Passive-aggressive...Is it to be avoided?

by onacruse 11 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    hs, in view of a recent post you made, and also (much more importantly) because I want to continue to learn about myself, I would appreciate your (and, of course, anyone else's) observations about the following (bolds added):

    030530.gifDear Cecil:

    What exactly does it mean to say that someone is "passive-aggressive"? I hear this term used frequently, usually with reference to a coworker, child, parent, etc, who is being a pain in the ass. Surely there's a more rigorous clinical definition than that. --Frank Caplice, Chicago

    Cecil replies:

    You might get some argument there, Frank. It's true that if you look under "passive-aggressive personality disorder" (PAPD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (the older editions--more about that below), you find the syndrome solemnly described as a "pervasive pattern of passive resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance." But once you delve into the history of the term, you realize that--at least in the eyes of its critics--it's mostly useful as a high-flown way to call someone a pain in the ass.

    The term "passive-aggressive" was introduced in a 1945 U.S. War Department technical bulletin, describing soldiers who weren't openly insubordinate but shirked duty through procrastination, willful incompetence, and so on. If you've ever served in the military during wartime, though, or for that matter read Catch-22, you realize that what the brass calls a personality disorder a grunt might call a rational strategy to avoid getting killed.

    After the war the term found its way into civilian psychiatric practice and for many years was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of the mental health trade. According to the revised third edition (DSM-III-R, 1987), someone had PAPD if he displayed five or more of the following behaviors: (1) procrastinates, (2) sulks or argues when asked to do something he doesn't want to do, (3) works inefficiently on unwanted tasks, (4) complains without justification of unreasonable demands, (5) "forgets" obligations, (6) believes he is doing a much better job than others think, (7) resents useful suggestions, (8) fails to do his share, or (9) unreasonably criticizes authority figures.

    You may say: I know a lot of people like that. Or even: I'm that way myself sometimes. Exactly the problem. From the outset skeptics argued that passive-aggressive behavior is an ordinary defensive maneuver and shouldn't be considered symptomatic of a mental disorder. Reacting to such criticism, the authors of previous versions of the DSM had defined PAPD narrowly: in DSM-III (1980), they'd said PAPD shouldn't be diagnosed in the presence of any other disorder (you can see how depression might contribute to procrastination or sulkiness, for example). The idea apparently was to curb careless use of the term--though shrinks weren't likely to say somebody was mentally ill if he was just a PITA, if he had some other psychiatric problem, they'd throw in PAPD too. Sure enough, after DSM-III diagnoses of PAPD declined sharply, to the point that some researchers felt the category should be abolished. Others, however, thought the exclusivity criterion was unnecessarily limiting and persuaded the editors of DSM-III-R to drop it. PAPD diagnoses shot back up. Conclusion: If we define PAPD rigorously, almost nobody has it; if we define it loosely, just about everybody does.

    Recognizing that the definition as then formulated wasn't working but uncertain how to fix it, the compilers of DSM-IV (1994) dumped PAPD from the list of official disorders and relegated it to an appendix. The most telling complaint, in my opinion, was that merely being passive-aggressive isn't a disorder but a behavior--sometimes a perfectly rational behavior, which lets you dodge unpleasant chores while avoiding confrontation. It's only pathological if it's a habitual, crippling response reflecting a pervasively pessimistic attitude--people who suffer from PAPD expect disappointment, and gain a sense of control over their lives by bringing it about. Some psychiatrists have suggested that PAPD be merged into a broader category, called negativistic personality disorder. Diagnostic criteria: passive-aggressive plus (a) mad at the world, (b) envious and resentful, (c) feels cheated by life, and (d) alternately hostile and clingy.

    We'll let the specialists work out the details. For now, though, we lay folk should strive to use the term "passive-aggressive" more precisely in everyday life. Say for instance that a coworker cheerfully agrees to refrain from a specified uncool act, then does it anyway. Is this passive-aggressive behavior? No, this is being an asshole. Comforting as it can be to pigeonhole our tormentors with off-the-shelf psychiatric diagnoses, sometimes it's best just to call a jerk a jerk.

