foray

Tue Jul 15 14:32:23 CDT 2008

I hope misuse of language isn't one of the big turn offs/shutters  
down. I meant this is my first foray into group talk.

Adam, Ann, Ananth, etc.,

This is my first fore' into group talk, though I have been reading  
threads since I signed up after April's conference.

One "subtle oppression" it seems to me is the perceived lack of  
receptivity I feel when I post to any list serve and get no responses,  
when I assume at least X number are reading my post. On line  
particularly it is easy to read non-receptivity into that feedback  
loop. Then again, I can rationalize by telling myself that like me,  
people are busy and overwhelmed with the masses of loops they may/may  
not be receptive to, and a lack of response is not necessarily a  
reasonable cause for me to shut down. But in a case where there is not  
even one response I have to do a lot of self motivating to keep my  
internal thread alive.

I recently tested this in my community. We have a list serve here in  
Oregon for the American Mental Health Alliance-OR, "a non-profit  
member owned corporation of mental health professionals committed to  
the necessity for privacy, confidentiality and integrity in mental  
health services". The list serve gets used for a myriad of purposes,  
most often referral queries and  "getting the word out" about  
professional offerings, and is open to and used "ecumenically" by  
folks of all therapeutic perspectives and credentialing levels (the  
minimum is a MA working towards a state licensure).

Last spring there was an issue being addressed in the Oregon  
legislature by Licensed Professional Counselors who, due to a language  
loophole and insurance company pressures, do not share parity with  
LCSWs, PhDs, Nurse Practitoners  for payment of services, even though  
our training and credentialing process is more stringent than some of  
the NP's and LCSWs'. Curiously, even though this was big news in the  
papers and other publications for weeks, there was not a peep on the  
AMHA listserve about it. Presumably because in that conserve we're  
meant to be working towards integrity in mental health services, but  
when it comes to who gets paid and who doesn't people tend to go into  
their look-out -for #-one stance (entitlement/privilege), and get  
quiet. On the OPA (Oregon Psychological Association) list serve at the  
same time there was out right lynch mobbing going on by some  
psychologists who eventually hired lobbyists to kill the bill. Their  
stance was that LPC's are not qualified to serve the public, etc.  
etc., even though the facts are clearly in the LPC's favor. It is hard  
to believe it is not about $.

Anyhow, one night I sat down at the computer and just put it out there  
to my AMHA colleagues, some of whom I knew in person, most of whom  
only knew me on the internet: "Hey , it's been awfully quiet around  
here about this legislation issue. How do people feel? How do you  
psychologists who are on both listserves feel about me, an LPC?" At  
the time I was considering spending a big chunk of money to fully join  
AMHA, and wanted to know exactly whom I would be joining? Were these  
folks going to be receptive and demonstrate inclusiveness and  
"integrity," or would they want to shut me down?

The response I got was receptive by the people who replied, and  
approximately five did ( I believe there are over 75 on the list). One  
reply was that my question was "brave and refreshing," another  
explained in detail the long history of this fight in Oregon, another  
was an explanation of why she does not refer to LPCs (insurance  
issues), another by a board member/co-founder that there are competent  
therapists who are licensed and who are not, whether PhD, MA, etc, and  
that she supports the passing of the parity bill. In this instance  
there was enough receptivity in the feedback that I decided to join  
the guild, becoming part of what the AMHA conserve stands for. It felt  
like a professional risk for sure to ask the qusetion, and I am glad  
that there was enough support. I still wonder however about the other  
70 unvoiced responses. How many who did not respond did so out of  
subtle oppression, and how many were just not interested or too busy  
or have ADD like me to reply. This seems to be a topic for much  
further inquiry, the "Sociometry of the Internet." Is anyone already  
onto that?

So, back to the present...... how do you all feel about a CP candidate  
chiming in on this list serve? I don't really know whether I'm  
entitled or at the edge to be participating or not, according to the  
group talk conserve? I don't even know how many of you will get this  
far in the copy. It would be interesting if, even if you don't provide  
a written response, that you press "REPLY/SEND" so I have a count of  
how many actually read through this whole anecdote.

Very best,

Anna Schaum, MA, LPC
Portland, OR
Just turned in my CP application!

