From: "Andrew Phelps <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [S-ACC] IVAT 20th poster experience
Date: Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:12 PM
I've been responding off-list so as to get insight. Now let me provide a direct response.
On Fri, 8/21/15, Abc wrote:
Could you elaborate on the comments on "dignity" and how it relates to components of social roles --- there seems to be a fundamental assumption that the system need recognize our value, which while useful, seems paternalistic in its perspective. In other words allowing the continuation of a "bestowal" of status on persons that the system already does a disservice by assessing and judging with an inadequate criteria.
I am assuming that the re-defining of dignity would address something like this, though I would like to hear more precisely what that could or does mean in your intention.
Yes, "bestowal of status" is problematical, especially since that involves concerns related to class, ethnicity, gender, among others. That falls back on "like/dislike" as the social attitude for relating, which is uncritically framed.
As you indicate, the "re-defining of dignity" engages a sort of "attitude management" approach, which is IMHO a "bad business" psychologically. The meaning of "integrity" or "good character" comes into focus as work that needs to be done.
Thus the "old social role" (OSR) is framed as above and the "new social role" involves allotting a different meaning to existential being. And much more needs to be said to elaborate.
The frame that the present OSR approach is "good 'mental health'" amounts to a system of stereotypy. And the "destination dignity" approach of the Aug. 24 march in DC here appears to be put in that sort of ideological frame.