EMAILIST - EXCHANGE ABOUT FATHERLESSNESS CAUSALITY
Michael initial post
David answers to Michael
Michael answers to David
William first note
Michael answers to William
William 2nd note - to Michael
Steven answers to William
William 3rd note - to Steven
David answers to Steven
Stven answers to William
William's post with theory
page
With a slip of the pen the thread began titled as
Neuto-biology and Fatherlessnes
I'm in the process of writing a series of articles for a local news-paper... I've been specifically requested from its editor - he is an ex-psychologist - to offer some explanations regarding the high degree of correlation between psycho-social, legal, and academic failure and the 'fatherless home'; additionally, to focus on the specific higher impact on girls than boys... In reading the various statistical information on divorse, custody, visititation, unwed mothering, ste-parenting, etc.. it was alarming to note the serious and grave impact the absence of a father has on the development of children into adulthood.... Many of the issues are self-evident and I believe come as no surpise to many...
... What did, in fact, occur to me was the strongly debated issue of 'mind vs matter', 'nature vs nurture', 'science vs religion/philosophy', 'neuro-biology vs environment', 'biochemical imbalance vs narcissistic insults (assaults)'... and the scientific evidence regarding psychonanalytic/ psychodynamic principles...
So, the theme in the form of a question is : If Neuro-biology, genetics, and/or the concept of 'contiguity' are the only variables needed within the scientific endeavor of etiological concomitants to psychic failure, deviance, or pain; and psychodynamic principles are religious tenents from an archaic mentality -or perception- of the 'soul'... then, how do we commence to understand and/or treat the victims of fatherlessnes.... or how do we reconcile the high correlation -stated above- with neuro-biology/ biochemistry, and contiguity.
Michael
Interestingly put, Michael. But it seems to me that social learning models could be used to explain the failures of such children--e.g. that they learned to associate knowledge (about their family, relationships, etc.) with pain, which generalized to knowledge at school, knowledge in relationships, which led to avoidance and failure in those areas, to put it simplistically.
Of course, I personally think that the unconscious makes it much more complex than that. And from a strictly neuro-biological model, there is nothing that can be done, is there? Unless it would be possible to identify and correct in the brains of such youngsters the specific "deviant" mechanisms responsible for their failure....In other words, I suppose it could be argued that the lack of fathers caused certain abnormalities in the neurological development of the children.
Curious: In terms of the higher impact on girls, in what ways, based on your review of the research? And is the differential impact much stronger, or just slightly?
Convention would have it that boys are more strongly affected, but when you think about it, from where do young women prototypically develop the feeling of being attractive, desireable, seductive, etc. as women in adult love relations?--from their early "romantic" (playacting) experiences with their fathers. One wonders how this changes things for them when father is not around. I once worked with a little girl who had "lost" her father as an infant, and had little subsequent contact with him. She developed the conviction, unconsciously, that if only she had been a boy, perhaps he would have stayed around, and that she had been rejected specifically because she had been a girl. It took her considerable work in the therapy, before she could give up her wishes to be a boy (which meant having to mourn for father), while becoming more comfortable with her feminine aspirations. And with this, she could also give up having to be bossy and aggressive much of the time. Now, I never considered suggesting that her mother arrange a brain scan or neurological exam for the little girl, but it was not necessary since her disposition improved without it!
David
D... It seems to me that social learning models could be used to explain the failures of such children--e.g. that they learned to associate knowledge (about their family, relationships, etc.) with pain, which generalized to knowledge at school, knowledge in relationships, which led to avoidance and failure in those areas, to put it simplistically.
---------------
M. Indeed, and I do not debate the fact that the lack of parental skills in resolving their intrapersonal and/or interpersonal issues suggest a void in their capacity to emulate adequate 'conflict-resolution' techniques to their children... and such social and/or moral lacunae might be etiologically related to the ensuing failure.
I wonder if such a simplistic explanation will account for the affects of devastation, pain, anger, and bewilderment, that we professionally see in our fatherless children. And I wonder if it would be ethical, as well as professional, to suggest doing away with this knowledge in favor of a behavioral understanding.