    I've no doubt that other much more "professional" definitions and evaluations can be offered, but this one struck a chord within me.

    edit to add the link: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030530.html

  • wednesday
    wednesday

    i admit i did to read that entire thing, ona. but I've always heard passive aggressive best described as

    a seemingly sweet puppy pees on your foot while wagging his tale and licking you.

  • searcher
    searcher

    Passive-aggressive....ah yes, another one of those modern psychology buzz phrases.

    It seems it is now entirely possible to label almost any form of human behaviour with a psychological term, all very well if a person wants to spend all their time analysing and labeling themselves (or others).

    It is a good thing to look inward at ourselves at times, if we can honestly see ourselves then we see what others see and can understand (mostly) their reactions to us, but it is not a good thing to concentrate on the internal too much, that way almost garantees that we walk straight into the next light pole in our path.

    Labels? I have a label for myself................Steve...........its my name and its me, its all I can be.

  • FlyingHighNow
    FlyingHighNow

    Aaaaa, I just say live and let live. As long as someone isn't threatening me personally, I will do just that. If they get personal or try to hit me, I'll sock 'em in the eye.

  • changeling
    changeling

    Yes, it is to be avoided. It is not a healthy state of mind and it does not make for healthy relashionships.

    changeling

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    ON,

    I think that Passive-aggressive behavior has it's place, I use it all the time. Some people automatically think that it is alway wrong. The government definately don't like for it's citizen to display it towards thier laws, I'm all for it if you don't like a law, you think it is stupid, why not use a little Passive-aggressiveness to it, and "do not comply" with acceptable borg behavior.

    Why should we be driven by the whims of someone or something else. When people or things(governments,religions,...) encroach on us thier wills, and ways that we do not share, simply and passively don't comply, some may view it as aggressive( it is all POV really). I suppose to a army captan, police officer, and other figures of authority, and "good law abiding" citizens it appears some what aggressive.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    I think I may have read this one years ago or maybe one like it. Anyway this kinda says it like I (often)mean it:

    The term "passive-aggressive" was introduced in a 1945 U.S. War Department technical bulletin, describing soldiers who weren't openly insubordinate but shirked duty through procrastination, willful incompetence, and so on. If you've ever served in the military during wartime, though, or for that matter read Catch-22, you realize that what the brass calls a personality disorder a grunt might call a rational strategy to avoid getting killed.

    To those that want us to behave in an obediant manner to authority, comes the phrase, that can be applied to anyone not following orders. And now(today) depending on who uses it and how it is applied the meaning drifts from with no hard core authoritive definition, that in effect can be applied either to everyone or no one all depending on where one's meaning of the term drifts to.

    Does any one concider this a band of Passive-agressive members:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5293512365646289545

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    "Passive Aggressive" - lol, that phrase takes me back to my troubled teen years when my neurotic and hysterical mother was throwing every pop diagnosis in the book at me trying to figure her rebellious son out :)

    It's one of the only strategies available if you're a teen with overbearing, infantilizing parents, or a person in any similar situation. I could see where it could become so ingrained that it becomes a person's only strategy though, thus being used in situations where a different approach might be more advantageous.

  • Abandoned
    Abandoned

    I thought it was: passive aggressive = pushing buttons.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/20/131446/1.ashx

    I would add but one remark (I was thinking about this lately): paradoxically the main social function of such popular psychological labels imho is to explain disturbing behaviour away so as to leave it actually unthought. It's got a name, it's in a box, it's no longer a question, I don't need to wonder about it anymore, let alone be influenced by it.

    From the traditional moral flaws (laziness, stubbornness, rebelliousness, etc.) to the modern psychological taxonomy (with fuzzy notions like "dysfunctional" or "passive-agressive" and specific issues like the "Stockholm syndrome"), the point is the self-justification of the social norm and especially its authority system. Either you "function" or you must be (at least conceptually) set aside; you just can't be allowed to stand in the way of the "functioning" mainstream.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit