I feel like I live in a world where everything is backwards. The things that are truly damaging our existence are made to seem as though they are natural, and those that are effected by the larger forces of oppression are labeled deviants and their actions are necessarily punishable.
What is abnormal? Who decides what is normal and what is not? These are questions that my professor posed to us on the first day of my Anthropology and the abnormal class (she mad it clear that she is not a fan of the name of the course). We came to the conclusion that these labels are created by individuals from different cultures, through time, and that they are completely subjective. In American society there has been a system built that allows a small group of people to remain happy, wealthy, and healthy, while the rest of "us" remain under their supervision struggling to fight for the scraps that they so generously allow us to have.
Let me start by making some comparisons:
We have been conditioned to think that half naked women on billboards, pornography, and sexy music videos are acceptable, but a woman breast feeding her child is asked to leave a restaurant. We are made to believe that alcohol, prescription drugs, and tobacco are acceptable to use around children, but if I decided that cannabis was a healthier choice, I am considered a drug user and a criminal. We are tolorant of capital punishment and war, however a woman that kills her abusive spouse in self defense is deemed a violent murderer and sentenced to 25 years in prison. I walk by my block and admire a beautiful mural, but if a youngster happens to spray paint on the walls of a building he is arrested and detained and they call his artwork graffiti. We began building a wall between the US and Mexico specifically designed to keep immigrants out, but if their names happen to Melky Cabrera or Mariano Rivera, they can stay. We pollute our environment with garbage, toxic fumes, and oil spills, but if you spit on the ground you may likely get a summons. I could go on forever examining the hyppocracy of our government and how they have designed a system in which white collar crime is acceptable and normalized, and street crime is punishable to the fullest extent, but I am sure that you get the point. Do you think that my comparisons are too extreme, or are they bold and true?
The elites in our society have devised a very complex system in which they are able to remain in power, and by power I am referring to money, education, and respect. Although these elites are the minority, they have instilled humiliation, self hatred, and a lack of support in the majority, that have caused them to feel hopeless in their situation. To compensate for these bad feelings they self medicate by using drugs, acquiring "things", and reproducing hate. The image of limited good is being forced into our minds to make us believe that there are no resources for social programs, when in fact there are plenty of resources, but they remain in the bank accounts of the one's that are intentionally destroying our existence.
Professor Stein's phrase "nothing else to lose" is something that really resonated with me because I see this as an explanation as to why people that I know personally are unable to break their cycle of self destructive behavior. A young man that I have known my whole life told me that he has a flat screen television in his cell in prison. I was shocked! While there, he smokes cigarettes, listens to music, and hangs out with friends. When he comes home from prison, he is confined to a small bedroom in his mother's home listening to rap music, smoking cigarettes, watching movies, and hanging out with friends. He does the same thing as a free man as he does when he is incarcerated. I see that he is mentally imprisoned and I realize that he has nothing to lose, nothing to look forward to, no expectations from his family, because they in fact do many of the same things.
Professor Stein was on a roll because her question, "What is your problem in living today?" is another term that I will be using more often. Life is hard! It is hard for the homeless woman outside of John Jay College, and it may be hard for the Wall Street investment banker as well. When we start judging each other without understanding one another is when we make a huge mistake. I am learning in my social psych class that when WE fail at something we blame situational factors, this is called situational attribution. However when SOMEONE ELSE fails, we blame that person's individual characteristics, referred to as personal attributions, and this concept is known as Fundamental Attribution Error. These are things that we unconsciously believe and I am starting to wonder if there is really any hope of changing, or is there? Do you believe that these judgements are within our control, or are we controlled by human instinct?
As we discussed in class, when we try to explain these problems within our lives we would like to simplify them, however when we begin to deconstruct the issues, the causes and solutions only get more complicated. But this is how it SHOULD be. When we try to use merely psychological, sociological, or an anthropological perspective to explain the causes of a persons situation is when we are delaying the process of coming to a clear solution. Instead we must apply all of these perspectives and more, in order to fully understand the complexity of the issues because it is all of these factors that will determine a specific, effective solution.
I understand that when working with marginalized populations we are supposed to be careful not to entangle our personal lives with our professional identities, however I feel that this fine line is a tightrope walk for me. I understand that by revealing too much of myself may become an ethical issue, or that it may even set a different tone in my relationship with clients, however I feel that this is necessary. I want them to feel like I am just like them. I want them to know that I have been in challenging situations. I don't want them to feel as though there is this line that divides us because I do not feel that I can reach them that way. By leveling the playing field we can help each other. I want my experience of working with socially disenfranchised individuals to be a reciprocal relationship. The way that Professor Waterston deconstructed the word empowerment is amazing (my apologies Professor Stein). It shows how words can seem like they are being used in a positive way, but actually have covert implications. To think that I have the ability to empower someone would imply that I have this kind of supreme power that I am able to bestow on someone else, when in fact I feel that I have advice that I have gained through life experience that I would like to share with my participants to provide them with support, understanding, and motivation. How do you feel about this imaginary line that is placed between clients and staff? Do you feel that it should never be crossed, or is there a way to do so that will benefit both parties?
