by Mujeeb Rahman Department of Psychol-

ogy

WE LIVE IN an age of experts who specialize in in- formation gathering — includ- ing information on controver- sial human-moral issues. Once gathered, such information be- comes the basis of the per- ceived power of the behavioral experts to provide compassion- ate guidance to the rest of bungling humanity.

Uncritical submission to any kind of information gath-

ering has become so common-

Harassment by experts:

To begin with, it was not clear why an anonymous sur- vey needed to provide a guar- antee of confidentiality — un- less such a guarantee in the covering letter was meant as a hint /invitation/encouragement to provide names and other details. may have got taken in by such guarantees may want to remind themselves in future that such

specific Those who

information (whether on pa- per or transferred to electronic storage) in the offices of the psychology basement or else- where, is no safer that were the confidential tapes in the oval office of a US President some Yet, US Presidents and psychologists still continue to believe that there is one born

years ago.

every minute, forgetting that any leaks could be legally haz- ardous for all parties.

A similar double-bind mes- sage was repeated in the sup- plementary section of the ques- tionnaire — with almost comical overtones. Respondents were

requested to report their “most

“We may ask whether this survey may also be regarded as a social-scientific form

. of voyeurism”

place on the part of the general public and the students that we seem to stand in need of a warning similar to that which is given to the consumer: buyer beware!

Each one of us must give some independent thought to the overall cost-benefit ques- tion of any information gath- ering venture — without being awed by the scientific appear- ances of the instruments used in gathering such information. We must always ask the simple question: information for what purpose and at what human- social cost?

The Survey conducted recently by a team of psychologists at this

Sexual Harassment

University is one such infor- mation gathering project about

which we must raises some questions — besides its cost in dollars. For instance, we may ask whether this survey may also be regarded as a social- scientific form of voyeurism which, in the long run, may turn out to be an even more psychologically invasive form of harassment than its social counterpart. In other words, can such a survey be like the cure that turns out to be as bad

as the disease — if not worse?

|

memorable” experience of sex- ual harassment. Such a memo- rable experience is more likely to be about a sexual escapade; while sexual harassment would be a rather distressing expe- rience — not worthy of being remembered, but recalled only with a heavy heart. Whether or not this is a Freudian slip, it does reinforce the point that such surveys always carry the potential for becoming social- scientific forms of voyeurism. We may grant that this is sim- ply a poor choice of words — like the poor choice of many of the questions in the rest of the questionnaire.

Even a cursory examina- tion of the nature of most ques- tions shows that many simple and ordinary human relation situations, by the very fact of being questioned, stand at risk of becoming suspect in any fu- ture interactions — not only by the parties concerned but also the warmth of gossip during the One need

by those who thrive on

cold Island winters. not wonder then that, given the leading and loaded ques- tions, some percentage of peo- ple are bound to see them- selves on the receiving end of

amorous glances or advances.

“THAT AWD THE NEXT TWEN'TY-SEVEN DRWKS HAVE BEEM TAKEN

There is no use pretending that we are just discovering the fre- quency of courtship and mat- ing rituals in the hallowed halls and smoke-filled pits of higher learning. Long before Dean Martin was ‘watching all the girls go by’, ogling was a uni- versally favorite campus pas- time among both sexes — and it does not seem as if it is about to go out of fashion soon.

For instance, we all know of productive relationships on campus within and between all groups (faculty, students and staff) time, have consummated into reproductive relationships issu- ing in healthy offspring. While there is not a shred of ev-

idence that any of these in-

sex under

~— some of which, over ~

surveilla

nce |

(ppl Lf 4

MM

fy

None of this criticism is meant to downplay either the reality or the seriousness of the problem of sexual harassment on or off campus, in one or more cases. What must be questioned, however, is the ne- cessity for the quantification of a human-moral problem. In other words, if the larger pur- pose is to create a widespread awareness/consciousness of the problem of sexual harassment, it is also important to remem- ber the double-edged nature of such aware- ness/sensitization/ behavior in the hands of zealous social scien-

control techniques; tists, such instruments have the real potential of cutting the wrong way into human rela-

“Now that touching is suspect, we may look forward to psychologists selling us brand new non-sexual touching therapies.”

volved a sexual harassment component, it is impossible to rule out what the questionnaire vaguely calls “unwanted pres- sure” (for coffee, tea, or sym- pathy) in the initial courtship stages of such eventually repro- ductive relationships. Given.

the present trend, many poten-

- tially productive relationships,

which slip between the cup and

the lip (i.e. remain uncon-;

summated), may well end up

as cases of sexual harassment in which the aggrieved party wants even. Such surveys and policies, therefore, have a real manipulative potential of dis- torting social perceptions and eroding human relationships.

tionships — much as the sex- ual abuse awareness techniques for children have been reported to have cut into the bonds of trust even between inno- cent parents and children. As many have noted, psychologists seem to have a special talent for aggravating the very prob- lems for which they then pro-

_ vide their expert services — at

a reasonable cost, of course. For instance, now that touch- ing is suspect, we may look for- ward to psychologists selling us brand new non-sexual touching therapies. It is both sad and ironic that a discipline which professes to understand and al-

CARE of {”

research antics which have a potential for causing furthere distancing in human relation- ships. :

All such noble pretensions to democratize the definition and meanings of sexual harass- ment can only lead to further What is is some semantic clarification — not a pseudo-scientific sur-

confusion. needed

vey based on averaged percep- tions, pecentage opinions and quantified gossip. For instance, it is indecent to use offensive language, (despite its popular- ity on or off the Confedera- tion Center stage), when the audience shows no apprecia- tion/taste for it. Likewise, it is plain bad manners to stare at someone — suggestively or oth- erwise. However, many sucli unwanted behaviours are cases for which one solution may be to distribute such literature as Ms. Manners’ Etiquette book.

Harassment of any kind be gins only when there are el ements of relentless pressure and coercion which carry 4 threat or evidence of actual ex- ploitation or deprivation of 4 person’s benefits and rightful earnings (in cash or credits): Anything short of this remains ~a matter of poor taste and bad manners, not harassment. Bul all this can be extablished by commonsense and clear think ing — without the benefit of ' costly surveys.

Cases of real harassmet! ‘can always be covered unde a broad human rights policy: Otherwise the creation of poli cies for every specific form °

Cont. on page 14

leviate pathology indulges in_

Thur

2 RGA

sday March 10th 1988

bP Sd 8S EFAs PERE