I believe that you have also mis understood (or mis applied) the Interactional View Theory for this situation, of which one of the five axioms is your "punctuating the sequence" idea derived from “Family Homeostasis Suppositions”. Axiom 4, to be precise. You say: I still do not see how Monica, one of this man's victims in this scenario, now comes out as the perpetrator. If adequate resources are available at another agency, he should go there. She should not have to face this man at work. He has to go to another agency for his court-ordered counseling? Too bad. There's no hardship involved here for him, and even if there were, he was the cause of it. He created this situation, not Monica. In family therapy, we refer to this process as "punctuating the sequence". He is directly responsible for the situation he finds himself in. He is the cause. If he has to go elsewhere in town, so what? He is not "seeking help" anyway. He is court-ordered. He can be court-ordered somewhere else. The "Punctuating the Sequence" Axiom pertains to interactions of or communication between family members or between people whom we have had (at least some) regular contact or relations with. It does not promulgate the idea that only one person created a situation. If you believe that Axiom 4 applies in this case, then you also believe that this was not a situation which arose immediately, but was a sequence of events which occurred for at least some time, instead of this being a situation where it was a quick, irrational violent outburst which happened all at once and was solely the fault of one unstable person. If you truly believe that Axiom 4 applies in this case then you acknowledge at least some responsibility (albiet possibly small) lies with the OP, and that there was a sequence of events, communications, etc. which occurred between the OP and the alcoholic. Again I am certainly not condoning the man banging on her door and would never condone any form of violence. In order for Axiom 4 to apply, the idea that the alcoholic, and only the alcoholic, created this situation, and that no one else is responsible at all, is negated. For the man to be solely responsible for banging on the OP's door, there would have been no sequence of events. And hence no "punctuating the sequence". Because in order for Axiom 4 to occur, at least two people are needed to create a sequence of events, and the idea that one person is directly responsible for a sequence of events of which two or more people are required to participate in is a fallacy. A sequence of events as per Axiom 4 can not take place unless there are (at least) two people involved in that sequence. Unless the sequence is imagined. So since you yourself believe that Axiom 4 applies in this situation, then you acknowledge that the OP had some responsibility in the situation. Which runs contrary to your supposition that the OP was completely the victim and that that her neighbor was completely the perpetrator. So either you have mis applied the Interactional View Theory in this situation and believe the alcholic to be solely responsible, or you have applied it correctly which would in essence contradict your original supposition that the OP is completely the victim and the Alcoholic is solely to blame.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.