|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Special Feature |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
INDEX:
A Question about the Ramona case and the so-called "recovered memory syndrome"... From Jonathan C. : I have a question concerning Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty's comments on Repressed Memory Syndrome. They are super-titled "There is not a shred of objective scientific evidence supporting the idea of repressed memory syndrome," and mention the case of Ramona v. Isabella. Dr. Dolhenty speaks intelligently and fairly, but I couldn't help but wonder whether Drs. Rose and Isabella actually asserted such a thing as Repressed Memory Syndrome, since it is Ramona who brought the case. What's more, it stands to reason that, unless these therapists (the defendants) brought this idea up, it would have to have been Ramona (the plaintiff) to have made it part of his case. And since it's such a surreal, unprecedented claim, it's easier to suspect that a guilty predator was covering his tracks than that a quacky and enterprising grief counselor was making an attempt at celebrity. My interest is recent, and my research scant thus far. I haven't the right to fly to any conclusions, yet I cannot escape feeling that there's something spooky about this case (the one, I believe, that brought about the founding of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation). Yes, Napa Valley is full of folks with deep pockets-- usual targets of those who push legal frontiers-- but they are also powerful. Has anyone speculated what the wine producers might be trying to hide? No one doubts that Ramona has undergone an ordeal, but what if-- just what if-- he did assault his daughter, and covered it up? Either way, this is altogether insidious. Thank you for your attention. Dr. Dolhenty responds: OK, Jonathan, let me begin with a few assertions I accept as foundational propositions:
Now, let me say that I have no idea whether or not Mr. Ramona was guilty in the original case filed against him (of child rape). My concern is with what was presented against him to be "evidence." My understanding is that the only (or, at least critical) "evidence" standing against him was the "recovered memory" of his daughter. And, at least one of the therapists involved in Mr. Ramona's lawsuit stated that "recovered memory" was a real phenomenon and that his daughter had "recovered" her memory of the alleged rape incident. My understanding is that this "recovered" memory was the basis for Ramona's prosecution. For those unfamiliar with the case, here, briefly, is a summary of the incident. I quote... "Perhaps no case in recent memory has been so publicized and, at the same time, so inaccurately described as the "Ramona" case. This suit occurred in Napa County, California. It involved an adult daughter who during the course of the course of therapy recalled being sexually abused by her father, Mr. Ramona, and subsequently confronted him with the allegations. This confrontation was facilitated by a therapist and a psychiatrist. Neither of the mental health professionals made a definitive statement about the father's guilt. Only the patient made such an accusation. Her accusations were the basis for her father's criminal prosecution by the district attorney's office. The father was acquitted by a jury. However, the allegations and criminal prosecution cost Mr. Ramona his marriage and his well-paying position as an executive. Mr. Ramona then sued the mental health professionals for malpractice. The daughter did not recant her allegations and testified for the defense in the trial." From: The American Professional Agency - The Ramona Case Now, let me specifically address the concerns that you have raised. "I couldn't help but wonder whether Drs. Rose and Isabella actually asserted such a thing as Repressed Memory Syndrome, since it is Ramona who brought the case." My understanding is that the family therapist involved originally raised the issue of recovered memory and did make a public statement supporting such a syndrome. I believe it was something like, "Yes, this syndrome is real," or something to that effect. "What's more, it stands to reason that, unless these therapists (the defendants) brought this idea up, it would have to have been Ramona (the plaintiff) to have made it part of his case." My understanding again is that Mr. Ramona did not originate the idea of recovered memory. "And since it's such a surreal, unprecedented claim, it's easier to suspect that a guilty predator was covering his tracks than that a quacky and enterprising grief counselor was making an attempt at celebrity." I have to point out, Jonathan, that this claim of recovered memory was not unprecedented in the Ramona case. There had been a number of cases (many involving the so-called "multiple personality syndrome") long before the Ramona case became news. I am aware of some from the 70s and 80s. The recovered memory notion was not new at the time of the Ramona trial. Now, I don't know, of course, whether the therapist was trying to become a celebrity (I rather doubt that), but I do think she was practicing psychological quackery in this specific instance, invoking an unproved and, I suspect, unproveable phenomenon. "Yes, Napa Valley is full of folks with deep pockets-- usual