Showing posts with label James Prescott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Prescott. Show all posts

The Vatican, The UN Torture Committee and Reward/Sanction Methods of behaviour modification.

On Friday 9th May, a report on the questioning of The Vatican before the United Nations Torture Committee was released into the public domain at the same time that calls from within other Christian denominations emerged, from within The Protestant Churches and Evangelical Churches, to address their known issues with reporting and prevention of pedophilia and other acts of mistreatment, cruelty and serious abuse of children occurring in all settings they were and are responsible for.

The call was to not do as the Vatican has done, and seek to attempt to manage or control the ‘crisis’ so as to protect their ‘image’ and ‘status’ which inevitably causes even more trauma for all survivors.


With regard to the torture matter, it is really crystal clear to me that every form of indoctrination to which children are subjected that comes with with sanction, punishment, chastisement and reward is a form of psychological torture.

"If you are driven by the threat of eternal torture to be a good person, you're a frightened person.
 
To instil, indoctrinate, inculcate or impose upon a small child's body, mind or psyche the feeling or sensation or thought frame associated with fear of existential punishment, as a psycho-social structure or some 'moral code', as coercive and violent as it is, is torture.”

This means that the person using such a coercive process upon a child is frightening the child and a frightened child, quite obviously,  will not see sense in the instruction and the matter will thus require coercion, to ensure compliance. All for 'the child’s own good', of course. And for the good of Society.

Of course.

This is based on a dreadful misperception of the child, which has been a foundational meme of Christian European culture and indeed Abrahamic cultures for a long, long time, (the fear of Satan/The Wild in the child that must be tamed at all costs) and it mirrors all sorts of adverse power relationships that are institutionalised into our mainstream Societal structures even to this day.

This dynamic mirrors the relationship between Power, Law, the State, and the Citizen. The power issue is the core of the problem, from the personal to the Institutional. It is because this Christian-post Christian social thought map strikes at the heart of one’s sense of self as a vulnerable child that it has so much power over the adult, especially if the adult has ‘adapted to fit in’ and is less than fully aware……  with generation after generation ‘adapting to fit in’ it is easy to see how over time those PTSD patterns become ‘normal behaviour’.

I will address this aspect a bit further down this piece.

Last week, Democracy Now reported on these issues, and there was a specific report on the Evangelical Churches in the USA which I found very interesting.


The news team interviewed Kathryn Joyce, a reported and researcher, who had some really interesting comments to make, one of which I wish to point out, whilst at the same time I recommend listening to the whole Democracy Now report on this link.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ (newsteam): We turn now to a new exposé that asks if the Protestant world is teetering on the edge of a sex-abuse scandal similar to the one that has rocked the Catholic Church. The person trying to address the problem may surprise you. As sex-abuse allegations multiply, it is Reverend Billy Graham’s grandson who is on a mission to persuade Protestant churches to come clean. Kathryn Joyce’s cover story in The American Prospect profiles Boz Tchividjian, a law professor at Liberty University, a school founded by Reverend Jerry Falwell, and former prosecutor who has worked on many sex-abuse cases. He used his experience to found an organization called GRACE: Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment.

AMY GOODMAN (newsteam): GRACE made headlines in February when the famous evangelical school, Bob Jones University, hired it to interview faculty and students about their experiences with sexual assault, then fired it before it had a chance to report the results, only to hire it back after a public outcry. Well, reporter Kathryn Joyce joins us now to discuss this major exposé, "By Grace Alone: As Sex-Abuse Allegations Multiply, Billy Graham’s Grandson is on a Mission to Persuade Protestant Churches to Come Clean." Kathryn Joyce is also the author of The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking, and the New Gospel of Adoption and Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement.

and then the interview starts: 

Joyce outlines the Grace case with regard to the Bob Jones University and other details she has researched. This part is at 43 minutes on the play timer. She makes a very point about Authoritarian settings and predatory behaviour.

AMY GOODMAN: And the missionary kids?

KATHRYN JOYCE: And for the missionary kids, these were the subject of GRACE’s two first investigation, two different very large international missionary groups, where the children of the missionaries being stationed in foreign countries, known in Christian culture as MKs, missionary kids, they were enduring just kind of epidemic levels of sexual abuse in a number of different countries. GRACE’s reports focused on two in particular, on the New Tribes Mission and their boarding school in Fanda, Senegal, and also ABWE, another missionary organization, and what happened on the mission field they had in the 1980s in Bangladesh. And two different situations, but a lot of similarities, in some ways, in that these were both kind of very authoritarian atmospheres where children were expected to do what any adult kind of in their world was telling them to do, and this made them, sadly, kind of very vulnerable to abusers who came by.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re talking about the missionary kids. What about the people in the communities they come to, for example, in Senegal or in Bangladesh? What happens to them?


