Wow, no offense, but this seems like a lot of mumbo-jumbo...lol
So then.....what exactly do we consider abuse...? >yawns<
(It seems pretty obvious to me, but then, I'm a simple kind of man..)
Well Froderick, I couldn’t disagree more. I think the double bind can account for why certain aspects of program life can induce mental trauma, and I believe there is enough connective history to suggest it is a concept intentionally built into some programs. I actually believe a good way to describe these programs is as a system of double binds that insist the kids move through processes in which they must act against their own beliefs in favor of their definition, in continual incremental steps. You are damned if you do, you are damned if you don’t but you must still make a choice, this is the double bind faced in a program. A single event may not be the root of the psychological trauma, in fact the processes of change they are drawing from would suggest otherwise.
I will note the origin of the whole circle of chairs style of therapy comes from Training Groups (T-Groups) and sensitivity training . These are used to create individual change from group processes and they have been studied and documented at length (not mumbo jumbo). However the basic premise clearly shows that negative self concepts can result from these group processes as easily as positive. It is also admittedly drawn from and compared to concepts in brainwashing and coerced change. The ethics of these early training experiences were committed to uncoerced choice, respect for individual autonomy and voluntary participation so as to achieve a truly democratic consensus in the group. This is not the case in programs, and the double bind of forced therapy makes that something to be very wary of in my book.
My recollection of the circle of chairs, raps, was nothing like what most in the outside world would recognize as group therapy. It was more like an interrogation under the guise of therapy. There was no such thing as ‘not wanting to talk’. If you didn’t want to talk there was something wrong with you, you were hiding something, you would end up having to talk about why you didn’t want to talk, it was a game. They were going to press you for your secrets whether you liked it or not, and I’m telling you a couple of these guys truly were skilled interrogators, they could really break you down and in a pretty covert fashion.
How do describe to someone how it can be traumatic to be kidnapped from your bed, be strip searched by the kids at your new ‘school’, then be led around by them while they tell you all the things you cannot say or do, and then go into group therapy and be asked “what’s going on with you?” with the real expectation that you are supposed to be honest about your feelings. I view this as a double bind with the potential for crazy making effects. I saw many a new arrival at cedu be driven absolutely nuts in front of everybody without the need for yelling or namecalling. It was done with calm caring attitudes and carefully positioned questions, ‘how do you feel about being here right now? Are you scared to be here? You bet, what’s that like? Why is it uncomfortable for you to talk in here?’. I’m not exaggerating, I believe this was the intent, you could not hide your feelings, and they would interrogate you until you revealed them. I think the double bind is a very relevant concept for a lot of reasons.
One last question. Which situation is more traumatic? Girl A is raped by a stranger or Girl B is raped by her father. I assume most people will say girl B, but why? I would say because it effectively leaves the child in a double bind.
1. The child is in an intense, dependent relationship with her father 2. The only source of protection is her father, but the rape shatters the trust and safety. The child is left receiving the paradoxical injunction that says she must depend on her father, but she can’t depend on her father. 3. As a child she cannot leave the communication field with her father, as she is dependent on him. In this sense the rape is like an ongoing trauma that cannot be resolved. 4. She is unable to or prevented from meta-communicate the paradox she is in. She is left in a position where no one can understand her predicament or denied the reality that it exists. 5. She is punished if she does not deny the situation exists, maybe just by laying on guilt. I think if you remove any one of the elements of the double bind in a situation the potential for harm becomes far less. Consider that girl A is able to go to her father and receive genuine help and support from her father after her trauma, Girl B is faced with a far more disturbing situation. I would say the double bind matters very much.