targets of those who push legal frontiers-- but they are also powerful. Has anyone speculated what the wine producers might be trying to hide? No one doubts that Ramona has undergone an ordeal, but what if-- just what if-- he did assault his daughter, and covered it up? Either way, this is altogether insidious." I am not intimately familiar with life in the wine country of northern California although I have traveled through the area many times and have seen depictions in movies and read about it in books. You may want to read an interview with a journalist who lived in the area and wrote a book about the Ramona case and discusses life in the area. See: An interview with the author of a book about the case. Most of your remarks here are speculative, so it's difficult to respond to them. If Ramona did, in fact, molest his daughter, that was a tragic situation. If he did and managed to cover it up, that makes it even more tragic. But...if Ramona did not molest his daughter (as the jury in his trail seemed to conclude (although, of course, it's a case of not being "legally" guilty), then Ramona has suffered at the hands of what I called psychological quackery, initiated, at least in part, by the therapists involved. Regarding the so-called "recovered memory syndrome," I have to reiterate what I have already said elsewhere. There is not a shred of objective evidence supporting its existence at this time. Furthermore, I have no idea even how such a "syndrome" could be shown to exist -- that is, what sort of scientific study or experiment could be designed to offer evidence in support of it. I have been a strong critic of what I call the "psychiatric game" for well over forty years, probably since I first read Sigmund Freud in high school and trashed his "theories" of dream interpretation and other nonsensical concepts he advanced. I do not accept the concept of "mental illness" per se, but merely physical illnesses or conditions which manifest themselves as behavior problems. And, incidentally, many in the psychiatric and psychological community have now come to similar conclusions. (See the books by Dr. Thomas Szasz -- a well-known psychiatrist -- in The Academy Bookstore.) Now, after stating all the above, let me assure you that child sexual abuse does go on and should be of genuine concern to us all. What is needed in such cases, however, is objective evidence and corroborative evidence that is "public" and accessible to us all. We cannot afford to have people's lives ruined by rumor, mere opinions or suspicions, or by the invention of supposed psychological syndromes. Should the latter become commonplace, we are all in danger, terrible danger, of becoming the victims of the latest psychological fad or the neighbor next door who doesn't like us. A Question about Deep Ecology and the Gaia Hypothesis... Received from D'arcy. F.: What I mean by Deep Ecology is the position that the environment has intrinsic value, and therefore, moral standing, apart from considerations of what types of benefits the natural world might give to human beings. Nature, by virtue of its intrinsic value and derivative moral status, should not be impinged upon in any way by human beings. Thus the Lockean rights of life, liberty, and property are seen as antithetical to the real needs and rights of nature given its intrinsic value. The second major stream of thought in recent deep ecologism is what is termed the 'state of being' argument for environmental ethics. Allow me to offer up a quote from Andrew Dobson's 'Green Political Thought' (Routledge, 1995): "The 'state of being' position begins from the following sort of premise: that an 'ecological consciousness connects the individual to the larger world' (Bunyard and Morgan-Grenville, 1987, p. 282) and it has been developed in its most sophisticated form by Warwich Fox(1990). This 'ecological consciousness' serves as a new foundation on which a different (ecological) ethics and new (ecological) forms of behavior would be built. The idea involves the cultivation of a sense of self that extends beyond the individual understood in terms of its isolated corporal identity. This is added the notion that the enrichment of self depends upon the widest possible identification with the non-human world. Ecological consciousness, then, has to do with our identification with the non-human world, and the understanding that our self-realization is presaged upon such identification, and the behavior that would logically result. It is not hard to see how an environmentally sound attitude emerges from this." Although I have much to learn about the foundations of this movement, they appear to be having some trouble with the doctrine of intrinsic value as applied to the ecology, thus the 'state of being' doctrine to facilitate the formulation of environmental ethics. This is a rather brave opinion at this point in my analysis, but it appears that deep ecologists are having a great deal of difficulty formulating a rational basis for their position and are defaulting to a more irrationalist approach characterized by the 'state of being' position. The third theory which they derive much mileage is the Gaia Hypothesis, the idea that the organisms which inhabit the Earth form an interdependence of function which allows them to maintain the suitable set of