Ottawa5,
You have divulged that you went to Catholic school and attended a ?very correct and grammar-driven school?; that you come from a family or attorneys and that you are a graduate student in a psych program. These are very extremely control based environments and ideologies. Catholics and psychologist/psychiatrists certainly have a history of ?helping? but many times not having a clue how to genuinely help. Good intentions, bad theories and methodology.
And you want to open your own school but avoid the problems inherent in them. It would matter not, if you figured out the very best method of helping teens who are not yet at peace- you could never adequately train your staff to implement the program exactly as you intend to be, because your staff will be running everything trough their own filters. Your staff will not have the life experience you have had which brought you to understand that modeling real love- respect for self and others- is the only way to reach in (or out) to someone who has been hurt by disrespect.
It isn?t complicated at all. Doesn?t require a degree. Doesn?t require incarceration or psych drugs. Just empathy and a deep desire to want to help that person overcome the hurt they have endured and/or confusion about themselves and the world that may have resulted from being treated in a disrespectful way. Which, I don?t perceive you as possessing. It?s what people used to do, and still attempt to do, in spite of our isolated lives. It?s what we do with our best friends who have the presence of mind to not give advice, but simply listen attentively. One only has to know that if someone is not at peace, they have been hurt in some way (the majority of us, to varying degrees, including yourself). Then, if you so desire to be of assistance to that person, the only role you should take is one of helping them rediscover their self-worth and respect by continuously reinforcing the truth (contradicting the wrong messages and confusion) about themselves and their true human nature. Confrontation is not at all necessary and too often used by the ?helper? as an opportunity to vent their own frustrations. When this is the case, it is far from helpful, and detrimental to the ?client?.
I have noticed that many ex-participants of the CEDU method have told you what ?didn?t work?. That IS what you claim to be here to find out. Given your reaction to feedback from people who had negative experiences, I am led to imagine that what you?re really here to do is to open the venue for more ?success? stories to be shared. I imagine you will assume I?m paranoid. If that is the case, let me assure you I?m not. I despise psych labels, so don?t use them with me. This industry has hurt many people, despite your positive experience. It has bred, not paranoia, but skepticism in many. Their/our skepticism is justified. Labeling it paranoia is disrespectful and minimizes the blatant disrespect some of us endure in our dealings with certain ego maniacs who sought to help us or a family member.
Also, what I observe is that you always come back with a lukewarm, but somewhat defensive comment. ?Sorry that happened to you (if it really did) but it didn?t happen to my son, abuse/coercion is a matter of opinion, etc. etc..? Your comments, whether intentional or not, minimize others experiences, in my opinion. I don?t observe any empathy, just cold, scientific, clinical responses. If you ever hope to help anyone, you would do well to develop empathy and the ability to illicit less defensiveness in your ?clients?, and try to free yourself of the erroneous assumption of being able to ?fix? anyone. Hint- Explore your catholic and traditional roots. Matter of fact, you?d do well to stop referring to people you?re helping as ?clients? or ?patients?, but instead fellow human beings who are entrusting you to help them sort out a problem. A hierarchical relationship is not necessary. There is always a conflict of interest when someone is paying another for ?help?. It puts unnecessary pressure on the ?helper? to be the all-knowing expert, when in fact, they do not have to have all the answers, just an ability to listen attentively, point out discrepancies, and ask leading questions to help the other person arrive at THEIR OWN conclusions.
If you can?t do that with the people on this forum, how might you be successful with so-called ?defiant? teens, unless of course, you adopt the coercive methods that all programs employ. Due to the nature and set-up, it is the only way they can be ?successful? by any definition of the word. These articles should give you some insight and understanding as to why incarcerating youth in residential programs is not helpful. If the links don?t work, let me know and I?ll post the article from my files.
http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/aacp/Vol-15-3/Youth.htmlhttp://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp549755.htmlhttp://ishmael.com/Education/Writings/rice_u_2_98.shtmlYou said, ?And if I lived in a country where, say, marijuana was legal, and if AN ADULT CHILD OF MINE occasionally used it, without obsessive dependence on it or interference with living a full life, it would not be a great issue with me--although my own perspective is that there are better ways to feel good than dabbling in this kind of thing.?
This sounds controlling to me. If I were your ADULT offspring and was smoking pot LEGALLY on a REGULAR basis, and knowing how you felt, I?m certain I wouldn?t tell you. And we would not have an authentic relationship, because I would have to keep hidden those things you didn?t agree with. I certainly wouldn?t want to be subject to your definitions of ?obsessive dependence? or ?full life? as an adult. And as a minor, the latter could quiet conceivably drive me to the former.
And this condescending remark, which really led me to question you motive and intent: ?Somehow, perhaps it was instinct, I knew implicitly that I had a responsibility to act in my child's best interest--I am well AWARE THERE ARE SOME PARENTS WHO DO NOT SEEM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BEING A CHILD AND PARENT--I only know that I could never be SO UNINVOLVED OR UNINFORMED OR LAZY OR WHATEVER MAKES THEM LIKE THAT. I AM JUST GLAD I KNEW WHAT HAD TO BE DONE. AND DID IT.
?Oh my pie?, as my niece would say. For all intents and purposes, you are suggesting that a responsible parent is one who can recognize that their ?struggling teen? needs to be placed in a program. Are you paid for referrals, btw? Perhaps we can chat sometimes of how successful a parent can be if they give up their outside interests and focus on straightening out their relationships with their teen. There are many other options available that you simply haven?t imagined yet. And I must ask how sending your teen to strangers constitutes involvement? While I agree there is too much genuine ignorance in the world, to call a parent lazy is not very professional of you. Would you please provide your definition of that word, because personally I think it should be stricken from the English language. And a personal note to you- I?m guessing this comes from the catholic/traditional values that were instilled in you.
