You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Culture’ category.
To be honest, I could excerpt most of Bowlby’s book. It is that good. However, little things like time and copyright concerns limit me to providing some of the highlights of attachment theory and how big a change it was from traditional psychoanalysis.
“The first is to provide the patient with a secure base from which he can explore the various unhappy and painful aspects of his life, past and present, many of which he finds it difficult or perhaps impossible to think about and reconsider without a trusted companion to provide support, encouragement, sympathy, and, on occasion, guidance.
A second is to assist the patient in his explorations by encouraging him to consider the ways in which he engages in relationships with significant figures in his current life, what his expectations are for his own feelings and behaviour and for those of other people, what unconscious biases he may be bringing when he selects a person with whom he hopes to make an intimate relationship and when he creates situations that go badly for him.
A particular relationship that the therapist encourages the patient to examine, and that constitutes the third task, is the relationship between the two of them. Into this the patient will import all of those perceptions, constructions, and expectations of how an attachment figure is likely to feel and behave towards him that his working models of parents and self dictate.
A fourth task is to encourage the patient to consider how his current perceptions and expectations and the feelings and actions to which they give rise
may be the product either of the events and situations he encountered during his childhood and adolescence, especially those with his parents, or else as the products of what he may repeatedly have been told by them. This is often a painful and difficult process and not infrequently requires the therapist sanction his patient to consider as possibilities ideas and feelings about his parents that he has hitherto regarded as unimaginable and unthinkable. In doing so a patent may find himself moved by strong emotions and urges to action, some directed towards his parents and some towards the therapist, and many of which he finds frightening and/or alien and unacceptable.
The therapist’s fifth task is to enable his patient to recognize that his images (models) of himself and others, derived either from past painful experiences or from misleading messages emanating from a parent, but all to often in the literature mislabelled as ‘fantasies’, may or may not be appropriate to his present future; or indeed, may never have been justified. Once he has grasped the nature of his governing images (models) and has traced their origins, he may begin to understand what has led him to see the world and himself as he does and so to feel, to think, and to act in the way he does.
He is then in a position to reflect on the accuracy and adequacy of those images (models), and on the ideas and actions to which they lead, in the light of his current experiences of emotionally significant people, including the therapist as well as his parents, and of himself in relationships to each. Once the process has started he begins to see the old images (models) for what they are, the not unreasonable products of his past experiences or of what he has repeatedly been told, and thus feel free to imagine alternatives better fitted to his current life. By these means the therapist hopes to enable his patient to cease being a slave to old and unconscious stereotypes and to feel, to think, and act in new ways. “
-John Bowlby. A Secure Base. pp. 138 – 139.
Now I like me some psychology and here is the thing; these five points share much with Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT), and it looks so simple on paper, yet in the real world the therapeutic process is fraught with so many difficulties and variables.
I often substitute teach with at-risk children and let me assure you, I use any/all of what is said by Bowlby. How do you learn when you don’t feel safe? The quick answer is nothing, but as even this brief quotation shows there is so much that goes into how we react to situations and our learned set of responses to them.
If you ask someone why they support homeopathy, they will give you reasons. Maybe that it worked for a friend of a friend, or perhaps their naturalpath gives them a warm fuzzy feeling that they just don’t get from real doctors. Whatever it might be, they will give you a reason.
If you ask someone why they want to legislate against abortions, they will give you reasons. Maybe they think blastocysts are people, or perhaps that a woman’s right to rule her own body goes on hiatus during pregnancy. Again, they have reasons.
If you ask someone why they want anti-blasphemy laws, they will give you reasons. Maybe they think that the whole purpose of humankind is to revere a deity, or perhaps they’re worried about a wrathful god smiting indiscriminately if it gets too pissed off. They have reasons too.
All those positions have reasons behind them. Sure, they are all horrible reasons, but at least the reasons are there.
If you ask someone why they oppose gay marriage, however, no reasons are ever provided. At most, they insinuate that they have a reason, but they never actually say what that reason is. It’s a very irritating thing to deal with. In the other cases mentioned, a well thought out response can show why all those reasons are terrible and should be discarded. There is something to work with. However, opponents to gay marriage don’t provide anything to refute. The position is worse than wrong. It provides nothing other than nonsensical, incoherent, non-arguments. Read the rest of this entry »
Snapped at a red light on the way home last week
This ad only makes sense in the presence of the following cultural subtext:
Women’s anger is not valid in the same way that full adult humans’ (i.e. men’s) anger is valid. You don’t need to get to the root of the problem and address it; just spend the right amount of money to show you love her. She couldn’t possibly be having a reasonable reaction to being treated badly, she’s just feeling insecure or jealous or maybe on her period.