------
D... Of course, I personally think that the unconscious makes it much more complex than that. And from a strictly neuro-biological model, there is nothing that can be done, is there? Unless it would be possible to identify and correct in the brains of such youngsters the specific "deviant" mechanisms responsible for their failure....In other words, I suppose it could be argued that the lack of fathers caused certain abnormalities in the neurological development of the children.
--------------
M. Precisely my point; though I do believe that since synapses represent memories, and synaptic pathways complex behavioral and affective sequences, and since during the experince of pain endorphins, and all sorts of neuro-chemicals spring into action.... I think you get my drift.... It's the old chicken-egg question.
------
D... Curious: In terms of the higher impact on girls, in what ways, based on your review of the research? And is the differential impact much stronger, or just slightly?
---------------
M. Tonight fourty percent of our Nation's children will go to bad without a father !!!!
Here are some stats. Sources vary but the greatest majority are from the Bureau of the Census, The Center for Desease Control, The Journals of Criminal Justice and Behavior, The National Principals Association, Dept. of Corrections, The US Dept. of Justice, etc. Most Stats are corrected for income, race, religion, and territory, as intervening variables.
Daniel Amneus states : A judge will try a custodial case in the morning and palce the children with mother... and that very same afternoon will try a criminal case and send someone to jail, with little if any realization that he was an integral part of that process a few hours earlier.
Children and/or adults raised in fatherless homes, or divorced homes where the primary custodial parent was the mother.
63% of youth suicides
85% of all children exhibiting behavioral disorders
80% of rapists
71% of all high-school dropouts
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers
70% of juveniles in State operated institutions
85% of all youths sitting in prisons
These children are :
5 times more likely to commit suicide
32 times more likely to run away
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
14 times more likely to commit rape
10 times more likely to abuse drugs
9 times more likely to end up in State operated Institutions
20 times more likely to end up in Prison
Our Children's literature (michael J. Corso, PhD reminds us) is complete with the fatherless home and consequences to daughters.
Sleeping beauty, Cinderella, Snow White... In these tales, full of parental archetypes many struggles are depicted and especially that of the maturing daughter and mother, in the absence of the father... and now fast forward to today's depictions of Ariel -Little Mermaid- in a role so unlike her predecessors... She is now rescuing Prince Eric. Jasmin, in Aladdin, is not at the whimsy of her father.. she is beyond even the Genie's control... She is self assured... she jumps just as far as Aladdin, wow !! Snow white would not even think of it... Too bad today's fatherless women are struggling to discern their inadequacy to be like Jasmin, while resentful at being forced in the role of snow white or the sleeping beauty... all unconscious, passive, helpless, still awaiting for the "man" the rescuer.... and on we go to present day cinematographic depiction of Fathers towards daughters... absent, or overbearing, explosive and merciless, as in King Trident smashing Ariel's possessions... and in Beauty and the Beast Belle's father is helpless and imprisoned...
In the Journal of applied Psych Vol. 11, No. 2, April - June 1990. Females reporting high inter-parental conflict BUT good relationships with fathers, had fewer internalizing problems. In other stats.
2.3% of sex-abuse by bio fathers, 17% by step-fathers
Mothers are 17.5 times more likely to sexually abuse their daughters than biological fathers
Women attempt suicide four times more often than men, but men succeed three times as often as women.
Children and women of fatherless homes are 900 times more likely to get divorced, 350% more likely to drop-out, to get OW pregnant, and to suffer affective disorders.
When the impact of fatherlessnes is corrected for gender, females are 600 times more likely to experience serious psycho-sexual issues than males, while males will have two thirds more psycho-social and legal problems than females.
------------------------------
Michael
I have been living in USA for two years now. I have a daughter in France who has been in a way 'kidnapped' by her mother with support of the French legislation and judge - the police refused to launch searches or gave me false information - I was condemned twice to prison because I refused to give money to the mother after she arranged to deliver a second child without marriage and in her living-room with the help of my 5 years old daughter etc...
