Hope I am not too late to jump in here. Concerning the
biochemical component of abuse, physiology tells us
that nerve cells that fire together, wire together. 
If you practice something over and over again, or
experience something over and over again, a connection
of nerve cells is built up: the cells have a long term
relationship.  Long term cell relationships build
cells to form a nerve identity.  This neuron "net" is
rewired on a daily basis.  Break down the long term
cell relationship by interrupting the thought process,
and the nueron net is rewired.  Interrupt a thought
process and it produces a chemical effect or reaction
that is different than the chemical effect or reaction
of the long term cell relationship or nerve identity. 
In essence, nerve cells that don’t fire together,
don’t wire together.  

If you get angry on a daily basis, that anger neuro
net has a long term cell relationship with all other
neuro nets.  If one experiences abuse on a daily
basis, that experience forms a long term cell
relationship, a net.  Emotions reinforce chemically
the long term cell relationship, the cellular long
term memory.  If we bombard the same cell with the
same attitude and the same chemistry over and over,
when the cell divides and produces a sister cells,
that sister cell will have more receptor sites for
those particular emotional chemicals and fewer
receptors for vitamins, minerals, food exchange or
release of toxins and waste. Hence one aspect of the
"stress syndrome."  

Rewiring the brain in this sense means to  literally
reconnect the neurons in the net.  Change the mind,
change one's choices.  These chemical hanges are from
inside out.  This is one aspect of the human drama
each of us deals with in abusive situations.  
Bonnita Solberg
  

--- Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net> wrote:


> Friends--

> 

> I have been  on vacation and am now back.  I've

> missed a lot, so need 

> to  catch up.  Apologies if i am repeating something

> someone else has 

> said

> 

> The idea of abuse on a continuum might work,,

> depending on what the 

> continuum is labeled, eg, modertate severe, not at

> all...perhaps using 

> percentages.

> 

> However, there is another  dimension, and that is

> when abuse changes 

> the person biochemically;  that's a big  jump.

> 

> Because we are used (through social science lingo) 

> to thinking of 

> "variables," we are used to thinking in terms of

> "add-ons," and the 

> core self  remaining the same.  In extreme abuse the

> person, what we 

> might think of as "core self,"  is changed.

> 

> Andrea

> 

> 

> On Aug 30, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Daphne Greenberg

> wrote:

> 

> > Ryan and Andres raise very good points. I wonder

> what would happen if 

> > we

> > think of all of this as a continuum and therefore,

> realize that we have

> > all been survivors of some kind of abuse and have

> all perpetrated some

> > kind of abuse. For example, many of us as children

> have been "picked 

> > on"

> > and have done our share of "picking on others"

> > What would happen if we stopped thinking of

> survivors and perps as "the

> > other" and realize that some of that resides in

> each one of us? Would 

> > we

> > be diluting the importance and impact of severe

> abuse, or would it be a

> > step in starting to talk about abuse in the open?

> Would it help create 

> > a

> > safe classroom for our learners, or would it have

> an opposite effect?

> > Daphne

> >

> >

> >>>> "Muro, Andres" <amuro5 at epcc.edu> 8/25/2006

> 6:17:47 PM >>>

> > Ryan, taking your argument a step further, I

> wonder how many of us are

> > perps of violence too. We may be, in our efforts

> to teach and to

> > create

> > spaces for the students, crating spaces that

> perpetuate violence too.

> >

> > One thing that I usually talk about w/ teachers,

> is the fact that many

> > teachers raise their voices, or slam things once

> in a while. They may

> > not realize this, but a victim of violence will

> find this very

> > unsettling. In fact, most teachers never discuss

> domestic violence in

> > teachers prep courses. So, in a way, they are

> creating or perpetuating

> > violent spaces w/o being aware.

> >

> > Also. what is the extent to which we perpetuate

> violence by "othering"

> > (abnormalizing) certain groups. For example, do we

> use texts that only

> > represent heterosexual relationships? Do we use

> texts, or stories or

> > movies that show happy families, happy endings and

> stories ( a la

> > Cosby

> > show)? Do the literature and movies, tv shows, etc

> always portrait

> > nice

> > comfortable dwellings, people driving nice cars,

> etc. While teachers

> > may

> > not be conscious of this, they are creating

> environments that may

> > abnormalize or "other" the lifestyles of many of

> our students. Also,

> > are

> > we moody, cynical, sarcastic, quick to judge, etc.

> Many of these acts

> > can be threatening and perpetuate violence. So, to

> what extent are we

> > unconscious perpetuators of violence?

> >

> > I have, in the past, responded, cynically,

> sarcastically, w/hostility,

> > judgementally, etc in this and other listservs. In

> fact, I think that

> > they might have a file about me. In a sense, I am

> a virtual perp of

> > violence. While this may be amusing to some, I

> have talked to many

> > people that are intimidated by this medium.

> >

> > Andres

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: womenliteracy-bounces at nifl.gov

> > [mailto:womenliteracy-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf

> Of Ryan Hall

> > Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:48 AM

> > To: The Women and Literacy Discussion List

> > Subject: [WomenLiteracy 514] Re: the other

> >

> > This is a very hard question, Daphne, but one that

> I think should be

> > considered.

> >

> > I believe that we do "other" the perps of

> violence, or at least of

> > certain

> > types of violence, and I think we do so because we

> just don't want to

> > or

> > can't allow the thoughts that violent people are

> actually closer to us

> > than

> > we think. The truth is, though, that there are

> many perps of violence,

> > and

> > they do attend the classes we teach, the meetings

> we have at work, our

> > places of worship, and the gatherings we have at

> our house. Some even

> > live

> > with us. To consider all the places one shares

> with perps of violence

> > is, to

> > say the least, disturbing. Who wants to believe

> that their friend,

> > colleague, student, professor, minister, or even

> relative is connected

> > in

> > any way to violent behavior? No one, of course,

> which is why people

> > are

> > so

> > surprised to find out things like their minister

> sexually abuses

> > members

> > of

> > the congregation, or their friends beat their

> children, or that their

> > neighbor murdered or tortured someone, etc.

> >

> > I think, though, too that, just as we "other"

> survivors of violence

> > less

> > when we realize we know survivors, we would

> "other" perps less, too,

> > if

> > we

> > realized that we knew one. I think this is true

> because, when we find

> > out we

> > know a perp, we would almost instantly ask why-

> why did this person--a

> > person I consider to be such a nice person, a good

> friend, etc.--do

> > such

> > a

> > horrible thing? Usually, there is an explanation

> for the violence that

> > makes

> > us understand why, even if we can never excuse

> what was done (because

> > I'm

> > not saying violence of any sort should ever be

> excused). And, usually,

> > perps

> > of violence have either been or are still also

> victims of violence.

> >

> > Knowing that they exist is not the hard part for

> me- it's the question

> > of

> > interaction that gets me. This is what I have come

> up with after

> > having

> 

=== message truncated ===