Below is a Story from BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7351564.stm
Published: 2008/04/17 08: 04: 55 GMT (c) BBC MMX
Witness: Spreading Fear in Zimbabwe
Charles, a Zimbabwean human rights expert has told the BBC how he saw for himself the victims of beatings and torture that have been reported since the elections. He said he accompanied a friend to a hospital in Harare where people were being treated and what he saw and heard makes him fear for the future of the Country.
These people had been transported to Harare to get treatment, some of them from communities about 200 kilometers from Harare. They had been beaten up, burned, some had ribs broken. Some of them had big wounds like they had been exposed to heat of some kind.
The author goes on to give details regarding the political situation of the time as well as supplying some vivid pictures going hand in hand with the descriptions. Moreover, as I went through some other independent media and electronic sites, I read stories that were very close to this one. In fact, these are some of the stories that I heard and read about when I was still in Zimbabwe during the recorded period.
Now, if people have experienced some of this trauma or witnessed their beloved ones being tortured, I wonder if they will not live with fear for a significant part of their lives? This could be fear of of the subject of politics, elections and even political leaders in general. And if this kind of fear or phobia becomes part of their lives, I wonder if it will not be passed on from one generation to another making it part of a Zimbabwean culture?
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thursday, December 30, 2010
A Culture of Fear
Thanks Allan for drawing my attention to the APA in one of your past contributions. When I was reading through some articles I came acrosss an article described below that caused me to start wondering how hard it is to deal with or even try to assist people that act fearfully in large groups, and as a result of some shared experiences.
In her March 2006 article of American Psychological Association (vol. 37, No. 3, p.22), Sandie F. Dingfelder wrote about how on August 17, 1999, a major earthquake hit Turkey and toppling buildings in the cities of Izmit and Istanbul killing about 18,000 people. Now as a result of this event about 43 percent of the survivors started to fear particular situations that would reminder them of the eartquake experience. Such people were unable to go back into their homes, sleep in the dark with their door closed or even take showers. Dingfelder further asserted that, such people "do not have control over their fear and ultimately they lose control of their lives" (2006, p. 22). Source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar06/fear.aspx
Now when large numbers of people have lost both control of their fear and that of their lives I wonder how difficult it will be for them to be taken out of that plateau of fear. Moreover, if fears can be pinned to some haunting traumatic incidents or accidents caused by things unpredictable such as earthquakes, I wonder how hard it can be for the victims to deal with or handle their fears when in large groups.
Questions
Is this the time when we can begin to talk about a cullture of fear or not? How many people does it take to create and develop a culture of fear? After how long can we beging to say, these people have developed a culture of fear?
We will see...........
In her March 2006 article of American Psychological Association (vol. 37, No. 3, p.22), Sandie F. Dingfelder wrote about how on August 17, 1999, a major earthquake hit Turkey and toppling buildings in the cities of Izmit and Istanbul killing about 18,000 people. Now as a result of this event about 43 percent of the survivors started to fear particular situations that would reminder them of the eartquake experience. Such people were unable to go back into their homes, sleep in the dark with their door closed or even take showers. Dingfelder further asserted that, such people "do not have control over their fear and ultimately they lose control of their lives" (2006, p. 22). Source: http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar06/fear.aspx
Now when large numbers of people have lost both control of their fear and that of their lives I wonder how difficult it will be for them to be taken out of that plateau of fear. Moreover, if fears can be pinned to some haunting traumatic incidents or accidents caused by things unpredictable such as earthquakes, I wonder how hard it can be for the victims to deal with or handle their fears when in large groups.
Questions
Is this the time when we can begin to talk about a cullture of fear or not? How many people does it take to create and develop a culture of fear? After how long can we beging to say, these people have developed a culture of fear?
We will see...........
Sunday, December 26, 2010
interesting title
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=097441493X+&hs.x=10&hs.y=14&hs=Submit
For $2.25? Could be interesting if only to see how she approaches this topic.
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=097441493X&hs.x=0&hs.y=0&hs=Submit
For $2.25? Could be interesting if only to see how she approaches this topic.
http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?mtype=B&keyword=097441493X&hs.x=0&hs.y=0&hs=Submit
Friday, December 24, 2010
Do some children fear Santa Claus?
Very apt, seasonal posting Ishmael. Such thoughts could be balanced against "fear of losing contact with the family". These phenomena may be characteristic of different cultures as much as of individual psychologies.
Whatever the case, increased description and observation of various cases, narratives and perceptions will (I think) reveal blurred categories from the ones we are accustomed. It may be useful at some point to check out the American Psychological Association's defining diagnostic categories. In some cases these have influenced even popular culture use. That is: the use of certain terms have gotten their flavor from these. Also, there may be a useful distinction there between "anxiety" and "fear".
Also, a review of the usages of the word "fear" (historically) might be interesting. I helped a student find the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary in the FPU Library a few days ago. You might want to ferret that out and take a look at the entry for "fear".
Then also, you are in a position to examine the normative uses of the word-concept of fear in different languages associated with different cultures. That can be very revealing about how fear is perceived differently.
