Adrian Scott Counsellor Supervisor MBACP Accred

Grayson Perry in his programme All Men visited the City of London to explore man and masculinity. It seemed that nothing has changed. The programme started with the traditional chaotic scene of the metals market with men shouting down phones.  Apparently this is the last market to trade like this. He moved to the new markets of computer screens in silence. Traders practicing yoga and meditation deliberately trying to be calm and take the ego out of any trading decision. One trader sat Zen like at his screen then moved deliberately to click his mouse to trade. Women in the city or married to some one in the city complained about men being clever. Men in the city had acknowledged the place of women, said it was improving, but actually nothing was changing.

Then there was the ugly dishevelled fund manager who admitted to loving the 2008 crash. He’d made so much money. The camera panned to Grayson’s face looking blank and possibly hateful. They both decided that the characteristics of a mover and shaker in the city was to be discreet and obsessional. Talk of not being with family and being obsessed with the trading game dominated All Mans’ lives. This all started with little boys. Little boys want to be adventurers and leaders with control over their own destiny.

Grayson’s art ridiculed the penis shaped buildings erected in in the city with a phallic shaped vase. He also drew an image of a bear with rational, & sensible as it’s insides. A marauding greedy consuming bear being rational and sensible. Grayson’s point was that the city of London was built on confidence which was irrational and emotional. The message was men pretend to be rational but are just as irrational and emotional as anyone else. Was this inference a comparison to women? Grayson closed by urging men to be like women and stop looking backwards to look to the future and who they could be.

Are the city men an extreme or are All Men – versions of this obsessionality and drive? It seems so. Certainly to be rational and sensible is how men like to present themselves. To be seen as emotional  re hysterical is seen as being female. A discrimination against women. Yet to be men, or to be a man – men have to be different. The point is men and women are different.
But then how do men share their power with women when they Innately are not able to?
All Men

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Primitive Us
To see and understand ourselves we have to look at what we are up against.
We are limited by our own biology, psychology, sociology, and moral development.                         
We were prey long before we were predators. We are hard wired to survive being eaten.
It’s all about survival. It worked but we pay the price.
The price is that in times of stress and trauma we are confined to fight, flight, or freeze reactions. We are Primitive Us.

We are at the mercy of evolution only being able to build on what was already there. We are the only primate to stand up, have sophisticated tools for hands, and a large cerebral cortex. The gain is that we have brains of intelligence and can walk upright to dominate the earth.

The loss is that our birth is more traumatic. The human pelvis compared to apes has narrowed to allow us to walk upright and only just accommodates the baby’s head. Apes can literally pull out their young from their own bodies at birth. While our own birth is more traumatic. “Navigating the birth canal is probably the most gymnastic maneuver most of us will ever make in life”

The human brain at birth is 3x bigger than the ape but a year premature. The brain is so complex that it can ramp itself down by doing menial tasks automatically leaving the rest of the brain to do other complex tasks. The brain creates habits to allow us to do this. As humans we have to survive the longest period of helplessness & dependency. It is the ultimate loss of control. So we react by obsessing about control.
The way children interact with the world is through the critical interface of attachment particularly under stress or anxiety. Attachment is natural and essential for safety even if the attachment figures we attach to are unsafe.
This attachment through behaviour of Emotions, Sensation and Knowledge, develops our integrated functions of morality, cognitive, social & emotional development.

What does this mean? In a nut shell we are formed early on in our childhoods. Who we attach to shapes our personality, our life choices and who we choose for intimacy. We fool ourselves by acting human forgetting that this is built on a primitive platform. The Ace scores are a series of questions, which ask about trauma in your childhood. Parenting and childhood predicts your life. Obvious? Then why do we pay early development so little attention?
Primitive Us

