>
> Now hang on a second before you fly off the handle.  I may have made
> mistakes in attributing certain comments to you which were made by
others,
> as the intricate weave of responses to responses  to responses can on
> occasion become confusing with regards to who said what.  If so I
> apologize, for such misattribution was unintentional.

I'm not sure, Matthew, but I think you did this to me, too. I wasn't the
one who advocated taking charge of the banking system, I merely pointed out
Marx's comments about this in re: the Paris Commune, that is, that the
Commune should have done so. I actually agree with most of what you posted
in your "reply" to me.

>         However, your response seems confusing to me in several respects.
> You do not seem to actually dispute the substance of my remarks, rather
> you seem to be annoyed by the "spin" or  tone which I gave to them.  Yes,
> the way I have presented "attachment theory" is biased ... I am openly
> hostile to much of the work that is done in this and
> other post-psychoanalytic fields,  and never claimed not to be.  I have a
> right to be critical, and I have a right to make postings to a list such
> as this suggesting that such research and such theories are not the
> end-all be-all of psychological investigation, and furthermore  to
> suggest that they  are incompatible with what I see as the general moral
> and  ethical framework  of Chomsky's psychology and politics.  If you
> think I am wrong, then  it behooves you to tell me specifically WHY I am
> wrong, rather  than simply calling my comments  "foul" and refusing to
> have  a discussion.
>
>         I  don't know  how  to construe the proposition that
psychiatrists
> can monitor and "intervene" in the anti-social development of children
> other than as a call for monitoring of social norms by a  professional
> elite, and I don't know how  to understand the general connection  you
> have made between sociopathology and  political  corruption other than
as
> the suggestion that the way  to  reform politics is through curing the
> mental illness  of its  individual members.  Furthermore, I don't know
> what exactly you mean by "enhancing maternal care",  other than a general
> suggestion that you as a mental health expert have some special  insight
> into childrearing that is not held by the general public.  I suppose it
> was careless and sloppy of me to accuse  you of "introducing" new  ideas;
> I now understand more  clearly that you want to simply "return" to
> "natural" childrearing, where birth mothers (or fathers) take  care of
> their  children instead of the current "frivolous" state of affairs which
> is dominated by maids and au pair girls (though "in whose social class?"
> would be a good  question to ask here).  I think your motives in such an
> assertion are probably well-founded, but you should think about the
larger
> discursive context of what you say ... Rousseau, for instance, was a
great
> proponent,  for essentially admirable philosophical and psychological
> reasons, of the idea that breastfeeding by one's biological mother would
> cure many of the ills of society ... an idea which had a profound
> influence on childrearing practices in France and elsewhere and led to a
> variety of odious ideas about the "place" of women which can be found in
> fascist propaganda  and  modern-day "family-values" rhetoric, among other
> places.  Please understand that I am not making unfounded accusations
> about the motivations of your statements ... I believe you are genuinely
> good-hearted and really care about improving the health of our society.
> What  I am asking you to consider is the possible effects of your
> statements  ... I still maintain that if we  think through the
> psychological position that you espouse, we will arrive at an essentially
> (though subtlely) undemocratic attitude where reified social norms about
> what is "healthy" and "unhealthy" are defended by an entrenched
> professional elite which justifies itself through "science" and dismisses
> outside criticism.  I eagerly and vociferously encourage you to prove me
> wrong.

To Juan Carlos:
I'm not sure yet if I understand exactly what you are advocating either, so
I haven't really address it yet. However, my limited understanding of it is
that you believe that mentally-healthy leadership, acquired in some
fashion, will lead better and less destructively. My knee-jerk reaction to
this is that it is difficult to see how this can happen. If people in
positions of leadership have interests that oppose the interests of the
majority, then a "healthy" appraisal of the situation would allow them to
discover what they had to do to retain their position(s), at the expense of
the majority. If instead you are advocating that these people (without
substantial change in the laws of inheritance we are talking about the
children of the existing elites) be socialized so that they will act
against their own class interests for the common good, I don't think many
of their parents are going to be bringing them to register at this
school...
- Don DeBar

> peace,
> m@2