Zašto mrzimo ispovjedno u ženskom pismu? - part 1

Američka autorica i novinarka Katie Roiphe, najpoznatija po svom djelu iz 1994. "Jutro poslije: Seks, strah i feminizam" (The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism) rekla je: "Da je Karl Ove Knausgaard žena koja strastveno piše bez jasnog i hitnog cilja o detaljima života, recenzije "Moje borbe" ( My Stuggle/Min Kamp) bile bi puno drugačije." Svoju tvrdnju Roiphe pojašnjava rečenicom: "Ono što se u muškog pisca percipira kao hrabrost i inovacija ili književno herojstavo, kod žena bi se čak i od strane liberalnih, prosvijetljenih i književnih krugova, protumačilo kao ekstremna oholost ili gore! "

Karl Ove Knausgaard norveški je autor, poznat po svojih šest autobiografskih romana nazvanih "Moja borba" (My Stuggle/ Min Kamp). Spomenuta djela doživljena su kao golema kontroverza, dijelom zbog naziva koji vuče paralelu s Hitlerovom "Mein Kampf", a dijelom i zbog toga što su mnogi smatrali da Knausgaard ide predaleko u otkrivanju privatnog života svojih prijatelja, bivše žene i obitelji. Unatoč tome, knjige su diljem svijeta dobivale pozitivne kritike, osobito prva dva izdanja koja su prije službenog objavljivanja proglašena fenomenom Norveške književnosti.

Tvrdnja Roiphove ne čudi ako uzmemo u obzir reakcije na debitantski roman Emily Gould "Prijateljstvo" (Friendship). Naime, kada govorimo o ispovjednom tekstu proizašlom iz ruku žene, autobiografsko nas u njemu iritira i ljuti te mu lako pripisujemo pojmove pretenciozno, uzaludno, tašto, usko, izklišeizirano i "žensko", a svi znamo koliko "žensko" ima negativnu konotaciju jer automatski pomišljamo na plačljivu, dramatičnu, infantilnu ženu. I premda je 32- godišnja Gould, bivša urednica portala Gawker, kreatorica veoma čitanih blogova Emily Magazine i Heartbreak Soup te autorica kolekcije osobnih eseja, objasnila kako je jako malo toga u "Prijateljstvu" autobiografsko jer se u istom nalazi previše detalja kojih se srami pa je miješanjem s fikcijom nastojala prikriti pretjerano intimne momente, i dalje je njezina proza dočekana na nož od strane kritike zbog navodno preizraženog ispovjednog tona. No, kako je ova mlada spisateljica prije svega poznata kao blogerica i esejistica koja otvoreno progovara o svojoj intimi, njezin je roman "Prijateljstvo" potaknuo brojne rasprave o ispovjednom pismu, iako ga se ne bi moglo kategorički definirati isključivo kao takvo.Malo smisla imaju i usporedbe s Lenom Dunham i polu-autobiografskom HBO-ovom serijom "Girls" kao i čuđenje nad ispodvjednim tonom općenito, budući da Gould svojim djelom samo osvježava formu koja se razvila u 50-ima i 60-ima, a kojom su se služile pjesnikinje kao što su Anne Sexton i Sylvia Plath te spisateljice poput Erice Jong i Doris Lessing.

Spomenute američke spisateljice sa sredine dvadesetog stoljeća već onomad su otvoreno pisale o vrlo privatnim iskustvima – seksu, depresiji, majčinstvu i obiteljskom životu, temama koje su do tad bile nedovoljno istražene u američkoj literaturi.Čak su i one imale preteče svog izražaja, čitavu tradiciju raznih oblika ženske literature kao što su pisma, dnevnici, memoari... Ovim su se književnim formama unutar zatvorenih vrata samostana vješto služile žene poput Sor Juane Inés de la Cruz, Hildegard von Bingen i Mechthild od Magdeburga. Tu su i one koje su na drugačiji način odlučile ne sudjelovati u obiteljskom životu, tradiocionalno predviđenom za ženu te se kao takve nikada nisu udavale, već su se posvetile svom radu, a to su primjerice Christina Rossetti, Jane Austen, sestre Bronte i Emily Dickinson.