I think, all that and more investigated, that in the end since "leadership" is part of the goal in the independent study, fear has to be approached as a social-culturally transacted phenomena. As we wrote at the outset, described solely as a individual, psychological state or condition is not really the point.
As I was writing something else came to mind:
In Weber's ideal type characteristics of "bureaucracies" (which are perhaps the predominant organizational characteristic of modern, institutional life around the globe)... you get a list of characteristics that make the bureaucracy functional (in the ideal). On the ground however, most such organizations are dysfunctional in various ways (at least when compared to the ideals). I wonder how often "fear" is part of the dysfunction? And likewise how it might be related to "transparency" within the organization. If a basic kind of fear is fear of the unknown....then a certain kind of leadership could lead by the degree of disclosure of many things.
I will think more about this....
Fear not that your holidays shall be good ones,
Allan
Whatever the case, increased description and observation of various cases, narratives and perceptions will (I think) reveal blurred categories from the ones we are accustomed. It may be useful at some point to check out the American Psychological Association's defining diagnostic categories. In some cases these have influenced even popular culture use. That is: the use of certain terms have gotten their flavor from these. Also, there may be a useful distinction there between "anxiety" and "fear".
Also, a review of the usages of the word "fear" (historically) might be interesting. I helped a student find the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary in the FPU Library a few days ago. You might want to ferret that out and take a look at the entry for "fear".
Then also, you are in a position to examine the normative uses of the word-concept of fear in different languages associated with different cultures. That can be very revealing about how fear is perceived differently.
I think, all that and more investigated, that in the end since "leadership" is part of the goal in the independent study, fear has to be approached as a social-culturally transacted phenomena. As we wrote at the outset, described solely as a individual, psychological state or condition is not really the point.
As I was writing something else came to mind:
In Weber's ideal type characteristics of "bureaucracies" (which are perhaps the predominant organizational characteristic of modern, institutional life around the globe)... you get a list of characteristics that make the bureaucracy functional (in the ideal). On the ground however, most such organizations are dysfunctional in various ways (at least when compared to the ideals). I wonder how often "fear" is part of the dysfunction? And likewise how it might be related to "transparency" within the organization. If a basic kind of fear is fear of the unknown....then a certain kind of leadership could lead by the degree of disclosure of many things.
I will think more about this....
Fear not that your holidays shall be good ones,
Allan
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Fear of the Happy Holidays' Gatherings
Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine a young man in his mid twenties and he told me that he is not comfortable and he cannot stand some gatherings that are part of their family tradition especially during holidays such as Thanksgiving and Christmas. At first I anticipated that his problem (anxiety) was because of his being sick and tired of the routines associated with the repeated gatherings. In fact I thought to a high degree he must be an introvert who is not comfortable with crowds.
Now as we continued to talk I started to get the feeling that my friend's case was more than just what is discernible, via the Myers Briggs personality test or something. He explained that usually he becomes more nervous and anxious when surrounded by many people especially when he is aay from their family's house which is his comfort zone. So inlight of our discussion I though about an article that I had just read about agoraphobia. In her artice, 'A Phenomenology of Fear: Merleau-Ponty and Agoraphobic Life Worlds', Joyce Davidson wrote that, though agoraphobia is generally described as an experience of dread in, and of open spaces, its greatest hell, is in fact other people not just open spaces. Meanwhile, Yi -Fu Tuan in his text, Landscapes of Fear (1979), "agoraphobic's greatest fear is the loss of control in public spaces, whether open and empty or closed and packed with people..." (p. 204).
Now my question is: If agoraphobics mostly fear crowds or gatherings, how big is the distinction between the real agoraphobics and the introverts? How about the gap between fear and discomfort?
Now as we continued to talk I started to get the feeling that my friend's case was more than just what is discernible, via the Myers Briggs personality test or something. He explained that usually he becomes more nervous and anxious when surrounded by many people especially when he is aay from their family's house which is his comfort zone. So inlight of our discussion I though about an article that I had just read about agoraphobia. In her artice, 'A Phenomenology of Fear: Merleau-Ponty and Agoraphobic Life Worlds', Joyce Davidson wrote that, though agoraphobia is generally described as an experience of dread in, and of open spaces, its greatest hell, is in fact other people not just open spaces. Meanwhile, Yi -Fu Tuan in his text, Landscapes of Fear (1979), "agoraphobic's greatest fear is the loss of control in public spaces, whether open and empty or closed and packed with people..." (p. 204).
Now my question is: If agoraphobics mostly fear crowds or gatherings, how big is the distinction between the real agoraphobics and the introverts? How about the gap between fear and discomfort?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
diverse sources
Hi Ishmael,
When studying something in a disciplinary way, the sources that inform your reading and research are to some degree prescribed by the discipline. In interdisciplinary studies one is always wondering: Could this possibly be relevant? And then, the relevance is almost always piece-meal. Never as full-bodied as the disciplines make their connections out to be. I do think this creates a bit of anxiety: "What am I doing?" And later fear itself when you think you find that someone has already made the types of interdisciplinary connections you have.
