Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 The idea that alcohol and drugs are used to call 'time out', and to allow persons to move into a 'subterranean' sub-culture where play, relaxation, self-expression, etc, are prime purposes, has some value. (See J. Gusfield, 1987, 'Passages to Play: Rituals of Drinking Time In American Society', in his Constructive Drinking). But I think your instructor does not think deeply enough about the issue. Consider: 1) This line of thought ASSUMES 'work' is painful and demanding, while 'play' is enjoyable and self-fulfilling. Hence, the theory goes, we use alcohol and drugs as sort of a 'pass' to move out of the demanding world of work, and into the relaxed world of play. Now, I would accept this as true in the U.S. But, is the way U.S. society is organized the ONLY way, and are the conditions we observe around us today inevitable and 'natural'? I believe work is 'naturally' enjoyable. Aren't humans built to WANT to create and produce? Isn't it only under SOME economic regimes that work becomes degrading, tiring, stressful?. h Fromm says such regimes of work occur in 'sick societies'. We only want to escape from the world of work when society makes work degrading, boring and exploitative, that is, in a society where profits come before people. I love to do research, I love to garden and farm, I love to do many kinds of 'work'. But I don't like to be an 'employee', screwed over by someone. Isn't it the status of employee/slave/minion that is the problem, and NOT the physical work or creative activity in itself? If the above is true, then it isn't the 'work' we are seeking to escape. Rather, we seek to escape from the unjust way work is organized in our particular society. The way work is organized causes pain, so people use heroin, etc, as pain relievers. It makes sense in OUR society (and in most others) But it is not part of the natural human condition, it is not inevitable - or right. Why give opium to the people (either chemically, or in the form of religious superstitions), when you can eliminate the CAUSE of the pain? As a liberal, your sociology prof doesn't trace things back quite so far. Anyway, she would get into trouble in academia sayng such things. Personally, I feel sad to see people use alcohol and drugs to reduce their pain. I can understand why they do it, and some people do bear a very great deal of pain, indeed. If I were a homeless, black American, I don't know if I could survive even one week. But when such persons use drugs, or drink to excess, I still feel sad about it. After all, creativity and higher-level thought is the greatest gift of humanity. How sad it is to see it suppressed, in order to avoid painful reality. Terminal cancer patients do this, too, to avoid pain. I understand. But it is sad. 2) Another flaw in you instructor's approach is empirical and historical. Were alcohol and psychotropic drugs used as a natural route into 'play', then we would expect that, historically, it would be common people who would have pushed for their greater use. They would want freedom in this area in order to 'enjoy' themselves. But if alcohol and drug abuse is not really enjoyable in itself, but is rather a way to escape pain, then we might not find common people promoting drug use. And, if you look at it historically, it is not common people who have mostly advocated drinking and drugging. It turns out that business has pushed for drinking and drugging.. Think about it. Who tells you, " Come to work and labor like hell, but then, when you walk out the door, it is ' Time'. " ? Whose interest is served by having people alert ON the job, but drunken and brain-dead OFF the job?. The boss's interest is served when workers can't think straight when they are off the job. The boss WANTS you not to think creatively and intelligently on the job. But he/she wants you stuffed full of 'opium' - whether of 12-Step or Prozac variety - when you are off the job.. When Pete Watts, and others, tell people to load up on psychotropics, and to stuff Ritalin down the throats of their children, what they are advocating is 'Soma' for the masses - and this serves the interests of big brother. The boss would like all workers to be drugged up just perfectly - not so drugged as to interfere with production, but drugged enough so that you never complain. Welcome to the world of the 'school nurse'. Watts even has the sick idea that when society causes us to be depressed then, instead of changing society, we should let the 'professionals' take a knife and cut out the 'bad' parts of our brains!!! Welcome to a world where the school nurse wears a swastika. A place to start a historical study of alcohol/drug promotion and prohibition is with Rumbarger, J., 1989, Profits, Power, and Prohibition: Alcohol Reform and the Industrializing of America, 1800-1930. As Rumbarger notes, both the push to establish Prohibition, AND the push to REMOVE Prohibition, began with the very rich (eg, the Rockefellers). When times were good and workers were needed to work long hours, the Rockefellers wanted to make alcohol illegal. It got in the way of work. But, when the Great Depression came, and many workers were unemployed and restive, the Rockefellers suddenly switched sides. " Now, " they said, " we NEED alcohol for the workers. " The promotion of ' Time' did NOT come from average people, it came from the top of society. The elites promote psychotropics because they do not want workers and common people thinking too much. Noam Chomsky says, in our society, there is a " boundary of thinkable thought. " We are allowed to think about sports, or gambling, or sex. We are not suppose to think, though, about politics or rebellion. That is why they WANT us to use alcohol and drugs. So that we don't think 'unthinkable thoughts'. Maybe the biggest 'drug' in the U.S. is the 'plug-in drug' - T.V. Being 'drunk' is escaping reality. I understand why some people do it, and I have sympathy for those in great pain. But I don't believe that escaping solves problems. And I have no sympathy for those who CAUSE the pain. We need to change society, not drug ourselves so that we can bear the pain it causes. Re: > > > Hi , > > > > You may be right about some of these things. > > Woah! I had to *sit* down here. > > > > I am not sanguine about reason or fact breaking through > middle-class > > prejudices, though. > > Ya never know. I do appreciate the food for thought. > > Yes, I have definitely been on the treadmill trying to figure out how > to run better. > > In that class I've been taking (final this Wed., wish me luck) my > teacher there also argues that stresses cause and/or contribute to > drug and alcohol use. Her theory has a slightly different slant than > your does, but I can see how they might fit together. > > She talks about the " formal value orientation " versus " subterranean > value orientation. " > > The formal has become the " normal " and there is more and more pressure > to fit in and be normal, responsible, upwardly mobile, cleanly, > presice, and on and on. The social strictures have become tighter > rather than looser in her opinion. The SHOULDS. > > On the other side, the subterranean, are things like playing, being > silly, getting laid, relaxing, sleeping