SA --
> For about 5-6 months, I was doing much of the > work for I was in training mode. ... I had to wait > for [the staff] to catch on without ...making the > residential unit inhospitable. How I did this was > by setting limits. I kept the social structure of the unit > intact to the best of my ability. > Some of the new staff would give choices to the > residents. ...Certain staff didn't allow for all these > choices, and the dominant residents would fight back > at these staff. > Eventually, the residents became confused as to what > they wanted to do, they couldn't agree, and the > routine, well, wasn't a free choice, it was chaos. ... > Staff have slowly begun to reestablish the social > structure. ... This was put into practice by setting > limits and expectations. Choices remain intact. The > residents can follow the expected routine or be placed > out-of-routine as a consequence. ... > The same goes for the staff. They have a job to > perform. ... They are expected to follow a > certain order outlined in their job description, but > each staff has a certain style in how this is > accomplished. > I'm learning that a good goal seems to be keep a > unit orderly, while at the same time allow staff to > make their own decisions in how this will be > accomplished. > Pure freedom is only chaos and not generative to > any static latches of good quality. > > thoughts? As group leader, your experience demonstrates that individual freedom in a social system is not achieved without certain responsibilities to the society. I don't know if your staff is paid, or under what conditions the residents have access to your facility, but law and order is prerequisite for any collective effort. Whether it's the family structure, the work environment, or a sovereign state, freedom isn't the right to have every want satisfied and every wish fulfilled. Apparently, you have won the struggle and established a workable "social democracy" of cooperative "happy campers". Congratulations, SA! I don't recall anyone using the term "pure freedom" in these discussions, nor have I used it. In my thesis, I point out that the freedom of a society or nation doesn't come freely. It's paid for by the struggle of enlightened individuals who know its value and are willing to make sacrifices to preserve it. Freedom can flourish only in a civilized society where the self-control necessary for developing individual responsibility can be fully exercised. The Islamic culture is in turmoil today because its people have been subservient to external authority and the "law of Allah" for so many centuries that they don't realize their innate freedom and are taught to look upon those who enjoy it as infidels who must be eliminated. No occupying nation, military power, or international sanction can resolve the Islamic problem. A solution to the terrorism that now threatens the free world will come only when the Muslim people take the responsibility upon themselves to eradicate jihadism and everything it stands for from their culture. When I speak of Freedom here, it's generality within a philosophical context. Unless I'm otherwise informed, I assume as a "given" that the reader will be a citizen of a civilized country that recognizes the value of individual freedom and has come to grips with the problems of social responsibility. I also assume the person I'm talking to respects the man-made laws of his or her nation, as well as the right of fellow citizens to practice the religion their choice and freely pursue their life goals, so long as such behavior does not infringe on the rights of others. Do you think I've assumed too much? --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
