Relying upon real life examples of human suffering--including torture, genocide, and warfare--as opposed to thought experiments, Corbi proposes a novel approach to self-knowledge that runs counter to standard Kantian approaches to morality.
As the twentieth century draws to a close and the rush to globalization gathers momentum, political and economic considerations are crowding out vital ethical questions about the shape of our future. Now, Hans Kung, one of the world's preeminent Christian theologians, explores these issues in a visionary and cautionary look at the coming global society. How can the new world order of the twenty first century avoid the horrors of the twentieth? Will nations form a real community or continue (...) to aggressively pursue their own interests? Will the Machiavellian approaches of the past prevail over idealism and a more humanitarian politics? What role can religion play in a world increasingly dominated by transnational corporations? Kung tackles these and many other questions with the insight and moral authority that comes from a lifetime's devotion to the search for justice and human dignity. Arguing against both an amoral realpolitik and an immoral resurgence of laissez faire economics, Kung defines a comprehensive ethicfounded on the bedrock of mutual respect and humane treatment of all beingsthat would encompass the ecological, legal, technological, and social patterns that are reshaping civilization. If we are going to have a global economy, a global technology, a global media, Kung argues, we must also have a global ethic to which all nations, and peoples of the most varied backgrounds and beliefs, can commit themselves. "The world," he says, "is not going to be held together by the Internet." For anyone concerned about the world we are creating, A Global Ethic for Global Politics and Economics offers equal measures of informed analysis, compassionate foresight, and wise counsel. (shrink)
This article examines Adam Smith’s views on animals, centering on the singularity of his economic perspective in the context of the general early ethical debate about animals. Particular emphasis is placed on his discussions of animals as property. The article highlights the tension between Smith’s moral sensitivity to animal suffering on the one hand, and his emphasis on the constitutive role that the utilization of animals played in the progress of civilization on the other. This tension is depicted (...) as a precursor of problematic aspects of the modern environmental crisis. (shrink)
Western civilization has probably reached an impasse, expressed as a crisis on all fronts: economic, technological, environmental and political. This is experienced on the cultural level as a moral crisis or an ethical deficit. Somehow, the means we have always assumed as being adequate to the task of achieving human welfare, health and peace, are failing us. Have we lost sight of the primacy of human ends? Governments still push for economic growth and technological advances, but many are (...) now asking: economic growth for what, technology for what? Health care and nursing are caught up in the same inversion of human priorities. Professionals, such as nurses and midwives, need to take on social responsibilities and a collective civic voice, and play their part in a moral regeneration of society. This involves carrying civic rights and duties into the workplace. (shrink)
This important Manifesto argues that we still need a concept of society in order to make sense of the forces which structure our lives. Written by leading social theorist William Outhwaite Asks if the notion of society is relevant in the twenty-first century Goes to the heart of contemporary social and political debate Examines critiques of the concept of society from neoliberals, postmodernists, and globalization theorists.
I examine Michael Oakeshott's theory of modes of experience in light of today's evolution debates and argue that in much of our current debate science and religion irrelevantly attack each other or, less commonly but still irrelevantly, seek out support from the other. An analysis of Oakeshott's idea of religion finds links between his early holistic theory of the state, his individualistic account of religious sensibility, and his theory of political, moral, and religious authority. Such analysis shows that a (...)modern individualistic theory of the state need not be barrenly secular and suggests that a religious sensibility need not be translated into an overmastering desire to use state power to pursue moral or spiritual ends in politics. Finally, Oakeshott's vision of a civil conversation, as both a metaphor for Western civilization and as a quasi-ethical ideal, shows us how we might balance the recognition of diverse modal truths, the pursuit of singular religious or philosophic truth, and a free political order. (shrink)
