One common misconception is that all mentally ill people are unpredictable and violent. Our society has an insatiable appetite for real-life horror stories about rapists, serial killers, and pedophiles, and the media is happy to provide us with them. As a result, we tend to put everyone with psychiatric problems under one label: crazy.
However, different cultures have different concepts of what constitutes a mental illness. Take suicide, for example. In Japan, suicide is, in most cases, not considered problematic, rather it can be an honorable act committed to save face or for a noble cause. Similarly, while the Koran prohibits suicide, "suicide bombers" are not generally considered "suicides" by their zealous supporters – they are martyrs for their cause. But in North America, someone who attempts suicide will likely be diagnosed with some form of psychological problem.
Some cultures are more susceptible to certain types of illness than others. Anorexia and bulimia are largely afflictions of the western world, while Japan has a whole separate set of disorders, many of which stem from their cultural expectation of hard work. One commonly documented Japanese condition called hikikomori (similar to agoraphobia) is characterized by a withdrawal from society due to stress and is said to affect large numbers of teenaged boys.
What about addictions? In North America, we believe in possession of a different kind: drugs, gambling, alcohol, or food are thought of as diseases that take over the victim and are difficult to expel. Again, we remove blame, but is it accurate to put a gambling addiction on par with, say, schizophrenia?
— Samantha Shepard, They're Possessed?, Medhunters dot com
Then again, is it accurate to use a manual of disorders decided by committee to diagnose what might be cultural eccentricities?
The social stigma of mental illness reflect a phobia of the mentally ill, a fear of psychosis which, instead of being relieved by education, is usually left to fester and sometime harm people who are themselves more harmless than the people who fear them.
Even people who are emotionally disturbed are loathe to admit that they might be going off the deep end, sometimes until it's too late. They minimize their suicide attempts and grow fearful that any outside inquiry might expose their suffering to the world.
Some of them even grow to fear strangers who often are concerned for their well-being, mainly due to the stigmatizing of their life.
Even though my own labelling of culture and society as the hotbed of mental illness is reactive, I also admit that both culture and society can be the source of mental health.
For eccentricity is merely an abnormal focus on behaviours that were once fulfilling but may have now become obsessions, like one has become possessed by some demon.
The ironic thing is, in ancient Greek society, it was once believed that each of us was born with a guardian angel which were called "daimons" - yes, the same modern-day demons that ignorant religious people pretend exist.
Sometimes, in respecting the expert's advice, we take it too far and reify his opinion, making it like a talisman. We do this with the advice of doctors when we interpret the directions on the label of medication — "take 1 capsule twice daily" — as meaning once in the morning and once at night when it could also mean taking two capsules at bedtime.
Likewise, it seems like psychiatry is turned into religion when psychiatrist rely too much on the DSM rather than on gut instinct.
From my perspective, the DSM is like a "Bible", the disorders being "deities" similar to "daimons." I feel they originate in behaviours used by people "diagnosed" with a "disorder" which soon stopped working to "protect" them from the suffering caused by "facing reality."
In short, the DSM descriptions interpret "daimons" which "possess" people as symptoms which involve fear, anxiety, insomnia, hypomania, mania, and sometimes psychoses.
This makes psychiatrists "exorcists".
Think about it: your doctor or psychiatrist replaces the priest. Your medications are the means to "exorcise" demons with names like influenza, chronic fatigue syndrome, cardiovascular disease and so on, as well as mental disorders such as schizo-affective, bipolar and so on.
For all the medications are for are to control and manage disease or behaviour so it doesn't annoy the neighbours.
Cultures which have a place for mental illness are the shamanic ones. If you have depression and aren't out harvesting the grain by hand like everyone else, then you could trade your produce for a special ritual that helps get rid of the "evil spirits". After a few hours, you are cured and ready to get up and help harvest the crops.
Today, civilized society waits until simple depression morphs into a mental illness sometimes needing a trip to the hospital and 48 hours in the psychiatric ward.
A person could cling all they want to the false belief that their childhood experiences are more important than making new ones that help us get over the trauma and transform the negativity into positive benefit.
If he were to tell any psychiatric doctor or nurse of that trauma, they will react out of fear to hospitalize him. This is because the telling of the long-lost trauma results in traumatizing the caregiver.
