Postcards from the Id

Book Quotes - “Bowling Alone” - Defining Social Capital

As I posted here, I am a huge fan of this book. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the conclusions of the author, but as a psychologist I am convinced more than ever that the more social capital an individual builds in his/her life, the higher functioning they will be (in a healthy, well-rounded way), and the more emotionally satisfied they will be.

I’ve recently been re-reading certain sections of the book, and I thought I might post a few quotes here and there. I thought I might start by posting an excerpt that attempts to define “social capital,” which was observed to be steadily rising in this country until the 1960s, at which point it leveled off, then went into steep decline:

“In recent years social scientists have framed concerns about the changing character of American society in terms of the concept of “social capital.” By analogy with notions of physical capital and human capital - tools and training that enhance individual productivity - the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups.

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense, social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (Pg. 18)”

Robert Putnam (the author), goes on to discuss further the definition and nature of what social capital is. Hopefully, I’ll get around to posting on more of this as I go along (man, I’ve got a lot of things I want to post on!). However, the important point of this passage is that connections between people, be it individual to individual, individual to group, group to group, formal, informal, etc., is just as important to the functioning of individuals and society as other forms of capital, and it has been on a marked decline for at least 30 years. On a macro level, I hope the trend stops, and reverses, but what I will focus on is on the micro level - the individual. I’ll select and discuss quotes from the book that seem particularly relevant to improving one’s personal sense of functioning and satisfaction (much of the future of treatment for depression and anxiety, btw, will head in this direction). Being engaged with other people is a good, healthy thing, when done the right way - this book highlights its importance, and that’s why I’ll be commenting on it.

The Final Solution by Michael Chabon

Michael Chabon is one of my favorite contemporary authors.  His writing style is at once literary and easy, with complicated themes and metaphors running through what would often be considered "pulp" topics, such as the comic book industry.  You can read a more full account of his life and writings at the link above, but let me just comment on a couple of aspects of his career I find interesting.

First, he achieved success early (both critical and popular), at the age of 25.  Not an unremarkable feat, especially considering he was not seeking it.  Apparently a professor of his submitted Chabon's master's thesis to a publisher, and secured him a $150,000 advance for what was his first novel, The Mysteries of Pittsburgh.  Most first time novelists receive an advance less than 10% of that figure.

Chabon then ran into what many first-time novelists run into - the inability to follow up their first novel with something equally as compelling.  He spent years working on a project he ultimately scrapped, but in the process caught fire on another idea, which became Wonder Boys (the novel upon which the movie is based).  Not a bad follow up at all!  This already sets him apart from many "one hit" authors, who use up all of their creative ideas in their first book, and have little else to say.

Chabon then writes his opus, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.  He wins the Pulitzer, accolades, etc., for this book set in 1940s New York.  It is the story of two Jewish cousins who achieve greatness in the comic book industry, set against the backdrop of WW II.  Personally, I absolutely loved this book.  Again, it is densely written, with sometimes complicated use of language, but never (to my mind) written with the goal of being artsy or pretentious.  The descriptions of the time, as well as of a fledging industry (comics) are well written and fascinating.  The characters are remarkably fleshed out, as are the relationships between the various people.  A definite "thumbs up" recommendation from me!

I am currently working my way through The Final Solution, which is a detective story novella.  I am about half way through, and I am enjoying it.  More interesting, though, is that Chabon has steadfastly insisted on writing in various genres, including fantasy (like Summerland, a fantastic young adult modern fantasy that includes an alternative universe), genres that pseudo-intellectual elites will often frown upon.  Chabon's efforts have been attempts to break down the barriers between the so-called middle and high brow categories and genre fiction, and he has (in my humble opinion) been remarkably successful.  I agree with his philosophy that there is simply good writing and bad writing, regardless of genre, and I applaud his diversity of subject matter, whether he writes more "high" fiction (such as Kavalier and Clay), or "low brow" (such as Gentlemen of the Road, which I will be tackling next).  I've often similarly with snobs regarding Stephen King - I think he is a fantastic writer, period.  The snobs will retort with, "He writes good horror, but..."  Why qualify it?  King is among the best developers of character and setting I've ever read, regardless of genre.  That he writes horror is irrelevant.

Anyway, if you haven't read anything by Michael Chabon, I suggest you give him a read.  His writing style may take a bit of getting used to, as he is the anti-Hemingway in terms of simplicity, but once you get used to tackling his prose more deliberately, you'll be in for a treat.  I've read The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, Kavalier and Clay, and Summerland, as well as many of his short stories.  I'm also working my way through The Final Solution, and will then tackle Gentlemen of the Road (with a review, of course).  Here is a passage from The Final Solution I enjoyed, describing the old, grizzled detective working on his last case:

"He handled the grisly bit of evidence without hesitation or qualm.  He had seen human beings in every state, phase, and attitude of death: a Cheapside drab tumbled, throat cut, headfirst down a stairway of the Thames Embankment, blood pooling in her mouth and eye sockets; a stolen child, green as a kelpie, stuffed into a storm drain; the papery pale husk of a pensioner, killed with arsenic over the course of a dozen years; a skeleton looted by kites and dogs and countless insects, bleached and creaking in a wood, tattered garments fluttering like flags; a pocketful of teeth and bone chips in a shovelful of pale incriminating ash.  There was nothing remarkable, nothing at all, about the crooked X that death had scrawled in the dust of Hallows Lane."      