My goal is to educate people, not only how to better their own actions, but also to become aware of the forces that are causing their unhappiness. By gaining knowledge, people can no longer take advantage of us. We must remember that this label "minority" is false, because in actuality we are the majority and if we put our differences aside we can defeat the maltreatment that we have endured for so long. Take into account that when I say, "we" and "they" I am not referring to any specific race, or gender, but I am referring to those that do not control this oppressive structure, and that when I talk about fighting this oppression I still take into account that those one's who are the ultimate authority are people too, and I empathize with their struggle.
18 comments:
Christina, I think you wrote a very in depth and thought provoking blog. Your comparisons about the hypocrisies in our society are extreme, bold, and true. I believe that white collar crime is as prevalent as any other type of crime in our society. I do not think that white collar crime is normalized, but I do think that street crimes are easier to prosecute. So maybe the question is has the criminal justice system become lazy?
Unequal distribution of resources and wealth is another issue, I believe it was Nadiya who told the class about the man dressed in a white suite; that had three lawyers and got a fine or found not guilty for his offense, while someone with less income and without proper representation was found guilty for the same offense. The person who had wealth was able to manipulate the system, while the person who could not afford an expensive lawyer was left to the mercy of the court. Maybe we are to blame for the system which keeps the elite in power.
The founding fathers tried to create a society which did not use the excuse of divine right, hereditary nobility, or class to justify a person for a particular status in society. Instead the founding fathers combined the philosophies of the Age of Enlightenment, the Roman Empire, and the Greek Democracies to devise a system that was based on the idea of equal rights, possibility of upward mobility through the classes and the dream that any American could be president. I realize that this dream is more complex than in the sentence I wrote, but that does not mean that the statement is not true. Even Horatio Alger the author of Ragged Dick, believed this dream was true, that through education, hard work, and self determination upward mobility of the economic class system is possible. It is true, that being rich in our society opens many more doors of opportunity than being poor, but that is because the social contract which we protect justifies that system.
You also asked another question that we unconsciously believe the fundamental attribution error and you wonder if it is part of our instinct or if we are in control of our judgements. I do not know, I think we all make sudden judgements which can be right and also wrong, what we do with our judgements is what matters. Thoughts are just that thoughts, and they come and go, so I believe we do have control, and through practice our instincts, thoughts, and judgements can be changed.
Your third question was about an imaginary line between clients and staff, and whether that line should never be crossed. I think the imaginary line should be crossed sometimes. I have felt at times that some people who were just trying to help me did not understand what I was going through. I felt the hardships I was going through and thought they couldn’t possibly understand. I felt the hopelessness and the loneliness of my particular situation. After the people who were trying to help me opened up and told me about their struggles through adversity and the traumas of life, and repeated to me how they too overcame those struggles and did not inherit the traits, skills, life experience and the success they now have, I felt a sense of possibility. That maybe, just maybe I too can overcome and acquire specific traits, skills and a chance to succeed, just like in Horatio’s story and the founding fathers’ dream of a land of opportunity that all was possible. Through my struggles of adversity and the traumas of life I could succeed regardless of who has power in this system.
Thank you Christina, for your detailed post. You covered all the aspects we discussed at the seminar. Additionally, I was impressed by your essay in the class. It was very powerful… I admire your strength…
First point I want to make is about labels. I cannot but agree with you that “labels are subjective.” We label others every day without even noticing that. We label somebody as a “criminal,” a “beggar,” an “alcoholic,” a “psyche,” and sadly, those labels define the rest of their lives. But who gave the power to us label the others? Is it money and wealth? Some may answer that government and criminal justice system of a country has a right to do it. One may argue that there are many criminals in our government and no one prosecutes them. Even more, the U. S. did not join the International Criminal Court (ICC) because we are afraid that our top people will be charged with all the crimes they committed. Another answer to the question: “Who has a right to give labels to the others?” – could be the majority. Then again, who is this majority? What defines it? Skin color? income? or religion? I am white but over here I feel that I belong to the minority… Can it be a system that gives labels? Some may say that we should blame it. In fact, should we? We speak that our system should be changed. Looking back at the history, we can follow how one system was changed by the other: imperialism, feudalism, communism, and capitalism. No matter, what system we had, the wealthy had control. They dictated the rules. Joseph’s statement perfectly answers the question whether the system defines our lives: “Through my struggles of adversity and the traumas of life I could succeed regardless of who has power in this system.” If it is not a system, what is it?