in all day, etc. The > should-nots. Also included here are being sad, grieving, being > depressed, really any strong feelings. You get about a week of > sadness after a major loss before people start to get annoyed with you > for showing it. Yet, the normal grieving process takes two to three > YEARS. > > Her contention is that many people use drugs and alcohol to move from > the formal to the subterranean. For example, dancing on the table is > sort of OK if you're " drunk " and have that excuse, but not OK if > you're sober. Sober people don't do that. > > So, a lot of people use drugs/alcohol so that they can express the > feelings they've been bottling up all day long. Guys that cry in > their beer, according to her, wanted to cry anyway. But they'd be > shunned without the excuse. > > Then, we use a lot of drugs to get back from the subterranean to the > normal. Here come the anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds, speed to > lose weight, etc. and etc. > > Her idea is--and I can see a lot of merit in it--why don't we just > lighten up on people and allow that formal isn't necessarily " normal. " > > I do think that some of the economic ideas you're talking about fit > into this too. Normal is more than it used to be and it does get > harder to keep up with the standards. > > Anyway, this is somewhat simplified, but I thought I'd put it out > there. > > FWIW, I think that people will drink and use no matter how well things > are going and how expressive they get to be. Maybe not as much, > though. > > TTYL, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 " When Pete Watts, and others, tell people to load up on psychotropics, and to stuff Ritalin down the throats of their children, ... " You pathetic little creep, resporting to rhetorical lies like this. For all your education and you have to do this - this clearly shows that all your learning and citations arent worth jack shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 watts_pete@... wrote: > > " When Pete Watts, and others, tell people to load up on psychotropics, > and to stuff Ritalin down the throats of their > children, ... " > > You pathetic little creep, resporting to rhetorical lies like this. > For all your education and you have to do this - this clearly shows > that all your learning and citations arent worth jack shit. Pete, You know I have a radically more " cautious " opinion of psychiatric drugs and far less trust of psychiatry than you (to put it mildly). However, I have to take your side in this. But then, you don't follow his ideology so, of course, so you are fair game to be lied about and accused. Ken Ragge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Hi , Some interesting ideas here. I'll see how far I can get in responding. > > The idea that alcohol and drugs are used to call 'time out', and to allow > persons to move into a 'subterranean' sub-culture where play, relaxation, > self-expression, etc, are prime purposes, has some value. (See J. Gusfield, > 1987, 'Passages to Play: Rituals of Drinking Time In American Society', in > his Constructive Drinking). > > But I think your instructor does not think deeply enough about the issue. > Consider: > > 1) This line of thought ASSUMES 'work' is painful and demanding, while > 'play' is enjoyable and self-fulfilling. Hence, the theory goes, we use > alcohol and drugs as sort of a 'pass' to move out of the demanding world of > work, and into the relaxed world of play. Actually, I don't believe that she assumes this. I think her point is that in our value systems we've moved toward the " formal " being considered " normal. " You occasionally see companies that don't follow the dress code, that have flexible scheduling, and that don't require overwork to stay competitive. But work is certainly *NOT* the only area where the formal is valued above all. And if your value system is very strongly rooted in the formal, it won't matter what workplace you go to. You will still behave formally. Consider what a lot of people think of as " normal " : Your body: not too fat, not too thin, decent looking, cleanly at all times, clothes that fit and go together, etc., etc. Good teeth. So much depends on the *impression* you make. Not what you're really all about. Relationships: Married, with children. Childless women still have considerable pressure to have kids. Why? Because the culture feels this is the right thing to do. Gay? Well, you can get along and you can get some support now, but most people still consider you a deviant. Monogamous sex life (or serial monogamy), ESPECIALLY for females. In my state (Oregon) " sodomy " is still illegal. That means oral or anal sex. For anyone, even if you're married. Not enforced much, but that formal value is there and it is codified in the laws. Churchgoing. Structured. (ARRGH, there is already pressure on me for my 3 year old to join structured play, to sit, to listen, to go along with the game, to take turns, to use things for their intended usage. This type of thing has *risen* with the fear that kids will be raped and murdered if they make up their own games in the neighborhood). But, I think the biggest area where this comes in is behavior. Americans don't tolerate much outside what they feel is " normal " behavior. Do you think my kid that stutters and wears glasses is going to fit right in? Who is lively and doesn't appreciate being told what to do? It would be nice, but I am not sanguine. A side note on the Ritalin is that as the kids are doped up, it starts to subtly change the norm so that the ones who aren't on it do stand out even more. This goes on to other emotional issues. You aren't really allowed to show your emotions. You have to get a grip. Grieving? Ha! Forget it, accept it, and move on. Here comes the step movement to get you going on this even more. This idea is much bigger than just the work aspects. And it goes both ways. You have the alcohol to move from the formal to the subterranean...but then you have a lot of drugs to get back into the normal. I'm not sure that there is or could be any specific group that promotes this. It seems to come from everywhere. We have a drug culture. But we say we hate drugs but then we go on to promote them every time we turn around. > > Now, I would accept this as true in the U.S. But, is the way U.S. > society is organized the ONLY way, and are the conditions we observe around > us today inevitable and 'natural'? No. Emphatically not. It is almost to the point where I am seriously considering home-schooling, because I don't want to box my kids in. > > I believe work is 'naturally' enjoyable. Aren't humans built to WANT to > create and produce? Yes. And barriers to meaningful work are a huge factor in drug use. Here is one way it can work: GRADES. There was recently an article in my local weekly that showed that in some of the *grade schools* there was so much homework that some kids were getting ulcers. The pressure to perform is coming earlier and is more severe on every level. This is the formal value orientation. It is a grind. Isn't it only under SOME economic regimes that work > becomes degrading, tiring, stressful?. h Fromm says such regimes of > work occur in 'sick societies'. > > We only want to escape from