What Gifts Are We Really Giving To Elián González

Elián Gonzalez reunification crisis with his father

Chicago—- mark a. Rogers, M.S., M.A., Psy.D. a clinical consultant to Jeffrey M. Leving, a nationally renowned attorney and pioneer of fathers’ rights who is representing in federal court Elián’s great uncle Manuel Gonzalez the only relative supporting reunification with Elián’s father have released a written argument in response to the current international tug-of-war crisis underway with this Federal INS case.

This argument can be reprinted in full or quoted as source material in print and media coverage of this Federal INS case.

-End-

What Gifts Are We Really Giving To Elián González?

Mark A. Rogers, M.S., M.A., Psy.D. Jeffrey M. Leving, Esq.

Honisa Behavioral Treatment Centers, Inc. Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Leving, Ltd.

Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois

Elián’s saga and his made for T.V. drama help to illuminate why this little Cuban boy has become so many T-shirts and so many banners for so many peoples in our family of cultures vying for their right to reality. What Elián woke up to face in his hospital bed was a reality he has never experienced before in his life. And this reality was one that he never imagined he would have to face in the course of his lifespan.

We must specifically ask Diane Sawyer, Messrs. Eig, Bernstein and Osberg-Braun, U.S. Representative Dan Burton, and now retired U.S. Senator Connie Mack, and the entourage of all the others who claim they speak for Elián, what punitive complicity, what liability do they have in what is happening cognitively, emotionally, physically, psychologically, and spiritually to the normalcy of this boy? Edward de Bono reminds us, “We can always defend our existing thinking culture because, fundamentally, it is a particular belief system based on concepts of truth and logic.” De Bono argues that “the arrogance of logic means that if we have a logically impeccable argument then we must be right¾I am right¾you are wrong.” These logic systems sustain themselves through language, and as de Bono reminds us, create and crystallize “perceptions that are crude and polarized¾of the ‘right/wrong’ and ‘us/them’ type. Logic cannot change beliefs and prejudices but can be used to reinforce them and solidify the perceptions.”

Why has this little boy, Elián González, become so different, so unusual, and so unconventional from all of the rest of our children in our global family of cultures vying for their right to reality? Why is Khalil Shanti, a 2-year old Jordanian boy who was recently quietly ordered home, not as different, not as unusual, and not as unconventional as Elián González? Why must Elián be used as a particular flavor of logic that does not change beliefs and prejudices, but in reality is being exploited to reinforce and solidify these perceptions?

The expansive growth of our mass media has intruded on our personal space and forced us all to enter into and participate in unseen worlds. The neurotic frenzy of our mass media, the galling sense of entitlement of the power brokers who influence this medium, and the input that they fiercely target market to our psyche collectively result in the conscious or dubious unconscious exploitation of others.

Diane Sawyer’s interview with Elián was nothing short of psychological and political exploitation of an innocent and helpless victim who is caught in the middle of an international tug-of-war. What was she thinking when she considered doing and then agreed to conduct this interview with Elián? Was it ratings and increasing the number of household viewers for Good Morning America? This was some good morning America to push on us, wasn’t it?

To add further insult to us, an ABC spokesman argued that the network’s broadcast of Elián stating he didn’t want to go back to Cuba was not a contradiction “because Good Morning America host Sawyer’s translation of Elián’s words is heard on the audio tape instead of Elián speaking. ABC spokeswoman Eileen Murphy stated, “I don’t think we said one thing one day and did one thing the next.” She went on to argue that having Sawyer’s voice superimposed over Elián’s, ABC believed the footage could not be used for political purposes.

Oh, please! What do you take us for! We just got done listening for endless months on your finger pointing and accusations of how the President of the United States was engaging in semantics and parsing his words to defend his concepts of truth and logic. Who’s calling the kettle black here? Diane Sawyer, Eileen Murphy, and ABC get a life! Your dubious unconscious exploitation of Elián was ill conceived, potentially harmful to Elián’s present emotional and psychological well being, and most undoubtedly self-serving.

ABC’s rush to capitalize on this ordeal and ignore in-depth research and analysis of the underpinning issues at stake in this crisis served only to exacerbate the situation and demonstrate to us all that ABC too is as lost as Elián. Why should we trust Diane Sawyer when she has no more knowledge about Elián’s reality conditions or skill with managing transitions than we do? Why should we trust her when she has as little experience as Elián or us with managing the uncertainty that awaits Elián or us in this transitional landscape, and with charting a pathway to solid ground on the other side? Did ABC, Eileen Murphy, or Diane Sawyer bother to consider what Norberto Santana, Jr. wrote in his article posted on 13 January 2000 on IntellectualCapital.com?

