movies as What the Bleep do We Know, Conversations with God, How to Know God, and The Secret, is enough to see that spirituality as merchandise nipped at the wellness industry’s heels.

What are these products really selling? Hope? Magic? A power drawn from realizing that one’s life is totally on one’s own hands? The common ingredient is faith. Recently, a Reiki patient reminded me of Friedrich Nietzsche’s definition of faith: “Not wanting to know what is true.”

Indeed, and beware! You can use superficial knowledge of the laws of the universe, or a poorly-understood spiritual principle as a tool to deny your reality. Therein lies the danger of the trivialization of metaphysics, the commercialization of the sacred and the cheapening of spirituality.

How could anyone learn the principles that gurus have mastered in a lifetime of dedication and meditation by watching a movie, listening to a tape or attending a weekend seminar? No Buddhas or Einsteins are born in a snap. Why is the marketing of promises to make over our lives so successful? Is people’s wishful thinking replacing effort and creativity in resolving financial needs, or are we all truly looking for a spiritual life and a re-encounter with a re-defined God that exists within? Is this perhaps a unique rebellion, turning off the current paradigm, whereby only a few deserve abundance and good health?

In Where Are We Going? (ReVision magazine, spring, 2001), Mariana Caplan discussed contemporary spirituality trends: “When mystical experiences become our obsession, and we run from workshop to teacher to fancy esoteric tradition looking for the next high, we have taken a great detour from the needs of our culture – a culture that is obsessed with boldness but devalues subtlety; that is infatuated with excess but scorns simplicity; that honors selfishness while mumbling about service.”

Educating in love and not in fear

(excerpts from Silvia Casabianca’s book: Heartminded: Conscious evolution from fear to solidarity)

Loving without knowing how to love wounds the person we love. To know how to love someone, we need to understand them. To understand them, we have to listen. 
—Thich Nhat Hanh.

At the age of nine, a moment of inspiration set me on a path to becoming an educator. I felt, rather than knew that something was wrong with education at home and school. I would have to reread Little Men (Roberts Brothers, 1871), by Louisa May Alcott, to fully understand the impact this book had on me at that early age. The Plumfield Estate School, run by Mama Baher (the protagonist) with her husband, seemed like a paradise where children were treated with respect, empathy, and affection, but, above all, where there was an understanding that the students were children, and teachers allowed them to be so.

Although I had already been born with a call to support others’ healing processes (a desire to become a doctor that goes as far back as I can recall) and had also made my first attempts at writing stories, I promised to myself that one day I would create a different kind of school. It took me thirty-four years to gather enough faith in myself to dare to start one.

The school project came together thanks to the selfless dedication of the members of our Fundación para el Desarrollo del Joven—fundeijoven—created in 1991, and later, thanks to the support of a relative, Margot de Pellegrino, founder of the Fundación para la Actualización de la Educación (FACE), in Bogotá. Without the background of my youth work in Magangué in 1986, a youth project developed in Barrio Chiquinquirá in Cartagena, between 1988 and 1989, and the successful experience of our Carpe Diem school in Cartagena, I would not claim any authority to talk about educating in love. Ours was a very fruitful experience. In our model of education (1991 to 2001), we created an environment with zero tolerance of any form of violence, and children were never coerced into studying out of fear of not passing tests or of getting failing grades. Students evaluated themselves according to the objectives they had previously set for themselves. Teachers learned to avoid labeling children, understanding the negative impact tags can have on the formation of a child’s identity.

We were further encouraged by Summerhill School, an independent British boarding school founded in 1921 by Alexander Sutherland Neill, who believed schools needed to fit the child’s needs and talents instead of imposing standard curricula that disregard we’re all different. They understood play as an invaluable learning opportunity.

At Carpe Diem, we believed that a student-centered education that respects the individual’s pace and interests renders positive outcomes. Children’s questions were encouraged, and they learned to formulate hypotheses and search for answers. It stimulated their critical thinking and mathematical skills. Children had direct access to books in the classrooms (use of computers was still limited).

British academic and learning innovations consultant, Steven Wheeler says, “True pedagogy is far more that someone instructing. Pedagogy is leading people to a place where they can learn for themselves.” But even in the digital era, it doesn’t work that way. In many cases, education fosters dependency.

The learning process we implemented at Carpe Diem allowed children to access information sources, they became skilled in processing data, and then they found ways to apply what they learned to real life. It facilitated the acquisition of advanced cognitive abilities.

Our pedagogical innovation was intent on eliminating fear. It aimed at becoming a model for educating in love. No doubt, fear is a strong motivator. It leads you to do whatever prevents pain. It works as an external emotion regulator. But educating in love involves applying empathy in the educational process. It leads to self-soothing, introspection, strengthened bonds, self-motivated learning, and joy.

