Chaos Theory, Sick Society and You

[KickAssClown]

I know that in the past I brought up the research of Lloyd De Mause. I may not agree with his conclusions in the full and You may not agree with them either, wheather in full or in part. However His premise is good, at least in my eyes.

Lloyd De Mause is the head of the The Institute for Psychohistory.

Description of Psychohistory, by wikipedia:

Psychohistory derives many of its insights from areas that are perceived to be ignored by conventional historians as shaping factors of human history, in particular, the effects of childbirth, parenting practice and child abuse. The historical impact of incest, infanticide, and child sacrifice are considered. Psychohistory holds that human societies can change between infanticidal and non-infanticidal practices and has coined the term 'early infanticidal childrearing' to describe abuse and neglect observed by many anthropologists. Psychohistorian Lloyd deMause has described a system of Psychogenic modes which describe the range of styles of parenting he has observed historically and across cultures.


Psychohistory holds that many political scientists and historians teach that social behaviour is usually for rational reasons rather than irrational ones, and that international violence is often instigated for economic gain. Psychohistorians suggest that social behaviour may be a self-destructive re-enactment of earlier abuse and neglect - that unconscious flashbacks to early fears and destructive parenting could dominate individual and social behaviour.

Description by Lloyd de Mause of Psychohistory, by The Institute of Psychohistory:

1. That psychohistory is the science of patterns of historical motivations and is based upon an anti-holistic philosophy of methodological individualism

lA. Psychohistory is a science, not a narrative art like history.

lA. 1. All psychohistorical research must be comparative, striving toward lawful propositions.
lA. 2. Psychohistory advances like any other science, by the discovery of new paradigms and attempts to disprove them.
lA. 3. Like psychoanalysis, psychohistory uses self-observation of the emotional responses of the

133

researcher as its prime tool for discovery; nothing is ever discovered "out there" until it is first felt "in here."

lB. Psychohistory is individualistic, not holistic like sociology and anthropology.

lB. 1. The holistic fallacy that the group exists as an entity over and beyond its individual constituents presumes what it should investigate-the fantasy that the group is really the mother's body and has goals and motives of its own.
1B.2. Sociology, whether Parsonian or Marxist, is based on the holistic statement of Durkheim that "social facts must be treated as things, that is, realities external to the individual" and is, as Parsons admits, "inherently teleological."
1B.3. Anthropology is based on a similar holistic concept of "culture," so that when Steward states that "Personality is shaped by culture, but it has never been shown that culture is affected by personality" the tautological form of the assertion is dependent upon not noticing that the term "culture" has no meaning beyond the term "personality."
1B. 4. All statements of the form "X is socially (or culturally) determined" are tautological and assume a holistic entity beyond the individual.
1B.5. Terms such as "society," "culture," "state," "social structure," and "power are all holistic; their individualistic replacements are "group," "personality," "government," "group-fantasy," and "force."
1B.6. The central method of sociology and anthropology is to establish correlations between two facets of adult personality and then claim causal connection; the central method of psychohistory is to establish causes of motivational patterns in prior personal events and their restructuring within the adult group.

I personally see most of the stigmas that I've been stuck with as signs of Societies failings. That is not to say that I am not responcible for my actions, quite the oppisite. Many of my problems were diagnosed and then sumarily attributed solely to my parents, and Societ was free of any entanglement.

I agree with de Mause's premise that society acts as it does not only for logical reasons, but for irrational, sub and unconscious reasons. I see society as a large complex and chaotic system that can be analyzed, much like a storm cloud.

I was wonder how everone else feels about society, how it works, and why it works the way it does. I was asked the question: "Does sociopathy happen because the individual is 'sick' or the society is 'sick' and the sociopathic individual is alienated from it?"

What do make of it all, and why?

[hallenrm]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I was wonder how everone else feels about society, how it works, and why it works the way it does. I was asked the question: "Does sociopathy happen because the individual is 'sick' or the society is 'sick' and the sociopathic individual is alienated from it?"

Let's not put any value judgements, it simply means that the society and the individual are incomptible to each other.

It is indeed unfortunate that it is rather hard for an individual to survive independent of the society, but we are all aware that such individuals form groups to help each other to face the society.

[Michaelangelica]

I disagree with this:
"X is socially (or culturally) determined" are tautological and assume a holistic entity beyond the individual.'

