04-18-2008, 08:07 PM
OK, maybe we're not talking past each other so much.
I made no such judgement, although, given the evidence available on practices in the FLDS, my opinion would be that it would be a bad decision. But I'm not there, and my opinion carries no weight.:)
As to the arbitrariness of my assertions, I think the facts on the ground bear them out.
What I read into your comment was a value judgement on the return of the women vis a vis conditions in the FLDS. My rebuttal was to indicate such a judgement was not probably valid. Since your comment excited my response and neither one seems to have had sufficient clarity, I think we're chasing our tails on that.
OK, that's a reasonable criticism. Let's go for "informational control". Your suspicions aside, I'm working rather hard to stay away from flinging labels and providing arguments that flow logically from facts.
Bits of the Jessup memoir, testimony of some of the ejected boys, and news reports. It is apparent it is an authoritarian power structure, and the leadership mandated minimal contact with the outside. It is "enforced" in that it is not a community decision and there are penalties for noncompliance.
Indoctrinated? Perhaps. They are born into a culture that accepts the caste system wholeheartedly. Since the majority follows this set of principles, those who do not wish to participate face barriers in social interactions. This tends to a self-perpetuating system, but I suspect it frays a bit when exposed to dissimilar cultures.
What you're looking at is a sliding scale, not a binary control/no control situation. I'd view the Hundu culture as mid-range, in that it significantly limits social and business opportunities. I'm not sure how much it would limit information access or behavioral patterns; I just don't know India well enough to say. I'd put the FLDS much higher on that scale, with more elements of behavior and information restriction.
If you're looking for a good-bad view from me, I tend to view "good" as less restriction and "bad" as more restriction. Past a certain point I see it as violating values that my cultural indoctrination has given me.:)
It's difficult to say in such a general sense. My thinking is that it's a matter of degree. On the other hand, there could be no difference at all. It's just one factor in the mix.
Yes, but I'm using the term incorrectly. I have some evidence of emotion control from the Jessup extracts I read, but the above falls more squarely in information control.
OK.
As I said, I was using the term incorrectly, for which I apologize.
Indeed. I hope the judge there likes publicity. And hordes of lawyers.
Quote:Arbitrary assertion. I had to try and divine what imbedded assumptions you were making to arrive at that statement. The only projection I have seen in our last interchange is your projection of a bad value judgment on the women, the mothers in quesiton. (What's going on with the kids is a separate conversation.)
I made no such judgement, although, given the evidence available on practices in the FLDS, my opinion would be that it would be a bad decision. But I'm not there, and my opinion carries no weight.:)
As to the arbitrariness of my assertions, I think the facts on the ground bear them out.
Quote:You rebutted nothing. We agreed that they returned to the compound, you then assign an arbitrary value assessment for them based on your valuation of good and bad. I am not convinced either way, but with the both of us being outsiders to that movement, I am not willing to assume that the perception of "bad situation" that you assess -- sensibly, given your frame of reference -- matches those who have spent their lives in that social group.
What I read into your comment was a value judgement on the return of the women vis a vis conditions in the FLDS. My rebuttal was to indicate such a judgement was not probably valid. Since your comment excited my response and neither one seems to have had sufficient clarity, I think we're chasing our tails on that.
Quote:That is not an element of emotional control. (It's certainly an element of control, if true.) Access to information and particuarly outside information is part of a controlling behavior. It's not too far a reach to uncover the "mind control" card being played here.
OK, that's a reasonable criticism. Let's go for "informational control". Your suspicions aside, I'm working rather hard to stay away from flinging labels and providing arguments that flow logically from facts.
Quote:The assumption you seem to be making is that from the beginning, their position was that of enforced isolation from the outside world, rather than an elective one. On what do you base that?
Bits of the Jessup memoir, testimony of some of the ejected boys, and news reports. It is apparent it is an authoritarian power structure, and the leadership mandated minimal contact with the outside. It is "enforced" in that it is not a community decision and there are penalties for noncompliance.
Quote:Cultural indoctrination. Hindu are indoctrinated into the caste system. Is that emotional control, mind control, or something else?
Indoctrinated? Perhaps. They are born into a culture that accepts the caste system wholeheartedly. Since the majority follows this set of principles, those who do not wish to participate face barriers in social interactions. This tends to a self-perpetuating system, but I suspect it frays a bit when exposed to dissimilar cultures.
What you're looking at is a sliding scale, not a binary control/no control situation. I'd view the Hundu culture as mid-range, in that it significantly limits social and business opportunities. I'm not sure how much it would limit information access or behavioral patterns; I just don't know India well enough to say. I'd put the FLDS much higher on that scale, with more elements of behavior and information restriction.
If you're looking for a good-bad view from me, I tend to view "good" as less restriction and "bad" as more restriction. Past a certain point I see it as violating values that my cultural indoctrination has given me.:)
Quote:How is this significantly different from other small and selective social groups?
It's difficult to say in such a general sense. My thinking is that it's a matter of degree. On the other hand, there could be no difference at all. It's just one factor in the mix.
Quote:Is the above what you are referring to as emotional control?
Yes, but I'm using the term incorrectly. I have some evidence of emotion control from the Jessup extracts I read, but the above falls more squarely in information control.
Quote:Beyond your assumption that this is what they believe to be true, I follow your thought process clearly.
OK.
Quote:Why did you refer to emoitonal control in the first place? Is this based on the issue of their children being used against them?
As I said, I was using the term incorrectly, for which I apologize.
Quote:No disagreement there, authoritarian social models have significant similarities, as you mentioned.
I heard on the radio today that each of the 416 children has to have his or her own attorney. This case looks to go on for sometime, so all sorts of information that will either confirm, or reverses, the assessments you have made will become available in due course.
I don't expect it to be pretty.
Indeed. I hope the judge there likes publicity. And hordes of lawyers.