aristotele - a labeling perspective twist

[REGINA SEWELL]

Ann, etc., 

I'm not sure what to make of the question of aristotele from a perspective of that sort of energetic knowing that Moreno talks about.  I've been thinking about this through the lens of labeling perspective rooted in symbolic interactionism.  

>From Adam's post citing Moreno, the focus seems to be more on folks who get positive status due to their affiliation with "sociometric stars."  The "star" status is dependent on criterion.  For example, in some circles, Michael Jackson would still likely be chosen for his creativity and ability to dance and (hopefully) not chosen at all as the person one would chose to watch one's kids.  And in some circles, the fact that he is amazingly creative and can move his body in ways that seem humanly impossible don't matter because he has been labeled "pedophile" even though that label has not officially stuck (ie he hasn't been successfully prosecuted).  The auxialliary traits over ride everything else.  

The idea of guilt by association also fits here.  The general idea seems to be that if one hangs out with deviants (people who have successfully been labeled), one is likely to be deviant oneself.  The associate might be spared a deviant label if they have a great deal of social clout, but even then, their "normalcy" will most likely be questioned.  
For this reason, according to the labeling perspective, it is likely that non-labeled people tend to avoid those who have been successfully labeled.  Folks who have their identities blemished by "guilt by association" are also likely to experience a demotion in group status which can lead to a variety of strategies, one of which is to disavow connection with the deviant and conform to group norms.  Another is to succumb to the impact of the label in one way or another and take on a deviant strategy (which may be nothing more than refusing not to support the labeled deviant) in order to deal with the impact of the label, which often further removes them from the realm of "normals."  Lillian Hellman writes about this in "Scoundrel Time," her memoir about the McCarthy years.  

This relates to my understanding of de-personalization in that the person loses their authentic personhood in the group and instead becomes a socially constructed reality, perhaps even a caricature.  Case in point, Michael Jackson.

And yet, Bill Clinton has sold tons of books and gets paid a lot to do speaking engagements.  And I heard some guy from Iowa who was interviewed on NPR this morning mention that Bill was a perk of voting for Hillary...

regina sewell

So



Re:  I wonder if we might have a discussion of aristotele here on grouptalk.  Specifically, I am thinking of a discussion of sociometric status which is ascribed to a person due to their connection, or apparent connection to another person who has a higher or more stable sociometric status.  I think the converse is also true. (Guilt by association, for example)  Sociometric positions are rarely "fixed" and depend upon reciprocity, group role repertoire, etc; however, there are some persons who become fixed in their position until some event provides the opportunity for persons to examine their sociometric choices on a new set of criteria.  What I hope could come from a discussion like this is a clearer picture of de-personalization which seems to be present in the aristotelic-based connection.  Ann Hale