This is the first comprehensive study of the political philosophy of the British philosopher R. G. Collingwood, best known for his contributions to aesthetics and the philosophy of history. However his political thought, and in particular his book The New Leviathan, have been neglected, even dismissed in some quarters. Professor Boucher argues for the importance of this political theory and provides a perspicuous account of its development and originality. He contends that The New Leviathan is an attempt to reconcile philosophy (...) and history, theory and practice. Collingwood's distinctive contribution to modern political and social thought is seen as his sustained project of distinguishing utility from right, and right from duty; the passion for history coincides with the ethical thought because Collingwood wishes to identify dutiful, or moral, action with a historical civilization. Drawing on a wealth of manuscript material, this book will prove invaluable to political philosophers and intellectual historians. (shrink)
By now this essay has accumulated over twenty alleged meanings, senses, or aspects of reification; there seems not much point in listing them. Well, maybe, in a footnote: 1) Misapprehending a human relationship as a thing (Lukács); 2) Recognizing what had been taken for a human relationship as a thing (implicit in O.E.D.); 3) The coming into being of a world of commodities and their movements on the market (Lukács); 4) Realizing a “mental image” in an artifact (Arendt); 5) (...) Forming a mind in such a way that it tends to take human relationships for things (Lukács); 6) Misapprehending a person as a thing, in the sense of denying capacity for agency (O.E.D., Lukács, Berger and Luckmann); 7) Misapprehending a person as a thing, in the sense of denying moral status (O.E.D., Lukács, Berger and Luckmann); 8) Recognizing as a thing what had been mistaken for a person (O.E.D.); 9) and 10) (Mis)apprehending an abstraction as a person (Lukács, possibly Berger and Luckmann); 11) Misapprehending an abstraction (abstract concept?) as a thing (O.E.D., Woodard, Quine); 12) Recognizing as a thing what had been mistaken for an abstraction (abstract concept?) (implicit in O.E.D., Quine); 13) Misapprehending an abstraction as real (Woodard); 14) Deciding what is real (Quine); 15) and 16) (Mis)apprehending something humanly made as natural (Berger and Luckmann, probably Lukács); 17) and 18) (Mis)apprehending temporary or contingent regularities as eternal, universal laws (Marx on fetishism, possibly Lukács, possibly Berger and Luckmann); 19) and 20) (Mis)apprehending human conventions as sacred (Lukács, Berger and Luckmann); 21) and 22) (Mis)apprehending what is humanly changeable as humanly unchangeable (Lukács, Berger and Luckmann). If one further divides each of these categories between the reification of inhabituation and that of naiveté, their number will double. But perhaps that distinction will not actually fit all of them; I have not pursued the matter. Some of them are mutually consistent, almost overlapping; others are incompatible. Some are in accord with the dictionary definition, others not. With some, the sense in which some entity is being converted into a res is evident; with others, try as I might, I cannot find such a sense. The dictionary entry itself is rather slipshod, and interpreters have expanded the term's meaning almost indefinitely beyond it. The main ways in which Lukács and Berger and Luckmann use the word do not fit into the dictionary definition at all. They make the meaning of reification dependent on concepts like “can” and “could” that are themselves heavily dependent on the particular context of their use. Lukács's and Berger and Luckmann's discussions are confusing and very probably confused. The whole thing is a swamp. Can this concept be saved? And should it?Within the limits of the dictionary definition, the concept does its work well enough. When Stephen Gould, say, criticizes psychologists for reifying intelligence by assuming that the I.Q. test must be testing something, he and the concept perform a clear and useful function. Stephen Gould, The Mismeasurement of Man (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981). But if the main concerns are those of Lukács and Berger and Luckmann, in my opinion the term mystifies more than it reveals. Their concerns could be accommodated within the dictionary definition as reification of persons, in the sense of denying people's capacity for agency. But although Lukács and Berger and Luckmann do occasionally use the word this way, for the most part they do not. So articulating their concerns within this sense of the word would require extensive rewriting of their arguments. Would political theorists who share those concerns not do better to abandon the concept? I would unhesitatingly advise it, except for one, crucial consideration. There really is something going on among us that we urgently need to think and talk about, and that Lukács's and Berger and Luckmann's conceptions of reification were meant to address. People do feel trapped, in a way that makes Kafka's little fable so perfectly emblematic for our experience. Despite the prevalence in modern society of all of Berger and Luckmann's “social circumstances that favor dereification”, very many people do feel helpless to influence the conditions that constrain their lives. Millions of Americans turn their backs on politics, judging that engagement in it would make no significant difference. Millions of members of the underclass feel worthless - though also filled with diffuse rage - because