KATHRYN JOYCE: I’m sure that there are stories there, as well. GRACE’s two reports in these situations focused on what happened to the children of missionaries, but I’m sure there are even more untold stories in terms of the children already living there who were, in many ways, much more vulnerable
.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In some of your writings, you’ve dealt with the issue of patriarchy and its relationship to religious thinking. Any sense on your part whether there are structural or philosophical directions in the churches that allow this kind of stuff to be covered up?

KATHRYN JOYCE: Well, I think, absolutely. And obviously, not all very conservative Christians or all members of the self-described patriarchy movement are going to be abusive. But reading all of these reports and looking at all of this and speaking to dozens of people, it kind of does become clear—and GRACE’s assertion—that a main factor contributing to abuse and the silencing of abuse, of victims, is authoritarian structures that focus much more on rigid rule following, on hierarchies within a church or within a community, on the subordinate role of women and children. And when you have all of these things coming together alongside a culture that sees it as imperative to cover up mistakes so that you can still promote the cause of Christ, that you are being a good evangelical witness, a lot of these things conspire to make abuse not just more common, but much more invisible.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, what most surprised you, Kathryn Joyce, in your investigation?

KATHRYN JOYCE: Well, I think what surprised me the most was watching in real time this pattern happen of GRACE going and starting and doing this investigation, getting a year into it, having spoken to dozens, a hundred of people, and then having the institution back out. This had happened once before with the mission group ABWE, and then it happened again with Bob Jones. And it was very interesting to see that. And it raised this interesting question about whether or not there is a catch-22 at the heart of GRACE’s incredibly admirable mission, that they are being hired by the groups that they’re investigating. And I think that that’s a really interesting question to ponder, but I think we also have to look at their work and say that this is very well—very much needed.
----------------

“a main factor contributing to abuse and the silencing of abuse, of victims, is authoritarian structures that focus much more on rigid rule following, on hierarchies within a church or within a community, on the subordinate role of women and children.”

What she says speaks for itself. It also mirrors James Prescott's findings and insights from his 1975 Paper : Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence.

Here’s a two page outline showing his findings in a .pdf form. 

Comparison of Social Behavioural Characteristics of Low and High Nurturant Societies 

It provides a peer reviewed anthropological narrative that accurately describes a variety of emergent social or cultural structures over time and distance, ranging from Egalitarian Nurturing Communities to Hierarchically Violent Controlling Communities. 

And the same pattern persists as Kathryn Joyce describes :  that within this range of cultures the predictor of violence as an emerging trait, or sustained pattern of behaviour of any given culture was always the degree of disruption to the child mother bond, and or the degree of control or inhibition imposed on emergent adolescent sexuality and the presence and enforcement of rigid gender power roles. 

These are resonant with post trauma behavioural patterns, where the trauma remains unresolved, where the pain remains, coping with internal pressure or conflict drives much behaviour. From the individual to the collective, aspects of the coping mechanism or strategies are internalised as within the range of ‘normal’ or expected behaviour. 'Boys don't cry'. 'Women are more empathetic'. 'Boys will be boys'. 'Girls seek out powerful men'.

The reality is of course that everyone caught up in trauma related social structures is to some degree affected by the situation, and most will have internalised aspects of it, it’s negative values and prejudices as part of that affect, and this makes for some confusion when boundaries are broken what ought to remain explicit.  The roles played out in that dynamic are hardly markers of optimally healthy human behaviour.

Kathryn Joyce's last point, about what can happen when Survivors groups get too close to the Institutions whose intent to remain and retain their power, and is less than honourable, is also very interesting, because there is a fairly well documented history of Institutions who are liable for harms caused offering an apparent ‘olive branch’ to survivors, where it becomes clear that the intended primary beneficiaries of that ‘olive branch’ is those proffering it. 

That there is a pattern of powerful institutions manipulating Survivors groups, individual survivors and NGOs through offering forms of ‘support’ favoured by the Hierarchy of that Institution. 

I think that Survivors groups need and deserve more support - and respect!- from the wider Society in confronting this situation, a necessary confrontation which has been in full flow in the public domain for nearly 30 years of public reporting of allegations, on matters than have been harmfully adverse for many hundreds of  thousands of children …  it’s narrative of Power and abuse matters for all of us, and how we deal with it will be part of the estate we pass on through inheritance. We intend to give this the focus, energy and commitment it demands.