Anyway, I mentioned in a comment that Kurt has an interesting journal article on interdisciplinary, qualitative research in leadership. I wrote a critical review of that article in his blog, should you decide to obtain and read the article.
Also, through our discussions here, as is always the case for me, I've become attuned to mentions of "fear" and related concepts in everything I read. So presently Kurt and I are reading Joan Richardson's Natural History of Pragmatism. It's a great book. I'm not sure if it would be useful to you. But, fear as a conditioning and motivating factor in her discussion does come up in a few places in the Preface and Introduction.
Near the end of the Merleau-Ponty Preface....he defines the general mission of phenomenological study. In a way, this accords a bit with descriptive, narrative approach to understanding any phenomena we can observe and describe. This is a theme of sorts in the Richardson book.
Just a few of the things I'm thinking about currently....
Allan
When studying something in a disciplinary way, the sources that inform your reading and research are to some degree prescribed by the discipline. In interdisciplinary studies one is always wondering: Could this possibly be relevant? And then, the relevance is almost always piece-meal. Never as full-bodied as the disciplines make their connections out to be. I do think this creates a bit of anxiety: "What am I doing?" And later fear itself when you think you find that someone has already made the types of interdisciplinary connections you have.
Anyway, I mentioned in a comment that Kurt has an interesting journal article on interdisciplinary, qualitative research in leadership. I wrote a critical review of that article in his blog, should you decide to obtain and read the article.
Also, through our discussions here, as is always the case for me, I've become attuned to mentions of "fear" and related concepts in everything I read. So presently Kurt and I are reading Joan Richardson's Natural History of Pragmatism. It's a great book. I'm not sure if it would be useful to you. But, fear as a conditioning and motivating factor in her discussion does come up in a few places in the Preface and Introduction.
Near the end of the Merleau-Ponty Preface....he defines the general mission of phenomenological study. In a way, this accords a bit with descriptive, narrative approach to understanding any phenomena we can observe and describe. This is a theme of sorts in the Richardson book.
Just a few of the things I'm thinking about currently....
Allan
Monday, December 20, 2010
interesting
OBSERVATORY
Humans, Like Animals, Behave Fearlessly Without the Amygdala
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: NYTimes: December 16, 2010
In the 1930s, researchers discovered that when a certain part of monkeys’ brains was removed, the animals became fearless. They approached snakes, started batting them around like sticks and played with their hissing tongues.
This experiment has been repeated in animals numerous times, and the scientific consensus is that when the amygdala is removed, an animal loses any sense of fear.
Now, scientists have confirmed that a missing amygdala results in similar behavior in humans, according to a study in the journal Current Biology.
“There’s not very many humans with this sort of brain damage,” said Justin Feinstein, the study’s lead author and a clinical neuropsychologist at the University of Iowa. “Luckily for us, we had access to a patient, SM, and we studied her different fear behaviors and we read her personal diaries.”
Patient SM, because of a rare condition called lipoid proteinosis, has holes where her amygdala would normally reside. Researchers found that she, like the monkeys, has no fear of creatures like snakes and spiders, which ordinarily alarm most people.
But while this behavior is relatively benign, the researchers also found that SM put her life at risk. In one instance, she walked through a park alone at night and was attacked by a man with a knife.
“The following day, she again walked through the same park,” Mr. Feinstein said.
Mr. Feinstein and his colleagues are trying to coach the patient to behave in a more cautious manner. They also believe that understanding how the mind of a patient like SM works could help researchers develop therapies for individuals who express excessive amounts of fear, like war veterans.
“We may be able to dampen the effects of the amygdala,” he said. “We can do that through psychotherapy and possibly through medication.”
Humans, Like Animals, Behave Fearlessly Without the Amygdala
By SINDYA N. BHANOO
Published: NYTimes: December 16, 2010
In the 1930s, researchers discovered that when a certain part of monkeys’ brains was removed, the animals became fearless. They approached snakes, started batting them around like sticks and played with their hissing tongues.
This experiment has been repeated in animals numerous times, and the scientific consensus is that when the amygdala is removed, an animal loses any sense of fear.
Now, scientists have confirmed that a missing amygdala results in similar behavior in humans, according to a study in the journal Current Biology.
“There’s not very many humans with this sort of brain damage,” said Justin Feinstein, the study’s lead author and a clinical neuropsychologist at the University of Iowa. “Luckily for us, we had access to a patient, SM, and we studied her different fear behaviors and we read her personal diaries.”
Patient SM, because of a rare condition called lipoid proteinosis, has holes where her amygdala would normally reside. Researchers found that she, like the monkeys, has no fear of creatures like snakes and spiders, which ordinarily alarm most people.
But while this behavior is relatively benign, the researchers also found that SM put her life at risk. In one instance, she walked through a park alone at night and was attacked by a man with a knife.
“The following day, she again walked through the same park,” Mr. Feinstein said.
Mr. Feinstein and his colleagues are trying to coach the patient to behave in a more cautious manner. They also believe that understanding how the mind of a patient like SM works could help researchers develop therapies for individuals who express excessive amounts of fear, like war veterans.
