Most of us have heard part of the JFK inauguration speech in which he said "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you cn do for your country".
I would modify it somewhat and say "Don't ask what others can do for THEMSELVES, ask what you can do for them".
I say that in reference to the lame excuse which states that people "need to help themselves". What if someone can not help themselves? What if they have not been taught proper life skills? Is it their fault, the fault of their underwhelming education, or is it the fault of the society which tolerates this without doing anything about it?
If the person suffering depression doesn't have the energy to "help themselves", is it appropriate to expect them to "find it" (the energy)?
Is it the right thing to "tolerate" someone who's not helping themselves (to our liking of course!!), or are WE keeping everyone at a lower level of functioning?
Showing posts with label Mental Illness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mental Illness. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Stop talking about it
We've all heard about "Self-Fulfilling prophecies", the idea that the more you talk about something the likelier it is to happen.
In fact, a lot of our vocabulary has changed in the past 20 or so years in order to perceive things more positively. We talk about mental "health" instead of mental "illness", "health centres" as opposed to "hospitals", and "challenges" have replaced "problems".
When used in the context of making things seem less difficult, I find this to be fine.
Where I have a harder time though is those situations for which we choose to keep negative vocabulary because we simply do not want to put a positive spin on something.
The main one is the word "stigma" when reference to mental (interestingly enough here we say) "illness".
The biggest irony is that practically everyone would agree that the stigma of mental illness is negative, and something we need to eliminate. If that's the case, why do we keep referring to it?
My "theory" is that we (as a society, perhaps even as a species) are so fearful of mental illness (especially in men because the idea of the "hunter / gatherer / provider" not being able to function is absolutely inconceivable), that we continue to refer to a "stigma"; that way we don't have to address it.
By continuing to call mentall illness "stigmatized", we re-inforce the stigma!!!
Are we willing to talk about mental illness the same way we do diabetes, cancer, and heart disease?
Do we have the courage to face mental illness, admit that it can cripple (or is it "challenge") any one of us, and that just like many other diseases, it does not discriminate on age, gender, race, or anything else?
In fact, a lot of our vocabulary has changed in the past 20 or so years in order to perceive things more positively. We talk about mental "health" instead of mental "illness", "health centres" as opposed to "hospitals", and "challenges" have replaced "problems".
When used in the context of making things seem less difficult, I find this to be fine.
Where I have a harder time though is those situations for which we choose to keep negative vocabulary because we simply do not want to put a positive spin on something.
The main one is the word "stigma" when reference to mental (interestingly enough here we say) "illness".
The biggest irony is that practically everyone would agree that the stigma of mental illness is negative, and something we need to eliminate. If that's the case, why do we keep referring to it?
My "theory" is that we (as a society, perhaps even as a species) are so fearful of mental illness (especially in men because the idea of the "hunter / gatherer / provider" not being able to function is absolutely inconceivable), that we continue to refer to a "stigma"; that way we don't have to address it.
By continuing to call mentall illness "stigmatized", we re-inforce the stigma!!!
Are we willing to talk about mental illness the same way we do diabetes, cancer, and heart disease?
Do we have the courage to face mental illness, admit that it can cripple (or is it "challenge") any one of us, and that just like many other diseases, it does not discriminate on age, gender, race, or anything else?
Friday, March 12, 2010
Humility anyone?
I have been reading and thinking a lot recently about how altruism and generosity are not only not common in the social sense of the word, but not something humans are born with. We are not inherently altruistic or generous, those traits and behaviours are learned (or not!!)
Aren't people generous when they give money or donate food, clothing, and toys to charities? I would say that for most it's not genuine generosity, but rather something we are conditioned to do at specific times (IE. X-mas), or when dramatic events (IE. Haiti earthquake) happen.
So what does it take for a person to be genuinely altruistic or generous?
I believe a person needs to be humble before they can be genuinely altruistic and generous.
By the way, I am aware of the irony of calling out people on their lack of humility.
By humility, I don't mean the occasional (usually on specific occasions like birthdays, anniversaries or awards presentations)outward expressions of gratitude.
