Persons and Things - Tournier
I think Tioli is correct. Life is all about relationships; we appear to be designed for relationships and to some extent cannot grow to become whole persons without significant personal relationships. In addition to the interactions with friends that shape us simply by, to some degree, sharing in their experiences; our spouses shape us even more. For instance, most of us are inherently selfish without knowing it. Babies are almost totally selfish, demanding our attention;probably because their awareness of the world around them is so limited. But growing up should change that as we realize there is value and satisfaction in interdependent or even purely altruistic relationships.
I think much of the conflict of in spousal relationships is caused by a lack of focus on the ‘other’. I sometimes think the main value in raising children is to help us become aware of our own selfishness. A significant percentage of the time, the root of my annoyances with my children was caused by my own selfishness – they were interrupting my activities, taking up my time, disturbing my peace.
I also am thankful for the differences in genders, but these days that is often viewed as an exercise in diversity in much the same way that you want contrast in a photo to make it prettier, more interesting, or clearer. I think Tournier would agree that those perspectives have value in themselves, but his claim is that our civilization is incomplete and more importantly distorted in such a way that Western civilization causes harm because of it’s fundamentally male value system.
One of Tournier’s lifetime activities was to reintroduce personal relationship into the medical profession. He told medical doctors that their patients were not just a combination of symptoms to be diagnosed and treated in much the same way that an auto mechanic would fix a car. That if people were not also seen a persons, the best diagnosis and treatments could be ineffective if the patient did not believe the doctor cared.
Tournier highlighted studies where lack of 'caring' resulted in poor medical care and higher mortality rates in patients. One that he referred to was a well known study of babies in hospitals in the early 1900’s. At that time it was believed that if you held babies too much, it was not good for them. The mortality rate was higher than expected and someone conducted an experiment where the nurses would pick the babies up and hold them on a regular schedule for fixed periods of time. They found that the mortality rates dropped as a result. We would probably say ‘duh’ to that, but many doctors still treat patients as if they are malfunctioning machines with the result that a current study shows that if the patient believe the doctor cares as evidenced by the doc spending 15 minutes with a patient, the mortality rates go down and malpractice lawsuits drop to almost nothing.
In spite of more than a century of feminist efforts, this kind of illustration comes as a surprise to many. I think most men and many women who go to a doctor just want an accurate diagnosis and the right treatment. Does that sentence make sense? If it does and Tournier is correct, (“that a ‘male’ dominated society values power, reason, and technology”) then our mindset is typical of Western civilization. It’s not that power, reason, and technology are bad; (I want a smart doctor with a good grasp of medical technology) but that being treated as a respected person is also critically important.
Tournier says that during the Renaissance, Western civilization made a resolute choice of:
Rational against irrational
'I it' against 'I thou'
Objectivity against affectivity and mystical communion
Physics against metaphysics
One result was a world that most people are somewhat uncomfortable in and another was to push women into the wings to the detriment of all.
Women's mission? Push your way back onto center stage without pushing men off. Partner with men to create a culture that balances a value of both things and persons.
I think much of the conflict of in spousal relationships is caused by a lack of focus on the ‘other’. I sometimes think the main value in raising children is to help us become aware of our own selfishness. A significant percentage of the time, the root of my annoyances with my children was caused by my own selfishness – they were interrupting my activities, taking up my time, disturbing my peace.
I also am thankful for the differences in genders, but these days that is often viewed as an exercise in diversity in much the same way that you want contrast in a photo to make it prettier, more interesting, or clearer. I think Tournier would agree that those perspectives have value in themselves, but his claim is that our civilization is incomplete and more importantly distorted in such a way that Western civilization causes harm because of it’s fundamentally male value system.
One of Tournier’s lifetime activities was to reintroduce personal relationship into the medical profession. He told medical doctors that their patients were not just a combination of symptoms to be diagnosed and treated in much the same way that an auto mechanic would fix a car. That if people were not also seen a persons, the best diagnosis and treatments could be ineffective if the patient did not believe the doctor cared.