Regarding confrontational therapy. I attended an 8-day workshop in Ca a few years ago. The leader, I discovered later, was of the est ilk?VERY confrontational. One of the exercises was to get naked and tell your sexual history in front of the 16 participants while being videoed. Despite the fact that I had made an upfront agreement to the leader to cooperate with his directions, I refused to take part because in the days leading up to the exercise it became increasingly clear to me that he had not done his own work around these issues and that he was a raging sexist, and possibly had his own agenda.
Given that, I also understand where he wanted people to go with this, and I do believe there is some value in being able to speak about one?s past sexual experiences, even publicly, without shame or guilt. The method employed was all wrong. What I observed was competition to have the coolest stories, exaggerations, stories designed to please or seduce the leader, etc. Many have described it to feel contrived, because the discussion was forced and unnatural.
My son?s experience with reals and/or raps (can?t remember which) was the same. I?ll have to ask him if he was ever required to divulge his sexual history.
I also see benefit in telling your painful stories in a group setting. Not a confrontational group, but in a group of supportive peers. In such a group, other participants would not be allowed to comment, harangue or otherwise disrespect the speaker. It would not be a chaotic, free-for-all. The listener would receive feed-back from others only if s/he so desired. The healing comes from being HEARD without judgment. People sharing their painful experiences to a group is often cathartic, creating some healing in others, just simply by hearing another?s story. This should never, never, never be forced, under any circumstances. Period.
As for adult role models sharing their sexual experiences with teens; I also do not see anything wrong with this if the intention is appropriate and it?s done in a thoughtful way. From what I have read about it here, it was not. When peers are sharing in a group, it is comforting to hear other?s stories which, as I said, can give others ?permission? (safety) to share their own, IF THEY SO DESIRE. That is the key. Allowing them to share, if and when, they choose to do so. How it appears to me, is that the adult role models at CEDU had a covert agenda to have the teens divulge things that would be used against them over and over, to ?prove? they needed the ?help? the facility offered. That is unethical, in my opinion.
Regarding the adult male ?client? you referred to who desired to know details of your life. I would think that a person who has lost all trust, who is practically debilitated with confusion to the point of delusions, etc; could benefit from some real dialogue. Unfortunately, the ?professional paid helper? must abide by certain ethics which do not allow for such realness. Because speaking about family-of-origin dysfunctions is sooo taboo, I think people have a real need to hear that they are not unique or different in this regard- Given the human condition, we all experienced some form of dysfunction (I prefer disrespect) in our homes. Sometimes reassurance of this fact alone, can be healing.
You made this comment, ?If the claims made by anonymous or even named posters seem really unlikely to you (for example, the whole governmental apparatus of a certain state is covering up a particular school's abuses)?? If you do not know that this not often the case, you have not done your research or are choosing to ignore the facts. Law enforcement and other government agencies love these programs. Licensing department advertise them on their websites. That is a fact, and one can not necessarily trust the local or state authorities to act with integrity in such matters.
You made this snippy remark: ?Key de-programming concept for recovering socialists: money is good, and wonderful things can be done with, especially when it is given freely, in the pursuit of a dream (as opposed to being extracted from its rightful owner by some blood-sucking government for someone else's idea of a "just" purpose).?
I do not believe socialist believe money is bad, and would respond by saying that the key de-programming concept for recovering capitalist is: Share the wealth- don?t let another child go to bed hungry or live without the basic necessities of life. Notice that the wealth you have amassed, you did not earn. Notice that your greed is disrespectful of yourself and others and stems from a deep fear and need to control. Notice that due to your greed, the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world had dropped to #6 in terms of quality of life.
We have no perfect model of government, past or present. And if you do not believe that government is channeling billions of dollars into pharmaceutical companies, you?re wrong. And with Bushs? new initiative to have all US citizens screened for so-called mental illness, he will be channeling even more money their way.
I wonder if it?s ever occurred to you- in your quest to understand why a programs might appear to work for one and not another- that it may be easier to brainwash (condition) someone who is already half-way there? A person who is already conditioned to a large degree, to defer to authority, to pursue the path that the dominant culture and/or family defines as success (education, professional career, etc). That could very well explain at least some of the apparent ?successes?
In one post, regarding brainwashing, your wrote: . Not much risk, fortunately, my PERSONALITY IS SUCH THAT PEOPLE I KNOW LAUGH WHEN I TELL THEM THAT CERTAIN POSTERS AT THIS SITE THINK THAT CEDU COULD HAVE BRAIN-WASHED ME!
And in another you wrote: There was a time when I would have been absolutely terrified to disagree with someone like you who comes on so strong. I would have been terrified, even of writing, in this pretty private way. MY "PARENT WORKSHOPS" WORK WAS WHEN THAT CHANGED THAT, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I WAS BULLIED BY SOMEONE??
Pardon me, if I?ve misperceive, but that sounds like a contradiction, and that you give credit to the workshop, not your personality, for your security and being resistant to brainwashing. I really dislike that word, and sometimes wish that advocates and survivors would come up with a more accurate term. It?s so loaded and easily arguable, even though it is quiet accurate technically speaking.
Well that will have to be it. My grandson just arrive to tell me about his camp experience.
:smile:
[ This Message was edited by: Deborah on 2004-07-25 21:43 ]