Rather, I refer to the ability to accept reality; the reality that *I* am not better than others.
In an odd twist, accepting this reality leads to behaving differently than most. I say odd because my perception of "humble" people as often been that of shy and reserved people who do not "rock the boat".
Now while humble people do not "rock the boat", they also behave in much more altruisitic ways. They are the ones who will help charities throughout the year (not just in the 2nd and 3rd week of December), they will contribute to the Red Cross and other such organizations regularly not just AFTER A DISASTER.
They're not the ones you call in order to "put out a fire", they're the ones you learn from in order to avoid having a "fire" in the first place.
Regarding depression, they're the few who educate themselves, and unlike most are not afraid of mental illness.
A little humility can go a long way.
Aren't people generous when they give money or donate food, clothing, and toys to charities? I would say that for most it's not genuine generosity, but rather something we are conditioned to do at specific times (IE. X-mas), or when dramatic events (IE. Haiti earthquake) happen.
So what does it take for a person to be genuinely altruistic or generous?
I believe a person needs to be humble before they can be genuinely altruistic and generous.
By the way, I am aware of the irony of calling out people on their lack of humility.
By humility, I don't mean the occasional (usually on specific occasions like birthdays, anniversaries or awards presentations)outward expressions of gratitude.
Rather, I refer to the ability to accept reality; the reality that *I* am not better than others.
In an odd twist, accepting this reality leads to behaving differently than most. I say odd because my perception of "humble" people as often been that of shy and reserved people who do not "rock the boat".
Now while humble people do not "rock the boat", they also behave in much more altruisitic ways. They are the ones who will help charities throughout the year (not just in the 2nd and 3rd week of December), they will contribute to the Red Cross and other such organizations regularly not just AFTER A DISASTER.
They're not the ones you call in order to "put out a fire", they're the ones you learn from in order to avoid having a "fire" in the first place.
Regarding depression, they're the few who educate themselves, and unlike most are not afraid of mental illness.
A little humility can go a long way.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Victimizing
People don't generally appreciate another (person) claiming to be a victim. It comes off a whiny and weak.
Of course it's different when we (or someone close to us) is victimized.
When a Jewish person mentions how they come from a heritage which suffered one of the worst attrocities in history are they "playing the victim", or pointing out historical fact?
When a woman talks about being raped, is she "victimizing" herself, or telling us about a heinous crime?
When an adult mle mentions his depression making his life a living hell, is he "playing victim", or sharing his feelings?
By the way, if you think these examples are exaggerated, I suggest you go tell that to Walter Koenig and other parents of adult males who have committed suicide.
Some would say that a person is "playing victim" when they expect something from others.
That may be true IN SOME CASES, but I believe the rape victim has every right to expect help in the form of medical attention, legal advice, and extra protection.
Why then is the adult male (often) perceived as "playing the victim" (IE. weak) when discussing the difficulties his depression bring about?
In an ironic twist, the family and friends of an adult male are accepted as "victims" after he commits suicide.
Of course it's different when we (or someone close to us) is victimized.
When a Jewish person mentions how they come from a heritage which suffered one of the worst attrocities in history are they "playing the victim", or pointing out historical fact?
When a woman talks about being raped, is she "victimizing" herself, or telling us about a heinous crime?
When an adult mle mentions his depression making his life a living hell, is he "playing victim", or sharing his feelings?
By the way, if you think these examples are exaggerated, I suggest you go tell that to Walter Koenig and other parents of adult males who have committed suicide.
Some would say that a person is "playing victim" when they expect something from others.
That may be true IN SOME CASES, but I believe the rape victim has every right to expect help in the form of medical attention, legal advice, and extra protection.
Why then is the adult male (often) perceived as "playing the victim" (IE. weak) when discussing the difficulties his depression bring about?
In an ironic twist, the family and friends of an adult male are accepted as "victims" after he commits suicide.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Is it un-manly to de depressed?
Reading recent issues of men's magazines "GQ" and "Esquire", I couldn't help but question (once again) society's fear of male depression.
