In a message dated 4/13/99 12:43:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <<This theory, referred to as parental alienation syndrome, or PAS, holds that one spouse, usually the mother, is at fault for accusations of sexual abuse that may arise during a custody case. A mother's objections to the behavior, according to PAS, has the indescribable effect of turning the child against the father. Therefore, the mother's influence over the child should be halted. . . . . According to the developer of the theory, Richard A. Gardner, a clinical professor of child psychiatry, PAS is "a disorder of children, arising almost exclusively in child-custody disputes, in which one parent (usually the mother) programs the child to hate the other parent (usually the father).">> _____________________________________ Despite the fact that I admittedly have a healthy suspicion and mistrust of Psychiatry (or Psychiatry) as a legitimate, objective body of "scientific" (or scientifically-derived) knowledge, still, there is considerably truth to the assertion that such a dynamic as Alienation exists, as I have seen evidenced in two marriages of my own. Inasmuch as my own field of (professed) expertise is scientific in large part, I submit that my comments may be as helpful as anyone else's in this regard: Two caviats in regard to the above: First, we should be very cautious about stating the gender-hierarchy of this or any other dynamic. By this I mean that, regardless of whether statistically this particular dynamic is more commonly seen in woman, they usually being the parents possessing custody, and thereby potentially exerting this pernicious power in relation to the disenfranchised men, (fathers) and, in so doing, causing great mischief to the child and to the relationship between child and non-custodialy parent, still, we have to be very cautious that we do not use the statistical incidence to indict one sex preferentially over the other. There is a temptation (or a tendancy) on the part of all of us--because we are human and therefore faillable--to do this. What may start out as an authentic desire to help one group as compared to another, very often becomes a passion to value one group over the other. I submit "Affirmative Action" as one grotesque example, or "Feminism" as another. These movements, even if we were inclined gratuitously to grant initial sincerity to them, desolved into a grotesque parody of themselves, eventually polarizing the sexes, or the races, and therefore harming all parties as a consequence. I am sure each of you can offer his or her pet peeve as examples. Second, be very wary of anything labeled as a "syndrome." The term does have scientific validity, but the term must be applied according to strict criteria, and not used as an arrogant means of demanding blind obesiesence as an Article of Faith. When we apply terms out of the context in which they were originally derived, and use them in a wider context, we must be able to demonstrate that the wider context (or application) has at least as much validity as did the context in which the "syndrome" or original term was first engendered. Such terms as "Social Darwinism" "Inferiority Complex" and so forth presume a deterministic--or non-volitional--aspect to their dynamic. In medical school, one of my professors used the following to demonstrate the difference: A mother goes to two doctors in search of the answer to a problem she has with her child: Why does he not drink milk? The first doctor offers a number of plausable explanations, each with a corresponding implication with regards to what to do about the situation (assuming for the moment that something should be done.) The second doctor says that the explanation is the the child is suffering from "Pediatric Non-milk-drinking Syndrome." (I leave it to you to decide which is more useful.) A "syndrome" is a combination of two or more attributes in the same individual where said combination is far greater than would be expected from chance and chance alone. Putting it another way, where any number of attributes, each thought by definition to be sufficient unto themselves, appear to aggregate in an individual, we suspect that "something" is at work as the cause. It only remains to find out what exactly that "something" is. If used inappropriately it can lead to all sorts of erroneous notions, Group Prejudice and Racism being good examples. Some terms logically imply such groupings, and must be updated as information is made available and is incorporated, thus modifying the original term. "Intelligence" is a classic example of such a progression. Where it was once thought that there was a simple thing called "Intelligence" or "IQ," thought originally to do with the ability to solve problems or to draw anologies, is now seen to be a complex of numerous dispositions, spacial, linguistic, logical, interpersonal and intrapersonal, being among the subsets now recognized. The reason that this issue is so poignant as it relates to human behavior is that we differ (at least in degree) from other entities in that we are creatures of self-conscientiousness; and in virtue of that fact, can be seen to exert some influence over the kind of choices we make, and thus, over the kind of people we are seen to become. "Knowledge is power," we are told. And the poet reminds us, "Man is Master of his fate, Captain of his soul." Chaucer in his allegory tells us "The Truth will set thee free, have no fear!" But how free? "That--is the Question," if I may borrow shamelessly from The Bard. The DSM-IV has been understandably criticized because some of the behavior which common sense tells us is dynamic, has been labeled as a "syndrome." There is nothing wrong with such groupings as long as the person defining such can give precise and statistically-relevent reasons for it. The problem becomes thus compounded by the fact that, in the realm of human behavior, there is often (but not always) some question as to whether we do the person thus labeled more of a disservice than we do a service simply because there should always be at least a question--if not a sure answer--as to whether the indominable human will could be seen to triumph over what was regarded as the inevitable, or, as we see in criminal trials, the criminal, (as the terms relate to behavior.) So-called scientific "experts" (herein referred to as "Psychiatrists,") more often than not, give (not coincidentally) diametrically opposing views as to whether a defendant's behavior is--or was--under his or her control, or whether it was not so, in virtue of some syndrome, or childhood influence, or Astrological sign, or whatever, the differences between such explanations being inconsequential relative to the ethical implications for the accused, for the victim, and for society as a whole. --David