Thank you Christina, for a detailed description of Fundamental Contribution Error. It deepened my knowledge in Anthropology (in fact, I never took one). We are making this fundamental mistake every day. We always try to find something bad in others without noticing our own drawbacks. I would say that it is a human nature to do that. However, people can change. We have to work on it. It requires time and efforts. Not that many of us, in fact, want to change themselves, if it will not be beneficial to them.
The next point Christina was making is whether we can cross a line between a social worker and a client. We not only can, we should do it (depending on the case, of course). The majority of our clients are from low-income families. They could put a psychological barrier after having seen a good-looking well-dressed social worker. They could think that none of us has problems similar to theirs. On one hand, it might be true. On the other hand, we might have many problems but different ones. We might be able to cover them behind our nice clothes and fake smiles. Therefore, it is always beneficial for the client to show that we are the same human-beings as they are.
Christina,
Very interesting post!
Joseph and Nadiya make some good points. I believe that the more money someone has, the more likely that that person will receive a more lenient sentence, punishment, etc in comparison to someone who does not have a lot of money. I think that happens because the person has access to better representation and resources, not to mention a more professional appearance. It seems as if the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keeps getting poorer.
The line between social worker and client should be carefully monitored. On one hand, you want your clients to feel comfortable with you and trust your expertise. On the other hand, you want to maintain a professional relationship with your clients. This balance is tricky because one has to be aware of when crossing the line would jeopardize the level of professionalism involved. You almost never know how far is too far until something goes wrong and the professional relationship becomes compromised. It is the same thing that professors have to decide on sometimes: they come into contact with many students, some of these students may need extra help with assignments, and it is up to the professor to decide how much help is too much help.
I believe that a social worker has to know how to keep the client comfortable, informed, and well provided for in terms of services, without revealing too much of his or herself. If I go to someone for help and in the midst of me explaining my situation that person starts talking about his or her life, I would more likely feel turned off from ever going to that person for help or advice again. Social work is all about providing for the client, and that is why I say a balance is extremely important, because I don’t think any social worker wants to end up turning off more and more clients by revealing too many personal details. It is admirable that you want to give so much of yourself to your future clients. However, if your main technique will be to talk about your obstacles and achievements in hopes of encouraging your clients, it may eventually weaken your overall efficiency and professionalism. It may also have the opposite effect of intimidating you clients because they may misunderstand the information that you are trying to offer to them.
Christina, thank you for your intelligent, insightful post in which you provide a sophisticated analysis of social dynamics, and the kinds of on-the-ground issues that emerge from that larger understanding.We could spend the rest of the semester discussing each element of your commentary.
You begin by saying “everything is backwards!”—that which appears “normal” could be—should be—understood as a social and political project—not at all “natural” but “made” to serve powerful interests.In turn, for us to understand how people become “deviants” we need to understand how powerful interests get served in the way social problems are imagined—in the way social problems are situated in the poor/working poor/working-class/lower middle class themselves—the stigmatized and marginalized.Such a perspective turns the “problem” on its head.We are so used to seeing (to looking, to examining) what’s in front of our eyes (the homeless lady, the drug addict, the criminal) that what’s behind it is becomes invisible, un-seeable.Gramsci used the term “hegemony” to capture this complex, dialectical process: “Hegemony involves a special kind of power (in which) the granting of legitimacy to the dominant classes appears not only as ‘spontaneous’ but natural and normal” (Clarke et al 1975). Here’s a quotation from one of my publications (2005):“In our times, America’s poor are used as ideological tools in the ‘manufacturing of difference,’ and social, economic and political inequalities are rendered invisible by propaganda and rhetoric. Ideologies of difference also help legitimate domination: we believe that those who rule deserve to, and ‘all the rest need supervision, guidance, reform, incarceration,’ as Crawford once wrote (1994:1349). Put another way, Bourgois (2002) explains that ‘the normalization of structural violence means cruelty and injustice can pass for common sense…and be understood by the general public as just the way things are naturally – whether it be homelessness in the United States, apartheid (here and elsewhere), the prison industrial complex or merely poverty under neoliberal terms of trade.’We must strongly challenge the understanding that these ‘things’ are okay – that it’s just the way things are ‘naturally’.”
This is the perspective I have tried to bring to all my work & writings.Let’s try to make the invisible visible.Let’s try to analyze—bring out into the open what is so well hidden.I believe that if we do that, we can then better address the real and painful problems experienced by the poor (including the problems that become self-inflicted).Even though it may seem difficult to confront this “system” (for that is what it is—a structured system) and make us feel there is no hope (how can we change the system?) I strongly believe that we must—otherwise we will continue going around and around in circles, chasing our tails. Like Hilfiker, I think it’s ultimately more constructive (and more hopeful) to know (to face up to) what the obstacles are in all their complexity. That way, we know what we’re really dealing with, and we know better how to frame our own efforts to “help.”
I love a debate and share your hatred of hypocrisy so I would like to adress the examples you brought up.