“We may be able to dampen the effects of the amygdala,” he said. “We can do that through psychotherapy and possibly through medication.”
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Fear of Death, Etc
Hi Ishmael,
Thanks for the update.
On Merleau-Ponty: It is perhaps one of the major western philosophical works of the 20th Century. And, the only use we can possibly make of it is highly foundational. Such that one has to assimilate how he characterizes and studies "experience" and "perception" within that view of experiencing. Then, and only then, would one be able to begin to think about fear as something we perceive in human experiences (whether as a component of some view of leadership, or, without our own perception of our selves). So, it might be better to let Merleau-Ponty side on the sidelines for a while to see if the basic notion of grasping things "phenomenologically" becomes more pressing or relevant. I'm sure it is. But everything must happen in time and in the development of our ability to comprehend. So I think we can let it sit a bit.
On fear of death: I brought this up since in a practical way it seems to be fairly common human experience (expressed or not expressed in various ways). So, this is in effect a different platform or foundation for consideration of the nature of "fear". (That is: it's a different approach from going at this via Merleau-Ponty.) In this consideration we assume that something called "fear" is common in human experience. The only reason I feel comfortable with that is that this subject been addressed in a lot of literature of various cultures. Expressed differently, it's a version of "fear" related the "unknown".
So, this approach is comparative in nature. If we can understand something widely expressed and discussed in human experience....that links fear and the unknown? Then we may be able to discern similar aspects of experiences of "leadership". Do leaders lead (consciously or unconsciously) by evoking aspects of the unknown? Do followers also (consciously or unconsciously) respond to dimensions or aspects of this?
In this way, I think fear of death itself is not that important to us. But how the discussions of it shed light on experiences of leadership may be instructive.
Hope this makes sense? In part, it's a mode of exploring a useful "definition" that can be operationalized in your work....but this approach really starts at ground zero and tries to shed any past associations we've had. Of course, this is parallel to studying anything "cultural" where the web of considerations to be studied is totally open-ended for a long time before one settles on what one can say intelligently (that is: with limitations) and still have it be useful in a practical and knowledgeable way.
Thanks for the update.
On Merleau-Ponty: It is perhaps one of the major western philosophical works of the 20th Century. And, the only use we can possibly make of it is highly foundational. Such that one has to assimilate how he characterizes and studies "experience" and "perception" within that view of experiencing. Then, and only then, would one be able to begin to think about fear as something we perceive in human experiences (whether as a component of some view of leadership, or, without our own perception of our selves). So, it might be better to let Merleau-Ponty side on the sidelines for a while to see if the basic notion of grasping things "phenomenologically" becomes more pressing or relevant. I'm sure it is. But everything must happen in time and in the development of our ability to comprehend. So I think we can let it sit a bit.
On fear of death: I brought this up since in a practical way it seems to be fairly common human experience (expressed or not expressed in various ways). So, this is in effect a different platform or foundation for consideration of the nature of "fear". (That is: it's a different approach from going at this via Merleau-Ponty.) In this consideration we assume that something called "fear" is common in human experience. The only reason I feel comfortable with that is that this subject been addressed in a lot of literature of various cultures. Expressed differently, it's a version of "fear" related the "unknown".
So, this approach is comparative in nature. If we can understand something widely expressed and discussed in human experience....that links fear and the unknown? Then we may be able to discern similar aspects of experiences of "leadership". Do leaders lead (consciously or unconsciously) by evoking aspects of the unknown? Do followers also (consciously or unconsciously) respond to dimensions or aspects of this?
In this way, I think fear of death itself is not that important to us. But how the discussions of it shed light on experiences of leadership may be instructive.
Hope this makes sense? In part, it's a mode of exploring a useful "definition" that can be operationalized in your work....but this approach really starts at ground zero and tries to shed any past associations we've had. Of course, this is parallel to studying anything "cultural" where the web of considerations to be studied is totally open-ended for a long time before one settles on what one can say intelligently (that is: with limitations) and still have it be useful in a practical and knowledgeable way.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Fear, Death, the Fearless & the Courageous
I have been trying to scan through M. Merleau-Ponty's book and I feel it's a gold mine that may need more time and more tools. I felt overwhelmed unless you feel there is a particular strategy we may use to tackle it.
After your writing about death and fear I had a chance to read two articles that say something about the same issue.
1) By Chuck Gallozi (12/15/2010) has an an article on Fear of Death & this can be retrievd from http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/fear-dying.htm
2) F. Rozenzweig (1971). The Star of Redemption (W. Hallo -Translator), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
F. Rozenzweig (1971) wrote that, "All that is mortal lives in this fear of death; every new birth augments the fear by one new reason, for it augments what is mortal" (p. 3). It's interesting to note that even though people live with this fear of death, they continue to bear children that will die some day.
I also have found some of Chuck Gallozi's ideas regarding fear, death & the fearless to be interesting. For instance, he wrote that sometimes fear of death is "so overwhelming that it completely debilitates the victims, making their lives worse than death". I can imagine how it will be like to entirely live one's life fearing death. Whilst in the grip of this kind of grip, ther is no doubt hat one becomes miserable and incapacitated. This is the time one may require the attention of a medical practitioner.