conditions within which them may thrive. In other words, according to J. Lovelock, the organisms which inhabit the biosphere keep it fit for life. I really don't expect you people at the 'Academy to have philosophical arguments against scientific theories, but I felt obligated to be as thorough in my presentation as I could, however, if you know of some serious refutations of the Gaia position I would certainly like to know about them. Deep ecologist/environmentalist seem to be very similar to socialists in fundamentals. They seem to believe in altruism, sacrificing the individual person to the greater good, central government planning of the actions of people, etc, etc. Thank you again for you time and efforts. Dr. Dolhenty responds: I want to say first of all that I have no direct intimate acquaintance with what is called "deep ecology" or the various theories which are spun from that philosophical position. I have not read the literature dealing with this topic and in the following discussion I am dependent on secondary sources. So I may be raising more questions than providing any real answers to your inquiry. My approach, therefore, is tentative and I'm going to try to deal with each item one at a time ("Q" refers to the question and "R" refers to my tentative response.) Q1. What I mean by Deep Ecology is the position that the environment has intrinsic value, and therefore, moral standing, apart from considerations of what types of benefits the natural world might give to human beings. R1. I have no problem with applying the term "intrinsic value" to the environment or any part of the environment. In some way, I would say, everything that exists has intrinsic value, simply by existing and being a "metaphysical good." But, simply saying that some existent has intrinsic value does not mean it has "moral standing," at least in the ordinary sense in which most of us use that phrase. The word "moral," at least in our traditional understanding of that word, applies only to beings which possess intellect and free will. In this sense, then, the word "moral" is only applicable to human beings and human acts. Healthful food, for instance, has an intrinsic value for human health, but I don't see where that necessarily gives such food "moral standing." If it has moral standing, then it must in some sense be capable of "immoral standing" as well. "Morality" without the possibility of "immorality" makes no sense to me at all. Now, if healthful food was deliberately destroyed by some human being in a situation where other humans were starving, "morality" as such, would be involved, and I would argue that the human act of destroying the food would be immoral in that situation. Otherwise, the concept of "moral standing," as applied to all beings, including those that are not capable of intellectual deliberation, makes no sense to me. Q2. Nature, by virtue of its intrinsic value and derivative moral status, should not be impinged upon in any way by human beings. Thus the Lockean rights of life, liberty, and property are seen as antithetical to the real needs and rights of nature given its intrinsic value. R2. I have already argued that "intrinsic value" does not necessarily result in "moral standing." Nature must be impinged upon by human beings, as well as by animals and plants, or living things would cease to exist. Every plant that takes nutrients from its environment and every animal and human being who takes nutrients from nature is impinging on nature. Moreover, nature, as such, has no "rights." Again, the term "rights" is restricted to human beings; the concept of "rights" is derived from "moral standing," but the moral standing is that of human beings. I would also have to question the use of the term "nature" here; some of these "deep ecologists," as well as others, seem to speak of "nature" as if it was a single being itself with some sort of individual existence. Frankly, I don't know what that means. "Nature" is simply a general term (a universal) which we use to refer to a totality of beings or existents in the natural world. "Mother Nature" may, for instance, be referred to by many of us as if such a being existed, but, of course, we are only using that term in a "poetic" sense. The Lockean rights of life, liberty, and property are applicable to human beings, and only to human beings; our exercising those rights should, of course, be done in a rational manner. We should, of course, treat all aspects of our environment with care and we should not unnecessarily harm our natural environment. Q3. "The 'state of being' position begins from the following sort of premise: that an 'ecological consciousness connects the individual to the larger world'... and so on... R3. IF the concept "ecological consciousness" simply means that we are and should be aware of our interdependency with our natural environment, I have no problem with that. But I suspect that the promoters of this notion mean more than that. There seems to be an almost "mystical" connotation that some promoters of this sort of philosophical position want to apply to "ecological consciousness." Also, we as human beings are, in fact, "connected" to the larger world in the sense of being somewhat dependent upon it for our existence. But again, I suspect that the purveyors of this thought mean more than