A very interesting and profound excerpt from an article I'm reading. I just had to share:

"Humberto Maturana (1986), a neurophilosopher from Chile who started life as a biologist, has offered very helpful definitions of love and violence. He defines love as: “the providing of space (a context of acceptance) for the experience of another even if there is some cost to self.

And he sees violence as: “the holding of an opinion to be true such that another’s is untrue and must change.”

It is important to realize that the holding of different opinions does not necessitate violence, but rather the holding of the belief that the other’s opinion must change is where all violence stems from.

This is a broad and inclusive definition of violence, but as a therapist, I have found it particular helpful because it defines as violence even those activities that sometimes cultures value, such as obligatory schooling for children against their wishes, or occasions of punishment at home where a parent’s will is imposed over that of a child. By defining these current culturally appropriate interactions as violent, it invites us as parents or therapists to acknowledge our own violence and secondarily to develop that highly important therapeutic skill - the ability to reflect on our actions. As a therapist use of such a broad definition can invite us to reflect on whether we in fact are acting with unintended therapeutic violence in reference to our clients. And finally, this definition can also assist us help clients avoid unintended imposition in relation to the persons whom they care for and love.

The usefulness of this definition of violence as an experience can be seen in the work that I did with Mary, the young woman who had been genitally assaulted at age 12. In the consult session, I looked at Mary and I asked, “Do you play baseball?”

She looked back obviously perplexed and perhaps even thinking, ‘He’s the one showing bizarre thinking and I’m the one diagnosed as schizophrenic.’ “Yes,” she replied.

“Well, please bear with me for a short while. Let’s pretend for a moment that you are in a baseball game. You’re the catcher and it’s the last inning of the game with the last batter up. The batter has one more strike before being out and if this batter goes out, your team wins. Let’s pretend that this is a fun game between two teams on a Sunday afternoon. Both teams have been enjoying themselves and are looking forward to the end of the game so they can move on to celebrate. As the pitcher throws the ball, the batter swings with great effort, misses the ball, and you, as catcher, catch it. You now know that the game is over, your team has won, and the follow-up parties await. However, before you can fully recover your balance from
the catch, the batter turns and with full and mighty strength, swings the bat hard across your head. If this were to occur, would we call this baseball?”

Mary looked at me, eyes wide, obviously thinking and said “No.”

I said, “I’m curious, why would it be that if a man uses his genitals against a woman, we would call it sex?”

It was Mary’s response to this question that has prompted my talking about this in professional circles. She looked at me, silence in the room. Initially I could not read her expression but slowly tears began to roll down her cheeks, softening her stony look.

On many occasions since this session, I have asked professionals what they believe Mary was emotionally experiencing at the moment of her tears. Many women say, perhaps relief. Many men state, perhaps sadness at the time lost. But, in fact, when I asked Mary to tell me of her tears, she looked at me, and angrily said, “You mean I had to wait all these years to learn this?”


From: Sanders, G. Sexualtiy, Power, and Empowerment: One Man's Reflections on Sex Therapy http://www.familytherapy.org/documents/SexPower.PDF

Unfortunately, Gary Sanders died in 2002 after a 3 year battle with cancer. I stronly recommend accessing and reading the entire article.