-------------------
Chuck further asserted that, "A common mistake is to label courageous men and women as 'fearless'". He said, "they are not fearless but committed to their cause and determined to act inspite of their fear". Anyway, I feel there is a very thin line that seperates the courageous from the fearless and I would think that there are individuals that are both fearless and courageous. Some people in this category have risked their lives and died prematurely and I would think some are still going to do that and live longer.
After your writing about death and fear I had a chance to read two articles that say something about the same issue.
1) By Chuck Gallozi (12/15/2010) has an an article on Fear of Death & this can be retrievd from http://www.personal-development.com/chuck/fear-dying.htm
2) F. Rozenzweig (1971). The Star of Redemption (W. Hallo -Translator), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
F. Rozenzweig (1971) wrote that, "All that is mortal lives in this fear of death; every new birth augments the fear by one new reason, for it augments what is mortal" (p. 3). It's interesting to note that even though people live with this fear of death, they continue to bear children that will die some day.
I also have found some of Chuck Gallozi's ideas regarding fear, death & the fearless to be interesting. For instance, he wrote that sometimes fear of death is "so overwhelming that it completely debilitates the victims, making their lives worse than death". I can imagine how it will be like to entirely live one's life fearing death. Whilst in the grip of this kind of grip, ther is no doubt hat one becomes miserable and incapacitated. This is the time one may require the attention of a medical practitioner.
-------------------
Chuck further asserted that, "A common mistake is to label courageous men and women as 'fearless'". He said, "they are not fearless but committed to their cause and determined to act inspite of their fear". Anyway, I feel there is a very thin line that seperates the courageous from the fearless and I would think that there are individuals that are both fearless and courageous. Some people in this category have risked their lives and died prematurely and I would think some are still going to do that and live longer.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
another thought
I think we briefly talked last term about the work of the ethnomusicologist John Blacking. He lived with the Venda for many years attempting to better understand "their music".
In the book of his essays that we use in TL 705 he provides what I think is a critical distinction that many of us with western-style educations are not likely to fully appreciate. He suggests that we discard the concept "music" and instead use a reformed or revised word-tool of "musics".
This seems to be a bit of the described phenomenological import of Yi-Fu Tuan's book on fear. It's not about "fear". It's about "fears" and how they are grounded and rooted differently. Only when one begins with a pluralistic accounting and description of these fears—probably including how we make even a general reference to them—one that acknowledges the bedrock diversity of the general phenomena we're approaching—it's only then that we are latching on to a more practical epistemology about the world in which we live and transact.
In the book of his essays that we use in TL 705 he provides what I think is a critical distinction that many of us with western-style educations are not likely to fully appreciate. He suggests that we discard the concept "music" and instead use a reformed or revised word-tool of "musics".
This seems to be a bit of the described phenomenological import of Yi-Fu Tuan's book on fear. It's not about "fear". It's about "fears" and how they are grounded and rooted differently. Only when one begins with a pluralistic accounting and description of these fears—probably including how we make even a general reference to them—one that acknowledges the bedrock diversity of the general phenomena we're approaching—it's only then that we are latching on to a more practical epistemology about the world in which we live and transact.
different fears
it's interesting (coming back to a theme mentioned earlier) for me to compare a few concepts to see how they stand in comparison:
I think the way I presented these certainly can be exampled and the argued differently. But if there is any loose-validity to how these phenomena are felt, perceived, understood and given "words" to represent them has some usefulness. Then I see "fear" as distinguished in a particular way from other associated concepts. And this strikes me as possibly important.
--------------------------------
On the leader and follower dimensions of fear: I think many of us are familiar (in different ways) with that kind of "leadership" that seeks to rule or lead by fear. Instilling fear of various kinds. This can range from fear of physical harm to rather subtle psychological manipulations. Perhaps of even greater interest is how leaders are motivated to action by fears. I want to qualify that to: "their own fears". This is a much more shadowy area since I think it's clear that many people, not just leaders, are not directly conscious of their own fears. If this observation has any validity, then it's possible that a leader might cause others to fear due to their own unrecognized fears.
Then the transaction of "fears" become increasingly complex I think.
------------------------------
I began a little reading last night in Merleau-Ponty. Whew! Now I remember why I have never finished it previously. However, near the end of the Preface, pp. xix-xxi, I thought there were useful insights into his particular version of phenomenology.
After reading these pages in particular.....I wondered if a major feature of fears (by kind) is between rational and irrational ones.
Allan
fear - expectation - pain
Fear. I can think of many kinds of fear. In teach case the fears are connected directly to external landscapes. So the kinds of fear seem very varied in this connection.
Expectation. I can't think of too many kinds of it other than quantitative. I suppose expecting a chocolate and expecting a kiss and expecting an electrical shock (fearing one?) are different. But I don't sense theme as boldly distinguished as the "kinds of fear".
Pain. Seems least connected to external landscapes and harder to define in terms of "kinds of". One might distinguish (not everyone) between a headache, a muscular pain, a pinched nerve.
