{"content":[{"text":"EMOTION AND CONFLICT","bbox":{"left":0.60474,"top":0.084583,"width":0.19891399999999992,"height":0.015437999999999993}},{"text":"269","bbox":{"left":0.823966,"top":0.082175,"width":0.02936899999999998,"height":0.018489000000000005}},{"text":"him until 1945, even when it became clear that the situation was doomed. Intense loyalty \n and highly emotional participation in a collective obsession undercut even the most basic \n rational and ethical considerations. \n Now to a personal example: Envision yourself as a therapist with a client named Eve \n who came to you because she was depressed. She is severely and regularly beaten by her \n husband, Adam. Neighbors describe scenes of shouting and crying and the bruise marks \n on Eve’s body are only too obvious. You are afraid Eve may not survive and you visit her \n as frequently as your schedule permits. You try to convince her to protect herself, by \n leaving her unsafe home to seek refuge in sheltered housing, at least at times of crisis. In \n your mind, you define her as a victim and her husband as a perpetrator. You explain to \n Eve that “domestic chastisement” has long been outlawed. You suggest that Adam utterly \n humiliates her and that she ought to develop a “healthy” anger as a first step toward \n collecting sufficient strength to change her life. To you, this situation clearly represents a \n destructive conflict loaded with hot and violent emotion and you wish to contribute to its \n constructive resolution. \n Eve stubbornly undermines your efforts and thwarts your dedicated and well- \n intentioned attempts to help her. She argues along these lines: “Beating me is my \n husband’s way of loving me! I am not a victim. I bring his anger on myself when I fail to \n respect his authority! He saved me from a cruel father! My father never spoke of love and \n care – Adam does!” And Adam adamantly refuses to be labeled a “perpetrator,” accusing \n you of viciously disturbing the peace of his home and claiming that you violate his male \n honor. \n From Adam’s perspective, there is no destructive conflict, no suffering victim, and no \n violent perpetrator. It is you, the therapist, the human rights defender, an uninvited third \n party, who introduces conflict. The definition of love and benevolence is crucial here. \n You define love as the meeting of equal hearts and minds in mutual caring, a definition \n embedded in the human rights ideal of equal dignity for all. Eve and her husband, on the \n other hand, connect love with female subservience. You introduce conflict by drawing \n Eve’s attention to a new definition of love, one that is in total opposition to the couple’s \n definition. \n We can easily link the example of Eve and Adam to events at the international level. \n Human rights framings of equal dignity for all do not always meet friendly acceptance in \n the supposed “perpetrators.” The South African elites were defensive about Apartheid – \n they felt entitled to superiority. So-called “honor-killings” have only recently received \n attention. This practice has moved from the rather neutral category of “cultural practice” \n to the accusatory category of “violation of human rights.” Or, consider the Indian caste \n system, which has only very recently been labeled “Indian Apartheid,” a new definition \n for a way of life that has endured for thousands of years. \n In this conundrum, in which emotions and conflict are entangled in painful ways, \n questions arise such as: When and in what ways are emotions (feelings","bbox":{"left":0.146924,"top":0.139752,"width":0.704847,"height":0.640014}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}