So, the mental health consumer learns quickly to deny the symptoms that are manageable, and tries hard not to perpetuate that trauma in her daily life. She does so by complying with medication and therapy.
In due time, mental health is maintained when the consumer is able to be crisis-free for more than six months.
Originally written: April 19, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Updated: February 1 at 9:50 PM
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
20130816
New Left and Addiction to Power (satire)
Over 10 years ago, the New Left certainly liked their recreational drug use.
If you become a drug abuser and abused your girlfriend or wife because of heavy abuse, then the New Left would accuse you of being a fake New Left party animal and label you a MAN guilty of domestic abuse, warning everyone in the party to stop sharing their party drugs with them.
This may include violent removal of said man ("eviction") from the former spouse's domicile.
The police will target you, and you could end up on Skid Row, sleeping in a homeless shelter, made homeless due to reverse domestic abuse.
This is is a true story for one member of the New Left. When he got into some bad drugs and abused his spouse, she complained to the New Left junta who feel entitled to saving the world.
So they outed him, and nobody cares what happened to him.
However, it may be true that that the New Left has a problem with addiction, especially addiction to power and control.
If you become a drug abuser and abused your girlfriend or wife because of heavy abuse, then the New Left would accuse you of being a fake New Left party animal and label you a MAN guilty of domestic abuse, warning everyone in the party to stop sharing their party drugs with them.
This may include violent removal of said man ("eviction") from the former spouse's domicile.
The police will target you, and you could end up on Skid Row, sleeping in a homeless shelter, made homeless due to reverse domestic abuse.
This is is a true story for one member of the New Left. When he got into some bad drugs and abused his spouse, she complained to the New Left junta who feel entitled to saving the world.
So they outed him, and nobody cares what happened to him.
However, it may be true that that the New Left has a problem with addiction, especially addiction to power and control.
20130720
Propaganda Tools of the State and Their Function
"Race" is based on propaganda manufactured by the elites to control the Middle Class.
"The Poor" and "The Rich" however are NOT classes at all. They are simply vestiges of the feudal age which have morphed into an important propaganda tool called "class warfare."
Ultimately, "class" is based on propaganda, not one's station in life, be it rich or poor, or simply middle class.
Mass media (NBC) edited portions of a 9-11 call George #Zimmerman made on the night he shot Trayvon Martin in order to polarize the liberals and the conservatives in Western society.
Why? To distract people from the reality I just explained: "race", "class", "rich", "poor", and even "middle class" are propaganda tools of the State used to exercise control over the People.
"The Poor" and "The Rich" however are NOT classes at all. They are simply vestiges of the feudal age which have morphed into an important propaganda tool called "class warfare."
Ultimately, "class" is based on propaganda, not one's station in life, be it rich or poor, or simply middle class.
Mass media (NBC) edited portions of a 9-11 call George #Zimmerman made on the night he shot Trayvon Martin in order to polarize the liberals and the conservatives in Western society.
Why? To distract people from the reality I just explained: "race", "class", "rich", "poor", and even "middle class" are propaganda tools of the State used to exercise control over the People.
20130623
Musing on Relatonships and Unconditional Love
What if You went to a club and met someone you clicked with, and s/he traded numbers with you?
If s/he called you, then you'd be sure to arrange a date because you two got along at the club.
Yet I'm going to call people on this fantasy because often what people have in common at clubs is drink and the prospect of finding someone you like combined with drink fools a person into thinking "s/he is the One."
Sober, people don't act like they do when they are inebriated. This is because a stone cold sober person is inhibited from acting uninhibited. It's also why a woman who received a call from someone they met at a club will usually turn down a date from a man with whom she exchanged numbers.
As well, she doesn't even remember the guy. This is because at a club, her girl friends come first and she is just out to have fun, not hook up.
A woman has to have a strong attraction to a guy in order to accept a date after they have met at a social event in a dark club with loud music and alcohol.
Often too, the guy will have said or done something that she would remember which makes her instinctively put him on the guy friend list.
As well, she make have a personal issue which she has yet to recover from which makes her unable to accept a date with just any guy.
Here is where a guy has to empathize with her in such a fashion as to share briefly that core issue, providing enough details for him to sympathize with her. A woman knows when a guy is empathetic because she'll share her life story with him, trusting him not to share her personal life with outsiders.