society seems to have no use for them. Almost all of us function in large organizational systems, whether as parts of the machinery or materials being processed, and have learned to take that condition for granted. We function within an economy that depends on a system of international banking and finance that everyone knows to be in constant danger of collapse. Almost all of us submit without question to the “technological imperative” that daily exhausts our resources, destroys our health, and poisons the earth. And we march like sleepwalkers down the road marked “deterrence” and “nonproliferation,” toward nuclear doom. A few of these “dangers” might actually be blessings for those now exploited and oppressed, but most would be clear and unmitigated disasters. Even Marxists must now take seriously the possibility that the owners of the earth might destroy it rather than give it up. Experts and critics offer various diagnoses of our condition, but whatever measures are actually taken to treat it seem only to make it worse. This familiar litany of troubles suggests a malaise far too extensive and too grave for the powers of political prudence. When a society, or an entire civilization, or even the whole human species seems bent on self-destruction, one suspects systematic, pervasive, fundamental derangement in people's patterns of both thought and conduct. Calling on political prudence here is almost bound to mean calling for “more of the same”. Here what is needed is a more basic realignment of assumptions, of the sort that has traditionally been associated with great political theory.Wading through the dismal swamp of reification theory, as this essay does, can leave one feeling that such concepts, and political theory itself, are hopelessly abstracted from reality and of no practical use in relation to our urgent political problems, so that political prudence is the only hope. But political reality itself, and the prudence by which gifted actors know how to move within it, always presuppose and depend on theoretical frameworks - if not self-conscious, deliberate theorizing, then unexamined, inherited theory or, more likely, fragments of theories that may well be outdated or mutually inconsistent. So if we seem today bereft of political prudence and judgment, close to our wits' end, that may be because our wits are operating out of such incoherent fragments of inherited assumptions.The message to be derived from the familiar litany of our troubles and our sleepwalking, then, is not the familiar exhortation to, “For God's sake, do something before it is too late!” For while we may feel inert, we are already doing something - a lot of things - and they are the source of our troubles. Like Kafka's mouse, we run and run. Berger and Luckmann's and Lukács's concept of reification was meant to address precisely those troubles that are the large-scale outcome of our myriad activities, sustained and enlarged by nothing more than what we do. The problem is how to stop, how to do something else, what else to do.That is a problem as much for thought as for action, a problem for action informed and empowered by new thought. Part of the value of Berger and Luckmann's - and even more of Lukács's - discussion of reification is that they tried to provide a general theory of the nature and roots of our condition, orienting us to likely avenues for action, feasible ways and means, probable allies and opponents. Their efforts, this essay has argued, were confused and deeply flawed. The concept of reification is probably not a good tool for the job, and bad tools mean sloppy work. But better sloppy work with a bad tool than no work at all. Those of us who persist in reaching for the word “reification” as a tool should probably employ greater care. We should require ourselves to specify in each case precisely what we mean, and attend to whether and how our various meanings in various contexts are interrelated. But whether we revise the concept of reification, or abandon it, or just let it continue to slop along in its present state of dishevelment doesn't much matter. What matters is that we continue to think - hard and critically, theoretically and politically - about the conditions that Lukács and Berger and Luckmann were trying to address.Our thinking here must be simultaneously theoretical and political: theoretical in the sense of radical, cutting through conventions and cliches to the real roots of our troubles, seeing social arrangements large-scale and long-range, as if from the outside, which may be what Lukács meant by “intending totality.” Lukács, “Verdinglichung,” 303, 297; “Reification,” 174, 169. Yet the thinking must also be political, in the sense of oriented to action, practical, speaking in a meaningful way to those capable of making the necessary changes, those Lukács called “the ‘we’ of genesis.”Lukács, “Verdinglichung,” 267; “Reification,” 149. For Lukács, of course, that meant the proletariat. But one need not be a Marxist to see the need for locating such a “we,” and the point of seeking it among those with an objective interest in the right sort of change and the potential power to bring it about. The aim is not some new doctrine to save us from ourselves, but a transformed