March 25, 2004

A scheduled group session, cancelled. Many reasons possible: in this case for one person it turned out later to be "personal extenuating circumstances", and having heard the reason and taking it at face value, I agreed and agree with the choice of words.

Which did not, I felt, justify the complete lack of warning or of any communication -- let alone explanation -- either before or after, from any of those involved in the decision to cancel. Apparently none was felt necessary.

I mentioned. I couldn't not mention, not if I was not to be culpable in reinforcing that perception myself. The response was instantly knee-jerk defensive vent, and reinforced the sense that no communication was felt to be required. It was enough that the person saw it necessary to be absent. Why was it necessary to inform others also?

Personal actions, taken in a perceived vacuum with respect to their effects upon others.

The response further indicated a complete inability -- or possibly unwillingness -- to differentiate between an objection to the absence itself and what I felt was a reasonable obligation to others to say that there would be/was an absence and a consequent cancellation. The first: life happens, and plans change. The second: at least tell?

But by not differentiating, righteous defensive justification applied to one drifts easily over to the other without further thought being necessary.

Sense of community, sense of network of mutual commitments and mutual obligations. Complete absence thereof: symptom or syndrome of complete isolation therefrom?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home