|
At 01:49 6/04/99 -0500, Nan Hildreth wrote:
>Julia's post on priviledge said that the priviledged, in this case men,
>just didn't know they were pushy toward women. I just read Anne Wilson
>Schaef complaining that such unconscious oppressive habits of relating
>were taught her in psychotherapist school.
> ...
>The objects, the people manipulated and/or bullied resent it.
> ...
>But I think it corrupts not only the manipulated but also the manipulator.
...
>When attempts to "fix" prove not enough, they long for more forceful
>methods. Endless protest, terrorism, war.
> ...
>"In the White Male System relationships were conceived of as one-up and
>one-down. ...there was an assumption that relationships *had* to be that
>way." ... (Anne Wilson Schaef, Beyond Therapy, Beyond Science, p.317, 1992)
>
>
** There is an area, I believe, where A.W. Schaef's limited experience
also limits the possibilities. An alternative to that is that she is being
over-simplistic in her labels, and possibly being somewhat racist.
** I refer to the basis of agreements, contracts; and I'm commenting also
on her use of "White". In a book I read over a year ago, and no longer
remember which, the author points out the puzzlement of people (generally
men) in China when a Westerner tries to make (then enforce) a contract in
which one party is clearly disadvantaged. This author* believes the normal
Chinese agreement is always expected to be beneficial to both sides, and
thus uphold and enhance the honor of both parties.
. . . . (The *author might have been John Pilger.)
** So when A.W. Schaef talks about the White Male System, she's specifying
the European/Nth.American idea that you can only succeed by "doing down"
your opposition (and that they _are_ in opposition, i.e. can be expected to
do the same to you, given the chance).
** . . . . It ain't necessarily so!
** I suppose my point is that, while gurus like Anne Wilson Schaef have
useful and enlightening things to tell us, some skepticism is in order.
Particularly when generalisations are being used in the attempt to persuade.
** By the way, "a zero-sum game" is one of the descriptions of this
European / Nth.American idea, and this implies there may be other "games"
where there isn't a negative ("one-down") to produce the zero; (compare:
"win-win").
** For those who believe I've been sucked-in by "the grass is greener the
other side of the hill", I was yesterday being told by my daughter in
Beijing, of how completely frustrating the Beijing bureaucracy can be. And
not only the government sort. She sounded most discouraged.
(PS How does this apply to the US - Serbia conflict? Actually I wouldn't
trust Milosovic, but before the bombing, there was at least a real
political opposition within Serbia, that one might hope to have a "Chinese"
treaty with, after they come to power. No longer; all now unite against the
aggressor: the USA)
David.
** http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6783/index.html#top
David MacClement <davd@geocities.com> , or davd@tao.ca for secure mail
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/index.html#top