Kathryn Joyce (And Democracy Now as ever) also bringing a much needed clarity and calm, a de-hyping of the story, a humanisation of the narrative, which is maturing the discourse and is therefore  incredibly valuable.

The main element I wish my readers to take up in why I wrote this piece, is to look at the Kathryn Joyce’s description of how an Authoritarian situation is that much more vulnerable because it has within it many of those compliance behaviour dynamics that suit predatory activity, where there is fear of The Hierarchy as much as there is respect. That fear permeates the entire issue. And it is all too often a fear and respect of distal power, a power one cannot touch or see or even influence, a power that holds life or death power over all.

That fear, that the power of life and death might be exercised upon The Vatican, drives the irrational behaviour of The Vatican, and for them that fear is so intense that it makes it rational in their mind-set to do what they are doing. 

That fear is the largest part of what really drives the ‘support’ The Vatican et al receive from their adherents, the Faithful. Who would want to lose that careful illusory safety net that blind faith, in any are of life, creates? Let alone walk right up to it and say “No! I will not stand for this!”

And it would be so easy to criticise those people for their compliance with the Institution, yet the Survivor in me has to go beyond that distaste and anger, and not to lose either sense, but to integrate them into a larger narrative, of my own life, and that of the Society into which I was born and into which I brought my own child, and it is for her and all her contemporaries and their children and grand children that I must address my actions.

The psychology, behaviour and outcomes of the activity of the Institutionalised Authoritarian Culture of Power and how these affect the majority of people alive to day have to be recognised, observed and understood. 

This psychology and behaviour needs to be observed where it occurs in all hierarchical behavioural structures, from the personal to the largest collectives. Transparency must exist in order to prevent such abuse occurring in the future, starting now. This is the ultimate precondition.

Transparency.

Authoritarianism breeds the fear that drives secrecy. 

Transparency removes it.

Privacy is not to be conflated with secrecy. 

Healthy boundaries are essential attributes in all living organisms. 

Transparency is not arrived at in an invasive environment of surveillance; it is a choice that permeates relationships, interactions and outcomes.



Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

We Are a Violent Species : I don't think so!

An article floated by, via the interwebs, when I searched on the phrase "we humans", and it carried the following headline : We are Not a Peaceful Species. It wasn't what I was looking for (as is so often the case) yet it offered me something useful.

The author points to the prevalence of violence in  human history to prove the assertion of the headline. This is such a regular argument it merits some attention because it is inaccurate. Her aim in this article is to counter arguments that say that watching Mixed Martial Arts sport makes people more violent, often made by those who watch Boxing (a gentleman's sport) and look down on MMA or cage fighting etc...

I understand the thinking behind this article. I see her point about the hypocrisy of those who enjoy boxing and deem MMA somehow worse or of less merit.

However the logic, of both, is flawed. Let me explain.

Current stats (CDC) suggest that the number of noninstitutionalized American adults   with diagnosed heart disease is 26.6 million... that cannot be used to imply that human beings are a species prone to heart disease. It can be used to say that the biological drive towards optimal health is being thwarted by any number of factors in the adult population of America. One would have to dig deeper into the data to identify what those factors are.

The CDC also states that 1 in 10 Americans are clinically depressed. That is not to say that Americans are a depressive sub-set of the species of humanity... It does suggest that there are factors which exist in American that contribute to the prevalence of depression in adulthood (which might be greater that which is diagnosed... it could be 20%...)

Likewise the propensity towards violence.

Violence is understandable, we all get angry from time to time, and for a multitude of 'reasons'. We are sensitive beings, and life is replete with challenges to that sensitivity.

Some of us get angry when our computer is too 'slow' or if we lose a piece of text we have been editing and we will swear at our screen. Very few of us will actually tear the screen off the wall or off desk and throw it out the window or assault it with a heavy, blunt instrument whilst screaming expletives... that would invalidate the warranty at the very least....

Some people get angry because others are different (eg: some Christians hatred of gay people), and some of those people will choose violence. We know that not ALL Christians harbour a hatred of gay people, and we know that not all who do harbour such a hatred will choose violence as their response. We cannot use the incidence of Christians beating up a gay person to say ALL Christians are violent or that ALL Christians hate gay people. Christianity is quite a wide brush, ranging from fuming fundamentalists to peace and love Jesus freaks. Humanity is likewise a wide brush.

We do know enough to say that those Christians who harbour that degree of hatred that they choose violence will have serious psychological and developmental issues, that they are expressing a pathology, a serious pathological issue which needs to be addressed. It would be better if it were addressed BEFORE they actualised the violence. Punishment is most often too late for the person who was assaulted.