just a simple "connection" or dependence. I cannot define these terms for them. So I am left with the questions: What sort of "consciousness?"; "What sort of "connection?"; and so on. The "deep ecologists" also seem to say, as you stated, that "Ecological consciousness, then, has to do with our identification with the non-human world." But how is the term "identification" used here. If it means that we "recognize" our interdependence with the non-human world, I see no problem. But, on the other hand, if it means "true identification" (that is, individual "A" is the same individual as individual "B" and "C" and "D" and so on) with the non-human world, then this is nonsense. It might be "metaphorical" or "poetic," but it is not otherwise intelligible. Q4. The third theory which they derive much mileage is the Gaia Hypothesis, the idea that the organisms which inhabit the Earth form an interdependence of function which allows them to maintain the suitable set of conditions within which them may thrive. In other words, according to J. Lovelock, the organisms which inhabit the biosphere keep it fit for life. R4. Again, there is no question in my mind, at least, that all living things are interdependent in some way or other. Also, in regard to non-living existents, all living things are dependent to some extent on them. It seems to me that this notion is hardly controversial and has been known for as long as human beings have lived on this planet. (Ancient mankind certainly knew of its dependence on the natural environment.) As stated above, I see nothing wrong with the so-called Gaia Hypothesis. However, according to one of the secondary references I consulted, this Hypothesis also includes the notion that the Earth should be regarded as a "living organism." This is a horse of another color (to speak "poetically"). There is nothing wrong, I suppose, with "regarding" the Earth as a "living organism" as long as we are aware we are speaking "metaphorically" or "poetically." When, however, we use the words "living" and "organism" in this context, we certainly do not mean to use them with the same meaning we ordinary attach to those terms in common discourse. Regarding a refutation of the Gaia Hypothesis, I would argue it is up to the promoters of such a hypothesis to argue their case with concise definitions of terms, clear analysis of the premises involved, and references to the objective evidence which supports their hypothesis. I suspect the basic problem they will run into is concise definitions of terms. On the surface, it appears to me they attach almost "mystical" meanings to their terms which makes it very difficult to discuss the premises and arguments of and for their case. And remember, I don't have to refute their hypothesis; they have to justify it. I don't think they've done that...yet. This is what I would demand of someone defending the "deep ecology" theories or the "Gaia" hypothesis:
Q5. Deep ecologist/environmentalist seem to be very similar to socialists in fundamentals. They seem to believe in altruism, sacrificing the individual person to the greater good, central government planning of the actions of people, etc, etc. R5. You may be right, and it is interesting to me that, generally speaking, those who are most concerned about the environment also seem to be "socialistic" in their politics and economics. I don't want to get into a discussion of socialism here because that is a complex issue (there are various breeds of socialism) and is not essential to this discussion. But allow me to reflect briefly on two related points. The term "altruism" has become controversial today mainly it seems because of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. We should all be aware, however, that she and her followers define this term in a way which is somewhat different from the way most of us use it in ordinary discourse. (Rand seems to deal only in "black" and "white" concepts, and this causes problems for some of us who recognize there are some "gray" areas in real life.) Now, if "altruism" means "sacrificing an individual's real good for the alleged 'greater' good of society or some other abstraction," then I would argue that altruism is immoral. But, if "altruism" means "giving up voluntarily an individual good of mine for the sake of the good of someone else for whom I care," then, I would argue, it is not "sacrifice" at all and is a "morally" good act. I suspect most people use the term 'altruism" in the latter sense. Also: Micromanaging the actions of human beings from a central authority never works, as history shows. Central planning can work and work well in a limited, small, and personal environment (think of a family, small village, or monastery). Central planning never works well when the central authority is distanced away from the people it's planning for (think of the federal government which wastes billions of dollars on perfectly useless projects and unenforceable laws). Ancient Rome, by the way, may have fallen more from its growing central bureaucracy and its inability to handle central planning for such a large empire than from any so-called "immorality" of its populace (Note to the Right: no civilization in history has fallen because of prostitution and homosexual behavior). Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.