Pritom smo zaboravili da se pisanje u ispovjednoj formi jednom smatralo jasnim političkim činom. Ispovjedno pisanje razvilo se dijelom i iz feminističkih pokreta u 60-ima i 70- ima. Kroz ove pokrete podizala se svijest o ženi i ženskom. Žene su počele pisati za druge žene o svojim iskustvima, plivajući vješto u izrazito osobnim i nekonvencionalnim književnim formama. Njihov cilj bio je stvoriti zajednicu koja bi destigmatizirala tradicionalne izvore srama kao što su seks, menstruacija, abortus...

Danas pojam "ispovjedno" vrlo često olako koristimo, i premda tu i tamo raspravljamo o književnim zaslugama ispovjednog teksta, rijetko se zamislimo nad tim što taj pojam zaista znači, kako ga koristimo i u kojem pogledu nas on zapravo ograničava. Kako je profesorica Lori Saint-Martin objasnila: "Domena osobnog i seksualnog uvijek je smatrana književnim kada govorimo o muškarcima (Saint Augustine, Rousseau, Michel Leiris, Henry Miller) i ispodvjednim kada govorimo o ženama (Colette, Erica Jong, Anaïs Nin)."

----------------------

    Why do we hate  the confessional in female writing? - part 1

American author and journalist Katie Roiphe, best known for her work from 1994. "The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism" said: "If Karl Ove Knausgaard was a woman passionately writing without clear and urgent aim about the details of life, reviews of "My struggle" (Min Kamp) would have been much different." Her claims Roiphe explains with the sentence: "What is in the male writer perceived as courage and innovation or literary heroism, would in a women writer be interpreted as extreme arrogance or worse even by the liberal, enlightened and within literary circles.

Karl Ove Knausgaard is the Norwegian author, famous for his six autobiographical novels called "My Stuggle" (Min Kamp). These works experienced a huge controversy, partly because of the name which draws a parallel with Hitler's "Mein Kampf", and partly because many thought that Knausgaard went too far in revealing private lives of his friends, ex-wife and family. Nevertheless, the book achieved almost global positive reviews, especially the first two editions, and even before its final publication was voted one of the biggest literary phenomenon in Norway ever.

Roiphe's claim is not surprising if we take into account reactions on Emily Gould's debut novel "Friendship". In fact, when we talk about confessional text that emerged from woman's hand, the autobiographical in it irritates us and makes us angry, and we readily ascribe terms like pretentious, vain, narrow, cliche and "womanly" to it, and we all know "womanly" has a negative connotation because we automatically think of the whiny, dramatic, infantile woman. And although 32-year-old Gould, former editor of the portal Gawker, the author of two widely read blogs Emily Magazine and Heartbreak Soup and the author of a collection of personal essays, explained that very little in "Friendship" is autobiographical because there is too much detail which is shameful, by mixing it with fiction she tried to cover up overly intimate moments, she was still brought under the knife in front of the critics due to the exceptional confessional notes. Because Gould's history as a blogger and essayist who says everything about her intimate life, her work prompted a debate on the confessional, although the novel "Friendship" can not be classified as confessional. Little sense also has the comparison to Lena Dunham's semi-autobiographical HBO's series "Girls" and the amazement with the confessional tone overall, since Gould's work only refreshes the form that was developed in the 50s' and 60s', and which was used by poets such as Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath and writers such as Erica Jong and Doris Lessing. 