The first issue is not a governmental one but a social issue. Sex sells and advertisers are fully aware of what will cpture the most attention, and the social subconcious in my opinion is fully aware of this fact and disregards issuesthat my arise from such billboards-despite the fact that almost everyone has seen in film or television many a parent covering the eyes of their children while driving past such a billboard. The breast-feeding woman being asked to leave a public area is rather silly to me, but again it is a social issue. Personally I think it is as immature as young children chanting "Ewww" in unison when they see two people kissing. It's a social mentality issue not a governmental policy issue.
The reason certain drugs are legal while others are not, I believe, is they are easily taxed. Ciggarette Producers need factories to roll ciggarette, cardboard to pack and ship them, and vehicles to transport them in bulk. All taxable. Alcahol distributors need massive fermenting factories for beer, storage facilities for aging of wine, and distillaries for liquor as well as bottling plants and distributors. Again all taxable. The pharmaceutical companies are taxable as well. Massive growing of marijuana can be done by a handful of people and distribution of it en mass can be done under the radar. The same with other illigal drugs. No taxation equals no go governmentally. Not hypocritical, purely an issue of economics. Legal drug sales fall, so does governmental profits, which mind you subsidize healthcare issues which arrise from legal and illegal drugs.
War is awfull, but very often unavoidable, same with capital punishment. Both have unjustified instances that are terrible and inexcusable but, excuse my redundancy, unavoidable. I hate to sound like I am oversimplifying two intricate issues but I personally feel the government would have it's hands full and be criticized regarding their policies on war and capital punishment no matter what what they do. They are between a rock, a hard place, a fire and a frying pan when it comes to those issues.
A mural or painting may be less beautiful than a piece of graffiti, but the graffiti was drawn on property that did not belong to the artist. If you make gorgeous metal sculptures then I applaud you, but if you ransack my car to shreds for supplies for said sculptures you should be arrested.
The immigration issue and the toxic pollution is where I wholeheartedely agree with you. It's hypocritical to demand a border fence when the food you eat at home has been harvested by illegal immigrants, the restaurant you ate at is staffed by them and so is nearly every other store you shopped at. Anyone who believs their jobs are being stolen are confused because illegal immigrants do not work in the banking industry, legal proffesions or any other high earning sectors. They work doing remedial labor no one wants to do and the financial savings for companies mean we enjoy cheap goods. Ad if the government spent their time ticketing big business who pollute, rather than ticketing mom and pop stores whose garbage fell out of their bins and onto the street, the world would be cleaner and governments richer.
“Nothing else to lose” is similar to having stakes in conformity (social control theory). For those who are part of the elite, they have more to lose. Through being in the city and having friends from the five boroughs I have come to see that someone on parole, probation, or serving time in jail/prison is normal. It is expected. When a friend of mine talks about someone she knows having a curfew and I joke around and say, “What is he on parole?” And she responds with a very serious “yes”, I get this feeling like it is normal. It seems that some people feel stuck in society and stakes in conformity have a huge impact on actions.
I am glad that you brought judgement into play. Judgement is an interesting thing and I do believe it is part of human nature. I find myself judging people, but many times it is subconscious. Even though I do partake in it, I have come to realize that no one is in the right to judge. A coworker of mine is very much judged by my other coworkers, and she is seen in a negative light. Really I have come to find out that she is misunderstood. The trials and tribulations that she faced growing up are remarkable, and where she is today is something for her to be proud of. A persons past, and their obstacles paint who they are. The painting may be altered along the way, but the final product is from all that the individual has endured. So without knowledge of those obstacles, triumphs, and their overall life story, who are we to judge?
The tightrope between clients and staff, again an intriguing idea. I strongly support leveling the playing field and I do not see harm in sharing personal life. As you all know, since I talk about all the time, I worked with juveniles over the summer, and what was most interesting was that the youth did not know how to interact with me. In this situation it was necessary for me to include my personal life because they typically do not interact with, or never have interacted with a white, blonde, suburban girl. Prior to being accepted as an intern, my interviewer told me that I needed to be prepared for being violated and I needed to understand that the only idea they have of white people is from what the say on TV, namely MTV. The first day I was there one of the girls said to me, “you are not used to being around people like us.” I was caught off guard but I was glad that she said this to me. Your personal life stories make you more real, they allow the client you are working with to relate to you, and more importantly they get to learn about different walks of life. Perhaps there may be situations where your personal life should not be included, but I can see it only has helping the client to see you has a human not a superior.
As a final note, I want to add that I have an issue with the words “majority” and “minority” in the context they are used to describe populations of people. I can not see how it is relevant and it creates unnecessary separation between people.
As I'm an atheist (raised Presbyterian) married to a secular Jew, I'm about to do something very strange: quote the BIBLE. As I read through your interesting, passionate posts, BIBLE verses kept occurring to me.
On the question of hypocrisy/attribution error, the BIBLE warns us not to "notice the speck in your neighbor's eye and ignore the log in your own eye."
