Justifiable Anger Management – Five Ways Forward
J.A.M has been developed by Jim Bagnall during and through his support for over 10,000 Fathers and a few Mothers going through the Family Court.
The word justifiable applies to the context of the anger and its source and does not glorify anger in anyway. Justifiable is a word for an acceptance of that person’s anger.
The Pay/Fight back scale provides a framework and a structure in which anger exists and an explanation both to the angry person and their helper of how both the energy from the anger can be used and how a person can use the scale not only for understanding their anger but for analysis and action to combat their role deletion.
The scale usually should be read or listened to from its base which starts out with description at the Instinctual level and then moves up through anger’s mind treadmills and obsessions to a social level and a place where a person can find outlets for his/her analysis of where he/she is at.
At the top of the scale there is a place where standards are reshaped through analysis and where a re formed identity is realized and a higher justification is reached based on valuing people and a just outcome giving new strength through adversity.
Contact Jim Bagnall for J.A.M
I would be keen to know more about this work.
Are you familiar with the work of John Hamel (States I think) and
DennisDonald Dutton from Canada? They have some interesting stuff which is much more father (male) freindly and balanced.
No allan, I am notfamiliar with John Hamel or Dennis Dutton
good to read your writing for the first time!
In point 3 you establish that anger is the criteria of observation through to point 5 where you establish that its manifestation can be utilised. Point 4: (effectively the journey), in my reading of what you have written, therefore becomes the territory of concession and subsequently, in order to achieve any reduction to conflict, the area open to the subject and the observer metting eachother to mutual benefit.
If that is a fair observation then I perceive you are left with two conditions that are unexplained. The first is that in order to achieve concession the benefit has to be reflective and not deflective. That is to say that both (or however many parties are involved on how ever many levels being challenged) need to be aclimatised to the same process valuing the same set of rules in order to achieve mutuality. The second is that the nature versus nurture debate is qualified with your phrase “treadmills and obsessions”. They appear in the fourth point: I presume for rise to the conflict rather than whether or not they exist. That being the case it becomes a good model because it can calculate this major barrier as if it does not exist and a person’s primary behaviours do not need to be navigated as if they are the cause to the problem. They are a symptom of the condition.
So my first point is then the one I ask you to consider and its reflection in what you have said. Both parties; or as many parties that exist to the exercise need to be directly undertaking the same set of tasks.
This gives rise to a third point. The rules to manage that mutual connection seeking unity and I do believe it requires a rule. Which off the top of my head is tolerance. If this logic is followed you arrive at a question – two if you can be tolrant with my reply. Will your project work only if it is directed to a principle of tolerance? And how when the thresholds of that or those tolerances are aggravated does the conflict then disengage?
I’ve edited your comment Alan, I’m sure you mean psychologist Donald Dutton, not Canterbury University’s Professor of Philosophy Denis Dutton (his site is still worth a visit anyway).
You are exactly right Don Dutton not Denis. Thanks for the link to his wensite which is much improved on my last visit there.
My partner has been battling with the family court for 10 years, his ex has used protection orders to stop access, to stop having to comply with court orders, we have been promised case manager Jugde’s and this does not happen, the lawyer for child (boy is 14) does not listen or represent his views, the moc continues to lie and produce false evidence which has been proven time and time again, still she continues to abuse this court system which lets her away with it, we have another (14th) hearing in two weeks and because my partner doesn’t understand what the Judge says he is often left in the dark, we have spent over $30,000 on getting access orders that can’t be enforced, please help us
We are in the south island and the child is in Gisborne, currently there has been no access for the last two years, this was managed by a Judge D F Clarkeson who made decisions based on what the child wants, since her retirement two years ago, (which I beleive is only semi) there has been no access and the moc has had this Judge’s orders changed as she faints and has to be taken to hospital by ambulance at the mention of having to comply with sharing custody of the child, please contact us on 0274 997 097 as we desperately need help with complaints against lawyer for child and help with getting moc to stop lieing in court, the lawyer for child defends the moc when she lies and continues to be involved at the mothers whim and ignores all my corresspondance
since making these enquiries I have spoken to Jim, who was very helpful, I have followed his advise and written to Judge Boschier, I am a bit doubtful as this has been tried before but prehaps with the different wording it might get a response, we didn’t want our troubles aired but it seems there is no other way,