These women more then openly wrote about very private experiences - sex, depression, motherhood and family life, themes which up to that time were poorly studied in American literature. Even they had their precursors, the whole tradition of various forms of women's literature such as letters, diaries, memories ... All these are forms which were written within the closed doors of the monastery and which served women like Sor Juan Inés de la Cruz, Hildegard von Bingen and Mechthild of Magdeburg. There are also those who otherwise decided not to participate in family life, traditionally meant for the woman and as such have never been married, but have dedicated themselves to their work, such are for example, Christina Rossetti, Jane Austen, Bronte sisters and Emily Dickinson.

We also forgot that writing in confessional form was once seen a clear political act. Confessional writing has also evolved partly from feminist movements in the 60s and the 70s. Through these movements awareness was raised about women and women's. Women began to write for other women about their experiences, floating artfully in superpersonal and unconventional literary forms. Their goal was to create a community that would destigmatize traditional sources of shame, such as sex, menstruation, abortion ...

Today, the term "confessional" is used so easily and often, and although here and there we discuss the literary merits of confessional text, rarely we ponder upon what that term really means, how we use it and in which way does it actually restricts us. As Professor Lori Saint-Martin explained: "The domain of personal and sexual was always considered literary when we talk about men (Saint Augustine, Rousseau, Michel Leiris, Henry Miller) and confessional when we talk about women (Colette, Erica Jong, Anais Nin)

Što je ljubav? - part 3

Ljubav je danas, kao i njen česti partner seks, trivijalizirana do te mjere da  se odgovor na pitanje što ljubav zaista jest, nudi samo u obliku konzumerističkog proizvoda. Stoga ljubav prvenstveno povezujemo s onom savršenom osobom koju čekamo cijeli život (pritom se konstrukcija cijeli život odnosi na period života do 30-e jer ako ste u 30-ima single što nije u redu s vama?),  maštovitim  humorističnim komedijama, čokoladama u obliku srca za Valentinovo, romantičnim večerama sa svijećama i raskošnim vjenčanicama do poda. Nitko ne spominje da su ljubav prije svega rad, znoj i kompromis, da ljubav često nema veze sa seksom, da ljubav nije neka sladunjava ideja nego vrlo ozbiljan koncept. Problem leži upravo u tome što toliko često miješamo pojmove seks i ljubav, što smo uvjereni da je to nešto što pada s neba, nešto savršeno i lako! A da bi razumjeli što ljubav jest, moramo shvatiti da ona prije svega dolazi iz mozga, a ne iz srca, penisa ili vagine, kako nas uči pop kultura.

Kontradiktorno je i to što se pojam ljubavi uzdiže na razinu božanskog ideala,  a u isto vrijeme je ismijavamo, umanjujemo njeno značenje i spuštamo je na razinu ispod fizičke boli. I kao što moramo shvatiti da ljubav prije svega dolazi iz mozga, tako i na pitanje zašto toliko volimo ljubav, odgovor možda trebamo tražiti u samoj evoluciji i smislu našeg postojanja. Ne, mi ne volimo ljubav zbog čokoladnih srca i romantičnih filmskih prikaza, nego zato jer je ona prije svega pitanje opstanka, jer bez drugih ne bi mogli egzistirati i jer smo stvoreni smo da se povezujemo, ali kako i s kime, to je pravo pitanje! Ono što u startu radimo krivo je da u osobi u kojoj tražimo ljubav ujedno tražimo i savršenstvo.  Da se ponovno poslužim riječimaOscara Wildea koji je rekao: " Zaljubiti se podrazumijeva trijumf nade nad poznavanjem sebe. Zaljubljujemo se u nadi da  u drugome nećemo naći ono što znamo da je u nama, sav kukavičluk, slabost, lijenost, neiskrenost, kompromis i glupost. Bacamo kordon ljubavi prema izabranoj osobi i odlučujemo da sve što ta osoba jest, jest ono što je slobodno od svih mana. Samim time ona je voljiva. U njoj/njemu lociramo savršenstvo koje nemamo u sebi. " Na taj način tražimo utjehu u drugome kao bijeg od sebe što je iluzija. Isto tako krivo i iluzorno je i kriviti drugu osobu što nije onako savršena kakvom smo je mi zamislili u glavi.

