Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
Family of Origin
Never meant this was a useless forum
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Copabanana" data-source="post: 685821" data-attributes="member: 18958"><p>I do not think this had to be the case.</p><p></p><p>I think what we did not anticipate is that with the degree of investment and risk that each of us took, there needed to be an investment in the safety of each of us as people. Even a therapist, guided by professional ethics and laws, fails his patients. How could it have been that we would not have failed each other?</p><p> Today I read of an important social theorist from France of whom I had not heard, of if I did, did not pay sufficient attention. He was Foucault's teacher. Pierre Bourdieu, was his name.</p><p></p><p>These are some quotes I got from Amazon Reviews that struck me as similar to what you are saying, Cedar.</p><p></p><p>Bourdieu argued: "that cultural structures are absorbed into the unconscious structures of our minds, creating a predetermined framework ("habitus") within which individuals work. "</p><p></p><p>"The structures of society are reflected in and mediated through places of everyday life, such as the domicile, and in practices such as gift giving. Essentially, culture reproduces itself by structuring the practices of individuals within the group; powerful figures within the culture are often able to (consciously or unconsciously) shape these structures to reproduce their own dominance within the system. "</p><p></p><p>"Bourdieu suggests that "habitus" explains such observable phenomena as generational conflict, since structures change over time, making the "habitus" of one generation differ somewhat from that of their parents or children.</p><p></p><p>"since "habitus" is unconscious, I suppose it must be observed by an outsider, as Bourdieu observed the workings of the "habitus" in Kabylia. If the "habitus" relies on unconscious structures within our minds, does naming the habitus and bringing its workings to our consciousness do away with the efficacy of the "habitus" itself for those with enough education (symbolic capital) to think through Bourdieu's theories (can we become conscious of our own "habitus?)"</p><p>I think one thing we failed to do was to look at how we, the three of us, utilize the same mechanisms that do our families. Except unconsciously. I think both shaming and shunning came to be employed by each of us here on FOO, for example. How could this not be the case? We learned from masters who did not teach us much of any constructive and proactive means to self-express or self-protect.</p><p></p><p>Not one of us can be faulted either for manifesting or employing uncritically the behaviors, all of them, of which we consist--those with which we were formed. That is what happens in any powerful means of change in which relationship is a center, the triggering and the overpowering need to make manifest, our core conflicts. So that we can become conscious of them, and change them. Transference occurs. It is inevitable. It happened to us, too. But we could not utilize it for a good end. It wiped us out. Not individually, but collectively.</p><p></p><p>Because there was neither a structured commitment, nor a means to dialog about process to the extent that became necessary, the work stopped. I do not think it was, in the main, the visibility. Although in SWOT's case, it could have been this to some extent. I think it was more the stuff to which I am referring. At least in my own understanding of things.</p><p></p><p>Then there is the most fundamental of things. In any group, people leave and drop out. This would have had to have occurred here, too. We set our sights so high, nobody else seems to have wanted to follow. Bittersweet. That is what it is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Copabanana, post: 685821, member: 18958"] I do not think this had to be the case. I think what we did not anticipate is that with the degree of investment and risk that each of us took, there needed to be an investment in the safety of each of us as people. Even a therapist, guided by professional ethics and laws, fails his patients. How could it have been that we would not have failed each other? Today I read of an important social theorist from France of whom I had not heard, of if I did, did not pay sufficient attention. He was Foucault's teacher. Pierre Bourdieu, was his name. These are some quotes I got from Amazon Reviews that struck me as similar to what you are saying, Cedar. Bourdieu argued: "that cultural structures are absorbed into the unconscious structures of our minds, creating a predetermined framework ("habitus") within which individuals work. " "The structures of society are reflected in and mediated through places of everyday life, such as the domicile, and in practices such as gift giving. Essentially, culture reproduces itself by structuring the practices of individuals within the group; powerful figures within the culture are often able to (consciously or unconsciously) shape these structures to reproduce their own dominance within the system. " "Bourdieu suggests that "habitus" explains such observable phenomena as generational conflict, since structures change over time, making the "habitus" of one generation differ somewhat from that of their parents or children. "since "habitus" is unconscious, I suppose it must be observed by an outsider, as Bourdieu observed the workings of the "habitus" in Kabylia. If the "habitus" relies on unconscious structures within our minds, does naming the habitus and bringing its workings to our consciousness do away with the efficacy of the "habitus" itself for those with enough education (symbolic capital) to think through Bourdieu's theories (can we become conscious of our own "habitus?)" I think one thing we failed to do was to look at how we, the three of us, utilize the same mechanisms that do our families. Except unconsciously. I think both shaming and shunning came to be employed by each of us here on FOO, for example. How could this not be the case? We learned from masters who did not teach us much of any constructive and proactive means to self-express or self-protect. Not one of us can be faulted either for manifesting or employing uncritically the behaviors, all of them, of which we consist--those with which we were formed. That is what happens in any powerful means of change in which relationship is a center, the triggering and the overpowering need to make manifest, our core conflicts. So that we can become conscious of them, and change them. Transference occurs. It is inevitable. It happened to us, too. But we could not utilize it for a good end. It wiped us out. Not individually, but collectively. Because there was neither a structured commitment, nor a means to dialog about process to the extent that became necessary, the work stopped. I do not think it was, in the main, the visibility. Although in SWOT's case, it could have been this to some extent. I think it was more the stuff to which I am referring. At least in my own understanding of things. Then there is the most fundamental of things. In any group, people leave and drop out. This would have had to have occurred here, too. We set our sights so high, nobody else seems to have wanted to follow. Bittersweet. That is what it is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
Family of Origin
Never meant this was a useless forum
Top