On the question of judgment (sorry, no "e" people): "Judge not lest ye shall be judged."
On the question of riches and morality: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Believe me, I was as weirded out as you are now. Where is this coming from? Why is there where my brain went? It think what the return of repressed BIBLE verses was telling me was that these questions have been around FOREVER. So while we must always ask "who benefits" at any given historical/cultural moment, while we must not let cultural structures off the hook because, having been around "forever," they now seem natural, we may have to consider what it means for individuals and society that the problems of inequality, greed, hypocrisy, violence and discrimination have been features of so many societies across all of history.
Joseph, I admire your courage for making such a bold statement, and I hope that I too can "succeed regardless of who has power in the system." I think that it is that kind of determination and confidence that separates those who achieve and those that merely try.
Nadia, thank you for your kind words regarding my speech. Just so that you know, Fundamental Contribution Error is Social Psychology, and I apologize if I was unclear. I enjoy your reason as to why the US did not join the International Criminal Court, I agree.
Jamie, I wish that you could have been in attendance at our last meeting, because you would have heard me get very personal with my professors and class mates. One of my favorite writing samples happens to be about a devastating experience in my life, and although you do not know the specifics of my situation, it is a subject that you are familiar with.
I chose to reveal this information because although it is an emotion provoking topic, it is a part of my life that I have struggle with, that I have SURVIVED, that makes me who I am today, but does not define me. I have many personal experiences that better prepare me for working with individuals that need assistance, encouragement, and advice. I am changing everyday as my clients teach me. I feel like if I am going to learn about their personal lives, why should I hide mine. Many of the people working at my agency chose a life of deviating from the "norms" of our society, but have since changed considerably, and they speak freely about their pasts. I find this to be beneficial considering that this is proof that these men and women can change their lives.
Although I believe in honesty sharing, this may be one of the many situations where less is more, because it is known that people find ways to use your personal information against you. With knowledge we gain power, some use it for good, and some use their power for evil. I also understand your point that we are there to listen to and help with the clients issues, and not just to hear the sound of our own voices. Maybe this is the distinction between a motivational speaker and a social worker.
Alex, I love a debate too! And I understand that it is not illegal for a woman to breast feed in public, but I believe that government, the economy, society, culture, individual beliefs, are all related and dependent of one another. And even if breast feeding is not a governmental policy issue, prostitution most certainly is. Some may find it extreme to compare a New York City escort, with Miley Cyrus and her new provocative videos, but I believe them to be very similar. In both cases we see a female using their body in exchange for money, fame, or material objects and I do not see the difference, except for the fact Miley Cyrus is making revenue for so many corporations, so we have been made to accept that Miley Cyrus half naked on TV is just normal for a seventeen year old girl today, and a prostitute is dirty, greedy, and deceitful. And that Miley Cyrus is a Disney Channel pop star, an idol of young American Girls, and although I do not approve, my 6 year old sister watches her shows, so not surprisingly I am concerned.
I am glad we agree on some points, but I am a bit confused. Wouldn't immigration be an economic issue too? Isn't pollution an environmental issue? Like I mentioned earlier, when we start separating the issues, the complete picture is no longer visible. Being that there are so many issues to address and so many people involved it is the logical solution to create specialized organizations that can keeps affairs in order. However, it seems as though this is now being used as a loophole to pass blame around, while avoiding making one agency seem like the scapegoat. Just like it is very easy for Democrats to blame Republicans and vice versa, but in the end, we are all one nation, and we must live up to our name and become UNITED.
(cont)
Katie, what I mean by minority and majority has nothing to do with skin color, nationality, maybe not even class. I guess what I mean is that there are two groups, those that are either suffering from this unequal structure and are urged to change it, and those that have already accepted this as their reality and have decided to conform. Also, I am wondering how the preconceived ideas that your clients have about you affect your work? Do you think that it makes a difference to them, or are they just glad to have someone who cares? Do you feel any disconnect? Do you feel that you would have more of an advantage if you had lived a life more like theirs?
Professor Watertson, I feel like you and I see things very similarly regarding these topics. I enjoy your uncontrollable enthusiasm in class, because it reminds me so much of myself, except that I should practice being less argumentative and more articulate, persuasive, and informative. All that talk about your book and I was never able to say what I liked best, and it is your awareness that there is something deeper taking place within the structure of our society. When you say things like "...Nora has been hit hard by America's attack on its racialized and most vulnerable poor, an assault popularly referred to as the 'war on drugs,'" I know that you find this atrocity to be something like a crime when you call it an assault. And your remark, "For such a highly developed and sophisticated nation as the US, this dismal track record seems implausible, unless these practices are not failing when outcomes are matched against underlying objectives," expresses your knowledge of ulterior motives. "I believe that as social scientists our most important role is to confront power and explain the deep complex of forces and factors that position people such as Nora to become 'at risk' in the first place...". I will use this phrase as motivation to be an activist, a nonconformist, to oppose the social pressures of the oppressors, as bold as that may be.