To možda još bolje objašnjava Imago koncept. Okosnica ovog teorijskog koncepta vodi nas u djetinjstvo i natrag. Formiramo se u bliskom emocionalnom odnosu u djetinjstvu, kada tijekom odrastanja, uz potvrde i ohrabrenja, zadobivamo i niz povreda. Te povrede i potvrde koje smo zadobili kao i primjeri odnosa koje smo promatrali tijekom ranih godina, tvore u našem umu impresionistički senzorni otisak "Imago" o tome kako izgleda sigurna ili nesigurna intimna veza. Naše ponašanje, kao i to kakvi ćemo biti prema drugim bliskim ljudima iz naše neposredne okoline i što ćemo od njih očekivati određuju ti prvi, rani, duboko utisnuti modeli. Oni određuju i to da ćemo u našem odraslom životu izabrati za partnera osobu koja nas energetski podsjeća na roditeljske figure. U tom konceptu možemo naći objašnjenje za velik dio procesa u odnosu, ali također i nadahnuće za korištenje tih saznanja u procesu oporavka međusobnog odnosa.

Četiri su faze prema ovom konceptu:

1. Privlačnost - odabiranje (roditelji)
2. Romanca - povreda proporcionalna povredi tog roditelja koji nam je nanio bol
3. Borba za moć - najvažnija jer jedino ako to zrelo odradimo idemo na 4. fazu
4. Prava ljubav

Mislim kako je naše društvo fokusirano i fiksirano na isključivo 4. fazu. Naše društvo propagira brz put do ljubavi, kao što pornići propagiraju brz put do orgazma. Nitko ne spominje da ljubavi kao i orgazmu prethode rad i trud. I onda ljudi odustaju od ljubavi ili dobrog seksa jer se razočaraju nakon par iskustava, iskustava koja se temelje na pretpostavci da je prava ljubav ili kvalitetan seks, odmah tu, iza ugla. Adrienne Rich dobro je to znala kada je napisala:"Časna ljubavna veza, ona u kojoj dvoje ljudi imaju pravo upotrebljavati riječ "ljubav" je proces, delikatan, nasilan, često zastrašujuć objema osobama koje su uključene, proces redefiniranja istina koje jedno može reći drugome. Važno je činiti ovo jer se na taj način prekida samo-iluzija i izolacija. Važno je činiti ovo jer smo na taj način pravedni prema vlastitoj kompleksnosti. Važno je činiti ovo je možemo računati na tako malo ljudi da će otići tako daleko s nama."

Izolacije se dotaknuo i profesorMatthew D. Lieberman koji tvrdi da naš mozak nije tek jednostavan mehanizam koji reagira na bol i zadovoljstvo nego je  stvoren da povezuje ljude, a socijalna potreba doživotna je i jednako bitna kao što su hrana i toplina. Zašto? Jer bol koju osjećamo nakon fizičke povrede istovjetna je onoj koja nastaje nakon one socijalne. Mozak ne vidi razliku. I ne radi se samo o boli koju osjećamo bez voljene osobe, nego i o gubitku sebe jer iako je krivo tražiti u drugom utjehu, mi donekle trebamo drugojada uz pomoć njega izgradimo svojja.

I što nam onda u konačnici preostaje? Možda samo prepustiti se beskonačnom svemiru i u maniriJoea Hansona koji u svojoj studiji "OK je biti pametan"govori o tomekako nas potraga za izvanzemaljskim životom može naučiti koju o izgledima za pronalazak te romanticizirane srodne duše, zatvoriti oči i čekati  našu šansu za ljubav, a kada ona i dođe, zasuči rukave i ozbiljno se primiti posla. Pod uvjetom da objekt naše želje nije egocentrično, sebično govno koje ne želi raditi na odnosu! Toliko je malo ljudi koji su spremni to učiniti, zato tek sad shvaćam riječi svog profesora sociologije s fakulteta: "Zašto toliko slavimo ljubav? Zato jer je toliko rijetka pojava!"

