Many want to understand how and why religion "works", as then, they can predict religous behavior and this is all important to protect against behaviors that might endanger all of us. So, some have tried various means to understand.
One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?
Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!
"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!
Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.
Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.
Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.
In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!
Showing posts with label " family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label " family. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Individual Rights and Expectations
Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Monday, March 14, 2011
"Self" in Society
"Self" does not exist apart from society, as "self" functions within society in some form. But, a fully developed "Ego" is the only "human self". Society is formed by collective "selves", but society is not an entity itself, unless one is committed to something other than the "human".
Self-understanding is formed within societal structures. The first being the family and whether it is extended, and/or dysfunctional. "Self-understanding" is first understood within such an intimate "collective". The child learns how to love, be nurtured and what is of value within the family unit.
But, when the family unit is not functioning or functioning improperly, then the developing "Ego" has little to help form his self-understanding. The "getting over" the "Who Am I?" stage might never develop apart from intervention. And this is where society's structures might help the child to form a healthy self -understanding and image.
A child who hasn't learned appropriate behavior, or had good examples of care will develop behavioral problems or mental illness. Society suffers when its children are disadvantaged in this way.
"Self-understanding" in religious communities can be damning if the child sees himself as "evil". or has a personality that would tend to be exasperated, or hindered by such teaching. Such children might "act out" because they can never meet "perfection", or be reticient about thier interests for fear their very interests or passions are detours away from their first allegience. Such "self-understanding" is not healthy, but annihlates "self" altogether. Such messages are "self rejective" messages and are not the foundations to form a healthy and separate identity.
"Self" is where the distinctive person resides. "Self" is identity. The particularity of the "self" might never be known apart from "self"'s ability to free itself from the demands of a overly zealous religious consicence, where "self-denial" or the "culture of death" is applauded and promoted.
"Selves" that have not become "true selves" in their particularities are prone to over-react to threats to their identifying factors, whether it is a fundamentalist religious tradition, "Truth claims", familial identities, or political ideologies. All form a bulwark against "things that would challenge and bring self-reflection instead of promoting the prevailling "self opinion". Change and maturation does not happen when such defensiveness is embraced. Such defensiveness should be understood when "self" is fragile and based on its defensive identification factors. "Self"s very existence is "felt" annilhlated, when, these dependent factors are undermined.
The human person cannot accomplish, grow and expeience his own accomplishments apart from distancing himself from such emblemic self understanding. "Self" must distance and then choose to embrace the chosen goals, values and purposes, for "self's own reasons. It is only then, that "self" has come into its own and become a "human being" and not a human clone or a human doing. It is the understanding of "self's existance apart from society, and then, the embrace of society that forms the adult "self" fully and functionally.
Otherwise, "self" remains only a functon of society and not understood as a being apart from society. "Self's" function must be a chosen one, apart from anyone else's value or goals.
Self-understanding is formed within societal structures. The first being the family and whether it is extended, and/or dysfunctional. "Self-understanding" is first understood within such an intimate "collective". The child learns how to love, be nurtured and what is of value within the family unit.
But, when the family unit is not functioning or functioning improperly, then the developing "Ego" has little to help form his self-understanding. The "getting over" the "Who Am I?" stage might never develop apart from intervention. And this is where society's structures might help the child to form a healthy self -understanding and image.
A child who hasn't learned appropriate behavior, or had good examples of care will develop behavioral problems or mental illness. Society suffers when its children are disadvantaged in this way.
"Self-understanding" in religious communities can be damning if the child sees himself as "evil". or has a personality that would tend to be exasperated, or hindered by such teaching. Such children might "act out" because they can never meet "perfection", or be reticient about thier interests for fear their very interests or passions are detours away from their first allegience. Such "self-understanding" is not healthy, but annihlates "self" altogether. Such messages are "self rejective" messages and are not the foundations to form a healthy and separate identity.
"Self" is where the distinctive person resides. "Self" is identity. The particularity of the "self" might never be known apart from "self"'s ability to free itself from the demands of a overly zealous religious consicence, where "self-denial" or the "culture of death" is applauded and promoted.
"Selves" that have not become "true selves" in their particularities are prone to over-react to threats to their identifying factors, whether it is a fundamentalist religious tradition, "Truth claims", familial identities, or political ideologies. All form a bulwark against "things that would challenge and bring self-reflection instead of promoting the prevailling "self opinion". Change and maturation does not happen when such defensiveness is embraced. Such defensiveness should be understood when "self" is fragile and based on its defensive identification factors. "Self"s very existence is "felt" annilhlated, when, these dependent factors are undermined.
The human person cannot accomplish, grow and expeience his own accomplishments apart from distancing himself from such emblemic self understanding. "Self" must distance and then choose to embrace the chosen goals, values and purposes, for "self's own reasons. It is only then, that "self" has come into its own and become a "human being" and not a human clone or a human doing. It is the understanding of "self's existance apart from society, and then, the embrace of society that forms the adult "self" fully and functionally.
Otherwise, "self" remains only a functon of society and not understood as a being apart from society. "Self's" function must be a chosen one, apart from anyone else's value or goals.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Children of Divorce
My grandchildren spent 5 days with me recently, as their parents had to work and one night was spent in the hospital with our grandson for some testing. By the end of their stay, Hannah was asking for her Mommy and saying how she didn't ever want to leave her Mommy, "ever again". I knew she didn't say this because she had not enjoyed her visit with me, but because she had a real need for her "Mommy". When I asked her what she would do if she got married, she just smiled and said," I'll take Mommy with me."