Santana argued that for Cubans who live on both sides of the Florida Straights, “suitcases and rafts have become symbols of the cruel choices that hundreds of thousands of families have been forced to make for decades.” He also added that from the onset of the early 1960s when innumerous young children were placed alone on the “Peter Pan” flights to the U.S. through the 1980s when countless others took to rafts, “the theme of family separation has become embedded within the Cuban culture.” Thanks ABC, Eileen Murphy, and Diane Sawyer for making this situation even more problematic with your dubious unconscious exploitation of Elián. No matter what you try to say, no matter how you try to spin this, your semantics and your parsing of words to defend your concepts of truth and logic cannot excuse your insensitivity and ignorance of Cubans’ dilemma with “suitcases and rafts.” All of you owe the world an apology. And this exploitative interview was nothing short of what they used to refer to as “Yellow Page Journalism.”

Putting aside what ABC and Diane Sawyer could not, the politics, the ideology, and the immigration policies for the moment, this international tug-of-war and best interests of the child debate is far more sinister than most of us realize. And these issues should give us all great pause. Why is it that fathers in the U.S., and now it seems everywhere in our global family of cultures, have to prove they are fit, subject themselves to second-class citizenship and gender bias on innumerous levels, while the motherhood mystique, while mothers for that matter, enjoy our instant support in the fabric of every layer of our cultural norms and roles, our societal institutions, and the judiciary framework of the domestic relations courts? Are we really prepared for the outcome of all of this?

Why must we construct so many conditions and constraints on Juan Miguel González and his fatherhood during this tug-of-war? Why is it so impossible for us to see how this is forcing him to struggle, even punishing him with having to adapt to chaotic situations across time and circumstance. These obstacles are a nemesis on Elián and Juan Miguel and a nemesis as Carol Gilligan argues “on fostering love between the generations in a way that attends to the deep and abiding needs that children of all ages have to be knit together with previous generations.”

No amount of material possessions Elián may acquire in the United States can take the place of his father. Many mental health professionals from many different countries argue that the potential loss of both of Elián’s parents will affect negatively his cognitive, emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual well being.

Elián like most 6-year old children is busy building cognitive schemas that are organized ways of thinking about the world through his interactions with his environment. In what is known as assimilation, Elián is busy incorporating and interpreting new information in terms of his existing schemas. What have people like Diane Sawyer, Messrs. Eig, Bernstein and Osberg-Braun, U.S. Representative Dan Burton, and now retired U.S. Senator Connie Mack, and the entourage of all the others who claim they speak for Elián, been doing to help him assimilate new information into his existing schemas?

In accommodation, Elián’s schemas are modified to take into account newly understood properties of objects. So we all should believe that Diane Sawyer’s interview, intrusive reporters and cameramen and women in Elián’s bedroom, and the entourage of all the others who claim they speak for Elián, are helping him to modify his schemas to take into account the manic onslaught of incoming properties bombarding him? How can he be expected to do this when the adults around him, including Joe Carrollo, Mayor of Miami, Alex Penelas, Mayor of Miami-Dade County and other Mayors in the region, seem to be having problems with assimilation and accommodation regarding this crisis?

What Diane Sawyer most particularly, and also the entourage of all the others who claim they speak for Elián are obviously overlooking is something called egocentrism, which Elián like most children 2 to 7-years old must contend with in their development. Egocentrism is reflected in children’s inability to understand that others do not experience the world in the same way they do. Magical thinking is common in children Elián’s age and reflects the erroneous belief that someone has control over objects or events. Animism also is common in children Elián’s age and it reflects the belief that objects have thoughts, feelings, and other lifelike qualities. Children who are Elián’s age often are unable to conserve or understand that the underlying properties of an object may not change even when its physical appearance does. Children who are Elián’s age have the tendency to focus on one detail of a situation to the neglect of other important features and often are unable to understand that actions can be reversed. Any opinions or testimony that Elián may give regarding his future in the U.S., or living arrangement preferences that he may have given in Sawyer’s interview with him, could be clouded by a psychological type of brainwashing, and at the least these opinions and testimony have to be suspect.

This international tug-of-war with so many people claiming to speak for Elián, or like Diane Sawyer in her interview with him where she was compelled to translate his speech, cannot be apathetically tolerated any longer because these people who assert that they are speaking for him are profoundly influencing his well being and his right to reality. They cannot be allowed to side step their complicity, their liability as a contributor in the manifestation of spreading a chill over the love between the generations and the generative legacy Elián will have to inherit and incorporate into his lifespan. The chilling behavior of these individuals who claim they represent or speak for Elián, whether it originates from negligence or a belief that they are the bastions for preserving the legal, narrow interpretation of the best interest of the child standard, what will be their generative gift to Elián and Juan Miguel?

We are left then with one final question, What Gifts Are We Really Giving To Elián González?