---------------------

                                           What is love? - part 3

Today love is, as well as it's common partner sex, trivialized to the extent that the answer to the question of what love really is, is only offered in the form of consumerist product. Therefore love is primarily associated with that perfect person you're waiting your whole life for (andyour whole liferefers to the period of life until your 30ies, because if you're in your 30's and you are single what's wrong with you?), imaginative humorous comedies, chocolates in the shape of hearts for Valentine's Day, romantic dinners with candles and gorgeous wedding dresses to the floor. No one mentioned that love, above all means hard work, sweat and compromise, that love often has nothing to do with sex, that love is not some fruity idea but a serious concept. The problem lies in the fact that we so often confuse the terms sex and love, that we are convinced how this is something that falls from the sky, something perfect and easy! And to understand what love is, we must understand that it primarily comes from the brain, not  from the heart, penis or vagina, how pop culture teaches us.

It is also contrary to the fact that we rise the concept of love to the level of divine ideal, while at the same time we make fun of it, diminish its significance and descend it to a level below physical pain. And just as we must understand that love comes primarily from the brain, to the question of why do we love love so much, the answer may need to be searched for in the evolution and meaning of our existence. No, we do not love love so much because  of heart shaped chocolates and romantic film presentations, but because it is primarily a matter of survival, because without other people we couldn't exist, and because we are created to connect, but how and with whom, that's the question! What we do wrong from the start is that in the person we are looking for love for we at the same time look for perfection. To re-use the words of Oscar Wilde who said: "To fall into love involves the triumph of hope over self-knowledge. Wefall in love hoping that we will not find in the other what we know is in ourselves – all the cowardice, weakness, laziness, dishonesty, compromise and brute stupidity. We throw a cordon of love around the chosen one, and decide that everything that lies within it will somehow be free of our faults and hence lovable. We locate inside another a perfection that eludes us within ourselves, and through union with the beloved, hope somehow to maintain [against evidence of all self-knowledge] a precarious faith in the species."In this way we seek solace in each other as an escape from oneself which is an illusion. It is also false and illusory that we blame the other person if he/she doesn't turn out to be as perfect as we've envisioned it to be in our head.

This might be explained better with the Imago concept. The framework of this theoretical concept leads us to childhood and back. We form in a close emotional relationship in our childhood, when while growing up, with confirmation and encouragement, we also gain and a series of injuries. These violations and confirmation that we received as well as examples of relationships that we observed during the early years, form in our minds an impressionistic sensory impression called "Imago" about how safe or unsafe intimate relationship will look like. Our behavior, as well as how will we will treat other people in our immediate surroundings and what we expect of them define those first, early, deeply embedded models. They also determine that we will in our adult life choose for a partner someone who reminds us energetically of  parental figures. In this concept, we can find an explanation for a large part of the processes in the relationship, but also the inspiration to use these findings in the recovery process of mutual relations.

There are 4 stages of this concept:

1. The appeal  - selecting (parents)

2. Romance-  injuries proportional to the violation of that parent who inflicted our pain

3. Fight for power - the most important because only if we work maturely on this we are going to the fourth phase

4. True Love

I think our society is focused and fixed on only the fourth phase. Our society promotes a rapid path to love, as porn movies propagate a quick way to orgasm. Nobody mentions that prior to love and orgasm are work and effort. And thenpeople give up on love or good sex because they are disappointed after a couple of bad experiences, experiences that are based on the assumption that true love or good sex are just around the corner. Adrienne Rich knew this well when she wrote:An honorable human relationship — that is, one in which two people have the right to use the word “love” — is a process, delicate, violent, often terrifying to both persons involved, a process of refining the truths they can tell each other.