I am not sure, but I have the idea that some American people know what I am talking about - for it is related to a civilization issue which strikes many of the Western Nations.
The question is about:
>the serious and grave impact the absence
>of a father has on the development of children
We must be careful that it is not the real absence of a father which causes deep psychological trouble - a parent may be absent for he or she died in an accident; though very sad, this is not necessarily pathogenic for the children.
My idea is that this crisis is largely related to - or comes along with - the development of our knowledge in genetics. Especially the knowledge of genetical factor which characterizes males and their psychology, which is mentioned/described at
http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/dna/ymemo.htm
must be PRESENT in the symbolic environment of the family.
It is especially the absence of this knowledge (repression, misinformation.. whatever reason) which cause a deep psychological and cultural unbalance and disorder.
I don't know if this note is interesting for many of us - for we are in a phase of increasing deny of the transformation that genetics introduce in the social organization - and most of us will try to maintain obsolete patterns of familial understanding, until the collective disorders will eventually force a change in our understanding of parenting.
William THEAUX, NYC 97/10/25 15:38:11
William wrote :
The question is about:
>the serious and grave impact the absence
>of a father has on the development of children
W. We must be careful that it is not the real absence of a father which causes deep psychological trouble - a parent may be absent for he or she died in an accident; though very sad, this is not necessarily pathogenic for the children.
M. I agree that the father's absence may be due to a multiplicity of factors, though the single most pervasive reason is divorce and the proliferation of the acceptability of the Murphy Brown syndrome.
Reardless of the etiology of the fatherless home, as unfortunate as it may be, the fact is that this context is pathogenic. Unfortunately, it is not in vogue to research the imapct of fatherlessnes since such an endeavor might suggest an alterior machismo interest.
-------------------------
W. My idea is that this crisis is largely related to - or comes along with - the development of our knowledge in genetics. Especially the knowledge of genetical factor which characterizes males and their psychology, .....
M. I am not sure I understand the connection here... Perhaps, you would like to elaborate.
Michael
>M. I am not sure I understand
the connection here... Perhaps, you would
>like to elaborate.
Yes I will try, regardless to my pessimistic view about any our understanding
<for we are in a phase of increasing deny of the
transformation
<that genetics introduce in the social organization
Trying to make my point clear, I shall shoulder on another quote from your message (I 'uppercase' the anchor I grasp)
>Reardless of the etiology of the fatherless home,
as unfortunate as it
>may be, the fact is that this CONTEXT is pathogenic. Unfortunately, it
>is NO IN VOGUE to research the imapct of fatherlessnes since such an
>endeavor might suggest an alterior machismo interest.
For me, it is not the fatherless which is directly pathogenic - I see it as a symptom. What is underneath this symptom is the current process of gaining genetics knowledge - this knowledge being in an actual phase of repression.
If for instance parents were defined by the genetical link (we are now very close to that cultural transformation - genetical card etc...) the rules of parental management would be quite different.
There is also a major information that genetic brought to us - by 1950, quite recently. That is the very unique situation of the male chromosome in the filiation and memory of the species.
I mention there again the basic page:
http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/dna/ymemo.htm
plus a recent study which proves how far the Y chromosomes can track ancestor (letting us understand how important and useful it is for the memory and the knowledge of mankind):
../../../akh/suba/cohen.htm
and a claim that I have made for childhood (for nowadays, the Y advantage has is generalized to the whole genome and will be in use for your children's health):
http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/dna/chil.htm#ith
I agree that many would apprehend this as a machismo interest - but it is part of the symptom. It just let us imagine what 'murder' will be fantasized when we shall began to face really what means artificial incubation - fetuses reared in lab, or in various animal uterus! I guess that you are aware of these scientific perspectives.
I believe that families dismantle, for people cannot stand the discrepancy between what science shows and what the social life ignore. I'm not surprised that kids get nuts...
Do we want a father staying home when he is hardly allowed to compare his blood test with his child's?
There are so many questions... but definitely I believe that they will largely resolved when mankind will have make its decision about genetical identification, cloning rules and all those sort of revelation regarding our future and our history whose repression is the very reason of the trouble.
