Becca, serious question.
In Straight, we didn't have the ring exactly like they had at Elan. But we had very similar practices. We had what, in later days, was euphemistically termed 'restraint'. In my day (`80 - `82) they just called it getting sat on, which is essentially what happened. They (well, we who didn't want to go a round on the floor ourselves) told parents and anyone else that the only reason anyone ever got sat on was to restrain them from assaulting others or hurting themselves. (carving was a popular passtime in group at Straight)
The truth, though, was that you could get sat on for refusing to "get honest" (renounce yourself, confess to an accusation... whatever) or for making a run for the door.
Most of the assaults for which people got restrained started out with the allegedly dangerous and violent subject being pushed, hit, prodded and physically made to do things like sit ups or that bizarre ritual that we called 'motivating' (flapping your whole upper body as hard as you could to show how gosh darned motivated you were to get called on to speak) If a defiant newcomer (shot down) refused to do these things, the kids nearest them would grab hold of their arms and legs and simply put the other kid's body through the motions.
Once you were down on the floor with 4 or 5 other kids sitting on your limbs and stomach, very often that was there chance to take out a little pent up agression on you. Sometimes they'd have fun covering the sittee's (yeah, that's really what we called them) mouth and nose till they panicked, which, of course, would draw a response to justify a few good punches or the (usually heavy set) girl on your stomach to bounce a few times.
None the less, the stock response to people who expressed through word or deed that they did not like being sat on was this, "You did the necessary things to get sat on!"
I never saw it this way at all. These were artificial consequences used to control behaviors that, in the real world, would certainly not have drawn anything close to these contrived consequences.
Never the less, by the time I got out after two years, my confused little concience wouldn't allow me to testify against the people who'd held me down and beat on my like that for two hours for calmly refusing to apologize to Group for having run away. "Get honest!" was the angry demand. But, honestly, I wasn't sorry. I was being honest by the traditional definition. And yet I also knew what would happen if I continued to refuse. So, in Program (Concept) sense, it
was my fault, right?
Took me longer than the statute of limitations to sort that one out.
Do you really think going in the ring was a natural, fair and even handed consequence for the kinds of actions for which Elan used it? I'm not going for a 'gotchya' here. I just want to compare notes.
On 2003-10-31 10:31:00, Becca wrote:
"The ring ended in the fall of 2000. I was a resident at elan 8 at the time, I was one of the last people to go in the ring. Although many of you disagree I fell it was probably one of the more productive things at Elan. I personally learned that there are real consequences for my actions. I know this may not be the popular opinion aroud here, but I think the students of Elan would be better off if it was still in concept."
Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell.
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.