Frank Weil lectures; #4 (Reel 2)
There are dangers and even the best of contrasts and dichotomies and a dichotomy attempts when to use the either or approach which several weeks ago I called up only the second time just thinking. So if we use the kind of person job kind of class it always must be in the setting of what we call the third type of thinking pluralistic realistic and dynamic. Now the reading of the fourth book after the car at the time of the restaurant you know I were developing the new stuff in which they and I were talking about diagnosis and treatment. But about the relation between the generations between them and me about their relation with other faculty with the administration or with other disciplines. So we're halfway teasing fires. When one of the residents offered a prize for a name for the new seminar. I suggested the title of R but the need is there. Oedipus knower job center. This quickly became short to the non job.
Sardar. The 0 in on in the non job title refers to neither at APUS nor anywhere. Neither at this nor. That it had the amusing ambiguity that makes it seem as if one were speaking of something which is not. And of course at first sight the non Joe when you see it written rather than listen. To the word. The Nonette job seminar seems to be referring to a job suffered by visitors. When we sent the notices guard west so that again there is the slight increase of interest that comes from the possibility that one will be talking about jobs or non jobs or and jobs in this seminar as it were. Contemporary literature their authors report right now on Heroes or at least the 907 are now or. Has had a valuable place in the development. In my development and in the development I think of many others because the title all helps to set the tone
of the discussion. My tone which is much more difficult to achieve by the residents or by Andy in a discussion of difficulties between them and me or others more difficult to achieve then it is to achieve in discussion of diagnosis and treatment of patients. The name of the seminar is a constant reminder of several crucial facts. The Neither epis portion of the title means that the residents will attempt to behave toward me or to learn to behave toward me in a way that will be relatively free of the Atavist patter. Have killing of father or a father figure or of being persistently ripped out of us are non conforming us to turn away the need there at this portion of the title means that I as the party of the second part will constantly try not to behave like one of the guards against him at this and others felt their obligation to
rebel. I was to learn not to act as if I were a powerful figure of fate not to act as if I were one of the gods of the Pantheon who could be threatened by the independence of men and women. And not to act as if I were of God to get through Thunderbolts or for Susette matter at the same time. The not the nor Joe but the you know in the end second and his nor And then followed by just the Nord job part of a good learning process in the seminar. Meant that the residents were not expected to be submissive in the BDM to department situation when I'd done simply and they could not understand murder except my leadership of our question. And at the same time I was expected to avoid the temptation to behave as if I were a jerk over as if I could be so all understanding and so righteous that what I said deserved their unquestioning acceptance and obedience.
It has been a very good learning process for the parties of both parties. We have learned that it's possible to behave with a much greater degree of partnership than book 4 and we have learned that we have learned that in this kind of non-job relation there still are rules this is not a group in which anything good in which the residents insult me or I insult them. This is not a situation in which they try to expose my weaknesses nor do I say that some of their behavior is childish or neurotic of the usual. The seminar is a combination of permissiveness toward honest expression of opinion and toward the kind of criticism of others which is inside act acceptable in such a relation. Plus a set of understood limits which excludes the acting out of hostility. The only concept about AB reaction. Of the release into action of previously dammed up expressions of emotion. Has no
place in the conceptualization of this. Healthy limit setting was present from the beginning. There is no attempt to make the party get applied feel guilty or ashamed. No use of the techniques of threat or punishment. Now one part of the process of the seminar is the development of discussion between discussion and compromise but there is more than that. Out of the interchange in interactions in which there is a severe sincere attempt to find bridges and linkages and better patterns of relation there develops not only certain essential compromises and agreements but also something new a new ally or more correctly phrase the alliance which previously had been present. In the seminars on diagnosis and treatment is now in good part present in the non-job seminars as an alliance with regard to other matters. But one should never accept. One should never expect. Completeness or formis or perfection
in this sort of development. Even after several years of such a seminar it remains clear that in certain ways some of the group are skeptical about my patterns of administration. And it remains clear that I have a certain degree of skepticism about the patterns of some of the younger group. But this seems inevitable IMHO. If it were not so I'd be skeptical about the whole process as being merely comparable to the use of a pleasure who sat on an irritated skin. Or other being a pattern of sweetness and light which merely conceals the problems which would lead to a bitter taste or to a dark shadow. Not tonight after this discussion I have the nine job. Pattern. I make some attempt to apply. And I see tonight I've tried to indicate directly and indirectly. Some of the ways in which the experience of psychiatrists and of people in related fields may provide a solid
base for the understanding of some of the issues of the generation gap. I made a half dozen points One is that the older generation can agree that the younger generation has the right and the obligation to question the patterns passed on to them. As exemplified in our insistence and there always have been one or more of what can be called already impossible cases. The next point is to say that the older generation especially myself should look carefully at the myth of the wise elder statesman. The process of self-scrutiny could be extraordinarily valuable for the younger generation as well off including but not of the skeptical attitude looking at themselves to admit the fresh blood a new idea is also in the material. The third doctor it seemed clear that the therapeutic alliance might provide a paradigm of an alliance which could provide workable suggestions for getting beyond the generation gap of searching for ways of working together productive today.