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

So London has the first Muslim Mayor in Europe. After negative campaigning by the right Londoners ignored the politics. The spin of linking the new mayor to extremism could have been a hook –  that a more Trump like electorate might be attracted to. Politicians using extremism to increase information gathering by a right wing government meant to frighten the voters.
But Londoners voted overwhelmingly for diversity, tolerance and acceptance. A rare ray of light in the political landscape.
Son of a bus driver and a seamstress. Sadiq Khan is truly as the catchphrase would have it
“a man of the people”. A symbol that transcends the old ideas of Britain to a modern multi cultural diverse UK.
Across Europe there is a trend of urban areas being more left wing and country areas more right wing. Ethnicity has a something to do with this.
But perhaps more that the countryside has more of an indigenous population. Less used to change and diversity. Middle England is the back bone of the UK more resistant to change. It holds together the stability of rule of law.
Do we flock to the urban areas for work? Or to be amongst diversity, change, and dynamism? Certainly the excitement and variety of cities attracts students and youngsters away from the boroughs.
It is also where migrant populations are attracted. More likely to be less scrutinised and find someone of their own kind. Migrants politicised by traumatic events in their own country. Where urban areas lend themselves more to radical politics than the country side.

Welcome to the Muslim Mayor from Londoners living in a diverse metropolis.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

In the distant future when the world has moved from its adolescent phase to a more adult one. It would serve us well to examine the way we revere ordinary people with huge amounts of talent. You can see why this talent could be a curse to the talented.
The King, Queen & Prince

To compare Michael Jackson the King of Pop, David Bowie the Queen, and the Purple Prince Nelson is a guessing game and likely to enrage those who take prodigious talent at face value. But still at the stem of the talent are (in the case) boys with parents and a childhood mostly ordinary. It is worth some examination to question the enormous pressure placed on the talented who we wish to live through.

In simple Freudian terms we are living out our unconscious wishes & needs of fame and adulation through megastars. This comes from a long tradition of children being raised in a parent centred fashion. The child is not the centre: their individual personalities left unrecognised, and unnoticed. Forced to play the part of children of parents rather than unique individuals. Does this explain our obsession with celebrity?
Recently the tide has turned recognising children for who they are and that they can achieve anything. Some might say creating a narcissistic generation intent on becoming celebrities themselves!

To start! The King, the Queen and the Prince are all men. One white from the UK, two black from the US. Difference, Race, Gender & Sexuality played a large part with all three. Reflecting themes of the times?

Prince and Bowie kept their childhoods secret creating mystery: while MJ had a very public childhood as a child performer. Was this an advantage for Prince and Bowie becoming stars as young adults with the possibility of a secure base? With Prince his childhood is vague, and he encouraged this to suit himself. Bowie was similar, but was recognised as having an ordinary side. From a childhood in the suburbs which he couldn’t wait to leave?
MJ’s childhood was more public with stories of bullying and control.

One thing they all did to extreme was to isolate. Prince and MJ in their private compounds and Bowie in New York City. Is this an innate trait or their reaction to fame? It must be a powerful experience to have a talent that provides for you and more. You have no need to rely on anyone else. You call the shots. Ordinary people have to work with others in a life of compromise. Are many of us forced to socialise rather than being social animals? If we didn’t need to commute, or work, would we be less social? Did MJ, Bowie and Prince feel the same need to connect that other people do?

Could you argue that Bowie was the only one at that had consistent long term relationships? He was certainly the only one to have children. Again he was also claimed to be ordinary. Is there a link between ordinariness and the possibility of an ordinary life of consistency and intimacy?
Prince made a point of not looking back: being in the moment. MJ seemed to be constantly looking back to his abusive childhood, or as he said he didn’t have a childhood. Bowie relocated to America leaving the UK and his past behind.
MJ’s life collapsed, while Bowie appeared to have his under control as did Prince. It seemed MJ was looking for something more. Perhaps exposed to fame early as a child he didn’t have a chance?
Whatever.
But it seems the life of a megastar is not a healthy one. Then why do we all revere it?  Perhaps it is the ordinariness that should be revered?
Yet we cannot revere ordinariness as we live it. We want to escape ordinariness to get through the day.
One day we might be sophisticated enough to embrace ordinariness and megastar together in balance.
The King, Queen & Prince

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

The King, the Queen and now the Prince of pop has gone.
The Prince of Purple was an enigmatic character, who went to a lot of effort not to be pigeon holed or typecast.  
The arguments with record companies to keep hold of his publishing rights are well documented.