So the common ground will actually be trust. A man who can keep the secrets the woman tells him is a good confident. Confidential information is usually shared by a woman to test the guy. If he keeps her secrets safe, then he'll end up on her BFF list, which is rare because usually it is occupied by a large number of woman friends in her social and especially personal life.
A man should never inquire further into her personal life, just to fish for confirmation of "facts" found during his personal research.
Believe me that a man will do personal research because of the fallacy that his fact-finding mission will win her heart. It most often will not. For a woman would feel less trust for a man who pesters her in order to verify her personal history. It is also a breach of trust to do such a thing to a woman.
Instead, a man should just treat a woman he likes a lot with respect by allowing her to remain comfortable sharing her personal life with him because she trust him to keep secrets.
Even when a man thinks a woman is the One because she trusts him to respect her privacy, he ought to respect her privacy by not inquiring further mainly because she is the one capable of dealing with her personal issues, not him.
My intent in writing this blog is to rationalize my interest in a woman I recently met in such a way as to gain her respect. Most of this post is my way of telling myself that she isn't the One just because I know more than I ought to know about her past.
Yet this woman has earned my respect by sharing the details of her life history with me. If she had not done so, I would just consider her an acquaintance.
It is foolish of me to even consider that I'm the One for her. This is a delusion my part, which is motivated by the fantasy that were we to develop an intimate relationship, that we would fall in love and live happily ever after.
Such a delusion is often the result of thinking that what I know about her implies that I could make a difference in her life. This is due to an ego defect in my psyche.
It is vain on my part to think that I could make such a difference in her life.
Indeed, it is more likely that declaring my "love" for her would turn her off.
Instead, I should be a friend and stop thinking with my dick. Otherwise, our friendship could be ruined forever.
However, unconditional love implies that friends don't invade each other's privacy.
Besides, my female friend knows that I am unlikely to dominate her i.e. "groom" her to become attracted to me. I do not believe in treating women this way, because sometimes guys who like to dominate women who like to dominate them might become the jealous and possessive jerk who ends up being her domestic abuse "partner."
I loathe dominating a woman, because it is about power and control, and has nothing at all to do with romantic love at all.
For I believe that control and power are two assets that both partners share, both consciously through actions that follow through on words shared with each other.
Indeed, it is in our both good interest for me to declare this truth about control and power in a healthy relationship.
For partners in a relationship share equally in developing it. As well, she has let it be known to me that we could only be friends.
So, even if I hold a flame for her, then due to her personal history, it is unwise for me to pursue her a love interest even though the fantasy of a romance blooming is tempting, the potential of living such a delusion with her would only affect my emotional well-being, it would also lead to her taking me off her friends list.
Thus, it is best for both of us to be friends, because in this post-modern world, friendship is endearing and sometimes a lifelong commitment that endures.
Indeed, a good friend is the confident, the person who is a sounding board.
For friendship arises due to unconditional love.
IMO romantic relationships put conditions on each partner, and causes conditional love based on intimacy and romance. A woman puts a man or woman on their intimate partner list based on meeting conditions based on human love.
If neither side understands unconditional love through meditation and/or prayer about it, then all both of them are left with is human love based on those conditions.
For unconditional love is like a love so high that we mortals are barely able to utilize its power to transform human love into something that lasts for years.
Such a love empowers people to become compassionate and understanding of other people in our lives. In contrast, because of the conditions that human love depends on, compassion and understanding could be fickle and limited, because humans, being mortal, are limited in their power to realize unconditional love.
While love may be a many splendid thing, it can become more than that by understanding what unconditional love actually is: love without conditions place on both partners in a relationship.
This is why I mentioned dominance in a relationship and the inequity it causes. For a dominating personality seeks control and power over a submissive partner, and thus inequity is inherent in such a relationship.
I behooves me to consider such a choice, and I would rather remain single than trying to be someone I am unable to be, due to my unwillingness to control and disempower my future partner.
Yet I am open in at least trying to explain to my friend that a dynamic friendship is about being equals by the secrets we share with each other.
If s/he called you, then you'd be sure to arrange a date because you two got along at the club.
Yet I'm going to call people on this fantasy because often what people have in common at clubs is drink and the prospect of finding someone you like combined with drink fools a person into thinking "s/he is the One."
Sober, people don't act like they do when they are inebriated. This is because a stone cold sober person is inhibited from acting uninhibited. It's also why a woman who received a call from someone they met at a club will usually turn down a date from a man with whom she exchanged numbers.