Most emphatically the issue of ambiguity of the existence concurrent equality and of inequality must be faced. You clarified it in the relation between the generations. Or else it can become a seriously disruptive force. Finally the discussion this hour of the non-job seminar has obvious implications for the conflict between the generations. It suggests that the contrast between the Oedipus attitude in the job attitude. Offers a point of high value to a point of departure of high value in the issues that develop between the generations. The non-job pattern includes a recognition that both generations may have been using. Unfortunate approaches to each other maybe making mistakes in dealing with the other generation. The non-job seminars permit each generation to see that the other generation is making a serious attempt to modify the
distortions that are inevitable in such a conflict. Each generation can see for example that the other generation is looking at itself to see if it had taken an exaggerated or mythological stand about the extremely high quality of the ideas of its own generation. Further the non-job seminars was a therapeutic alarmist indicate that the process of taking a pretty good look at oneself need not be linked with a hostile or adversarial look at the other side. Rather a critical but benevolent scrutiny both ways by both sides can increase the possibility of having something good to grow out of the relationship. Fact I've exposed that in this series of six lectures that to turn one's self split really and a working alliance self-scrutiny in a working alliance may represent something of what I consider to be the essence of at least one of the best
things. Finally the suggestion becomes clear that wind generation conflicts exist. The non-job type of discussion. May lead to a resolution which consists not only of compromise but also of the development of the alliance of positive interaction in which two groups can work together in a joint enterprise. Against what can be called that a common common enemy of emotional distortions of working across purposes of the loss. The enemy in part being the loss of the help of the other. There is a danger the phrasing the approach in this fashion gives the impression of the predominant warmth and affection and cooperation. In the contacts between the generations. It should be made clear that in any or all such discussions which are attempts at building something to a better level there is a great deal of frankness and openness insults are not part of the pattern of
development but a frank statement. Can be made by one about what seems to be mistaken logic on the part of the other or what seems to be an attempt on the part of one to dominate the other. In a good relationship is going to curb with frequency. If the other can take it. If the chief motivation for the sharpness is to make progress in the discussion or in the relation rather than the chief motivation being the wish to make a point or of winning in the game of one upmanship. Or of showing up the other person. There is a contrast between this approach and that of a debate say an intercollegiate debate where the adversary system of the courts of law. In the adversary system each side does try to win a point. US does try to undercut the other guys try to make dictator take advantage of a slip made by the other. Such an essentially hostile or potentially hostile interchange requires that there be an
impartial judge or a jury the non-job seminar since it is not primarily an attempt to win out over the other side does not require a drug or a jury. In spite of its great deficiencies the adversary system does have an important place in our civilization. It's a form of defensive ethic of a system in which an individual can defend himself against unfair at a time. In which there is a goal of fair play and justice and the protection of all individuals under the law. In which in part at least there is a government of laws rather than of men. Now the approach which I have suggested the northern job is one which does not emphasize a defensive back. This is not essentially an attack in a defense against attack. Or a counterattack against attack. Rather it is in good part beyond the adversary system. The non-Jew approach
is in line. With one widespread biologic. Pattern. One. Of cooperation as a technique of survival among very many of the animal species. A technique which exists alongside struggle in competition. As the second major technique of survival. Phrasing the two patterns in terms of ethics rather than in terms of survival. All one can say that the individual human beings and in groups of human beings there can be two patterns of bad ass. One is the attempt to prevent. Conflicts and hostility from becoming destructive already thought or really downright shame. The second. Type of that takes is the development of. Patterns of joint con joint. Effort and our lives like the social organization in the primaries. The second is the development of patterns of joint effort in which
many positive creative developments can occur. The neuron. Is a. Second bite. Of that by this time it's clear to you I'm sure that part of my thesis in this series of lectures is to suggest that various other groups explore the ways in which the non-job approach can be used as a technique which is profoundly ethical in may have practical advise. This approach is most suitable for adults as we have used it. It would grow out it could grow out of meetings of one or several of the faculty of another department go another route or another institution with a group of graduate students or people in printing. It might be suitable also as a pattern of interaction between undergraduate students and the dean or some of the fuck away. But in this latter situation there should be I assume a somewhat greater leadership on the part of the Dean of.