the world of work when society makes work > degrading, boring and exploitative, that is, in a society where profits come > before people. And the culture is demanding more and more of us in terms of our outward success symbols. > > I love to do research, I love to garden and farm, I love to do many kinds > of 'work'. But I don't like to be an 'employee', screwed over by someone. > Isn't it the status of employee/slave/minion that is the problem, and NOT > the physical work or creative activity in itself? Precicely. (BTW, this is one reason why I was confused about your very negative assessment of small-business people. They chose to define their work for themselves and don't answer to employers. IMO, that is a positive, rather than a negative.) > > If the above is true, then it isn't the 'work' we are seeking to escape. > Rather, we seek to escape from the unjust way work is organized in our > particular society. The way work is organized causes pain, so people use > heroin, etc, as pain relievers. It makes sense in OUR society (and in most > others) But it is not part of the natural human condition, it is not > inevitable - or right. > > Why give opium to the people (either chemically, or in the form of > religious superstitions), when you can eliminate the CAUSE of the pain? As > a liberal, your sociology prof doesn't trace things back quite so far. > Anyway, she would get into trouble in academia sayng such things. As I said, her slant is slightly different from yours, but she is essentially saying this very thing! I am so pleased that she was teaching " in the trenches " at the community college. In the hood. She was easily as good as anyone I had at & , upscale yuppie college experience that it was. > > Personally, I feel sad to see people use alcohol and drugs to reduce > their pain. I can understand why they do it, and some people do bear a very > great deal of pain, indeed. If I were a homeless, black American, I don't > know if I could survive even one week. But when such persons use drugs, or > drink to excess, I still feel sad about it. After all, creativity and > higher-level thought is the greatest gift of humanity. How sad it is to see > it suppressed, in order to avoid painful reality. Terminal cancer patients > do this, too, to avoid pain. I understand. But it is sad. Well, that's a different subject. But too much pain and you can't think or function at all. > > 2) Another flaw in you instructor's approach is empirical and historical. To be addressed later. TTYL, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2001 Report Share Posted June 12, 2001 Interesting. I agree 100% that 'formal' rules are being pushed into free time. But does this not still come from the elite, from the 'business' segment of society? Through the schools, for example. As public schools push Ritalin into kids, they also replace healthy lunches with fast food and Pepsi machines. It is nuts. But who determines public school policy? Not parents, in most cases., Or in home life. Some companies now insist that employees do not smoke AWAY from the job. And, of course, the whole marijuana thing is an assault on personal life by business and government. More and more, companies are 'interested' in the 'spiritual' lives of their employees. They call this 'building morale'. Really, they want more social control over the workforce. The squeeze is on profits, so companies squeeze employees. This problem is just exploding. Companies demand more and more for less and less. I have an acquaintance who was told by his boss that his wife needed to quit her part-time job, since the boss expects 60+ hours from him every week, including being on call. " The company IS your family, as far as we are concerned, " he was told, or so he related to me. He feels he can't quit and meet the bills, but it is causing real stress. As to small business. The small business person can't escape the business community, which is dominated by the corporations. Small business gets screwed over by the dominant corporations and government. They have it even tougher than many workers. But, they still have to play by the business system's rules, since they are in that system. (mere employees can 'opt out' a bit more). This has a tendency to make small business people MORE angry, but more reactionary-radical, too. (The idea that fascism was a lower-middle-class movement, tho, has been rejected. Evidence shows fascism had a wide social base). Also, in our society, small business is changing. The biggest sector is retail, and I have a WONDERFUL reference for you, Ken and Jim , 1990, The Retail Environment. A REALLY nice economic geography and historical overview of the retail sector. It will amaze you. Real nicely written, too. When I was a kid, most shopping in Milwaukee was still done in small, independent stores. But this was giving way. Now, food retailing is very concentrated. Same with department stores. They once were stand alones. Now they are linked into malls. And only a handful of development corporations plan and build all the malls in the nation. The concentration has been rapid, and very far reaching. All of this change brings massive influences on people's lives. The stress is really exploding, and not just in the U.S. To blame INDIVIDUALS for the deterioration we see around us is crazy. Individuals try to adjust, and often get a bad adjustment (eg, alcohol, which most people start to use as a HELP for a bad situations). But the problems to which they are adjusting are SOCIAL, and getting worse, rapidly. Your instructor sounds better than I assumed her to be. In fact, you make her sound very good, indeed. I had a few good instructors in my schooling. I still value those experiences. By the way, I know that social control is not just a matter of a few capitalists calling all the shots. It is a very complex business. But in discussions here we have been working on a very general level. And, on a very general level, I think we can say that 'corporate interests' dominate American society. Re: / alcohol=time out? > > > Hi , > > Some interesting ideas here. I'll see how far I can get in > responding. > > > > The idea that alcohol and drugs are used to call 'time out', and > to allow > > persons to move into a 'subterranean' sub-culture where play, > relaxation, > > self-expression, etc, are prime purposes, has some value. (See J. > Gusfield, > > 1987, 'Passages to Play: Rituals of Drinking Time In American > Society', in > > his Constructive Drinking). > > > > But I think your instructor does not think deeply enough about the > issue. > > Consider: > > > > 1) This line of thought ASSUMES 'work' is painful and demanding, > while > > 'play' is enjoyable and self-fulfilling. Hence, the theory goes, we > use > > alcohol and drugs as sort of a 'pass' to move out of the demanding > world of > > work, and into the relaxed world of play. > > Actually, I don't believe that she assumes this. I think her point is > that in our value systems we've moved toward the " formal " being > considered " normal. " You occasionally see companies that don't follow > the dress code, that have flexible scheduling, and that don't require > overwork to stay competitive. But work is certainly *NOT* the only > area where the formal