As well, she doesn't even remember the guy. This is because at a club, her girl friends come first and she is just out to have fun, not hook up.
A woman has to have a strong attraction to a guy in order to accept a date after they have met at a social event in a dark club with loud music and alcohol.
Often too, the guy will have said or done something that she would remember which makes her instinctively put him on the guy friend list.
As well, she make have a personal issue which she has yet to recover from which makes her unable to accept a date with just any guy.
Here is where a guy has to empathize with her in such a fashion as to share briefly that core issue, providing enough details for him to sympathize with her. A woman knows when a guy is empathetic because she'll share her life story with him, trusting him not to share her personal life with outsiders.
So the common ground will actually be trust. A man who can keep the secrets the woman tells him is a good confident. Confidential information is usually shared by a woman to test the guy. If he keeps her secrets safe, then he'll end up on her BFF list, which is rare because usually it is occupied by a large number of woman friends in her social and especially personal life.
A man should never inquire further into her personal life, just to fish for confirmation of "facts" found during his personal research.
Believe me that a man will do personal research because of the fallacy that his fact-finding mission will win her heart. It most often will not. For a woman would feel less trust for a man who pesters her in order to verify her personal history. It is also a breach of trust to do such a thing to a woman.
Instead, a man should just treat a woman he likes a lot with respect by allowing her to remain comfortable sharing her personal life with him because she trust him to keep secrets.
Even when a man thinks a woman is the One because she trusts him to respect her privacy, he ought to respect her privacy by not inquiring further mainly because she is the one capable of dealing with her personal issues, not him.
My intent in writing this blog is to rationalize my interest in a woman I recently met in such a way as to gain her respect. Most of this post is my way of telling myself that she isn't the One just because I know more than I ought to know about her past.
Yet this woman has earned my respect by sharing the details of her life history with me. If she had not done so, I would just consider her an acquaintance.
It is foolish of me to even consider that I'm the One for her. This is a delusion my part, which is motivated by the fantasy that were we to develop an intimate relationship, that we would fall in love and live happily ever after.
Such a delusion is often the result of thinking that what I know about her implies that I could make a difference in her life. This is due to an ego defect in my psyche.
It is vain on my part to think that I could make such a difference in her life.
Indeed, it is more likely that declaring my "love" for her would turn her off.
Instead, I should be a friend and stop thinking with my dick. Otherwise, our friendship could be ruined forever.
However, unconditional love implies that friends don't invade each other's privacy.
Besides, my female friend knows that I am unlikely to dominate her i.e. "groom" her to become attracted to me. I do not believe in treating women this way, because sometimes guys who like to dominate women who like to dominate them might become the jealous and possessive jerk who ends up being her domestic abuse "partner."
I loathe dominating a woman, because it is about power and control, and has nothing at all to do with romantic love at all.
For I believe that control and power are two assets that both partners share, both consciously through actions that follow through on words shared with each other.
Indeed, it is in our both good interest for me to declare this truth about control and power in a healthy relationship.
For partners in a relationship share equally in developing it. As well, she has let it be known to me that we could only be friends.
So, even if I hold a flame for her, then due to her personal history, it is unwise for me to pursue her a love interest even though the fantasy of a romance blooming is tempting, the potential of living such a delusion with her would only affect my emotional well-being, it would also lead to her taking me off her friends list.
Thus, it is best for both of us to be friends, because in this post-modern world, friendship is endearing and sometimes a lifelong commitment that endures.
Indeed, a good friend is the confident, the person who is a sounding board.
For friendship arises due to unconditional love.
IMO romantic relationships put conditions on each partner, and causes conditional love based on intimacy and romance. A woman puts a man or woman on their intimate partner list based on meeting conditions based on human love.
If neither side understands unconditional love through meditation and/or prayer about it, then all both of them are left with is human love based on those conditions.
For unconditional love is like a love so high that we mortals are barely able to utilize its power to transform human love into something that lasts for years.
Such a love empowers people to become compassionate and understanding of other people in our lives. In contrast, because of the conditions that human love depends on, compassion and understanding could be fickle and limited, because humans, being mortal, are limited in their power to realize unconditional love.
While love may be a many splendid thing, it can become more than that by understanding what unconditional love actually is: love without conditions place on both partners in a relationship.