The 9 job relation would be appropriate between a parent and one or several of the next generation perhaps of the age of 16 or 17 up to the age of 20. Or 25. In this situation again there should be a fair degree of leadership to my ends. Parents although diminishing with the increasing age and maturity of the next generation the next question there would be whether the non job approach would be useful in a relation between. Parents with adolescent children of the age of 12 or 13 to 16 or 17. A large part of the 9 job approach and policy could be used but also there would have to be an even greater amount of leadership on the part of the older generation and I say this because in adolescence and to some degree are. Better. There are many feelings of uncertainty. Many fluctuations and many a fast turn of the wheel of the emotional dynamic. Yes many human beings
perhaps particularly in the period of adolescence. What limits to be sad. Even though they're expressed around the rebellious attitude so many adolescent. Adolescents want their parents to express their affection and love and opt for this by saying no. When it is needed and this would modify of course the approach that you talked about and an important and positive modification. Now there's much more to be said about the conflict between the generations. But most of it really should be said by those who are in disciplines other than psychiatry. So I limit myself in the remaining minutes of this lecture to some comments. About violence and the use of violence. Yes there are times in which it's necessary to use physical force to protect. One's self or to protect another person. Even though that means a physical struggle. For example if one sees a stronger person
or an armed person attacked in a second. There is no question that one should attempt to stop the attack either by calling the police or if it's urgent enough of trying to defend the one being mistreated and doing it by whatever means are at. Hand. Or suppose one is a doctor taking care of a patient who has a heart problem. Suppose further that the physiologic state of the patient begins to deke compensated the oxygen supply or the brain becomes lower than is required for good function and waste products of the metabolism of the brain are not washed away because of the weak circulation of blood in the brain. This is a situation in which the individual may develop a delirium partly through their area. In this stage he may be sufficiently confuse so that he thinks he is at home rather than in the hospital. He does not recall that he is sick going to begins to try to find his clothes to get dressed and to leave the
physical activity involved in this behavior could lead to his death or to a severe exacerbation of his own. Yes under such circumstances the ethical responsibility of the nurses and the doctors is to deprive him of his civil rights for the time being and to force him to step back. Hopefully this would not be done with a kind of physical force that would call for a struggle for violence but rather the use of adequate medication as a side effect. But it still might require the use of some physical force. And since the patient is being forced to do something which he says he does not want to do. It's imperative that the family be asked to come to the hospital to join. In the next decisions which must be made then that if the patient must be forced to stay in the hospital against his wishes for a longer period of time some brief legal action is called for. So that the decision to deprive him temporarily of his rights for his own
sake. Would be made by a legally constituted authority by a judge who would have the right to appoint his own expert to determine. The patient's condition. Notice how urgent matter of fact anyone urges that in such circumstance in which there is a violation of the rates of the other the usual rights of the other. Under those circumstances in which it's obviously totally justified. Still it must be surrounded by safe guards to set a pattern in which there. Might be a question as to whether it is justified this without this sort of safeguard one would not function and should not. The story of a patient who developed a cardiac delirium is included to this point to indicate that surely there do exist situations in which ethical responsibility requires the use of physical control of one individual over another which may even require a physical
struggle. But it raises great dangers of misuse. Consequently the recommendation must be that anyone who takes such a responsibility must share the responsibility as quickly as possible with other individuals who also are responsible in the situation in this. We were referring to the protection of the patient in other situations the protection of others and if society can be regarded as powerful but the use of force in the process of defense either ethics or protective. Ethics must not be used to justify violence as an essential component of the conflict between the generations. I do not think that violence is an essential part of the development of a good ally. However I can see that the use of force is a part of the defensive or protective ethics might be necessary on a rare occasion on the part of the younger or the older generation. For example if a boy of 15 or 16 sees his father or his uncle
all be physically cruel to his sister or his mother or to his younger brother. The boy has an obligation to do his best even by force to stop the aggressor. Similarly if a father or mother sees an adolescent about to take a drug which in reality and not merely by regulation can do a heart I would not hesitate supporting the parents ethical responsibility to take away the drug. By force if necessary. But I would emphasize again and again the fact that the son or nephew in the first instance and the parent in the second instance must do his best to make sure that the use of physical strength is only an emergency episode. In an otherwise hopefully good working relationship. I see nothing in the field of psychiatry that would justify as part of the development of a workable. Ethical relationship the destruction of the files and papers of a faculty member. By rebellious