Professor Reitz, I apologize for our spelling errors. So these questions have been around forever, Does this mean that they are impossible to answer? Is there an answer? Technology and biology have evolved greatly, yet we are still unsure of these fundamental concepts. Every society has faced these predicaments, and with the rise of every empire, so was its fall. Does anyone think that the American empire will be the next to crumble? What practical solution is there to avoid disaster?
Christina, great job responding. You all are really taking this blog to the next level! I hate to be a school marm about spelling, but if I don't...
Because I have been impressed lately by the long history of many of our conversations (I think I made a very similar point during our discussion of family) does not at all mean we shouldn't try to address the issues. Even if many ills or weaknesses will always plague human-created worlds, as society changes we may indeed have moments of greater (or, alas, lesser) lucidity to recognize them (moments of true promise/change within revolutions, for example) or greater tools to fix them. For example, while I feel less optimistic about creating societies where there is complete economic equality -- what examples do we have? -- I do feel like it is possible to work towards solving world hunger, universal health care, particular diseases for which there is science but no money or political will or inequities in the justice system.
There is currently so much on the table in this blog that I do not know where to begin. I am just going to start somewhere…
Christina, you move to heart of the darkness that cloaks inequality: the way it disappears into normality. The way woman are “naturally” better at taking care of children, for example, has conveniently kept them earning three fourths of what men earn. (By the way, in some Scandinavian countries where it has become mandatory for parental leave to be offered to men, men report feeling similar “biological” pangs and, oh yeah, women’s salaries have risen dramatically. Coincidence? I think not.) Not only do we normalize the status quo so that those in power can stay there but we “abnormalize” parts of the human condition so as to remain willfully ignorant about the causes of suffering. I think about this every time I see a soldier diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as if the craziness lies in the person instead of the situation we have put him or her in.
On another note, Christina, Jamie, and Katie have raised the issue of how much to reveal to clients. This is a core issue for anyone who works in the field. Clinical Psychology is evolving in this regard but has by no means reached any kind of consensus. It seems to me that the neutrality that Freud believed to be at the heart of psychoanalytic treatment is no longer relevant; postmodernism has deconstructed that paradigm. No matter how much we pretend to be emotionally isolated from our clients or patients, we are not. As Harry Stack Sullivan (he was the one who talked about problems in living, Christina) reminded his medical trainees when they positioned themselves as dispassionate experts tending to their mentally disordered patients, “we are all more simply human than otherwise.” If anything is my mantra, it’s this phrase. However, we must remember that we are all the same while also keeping in mind that it would be arrogant to assume that we automatically understand each person’s experience just because we are all human.
One of the dangers of volunteering too much too soon is that it makes an assumption that our experience is analogous to our client’s, when we simply do not yet know enough to make that assumption. I rarely worry about professional boundaries in the sense that I think Jamie meant them but I worry a lot about taking up too much space in the room. Part of what I can provide a client is the kind of focus that no one may have given them before; I think very, very carefully before I speak of my own experience because it’s supposed to be about them, not me. That said, after thinking carefully and assessing whether I am telling them something personal because it might be helpful to them or for some narcissistic reason of my own, I will tell something small about myself. And see how that goes before revealing more. As long as we are reflecting, and respecting someone’s right NOT to know us, I think we are okay.
Dear Christina,
Thank you for your post, its really detailed I must say.
As I read through your post all I could think about is the society we live in today. In class I remember stating that individuals with "limited resources" are less likely to make improvements in their own lives compared to the person with money. However, you make a great point and so does prof. Waterston when you both said "is it really that society doesn't have the resources or is it the government that makes us believe that resources are limited?"
After thinking it over, I thought to myself, you both are right. You're right because if the rich can afford everything and resources to them are just an abundance, then why do those that have little to no income are limited in supply? This is where my professor in my economics class comes in, he stated in the first day of class, "you know that chart of supply and demand? Well forget it, it doesn't exist, its made up to make people think that resources are finite." When I heard this not only did I find myself to be upset, but I felt betrayed. Betrayed because in society we are fooled to believe what we hear, fooled to think that the government is on our side, and fooled to think that the people are the source of power.
People say that to be aware of the injustice the government is doing, you need to be educated; but then I hear that supply and demand is a term to dupe society and people just use it to know how many items should be produced at what price to make a profit. So the question then becomes, who do we believe and what do we believe? Is knowledge then a source of power or has the information we have been given been hampered with?