is valued above all. And if your value system > is very strongly rooted in the formal, it won't matter what workplace > you go to. You will still behave formally. > > Consider what a lot of people think of as " normal " : > > Your body: not too fat, not too thin, decent looking, cleanly at all > times, clothes that fit and go together, etc., etc. Good teeth. So > much depends on the *impression* you make. Not what you're really all > about. > Relationships: Married, with children. Childless women still have > considerable pressure to have kids. Why? Because the culture feels > this is the right thing to do. Gay? Well, you can get along and you > can get some support now, but most people still consider you a > deviant. > Monogamous sex life (or serial monogamy), ESPECIALLY for females. In > my state (Oregon) " sodomy " is still illegal. That means oral or anal > sex. For anyone, even if you're married. Not enforced much, but that > formal value is there and it is codified in the laws. > Churchgoing. > Structured. (ARRGH, there is already pressure on me for my 3 year old > to join structured play, to sit, to listen, to go along with the game, > to take turns, to use things for their intended usage. This type of > thing has *risen* with the fear that kids will be raped and murdered > if they make up their own games in the neighborhood). > > But, I think the biggest area where this comes in is behavior. > Americans don't tolerate much outside what they feel is " normal " > behavior. Do you think my kid that stutters and wears glasses is > going to fit right in? Who is lively and doesn't appreciate being > told what to do? It would be nice, but I am not sanguine. A side > note on the Ritalin is that as the kids are doped up, it starts to > subtly change the norm so that the ones who aren't on it do stand out > even more. > > This goes on to other emotional issues. You aren't really allowed to > show your emotions. You have to get a grip. Grieving? Ha! Forget > it, accept it, and move on. Here comes the step movement to get you > going on this even more. > > This idea is much bigger than just the work aspects. And it goes both > ways. You have the alcohol to move from the formal to the > subterranean...but then you have a lot of drugs to get back into the > normal. > > I'm not sure that there is or could be any specific group that > promotes this. It seems to come from everywhere. We have a drug > culture. But we say we hate drugs but then we go on to promote them > every time we turn around. > > > > > > Now, I would accept this as true in the U.S. But, is the way > U.S. > > society is organized the ONLY way, and are the conditions we observe > around > > us today inevitable and 'natural'? > > No. Emphatically not. It is almost to the point where I am seriously > considering home-schooling, because I don't want to box my kids in. > > > > I believe work is 'naturally' enjoyable. Aren't humans built to > WANT to > > create and produce? > > Yes. And barriers to meaningful work are a huge factor in drug use. > Here is one way it can work: GRADES. There was recently an article > in my local weekly that showed that in some of the *grade schools* > there was so much homework that some kids were getting ulcers. The > pressure to perform is coming earlier and is more severe on every > level. This is the formal value orientation. It is a grind. > > Isn't it only under SOME economic regimes that > work > > becomes degrading, tiring, stressful?. h Fromm says such > regimes of > > work occur in 'sick societies'. > > > > We only want to escape from the world of work when society makes > work > > degrading, boring and exploitative, that is, in a society where > profits come > > before people. > > And the culture is demanding more and more of us in terms of our > outward success symbols. > > > > I love to do research, I love to garden and farm, I love to do > many kinds > > of 'work'. But I don't like to be an 'employee', screwed over by > someone. > > Isn't it the status of employee/slave/minion that is the problem, > and NOT > > the physical work or creative activity in itself? > > Precicely. (BTW, this is one reason why I was confused about your > very negative assessment of small-business people. They chose to > define their work for themselves and don't answer to employers. IMO, > that is a positive, rather than a negative.) > > > > If the above is true, then it isn't the 'work' we are seeking to > escape. > > Rather, we seek to escape from the unjust way work is organized in > our > > particular society. The way work is organized causes pain, so > people use > > heroin, etc, as pain relievers. It makes sense in OUR society (and > in most > > others) But it is not part of the natural human condition, it is > not > > inevitable - or right. > > > > Why give opium to the people (either chemically, or in the form > of > > religious superstitions), when you can eliminate the CAUSE of the > pain? As > > a liberal, your sociology prof doesn't trace things back quite so > far. > > Anyway, she would get into trouble in academia sayng such things. > > As I said, her slant is slightly different from yours, but she is > essentially saying this very thing! I am so pleased that she was > teaching " in the trenches " at the community college. In the hood. > She was easily as good as anyone I had at & , upscale > yuppie college experience that it was. > > > > Personally, I feel sad to see people use alcohol and drugs to > reduce > > their pain. I can understand why they do it, and some people do > bear a very > > great deal of pain, indeed. If I were a homeless, black American, I > don't > > know if I could survive even one week. But when such persons use > drugs, or > > drink to excess, I still feel sad about it. After all, creativity > and > > higher-level thought is the greatest gift of humanity. How sad it > is to see > > it suppressed, in order to avoid painful reality. Terminal cancer > patients > > do this, too, to avoid pain. I understand. But it is sad. > > Well, that's a different subject. But too much pain and you can't > think or function at all. > > > > 2) Another flaw in you instructor's approach is empirical and > historical. > > To be addressed later. > > TTYL, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2001 Report Share Posted June 13, 2001 > > Interesting. > > I agree 100% that 'formal' rules are being pushed into free time. Hmmm. Free time? I never heard of it! Actually, this is my relaxation time right now. I aced my final tonight and got out early. I think the scope of what she is talking about is even bigger. In many ways she is talking about just what we consider " normal, " and if you operate outside of that there is all kinds of pressure to get you back, and all sorts of drugs that will do the trick as well. The " normal " definition is getting focused more and more narrowly, in *general* even than it used to. Alcohol and drugs is an out. Sometimes temporarily, but some people use it to *permanently* opt out. There is a certain amount of freedom in that. What about the idea that " spirituality " is yet another avenue for people to experience the subterranean part of their reality? And it is a *sanctioned* avenue of reaching there...when many, if not most of the