My original posting on the possible effects of diet on behaviour really has
led many into several off-subject detours, but this has highlighted the
passions and beliefs that underlie much of what we do in life.
Thus, let us move away from the specifics of gun control and examine if there
are any generalities which may reflect on the world of therapy and daily life.
The discussion has definitely revealed that the concepts of liberty, freedom
and the freedom to use lethal weapons to resolve conflict are close to the
hearts of many Americans. Implicit in this is confusion about what really
constitutes freedom and liberty, possibly because democracy is being
partially defined as equal rights and privileges for all within a framework
which upholds the dignity of all humans.
This neglects the other part of the definition which adds that these rights
and privileges are incumbent upon one carrying out specific duties and
responsibilities. That addendum, of course, allows the law to remove the
right and privilege of freedom and so on.
Now let us move on to examine the mind set which is nurtured by a certain
system which actively supports the owning and use of lethal paramilitary
weapons which many fathers encourage their sons to use for fun and recreation
in the hunting of animals or in the defence of their homes.
This reflects a mental program which regards many problems in life as the
"enemy" and this often extends to the body. Our bodies are constantly under
"attack" from disease, so we must 'fight' against cancer, the enemy. We must
use chemical 'bullets' to hone in on 'invading' bacteria or viruses. Then we
have heart 'attacks'. We use 'aggressive' means of managing certain physical
injuries and ailments. We have "armaments" of drugs to help us heal..
We have "invasive" techniques. We bombard the body with radiation. Male
doctors approach female problems like military commanders - rip out the
offending womb, automatically execute a caesarian section, resort reflexively
to doing episiotomies, cut off the breasts and so forth. Not that these
interventions may sometimes be necessary, but there seems to be a glorious
militaristic routine overuse of such invasive attacks on the bodies of women,
who still tend to be regarded as vassals of male dominance and masculinity
(though more quietly nowadays), as evidenced by masculinity being associated
largely with military heroism, sporting violence and killing rivals or wild
animals.
There are numerous other examples of militaristic analogy and language in the
world of medicine and healing, so it may not be at all surprising that
medical and physical therapy often uses methods which parallel those of the
military, while gentler, more subtle methods (like therapeutic touch,
counselling, stroking and herbal supplements) tend to be regarded as
ineffectual (certainly there is some science which does not support some of
these ideas, but the paramilitary mental paradigm may exacerbate the
situation).
Has a certain paramilitary therapeutic paradigm been adopted too easily into
medicine and physiotherapy? Is too much of modern healing still too
militaristic in approach? Is there a need for the situation to become more
balanced by involving more so-called "intuitive", "feminine", "irrational"
approaches to healing in conventional medicine?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|