I think the way I presented these certainly can be exampled and the argued differently. But if there is any loose-validity to how these phenomena are felt, perceived, understood and given "words" to represent them has some usefulness. Then I see "fear" as distinguished in a particular way from other associated concepts. And this strikes me as possibly important.
--------------------------------
On the leader and follower dimensions of fear: I think many of us are familiar (in different ways) with that kind of "leadership" that seeks to rule or lead by fear. Instilling fear of various kinds. This can range from fear of physical harm to rather subtle psychological manipulations. Perhaps of even greater interest is how leaders are motivated to action by fears. I want to qualify that to: "their own fears". This is a much more shadowy area since I think it's clear that many people, not just leaders, are not directly conscious of their own fears. If this observation has any validity, then it's possible that a leader might cause others to fear due to their own unrecognized fears.
Then the transaction of "fears" become increasingly complex I think.
------------------------------
I began a little reading last night in Merleau-Ponty. Whew! Now I remember why I have never finished it previously. However, near the end of the Preface, pp. xix-xxi, I thought there were useful insights into his particular version of phenomenology.
After reading these pages in particular.....I wondered if a major feature of fears (by kind) is between rational and irrational ones.
Allan
Monday, December 13, 2010
Do all human beings fear? What do they fear the most?
Assuming that All HUMAN BEINGS experience fear at some point in their lives, what could be their enemy number one?
Upon learning about my area of study (i.e. Leadership and fear), my program mentor, a professor in the Education Deaprtment at SIT Graduate institute in Vermont, Alex Silverman wrote me the following: "What an intriguing area of study,... There is both fear of the leader and the fear experienced by the leader, I would think. I will enjoy reading what you come up with" (Silverman, 2010, Nov.16).
This observation and comment left me thinking, supposing that Alex is right and both the leaders and the led do fear, is there at least one common thing that can cause the two groups to fear? In other words, what is it that can be singled out as the number one source of fear among the humans in spite of their social classes?
As as if to attempt to respond to this question, Yi Fu Tuan in his study, Landscapes of Fear postulated that, "So much of human fear is of other people who sustain our world but also threaten it" (1979, 129). Moreover the same author also argued that,
"Our feelings toward our fellow human beings are often ambivalent. We need them and like them but there are times when they threaten us just as beasts, monsters and witches do. We need the company of others but have also secretly wished for their absence" (1979, p. 113).
So it seems for Tuan, human beings do play a major role in instilling fear into the lives of each other but the major problem is that, sometimes people need the company of other people.
I am not really sure if there is anything out there that can bit 'other human beings' as the major source of fear for all people. What do others think?
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
conceptual fear....
I'll make a few comments in italics:
Starting with the observation that you provided a narrative that serves as a descriptive example of "a fear".
In your last posting Allan you wrote that, '.... its not always that we imagine something in the dark that we then fear.' Let me try to illustrate this through: Fact, Vulnerability & Imagination by way of both a current and practical example. On Saturday (Dec 04, 2010), we visited New York City and it became my wife -Memory's first experience on a Ferry. For the past nine years of our marriage, I tried to persuade her-Memory, that it is safe to be on a: boat, ship, canoe, ferry and so on; but she always told me that she would rather be on anything else than to risk her life on top of water.
Now on Saturday, our friends (married -man & woman) who were with us asked each one of us to pick on a favorite place to visit and they were willing to take us there no matter what. My wife picked Ground Zero and I picked the Statue of liberty. I picked my choice on purpose knowing that the trip was going to include a boat or a ferry. My wife was not alert enough to think about all that and our friends were not aware if anything. So, when it was time for my choice we simply walked to the Ferry station and got into the ferry in the midst of hundreds of other people.
As were sitting down, my wife (Memory) whispered into my ears, 'Today you got me, you must be very happy then, and if anything happens to me, you are responsible..' I laughed out loud and our friends became very curious and we had to share the joke. One of them asked, what is your problem with water, have you drowned before or what? Memory's response was, It is purely nothing close to that but I know that I can not swim very well or rather I can't swim (which is a fact) so I feel vulnerable on water...... What if the worst happens and everyone swims for safety leaving me behind, to die from drowning (imagination). Through her explanation, it was clear that the fact her not being a good swimmer -mixed with the imagination of being left behind by some good swimmers to drown alone and die caused her to be fearful.
Nonetheless, the man-my friend- also shared his past experiences with the water and that he is not a good swimmer. He expressed that his peace during such moments comes from the fact that there are always life jackets available in case of emergence, and also that there were many other people like him -not good at swimming- as well. So, as we continued to talk, take pictures, and so on, the ferry was moving and we safely got to the other side and came back. I was glad she also enjoyed the trip.
It may be useful to consider similarities and differences between "fear" and say, "pain". These are concepts that aim to capture a wide-range of particulars experienced as "my fear" and "my pain". Put differently, "my fear" is not "your fear" and "my pain" is not "your pain". Yet we use a common concept to communicate a very vague and general sense of these psychological and sometimes physical senses of ourselves. In this way, I agree with what you cited from Tuan below....we are not discussing "a permanent state of mind". In fact, "states of mind" is a troublesome locution. But it is a convenient and also conventional one.