way of seeing what we already tacitly know and do, which restores us to our real world - the “concrete here and now,” as Lukács puts it - and our real, living selves, including our capacities for action. That would mean not some access to mysterious, infinite powers, but the appropriation of our actual powers, recognizing the present moment as “the moment of decision, the moment of the birth of the new,” as Lukács says, out of which we jointly “make the future.”Lukács, “Verdinglichung,” 348; “Reification,” 203–204. That is no return to Hegelian idealism, but a recovery of the practical, political Marx. Thinking both theoretically and politically in this way is no easy task; indeed, it is almost a contradiction in terms. Yet it may well be our best hope, and the world is in a hurry. Despite all of the political and philosophical difficulties, unless we undertake this task we may well guarantee our own entrapment, assuring that we will end up like Kafka's mouse, rather than human and free. (shrink)
RESUMO Hans Jonas na obra O Princípio Responsabilidade: ensaio de uma ética para a civilização tecnológica (2006 ) apresenta o diagnóstico de uma civilização debilitada e perecível, constantemente ameaçada pelos poderes do homem tecnológico. De posse desta análise, constrói uma proposta no sentido de novas fundações para o edifício ético a partir de uma responsabilidade. Jonas constata o caráter antropocêntrico de uma ética que não abrangia as consequências dos impactos oriundas da ação humana sobre o homem e a vida na (...) biosfera. Em seu ideário filosófico sobre a civilização tecnológica, estende as atitudes dos homens para além do agir próximo, reconhecendo um direito próprio da natureza. A recolocação conceitual da natureza, dotada de finalidade própria, expressa que o poder tecnológico promove os desafios morais da contemporaneidade, visto que há a possibilidade certa (causas) e incerta (consequências) de os efeitos acumulativos desta mesma tecnologia pôr em perigo a continuidade futura da vida sobre o planeta. O imperativo da responsabilidade resulta do poder do homem contemporâneo sobre si e sobre o planeta. Caracteriza-se por ser uma responsabilidade perante a natureza e perante o próprio homem. A concepção de responsabilidade em Jonas está em conformidade com uma nova exigência axiológica. É uma responsabilidade que se firma com a preservação da vida em um futuro distante e com a continuidade da vida tal como conhecemos. O que justifica um pretenso biocentrismo no princípio responsabilidade é o fato de que a continuidade da existência gera uma obrigação com a vida, porque dizer sim a ela é ser. O grande objetivo de uma nova abordagem biocêntrica, como o imperativo de Jonas, é de manter a existência da humanidade futura, em um futuro que existam candidatos a um universo moral em um mundo concreto – o autêntico objetivo da responsabilidade.: Hans Jonas in the book The imperative of the responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age (2006 ) presents a diagnosis of a civilization weakened and perish, constantly threatened by the powers of technological man. Armed with this analysis, a proposal to build new foundations for the building from an ethical responsibility. Jonas notes the character of an anthropocentric ethic that did not cover the consequences of impacts arising from human action on man and life in the biosphere. In his philosophical ideas on the technological civilization extends men's attitudes beyond the next act, recognizing an inherent right of nature. The replacement of the conceptual nature, with its own purpose, expressed that technological power promote the moral challenges of contemporary times, since there is a certain possibility (causes) and uncertain (consequences) of the cumulative effects of this same technology to jeopardize the continued future life on the planet. The imperative of responsibility results from the power of modern man about himself and the planet. It is characterized by being a responsibility to nature and to the man himself. The conception of responsibility in Jonas is in accordance with a new demand axiological. It is a responsibility that is established with the preservation of life in the distant future and the continuity of life as we know. What justifies a purported biocentrism the principle responsibility is the fact that the continued existence creates a bond with life, because she is saying yes to be. The ultimate goal of a new approach biocentric, as the imperative of Jonas, is to maintain the existence of mankind in the future, a future in which there are candidates for a moral universe in a concrete world - the real goal of the responsibility. Keywords : the imperative of responsibility, demand axiological, nature, biocentrism. (shrink)
Yin Haiguang’s investigation and pursuit of the idea of “Man” reflect not merely a limited historical or parochial academic interest, but indeed address an ultimate concern of humanity which transcends any spatio-temporal limitations. In criticizing “modern man” for its faceless and non-self-identical figure, Yin Haiguang brings the conditions, purposes and noble values of humanity to light. His work has extraordinary significance for the highest aims of humanity and civilization.
