The following comment was posted anonymously today:
Gentle readers and responders:
"Whoever defines the words, defines the debate." --- Unknown
I have followed the discussion around Sophie's responses to 'Woman Scorned' with great curiousity, on professional and personal levels, for any number of reasons. As a professional 'helper', licensed to provide clinical services, with 25 years experience providing counseling services around the full gamut of human problems/issues in living, my interest was piqued by the vehemence of critical response to Sophie's input to 'WS'.
I can, therefore, easily relate to and understand the 'cautionary' input from other professional providers, and the personal experiences of the woman in relationship to a sexual addict. Yes, it's certainly possible that WS's spouse IS a sex addict. My opening quotation, of course references the possibility that the subject of this 'debate' isn't necessarily exhibiting 'pathological' behavior. My central point is that noone involved in the present discussion has sufficient information to make this determination. PERIOD!
I'm perturbed by the authorative 'tone' of the 'professional' response, in particular. Are you in the habit of assigning diagnostic labels to individuals with whom you've had absolutely no face-to-face contact?
How routinely do you base your professional assessments on so little information? Can any positive purpose be achieved by assigning a pejorative, negative value carrying diagnostic label to an individual you haven't even met? Can we agree on a central guiding principle of any and all helping professions as: 'First, do no harm'? I hope so, as here's my second and even larger interest in this 'lively' discussion, and where I'd like to take this exchange to a deeper level....
'Whoever defines the words, defines the debate.....' This quote gets to the root issues involved, it seems to me. 'Labelling' any issue logically determines the plan of action to address it. Problems or issues which aren't 'named' accurately or appropriately, thus, can't be corrected or fixed, obviously. A key and bedrock bottom piece is missing in this discussion, it seems to me, although it's suggested by the vehemence of the 'you're so wrong, I'm/we're so right' tone from the responses to Sophie.
POWER is at the core here, and the 'missing piece' no one is referencing directly. Each and every single one of us can do more right for others and ourselves by learning to look harder and deeper at how and where power operates in our daily lives, in our professional and personal lives.
Each of us has some degree of personal power, likewise, each and every one of us gives up at least some of that precious private 'stock', as well. Furthermore, those with the least of it seem altogether numb and ill-informed as to how POWER operates, in a culture where those with more POWER appear to exercise theirs without being conscious and aware of it's unintended consequences and effects.
All professional 'helpers' have significant 'power over others' by virtue of definition as expert and the accompanying status. It's been my experience that 'power with others' is a much more effective core value and mind-set in the 'business' of making positive change in 'maladaptive', 'abnormal' human behavior. If nothing else, the current exchange illustrates clearly that 'pathology' is in the eyes of 'beholders', making their own assumptions, based on personal experience/training. The 'subject' of this discussion is an INDIVIDUAL, personally known only by the person seeking Sophie's advice! He may or may not be a sex addict; we don't even know what 'porn' he's been caught looking at. Are we talking about sex acts, or exhibited bodies, for example? Human sexuality is complex, complicated and quite mysterious and problematic enough, as is, surely, without self-identified 'experts' passing judgement and assigning stigmatizing, shaming 'labels' to individuals they haven't met?
No one is an expert about any person they don't know: more and more of us recognize our selves as experts on our own lives, and most certainly have some RIGHTS to expect some INPUT in what directly affects us. The willingness to label anyone's behavior so negatively, sight unseen, on anyone's part is questionable for its lack of common courtesy and good manners.
As a professional clinician, I'm appalled at the lack of respect for human dignity evidenced in another professionals immediate leap to label any other person's behavior in the most toxic way possible, with only second-hand information from an 'other', equally unknown. Without more information, it's irresponsible and dangerous; might well make an obviously troubled marriage worse, or even end it. First, do no harm!
I'm troubled by the smug certainty of the professionals conclusion of sexual addiction, as well. We see what we look for, and don't know what we don't know.
Facile, but still true. We all view life thru the lens of our experience, learning, education, vocations; we all generalize in the attempt to make order, and feel some control in life. It's largely delusion, but human. From and thru the lens of treating addiction, addiction is what you see. Focus on a discrete 'subset' of the infinite variety of factors causing human misery and maladaptive behaviors is a disservice without a solid competent and thorough assessment. An open, inquiring mind is required to accomplish this, not tunnel vision! 'Cleaning windows' is a cherished metaphor in my personal practice of providing therapy: the professional responding would do better by his or her clients by pausing to apply strong cleaner along with mindful attention to their own dingy windows.
---Unsigned Comment posted 3/14/2005
Touché! Thanks for your participation in the conversation! I hope others will join in as well. And right on regarding the issue of POWER!
Love,
Sophie
Send your comments, questions, insights, situations, feedback, problems, perspectives, prognoses, prophecies and poetry to:
sophie (at) freakinasheville.com