It is important to do this because it breaks down human self-delusion and isolation.

It is important to do this because in doing so we do justice to our own complexity.

It is important to do this because we can count on so few people to go that hard way with us

And Professor Matthew D. Lieberman touched upon the subject of isolation, he claims that our brain is not just a simple mechanism that reacts to pain and pleasure, but was created to bring people together and that social need for life is as important as food and warmth. Why? For the pain that you feel after physical injury is identical to that which occurs after a social one. The brain can not tell the difference. And it's not just about the pain you feel without a loved one, but also about the loss of self because although it's wrong to seek solace in the other person, to some extend we need the other self to help us build ourself.

And what are we finally left with? Maybe we can just leave ourselves to the infinite universe and in the manner of Joe Hanson who in his study "It's OK to be smart," talks about how the search for extraterrestrial life can teach us about the prospects for finding that romanticizirane soul, to close our eyes and wait for our chance to love, and when it comes, roll up our sleeves and take the job seriously. Provided that the object of our desire is not a self-centered, selfish piece of shit who doesn't want to work on the relationship! So few people are willing to do it, because only now do I understand the words of my sociology professor from university: "Why do we celebrate love so much? Because it is so rare!"

sources: 

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/04/18/5-must-read-books-on-love/

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/02/12/the-math-of-love/

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/03/15/general-theory-of-love-2/

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/07/02/adrienne-rich-honorable-human-relationship/

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/12/14/adrienne-rich-on-love-loss-happiness-creativity/

http://www.brainpickings.org/2011/12/27/the-voyagers-penny-lane-carl-sagan/

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2013/11/08/social-why-our-brains-are-wired-to-connect-lieberman/

http://www.imago-terapijaodnosa.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=2&Itemid=2

Što je ljubav? - part 2

U knjizi "Socijalno: Zašto su naši mozgovi povezani" (Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect)neuroznanstvenik Matthew D. Lieberman, voditelj  socijalno kognitivnog neuroznanstvenog laboratorija pri Sveučilištu u Kaliforniji (UCLA’s Social Cognitive Neuroscience lab), hvata se u koštac s pitanjem tko smo mi kao socijalna bića te otkriva kako točnije poznavanje naše socijalne prirode može unaprijediti naše živote i društvo. Lieberman koji je protekla dva desetljeća koristio alate kao što je funkcionalna magnetska rezonanca (fMRI) kako bi proučavao kako ljudski mozak reagira na njegov društveni kontekst, saznao je da naš mozak nije tek jednostavan mehanizam koji reagira na bol i zadovoljstvo nego je zapravo stvoren da povezuje ljude. U srcu njegova istraživanja nalazi se pitanje: "Zašto osjećamo toliko intenzivnu agoniju kada izgubimo voljenu osobu?" On tvrdi da daleko od toga da je tuga dizajnirana mana u našom neuronskoj arhitekturi, ali je u isto vrijeme i dokaz da je naš kapacitet za takvu ogromnu bol bitna osobina naše evolucijske konstitucije. Dapače, istraživanje koje su Lieberman i njegova žena proveli u proteklim desetljećima pokazuje da je reakcija našeg mozga na emotivnu bol vitalna za naš opstanak.