It's much much harder to begin to build up a framework of understanding that includes that "individual" and the "group". To the point that, "my fear" (in the way I experience it "whole") is totally unique. Yet it most likely will share in some common aspects of "others' fears" . And then there is a troublesome mistake of treating the use of the concept as point to something that it cannot point to.
The concept misses the phenomena we want to grasp and better understand. And this is where description comes in. That is: description in the words, body language, attitudes of the person having the experience. And these descriptions may shed light on a more precise understanding of the nature of what "fear" . More important though than "defining" is how this plural and diverse reformed notion of "fear" connects usefully with other experienced phenomena. At the described level of "experiences had" (qualitatively respected in their uniqueness) there is room for understanding overlaps with "other kinds of experiences" (such as "leadership").
How individual and group fear is manifested and described (probably with conventional conceptual norms....all of which carry with them enormous taken for granted assumptions and "baggage") (this is the job of philosophy to get at and unpack).... and how this is then understood as parallel or connected to other experiences..... this interests me.
These views are pretty much what I take away from reading Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations). The work of philosophy (thinking about things) is located at the level of "ordinary words in use" (in the contexts of their uses.
Now the question is; Will my wife be OK with all the waters from now on? Should I think that her fear is completely gone? I do not really know.
It strikes me as "good" that you cannot really know. There is really very little we can "know" in the conventional sense of "knowing" (scientific and explanatory or predictive) about an individuals conscious-dynamic of their experiences (had, felt, known). So when you reported how Memory reported and described her "fear" it was like a whole world in just a few sentences. The question of how to deal with anything that seems to stand in need of correction (therapy or education) is also something that is largely due to actual transactions....of individuals with environments....and sometimes these environments have people in them (as part of them). In this case, you and your friends....through an experience....begin a transacted, social process of which a predictable "outcome" is not knowable in advance. However, I suggest that the qualities of those transactions make an enormous difference.
In this way...nothing can truly be generalized. And everything important to know and sense is known and sensed by respecting particulars. Yet, with a studied range of particulars, described with a desire to capture the whole perception of the "subjects experience/s".... one has a different platform for then creating a different kind of generalization from what is possibly a new configuration of similarities and differences that are observed. This mode of approaching something is potentially more "respectful" of how people actually "experience".
Anywhere, if that happens sooner or later, then probably this may be a way to confirm what Yi-Fu Tuan (1979) pointed out in his study,Landscapes of Fear. He wrote that, 'Landscapes of fear are not permanent states of mind tied to invariant segments of tangible reality;....'(p. 8). Still, the fact that Tuan further pointed out, 'we need to approach landscapes of fear... from the perspectives of both the individual and the group .... and to place them in a historical frame'(p.8), makes it imperative that we do not make some generalized conclusions when dealing with the phenomenon of fear. I do not think it would be fair to use my wife's case to come up with a position that fits all.
I do not really know, we will see ...
To see a little more clearly is always a good goal!!
Thanks
Monday, December 6, 2010
FEAR: Fact & Imagination
In your last posting Allan you wrote that, '.... its not always that we imagine something in the dark that we then fear.' Let me try to illustrate this through: Fact, Vulnerability & Imagination by way of both a current and practical example. On Saturday (Dec 04, 2010), we visited New York City and it became my wife -Memory's first experience on a Ferry. For the past nine years of our marriage, I tried to persuade her-Memory, that it is safe to be on a: boat, ship, canoe, ferry and so on; but she always told me that she would rather be on anything else than to risk her life on top of water.
Now on Saturday, our friends (married -man & woman) who were with us asked each one of us to pick on a favorite place to visit and they were willing to take us there no matter what. My wife picked Ground Zero and I picked the Statue of liberty. I picked my choice on purpose knowing that the trip was going to include a boat or a ferry. My wife was not alert enough to think about all that and our friends were not aware if anything. So, when it was time for my choice we simply walked to the Ferry station and got into the ferry in the midst of hundreds of other people.
As were sitting down, my wife (Memory) whispered into my ears, 'Today you got me, you must be very happy then, and if anything happens to me, you are responsible..' I laughed out loud and our friends became very curious and we had to share the joke. One of them asked, what is your problem with water, have you drowned before or what? Memory's response was, It is purely nothing close to that but I know that I can not swim very well or rather I can't swim (which is a fact) so I feel vulnerable on water...... What if the worst happens and everyone swims for safety leaving me behind, to die from drowning (imagination). Through her explanation, it was clear that the fact her not being a good swimmer -mixed with the imagination of being left behind by some good swimmers to drown alone and die caused her to be fearful.
Nonetheless, the man-my friend- also shared his past experiences with the water and that he is not a good swimmer. He expressed that his peace during such moments comes from the fact that there are always life jackets available in case of emergence, and also that there were many other people like him -not good at swimming- as well. So, as we continued to talk, take pictures, and so on, the ferry was moving and we safely got to the other side and came back. I was glad she also enjoyed the trip.