We face two great probems of learning: learning about the universe and about ourselves as a part of the universe, and learning how to create world civilization. We have solved the first problem, but not the second. We need to learn from our solution to the first problem how to solve the second. That involves getting clear about the nature of the progress-achieving methods of science, generalizing these methods so that they become fruitfully applicable to any problematic endeavour, and then (...) getting these generalized progress-acheving methods into all our other institutions besides science, and above all into the endeavour to make progress towards a good, civilized world. This article spells out what this programme involves. (shrink)
Modern educational thoughts have made a powerful impact on civilized persons. The learner is a partner in the process of learning in our age. He is a disciple and is going to be a consumer as well as customer. There is a shift from education as a means of welfare and awareness to commercialization of education. In this background, Professional Ethics is partly comprised of what a professional should or should not do in the work -place. It also encompasses (...) a much greater part of the professional’s life. If a professional is to have ethics then that person needs to adopt that conduct in all of his dealings. Another aspect of this is the enhancement of the profession and the industry within which the professional works. It concerns a professional’s conduct and behaviour while carrying out their professional work that is work for the good of the community and mankind. In this paper it is an attempt to draw out a relation between Professional Ethics and Morality. (shrink)
This paper aims to clarify the nature and contents of 'civil ethics' and the source of the binding force of its obligations. This ethics should provide the criteria for evaluating the moral validity of social, legal and morally valid law. The article starts with observing that in morally pluralist Western societies civil ethics already exists, and has gradually started to play the role of guiding the law. It is argued that civil ethics should not be conceived as 'civic morals' (...) which is in fact rather 'state ethics', nor as 'public ethics' which is said to reach its perfection when it becomes law, nor as ethics applicable primarily to the basic structure of a society (political liberalism), but instead as a citizens' ethics. Subsequently the paper attempts to show what the contents of this ethics are, and which ethical theory would be able to ground its obligations. (shrink)
The main philosophical question of the contemporaneity consists in that how far mankind is capable to change "direction of development" and to provide itself a Sustainable Future. Today it is obvious that any planetary actions driven by values of modern technocratic (material) civilization assume great risk and can lead tothe global ecological catastrophe. Consequently, the search for new values of civilization development has a truly decisive importance for man and mankind. In our opinion, Sustainable Development and Environmental Ethics are (...) the main components of a new value paradigm of civilization’s transformation. To emphasize fundamental novelty of the above-named value basics of a future civilization and its alternative character with respect to the modern technocraticculture, we introduce the concept of "ecological civilization". We imagine the ecological civilization as the ideal form of integrity preservation of the Whole-Life-System with a view to provide sustainable future for mankind. This is spiritually oriented and highly moral society because the ecological imperative, as a matter of fact, coincides with the ideal of spirituality. We connect prospects of ecological (spiritual) civilization with forming of planetary value consciousness on principles of Environmental Ethics. (shrink)
The article defends the view that the role of traditional religions in civilization is ambiguous—at once positive and negative. Religions teach their faithful basic ethics, but they do it in an authoritative manner without consideration for the moral autonomy of the conscience nor the situational aspects of moral choices. They propagate “soft” social attitudes like forgiveness, compassion and peace but are also a frequent source of serious conflicts. The author seeks the reasons behind the dissonances which religion (...) brings into civilization. (shrink)
This paper examines Taylor's moral realism in the light of his criticisms of 'our subjectivist civilization'. I argue that his work is valuable in its stress on the link between identity and moral judgement and its picture of human beings as 'strong evaluators', but I dispute that these considerations lead to moral realism if this is taken to include a claim to truth. Specifically, I argue that Taylor's 'Best Account' principle may generate radical inconsistency and his depiction (...) of practical reason does not lead to any hope of convergence. His own theism serves to illustrate these difficulties. Key Words: ethics identity modernity Taylor truth. (shrink)
This paper presents a challenge to Eurocentric world history on the grounds that it reifies and exaggerates the role of the West in the creation of modernity, while simultaneously ignoring India's seminal contributions. The groundwork is prepared in the first three sections, which refute the parochial biases of Eurocentrism by revealing India's impressive early developmental record and its place near the center of a nascent global economy. The paper culminates in an approach that places the "dialogue of civilizations" center-stage of (...) progressive world history, which is formulated as an antidote to parochial Eurocentric world history. This entails an extensive discussion of two key contributions that India made in enabling the rise of the modern West. These comprise the dissemination of Indian industrial methods that enabled the British industrial revolution on the one hand, and the transmission of Indian mathematical ideas that helped promote the European scientific revolution on the other hand. Moreover, this discussion is coupled with two speculative counterfactual historical scenarios. They are: first, that in the absence of British imperialism which sought to "contain" Indian development, India might have gone on to make the breakthrough to modernity, and second, that in the absence of Indian (as well as Chinese, African and Middle Eastern) help, the West might not have made the breakthrough to modernity. But whatever the veracity of such counterfactuals may or may not be, the ultimate upshot of the argument presented in this paper reveals that Eurocentrism's central claim - that the West made the breakthrough to modernity all by itself - can no longer hold true. (shrink)
Modern scientific, academic inquiry suffers from a serious, wholesale fundamental defect. Though very successful at improving specialized scientific knowledge and technological know-how, it is an intellectual and human disaster when it comes to helping us realize what is of value in life - in particlar, when it comes to helping us create a more enlightened, civilized world.