"Naši mozgovi razvili su se na način da prijetnju našim socijalnim kontaktima doživljavaju uvelike na isti način kao i kada je riječ o fizičkoj boli. Aktiviranjem istog neuronskog sklopovlja koje dovodi do toga da osjećamo fizičku bol, iskustvo socijalne boli pomaže nam da omogućimo preživljavanje djece tako što ih držimo blizu njihovih roditelja. Neuronska veza između socijalne i fizičke boli također omogućava da socijalna povezanost ostane doživotna potreba kao što su hrana i toplina. S obzirom na činjenicu da naši mozgovi tretiraju socijalnu i fizičku bol slično, ne bi li kao društvo trebali socijalnu bol tretirati drugačije nego što to inače radimo? Nećemo očekivati da netko sa slomljenom nogom "sam tako prijeđe preko toga". A ipak kada pričamo o socijalnoj boli, ovo je uobičajen odgovor. Istraživanje koje smo ja i drugi proveli koristeći funkcionalnu magnetsku rezonancu pokazuje da je ono kako doživljavamo socijalnu bol u skladu s našom percepcijom nas samih. Intuitivno vjerujemo kako su socijalna i fizička bol radikalno drugačija vrste iskustva, no način na koji ih naš mozak tretira pokazuje da su sličnije nego što možemo zamisliti.", tvrdi Lieberman.

Lieberman dodaje: "Neuronska osnova za naša osobna uvjerenja značajno se preklapa s jednom od regija mozga koja je primarno odgovorna za dozvoljavanje mišljenja drugih ljudi da utječu na naša vlastita. NašeJaje više kao autocesta za socijalni utjecaj nego neosvojiva utvrda kakvom je smatramo."

Stavljajući socijalnu povredu u kontekst kratke evolucijske povijesti, Lieberman tvrdi da je pretapanje socijalnosti i individualnosti prije osnovno pomagalo u našem evolucijskom razvoju nego poremećen kvar.  On objašnjava:

"Naša socijalnost je satkana u seriju oklada koje evolucija potvrđuje svaki put iznova  kroz čitavu povijest sisavaca. Ove oklade dolaze u formi adaptacija koje su selektirane jer promoviraju opstanak i reprodukciju. Ove adaptacije povećavaju intenzitet spona koje osjećamo s onima oko nas i povećavaju kapacitet da predvidimo što se događa u umovima drugih kako bi bolje surađivali s njima. Bol socijalnog gubitka i načini kojima smijeh publike može utjecati na nas nije slučajnost. Do tih razmjera da evoluciju možemo karakterizirati kao dizajniranje naših modernih mozgova, to je ono zbog čega su našu mozgovi umreženi i povezani, da bi posegnuli i ušli u interakciju s drugima. Ovo su odlike dizajna, ne mane. Ove socijalne adaptacije su odlučujuće u stvaranju nas ljudi kao najsposobnije vrste na Zemlji.Implikacije ovog protežu se od intimnosti naših ljubavnih veza do zamršenosti organizacijskog menadžmenta i rada u timu."

Kao što postoje mnoge socijalne mreže poput Facebooka i Twittera, svaka sa svojim dosegom i snagom, tako postoje i mnoge socijalne mreže u našim mozgovima, setovi regija mozga koji rade na tome na promoviraju blagostanje  našeg Ja.

Svaka od ovih mreža ima svoju snagu te su se spojile u različitim momentima u evolucijskoj povijesti počevši od kralježnjaka preko sisavaca i primata do nas homo sapiensa. Svi ovi evolucijski koraci ponovljeni su istim slijedom tijekom djetinjstva.

Lieberman istražuje tri glavne adaptacije koje su nas učinile tako neraskidivo reagirajućima na socijalni svijet:

a) Povezanost: Puno prije nego što su postojali primati s neokorteksom, sisavci su se odvojili od kralježnjaka i razvili kapacitet da osjećaju socijalnu bol i užitak, zauvijek povezujući naše samoblagostanje sa socijalnom povezanošću. Dojenčad utjelovljuje ovu duboku potrebu da ostanemo povezanima, ali ta potreba prisutna je tijekom čitavog života.

b) Čitanje misli: Primati su razvili neparalenu mogućnost da razumiju akcije i misli onih oko njih, povećavši na taj način mogućnost da ostanemo povezani i ulazimo u interakciju strategijski.

c) Harmoniziranje: Osjećaj svogjaje jedan od najrecentnijih evolucijskih darova koje smo primili. Iako se čini da sejapojavljuje kao mehanizam koji nas razlikuje od drugih i naglašava našu samoživost, našejafunkcionira kao snažan izvor socijalne kohezije.

