Dear Norman,

>
> I was very glad to receive so many responses both to my questions about
> the
> future of our trade and to other people's thoughts on these issues.
> Rather
> than reply to each individual message I have tried to take a flavour on
> the
> trend of each person's remarks and to try and generate a more overall
> response.
I realise it's very difficult to generalise, and perhaps it is a pigeon
hole that can feel unfair and unjust for quite a few people/therapists,
who do not fall into that mold.   I think it would sit better with me
for instance, if you were to be a little more gracious; granting those
you are dialoguing with, some acknowledgement of their humanity, and  I
am not necessarily at odds with everything you are putting forward, but
I would like to question your people skills/teaching style, which is
coming across as slightly confrontational?  Otherwise I am enjoying the
dialogue with you, and look forward to hearing the results of your
further research into the necessary changes within the therapeutic
community, in response to the recent events worldwide.
>

> A common theme on many lists is to say that the WTC attack, both in
> scale
> and historical importance is being overplayed relative to other
> disasters
> and atrocities. In numerical terms this might be so, but in reality it
> is
> certainly the biggest event of recent times and may well prove to be
> one of
> the true nodal point in modern history. The reason for this is a simple
> fact, unwelcome as it may be, that some deaths and atrocities are more
> important than others. The IRA has known this for years and that's why a
> bomb that kills one person in London is far more significant that 2
> bombs
> that kills 20 people in Belfast. However, and this I think is the
> important
> issue for therapists, is that attempts to "normalise" the WTC attack
> into a
> therapist, conformist shibboleth, (that everybody is of equal
> importance,
> deserves equal respect and have a common set of human rights that
> over-ride
> other considerations), won't hold this time. There are many people,
> including me, who no longer subscribe to that basic view of humanity.
> That
> might be the most important change of all: a change from "everyone is
> entitled to respect" towards "respect has to be earned".  If this
> premise is
> so, then we will need to revise our theoretical and practical modelling
> of
> human personality to accommodate those changes. Now I don't know if that
> shift is permanent or, if it is, how to deal with it. I do know that
> this is
> the place to debate it. Therefore, getting upset or offended if somebody
> raises apparently unpleasant notions is only self-indulgent and
> certainly
> neither mature nor productive. As therapists we are trained to deal with
> issues, not to run away from them.

What changes specifically Norman, do you foresee will come to pass?  I
would be interested to hear what they would be, and how you plan to
change your own practice, for instance, to meet the changes as you see
them?
>
>
> A second knee-jerk, therapist-style, reaction from some people is to
> assume
> that everything that we do in response to these attacks is automatically
> bad. That's the "Bush is a jerk and Blair is a hypocrite" auto-response.
> Well, in actual fact, the real leader of the USA's response has so far
> played an amazing game. Powell has not organised a retaliatory lashing
> out,
> nor has he demonised large sections of the world. He is cleverly
> isolating
> the real enemy and attacking them politically and economically as well
> as
> getting ready for the inevitable, and I am have to say necessary,
> limited
> military intervention. He is also preparing to address the needs of
> some of
> their other victims such as the poor, oppressed people of Afghanistan.
> So,
> as therapists we have to ask ourselves if like some of our clients,
> that we
> too have a ritualised reaction to these events and to ask if it is
> masking
> our duty to really think about the demands that this changing world is
> placing upon us.
I am surprised to hear that it is a 'therapist style', to automatically
assume that everything that we do in response to these attacks is bad.
I wonder whether it is more that humanity as a whole is tired of war,
and the terrible cost it has on our world societies.  I wonder if we are
not as a human race, simply sick of the cost to our children, who take
on the legacies of our vengeful acts, and I wonder how much the
evildoers, rub their hands together to see how we bite the hook of war.
Perhaps Norman, the wish for peace on earth, is at last beginning to
weigh heavier on the scales of justice, than the need for revenge.

If Colin Powell is indeed being wise, then may God be behind him.
However I am not so easily convinced of the cards on the table approach,
and I wonder (I can't help it), whether there isn't some other world
wide political dance going on.  I would be interested to hear what you
have to say about this.
>
> A third theme that I have picked up is that it is not only OK for
> therapists
> to have attitudes that are at odds with the rest of the population but
> that
> we actually have a duty so to be. Someone even suggested that we have a
> responsibility to give a moral lead. This someone else argued was
> because
> society often ignores humanity. Well, I have to flatly disagree. We
> have no
> special insight or wisdom that is not available to others. Our methods
> of
> modelling humanity are only one aspect of what people are. I don't think
> that society ignores humanity. I think society is humanity. Therefore,
> therapists are only a part of their society, they emerge from society
> and so
> doe the "cures" that they offer their clients. If we don't change as the
> world itself changes, then we will to will simply join the dinosaurs
> just be
> swept aside.

How do you see that we must change?  In what way?  In what way are we
not changing?  And how do you know that change is, or is not happening?

>
> I hope that now we can start to think about the significance of the
> terrorist attack will have on the next 10 years of therapy development.
> My
> view of therapists is that of the  "practitioner/researcher". Well now
> it's
> time to start researching!

Me, I like to play it by ear.  That's my ever flexible and changing
strategy.  It serves me well, and consistently even while it changes
according to the needs of the situation.  I guess it's called
adaptation.  That of course, as we know, is how a species survives.  I
intend to continue to be open and accepting of the path ahead, so that I
do not close off my  mind to the greater story of mankind.  Being person
centred in my work, reflects my view that we all have the capacity for
growth, but I also recognise that there is always a choice in this.
Some choose to grow and another may not.  What about those people who
will not choose to grow Norman, because growth might be too late (as
they see it), or cost them in some way?

It seems to me that no matter what research is undertaken, it will
simply be for the purposes of understanding the world better and human
kind, it's responses to the kind of circumstances that come.  But how
will the research change those who choose not to change?  And the world
turns slowly in terms of consciousness Norman.  I don't think we have
quite hit the magic number, which enables the paradigm shift into
enlightment for everybody at once.  Not yet anyway.

I also wonder Norman, that perhaps you (any of us), may even get to work
with the terrorists themselves (the shadow aspect of humanity),to enable
you to carry out such research; to understand the shadow and the story
it has to tell of why it is, what it is.

Over.......

Regards
Amanda