Guerino Calemine wrote:
>
>
>
> Certainly, suffering is a main theme of Christianity. But suffering in
> Christianity is not done for the sadistic enjoyment of anyone else.
> Suffering alone does not make S/M. At least, your explanation above does
> not make that crucial connection. Is there more?
>
> Jody
> who comes from the liberation theology tradition
>
It still seems to me that any characterization of the form, "Social Group A = 'Character structure' B" is at best a trivial put-down, obviating the necessity of serious historical or theoretical analysis of content. Clearly it is bizarre to think that a remark on character structure can have any significance appled to many hundreds of millions of people -- and if it turns out to be true, that only means it is to general to have any content.
This or that psychological theory may or may not apply to the human "mind" (whatever that is), but it is clearly merely subjective game playing to think it has social or historical significant. This one in particular is so silly that it is impossible to say anything sensible either in defense or criticism of it.
There are either as many character structures has there have been, are, and will be human individuals _or_ EVERY group has sufficient numbers of every conceivable character type to make the equation silly.
Pish! Carrol
Carrol