The late Chalmers Johnson knew how to write a pithy introduction:
“American leaders now like to compare themselves to imperial Romans, even though they do not know much of Roman history. The main lesson the United States ought to be how the Roman Republic evolved into an empire, in the process destroying its system of elections for its two consuls (its chief executives), rendering the Roman senate impotent, ending forever the occasional popular assemblies and legislative comitia that were at the heart of republican life, and ushering in permanent military dictatorship. “
Yeah, first paragraph, first chapter. Boom!
I just started this cheerful read of a book, catch the review here. I’ll probably need something a little more uplifting after this one, the next on the list is The Handmaiden’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.
Science fiction is one of those genres that can inspire genuine hope for the future. Gene Roddenberry’s idea was well ahead of its time, let’s hope we can live up to some of the ideals he put forward as to how 23rd century life would be like.
Also, I had no idea about the significance of the surname Sulu – what a great symbolic name. :)
Huffpo occasionally publishes an interesting article, this would be one of them.
“What I want to point out here is how the category of “young white men” has emerged from all of these horrible incidents unscathed as a group – and how this is one of the starkest examples of white male privilege imaginable (or another term I use, “unearned advantage”). Unearned advantage is how we
describe the fact, for example, that virtually all of the culprits on Wall Street who were responsible for bringing our economy to its knees in 2008, the politicians and corporate figures found guilty of premeditated, injurious and heedlessly greedy crimes are white men, but white men are not condemned as a group for their behavior. In fact, some part of us thinks that would be silly.
However, whenever a black man appears on the nightly news or in the newspaper having committed a crime, the automatic association, the schema or framework that most people default to renders black men (as a group) as mostly dangerous, menacing and scary. I believe it is even worse for young black men. In fact, in 2014 the American Psychological Association released a study found that, “Black boys as young as 10 may not be viewed in the same light of childhood innocence as their white peers, but are instead more likely to be mistaken as older, be perceived as guilty and face police violence if accused of a crime…”
short answer: White Men control the discourse. Our failure to properly evaluate white male criminality is a side effect of the privilege, entitlement and institutional protection that create the environment for these crimes to thrive.
As I’ve written previously, The Fashion and I don’t get along. The last time I focused on how The Fashion aims primarily to destroy your self-image in order to then save it in exchange for your money. Today let’s look at one of the many ways The Fashion is willing to sacrifice your health to line it’s pockets. The insidious high heeled shoe.
I’ve never liked high heels. On anyone. That is not to say that my objection to high heels, nor this post, is born out of some subjective style preference of mine. You could dress in a fuchsia burlap sack with eye holes for all I care and I’d never write about it. No, the problem with heels is far beyond mere opinion or particular taste. They are inherently evil and should be discarded by all. The elimination of the high heel will bring about a happier healthier world.
Lets talk practicality. No, it’s more basic than that. Let’s talk purpose and meaning. Why do we have shoes at all? Walking barefoot out in the world comes with many hazards. There are sharp pokey bits everywhere. There are unpleasantly cold and wet environments. There is dirt and filth and all manor of disgusting grossness that will instantly defile any bare skin it comes in contact with. Footwear’s primary purpose is to protect our feet from a world of dangers. Further, a good pair of shoes allow us to accomplish more foot based activity than we could do otherwise. They support ankles and arches, pad the foot, and ease the stress of each step. Proper footwear allows us to run faster, to walk farther, to fully realize the potential offered to us by bipedalism. Thus, the quality of a shoe can be determined by how well it protects our foot and how much it empowers our foot-based locomotion. On both these criteria, the high heel fails in spectacular fashion.
Do you know why it is so easy to spot someone who isn’t used to the heels they are wearing? Because heels get a negative score on the ‘making-walking-easier’ metric. They make walking harder, the complete opposite of what shoes are supposed to do. Wherever there is a dance floor, there are people ditching their oh so “fashionable” heels. They risk finding a shard of broken glass with their foot or having their toes accidentally stomped on. Why? Because the possibility of a mangled and injured foot is a small price compared to the certain pain of trying to dance in heels. And there is simply nothing to be done if you suddenly need to run. No matter how you try to use them, high heels are anti-shoes.
And protection? Sure, heels will still allow you to walk across sharp objects without slicing your foot, but they subject the wearer to so many other health risks, you may as well use a rusty chainsaw as a back scratcher. Yeah, the itch is gone, but at what cost?
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…