Now the question is; Will my wife be OK with all the waters from now on? Should I think that her fear is completely gone? I do not really know. Anywhere, if that happens sooner or later, then probably this may be a way to confirm what Yi-Fu Tuan (1979) pointed out in his study, Landscapes of Fear. He wrote that, 'Landscapes of fear are not permanent states of mind tied to invariant segments of tangible reality;....'(p. 8). Still, the fact that Tuan further pointed out, 'we need to approach landscapes of fear... from the perspectives of both the individual and the group .... and to place them in a historical frame'(p.8), makes it imperative that we do not make some generalized conclusions when dealing with the phenomenon of fear. I do not think it would be fair to use my wife's case to come up with a position that fits all.
I do not really know, we will see ...
Thursday, December 2, 2010
imagination and fear
Presently I'm reading a lot of literary criticism with Kurt. One of the sources we are using is by Harold Bloom called The Anxiety of Influence. That theme can be related to a notion of fear. Also, within the literary exercise of imagination, there is often a narrated fear of losing it. So of course, it's not always that we imagine something in the dark that we then fear. It's possible to fear losing the capacity to imagine, which can be associated with things like the capacity to love someone. Most of what supports a loving or caring transaction, intended or not, is imagination. But perhaps that's just my view of it.....
What is it? Fear
Thanks Allan for breaking the ice with such a fascinating point of departure. In deed we shall see... as the curtain really drops down.
In the same book Landscapes of Fear, Yi-Fu Tuan, rhetorically asks: What is Fear? And he goes on to respond to his own question by propounding that, "Fear is a complex feeling of which two strains, alarm and anxiety are clearly distinguishable" (1979, p. 5). And on the book jacket of the same book, he further pointed out that "all of the higher animals exhibit alarm and anxiety -the chief components of fear -but human beings have a greater emotional range than other species and, in addition, the power of imagination". It is the latter -imagination- that he said, it adds immeasurably to the kinds and intensity of fear in the human world" (p. 6).
So from all this I could picture Yi-Fu Tuan, painting fear as a three sided polygon of anxiety, alarm and imagination. For the most part the latter -imagination - seems to manipulate the other two especially among humans, for this often feeds from individuals' past experiences, especially what was seen, heard, felt, smelt, tasted and so on. I refer to the humans because from the outset Tuan (1979) categorically stated that, fear is not specific only to people, but "all higher animals know it as an emotion that signals danger and is necessary for survival" (p. 3).
Of course, there is more to fear, but at this stage I find the way Yi -Fu Tuan tried to capture what I feel is both an interesting but intricate concept is quite phenomenal.
I agree with you Allan, we shall see.......
In the same book Landscapes of Fear, Yi-Fu Tuan, rhetorically asks: What is Fear? And he goes on to respond to his own question by propounding that, "Fear is a complex feeling of which two strains, alarm and anxiety are clearly distinguishable" (1979, p. 5). And on the book jacket of the same book, he further pointed out that "all of the higher animals exhibit alarm and anxiety -the chief components of fear -but human beings have a greater emotional range than other species and, in addition, the power of imagination". It is the latter -imagination- that he said, it adds immeasurably to the kinds and intensity of fear in the human world" (p. 6).
So from all this I could picture Yi-Fu Tuan, painting fear as a three sided polygon of anxiety, alarm and imagination. For the most part the latter -imagination - seems to manipulate the other two especially among humans, for this often feeds from individuals' past experiences, especially what was seen, heard, felt, smelt, tasted and so on. I refer to the humans because from the outset Tuan (1979) categorically stated that, fear is not specific only to people, but "all higher animals know it as an emotion that signals danger and is necessary for survival" (p. 3).
Of course, there is more to fear, but at this stage I find the way Yi -Fu Tuan tried to capture what I feel is both an interesting but intricate concept is quite phenomenal.
I agree with you Allan, we shall see.......
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
First Posting: A Point of Departure
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To be human is to experience fear, but what is it exactly that makes us fearful?"
From the book jacket of Yi Fu Tuan's Landscapes of Fear (1979) Pantheon Books.
This however may be the wrong question as a point of departure?
Later the book jacket promises that Yi Fu Tuan will "explore the ways in which authorities creates landscapes of terror to instill fear in their own populations; and he probes that most basic of all contradictions between the need for human security and the fear of human nature."
So we shall see.
----------
If it's of interest, I see some writers have found Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception as a foundational work in characterizing and understanding "fear". I own this text in what I think is the standard translation from the French by Colin Smith. I don't think there are other competing translations. Never asked, but if you have facility with French, then that would be the way to go. I'm not pushing this, but, if you think it's a direction you'd be interested in? Then I'd read Merleau-Ponty with you. I've never read it entirely. But it's a major investment in time and effort (not really compatible with the kind of literature review we've outlined for this Independent Study). It may be that after this this term, only if you thought reading this was it was useful? we might spend an entire semester just on Merleau-Ponty. The ISBN is 0415045568 Copies are inexpensive. Mine is paperback and published by Routledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)