William THEAUX, NYC 97/10/26 14:42:08
BTW - since we are in a 'psychoanalytical' list, perhaps should I mention Lacan's clarifying views on the father's metaphor - but there again, very tiny hope...
../../../akh/suba.itsy.htm (see by the bottom og the page)
I am not sure if you have time for reading all this - but it may answer better your question.
I'm not quite sure that I fully grasp what point William is making concerning genetic advances as related to the absenteism of fathers. Nor do I fully appreciate the seeming conflict between psychoanylitical theory and 'scientific' psychology. Perhaps these thoughts will help bring some more clarity.
It would seem fairly evident that science, philosophy, religious thinking, or other categories of behavior one would delineate, each offer attention and understanding to corresponding dimensions of existence Without getting too metaphysical, it need not matter what specific proportions any object we consider is comprised of, sufficient to acknowledge that existence (truth,reality?) is complex and multi-faceted.
It would thus seem absurd to me to argue the ideological merit of any one approach to psychology or understanding behavior. Some aspects are clearly understood and perhaps as, or most, effectively dealt with from a strictly scientific (quantifiable) approach. Equally relevant is that that which is more clearly 'understandable' from a psychoanalytical context (religious,intuitive?) is clearly best dealt with in this context. My personal opinion in this debate has two points.
1-That psychoanylitical theory is more incorporating of relevant factors, and far better suited to arriving at novel meaningful understanding of multi dimensional behavior
2-That scientific method can identify relationships and offer them authoritative validity, as well as verify the validity of theory or hypotheses . These functions can both assist/direct and augment the status of psychoanalysis bringing it wider authority and increasing it's practical assessibilty.
As a final comment on William's remarks.I'm not too sure that I get how advancing science (genetics) relates to the effect that fatherlessness has on children. As far as correspondance is conserned, no doubt there is one happening between male behavior and social/institutional behavior (specifically your mentioned advances in genetics.) That we are in a historical period greatly characterized by quantifiable pursuits of knowledge and a de-emphasiszed set of non-scientific (aesthetic, experiential, 'grounding') pursuits seems to correspond well with emerging trends in male behavior. In fact with the intensified 'rational innerworld' and the diminished capacities for experiential connection, it is not surprising to see the relevance of undesirable experiential concerns (effects of fatherlessness) being rationalized out of the way.
There would seem to be no relevance to whatever science may or may not come to understand about our genetics, and the relevance of our behavior's effects with respect to parental absenteism. It is not some unseen factor that is the 'true' cause for absenteism's effects. The child's development could care less if there exists some genetically identifiable reason that makes it more difficult for a man to parent than a woman.
Steven
Steve:
>I'm not quite sure that I fully
grasp what point William is making
>concerning genetic advances as related to the absenteism of fathers.
I make again precise : the relation between genetic advances and absenteeism of father is not direct - it is the repression of genetic advances, in the collective knowledge, which causes the absenteeism of fathers (if we would say that 'genetic advances cause absenteeism of father', this would precisely partake of the repression).
This repression also causes disorders in the education of children (both absenteeism of fathers and disorder in childhood may not be directly linked - they may be both different effects of the same cause - e.g., the repression in collective knowledge; and again if we would link too radically absenteeism of father and childhood disorder, this would partake of the repression in neglecting the cause)
I shall also make again more precise my point on the cause as 'genetic advances' :
The male DNA setting presents an exclusive property due to the YX-XX transmission rule. This unique feature allows a constant maintenance, and tracking back, through the generations a set of genes. No other chromosome (in the range of our current knowledge) could give proof to such 'memory' as it is shown in the Cohen family remarkable experiment.
(re:../../../akh/suba/cohen.htm)
(we only begin to make similar tracking with female code - mitochondrial RAN - which does not seem to follow such an exclusive filiation channel).
The recent discovery (by 1950) of the Y rule is shocking for it seems to confer a biological ground on the father's name transmission - and thus evokes something as an ancient intuition of this particular DNA memory feature.
