Subtle oppression anecdote

Tue Jul 15 16:46:17 CDT 2008

sociometry on the internet is a very cool and worthy idea!
thanks for your well crafted contribution to grouptalk, and of  
course:  WELCOME!

Ed

On Jul 15, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Anna Schaum wrote:

> 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/20080715/4ddc0d10/attachment.html 