Some children came to Carpe Diem after experiencing difficulties in other education centers. Several had lost motivation for learning and felt frustrated at not achieving what was expected of them in their previous schools. Some had trouble socializing, which seemed related to highly competitive environments where they had experienced bullying. But often, it was the unrealistic expectations of their parents and teachers—frustrated by certain behaviors or because the children were falling short of high standards—that seemed to be at the root of the children’s behavior.

In our experience, an institution concerned more with academics or achievement than with a student’s process runs the risk of neglecting the emotional development of the child in all its different components: affect, safety, the ability to be assertive, socialization, and the management of sexuality.

Besides the family, the school is one of the most crucial social factors influencing the emotional maturation of the child; therefore, it’s also decisive in the development of cognitive processes (attention, memory, perception, and observation). But schools can also have a significant impact on the emotional and social development of the child. Therefore, they must aim at creating anxiety-free environments while contributing to nurturing and gratifying the emotional needs of the child, promoting curiosity, allowing exploration, and stimulating mastery of certain skills and talents.

The spiritual leader Osho said that schools should focus on teaching the art of living, the art of dying, and meditation (in addition to some English, science, and mathematics): “A real education will not teach you how to compete; it will teach you to cooperate. It will not teach you to fight and come first. It will teach you to be creative, to be loving, to be blissful, without any comparison with the other. It will not teach you that you can be happy only when you are the first.”

Do schools teach children how to love others? Do schools show children the best ways to love and respect their bodies? What about children learning about the responsibility we all have in the preservation of the earth?

It’s sad to see how many children eat plenty of foods laden with empty-calories or fats (junk food) or subject their bodies to exercises and fashion regimes without grasping the long-term negative impact those might have on their bodies. At Carpe Diem, children learned they had choices, but eating junk food was not one of them because, why would you put harmful things in your body? To make a healthy decision you need to first fully develop your awareness. Teachers (and parents) need to direct the attention of the child to what is best for them.

The issue of loving the body deserves special mention in a consumer society that seems to promote a progressive and slow murdering of our bodies. I’d dispute the idea that allowing children to choose certain foods is love. Why feed our children with foods that lead to chronic inflammation and illnesses? Only because we’re not making healthy choices ourselves. Please note the terms we use reflect the treatment we give our bodies: you kill yourself working; you eat crap; you party till you drop; you might compete to death. These expressions are woven into the fabric of a culture that steadily disrespects the body. This is not to mention how widespread the abuse of mood-altering substances and pharmaceuticals has become.

The benefits of learning to love extend beyond oneself, but they begin with self-knowledge and the development of self-compassion.

In the Art of Loving, Fromm explains how the practice of any art––including the art of loving––requires discipline, concentration, patience and dedication, without which no art can’t be mastered.

In our school, Carpe Diem, our schedule offered two weekly hours for self-exploration. It was a safe space for the children to examine relational issues and learn to express their feelings openly. “Safe space” refers to a place and moment in which a person can feel comfortable and sheltered. Where they can express themselves freely and gain insight, knowing that they’re listened to and accepted, and that what’s said is confidential. Once a safe space is created, it becomes easier to express emotions and develop a healthy capacity to regulate them. In these group sessions the students were able to put on the table any grievances or conflicts existing between them or between them and their teachers, and this gave them the opportunity to mature ways of solving conflict. Sometimes they watched a movie and discussed its content or examined their lifestyle and its impact on their bodies, on others, or on the world. They used music, painting, drama, or body movement to express themselves. It was a time, in short, for reflection and introspection.

The years have proven that our methodology had a positive impact on the lives of the children we served. The results reaffirm the idea that compassion can be taught, love can be learned, and fear can be excluded from education. Also, that we can offer models of solidary relationships and teach principles of cooperation.

It seems natural for children to respond lovingly. However, it’s important to invite them to look at the different ways in which others experience the world, helping them to reflect on the impact their actions have on others, on the planet, and on their bodies.

Much has been said about bullying. One of the ways to prevent harassment implemented at Carpe Diem included a very simple activity. When a student with special needs was admitted, we invited other students in the group to talk about their own challenges. When classmates reflected on their own needs or limitations, the new child relaxed. We embraced our common humanity, acknowledging that we all have some limitations that prevent us from functioning fully. These might be laziness, obsessing, or limping. Someone might have a stiff knee or headaches. Others might suffer from dyslexia or a visual deficit. Some children have to deal with extreme shyness, others with social anxiety. Part of our life journey has to be precisely about dealing with or overcoming our limitations.

According to research published in 2014 by the British not-for-profit organization Scope, about 67 percent of Brits felt uncomfortable when talking to a disabled person. A survey by Louis Harris and associates had found similar results in the US in the nineties. However, we can become aware of, and relate to the discomfort, if we use cognitive empathy to try to understand what another person is feeling.

When a child is going through emotional turmoil, one of the most common reactions from peers is to turn away (flee) because they don’t know how to handle the stress the situation elicits. We invited the children in Carpe Diem to open up and try to understand what the other child was going through and then to think of what they could do to support their peer. Most children responded positively to our suggestions. Being supportive is natural.