Bunkered in his own version of Neverland – Paisley Park, Prince stayed close to his past near Minneapolis. The huge mega star he was – he stayed with his roots rather than living in New York or LA. Was this so he could be private? Why would he need to be in LA when he was effectively a one man monster band, who could do everything better than anyone else. Like Hendrix he came across as a deeply shy man who became extrovert on stage.
His brand of sexy funk ranged from futuristic madness of George Clinton’s Funkadelic & Rick James to a weird almost perverse perspective around men and women. His music twisted and turned but always sounded like Prince. Born to be a musician – the music poured out of him so fast that you wondered if even he could keep up with his own output. Watching him Prince Unplugged came across as distant and intimate at the same time.

Like most people Prince was full of contradictions. He stayed close to home town with a global fanbase. His sex created no heir so his sister is to inherit his wealth. He lived alone producing music all the time, almost enslaved by his talent. Yet was politically racial escaping stereotypes of race and gender. He was a freak for young people to follow who also felt like freaks. And a deep conservatism belonging to the Jehovah’s Witness religion.

Yet there is something enslaving about prodigious talent. It is there for us all, we want some of it so the artist is beyond retirement. Reportedly in constant pain in his knees, from high heels and jumping off stage: his light couldn’t be turned off.
His light burned bright with constant energy day and night. Is every bright light of a life shortened?
Long live the Prince of Purple

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

How many people would come to your funeral? Take the test! 
But seriously a lot of people think about this.
So what does it mean? If 30 people come to your funeral or 300 people? There are all sorts of factors: your age, where you work – and the big one how many people you know or how many friends you have.

Are you the sort of person who has a big impact on a lot of people? Does this mean that you have less impact spreading yourself thinly? Or do you have a few close friends? Perhaps you belong to a club where your role was to facilitate and bring people together? Your warmth, vitality, and ease with getting along with people touched many hearts?

Clubs are run by volunteers. Big-hearted people who have time and energy to deal with the small details of people coming and going out of a facility. With people like this it seems that they act like glue. They instigate, organise, and cagoule others into doing things that they would not usually offer to do.

Organising a day trip to another club. Preparing a meal for the club. Celebrating a birthday when nobody was expecting it. Asking club members how they are and how are they finding the club? Being welcoming and inclusive is such an important part of a first impression made on people and makes or breaks whether people want to sign up and stay.

What would these people think about their funeral. Would the be surprised, flattered or embarrassed?
Perhaps they would have expected it? Maybe it really doesn’t matter?
Sandra Motture

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer:This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

George Kennedy could do anything. Comedy, thugs and sensitivity. Most famous for playing next to Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke. He made a name for himself as a great supporting actor. He surpassed the unrecognisable brilliance of the supporting actor who cannot be remembered. The guy who was great and and made the star cast look great. Most notably like J.T Walsh.
George Kennedy was instantly recognisable as a star in his own right. 

One of his best roles was in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. He plays a bank robber thug who eventually beats up the young pretender Jeff Bridges to death. He manages to come across as a thug who is sexually frustrated in an era of free love having missed the “sex” boat.

There is a sinister edginess to him. A man where just below the surface there is a volcano of violence about to erupt. But you never know when. He was physically a big man which made him all the more menacing. He brilliantly played against type in the Airplane movies. Playing it drool and straight. He managed to convince the viewer that he had never played a thug!

In another twist in later years, Kennedy became a supporter for adopted children. He had four adopted children, including his granddaughter Taylor, whose mother, also adopted by Kennedy, had become addicted to drugs and alcohol.
“Don’t let the fact that you’re 77 or 70 get in your way. Don’t let the fact that you’re a single parent and you want to   adopt get in your way,” Kennedy said in a Fox interview in 2002. “That kid, some place right now, cold and wet, needs somebody to say, “I love you, kid, good night.’”

