Posted by Mark H. on January 29, 2001, at 18:20:36
In reply to Posting, posted by Cam W. on January 29, 2001, at 7:08:48
Hi All,
I've been holding my tongue for several weeks, attempting to assess how to be more supportive by reading others' interactions -- what works and what doesn't work -- without commenting. I have to admit that I'm more confused than ever about what constitutes "support" and "civility" at Psycho-Social-Babble. With regards to the latter, I find myself in the unenvious position of having to agree with "name" that there should be guidelines that flesh out the currently unspoken rules and expectations, which extend far beyond the request that all posters merely "be civil."
Two concepts traditionally supersede the principle that "this is so-and-so's board, so he/she gets to decide who stays and who goes."
The first is freedom of speech, which if limited at all (and I believe it should be, in this case), must be limited in a way that is reasonable, clearly defined and does not jeopardize the rights of participants.
The second is due process, which requires that anyone accused of wrongdoing has the right to confront his/her accuser and to have the matter decided by an impersonal third party based upon clearly defined rules.
These are basic consitutional rights that Dr. Bob and the University of Chicago arguably are bound to honor. That Psycho-Babble isn't "important" enough to come under legal scrutiny is beside the point. The point is that vague boundaries make for vague compliance, and that both psychological ethics and the rule of law forbid arbitrary punishment or arbitrary exclusion.
The definition of "support" seems to be taking an even worse battering recently. It is inconceivable to me in any sort of psychological group setting -- virtual or otherwise -- that the vague claims of a participant should go unquestioned or unchallenged. Such limits on "support" are appropriate only to the most elementary and unsophisticated of self help groups, where everyone present is presumed to be so completely incompetent that no comment other than slogans, sympathy or encouragement is considered safe to say (in which case a simple computer program could be written to respond "appropriately" 100% of the time).
Support groups, including peer support groups, need rules, guidelines, examples of forbidden behavior, and -- most importantly -- the openness and flexibility for people to try different approaches and techniques, even though doing so will inevitably lead to occasional failures and faux pas.
Rules need to be written not only for respondencts but for initial posters as well. One useful rule might be to require posters who are unsure about their ability to handle a range of responses to ask for what they want. There are times when people just want sympathy, for instance, and they consider attempts to penetrate beneath the surface an intrusion, an inappropriate attempt at analysis, or even some sort of personal attack. But at a forum set up for psychological support, the burden of limiting response might be more effectively placed on the poster than the responder. In the absence of stated values and expectations, it is reasonable and entirely civil and supportive for non-poster-limited responses to range from tears of sympathy to laughter at our shared human foibles. The most civil and supportive posting could be either warmly generic encouragement or a sharp suggestion that is at once honest, painful and badly needed. I don't think it is practical, necessary or particularly helpful to try to arbitrate therapeutic style in a peer support group on a case-by-case basis, as is currently being done.
Further, expressions of irritation and annoyance can be entirely civil and appropriate, and they are part of the range of feedback that is normal not only in peer groups but also as part of the social experience. If all feedback (except Dr. Bob's) is "supportive" in the sense recently enforced here, then there is no permitted mechanism for saying, "Hey! I think you're behavior is inappropriate!" In other words, there's no course-correction built into the process that helps shape and improve responses. A responder simply goes along fine until the dreaded "Please Be Civil" shows up in his or her thread, warning that he/she's about to be excluded.
I am concerned at times that, absent a lively diversity in style and delivery, this board is going to become a bland mush of mindless non-responses to real problems, and that the only people sure to feel welcome and empowered to respond will be the few saintly types like Noa and those who imagine that support is limited to saying things like "I'm sorry you hurt" and "You go, girl!" I think that, for many of us, genuine support is much more complex and uncertain than that.
If I didn't respect and admire Dr. Bob and the many wonderful people here who have made my life better, I certainly wouldn't have taken the time to write the above, so please keep that in mind. I think the size and scope of the board, the sheer quantity of responsibility, may tempt Dr. Bob to seek inappropriately simple solutions to complex issues of social interaction, a tiny fraction of which are at times problematic.
Somewhere between the "anything goes" model and the "support is saying nice things" model is something constructive and truly useful, as we have seen here many times. I hope that in the desire to reduce disputes and conflict, Dr. Bob doesn't defeat the best uses of this wonderful forum.
Thanks for listening.
Mark H.
poster:Mark H.
thread:388
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/408.html