We also know enough (developmental science, neuro-biology, neuro-chemistry, endocrinology, anthropology) to say that aspects of the societal and individual propensity towards violence have a strong pathological element, that is to say they represent an unhealthy state, a diseased state (colonisation, empire building, rule by coercion, bullying, wife beating, rape) and that our fundamental nature as a species is towards peace and empathy (these are markers of optimal human social health and well being) and that the tendency towards optimal health explains our long existence (2 million years) whilst at the same time it is obvious that a peaceful culture is more vulnerable to a violent culture.


www.violence.de/prescott/letters/Profiles_Peaceful_v_Violent.pdf - a one page chart outlining social behavioural characteristics of different cultures as outcomes of child care within those cultures.

www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html - a much more detailed paper on the origins of violence as an outcome of disrupted biologically mandated developmental processes.

It would be more correct for the author to write that she lives in a Society where violence is common, where violence is ritualised (made relatively safe) in sport (MMA, Boxing, Fencing), and where violence is deliberately chosen and actualised in Military adventures abroad, in the presence of Nuclear Weapons, in racial and other stereotyped hatreds and bigotry, in Organised Crime, Gang 'Culture' and that the State which claims a legal monopoly on Violence mirrors the pathological violence of the God of the Judeo-Christian-Abrahamic Religions, and that this is a pathological situation which causes more harm than good.

And that she enjoys watching men beat the living daylights out of each other.... especialy when they demonstrate respect for each other...
"And let’s look a little further into these professional fighters. Let’s look at how they high-five and touch gloves before they start swinging those fists. Let’s look at how, when the last round is over, they are shaking each other’s hands and giving hugs. Take a second to appreciate that pattern: respect, violence, admiration. Because that right there best encompasses the beautiful dynamic of what it means to be a human."

Oh dear!

This is a very useful article on how to counter commonly occurring falsehoods, deceptions, misinformation and outright lies...


Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Climate Change Denial-ism Put into Context.

There has been lots of writings about Climate Change denial-ism.

One of the more frequent claims is that this denial emerges from the unwillingness of those whose material comforts are so great in comparison to those of previous generations to even begin to think of forgoing those comforts. Be they 'everyday folk' or wealthy Power players.

In my view this is wholly inadequate as a explanation. It also has potential to become a means to demonise and de-humanise 'others', and be used as a means of oppression and social divisiveness that feeds Power. The blame game is not the same as asking that people take on social responsibility  based on understanding.

When it comes to 'denial-ism' we have many, many precedents and analogues. Here's a just a few to indicate the tenor of denial-ism.

The German people during the late 1920s and 1930s, as Hitler was elevated into Power, at a time when Eugenics was a respected 'scientific' ideology amongst many, many ruling elites and everyday people across the world. The German people could see what was happening, and yet so many simply turned a blind eye to the growing abuses perpetrated by the movement of which Hitler was a figurehead, and actually worked within that system as the managers, clerks and manual labourers necessary for such a system to function. What had they learned about abusive power in their childhoods that made them so compliant with so obviously abusive Governance?

The 'American' European People during the forced removal of the Aboriginal Peoples of North America and Canada, (and ever since), and the 'Australian' European People regarding the oppression of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Where did they get the idea that the Aboriginal people were sub-human and could be so cruelly treated?

The Western World in general with regard to the Aboriginal World - the portrayal of those cultures as 'savage' or 'primitive' as a whole, and therefore suitable for 'assimilation' or 'extirpation'. And the denial of that vast historical trauma, as well as the claim that it belongs to previous generations, to the past, while in reality it is still being practised.

The Irish of the 20th and 21st Century regarding the political realities of the Irish 'Famine's of the mid 19th Century. The incidence of potato blight was intentionally utilised to depopulate Ireland, and to populate the USA and Australia by mass immigration, in essence to provide cheap labour for the expansionism of the Empires of commerce. This reveals to those with eyes to see the pattern of intentional cruelty and manipulation that led directly to the partition of Ireland, the Civil War and belies the carefully crafted illusion of Ireland's entry into the modern world of statehood and a friendly relationship between the installed Powers in Ireland's State with those Powers that had so cruelly abused the indigenous Irish for so long. Forget about the truth, there is money to be made.

The long term intergenerational trauma of this experience had horrific consequences for hundreds of thousands of Irish children placed in the 'care' of Church and State Institutions. This is still a taboo subject in polite Irish Society. Why?