"Of All My Incredible Traits, I'm Most Impressed With My Modesty"

I have the blog About Last Night linked to the right, but this is my first specific link to a post over there.  Needless to say, this is strictly an oversight on my part, not theirs, since not a day goes by I that I couldn't link to at least one (usually more) wonderfully written items on their page.  I am a huge fan of Terry Teachout (one of the three writers at the site, along with Laura Demanski and Carrie Frye ).  I wish I knew one one-hundredth of the things Mr. Teachout not only knows about, but is able to write about in a both intelligent yet accessible manner.  I've read two of his books, The Skeptic (a biography of H.L. Mencken), and A Terry Teachout Reader (a compendium of some of his earlier essays), and I'm very much looking forward to his biography of Louis Armstrong.  In short, much of my cultural knowledge that would be considered anything higher than "pop" is likely attributable to the great stuff posted on About Last Night daily, and every time I read their page, I feel a little bit smarter.

Here is a post about newspaper obituaries, with a reference to writing one's own, as well as false modesty (hence the title of this post), and a funny reference to a short story that sheds light on the desire to know what will ultimately be thought of you after you've passed on.  I recommend you check out the post, and bookmark the site!

Starting today, I plan on occasionally posting quotes that are relevant to particular areas I am covering on this blog. This will include quotes related to psychology, as well a the other interests. Since I have been posting a series on offender therapy, including a conceptualization of the lifestyle criminal, I thought I’d start with a quote from Stanton Samenow. To be sure, I don’t agree with everything Samenow writes, but he is one of the authors new psychologists (or students) are encouraged to read if they are planning to work with offenders, be it in corrections, outpatient groups, etc. Despite some differences of opinion regarding his writings, there is no doubt that reading Dr. Samenow is effective for an individual who is to begin working with offenders for the first time, regardless of the amount of overall clinical experience a clinician has. This is because working with an offender is fundamentally different, as I’ve stated previously. This is not to say that a clinician ought to adopt an “air of superiority” towards offenders, treat them more poorly than regular clients, etc. In fact it is, if anything, more important to consistently model appropriate, non-criminal, and effective interactions and behaviors with offenders than with any other group. Demonstrating that even in the face of a client base that regularly attempts to manipulate, deceive, and con the clinician, the clinician can address the behavior without judging the individual and respond appropriately is a powerful therapeutic intervention. It can even be pointed out directly: “How did I respond when you left out all of those convictions during your initial interview? That’s right, firmly but fairly. And that was intentional. So when your wife makes an honest mistake, that, let’s face it, isn’t all that big of a deal (have the client rate on a scale of 1 to 100), what might be a better way to respond than to call her a...” You get the idea.

So, you treat the offender client with respect, but you treat the offender client with an awareness and seeking out of efforts to think and act criminally that one simply does not do with general population clients. In my first practicum, an outpatient clinic for older adults, I was not consistently assessing my 68-year old female client, grandmother of four, presenting for depression associated with loss issues, for efforts to manipulate, deceive, justify, etc. No need. But this type of therapy does not prepare you for working with the lifestyle criminal. There is no benefit of the doubt with offenders - they need to prove, again and again, they are engaged in the process of change, not the other way around. They have forfeited any right to an expectation of good will regarding their intentions: in fact, an indication of insight (not that insight is necessary, a whole ‘nother post!) for an offender is that they grasp that they require regular assessment of their thinking for possible thinking errors, and demonstrate a willingness to submit their thinking and actions to this type of review.

Anyway, back to the original point of the post. Basically, even if he ain’t perfect, Samenow gets the basics right in terms of the mind set necessary to approach the antisocial offender. In an earlier post, I wrote about the first of the “Three Cs,” which is “Conditions.” Here is a brief quote from Samenow’s book Before It’s Too Late, addressing the role of environment in determining the behavior of the child who is displaying misconduct:

“What of the role of the environment in shaping behavior? A recognition that children make choices does not mean that parents or other environmental forces are totally without influence. While the individual makes the choice, the environment can inhibit or promote choices in a particular direction. For example, lack of parental supervision makes it easier for the child to get away with misconduct. If a parent is present, the child is more easily restrained and guided. But even the twenty-four-hour presence of a parent does not guarantee that a child will stay out of trouble because it is the child who still makes the ultimate choice.”

Now, as stated in the post regarding choices, childrens’ choices are often uninformed, and made without the requisite impulse control, sense of long-term consequences, etc., which is why they are addressed differently (whether legally, therapeutically, etc.). However, the importance of choice in this context cannot be overstated, especially as a learning experience for the child. And, if the child has been provided this opportunity to learn several times, and continues to choose misconduct, hopefully there will be an awareness of what path this child is choosing to go down.