students whether in certain cultures or social systems a put up or violence is necessary is a step. That preceded the development of a kind joint relation. Is a question which cannot be answered on the basis of psychiatric evidence. As far as I can make out. But occasionally I am told by boat stuff right by those who are 30 and by those under 30 that I underestimate the value of confrontation. Violent if necessary. I disagree with such comments violently but only but only with. Violent. Words not violent action. By defensive ethical behavior as I have said may have to use physical force. But this big homes trip as they are all about you choosing that word carefully. The next step. Often is to say that off fence is the best defense. Yes that has a modicum of truth but we can say that some of the most inhumane
periods in man's history have started on the basis of one group saying that certain other groups are dangerous that we must defend ourselves that we must attack before we are attacked. The most stringently honest sub scrutiny is needed under these circumstances to uncover the rationalizations if any and to consider for example whether the aggressiveness. A new point now which could take another hour which I would of course to consider for example whether the aggressiveness is not in good part a form of self destructive. Yes. In general we can see fairly clearly what the pattern can be what the ethics can be and a therapeutic alliance supervision Alliance the one job seminar in non-group approach. This. Generation gap. In English now. And there summarizes. In each there are prominent elements of
self-scrutiny of partnership. Of the avoidance. Non-job of excessive red. That a young compliance. Or on the other side of domination. There can be a tolerance of the inevitable and the gurantee of the equality and inequality. There can be a sincere attempt at the development of a new and good relation. This may include At times the use of physical force briefly or for a short period with a speedy participation of the family of the law and the law in the decision making. But when there arises an issue. Such as cruel or dogmatic leadership. Or the issue of an aggressive takeover. Or of revolutionary activity or of dictatorial behavior or the issue of the continuing use of force or the possibility of the serious misuse of power. Any and all of this becomes a different kettle of fish requiring perhaps other considerations than the one that I have been talking about
in this creative ad takes with acquiring perhaps. She for a predominately defensive ethics and defensive Ethics Guy has become an urgent necessity. But I would say are so over that so far human history to an amazing degree. Man's approach to life to other human beings and to himself. Has been based on a competitive struggle on the use of force and the destructive often SCM defense. I'm fighting and killing. On severe punishment. And on self punishment. It seems now that in human life there are many unused opportunities for another approach. This starts with a widespread occurrence in from human animal life an extraordinary emphasis on cooperation for survival and on social organization. And the cogency of this approach is underlined the fact that in manic. All moon cultures have extensive patterns of
organization and group living further the logic of this approach is undermined by the fact that in every known culture there is a prohibition of at least some forms of destructive behavior such as in sassed. There is a culture grow delimitation of behavior which would damage others or disrupt the group. The cogency of this approach is increased by the fact that alliances of one sort or another. I beginning to show greater effectiveness from these products. The conclusion may be that the human being someday will learn that violence often is self-defeating. He may learn that congenial alliances and integrations can become more hopeful changes in transportation and in communication may facilitate the process of regarding all humanity as members of the same single species. And techniques may emerge that are solid and workable. For the less thing a
just but give hostility. And for the building of a civilization which to a much greater greater degree is based on joint interests and mutual relation which is beyond the adversary system and beyond that and government. Yes finally there is the widespread recognition of the fact. That for the first time in history there is a human force not a superhuman force in human hands the power of nuclear weapons which is capable of destroying or decimating the human race. This may stimulate the emergence of some form of the pattern used in most other animals. Of the affective defense against the killing of animals by members of the same species. The stalemate. Of nuclear power has given us some borrowed time. This may be time enough for the emergence of a defense against man's killing of man. Perhaps in man a cultural defense against the destructiveness which is control in our right.
And one path way. One of the many pathways perhaps toward such a defense may be a combination. Of a further development of defensive ethics along with the development of new types of integration new kinds of alliance new forms of creative ethics. You have just heard Dr. Murray Slovene professor and director of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine speaking on the conflict between the generations. One of a series of lectures on psychiatry and ethics. These lectures were given at the Frank L. Wild Institute at the Hebrew Union College Jewish instances of religion in Cincinnati. The topic of Dr. Levine's next lecture is create about takes. These programs were produced at the University of Cincinnati station WG U.S. and are distributed by the national educational radio network.
- Frank Weil lectures
- Episode Number
- #4 (Reel 2)
- Contributing Organization
- University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
- AAPB ID
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-28052614).
- No description available
- Media type
- AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 69-42-4 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
- Chicago: “Frank Weil lectures; #4 (Reel 2),” University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 10, 2023, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-28052614.
- MLA: “Frank Weil lectures; #4 (Reel 2).” University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 10, 2023. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-28052614>.
- APA: Frank Weil lectures; #4 (Reel 2). Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-28052614