Stimulating empathy in children is one of the key objectives of inductive discipline. In this type of discipline, social transgressions are not approached with punishment.

Most modern educators are aware that punishment for social transgressions engenders reactions ranging from resentment to defiant behaviors. Instead, a child could be induced to feel sorry for the discomfort he might have caused and helped to reflect on the effect his actions had on another. Then a reparative action can be suggested—hugging, asking for forgiveness, inviting the other to play—so that shame and guilt are attenuated. These behaviors would be remembered and would eventually contribute to a reinforcement of the neural circuits for empathy. The newfound empathy will then contribute to limiting aggression and increase prosocial behavior.

Is narcissism fueling racism?

Is our racism fueled by narcissism? This is a time where we need to educate ourselves, strive to understand, use empathy to grasp what living in someone else’s skin means.

I’m throwing the question there, like bait, wishing someone will help me answer it. The question would not have much transcendence if it were not because many of the ills of humanity in the present are due to this plague, characterized by the incapacity to feel the pain of others.

BLM Vigil
Credits: https://blacklivesmatter.com/now-we-transform/

If narcissists lack something, it is empathy. They cannot connect with the feelings of others; they cannot grasp other people’s inner world. In the United States, it is essential to become “the” Number One, defeat a rival, earn more, be more productive, be famous, and the consequence is that more than anywhere else, but not exclusively, narcissism is becoming widespread. Narcissism and individualism are close cousins. The fact that the Times magazine called the Millenials the “Me me me” generation is not an accident. Neoliberalism feeds this trend. A neoliberal logic calls for a growing personal responsibility and discounts the solidary responsibilities of the state or the significance of social justice issues

It is reflected in the way we educate children, the way parents raise them, the undeserved praise we provide them? Is it a matter of intellectual rigidity where we cannot see beyond our limited experience and what we believe (or were told) is true?

As I see protesters all around the United States (and the world) marching in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement, as I see workers protesting and demanding fair wages, I also see the faces of hundreds of people who have no clue about what these protests are about. People who cannot understand what being a black person or living on less than a minimum wage means.

Racism is such that the actual color of the skin, the social status, the level of education doesn’t really matter if you’re not one of them. I have been called a “coloured” person because I come from a South American country (even if my skin color is rather milky white) and the medical degree I earned there, a white male Republican illustrated to me, is not as good and respectable as if I had earned it in this country!

I had to educate myself to understand that I can’t–and probably will never be able to–fully grasp what the experience of a “coloured person” is in this country.

I can say, though, that it requires empathy to step out of our comfortable places and get into someone else’s shoes. Narcissism is thinking we are better, we know better, and others should just be just like us.

I have often heard that if someone does not have a better life, they have not tried hard enough. Those who adhere to this theory are probably oblivious to the history of white supremacy, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, supremacy, and privilege. Will learning about the suffering black people endured while working to build the wealth of others allow us to be more empathetic? If not, what would?

Conscious evolution from fear to solidarity

How do we responde to stress or fear? We have choices but we need to learn how to regulate emotions and become more compassionate.

Dr. Silvia Casabianca argues that humans are hardwired for empathy, love and compassion. These gifts reside in our genes, our physiology, our chemistry, and they can be nurtured and developed. They can be harnessed and used to solve many of the problems we struggle with-from the interpersonal to the geopolitical. Millennia of human experience have led us to this moment when we are perhaps finally ready to embrace, and enact our true, loving nature. The coronavirus pandemic provides us with an opportunity to rethink the way we live, to appreciate what we have instead of craving for what we don’t have. This might be an opportunity to become more aware of how crucial relationships are and that we’re so interconnected that what I do, can affect everybody else. Go to www.SilviaCasabianca.com or buy her book in Amazon: https://tinyurl.com/ydy6eljm

We’re wired for love but humans have created stratified societies that enhance competition over cooperation and having over just being.   The coronavirus pandemic provides us with an opportunity to rethink the way we live, to appreciate what we have instead of craving for what we don’t have. This might be an opportunity to become more aware of how crucial relationships are and that we’re so interconnected that what I do, can affect everybody else.  
We often fail to embrace our common humanity or commit to our common destiny with full responsibility.   It often takes a crisis, an epidemic, a recession, an earthquake, a hurricane, to activate what Shelly Taylor called our tend-and-befriend response.   But if we learn new parenting and education modalities that take into account our human potential for empathy, compassion and solidarity, we will become equipped to solve the most pressing problems humanity and our planet face.

Our foremost asset is that we’re born hardwired for empathy, compassion, and love even if the current state of affairs in the world often seems to contradict this assertion.  

Many of our problems come from the way we learn to respond to fear or perceived threats in the environment without consciously assessing them first. In other words, we have not learned to regulate emotions, we respond automatically. This is mostly because our educational and parenting models are centered on modifying children’s behavior instead of promoting autonomy, self-compassion, and empathy.