This is why I mentioned dominance in a relationship and the inequity it causes. For a dominating personality seeks control and power over a submissive partner, and thus inequity is inherent in such a relationship.
I behooves me to consider such a choice, and I would rather remain single than trying to be someone I am unable to be, due to my unwillingness to control and disempower my future partner.
Yet I am open in at least trying to explain to my friend that a dynamic friendship is about being equals by the secrets we share with each other.
20121017
Be A Vigilante For the People, By the People, and Of the People (satire)
A common reaction to hyper-vigilance by the State is to stay at home.
It's more prudent to be vigilant of the State by observing what they do when they take down anyone who they suspect of terrorist activity.
Remember: agents of the State are State-sponsored terrorists when they terrorize the People. Agents of State terrorism light the fuse of tomorrow's global terrorists.
Choosing to stay home will lead to hikikomori.
People who never leave home tend to become so neurotic they think they have an anxiety disorder, or even a personality disorder.
Looking at four walls all day leads to cabin fever.
Get out and be vigilant of the State. It is not vigilanté-ism; it is the right of the People. So carefully observe the State.
Be a vigilanté for the People, by the People and of the People! Non-violent confrontation is allowable.
When the sheep look up, the wolves are already among us. When the wolves in sheep's clothing are exposed, stop being sheep and confront the wolves.
Or, you could stay at home and end up becoming hikikomori only to suddenly see your parents and/or loved ones hurt by your cowardice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
It's more prudent to be vigilant of the State by observing what they do when they take down anyone who they suspect of terrorist activity.
Remember: agents of the State are State-sponsored terrorists when they terrorize the People. Agents of State terrorism light the fuse of tomorrow's global terrorists.
Choosing to stay home will lead to hikikomori.
People who never leave home tend to become so neurotic they think they have an anxiety disorder, or even a personality disorder.
Looking at four walls all day leads to cabin fever.
Get out and be vigilant of the State. It is not vigilanté-ism; it is the right of the People. So carefully observe the State.
Be a vigilanté for the People, by the People and of the People! Non-violent confrontation is allowable.
When the sheep look up, the wolves are already among us. When the wolves in sheep's clothing are exposed, stop being sheep and confront the wolves.
Or, you could stay at home and end up becoming hikikomori only to suddenly see your parents and/or loved ones hurt by your cowardice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikikomori
Recent Events Prove State Terrorism Proven to be Mother of All Terrorism
The recent teenaged suicide in BC and the online mob forming along with the misinformation due to the cyber-bullies' hidden agenda is unsurprising. Likewise, the prostitution issue in a sleepy Eastcoast town only further proves my original generalization about terrorism.
It is proof that the State, be it police or other agents of the State, including those of the People who are willing to pay more taxes for more police and control of others of the People, does practice terrorism on the People.
However, we do not view it as terrorism because the State regulates the level of violence by its agents.
If any of the People go on to bully and terrorize others, then my contention that State terrorism is the mother of all terrorism is proven.
Yes, I am accusing both the cyberbullies and the agents of the State of terrorism: cyber-bullies are online terrorists when they harass any member of the People unmercifully to the point of suicide, and police and other agents of the State are agents of State terrorism when they shame a targeted sector of the People repeatedly.
Thus, when the sheep (the bullied and the sector of the People who passively watch the terrorism being acted out both online and in real life) look up, they should be aware that if their outrage to being terrorized results in the same kind of behavior as their bullies, their oppressers, and their handlers, then they too become bullies, too.
However, the continued dialogue is important as long as each and every person is able to use the forum of public opinion to air their side of this current war on online bullying.
For no one here is innocent, not even I.
It is proof that the State, be it police or other agents of the State, including those of the People who are willing to pay more taxes for more police and control of others of the People, does practice terrorism on the People.
However, we do not view it as terrorism because the State regulates the level of violence by its agents.
If any of the People go on to bully and terrorize others, then my contention that State terrorism is the mother of all terrorism is proven.
Yes, I am accusing both the cyberbullies and the agents of the State of terrorism: cyber-bullies are online terrorists when they harass any member of the People unmercifully to the point of suicide, and police and other agents of the State are agents of State terrorism when they shame a targeted sector of the People repeatedly.