Gestalt psychology, group psychology, anthropology,sociology all assume a 'holistic entity beyond the individual.'
It has it's own dynamic, its own rules, and can be easily demonstrated to act on the behaviour of the individual if not the personality.

If you search Australian newspapers at the moment you will find them full of horror at some Aboriginal communities (NT especially around Alice Springs) child & baby sodomy, rape and various forms of Child Abuse which I don't even think deMause has thought of.

Does deMause see a progression from one stage to another?
If so why?- What causes the movement?
--

[KickAssClown]

Does deMause see a progression from one stage to another?
If so why?- What causes the movement?

I would ask you to clarify please. There is many levels of Progression, I would ask that you explain what kind of progression you mean?

If you search Australian newspapers at the moment you will find them full of horror at some Aboriginal communities (NT especially around Alice Springs) child & baby sodomy, rape and various forms of Child Abuse which I don't even think deMause has thought of.

This is covered in the books that de Mause has written and published, "The Emotional Life of Nations", and "The History of Childhood" mainly cover the topic of tribal people and their methods of child rearing.

If I remember correctly he addresses that exact subject, in the prior book I believe. He cites a number of studies regarding tribal, hunter and gather type societies around the world.

If your asking about the type of progression that I am thinking about and the kind of movement, then you would be talking about the different parenting modes.


This is detailed in the Foundations of Psychohistory, Chapter Four.

The basic prinicible of advancement from one parenting mode would seem to be the level of empathy that is employed. Theoritically you could have an individual like Siddartha for instance that is raised with suffiecent empathy to easily classify into the upper Parenting mode types. This is the exception however, as for a societial level advancement the empathy has to be more evenly distributed.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

I would ask you to clarify please. There is many levels of Progression, I would ask that you explain what kind of progression you mean?



This is covered in the books that de Mause has written and published, "The Emotional Life of Nations", and "The History of Childhood" mainly cover the topic of tribal people and their methods of child rearing.

If I remember correctly he addresses that exact subject, in the prior book I believe. He cites a number of studies regarding tribal, hunter and gather type societies around the world.

If your asking about the type of progression that I am thinking about and the kind of movement, then you would be talking about the different parenting modes.


This is detailed in the Foundations of Psychohistory, Chapter Four.

The basic prinicible of advancement from one parenting mode would seem to be the level of empathy that is employed. Theoritically you could have an individual like Siddartha for instance that is raised with suffiecent empathy to easily classify into the upper Parenting mode types. This is the exception however, as for a societial level advancement the empathy has to be more evenly distributed.

Sorry,my knowledge of the man is limited to the Wikapedia references you gave.

You answered half my question .
I wanted to know if he sees society progressing from one parenting style to the next.
One style being an improvement on the last as society evolves.
By the look of your graph it looks like that is what he is suggesting.
The other half of the question is how are these progressions or changes of parenting style achieved?

So far I think the theory, which is new to me, is unadulterated BS.

All the parenting styles he mentions exist simultaneously in my society now.

[KickAssClown]

Indeed. All parenting modes exist somewhere in the world at current. A society is concidered to be majority of a given parenting mode when the majority of it's individuals are of a similar mode. that is not to say that the other modes are excluded, or that each mode is mutually exclusive. Note that the graph shows Time along the bottom, and mode along the side, and note that each mode is continually present along the time as it appears in majority.

Society is progressing from mode to mode, Infact according to deMause's research it would seem that the different parenting modes become prominent with each new age. The industrial era for instance was the beginning of the reign of the Intrusive Parenting Mode.

I am able to identify for instance that I am the child of a hybrid-Socializing/Helping Mode Mother and a Intrusive-Socializing Father.

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

I disagree with this:
"X is socially (or culturally) determined" are tautological and assume a holistic entity beyond the individual.'

Gestalt psychology, group psychology, anthropology,sociology all assume a 'holistic entity beyond the individual.'
It has it's own dynamic, its own rules, and can be easily demonstrated to act on the behaviour of the individual if not the personality.

lB. Psychohistory is individualistic, not holistic like sociology and anthropology.

lB. 1. The holistic fallacy that the group exists as an entity over and beyond its individual constituents presumes what it should investigate-the fantasy that the group is really the mother's body and has goals and motives of its own.
1B.2. Sociology, whether Parsonian or Marxist, is based on the holistic statement of Durkheim that "social facts must be treated as things, that is, realities external to the individual" and is, as Parsons admits, "inherently teleological."