other routes are not. And because it is sanctioned, it can be used and controlled. Could part of the problem be stated as the failed attempt of society to make us " perfect " and to legislate it when we don't conform...and to drug people when they don't conform? When I think back to the schooling I got...ugh, some of it was RAW. I recently was near my old highschool and there truly and literally was *barbed wire* strung around a huge fence. It is very frightening! And the standardized testing now! It emphasizes only the formal aspects of an education. > But does this not still come from the elite, from the 'business' segment > of society? Through the schools, for example. As public schools push > Ritalin into kids, they also replace healthy lunches with fast food and > Pepsi machines. It is nuts. But who determines public school policy? Not > parents, in most cases., Boy, the school issue is a huge can of worms in itself. I could go on and on and on about the school system. > > Or in home life. Some companies now insist that employees do not smoke > AWAY from the job. And, of course, the whole marijuana thing is an assault > on personal life by business and government. More and more, companies are > 'interested' in the 'spiritual' lives of their employees. They call this > 'building morale'. Really, they want more social control over the > workforce. The squeeze is on profits, so companies squeeze employees. This > problem is just exploding. Companies demand more and more for less and > less. , I am on track with you here. In the last job I had, they had a " Mission Statement " that laid out exactly what you were supposed to do. It was a Catholic Health Care institution, and they did always open a meeting with a prayer. We also had " Mission Week " and people could get awarded " Mission Medals. " My boss got awarded one for " helping " me into treatment. While working in this job I had a series of 4 miscarriages in a year and a half. I ran out of sick time and began to be " counseled. " This is also the job where I ended up in treatment because I was so damned stupid and niave as to tell my employer (who I really trusted) that I would probably fail the drug test because of marijuana. Marijuana!! Of course I was doing other things as well, but nothing that would show up on the idiotic drug test! So, I was in AA, and grieveing over those losses and I was just expected to show up and do my job. Believe me, I did not give a rat's ass ordering supplies! But I was taking too long with my processing (one week, the lousy *(^*^). > > I have an acquaintance who was told by his boss that his wife needed to > quit her part-time job, since the boss expects 60+ hours from him every > week, including being on call. " The company IS your family, as far as we > are concerned, " he was told, or so he related to me. Whew, I know many more examples of this. My friend's husband is a college professor and he routinely puts in 70 hours per week. He is ambitious and I think that's OK to a point, but that school just feeds on it. He feels he has to to stay competitive--but that leaves her with 100% of the child care. > > He feels he can't quit and meet the bills, but it is causing real stress. > > As to small business. The small business person can't escape the business > community, which is dominated by the corporations. Small business gets > screwed over by the dominant corporations and government. They have it even > tougher than many workers. But, they still have to play by the business > system's rules, since they are in that system. (mere employees can 'opt > out' a bit more). This has a tendency to make small business people MORE > angry, but more reactionary-radical, too. (The idea that fascism was a > lower-middle-class movement, tho, has been rejected. Evidence shows fascism > had a wide social base). > > Also, in our society, small business is changing. The biggest sector is > retail, and I have a WONDERFUL reference for you, Ken and Jim , > 1990, The Retail Environment. A REALLY nice economic geography and > historical overview of the retail sector. It will amaze you. Real nicely > written, too. > > When I was a kid, most shopping in Milwaukee was still done in small, > independent stores. But this was giving way. Now, food retailing is very > concentrated. > > Same with department stores. They once were stand alones. Now they are > linked into malls. And only a handful of development corporations plan and > build all the malls in the nation. The concentration has been rapid, and > very far reaching. > > All of this change brings massive influences on people's lives. The > stress is really exploding, and not just in the U.S. To blame INDIVIDUALS > for the deterioration we see around us is crazy. Individuals try to adjust, > and often get a bad adjustment (eg, alcohol, which most people start to use > as a HELP for a bad situations). But the problems to which they are > adjusting are SOCIAL, and getting worse, rapidly. I see a lot of merit in what you are writing here. > > Your instructor sounds better than I assumed her to be. In fact, you > make her sound very good, indeed. I had a few good instructors in my > schooling. I still value those experiences. > > By the way, I know that social control is not just a matter of a few > capitalists calling all the shots. It is a very complex business. But in > discussions here we have been working on a very general level. And, on a > very general level, I think we can say that 'corporate interests' dominate > American society. My allotment on the library computer is up. TTYL, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 I agree with virtually everything here. The best point you make is that 'spirituality' plays a role in routing people back into what you are calling 'normality'. I wonder if it would not help to think of 'normality' vs 'opting out' in terms of power relations? 'Normality', for most of us in our society, means coming to terms in some way with the power structure. We may do this by subservience to a corporate organization, or we may do this by entering into the small business arena, which is a slightly different method. One involves more 'powerlessness' in relationship to the boss, the other more 'self-control', but while still being enmeshed in the market. Those who are unable to do either may opt out in various ways. They run from power, hide from it. Drugs and alcohol, in part, help one escape from pain, stress, etc. In small doses, these momentary respites may serve a coping function. Taken further, they result in becoming totally deviant, and leaving the 'normal' world entirely. " Treatment " pushes people back into the 'normal' world, back into the hands of the higher powers. " Resentment is the Number One offender " (Big Book, p. 64). The goal of treatment is to scrub out resentment, so you can 'love Big Brother.' Maybe studying sociology would be the BEST treatment for a lot of people. Learning about the source of the problems! I am for more, not less, 'resentment' against social wrongs. Re: / alcohol=time out? > > > > > Interesting. > > > > I agree 100% that 'formal' rules are being pushed into free time. > > Hmmm. Free time? I never heard of it! Actually, this is my > relaxation time right now. I aced