Tournier highlighted studies where lack of 'caring' resulted in poor medical care and higher mortality rates in patients. One that he referred to was a well known study of babies in hospitals in the early 1900’s. At that time it was believed that if you held babies too much, it was not good for them. The mortality rate was higher than expected and someone conducted an experiment where the nurses would pick the babies up and hold them on a regular schedule for fixed periods of time. They found that the mortality rates dropped as a result. We would probably say ‘duh’ to that, but many doctors still treat patients as if they are malfunctioning machines with the result that a current study shows that if the patient believe the doctor cares as evidenced by the doc spending 15 minutes with a patient, the mortality rates go down and malpractice lawsuits drop to almost nothing.
In spite of more than a century of feminist efforts, this kind of illustration comes as a surprise to many. I think most men and many women who go to a doctor just want an accurate diagnosis and the right treatment. Does that sentence make sense? If it does and Tournier is correct, (“that a ‘male’ dominated society values power, reason, and technology”) then our mindset is typical of Western civilization. It’s not that power, reason, and technology are bad; (I want a smart doctor with a good grasp of medical technology) but that being treated as a respected person is also critically important.
Tournier says that during the Renaissance, Western civilization made a resolute choice of:
Rational against irrational
'I it' against 'I thou'
Objectivity against affectivity and mystical communion
Physics against metaphysics
One result was a world that most people are somewhat uncomfortable in and another was to push women into the wings to the detriment of all.
Women's mission? Push your way back onto center stage without pushing men off. Partner with men to create a culture that balances a value of both things and persons.
posted by complexspecificity | 5:42 AM
4 Comments:
So I'm thinking now about relationship with self. Selfishness is customarily seen as very dangerous to relationship with others. (I know what you mean about the kids' interruptions of my agenda!) What would happen if I changed my objective from a task that I have determined to do alone without interruption to a task done with another including interruptions? I would no longer find the other to be a problem... but wouldn't I still be "selfish" in that the change has come about by a change in my self's motivator?
What if being selfish is a developmental waypoint in gaining an other-oriented compassion? I'm thinking of a woman who just finished working for us. No one liked her and she knew it. She wouldn't ask anyone what the problem was who would tell her, and the ones who would tell her she wouldn't listen to. As I watched this go on, I saw that she also refused to listen to herself. My simple solution for her was to start listening to her self, then she could listen to others.
Of course, I couldn't tell her that... or, better said, she couldn't hear that from anyone.
In my experience, I see people having the worst time tending to others' needs when they have first neglected their own. I'm thinking of the oxygen mask in airplanes and the admonition to assist others second. If not, both may pass out before being helped.
But, about Tournier: It sounds like he has seen the splits created by a categorical model of understanding the world. The labels, and then the idea of opposites, and then the idea of subdivisions all give birth to the myriad and illusion of separateness. I agree that in all this vivisecting, we forget the whole.
The self interest of babies is necessary for survival. Self interest in adults is also a significant component of mental health and stability. Your comment about the airlines instructions to put your own oxygen mask on first is a good illustration of that point. The ‘enlightened self interest’ concept as related to business is another illustration. If anyone wants to start a business and get rich; they would need good employees. To keep the good employees, they would need to take good care of those employees.
I don’t know how one gets from self centered to interdependent in relationships. For me part of that process is a self centered way of looking at life. People are the only ‘things’ in life that are complex enough to stay interesting over long periods of times. As a result, I always want to be involved with people if only to make life interesting. The most fun thing I can do is carry on a discussion with a couple of people and for that to happen, I need to be somewhat nice to them.
The question eventually comes to what I then do about it. Some boundaries are necessary to protect our ‘selves’ from ‘unenlightened’ self interested people with the realization that those boundaries must not be insurmountable; there must be open gates and wall low enough to allow people into my life.
C.S. Lewis has an interesting discussion somewhat related to this topic called ‘Loving and Liking’ while commenting on the Biblical instruction to “Love your neighbor as yourself”. He says, “…how exactly do I love myself? Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not always enjoy my own society. So apparently,”love your neighbor” does not mean feel ‘fond of him’ or ‘find him attractive’. ….. that is not why I love myself .… In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. “
He might if he were sharing in this discussion, say that no matter what we feel like doing, we need to act toward others in ways are in their best interest. I don’t know if we can learn that ourselves or if we need help. ‘Lord of the Flies’ is probably in part an exploration of that concept.
Nothing new for awhile. No thinking no mo'? Too busy with weddings and birthdays?
Where are you? I think 6 months is too long between posts, my old friend.
BJD
Post a Comment
<< Home