The Catholic world-wide congregation's response in the past 30 years as the 'scandal' of widespread, centuries long, child abuse unfolds and as the Catholic Hierarchy continues to refuse to address the matter honestly and honourably. How can so much be known about this horrific history and so little be done to address it, not least by the people outside of that Institution, whose own family members were victimised?

The Western World post "Silent Spring'... The 'green revolution' has surged forwards since then, unabated. Birdsong is ever rarer. Bee populations are falling. Monsanto is still pushing GMO crops and Supermarket giants and Pharmaceutical Corporations are determining agricultural practice, whilst the adverse health affects are costing National health Services more every year. How can such an insane and obviously damaging practice prevail for so long?

The Western World in the lead up to, and during the Afghan and Iraq Wars, during the bombing of Libya. There were no WMD in Iraq, there is no solid evidence that 9/11 was planned and executed from within Afghanistan, and the threat of massive civilian slaughter in Benghazi is proven to have been a fabrication. David Cameron sold Military technology and weapons the the Egyptian Military which has been used to oppress the Egyptian people since the 'fall' of Mubarak. Why do people buy these lies about 'bringing democracy' tot he Arab world?

The widespread denial of the wounds associated with Coercive Compulsory Schooling Systems. 'Our' schools are failing children, punishing them with target based achievement training designed to put the children under intense psychological pressure; bullying is rampant and schools unwilling to admit the scale of the problem, let alone address it's roots in peer pressure that is largely driven by consumer marketing and media propaganda. Ritalin is the tool of choice to control those children whose energy and vitality and frustration threatens the illusion that schools are educational institutions, as opposed to doctrinal training centres. How can so many parents be blind to the problems their own children are faced with every day?

To suggest that it is merely a question of 'comforts' that accrue to those who benefit in some way from the status quo is to avoid a deeper analysis, as to the psycho-dynamics of denial. It might be comforting to some who might claim, in their own minds, to be ready for a down grading of their own comforts, for the benefit of all,  which might also be yet another way of claiming the 'higher moral ground', of self aggrandisement. Ruthless self honesty is essential here.

Alice Miller was the first modern writer to look at Germany and to elucidate the psycho-dynamic that fed the situation in Germany, and to source it's roots in how children were treated, and how parents were instructed by societal power in their relationships with children. Her book "For Your Own Good : The roots of Violence in Child Rearing" is one of the most important books of the 20th Century. She showed that when an adult mistreats a child, telling the child repeatedly that "This is for your own good!" the child internalises the meaning and values associated with the mistreatment and adopts them as her or his own, and that makes it more likely that as an adult they too will mistreat their own children, and that this occurs as an intergenerational behaviour pattern that is oppressive.

The child's natural anger at such mistreatment is suppressed by the child, and emerges in the adult as a diffuse anger that is unresolved and that can and is used by Power to manipulate hatred and anger towards 'others' who are carefully demonised, thus giving permission to a whole generation to attack those defined as 'others' : jews, gays, communists in Hitler's era; protestors, muslims, immigrants and 'terrorists' today in Great Britian.

James Prescott and John Bowlby researched the impact of the disruption of the natural child-mother bonding processes and to link those disruptions to how societies behave, and provided clear evidence that the disruption of the natural child-mother bonding processes underpinned the emergence of Hierarchically Violent Societies 

Prescott's 1975 paper 'The Origins of Violence' revealed two streams of society: the Hierarchically Violent Society and the Empathic Egalitarian Society.

Here's a brief outline of the differences he observed.

That research is now corroborated to some degree, though there are some doubts and questions yet to be answered, by neuroscience, by pre-natal developmental science and birth psychology.

The adverse behaviour patterns that have been perpetuated, that lead to the problems of Habitat degradation - of which Climate Change is but one symptom - have their roots in this disruption of natural, biologically mandated environmental and experiential processes that disrupt our natural maturation and development of sense of self, and of connection to others.

The psychology of any given society is both revealed and perpetuated in how that society treats it's children and most vulnerable members.

Change this and we change everything.

Failure to change this, and we will only create new rules with which to oppress each other, thinking all the time that our rules are better justified.

We have many, many examples of this 'revolutionary' approach and the abuses it perpetuates, from the French revolution to Pol Pot.

Healing and Recovery cannot be coerced, they must be chosen. It is also true that healing and recovery benefit greatly from adequate empathic and practical support, and it is true that some few have been able to engage their healing and recovery without much support, often in the face of strong opposition.

Loss of self empathy and the urge to power - a short video. :

We, all of us, have much work to do, in many areas. And for our children's children's sake it must be, above all, honest.

That honesty is the cleaning up of our internal personal ecology as much as the external.


Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe

Bookmark and Share