Sunday, March 12, 2006
"Confidentiality": Privacy or Secrecy?
By Patricia Lefave, Labelled, D.D.(P)
All of the controllers of others, whether family members, employers or cult leaders, seem to share a similar tactic aimed at control apparent in the line:
" Listen, no need to let on we have had this little conversation; let's just keep this between you and I."
This is generally delivered right after one of them has given us some ''confidential'' information about someone else, or after they have given someone else some ''confidential information about us.
Most of us agree to that based upon our assumptions about the reason for it. It can be heard as a kind of admission of error like," Gee, I guess I shouldn't have violated that other person's boundaries by telling you that, so please keep this confidential, OK?"
So, we agree and may even be impressed by concern for others in that statement. But, controllers and domination types aren't saying that because they have empathy with others and think that they are wrong to assess someone behind his/her back. They say it because that is part of running their ''game'' in an attempt to dominate and control. The secrecy (not confidentiality) is one of the manipulations used to achieve that goal. They are, in fact, frequently playing people off against each other, without any of those they are manipulating being aware that it is being done.
The predictable result to all of those involved of course is growing confusion and a perception that something, or someone, isn't making any sense. The reason for that is because all are making their evaluations based upon what they believe is true about the other; not upon what is true. Most of the time, the manipulator who is playing the ''game'' with everyone involved, is not even suspected of having a hidden agenda of control and domination.
He seems so "nice,'' he's not at all upset, (everyone else is) and why would he DO such a thing anyway? It wouldn't make any sense for him to do that now would it?
And that is the answer to the puzzle. It is the first step taken out of the maze of the group insanity.
This is done by people who feel entitled to control and dominate others whom they perceive as their 'inferiors.'' Given that, it should not be surprising to anyone when the identified patient being controlled by such domination types then perceives the psychiatrist, and the manipulations coercions and punishments of the system, as identical to those of his, or her, original protagonist(s). There is no difference to the identified patient.
There is, however, a difference to most psychiatrists. What is the difference?
The premise upon which they are erroneously basing their judgments of the patient. They believe the controller with the hidden agenda is "innocent'' (and "falsely'' accused) and also that the victim is only:
1. saying he or she is a victim to seek attention/fame.
2. Actually believes he or she is a victim. (when ''really'' he/she is not)
It is on that faulty premise (or ''foundation stone'' from a religious point of view) upon which the house of cards of the Psychiatric Faith has been built. The ''sacred symbol'' of the Faith (as Szasz has termed it) being ''schizophrenia''- the label given to those who are to be sacrificed on the alter of the Faith as a ransom paid for the errors of others, whether the ''others'' involved are blind to what they do, or not. This is about a GROUP error in thinking. Not the individual's error, or ''illness.''
It is the tautological arguments used consistently by Psychiatry to justify itself, which traps the ''patient'' in the infinite double bind. For to simply state the truth about one's experience at the hand of another (or others) is to provide the stimulus which pushes the buttons of the all too well, trained psychiatrist causing the doctor to respond automatically, with machine-like precision.
The more the patient tries to escape the much loved paradigm of psychiatry, by continuing to tell the truth of his/her experience, the more controlling the psychiatrist is likely to become.
As a psychotherapist once stated to me, " logic will not penetrate illogic.". That has certainly been proven true in my own case. Nothing I have said or done for over a decade has penetrated the groupthink.