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

The rise of beards in the last couple of years is an expression of a lack of confidence men and maleness are having in the 21st Century. In history whenever masculinity is threatened it seems men revert to beards. Modern life is increasingly separated from nature: where men operated using their physical strength. The rise of women in the world of work, leaving men at home is welcome but threatens the traditional man.

If you follow this argument the beard is grown to show men and women that men are not threatened, and still brimming with maleness. Perhaps it is also to differentiate. The perception is that women are encroaching on male territory. Men are not women: so there has to be a sign of manliness. An identifier. Something which says I am a man not to be confused with a woman. All groups do this. The group huddles together gaining an identity which has to be different to the next group. In the hierarchy of groups if one group takes on or copies the identity of the group above. Then the group above moves onto to another identity. Such is the nature of groups.

We are all primitive animals wanting to belong to a group: where the group we belong to, gets more privileges or special treatment than other groups. When the status of the group is threatened, the group has two choices. Move on and re-invent itself. But more usually try to rejuvenate or repackage the traits of the original group. It is easier than going back to the drawing board to create a totally new group.

“As in the past, a bearded man today demonstrates both masculine vulnerability and pride. His status might be contested, but he puts on a brave face.”

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

Keith Emerson of The Nice and Emerson Lake and Palmer shot himself last night. Suffering from depression he found it increasingly difficult to play keyboards due to a damaged nerve in his hand.

ELP were difficult to fathom. There always seemed to be a tension between Keith’s love of classical music and Greg Lake’s folky art rock. Was Carl Palmer in the middle mediating?
The skills of the band were undoubted. Keith a brilliant concert musician, Greg Lake a great guitarist, & bassist, and Carl Palmer a genius drummer.

It didn’t often work but when it did: Trilogy was an example of the balance between them working. When Keith Emerson did an understated solo on Lucky man or In the Beginning, Greg Lake seemed to have won. Keith shut up, stopped fiddling and complimented the song in a way nobody else could have done.

The body of work was not as consistent as Yes, Genesis, or Jethro Tull. There didn’t seem to be a consistent message. The sprawl of interest in the band was too broad? Perhaps the history and pretensions of classical music could not be reined in. There expense of their tours was unrivalled even at the time. Each had an articulated truck for the equipment and didn’t travel together.

Still when all three were in balance as on Karn Evil 9, & Tarkus they were unbeatable. They seemed to swerve between cockney humour and operatic pomposity. They were self deprecating and self important at the same time. And they paid for it. They never lived down their contribution to the end of prog rock and the beginning of punk.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique

There is an old French alchemical maxim which says that before being able to enter the world of the unconscious and find your inner self you must first cut off your head. In other words to enter into the realm of your suppressed unexpressed feelings, desires and wants you must stop thinking.
Heads off

In this world of decisions, arguments and rationality to stop thinking and start thinking is difficult almost impossible. But why bother?

The theory would go that we spend our lives setting out a stage with our choice of players in it. We set this stage so that we can act our desires, dreams & our hurts and wounds. If we are angry we create players to be angry with. If we are hurt we choose to players to hurt us. If we don’t know about this we can be a victim to our own past. A past that presents in the present. A presenting past.

So to continue the theme everything is internal. We are internally driven. It would be convenient to think that we are externally driven. The world is a bad place. It does unpleasant things to us. We are not to blame. We are not responsible.
Heads off

Yet we all appear to be set up. We repeat or opposite early experiences not because they are good or bad for us, but because they are familiar. So who would we be without our heads? Our hearts and souls. Picking up traces of feelings in the past to discover our hurts so that we can care for them: rather than letting them dominate us.

Copyright Adrian Scott North London Counsellor Blog 2016
All rights reserved
Disclaimer: This weblog is the view of the writer and for general information only.
This article is designed to provoke argument and critique