I also referred to Lacan - ../../../akh/suba.itsy.htm - for his excellent contribution in showing the 'structurant' function of the patronymic in human psyche and psychology. Yet Lacan hardly ever mentioned the Y chromosome itself, so I had myself to make clearer his point and make some simple graphic illustrations:
http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/dna/ymemo.htm
The knowledge of genetics and the common and popular use of genetic identification (genetic card) is something which is currently gradually happening, but still frightens us enormously. We are in a phase of resistance which is known for disorder and sometimes violence. Many people think that it would be quite dangerous to introduce within the family culture, the genetic ID - many consider that it is better to rule family by arbitration and finance. It partakes of the vast shift humankind is heading from economy towards ecology.
Ecology at large will be essentially a DNA knowledge culture/civilization. In a more focused point of view, Family will simply reset its culture when its ruling will be coherent again, and driven with genetic considerations.
--------
I take a pivotal point to try again to make it clear.
Steven says
> It is not some unseen factor that is the 'true' cause for absenteeism's effects
I object and modify this sentence as follow:
With the Y chromosome under our microscopes, the presence of the father in the family has become legitimate - we clearly see a 'real' reason for the patronymic family.
Meanwhile the collective knowledge resists to consider this valuation [re-evaluation] of the male filiation (1) and it represses and obscures the Y familial principle.
Therefore the obvious discovery becomes unnoticed or a taboo, unseen - and it is this discrepancy between what has become clear and how we try hard to be blind, that causes a symptom (absenteeism of the father)
Thus I would stand for the sentence, so written:
> It is not some unseen factor that is the 'true'
cause for absenteeism's effects - indeed...
< it is some factor of 'unseeness' that is the 'true' cause for absenteeism's
effect.
William THEAUX, NYC 97/10/28 10:31:21
(NOTE.1 : this resistance may be bad.. or good - no judgment ; for perhaps is it the obsoletisation of the Y familial principle - aka patronymic - that we witness, since the ID card and possible genetic engineering to come, will generalize the possibility of tracking and sustaining any and each other gene in the genome. So one cannot judge what the resistance morally means)
In a message dated 97-10-28 10:08:04 EST, Steven Carbonneau wrote:
<<...It would seem fairly evident that science, philosophy, religious thinking, or other categories of behavior one would delineate, each offer attention and understanding to corresponding dimensions of existance. Without getting too metaphysical, it need not matter what specific proportions any object we consider is comprised of, sufficient to acknowledge that existence (truth,reality?) is complex and multi-faceted. ...>>
Yes, I would agree with these propositions, and you obviously have respect for the notion of "pluralism." However, there are those in the mental health professions (most notably in mainstream psychology and psychiatry) who would place a greater, or absolutist value on what hardcore, objective science can reveal about reality, while smugly writing off alternative approaches (like psychoanalysis) as "unscientific."
At least in the U.S., this has led to widespread beliefs in mental health that the psychoanalytic therapies lack "scientific credibility" (despite much scientific research to the contrary), an "institutionalization" of such beliefs across most disciplines and in organized healthcare in general, and a massive trend toward the medicalization of virtually all psychological suffering. At an extreme, if these issues are not discussed and dealt with properly, we run the risk that psychoanalytic therapy will one day be considered "unethical", "substandard", and/or illegal, because of the supposed lack of science inherent in it.
If only there were more enlightened folks like yourself...
David
In considering the status of the debate over the relevance of 'scientific', as well as psychoanalytic approaches to the effects of fatherlessness, I have the following thoughts.
William argues the relevance of genetic knowledge (namely the repression of) as the 'cause' of the effects seen with {besides} fatherlessness. This seems to be a reasonable assertion in the following limited sense. That 'accepted' knowledge (whatever we accept this to mean) has effects that include a reordered set of truths,beliefs,worldview,morality and cultural ethos is evident. That a still 'unaccepted' or 'adopted' truth can and does have the effect of 'repressing' it's eventual consequences would also seem to follow logically. The 'represed' genetic knowledge that William speaks of would thus seem to be linked causally to both fatherlessness as a behavior (as can be seen as 'consequence' of morality,ethos,etc...), as well as causally linked to the effects of fatherlessness that are a consequence of the behavior. In this sense what William proposes seems to hold true.