Additionally, I want to comment on your thoughts about what is considered acceptable and not acceptable. Celebrities today seem to wear whatever they want and create trends that people follow. Just yesterday I was at borders in 59th street and the guest for the night was Hilary Duff. As a child I use to admire her character as Lizzie McGuire because she acted as your typical teenager just trying to go through junior high without having to be labeled the geek nor an outcast. However, at the end of the season, with the help of her friends and family she always made it through her obstacles of not "falling" into the trends nor pretending to be something she wasn't. Not only did her friends admire her for always being her, but that she was always there to help someone no matter their Junior High "status" (geek or not).
However, when Hilary Duff moved on to bigger and better things, all of the girls that admired her wanted to be her. But as the media followed her, she showed signs that she was loosing weight too fast or that she wouldn't eat much to maintain her shape. This is where a problem is presented, if these young girls are admiring her and desire to be her, how can we accept them to follow her footsteps and stop eating or behave like her? Or do we blame the media for going too far in invading privacy and labeling people "fat, skinny, and so on" that celebrities fall from this pedal stool they are placed on and shock society by their drastic changes (whether it be drastic weight loss, drug addiction, or just inappropriate behavior).
What I simply mean to state here is, appropriate or not, we simply have pressure coming from every where that makes each and every one of us vulnerable to fall. Whether it be celebrities eating less to look better, or just the kid on the street doing drugs because he or she feels they have "nothing to lose". We are all vulnerable and labeling each other only makes the process of becoming better a lot more challenging.
Overall, thank you again for your interesting and detailed post. My only question to you is, when you feel like your about to fall, what methods do you use or who do you go to for help?
Professor Reitz, I like your talk about revolutions! I guess I am one who believes in revolutions because I feel that it is necessary to have an overwhelmingly large mass of people in order to fix the problems that we are currently facing. A former professor and now mentor does not believe in revolutions and this is something that we debate constantly. She gives the example of Che and Castro and how their revolution ended up being counterproductive. She believes that her place as a professor and anthropologist is her way of reaching small numbers of people and affecting their lives. In turn they will affect others, and this is how she believes social change is accomplished. Which method do you think is more effective? Do you think that certain situations call for one method over the other? What situation are we in now?
Professor Stein, I love your statement “respecting someone’s right NOT to know us…” because as Jamie said it can be very frustrating when you are asking for someone to listen to you and to help you, and all they can seem to think about is themselves. I know we have all experienced trying to talk to a friend and vent about our problems and all they do is end up talking about their problems. I can’t imagine how I would feel if a professional were to do that to me when I am supposed to be a client. I am still confused as to how to make that distinction between ranting about my own obstacles and providing clients with valuable motivational lessons. I am sure that with more practice, I will learn what does and does not work. Until then I am prepared to make many mistakes, but like Herb says, we learn from doing.
Jessica, I am thoroughly agitated but not surprised by your professor’s comment. You are so right when you express your confusion over who to trust. I have this same dilemma because I want to believe what my professors say, but they are not always right. I know that I should never believe the media, but then how do I stay aware of my current events. I cannot believe politicians, doctors, sales persons. Is there anyone we can trust? It seems like there isn’t. Sometimes people tell me that I am too cynical, that I cannot think that everyone is a liar. Is this true, or has this tactic saved me from being taken advantage of?
Also, I am glad that you too understand the impact of these child stars turning sexy, anorexic, and drug addicted. I understand that we all have problems, and that eventually these young girls are going to become women want to move on, but it is as though people do not understand how television icons really affect our youth in this country. A woman on MSNBC was commenting on Miley Cyrus’ new video saying that this is just what teen girls do now, they grow up fast, and that it is the parents’ responsibility to control what their children watch. To me this just seems like another way to pass the blame. Capitalism is like “Were going to make money regardless of what you think or how you feel. We are going to sell food that will give you heart disease and diabetes, we are going to market cigarettes and liquor to your children, we will charge outrageous prices for clothes and housing, and if you don’t like it, then leave! We are going to do these things and if you disagree then you can simply choose not to be a part of it.” Like it’s that easy!
It's funny that you ask my thoughts about revolutions because one of the reasons I am drawn to 19th century England is because in a time of revolution (from America to France to multiple revolutions in Europe), England did not have one. What they had was a long (really long!) time of reform, marked by protests and legislative changes, but no real violence. It is definitely part of the ideology of the culture that small acts by ordinary individuals make a difference in the lives of others and that that counts as social change. Here is a famous line from George Eliot's novel MIDDLEMARCH (1971-72) that I often quote (when not quoting Bible verses!?!): "But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs."
And while it is brutal to have to follow the poetry of those lines with my own prose, I will say that what I believe in about revolutions are those moments of promise that allow people to see change as possible. Bursts of inspiration. I'd agree with your professor that revolutions, as the saying goes, tend to eat their own. History has shown them to go on to at least at some point betray many of the ideas that fueled the revolution in the first place. But this is not a reason to reject the idea of revolution. Indeed, the architects of the American Revolution put forth a crucial and truly revolutionary idea of individual liberty. Of course, half those architects were slave-owners and that can't be ignored when we study the American Revolution. Still, that idea of individual freedom as the cornerstone of that revolution, however problematic, was available as an important American ideal when Lincoln picked it back up "four score and seven years" later in his Gettysburg Address, which is an important part of the history of the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves.
