Interesting perspective Allen. Since no one really knows the motivation behind her actions and we're all left to guess, I wonder if this situation isn't ripe for a discussion on attribution processes.
Here's what I mean: I assumed that the cause of her actions was the situation - that is, she was either a victim of cultural influences we place on women to be supportive, or even a victim of the political forces imposed on wives of politicians. Thus, I'm making an external attribution for her behavior (although this would be contrary to what the Fundamental Attribution Error would predict). Allen seems to be suggesting that the cause of her behavior is her personality - it's a choice she made herself. I have heard this view expressed as well. For example, someone told me that perhaps she decided to stand by him because she really did believe that he is a good person inside and she wanted to stick by him in his time of need. Since no one knows the truth, it remains simply interesting to wonder why some of us look to external explanations for her behavior while others look to internal ones (an interesting springboard for a class discussion if nothing else). Perhaps it has something to do with a projection on each person's part (a little Freud here?). That is, the whole situation is a kind of Rorshach - what we believe to be true about her motivations reflects something about ourselves. Michael -- Michael Britt, Ph.D. Host of The Psych Files Psychology in Everyday Life [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 16 March 2008 Michael Britt wrote: >>It seems to me that as much as people are talking about Elliot >>Spitzer these days, many people are talking just as much about the >>fact that his wife was standing by his side when he apologized and >>resigned. The women I know have strong negative feelings about this >>and they all say that they wouldn't have stood next to him. His wife >>looked pretty bad. Is this just another example of how our culture >>expects women to support their man, or is there some other psychology >>going on here? > > Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but am I alone in thinking that when > Michael writes "Is this just another example of how our culture expects > women to support their man, or is there some other psychology going on > here?" he is implicitly (though of course entirely unintentionally) > belittling women? There seems to me to be an implication that Silda > Spitzer > behaved as she did because she is a victim of "our culture", which implies > she did not have sufficient autonomy to act as she herself wanted to. > > This, of course, opens up a huge question. I'll just throw one point into > the mix. No one disputes the enormous disadvantages with which women have > historically had to contend, including, of course, lack of social and > political rights. But there is another side to this story - that women > (indeed people in general) do not always have to be victims of their > social > circumstances (though sometimes, of course, this is unfortunately the > case). Leaving aside historical figures one could name, one has only to > read the works of nineteenth century female novelists (not to mention the > novels of Trollope) to appreciate that there were plenty of strong-willed > (not to say feisty!) women who did not cower in the face of social > convention. (I don't believe that these novelists simply fantasized > characters that bore no relation to real-life individuals.) If one wants > to > be critical of Silda Spitzer by all means do so, but let's also treat her > as an autonomous individual who is capable of making her own decisions - > as, of course, TIPSters have in their responses! > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > -- Michael Britt, Ph.D. Host of The Psych Files Psychology in Everyday Life [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