The usage of concepts such as 'causality' can be a source of confusion. When made more explicit much of the debate shifts. It would seem that to argue the 'true' 'source' of causality for the effects seen with fatherlessness contains such definitional confusion.
In keeping with this I would like to offer the following. The 'causality' that William speaks of must include in it's scheme ;
---the genetic knowledge he speaks of,
---the 'repression' of this knowledge,
---the behavior of fatherlessness,
---and, the effects of fatherlessness
These would seem to have a 'true' causal linkage. The behavior of fatherlessness cannot logically be omitted from the causal linkage. To do so makes the scheme fall apart. If it were not so then we could expect that in the absence of behavioral absenteism we would still see our 'effects of fatherlessness'.
To deny the causal linkage between behavioral absenteism and it's effects must rely on denying both rules of logic as well as rules of empirical science that are essential to linking 'repressed' genitic knowledge to the effects of absenteism in the first place. To argue against one neccessarily argues against both.
If the debate were to narrow to these considerations only, we would seem to be missing much. Namely the questions that come from the inquiry into the behavioral absenteism it's manifold causes and effects. I agree that scientific knowledge will and can no doubt be relevant. That 'cognitive knowledge' however is not a sufficient element to guarantee 'psychic reality' would seem quite clear. Our psyche is a product of much more than pure cognition. As such the causes of both absenteism as a behavior as well as it's effects requires insight into all those dimensions that make up the human 'being'. The debate over which method of inquiry holds the 'real' truth thus seems to make litttle sense. That causal relationships (correspondances?) exist between 'cognitive knowledge', behaviors, 'morality',ethos etc. is both a cultural as well as individual (inta-psychic)'truth'.The debate I propose is as much a reflection of which of these relavant dimensions is being 'repressed' by any one proponent as it is a disagreement within any one of these areas.
Steve
Thank you Steven for your last post about causality in fatherless. I answer with a little delay, for I have been busy; but I certainly want to mirror this echo of mine that you made.
>The 'causality' that William speaks of must include
in
>it's scheme ; the genetic knowledge he speaks of,
> the 'repression' of this knowledge,
> the behavior of fatherlessness,
> and, the effects of fatherlessness
It offers me the satisfaction to make an image/schema.
As I often do, I have built it on a web page at
http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/casui.htm
(while full development & links of such page are in the member area of the site - I make public the address hereby for a lite version)
I must say that I have nearly lost control of the exercise - which touches a most difficult point. So I'll try hereby an overall explanation: 3 causes may be detected in childhood disorder :
a) absenteism of father
b) society malaise (overpopulation or repression of genetic knowledge)
c) mother's desire.
Nobody will be surprised that it is difficult to mention this third cause - only a very skillful speech could avoid the repression, if it mentions the beneficial second degree consequences this desire would point at. Yet it is not my goal to let my voice heard there against any prejudice.
My interest is in the future collective decisions Artificial Intelligence will take
Artificial Intelligence will not exploit at first the 'skilly' speeches... it will rely on formula.
So I have applied the lacanian method/formula - following Steve summary, and set my four terms which show the repression of genetic knowledge when it means the absenteeism behavior which causes the child disorder.
Clearly this situation turn out to position the desire of the mother as:
disorder_in_childhood_in_the_name_of_the_father' - which also indicates as clearly the result of the operation being Genetic Knowledge.
My text is not skillful - I am afraid it is obscure
- I am a little disappointed with the result that I would have liked to be
clearer. Yet is indicates a very positive outcome it the trouble period childhood
is crossing is to answer a desire to establish a general genetic knowledge
(not any more limited to a dim, 'unconscious', presence of the knowledge
of the 'Y' filiation durability).
[re:http://www.dnafoundation.com/temp02/dna/chil.htm#ith]
William THEAUX, NYC 97/11/04 19:41:46
[except for correspondence © CYBEK of New York, 1999.]