Typo! I meant to say that Middlemarch was written in 1871-72, not 1971-72. For y'all, they are both ancient history, but to me it is a very important difference!
Wow, this blog is almost too good. It’s like being in a batting cage with the machine set to speedball. By the time I clicked “publish” on my last post, three new ones had gotten there before me and gone in a different direction. Okay, I’ll try to get my bat acclimated.
First, in terms of knowing when and what to say to clients, experience certainly helps but just plain old thinking helps the most. You can try to develop what Theodor Reik called the ability to “listen with a third ear”. This means finetuning a capacity to be present in the conversation in as spontaneous a way as possible while also simultaneously using your critical faculties to eavesdrop on that conversation. The “third ear” listens to many things: one’s own words and hidden agendas, the client’s spoken and unspoken communications, perhaps even the voice of a distant professor or supervisor lending their own suggestions. Information gleaned by the third ear is always being used by the clinician to assess the moment and plan a couple of moves ahead, like a good chess player.
The most common “mistake” we all make is thinking that if we don’t say the compassionate/brilliant/funny thing in our head right this second we have missed a once in a lifetime opportunity when, in fact, I can guarantee that many similar moments will present themselves. We are never impoverished by taking the time to hear all parts of the conversation-especially what isn’t said-before we speak. The second biggest mistake we all make is overvaluing our errors, as if saying the “wrong” thing to a client will be fatal. Most clients in fact, will not remember a single thing you have said (Sorry!) What they will remember is the ambience you created; whether it felt safe to be in your presence, and whether they wanted to come back.
Which brings me to the issue of revolutions, big and small. I guess I have thrown in my lot with one person at a time revolutions; this is where I feel I personally can do the most. I try to stay open to ways that I can aid and abet larger social projects, mostly through writing books and articles, speaking, and being an educator. I have a fantasy that when my kids grow up I can travel more and enlarge my degree of field commitment. But the work can be daunting. I was saddened to read in today’s NY times that even Jeffrey Canada’s Harlem Children’s Zone, which he started based on the assumption that school alone could not pull poor children out of the dire straits they were in, has made little dent in illiteracy and innumeracy despite giving families wraparound health and social services while educating their children in intense programs with highly trained teachers and great student teacher ratios.
So, often it seems that without that bigger revolution we are destined to just keep reinventing a wheel… with a flat tire. I do not know the answer.
First of all, I’d be interested to hear more from Jessica’s econ professor about the supposed ‘myth’ of supply and demand. Second, I have to admit that I feel slightly out of place in this conversation. I’m not sure what I agree with and what I don’t, which made any response pretty difficult. I will say that there are a few subjects on which I am sure of my opinion. I don’t believe in government as a separate entity, every institution is made of people and ideas. Some ideas have become Norms, and yes, some Norms should be re-evaluated. But it is the job of the citizens, who vote, to make sure their representatives can be trusted to stay honest and conduct these re-evaluations. I can’t even force myself to look at the U.S. government as some sort of great evil. To believe that, I think, is to essentially give up on our political system. It is in your hands to change what you don’t like.
It occurs to me that I sound quite idealistic, ironic because I am usually as cynical as they come. Maybe it’s because the bulk of my interactions with our political system have been positive. Having family members and family friends holding positions in the government (U.S. and abroad) has forced me to put a face on many of the accusations people make. The same goes for this discussion about ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’. I remain unsure of the requirements to fit in either category, but I think I can safely say I know people from both worlds. If I can say one thing about it, it’s just that people are people and that’s it. My experience has been that everyone tends to engage in a lot of the same “frowned upon” activities. The only difference seems to be that in certain communities it’s a scandal and in other communities it’s ‘just what happens’. I think people’s perception of what kind of person has a higher propensity to engage in illegal acts needs to change. I don’t think we can measure who has more to lose. Maybe if you’re talking about money or property or ‘stuff’, but that leaves nothing to be said of self-respect, reputation, responsibility and accountability, which often provide a solid base for deterrence.
I don’t know if any of what I’m saying makes sense, but this whole conversation seemed a bit one-sided, and this is just some of what ran through my mind while reading it.
Hi all, Even though the week's blog is over, and though nobody is likely to see the entry I'm writing now, I feel compelled to write a couple of things in response to Lenny's comments. I'll be short.
I don't think the main discussion on this week's entry is about "the government." I think when we talk about systemic and structural issues (logics that flow from systems that operate in the context of inequality--kind of what we heard about today in Thomas's presentation at the Criminal Court), we are not talking about "government" per se or "the government." The issue of "government" and its representatives and what and who is being represented is very complex-- worthy perhaps, of its own week.
Post a Comment