As Barb mentioned, things have been very busy around here lately. I'm back in school, with the same crazy schedule as last year. The big upside, though, is that my internship is at a hospital close to home this year instead of way out in Ann Arbor again. This means I only have to Drive to Ann Arbor twice a week, instead of 4 times a week. This is a huge improvement. If things go well, I'll only have to make the trip once a week next semester.
My classes are a bit more interesting than last year. I got most of those required policy and community organizing classes out of the way and I'm just taking classes in counseling, of one type or another (with individuals, with families, with groups, etc.). And, as I mentioned, I'm interning at a local hospital where they have a program to help children and adolescents who have suffered a traumatic loss (violent death of parent or sibling usually) and have PTSD as a result.
In general, I'm liking school, but sometimes the supreme-ultra-hyper-Liberal thing makes me cranky. Before going to the UofM School of Social Work I didn't fully realize how capital-L "Liberal" the place was. I generally consider myself to be leftish in nature, but it occasionally bugs me how far it is taken.
Here's an example: In my class about interpersonal counseling for individuals we've been discussing how important it is for a "therapist" to be sensitive to cultural difference between him/herself and the client. The subject of tolerance is drilled into us in many classes at almost every opportunity. I agree whole heartedly with this, but the length they go to drill this into us borders on the patronizing, which bugs me to no end.
To emphasize the idea of tolerance last week our instructor showed us a few video clips from an old episode of "Northern Exposure" in this episode Maurice discovers that he unknowingly fathered a child during his military time in Korea some 40 years ago when his former lover, their son and the son's son make a surprise visit to Cicily, Alaska. Maurice has a real problem with his son being "some kind of Chinaman", but DJ Chris gives him a talk about racism being learned behavior which he can unlearn and he thinks about that.
Later Maurice and his new Korean son (who speaks no English) are at a bar together, trying to communicate. Initially they have difficulty crossing their cultural boundaries, but at some point they begin to bond through a) drinking whiskey, b) arm wrestling and c) a shared love of electrical engineering... all of which they manage without speaking a word of a language that the other can understand.
I loved this scene because I thought it did a great job of showing how people can get around their preconceptions of others and find common ground despite their differences. It was very touching.
Our instructor said as much as well, but then added: "Does anyone see the problems here? If Maurice were your client and you were his therapist, what guidance would he need next" None of us understood what the teacher was getting at, so he clarified by saying: "Don't you think that this kind of male bonding just propagates negative masculine stereotypes?" Basically he was suggesting that "masculinity" as seen in drinking and physical competition is just the first step along the road to alcoholism and being physically abusive.
I raised my hand at this point and suggested that, if the characters have solved their interpersonal problem, and no one is being hurt, what's so bad about that? I asked if it was our place to impose our values on the client and try to solve a potential future problem that has not become a problem yet and may never be a problem at all.
This didn't sway our teacher who basically insisted that masculinity is something bad which needs to be corrected in some way and that it is our place as future social workers to help our clients which such problems.
I shut my damned mouth at this point. A few other people tried to back me up, but not with much effort. The woman next to me did lean over and whisper this to me, though: "Would he be complaining if the two characters were women and they bonded by going shopping and painting each others nails?"
For several other reasons I was already disliking this particular teacher... but this interaction sealed the deal for me.
In general there some strong attitudes about social relationships that are emphasized, but not discussed openly in the UofM School of Social Work that I struggle to get my head around and which conflict with my own view of the world. I've taken classes there on social policy, community activism, individual, group and family therapy and I've noticed the following set of underlying principles.
- If I am not always feeling guilty for being a white man, then there is something wrong with me.
- If I am not always fully comfortable discussing and proclaiming this guilt in public with people I hardly know, then there is something wrong with me. This includes many written assignments in which I am graded on my ability to convincingly express my shame at being privileged.
- Any expression of masculinity is bad and interpreted as an attempt to (or a foreshadowing of an attempt to) oppress and dominate somebody.
