Tuesday 1 November 2011

Citizens Advice Bureau


I've been training to become an adviser at my local Citizens Advice Bureau since June now, my job in Parliament having ended in May, and the change is refreshing.

I learnt a lot from Parliament, and I don't think there was much more for me to learn after my one and a half years there, but one thing I did learn was that changing national policy is not easy or even possible usually. At least from the vantage point of a Parliamentary Aide, or even a backbench MP. At a local level, its easy to get frustrated if many people have the same problem, a problem you can solve for them individually with time and resources, but which would not even exist if the national policy was written better. However, get into Parliament, try lobbying and it's slow work: seldom rewarding, lots of positive words but very little action.

At Citizens Advice, I can give tangible help to up to 10 people a day, all from my local area, on issues ranging from employers not paying their employees, bailiffs knocking on client's doors, people being sold shoddy products, clients with large debts, to families about to be evicted from their homes.

At the same time I can make a note of the issues and tell the national charity Citizens Advice who are respected by the Government and occasionally listened to - that's why landlords are now legally obliged to hold deposits in tenancy protection schemes. I can also write to our local MPs and the press about the issues on behalf of the bureau with real tangible evidence. I expect it makes little difference, but better to do the two in tandem on the off chance that it might occasionally pay off.

I am learning a lot, which for me is an essential quality for a job, and I currently need to read up on how Citizens Advice handles debt issues. I have given advice at a mental health centre as well as at the bureau and hope to be able to give advice at local children's centres soon. I love working with local people in the real world, and if I ever decide I want to go back to the stage of local or national politics, this will have been an invaluable experience.

Monday 28 February 2011

Freud's 'The Interpretation of Dreams'




"I can never decide whether my dreams are the result of my thoughts, or my thoughts the result of my dreams."  D. H. Lawrence

"Within each one of us there is another whom we do not know. He speaks to us in dreams and tells us how differently he sees us from how we see ourselves."  Carl Jung


It is commonplace to see someone asleep on the tube. But few people wake up their fellow travellers to check they haven't missed their stop. This might be a good thing, for dreaming is a good way to order your mind, cluttered from a hard day's work. Indeed, it is recommended to sleep directly after revising something you need to know off by heart, as you are more likely to remember it. We all know the phrase, "Sleep on it, it'll all become clearer in the morning."

Historically dreams have been viewed in a number of ways. To the Ancient Greeks, dreams were often said to be prophetic or warnings of what was to come. The Romantics viewed dreams as a symbolic ‘analysis’ of the world, for example the German poet Novalis believed dreams produced images of sensual reflection. Some people believe dreams are influenced by what you eat before you go to bed. Like Freud, Aristotle believed dreams could be interpreted psychologically.

Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams (Die Traumdeutung) is his most successful work and in it we find many of the key concepts we link to Freud such as the role of the unconscious and the Oedipus complex.

That the dream is basically a wish-fulfilment is the fundamental basis of his theory. The obvious examples quoted are those of children’s dreams, where they dream of an unfulfilled daytime wish being fulfilled in their dreams. For example, Freud’s daughter tells her father, the day after spending what she felt was too short a trip on the Aussee lake, at the age of three, that she dreamt last night of sailing on the sea.

The key to understanding dreams, according to Freud, is in understanding that they are almost all wish fulfilments, the wishes of which are frequently repressed wishes, buried in the subconscious. Moreover the wishes expressed in dreams are often disguised, so that it is not at all evident what they are. This is because according to Freud, we censor our thoughts so that they do not disturb us. Thus, dreams are an unstable compromise between desire and prohibition; in dreams we can fulfil wishes which would be unacceptable in waking life.

Freud claims that far from being illogical and meaningless dreams are actually significant events and that the unintelligible features of dreams, logical impossibilities and bizarre happenings result from an unstable compromise between desire and prohibition within us. Thus, at face value dreams can be highly misleading, but on closer study reveal more about our unconscious mind. Freud concedes that there are some unintelligible aspects in dreams, caused by the dreaming mind's tendency to overgeneralise and its indifference to self contradiction.

Freud goes further in attributing a real purpose to dreams: that of the guardian of sleep: the function of dreaming is to stop the speaker waking. Thus, we often ignore outside noises or incorporate them into our dreams so that we can continue sleeping. He quotes the most common dreams of this type: any variation of the dream where you dream of going to the toilet or not being able to go to the toilet, which is dreamt in order to stop us waking when we need the toilet, and dreams where we dream of getting up and getting ready so we gain a few extra minutes of sleep comfortable in the fake knowledge that we are doing what we need to. One of Freud’s patients was told whilst he was in bed that he needed to go to the hospital, whereupon he promptly dreamed he was there, thinking if I am already there I do not need to get up and go.

Freud speaks of the great difference between the latent content and manifest content of dreams. The latent content comprises one or more incidents or thoughts from the 'dream day', the twelve hours before the dream and significant events having occurred in both the recent and more distant past, possibly including those from distant childhood. Freud states that these events may or may not already be distorted in the memory.

The manifest content is described as a compression and condensation of the latent dream thoughts. Freud notes that displacement of the latent content often occurs in the manifest content, which can consist of displacement of anything including people, time and place. He asserts that this displacement is often the result of repression or censorship of certain unconscious thoughts in the dreamwork.


