Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Agonal Autism in the Syrian Conflict (Quelltext anzeigen)

Version vom 10. Juni 2017, 14:23 Uhr

6.071 Bytes hinzugefügt , 14:23, 10. Jun. 2017

→‎Some tentative observations concerning agonal autism and the Syrian conflict

Tiao

Bürokraten, Administratoren

31.738

Bearbeitungen

@@ Zeile 15: / Zeile 15: @@
 In the psycho-sciences, autism is defined as a severe personality disorder marked by fundamental dysfunctions in social communication and interaction, especially a lack of reciprocity in everyday rituals like meeting and leaving, asking, giving and thanking, smiling etc. When Eugen Bleuler coined the term in 1911, he meant it as one central symptom of schizophrenia, a certain preponderance of the inner thought-life of a person and restricted, stereotypical repertories of interests and activities. For Freud, autistic was more or less synonymous with narcissistic, and today the concept is also used more generally to refer to living in one's own imagination, or a very marked, excessive self-centeredness.
-Extreme self-centeredness is a natural developmental phase in the first months of a human baby's life. According to Freud, the Ego-Ideal can be seen as its inheritance in the adult (just like the Super-Ego can be seen as the inheritance of the Oediupus conflict). In developmental criminology, some theorists contend that
+Extreme self-centeredness is a natural developmental phase in the first months of a human baby's life. According to Freud, the Ego-Ideal can be seen as its inheritance in the adult (just like the Super-Ego can be seen as the inheritance of the Oediupus conflict). In developmental criminology, some theorists (e.g. Kaplan 1980) contend that the need for a defense against low self-esteem (brought about by low performance in school) can be seen as a motivating factor for delinquent behavior (with defensiveness operationalized as a discrepancy between scores on measures of high conscious self-esteem and low unconscious esteem. In social psychology, a certain self-centeredness in the service of the defense of self can be seen manifesting itself in husband-wife conflicts, where each partner tends to have his/her own narrative of who treated whom unfairly first. This is what communication punctuation in a sequence of events (Watzlawick et al. 1967).
+:"To an outside observer, a series of communications can be viewed as an uninterrupted sequence of interchanges. However the participants in the interaction always introduce what, following Whorf (1956), Bateson and Jackson have termed the 'punctuation of the sequence of events.' They state:
+    The stimulus-response psychologist typically confines his attention to sequences of interchange so short that it is possible to label one item of input as 'stimulus' and another item as 'reinforcement' while labelling what the subject dos between these two events as 'response'. (...) In contrast, the sequences of interchange (...) are very much longer and therefore ahve the characteristics that every item in the sequence is simultaneously stimulus, response, and refinforcement. A given item of A's behavior is a stimulus insofar as it is followed b an item contributed by B and that by another item contributed by A. But insofer as A's item is sanwiched between two items contributed by B, it is a response. Similarly A's item is a reinforcement insofar as it follows an item contributed by B. The ongoing interchanges, then, which we are here discussing, constitute a chain of overlapping triadic links, each of which is comparable to a stimulus-response-reinforcement sequence. We can take any triad of our interchange and see it as a single trial in a stimulus response learning experiment.
+If we look at the conventional learning experiments from this point of view, we observe at once that repeated trials amount to a differentiation of relationship between the two organisms concerned - the experimenter and his subject. The sequence of trials is so punctuated that it is always the experimenter who seems to provide the 'stimuli' and the 'reinforcements', while the subject provides the 'responses'. These words are here deliberately put in quotation marks because the role definitions are in fact only created by the willingness of the organisms to accept the system of punctuation. The 'reality' of the role definitions is only of the same order as the reality of a bat on a Rorschach card - a more or less over-determined creation of the perceptive process. The rat who said 'I ahve got my experimenter trained. Each time I press the lever he gives me food" was declining to accept the punctuation of the sequence which the experimenter was seeking to impose.
+    It is still true, however, that in a long sequence of interchange, the organisms concerned - especially if these be people - will in fact punctuate the sequence so that it will appear that one or the other has initiative, dominance, dependency or the like. Taht is, they will set up between them patterns of interchange (about which they may or may not be in agreement) and these patterns will in fact be rules of contingency regarding the exchange of refinforcements. While rats are too nice to re-label, some psychiatric patients are not, and provide psychological trauma for the therapist! (Bateson & Jackson, 1964, pp. 273-74).
+It is not the issue here whether punctuation of communicational sequence is, in general, good or bad, as it should be immediately obvious that punctuation organizes' behavioral events and is therefore vital to ongoing interactions. Culturally, we share many conventions of punctuation which, while no more or less accurate than other views of the same events, serve to organize common and important interactional sequences. For example, we call a person in a group behaving in one way the 'leader' and another the 'follower', although on reflection it is difficult to say which comes first or where one would be without the other.
+.42
+Disagreement about how to punctuate the sequence of events is at the root of countless relationship struggles. Suppose a couple have a marital problem to which he contributes passive withdrawal, while her 50 per cent is nagging criticism. In explaining their frustrations, the husband will state that withdrawal is his only defense against' her nagging, while she will label this explanation a gross and willful distortion of what 'really' happens in their marriage: namely, that she is critical of him because of his passivity. Stripped of all ephemeral and fortuitous elements, their fights consist in a monotonous exchange of the messages "I withdraw because you nag" and "I nag because you withdraw." (...) It can be seen that the husband only perceives triads 2-3-4, 4-5-6, 6-7-8, etc., where his behavior (solid arrows) is 'merely' a response to her behavior (the broken arrows). With her it is exactly the other way around; she punctuates the sequence of events into the triads 1-2-3, 3-4-5, 5-6-7, etc., and sees herself as only reacting to, but not determining, her husband's behavior. In conjoint psychotherapy with couples one is frequently struck by the intensity of what in traditional psychotherapy would be referred to as 'reality distortion' on the part of both parties. It is often hard to believe that two individuals could have such divergent views on many elements of joint experience. And yet the problem lies primarily in an area already frequently mentioned: their inability to metacommunicate about their respective patterning of their interaction. This interaction is of an oscillatory yes-no-yes-no-yes nature which theoretically can go on ad infinitum and almost invariably is accompanied, as we shall see later, by the typical charges of badness or madness.