On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:

> fun thought. Its reciprocal: What could someone say that would turn  
> me off?
>         I have been turned off by people overtly attacking me,  
> calling me names, presuming to attribute their fantasies as my  
> motivations, uncivil language...
>                But there are degrees of turn-off
>         It's more intriguing if I do answer something that's  
> provocative and see how the other person responds
>                     Sometimes they irrationally escalate
>                          Sometimes they may pause and inquire as to  
> what my objections are about
>
>              So there's a bit of how many times over the net (ping- 
> pong metaphor) the ball goes...
>
>                       As to a position or saying something that's  
> not well received... what might that be?
>
>             Stuff that's outside of our arena for discussion, such as
>                   Advertising tooth paste
>                       or content on the border of the boundaries..
>
>                 More problematic is the lack of any awareness that  
> one is at the edge, no apologies, no questioning of the entitlement..
>
>                         But even then, in general my own tendency is  
> simply to inquire further and see how they answer...
>
>         I'll be interested to see how others answer Anath's question  
> of what content would draw our rejection...
>
>        Warmly, adam
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: thana ag
> To: REGINA SEWELL ; list at grouptalkweb.org
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:00 PM
> Subject: RE: Subtle oppression
>
> Adam,Ann,Regina,
> Hmmm. Very interesting.
> I just wonder how many on this  list serve feel oppressed by their   
> perception that  what they have  to say will be totally off  
> according to the perceived expectations of what is acceptable. for  
> these  discussions.  Would one of these presumably oppressed speak  
> up,and help us "walk the talk"? How will we respond?!
>
> anath
>
> From: sewell.2 at osu.edu
> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:33:54 -0400
> Subject: Subtle oppression
> CC: ablatner at verizon.net
>
> Adam, Ann
>
> Hmmmm.... Interesting.
>
> I tend to look at oppression and privilege as together...as  
> connected dynamics....  you can't have oppression without some other  
> body getting privilege...  even if they don't want that  
> privilege...  Like, I get privilege by dent of being white and  
> middle class even though I spend a lot of energy fighting to  
> redistribute resources in a more egalitarian manner.... So this  
> brings up an interesting group effect....  seeing the collective  
> oppressing the individual.... oppressing individuality....  
> especially 1 and 3...    sort of like the Borg on Star Trek New  
> Generation....  (they were a culture where conformity was  
> mandatory.. all cogs in the social machine... happy cogs once they  
> lost their individuality....  the words I remember  most...  
> "Resistance [to becoming one of the cogs] is futile... very much  
> like Moreno's ideas of Robotrons....  But who benefits?  The  
> stability of the group... the "borg ness"?
>           1. I can't understand what the other person is saying  
> because s/he is speaking too fast, too softly, with too much of an  
> accent or dialect, using too big or unfamiliar terms or vocabulary,  
> and so forth. In trying to bring up the problem of understand- 
> ability, I've at times been met with blame.
>            2. Someone takes offense to what I say, which then makes  
> it difficult in that escalated emotional context to seek  
> clarification and make amends. Explanations are often perceived as  
> trying to avoid responsibility when in fact they are seeking to find  
> a way to work out the miscommunication.
>            3. Feeling one has a minority opinion when the group is  
> perceived to have a certain bias. (Example: In one group many years  
> ago a protagonist was complaining about a vague memory of possible  
> sexual abuse---this was when this complaint was seen as always to be  
> believed. I asked, "Well, there seems to be some question whether  
> this event actually happened." Caught a lot of flack.)
>
> I like Ann's application of the cannon of creativity and impact of  
> sociometry on challenging that  "borgness"  ... it seems to me that  
> this is the heart of social movements....  those lone deviants who  
> first step forward and say, consciously or not, I won't take these  
> social rules and defying them... perhaps paying the price of being  
> shut down or rejected..., perhaps getting social applause...,
>
> So the trick becomes creating groups or moving towards situations in  
> groups on one hand and on another, finding ways to communicate in a  
> way that others can "hear."
>
> peace,
>
> regina sewell, Ph.D.
>
> The i’m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? Find  
> out now.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1546 - Release Date:  
> 7/11/2008 6:47 AM
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

Anna Schaum, MA, LPC
Creative Collaborative Counseling
909 North Beech Street
Suite 201
Portland, OR  97227
503-282-3800     www.annaschaum.com

Confidentiality Notice:
This e-mail transmission may contain confidential or legally privileged
information that is intended only for the individual or entity named in
the e-mail address.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance
upon the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.

If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please reply to
the sender, so that we can arrange for proper delivery, and then please
delete the message from your computer.  -Thank you.

Grouptalk mailing list
List at grouptalkweb.org
http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080715/9f58361c/attachment.html 