Writers and other artists have tried to convincingly represent the dream throughout time, some like Hesse and Kafka create whole dream landscapes for their characters. Freud thought his theories about dreams could and should be applied to literature, which as he quotes from Schiller in his work, is a 'creative madness' and hence stems, at least in part, from the unconscious. Indeed, he ascribes the Oedipus complex to Shakespeare claiming the real reason Hamlet could not kill his uncle was that his uncle had done what he himself desired to do, killed his father and married his mother.

Freud is famous for positing the idea of dream censorship, particularly censorship of sexual thoughts. However, one must consider that his evidence was based on a number of very similar clients: bourgeois men and women, who had been brought up in the sexually repressed environment of the late 19th and early 20th century. One patient of Freud’s, finding masturbation unacceptable, tried to 'cure' himself of it by sleeping with women. This seems ludicrous nowadays. At least in the Western world, people are much more open about sexuality. Whilst much of what Freud wrote was ground breaking and incredibly thought provoking, the real flaw with Freud's theories lay in his narrow client  base, the study of which perhaps inevitably led to his fixation on sex.

Tuesday 25 January 2011

Burns' Night


O my Luve's like a red, red rose,
That's newly sprung in June:
O my Luve's like the melodie,
That's sweetly play'd in tune.

As fair art thou, my bonnie lass,
So deep in luve am I;
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
Till a' the seas gang dry.

Till a' the seas gang dry, my dear,
And the rocks melt wi' the sun;
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
While the sands o' life shall run.

And fare-thee-weel, my only Luve!
And fare-thee-weel, a while!
And I will come again, my Luve,
Tho' 'twere ten thousand mile!


When I studied this poem at school, I was struck by the flowery language and how kitschig/tacky it sounded. I didn't realise until second reading that it was also totally vacuous. How can Burns claim to be so madly in love with the girl for three verses, and then say he's popping off for a while, promising to come back. He's clearly already thinking ahead to looking for new love somewhere else! So his beloved must wait for him to return, content with a poem committing the lover to a ludicrous unbelievable love. I bet he never came back.

I personally think love is a bit silly: everyone feels it in the heat of the moment, the passion, the excitement, the intrigue. But given a new partner a few nights later, one can go through exactly the same rigmarole of emotions. People are in love with love, they miss love and they need love, but the person is immaterial. That's why it's best and safest to love as many people as possible. Then, if one disappoints you, you have plenty of back ups. This is my favourite song about love, it's by The Monkees and has my favourite love lyric - 'don't say you love me say you like me':

I wanna be free,
Like the bluebirds flying by me
Like the waves out on the blue sea.
If your love has to tie me, dont try me,
Say good-bye.

I wanna be free,
Dont say you love me say you like me,
But when I need you beside me,
Stay close enough to guide me, confide in me,
Oh-oh-oh

I wanna hold your hand,
Walk along the sand
Laughing in the sun,
Always having fun
Doing all those things
Without any strings
To tie me down.

I wanna be free,
Like the warm September wind, babe,
Say you'll always be my friend, babe.
We can make it to the end, babe,
Again, babe, I gotta say:
I wanna be free
I wanna be free
I wanna be free

Wednesday 19 January 2011

EMA, WikiLeaks and the SDP




Today was depressing. I don't agree with the EMA cuts, unless the reforms mean that students end up with a better deal for poor students, but I resent it when Labour MPs use EMA to score political points in a completely unrelated speech. At the Afro Caribbean Trade and Commerce Launch, the Labour MP for Bristol East, did just that. Policies should not be used to score political points, it destroys any trust we might have in what politicians say they believe. I'm not saying only Labour does it, but there is a time and place - in the Chamber, not at a non partisan event.

Also I realised that although I value open politics and as little secrecy as possible: the Government should not keep things from the public, as Shirley Williams pointed out in her talk on Memoirs: Egoistical or Educational, we are in a Catch 22 situation. If all communication between Government Ministers had to be available for all to peruse at will, and Bush and Blair had to publish their correspondence to find out whether Blair said he would do whatever Bush did as far as Iraq was concerned, that would be a fantastic way for the public to receive justice for their actions. But, in the future, politicians would be far more cautious so that statements like those we suspect made between Bush and Blair would either not be made at all, which would be great in theory, although it might lead to poorer relations between Britain and other countries. Or politicians will begin to communicate in some nontraceable way: a private room with no tape recorder perhaps. Yes, it will be harder for politicians to cover their words up, and WikiLeaks will hopefully still be able to expose some hidden conversations, but a lot will be driven further into secrecy.

I wonder how Shirley feels having left the Labour Party, where she was in the Cabinet with Tony Benn under Wilson and Callaghan, to merge her SDP with the Liberals and form the Liberal Democrat Party in 1988, to watching her baby form a Coalition with the Conservatives. Sure, she is being pragmatic if she supports the Coalition. I too am of the conclusion that it is better to have a Tory government containing Lib Dems who are beavering away to put Lib Dem policies into practice and soften and amend Tory policies, than a Tory led government, which would undoubtedly be more right wing. But it must be a million miles away from what she originally anticipated thirty years ago, as one of the Labour "Gang of Four" rebels in 1981.