Well, even Antisocials need people to exploit, so in a sense I can see where the two theories could exist side by side. I also understand that people don't usually get away with criminal or exploitive lifestyles without help from someone. Those people are usually called codependent or enablers, or just unfortunates who didn't know how to respond effectively, or couldn't respond but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it doesn't take the responsibility away from the perpetrator. We like to think that, especially in this country, every adult has an equal say. But the truth is there are power differentials that allow for the abuse of one person by another. That is true of childhood sexual abuse, domestic violence, workplace sexual harrassment, labor violations, racial discrimination. It's easy to say that the victim should just call the police, or get help in whatever way is appropriate, and it's frustrating because you see so many times when someone does actually have the ability but chooses to perpetuate the destructive relationship. But I still say it's entirely up to the one who holds the greater power not to abuse it. I've never read up on Waslewicz or Family HOmeostasis Suppositions, so I can't comment accurately on that, except as how I understand your post to mean. But Samonow is very clear that, while one may attribute an episode of abuse to some precipitating event, that doesn't imply that the event "caused" the abuse, because there are always alternatives.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.