You said: And perhaps even in the healing process it could help a person to call the jws a cult if that helped them to validate their pain That is what I mean by shifting responsibility to a definition. You don't define things so you have an excuse for your actions.
Pro -
Perhaps I can clarify. To use one's past as an excuse for making negative choices is self-destructive. However, to allow yourself to acknowledge the pain you've dealt with is IMO an important part of recovery. To lose one's friends and family is painful; to refuse to acknowledge that you are in pain, to say "I'm fine, nothing hurts me, I'll move on" is to create within yourself cognitive dissonance. If you've been well-trained to react to your own vulnerability with anger and shame, perhaps being able to label the situation accurately will create in yourself room for acceptance of that pain w/o the shame. In an ideal world, we would be able to admit when we were hurting and then move on w/o feeling shame for hurting. If we're told to consistently minimize the situations we've dealt with, then we feel even more shame at hurting.
An interesting perspective on this situation in relation to the way we raise young men today is the book "Real Boys" written by Dr. William Pollack, Codirector of the Center for Men at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School. In one example, he discusses a 14-yr old:
This mask of masculinity enabled Adam to make a bold (if inaccurate) statement to the world: "I can handle it. Everything's fine. I am invincible."
Adam, like other boys, wore this mask as an invisible shield, a persona to show the outside world a feigned self-confidence and bravado, and to hide the shame he felt at his feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness, and isolation. He couldn't handle the school situation alone...and he didn't know how to ask for help, even from people he knew loved him.
I grant you that this is a book written at a non-academic audience, but its author is credible and you could no doubt pull up the studies he's done to support his research in peer-reviewed journals. I don't have the time or energy to do so right now.
As a child, if I cried, I was told to breathe deeply to stop it. My brother was told more specifically "be a man, stop crying." This was at a very young age. The Protestant work ethic carries w/it a sense of value from how hard you can push yourself; weakness is shame. And yet I know I have bought into this belief structure so strongly that even right now I feel compelled to defend myself, as if you would think that I play the victim for the mistakes I've made. That I even feel that in defending a person's right to pain my personal value comes on trial is extremely disconcerting.
That's the root of prejudice and hatred. The Nazis defined Jews as genetically inferior humans and then proceeded to excuse themselves for trying to exterminate them. So are you suggesting that it's proper to define the JW's as a bad "cult" just so somebody can feel better? How childish. That kind of logic was great for getting children over bumping their head on the coffee table. "Bad table. Here let me hit it. Now do you feel better?"
No, I'm saying it's appropriate to accurately label the source of one's pain. Our society negates one's worth if they feel pain that society views as illegitimate; if labeling JWs as a cult vs a sect protects a person from that shame by providing a lable that helps more fully reflect the intensity of the situation/experience then I feel it is a positive choice to do so.
Calling my suggestion and I think implying that I am, by extension, childish, is rather close to a flame and I'm not sure necessary or helpful. I apologize if you feel I may have done something similar to you, although after reviewing my posting I don't see that I did. I would much rather focus on the topic at hand; personal attacks don't seem to encourage rational though. Again, if you feel that I've done the same I apologize in advance. Much is lost in the ability communicate via the net vs in-person and miscommunications arise easily.
"we often try and say something shouldn't have hurt us, even though it clearly did, and the word cult has such a negative connotation that it might allow us to stop apologizing for feeling hurt. "
I hope you see the semantic problem of saying "it" hurt you. When it comes to emotional hurt you had better admit that it is your catastrophizing that makes things unbearable. You can choose to call something "unfortunate" or you can blow it up and call it "terrible". If this makes you angry. So be it. The language of victimology appeals to the pre-scientific mind and it takes a lot of effort to dispute those assumptions.
An organization is the combination of its regulations/rules and the people who adhere to such. Without the rules that are part of this org few individuals who are JWs would reject their family members; w/o the people who live by these rules, the rules themselves would be powerless. Hence, I feel that saying an organization is harmful is a completely legitimate statement.
I'm choosing to believe you are using "you had better admit" not as direct reference to me but as in "an individual". However, I think telling someone they "had better" do something is not very productive in general. Further, to say losing one's friends and family is "unfortunate" is an interesting phraseology and I do not think that an individual feeling more hurt than "unfortunate" seems to bare out is catastrophizing anything.
Finally, saying that "the language of victimology appeals ot the pre-scientific mind" etc...it's quite obvious to me that this is a personal attack and I'd much rather not engage in that.
Cady