my final tonight and got out early. > > I think the scope of what she is talking about is even bigger. In > many ways she is talking about just what we consider " normal, " and if > you operate outside of that there is all kinds of pressure to get you > back, and all sorts of drugs that will do the trick as well. The > " normal " definition is getting focused more and more narrowly, in > *general* even than it used to. Alcohol and drugs is an out. > Sometimes temporarily, but some people use it to *permanently* opt > out. There is a certain amount of freedom in that. > > What about the idea that " spirituality " is yet another avenue for > people to experience the subterranean part of their reality? And it > is a *sanctioned* avenue of reaching there...when many, if not most of > the other routes are not. And because it is sanctioned, it can be > used and controlled. > > Could part of the problem be stated as the failed attempt of society > to make us " perfect " and to legislate it when we don't conform...and > to drug people when they don't conform? > > When I think back to the schooling I got...ugh, some of it was RAW. I > recently was near my old highschool and there truly and literally was > *barbed wire* strung around a huge fence. It is very frightening! > And the standardized testing now! It emphasizes only the formal > aspects of an education. > > > But does this not still come from the elite, from the 'business' > segment > > of society? Through the schools, for example. As public schools > push > > Ritalin into kids, they also replace healthy lunches with fast food > and > > Pepsi machines. It is nuts. But who determines public school > policy? Not > > parents, in most cases., > > Boy, the school issue is a huge can of worms in itself. I could go on > and on and on about the school system. > > > > Or in home life. Some companies now insist that employees do not > smoke > > AWAY from the job. And, of course, the whole marijuana thing is an > assault > > on personal life by business and government. More and more, > companies are > > 'interested' in the 'spiritual' lives of their employees. They call > this > > 'building morale'. Really, they want more social control over the > > workforce. The squeeze is on profits, so companies squeeze > employees. This > > problem is just exploding. Companies demand more and more for less > and > > less. > > , I am on track with you here. In the last job I had, they had a > " Mission Statement " that laid out exactly what you were supposed to > do. It was a Catholic Health Care institution, and they did always > open a meeting with a prayer. We also had " Mission Week " and people > could get awarded " Mission Medals. " My boss got awarded one for > " helping " me into treatment. > > While working in this job I had a series of 4 miscarriages in a year > and a half. I ran out of sick time and began to be " counseled. " This > is also the job where I ended up in treatment because I was so damned > stupid and niave as to tell my employer (who I really trusted) that I > would probably fail the drug test because of marijuana. Marijuana!! > Of course I was doing other things as well, but nothing that would > show up on the idiotic drug test! > > So, I was in AA, and grieveing over those losses and I was just > expected to show up and do my job. Believe me, I did not give a rat's > ass ordering supplies! But I was taking too long with my processing > (one week, the lousy *(^*^). > > > > I have an acquaintance who was told by his boss that his wife > needed to > > quit her part-time job, since the boss expects 60+ hours from him > every > > week, including being on call. " The company IS your family, as far > as we > > are concerned, " he was told, or so he related to me. > > Whew, I know many more examples of this. My friend's husband is a > college professor and he routinely puts in 70 hours per week. He is > ambitious and I think that's OK to a point, but that school just > feeds on it. He feels he has to to stay competitive--but that leaves > her with 100% of the child care. > > > > He feels he can't quit and meet the bills, but it is causing real > stress. > > > > As to small business. The small business person can't escape the > business > > community, which is dominated by the corporations. Small business > gets > > screwed over by the dominant corporations and government. They have > it even > > tougher than many workers. But, they still have to play by the > business > > system's rules, since they are in that system. (mere employees can > 'opt > > out' a bit more). This has a tendency to make small business people > MORE > > angry, but more reactionary-radical, too. (The idea that fascism > was a > > lower-middle-class movement, tho, has been rejected. Evidence shows > fascism > > had a wide social base). > > > > Also, in our society, small business is changing. The biggest > sector is > > retail, and I have a WONDERFUL reference for you, Ken and Jim > , > > 1990, The Retail Environment. A REALLY nice economic geography and > > historical overview of the retail sector. It will amaze you. Real > nicely > > written, too. > > > > When I was a kid, most shopping in Milwaukee was still done in > small, > > independent stores. But this was giving way. Now, food retailing > is very > > concentrated. > > > > Same with department stores. They once were stand alones. Now > they are > > linked into malls. And only a handful of development corporations > plan and > > build all the malls in the nation. The concentration has been > rapid, and > > very far reaching. > > > > All of this change brings massive influences on people's lives. > The > > stress is really exploding, and not just in the U.S. To blame > INDIVIDUALS > > for the deterioration we see around us is crazy. Individuals try to > adjust, > > and often get a bad adjustment (eg, alcohol, which most people start > to use > > as a HELP for a bad situations). But the problems to which they are > > adjusting are SOCIAL, and getting worse, rapidly. > > I see a lot of merit in what you are writing here. > > > > Your instructor sounds better than I assumed her to be. In fact, > you > > make her sound very good, indeed. I had a few good instructors in > my > > schooling. I still value those experiences. > > > > By the way, I know that social control is not just a matter of a > few > > capitalists calling all the shots. It is a very complex business. > But in > > discussions here we have been working on a very general level. And, > on a > > very general level, I think we can say that 'corporate interests' > dominate > > American society. > > My allotment on the library computer is up. > TTYL, > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2001 Report Share Posted June 14, 2001 > I agree with virtually everything here. Are you sick ? You certainly dont sound like yourself these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 15, 2001 Report Share Posted June 15, 2001 > I agree with virtually everything here. The best point you make is that > 'spirituality' plays a role in routing people back into what you are calling > 'normality'. > > I wonder if it would not help to think of 'normality' vs 'opting out' in > terms of power relations? Hi , I really think you make a