This book is the first full length account of the significance of MacIntyre's work for the social sciences. MacIntyre's moral philosophy is shown to provide the resources for a powerful critique of liberalism. His discussion of the managerist and emotivist roots of modern culture is seen as the inspiration for a critical social science of Modernity.
In all his dialogues, the aim of Daisaku Ikeda has been to find a meeting point for the great traditions of East and West. As spiritual leader of an international lay Buddhist movement with eleven million followers, he is a knowledgeable spokesman for the Asian tradition. And in his partner in this latest dialogue - educationalist and philosopher Josef Derbolav - he has found a wise and accomplished voice from the West. The two men explore a wide range of topics, (...) beginning with a discussion of the tension between tradition and modernity in Japan and elsewhere. They go on to compare humanism in East and West, the role in society of ethics and religion, and the encounter between Christianity and Buddhism. Focusing on the central topic of education, and the business of changing attitudes and minds, their discussion zeroes in on concrete problems and issues: education and political authority; absenteeism and violence in schools; and juvenile delinquency. The dialogue concludes with a reflection on the future for the human race, looking to an inner revolution - a radical alteration in our way of thinking - which will conquer the daunting problems currently facing the planet and its people. (shrink)
Contemporary liberal thinkers commonly suppose that there is something in principle unjust about the legal prohibition of putatively victimless crimes. Here Robert P. George defends the traditional justification of morals legislation against criticisms advanced by leading liberal theorists. He argues that such legislation can play a legitimate role in maintaining a moral environment conducive to virtue and inhospitable to at least some forms of vice. Among the liberal critics of morals legislation whose views George considers are Ronald Dworkin, Jeremy (...) Waldron, David A.J. Richards, and Joseph Raz. He also considers the influential modern justification for morals legislation offered by Patrick Devlin as an alternative to the traditional approach. George closes with a sketch of a "pluralistic perfectionist" theory of civil liberties and public morality, showing that it is fully compatible with a defense of morals legislation. Making Men Moral will interest legal scholars and political theorists as well as theologians and philosophers focusing on questions of social justice and political morality. (shrink)
This book places under sustained scrutiny some of our most basic modern assumptions about inheritance, genealogy, blood relations, and racial categories. It has at its core a deceptively simple question, one too often taken for granted: what constitutes good bonds among humans, and what compels us to determine them so across generations as both a physical and a metaphysical attribute? Answering this question is complex and involves a foray into a seemingly disparate array of early modern sources: from (...) adages, common law, and literature about bloodlines and bastardy to philosophical, political, and scientific discourses that both confirm and confound the common sense of familial, communal, national, and racial identity. (shrink)
Did people in early modern Europe have a concept of an inner self? Carla Mazzio and Douglas Trevor have brought together an outstanding group of literary, cultural, and history scholars to answer this intriguing question. Through a synthesis of historicism and psychoanalytic criticism, the contributors explore the complicated, nuanced, and often surprising union of history and subjectivity in Europe centuries before psychoanalytic theory. Addressing such topics as "fetishes and Renaissances," "the cartographic unconscious," and "the topographic imaginary," these essays move (...) beyond the strict boundaries of historicism and psychoanalysis to carve out new histories of interiority in early modern Europe. Contributors: Ann Rosalind Jones, Peter Stallybrass, James R. Siemon, John Guillory, Eric Wilson, Karen Newman, Tom Conley, Jeffrey Masten, Carla Mazzio, Katharine Eisaman Maus, Jonathan Goldberg, Douglas Trevor, Kathryn Schwarz, David Hillman, Marjorie Garber. (shrink)