1. Angela Ryan: The Theory of Structure and Counterstructure

This theory posits that any structure is non-completative with regard to the universal system or system of systems. The injustices and harms which arise from this non-completativeness are commonly addressed within the structure’s counterstructure, that is, the various overt and covert actions, forces and trends generated by the needs of those whom the structure excludes or fails, for whatever reasons. One example in world literature, and in the societies it reflects, is the toposof the conning servant or slave whose superior brain power gets the better, usually deviously, of the much more powerful, though less talented, or less meritorious, master- or authority-figure. The member of the oppressed group compensates for, or mitigates, their vulnerability by devious strategies and tactics. Another example is ‘democracy’: however fought for, protected, maintained by checks and balances, and in general, considered alethic, is not manifested as perfective. Threats, resistances, over-controlling state or other systems, have rendered and continue to render precarious its good qualities and make it necessary continuously to work to preserve it, improve its implementation, and spread it where it is absent. A good, but not a completed good.

Energy for change is often in history generated from within the counterstructures, the groups, and their ideas and actions, of those whom the structure or structures fails or fail, excludes or exclude, disempowers or disempower,

(There are exceptions to this: one is Montesquieu’s essay De L’Esclavage, addressed by a person of status to persons of status and using a careful rhetoric to evolve from first-seeming acceptance of enslavement to a searing indictment of it. He is not writing for slaves, who well know their oppression and who are deprived of reading, but for slave owners, to change their mindset).

Those oppressed by or excluded from a favoured place in the structures of the group (society, State, other group…) who ahve more access than others to spheres of action and representation, highlight the injustices or other ethical gaps, and in many cases succeed in bringing about reform and change.

This theory further posits that when the energy in the counterstructures becomes high enough for radical change to be sought - the various reforms of recent and older history - and change looks possible and becomes implemented, it is often the case that persons within the countrstructures sometimes feel threatened by the change, even resist it. Their concern can appear paradoxical, and is so at many levels, but at the same time, can be understood as a wariness towards the change being put in place, as to how it may or may not actually solve their unjust situation, but will certainly weaken or do away with the counterstructural strategies which had been put together and had developed to mitigate their exclusion or oppression. They may lose what covert, unofficla but somewhat effective, protections they had elaborated, while being unsure of whether the new , reformed structures now being put in place, will truly include them and get rid of the oppression and injustice.

Some women’s groups have been known to resist changes in the law or in regulation of various areas which would in theory make their lives better and fairer, but might prove to be in their turn, non-completative.

Since structures are by hypothesis non-completative

Meanwhile the precarious because covert, but effective to an extent, counterstructures will disappear.

So will they in fact be better off or worse off?

It should be noted that structures and their counterstructures differ existentially rather than essentially. The same ideas, principles, topoi, etc exist in both, It is the positional and juxtapositional relationship which is at work here.

(NB this is where the Theory of Structure and Counterstructure has no connection to Victor Turner’s theory of structure and anti-structure).

v. Angela Ryan. "Memetics, Metatranslation and Cultural Memory: the Literary Imaginaires of Irish Identity". in Michael Cronin and Cormac O Cuilleanain (Eds.) The Languages of Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, November 2003.

v. Angela Ryan. “Structure and Counterstructure, Bourdieu’s Authoritative Discourse and Leconte’s Ridicule”. Annual Conference of the Association des etudes françaises et francophones d’Irlande (Irish Association for French Studies) -  ADEFFI, Trinity College, Dublin, 25th November 2000.

2. Angela Ryan The Theory of Unreasonable Expectations of Nurturing

This theory, founded on observations in literature, the arts, and culture in general, and also in socio-anthropological observation, posits that there arises between persons a relationship of unreasonable expectations of nurturing.

The relationship may be between individuals, groups, or an individual and a group. Gendered examples are frequent, though not exclusive, e.g. unreasonable expectations on the part of a man or men that a woman or women will look after their needs, when the man is no longer a baby being fed by a mother, but has reached the age of maturity.

The use of the term ‘unreasonable# has a double valency. That the expectations exist is not reasonable, on the part of an adult. Secondly, the mindset often seems so internalised that the person holding these expectations of another appears not to be able to see how unreasonable their behaviour is, nor can one reason with them.

Such expectations can include, on the part of A, the person/group who holds this mindset, towards B, the person.group of whom an unreasonable level of nurturing is expected:

• the expectation that B will sacrifice their own career/life interests to those of A, to A’s advantage;

• the expectation that B will allow an unreasonable share of family/common/domestic responsibilities to fall on B, to the advantage of A;

Methods used by A to manipulate (consciously, semi-consciousy…) B into always ‘nourishing’ A,and A’s life, with little or no reciprocity:

• Strategic incompetence: When A finds that A is supposed to e.g. carry out a family responsibility, A does so with such incompetence that B ends by accepting A’s share as well as their own. E.g., their child is invited to a birthday party. B has a professional commitment and is away. However, B asks a friend (‘C’) to bring the child to the party. Why? Because experience has shown that if A does it - unable to refuse because of the share B already does - the child will arrive late, badly dressed and groomed, the present forgotten; A will collect late and hte child will be upset; B on return will have to comfort and console hte child, apologise to the hosts, and generally work to put right the muddle and the harm done. Thus A evades future responsibilities of the kind, including for A’s children. Also the rhetoric : “you’re so much better than I am at [changing nappies, getting the child to sleep, cooking, cleaning, shopping, filing, dealing with outsiders…]

• Anger, resentment, undermining, and other punishment strategies: When B has an important professional opportunity, or equivalent goal to achieve, A chooses that occasion to abreact, using tantrums, silence, various forms of bullying, to prevent B from succeeding. A fortiori if success would mean B reaching an equal level, or worse, higher level, of success compared to A.

• Fake equality bargaining: “If you will pause your [thesis; postgraduate qualification; move to a good job offer, etc] and take on a job just to keep us going and also mind the children, while I qualify, then I will be much better able to support us all, and you can advance your career’ is the rhetoric. Five, ten fifteen, years later, has it happened that way?

• “I need you”. I’ll never get through it without your help”. “I know I’ve [let you down/hit you/ got drunk and crashed the car/ sabotaged your career opportunity …] but you know I love you and can’t face life without you…”

(c) Angela Ryan 1995.