good point here. But I also think that it can be *any* type of power arrangements, not just those associated with working, although that is a big area. A formal marriage arrangement is a husband as " head of household, " a wife and their kids. So many people's families don't follow along these lines, yet there still isn't wide cultural acceptance for alternate forms of families. Alternate forms of families might just outnumber the formal arrangements. Yet having one can still cause stress because it doesn't fit. Now, a plain old divorce and remarriage won't cause much comment, but what about lesbian-headed families? Another huge one is the single mom with kids. Is it any surprise that " clinical depression " is diagnosed the highest in this group as opposed to any other? Part of it is economic stress, but part of it is also cultural stress. Another aspect of the formal value orientation is the value that is placed on the external status symbols, the house, the car, the private schools, etc., and etc. One thing I was reading is the idea that the two earner family has slowly and gradually increased the standard of living for the middle-class lifestyle. Now in some quarters it has come to be believed that *only* through the two-earner arrangement can a family live comfortably. But in order to reach this standard, the children have to be cared by someone outside of the primary family and they are separated from both parents for the lion's share of the day. But are those standards *really* real? I have been struggling with this issue. Basically, if I went back to work full time, we could afford to make a mortgage payment on a house. If I stay home with the kids, we can't, we will need to stay where we are. Also involved is an acknowledgement by me that doing all of the childcare is not healthy for me in the long run and I need outside and adult input. But *not* full time. School is helping in this area. I have felt quite a bit of pressure to go back to work. It is seen as odd to be our ages with kids and not be paying on a house. But which is more important? The fact that this is a decision that we would struggle with already puts us ahead of others who don't have it to make. Having a decent job is part of the formal too. You have to have the job to have the money to have the stuff. But how important, really, is the stuff? Hasn't that gotten out of hand? I see the rampant consumerism that we have going as a terrible burden on families. It is just everywhere. Here again, it does go back to your corporate world because they are definitely feeding the demand and creating an image that IMO is impossible to live up to, which creates stress. It is really hard to tune all that out. I feel like I rambled here, I am still trying to think through everything. Another extreme example of what you are talking about is when a person who has been raped or robbed is counseled to " look for his part. " Forgiveness is highly touted as the key to living normally. Sure, some things you can forgive, but others? No. 'Normality', for most of us in our society, means > coming to terms in some way with the power structure. We may do this by > subservience to a corporate organization, or we may do this by entering into > the small business arena, which is a slightly different method. One > involves more 'powerlessness' in relationship to the boss, the other more > 'self-control', but while still being enmeshed in the market. > > Those who are unable to do either may opt out in various ways. They run > from power, hide from it. Drugs and alcohol, in part, help one escape from > pain, stress, etc. In small doses, these momentary respites may serve a > coping function. Taken further, they result in becoming totally deviant, > and leaving the 'normal' world entirely. " Treatment " pushes people back > into the 'normal' world, back into the hands of the higher powers. > " Resentment is the Number One offender " (Big Book, p. 64). The goal of > treatment is to scrub out resentment, so you can 'love Big Brother.' > > Maybe studying sociology would be the BEST treatment for a lot of people. > Learning about the source of the problems! I am for more, not less, > 'resentment' against social wrongs. I agree. Resentment is there for a reason and it is giving us information. IMO, the information it is giving us is not that we are all wrong and need to conform to the existing situation! Maybe the situation itself needs to be changed. Yes, that class did give me a lot of perspective that I didn't have before and a framework to evaluate ideas against. When I can get some time I want to post some more from my book about some of the specific drugs. I never saw so clearly how the attitudes about these drugs are *social conventions* and *value judgements*. And these judgements aren't necessarily made by the people most effected. TTYL, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 Hi and . It struck me that the 'time out' notion could stem from the work of Mac and Edgerton: "Drunken Comportment". They in abstract says that alcohol has a wide variety of meanings in separate cultures. Therefore they had nothing specific to say about alcohol except this very general 'time out' notion. Personally I've always been a bit critical of this 'time out' notion, but I suspect they felt obliged to come out with something theoretical as a result of their very good work (maybe). They could IMO as well have said: "Tool for Change". There are two flaws with the 'time out' notion. 1. It's really a kind of empty abstraction, and therefore it says nothing about the specific case. 2. The expression has a lot of connotative meanings related to holidays, leisure time, play, etc. I think empty abstractions should be as empty as possible in their labeling, but when an empty abstraction leads your thoughts into something specific, which it says nothing about, then it's a faulty use of the abstract. Some uses of alcohol will simply fall outside the 'time out' hypothesis even though this was not intended in the first place. Just a kick-in from the sideline. Bjørn Re: / alcohol=time out? > I agree with virtually everything here. The best point you make is that> 'spirituality' plays a role in routing people back into what you are calling> 'normality'.