- Cultural and racial diversity is good. Gender based diversity is bad. All differences we perceive to be based on gender are not only purely culturally created, they need to be eliminated.
- It is bad to be an individualist. Especially a "rugged individualist". Such people really just want to use their privilege to oppress and dominate others.
- It is good to be a member of a group, to be aware of and follow group norms and social rules. People like this are aware of the needs of others and look out for each other. The group knows best. Group involvement is the best source of resolution to individual and social problems. It is good to be in a group. The only exception to this rule is...
- Families are nice and all, but really they are the source of many individual problems. Children are invariably either too alienated by abusive or neglectful parents or they suffer from overly close and intense familial relationships (ala Norman Bates) and fail to mature properly because they are overly dependent on a parent. In general, families are something that people need to gain independence from in order to be happy.
- The worst thing you can be is dependent on someone else. Close, personal relationships run a real risk of causing interpersonal dependence. Independence is the way to go. It is much better to be independent, except where it might cause someone to be an "individualist". Then you've gone too far.
These things aren't stated explicitly at school, but are implied by the way discussions about individuals, groups and families take place separately. They are never bluntly compared with each other. My impressions are gestalted together from many classroom lectures.
One of the things I've concluded from all this is that the far Left (as represented by Ann Arbor academia) is very conflicted with the idea of intimacy, and long term, permanent relationships... especially if men are involved in those relationships. It is almost as if the idea of permanent, unbreakable relationships has become synonymous with oppression, which needs to be escaped from. But, at the same time, individualism is viewed as bad. This is very confusing to me. Individualism is bad, permanent family relationships should be viewed with great skepticism, but ephemeral, transitory group relationships with friends, school-mates and colleagues are not only good, but where we should find our real sense of identity and empowerment. This bugs me.
I believe that long term, permanent, intimate relationships are what life is all about. Usually these relationships are family, but some friendships last for a lifetime and we should be damned grateful if we have friends like that.
I take a
Nash's Equilibrium view of these kinds of relationships. I believe that, in these groups (permanent, intimate relationships) it is bad for an individual to make choices solely out of individual need or desire. At the same time, though, I believe that it is bad for an individual in a group to make decisions solely based on what is good for the group. In my opinion, it is best for both the group and the individual if each person makes decisions that are simultaneously best for both the individual and the group. If something is good for me but bad for the rest of you, I'd reject that option. Likewise if something is good for the group, but bad for me personally, I would only accept that option in the case of an emergency where heroic sacrifice was necessary. The only acceptable choices are those that benefit us all.
In other kinds of groups, in which I don't have permanent relationships with others, I view it a bit differently. I try to apply the above rules until and unless the demands of the group become oppressive, annoying in some way, or just plain no longer useful, and then I abandon that group. This would apply to people at school, work or other ephemeral social relationships that aren't constructed to last very long. My only real loyalty is to the permanent people in my life as I view them as a source of real happiness and satisfaction.
The ultra-super-duper-capitol L-Liberal school of social work seems to be giving the message to its students that it is wrong to make sacrifices for our families, but that we should be comfortable making many sacrifices for people we don't know, especially the under privileged. That is to say, in school we encouraged to believe that family relationships are somehow bad for us, that the worse thing we can do is be dependent on our family, but that we should apply our loyalty to groups of people we don't know at all, people we aren't really that close to, or people whom we suspect we'll just separate from eventually anyway. (In an environment where
"starter marriages" are seriously discussed in the media.)
The frustrating thing is, I can't raise these ideas at school. The faculty there are supremely tolerant of other people, unless you question the basic tenets of their philosophy. I think they are fairly quick to label dissent as being "racist", "sexist", an "individualist", "intolerant" or "not a team player" if I don't agree with the party line in all matters. This could effect my grades and my ability to get letters of recommendation for future jobs, so I keep my mouth shut as much as I'm able.
It isn't too terrible because I do agree with quite a bit of the Liberal perspective, there's just some things I have to let go of while I'm at school. Oh well... only 7 more months.