I know they love me, as they express this often, but their hearts belong to their parents. and so it should be. What happens to such hearts when they face a loss "they can't imagine". Would it be the nightmare of their lifetime? And how would it affect the rest of their life?
I know of a case where the parents were divorced because of the husband's infidelity. The little girl was only 6, but was affected so deeply, a psychologist suggested regular counselling. But, how was a single mother to afford such an "extravagance"? This little girl had three other siblings; an older sister, a younger brother, and one yet to be born. This was the time when divorce was not looked upon lightly. It was a great stigma.
The children and mother moved to a house beside their maternal grandparents, so the mother could work and the grandparents be ready made babysitters. The grandparents weren't too easy-going with the children's newfound anxieties. And with the newborn, it was almost too much.
Several years later, the mother and children moved to a small house near the hospital, where the mother held down a job. They were dirt poor, and had to make ends meet by sharing clothes and eating the bare minimum.
These experiences left deep scars on the children. All of them grew up with an unusual need for material security, and the "finer things in life", which I suppose was due to the shame they suffered from being so poor.
The good news is the mother got re-married when the children had become young adults. The oldest daughter marrying a year later and the next eloping a few months after that. A child was born to the eloping couple 9 months after their marriage. The mother was only 17.
How did that 17 year old mother think? Was she able to be equipped to parent her little girl? Wasn't she even in the best of circumstances at a grave disadvantage? And didn't her background make it even harder for her to "care and nurture"? What about her need for counselling that had not been met? Was this need exasperated by such stress as a teen marriage and teen motherhood?
I can't imagine how hard it would've been to be in her shoes. But, I do know the little girl could not have gotten good mothering. She couldn't have. And how did that affect her?
Children of divorce are more likely to get divorced themselves. I have wondered the reasons. Is it because they haven't the example of commitment? are they emotionally immature? or is it that they sabatoge their own happiness? or do they fear intimacy? do they expect and perhaps, force abandonment? Do they mis-read and mis-communicate due to their anxieties? Do they manipulate for fear their needs won't be met? do they feel unworthy and have a low self-esteem? are they low achievers or driven persons?
I think all of these apply in indivdual cases. And even divorces that happen after children are grown still has a grave affect. I had a friend in her 30's suffer after her parent's divorce. She was disoriented. Her identity was traumatized. She didn't see it coming. And she worried for her own children's sake!
I have several other friends who live in the house with their husbands, but have no intimacy. Which is worse? What is the answer?
I have seen in my own family my grandmother, and three of her four children suffer divorces. And the dynamics that are normally difficult are doubly compounded. Divorce should never be taken lightly. It affects everyone.
I know they love me, as they express this often, but their hearts belong to their parents. and so it should be. What happens to such hearts when they face a loss "they can't imagine". Would it be the nightmare of their lifetime? And how would it affect the rest of their life?
I know of a case where the parents were divorced because of the husband's infidelity. The little girl was only 6, but was affected so deeply, a psychologist suggested regular counselling. But, how was a single mother to afford such an "extravagance"? This little girl had three other siblings; an older sister, a younger brother, and one yet to be born. This was the time when divorce was not looked upon lightly. It was a great stigma.
The children and mother moved to a house beside their maternal grandparents, so the mother could work and the grandparents be ready made babysitters. The grandparents weren't too easy-going with the children's newfound anxieties. And with the newborn, it was almost too much.
Several years later, the mother and children moved to a small house near the hospital, where the mother held down a job. They were dirt poor, and had to make ends meet by sharing clothes and eating the bare minimum.
These experiences left deep scars on the children. All of them grew up with an unusual need for material security, and the "finer things in life", which I suppose was due to the shame they suffered from being so poor.
The good news is the mother got re-married when the children had become young adults. The oldest daughter marrying a year later and the next eloping a few months after that. A child was born to the eloping couple 9 months after their marriage. The mother was only 17.
How did that 17 year old mother think? Was she able to be equipped to parent her little girl? Wasn't she even in the best of circumstances at a grave disadvantage? And didn't her background make it even harder for her to "care and nurture"? What about her need for counselling that had not been met? Was this need exasperated by such stress as a teen marriage and teen motherhood?
I can't imagine how hard it would've been to be in her shoes. But, I do know the little girl could not have gotten good mothering. She couldn't have. And how did that affect her?
Children of divorce are more likely to get divorced themselves. I have wondered the reasons. Is it because they haven't the example of commitment? are they emotionally immature? or is it that they sabatoge their own happiness? or do they fear intimacy? do they expect and perhaps, force abandonment? Do they mis-read and mis-communicate due to their anxieties? Do they manipulate for fear their needs won't be met? do they feel unworthy and have a low self-esteem? are they low achievers or driven persons?
I think all of these apply in indivdual cases. And even divorces that happen after children are grown still has a grave affect. I had a friend in her 30's suffer after her parent's divorce. She was disoriented. Her identity was traumatized. She didn't see it coming. And she worried for her own children's sake!
I have several other friends who live in the house with their husbands, but have no intimacy. Which is worse? What is the answer?
I have seen in my own family my grandmother, and three of her four children suffer divorces. And the dynamics that are normally difficult are doubly compounded. Divorce should never be taken lightly. It affects everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