> > I wonder if it would not help to think of 'normality' vs 'opting out' in> terms of power relations?Hi ,I really think you make a good point here. But I also think that it can be *any* type of power arrangements, not just those associated with working, although that is a big area.A formal marriage arrangement is a husband as "head of household," a wife and their kids. So many people's families don't follow along these lines, yet there still isn't wide cultural acceptance for alternate forms of families. Alternate forms of families might just outnumber the formal arrangements. Yet having one can still cause stress because it doesn't fit. Now, a plain old divorce and remarriage won't cause much comment, but what about lesbian-headed families? Another huge one is the single mom with kids. Is it any surprise that "clinical depression" is diagnosed the highest in this group as opposed to any other? Part of it is economic stress, but part of it is also cultural stress.Another aspect of the formal value orientation is the value that is placed on the external status symbols, the house, the car, the private schools, etc., and etc. One thing I was reading is the idea that the two earner family has slowly and gradually increased the standard of living for the middle-class lifestyle. Now in some quarters it has come to be believed that *only* through the two-earner arrangement can a family live comfortably. But in order to reach this standard, the children have to be cared by someone outside of the primary family and they are separated from both parents for the lion's share of the day. But are those standards *really* real?I have been struggling with this issue. Basically, if I went back to work full time, we could afford to make a mortgage payment on a house. If I stay home with the kids, we can't, we will need to stay where we are. Also involved is an acknowledgement by me that doing all of the childcare is not healthy for me in the long run and I need outside and adult input. But *not* full time. School is helping in this area.I have felt quite a bit of pressure to go back to work. It is seen as odd to be our ages with kids and not be paying on a house. But which is more important? The fact that this is a decision that we would struggle with already puts us ahead of others who don't have it to make.Having a decent job is part of the formal too. You have to have the job to have the money to have the stuff. But how important, really, is the stuff? Hasn't that gotten out of hand? I see the rampant consumerism that we have going as a terrible burden on families. It is just everywhere. Here again, it does go back to your corporate world because they are definitely feeding the demand and creating an image that IMO is impossible to live up to, which creates stress.It is really hard to tune all that out.I feel like I rambled here, I am still trying to think through everything. Another extreme example of what you are talking about is when a person who has been raped or robbed is counseled to "look for his part." Forgiveness is highly touted as the key to living normally. Sure, some things you can forgive, but others? No. 'Normality', for most of us in our society, means> coming to terms in some way with the power structure. We may do this by> subservience to a corporate organization, or we may do this by entering into> the small business arena, which is a slightly different method. One> involves more 'powerlessness' in relationship to the boss, the other more> 'self-control', but while still being enmeshed in the market.> > Those who are unable to do either may opt out in various ways. They run> from power, hide from it. Drugs and alcohol, in part, help one escape from> pain, stress, etc. In small doses, these momentary respites may serve a> coping function. Taken further, they result in becoming totally deviant,> and leaving the 'normal' world entirely. "Treatment" pushes people back> into the 'normal' world, back into the hands of the higher powers.> "Resentment is the Number One offender" (Big Book, p. 64). The goal of> treatment is to scrub out resentment, so you can 'love Big Brother.'> > Maybe studying sociology would be the BEST treatment for a lot of people.> Learning about the source of the problems! I am for more, not less,> 'resentment' against social wrongs.I agree. Resentment is there for a reason and it is giving us information. IMO, the information it is giving us is not that we are all wrong and need to conform to the existing situation! Maybe the situation itself needs to be changed.Yes, that class did give me a lot of perspective that I didn't have before and a framework to evaluate ideas against. When I can get some time I want to post some more from my book about some of the specific drugs. I never saw so clearly how the attitudes about these drugs are *social conventions* and *value judgements*. And these judgements aren't necessarily made by the people most effected.TTYL, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 17, 2001 Report Share Posted June 17, 2001 > Hi and . > > It struck me that the 'time out' notion could stem from the work of Mac and Edgerton: " Drunken Comportment " . Hi Bjørn, My instructor did talk about " drunken comportment " some and does hold the idea that the way you act when you are drunk is learned behavior. There are some physiological changes that hold true for just about everyone that drinks to certain levels, ie, slurring of words, motor difficulties...double vision, blacking out, even death at a certain level. However, other behaviors that are associated with drunkeness aren't physiological in basis, but social. For example, I would *never* sing via one of those Karaoke machines sober. Just wouldn't happen. But if I had a few drinks in me, I might. I have an *excuse* and a loss of inhibition. People do use alcohol as a vehicle to do things they might not otherwise do. I'm not sure if this is a " time out " . I do think there are other reasons why people get drunk. Part of my thinking on this is that if more behaviors that we consider " crazy " were just part of everyday expression without the booze, people wouldn't drink quite as much. My husband's relatives are like this in their family - they dance, sing funny songs, wear lampshades on their heads and nobody drinks a drop. They're the only people I ever met like that. Sometimes my kids give me an excuse to do things that I normally couldn't get away with. I can run through the fountain with them, or play in the sandbox, hang out at the toy store, rediscover books I loved as a child...things like that. > > They in abstract says that alcohol has a wide variety of meanings in separate cultures. Therefore they had nothing specific to say about alcohol except this very general 'time out' notion. > > Personally I've always been a bit critical of this 'time out' notion, but I suspect they felt obliged to come out with something theoretical as a result of their very good work (maybe). They could IMO as well have said: " Tool for Change " . > > There are two flaws with the 'time out' notion. > 1. It's really a kind of empty abstraction, and therefore it says nothing about the specific case. Could you expand on this? Why is it an " empty abstraction " ? > 2. The expression has a lot of connotative meanings related to holidays, leisure time, play, etc. > > I think empty abstractions should be as empty as possible in their labeling, but when an empty abstraction leads your thoughts into something specific, which it says nothing about, then it's a faulty use of the abstract. > > Some uses of alcohol will simply fall outside the 'time out' hypothesis even though this was not intended in the first place. > > Just a kick-in from the sideline. Anytime Bjørn, I am still thinking things through and it occurs to me that we may have a different understanding of the hypothesis. To me it makes vastly more sense than seeing 'alcoholism' as a 'disease' or an innate flaw within the individual. This has been the dominant view. These ideas are saying that 'alcoholism' is a social construction and a value judgement. Further, that there are powerful structural features of our society that promote the use of alcohol and other drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.