------------------------

                              What is love? - part 2

Inthe book“Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect” neuroscientist Matthew D. Lieberman, director of UCLA’s Social Cognitive Neuroscience lab, sets out to get clear about ‘who we are’ as social creatures and to reveal how a more accurate understanding of our social nature can improve our lives and our society. Lieberman, who has spent the past two decades using tools like fMRI to study how the human brain responds to its social context, has found over and over again that our brains aren’t merely simplistic mechanisms that only respond to pain and pleasure, but are instead wired to connect. At the heart of his inquiry is a simple question: Why do we feel such intense agony when we lose a loved one? He argues that, far from being a design flaw in our neural architecture, our capacity for such overwhelming grief is a vital feature of our evolutionary constitution.

"Our brains evolved to experience threats to our social connections in much the same way they experience physical pain. By activating the same neural circuitry that causes us to feel physical pain, our experience of social pain helps ensure the survival of our children by helping to keep them close to their parents. The neural link between social and physical pain also ensures that staying socially connected will be a lifelong need, like food and warmth. Given the fact that our brains treat social and physical pain similarly, should we as a society treat social pain differently than we do? We don’t expect someone with a broken leg to “just get over it.” And yet when it comes to the pain of social loss, this is a common response. The research that I and others have done using fMRI shows that how we experience social pain is at odds with our perception of ourselves. We intuitively believe social and physical pain are radically different kinds of experiences, yet the way our brains treat them suggests that they are more similar than we imagine.", says Lieberman.

Lieberman adds: "The neural basis for our personal beliefs overlaps significantly with one of the regions of the brain primarily responsible for allowing other people’s beliefs to influence our own. The self is more of a superhighway for social influence than it is the impenetrable private fortress we believe it to be."

Contextualizing it in a brief evolutionary history, Lieberman argues that this osmosis of sociality and individuality is an essential aid in our evolutionary development rather than an aberrant defect in it. He explains:

"Our sociality is woven into a series of bets that evolution has laid down again and again throughout mammalian history. These bets come in the form of adaptations that are selected because they promote survival and reproduction. These adaptations intensify the bonds we feel with those around us and increase our capacity to predict what is going on in the minds of others so that we can better coordinate and cooperate with them. The pain of social loss and the ways that an audience’s laughter can influence us are no accidents. To the extent that we can characterize evolution as designing our modern brains, this is what our brains were wired for: reaching out to and interacting with others. These are design features, not flaws. These social adaptations are central to making us the most successful species on earth. The implications of this span across everything from the intimacy of our personal relationships to the intricacy of organizational management and teamwork."

Just as there are multiple social networks on the Internet such as Facebook and Twitter, each with its own strengths, there are also multiple social networks in our brains, sets of brain regions that work together to promote our social well-being.

These networks each have their own strengths, and they have emerged at different points in our evolutionary history moving from vertebrates to mammals to primates to us, Homo sapiens. Additionally, these same evolutionary steps are recapitulated in the same order during childhood.

Lieberman goes on to explore three major adaptations that have made us so inextricably responsive to the social world:

Connection: Long before there were any primates with a neocortex, mammals split off from other vertebrates and evolved the capacity to feel social pains and pleasures, forever linking our well-being to our social connectedness. Infants embody this deep need to stay connected, but it is present through our entire lives.

Mindreading: Primates have developed an unparalleled ability to understand the actions and thoughts of those around them, enhancing their ability to stay connected and interact strategically.

Harmonizing: The sense of self is one of the most recent evolutionary gifts we have received. Although the self may appear to be a mechanism for distinguishing us from others and perhaps accentuating our selfishness, the self actually operates as a powerful force for social cohesiveness.