Thus, when the sheep (the bullied and the sector of the People who passively watch the terrorism being acted out both online and in real life) look up, they should be aware that if their outrage to being terrorized results in the same kind of behavior as their bullies, their oppressers, and their handlers, then they too become bullies, too.
However, the continued dialogue is important as long as each and every person is able to use the forum of public opinion to air their side of this current war on online bullying.
For no one here is innocent, not even I.
20070204
Better Societies Through Psychiatric Profiling?
Diagnostic labels define what limits of difference society can tolerate. Whenever a culture decides that it will define a set of behaviors as "sick" rather than "immoral" or unwitting, it is enacting a social value that favors illness over the view that such destructive or unusual behavior is volitional. Armed with this view of behavior as illness, we can justify forced hospitalization, prison, or "protective care."
...
The identification of psychiatric disorders always involves a social judgment and often implies a political agenda as well. The definition that behavior constitutes a "problem" for clinical purposes hinges both on what society desires -- a social judgment -- and what is disruptive of the political order and values -- the political agenda. It is less concerned with what is true than with what values it supports and maintains...
-- pp.84-5, L.E. Beutler, B. Bongar & J.N. Shulkin in Am I Crazy, Or Is It My Shrink? How to Get The Help You Need
In short, psychiatric diagnoses address the social mores and political agenda of a society. Their purpose is to label socially inappropriate behaviors in a person as "illness" rather than as "sin".
Indeed, this is but "thought control" where the diagnosis of certain unacceptable behaviors are viewed by the mental health industry as "sick" and in need of medication rather than as merely "immoral" and unwitting, and in need of salvation.
By defining such behaviors as "sick" rather than "immoral" and unwitting, the political agenda of that society is maintained. By maintaining this "status quo", the people in power are thus able to stay in power through social control.
Thus, through clever means of social control, the mentally ill are denied access to political power through the use of forced hospitalization, prison, and "protective care".
But that's all changing today. One-by-one, through education and activism, global fear of psychosis is being eradicated.
Slowly, one by one they are being politically empowered through social activism on the grassroots level.
For a depressed world leader is able to see the world realistically. Her judgment may be tempered by another world leader in a wheelchair, but together they can change the world.
And so too can you.
20040520
Freedom, Control and Domination
Freedom in a limited life may be in limited control of the individual. However, freedom in a life unlimited by all constraints is entirely under the control of the individual.
The individual has control only over herself. Any apparent control he has over other people is due to consent, be it explicit or implicit.
When control is entirely within the hands of one person, it is known as domination.
Domination may also have explicit and implicit aspects.
Explicit refers to a formal contract, verbal and/or written.
Implicit refers to an implied contract, a 'gentlemans agreement'.
Control and domination may be of the following four forms:
1. Implicit control and implicit domination e.g. Dysfunctional relationships in which issues of control and domination has rarely been discussed; may also refer to the family from the point of view of the children prior to adulthood when the dynamics of control and domination are present but rarely discussed;
2. Implicit control and explicit domination e.g. A leader who has control not written into law, such as a gang leader;
3. Explicit control and implicit
domination, e.g. Legal regulations that aid a person in dominating an industry or trade;
4. Explicit control and explicit domination, e.g. Laws and contracts.
It is these four forms of control and domination that define any relationship between people.
All relationships fall under the first category, unless it can be determined otherwise.
Most international relationships fall under the fourth.
The individual has control only over herself. Any apparent control he has over other people is due to consent, be it explicit or implicit.
When control is entirely within the hands of one person, it is known as domination.
Domination may also have explicit and implicit aspects.
Explicit refers to a formal contract, verbal and/or written.
Implicit refers to an implied contract, a 'gentlemans agreement'.
Control and domination may be of the following four forms:
1. Implicit control and implicit domination e.g. Dysfunctional relationships in which issues of control and domination has rarely been discussed; may also refer to the family from the point of view of the children prior to adulthood when the dynamics of control and domination are present but rarely discussed;
2. Implicit control and explicit domination e.g. A leader who has control not written into law, such as a gang leader;
3. Explicit control and implicit
domination, e.g. Legal regulations that aid a person in dominating an industry or trade;
4. Explicit control and explicit domination, e.g. Laws and contracts.
It is these four forms of control and domination that define any relationship between people.
All relationships fall under the first category, unless it can be determined otherwise.
Most international relationships fall under the fourth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)