As for how a mode progresses from one to another, I can't right now remember for the life of me, I'm going to go over to my mother's house sometime today and borrow her de Mause books so that i can better reference the material.

I'm pretty sure that socializing is predicted to progress into helping mode by an increased capacity for empathy.

I quite enjoy deMause's model of the Psychogenic society, as it is visible to me where ever I go. I highly suggest the "Emotional Life of Nations" as it has great insight into the nature of societies as they relate to the individuals that make them up.

[KickAssClown]

Dup.

[questor]

society is not to blame for anything. society is made up of tens to millions of unrelated individuals with different mental potentials and different parental
influences. there are few homogeneous ''societies''. small cultures form within societies which can differ markedly. each person is a product of his parents genes, pre natal environment, the smaller surrounding culture he lives in and other factors we may not understand. it is certainly not the society at large that is responsible for individual failures.. you have to look into the mirror for
that.

[KickAssClown]

I would agree with you, questor. As would deMause, I think.

In brief, supporters are attempting to explain cultural history from a psycho-developmental point of view, and argue that cultural change can be assessed as "advancement" or "regression" based on the psychological consequences of various cultural practices.

While most anthropologists reject this approach, and most theories of cultural evolution, as ethnocentric, the psychohistorians in their turn proclaim the independence of psychohistory and summarily reject the opinions of anthropologists.

...

Various scholars (notably Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson) have rejected this view of non-Western societies. Anthropologists generally argue that everywhere parents must negotiate between nurturing and loving their children on the one hand, and disciplining and socializing them on the other. They further argue that what constitutes "love," "sex," appropriate sexual behavior, and appropriate behavior in general, is culture-bound (and that much of what counts as average or even ideal childrearing practices in industrialized societies would be inappropriate in non-industrialized societies, and might be considered abusive by people of other cultures). They suggest that documented increases in infant mortality, mental illness, and suicide are more likely consequences of stresses brought on by Western conquest or colonization.

Finally, most anthropologists do not consider non-industrial societies to necessarily be more primitive than industrial ones and find the assertion of the model that all societies of the same technological level have the same childrearing practices to be suspect and unsupported by fact. They argue that most models of cultural evolution (including many devised by anthropologists) are not so much scientific theories as myths of colonialism used to justify the denial of human rights to non-Western peoples.

In return, Lloyd deMause and his followers accuse most anthropologists and ethnologists of counter-transference and of being apologists for incest, infanticide, cannibalism and child sacrifice. They claim that what constitutes child abuse is a matter of objective fact and that some of the practices which mainstream anthropologists apologize for, such as beatings of newborn infants, result in brain lesions and other visible neurological damage. Other practices may result in psychosis, dissociation and magical thinking. They also claim that the extreme cultural relativism proposed by many anthropologists is contrary to the letter and spirit of human rights.

I agree with Mr. deMause, that humans all being the same will more or less react to the same treatment in similar ways. To me abuse is abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter if the culture, if the society as a whole accept it as norm. A wrong is a wrong no matter what you believe.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by KickAssClown

... What do make of it all, and why?

DeMause’s work looks appears to me to be more than an ordinary reader and thinker can digest in a few days. The following, from the first page of the introduction to his “Introduction to Psychohistory”

In beginning any new science, the first task is to formulate bold, clear, testable theories. These new theories must be internally consistent and must be able to generate predictions which can be tested against new empirical material and partially disproved. The testing and partial disproof of theory is the aim of all science, and the only basis for formulating new and hopefully better theory and predictions

Impresses me as few “soft” science and humanities works have, encouraging me to make the effort to learn more of his theories and methods, and evidence.

I’m personally of the opinion that human behavior is much less cognitive than is commonly believed, and that the “reasons” we perceive as determine or behavior are less to do with determining it than explaining it in a way acceptable to the common belief, an opinion increasingly common among behavioral zoologists and neuropsychologists, and startling well-supported by an credible but as-yet fairly small body of experimental data.

I haven’t a clue why KAC included “chaos theory” in this thread’s title, however.