Good summary of some key points.

Albert,

Thank you for your support, it means a lot to me!

Keep up your excellent blog, Pelle.

Its a pearl in the global blogosphere. Both thumbs up!

Best, from Berlin,
Albert

Guilt can never be placed on a subject that have no control over the situation. But you can still be responsible of that situation and resolving it.

For instance, beeing chief over 15 men and women, they are my responsibility. If for instance one of them do not turn up to work one day for dubious reasons, I have no guilt in this. But I do have a responsibility to take care of the situation. If this same person repeatedly mismanaged his work, and I failed to do anything about it, part of the guilt would be mine.

A parent are responsible for their children. If your daughter mob another student, you as a parent are not guilty of this action. But you have a responsibility to do something about it. If I fail to do this, part of the guilt would be mine.

The same principle applies between your self, and your situation. While you are not guilty if a situation out of your control evolves into something bad, you are responsible to try to do something about it. Failing to do this means that some guilt will befall you.

The principle:
Only when I neglect to take my responsibility, part of the guilt will become mine. If I stay in a destructive relationship (no matter if you are a woman or a man) even though you have the opportunity to leave, you are part guilty of the situation. Or put in another word, by putting YOURSELF in harms way when you have another alternative, you are victimizing yourself, becoming your own perpetraitor, and part of the guilt of the outcome will be yours.

But as many of you have adressed, to take responsibility you must be able to respond, wich for many reasons already mentioned, may not be a possibility.

(an interesting meta-discussion related to this would be the unequal treatment of male and female perpetrators in media, where men seem to do crime mainly because they are men/masculine and wich needs no further explanation/exploration and women more often then not get their psychosocial-history accounter for.)

Being responsible (response-able) is about being able to respond to a situation, and to do that, in the fullest sence of the word, you have to have awareness of your ability to respond. Well, we respond to all kind of things but the more aware we are about our choices the better. And sometimes we get narrow sighted and can’t see how many choices and decisions we actually make (consciously or unconsciously) all day long. I guess this is something along the line of what Pelle was saying.

Great discussion by the way, *I’m lovin it* (McDonalds)

That’s right Kristian. The self or “ego” is not a thing, I believe. Our words plays tricks on us. I’d think it’s more accurate to say that our self is a “process”. If I remember correctly, some psychologist or other, said that the self/ego is motion (not someTHING in motion, but motion). A human being can therefore be said to “be” an activity. When we try to define it, and make it into a thing, it slips throught our fingers. But that doesn’t mean that the self doesn’t exist or isn’t real of course.

Also, you could say it’s about thinking more dialectical and less dichotomous. I hope this makes sence… I’m a bit confused by it myself. But I think it’s a shift in perception or thinking that is needed, to get past the usual materialistic/mechanical way of thinking.

Making me take responsibility may be a way of rebuilding it. I agree to this.

I am extremely careful in defining the words I use. We are getting a bit philosophical now, sorry for that.

You don’t lose your identity, your self or your responsibility when you are being abused. You may lose sight of all those components, but they are still part of you. That is why it can be tremendously valuable to have a friend hold you responsible, so that you remember that you still have access to your free will.

Regarding children… I think that if you believe that you yourself are worthless, then you likely won’t care that you are making destructive choices in your life. However, if you feel that your children have value, then you may not be prepared to make choices that are destructive to them. At the same time, many abused persons lose sight of their own free will and their own responsibility to the extent that they do not even act to protect their children.

Often taking responsible for the children and protecting them from abuse is a reason enough because:
1. They have a value and are worth protecting,
2. There is an image of the self, the role of a parent who’s job is to protect the children, that is intact.

Does it makes sense?

To whom? Who am I responsible to? In this example of abusive relationship. To myself? What if there is no self? And who are you to tell me this?

I’m not trying to provoke, just trying to clarify what I think is an important relationship between responsibility and identity.