Both editions included a full article on American (male) Iraq war veterans who have returned to the USA and the struggles they are experiencing.
Without detailing the articles, the main thing I got is that these vets were nothing more than a commodity. When they followed orders and killed the enemy they were a great commodity, the minute they no longer could, their "value" diminished and they were drummed out.
As active Servicemen, they symbolized what our culture portrays as "men". Bigger, stronger, and faster than the "enemy", putting in 12-15 hour days (regardless of whether they were doing something constructive or destructive), and whatever else they did (drinking, drugs) was "nobody's business".
Once their "skills" diminished, they suddenly (in our culture's eyes) became weak, useless, and their drinking and grug use turned into a lack of will power.
The fact their "skills" were nothing more than a "service" which justified politicians' bad judgement (to put it mildly), and that these skills are useless anywhere else but in a battlefield is something we (as a society) never look at.
More importantly, the reason their "skills" diminished (and lost their "manliness") is mental illness. Mental illness brought upon directly by their military experience.
When our culture's predominant message to men is "Follow-orders-we'll-like-you. Get-sick-we'll-let-you-rot-in-the-dumpster", no wonder so few men ever disclose being sick (especially psychologically).
Both editions included a full article on American (male) Iraq war veterans who have returned to the USA and the struggles they are experiencing.
Without detailing the articles, the main thing I got is that these vets were nothing more than a commodity. When they followed orders and killed the enemy they were a great commodity, the minute they no longer could, their "value" diminished and they were drummed out.
As active Servicemen, they symbolized what our culture portrays as "men". Bigger, stronger, and faster than the "enemy", putting in 12-15 hour days (regardless of whether they were doing something constructive or destructive), and whatever else they did (drinking, drugs) was "nobody's business".
Once their "skills" diminished, they suddenly (in our culture's eyes) became weak, useless, and their drinking and grug use turned into a lack of will power.
The fact their "skills" were nothing more than a "service" which justified politicians' bad judgement (to put it mildly), and that these skills are useless anywhere else but in a battlefield is something we (as a society) never look at.
More importantly, the reason their "skills" diminished (and lost their "manliness") is mental illness. Mental illness brought upon directly by their military experience.
When our culture's predominant message to men is "Follow-orders-we'll-like-you. Get-sick-we'll-let-you-rot-in-the-dumpster", no wonder so few men ever disclose being sick (especially psychologically).
Monday, January 18, 2010
Stigma (continued)
Back on December 7th 2009 I wrote about the use of the term "stigma" in relation to mental illness (specifically depression), and how it's a euphemism for "shame", but sounds much better.
Today I would like to further the topic of the use of the term "stigma", and how it relates to other facets of depression.
Numerous articles and publications suggest that depression manifests itself differently in men and women adding that "Male Depression contains an extra stigma" (IE. Cultural gender bias). Once again, the word "stigma" sounds better to the ear. Synonyms of "stigma" in this context can include: "gender bias", "unfair disadvantage", and "inequality". Use of these terms (for male depression) would never be accepted.
Another part of mental illness and depression which is stigmatized is compliance (The word adherence can also be used). Compliance is defined as "The degree to which patients follow the medical recommendations of practitioners."
Compliance of mental illness and depression medications is judged much more severely than any other conditions. The person with lung cancer or emphysema who continues smoking, the person with high blood pressure who continues to drink heavily, not get regular exercise, continue eating a high fat diet, even not take their medication will likely get reprimanded, but they will not be portrayed as "weak-willed", or "just not wanting to help themselves".
Also, the idea that psychiatric medications are "more important" than medications for other conditions is false. The diabetic who misses his insulin is at much higher risk than the depressive who misses his anti-depressive medication or even the schizophrenic who misses his lithium.
Today I would like to further the topic of the use of the term "stigma", and how it relates to other facets of depression.
Numerous articles and publications suggest that depression manifests itself differently in men and women adding that "Male Depression contains an extra stigma" (IE. Cultural gender bias). Once again, the word "stigma" sounds better to the ear. Synonyms of "stigma" in this context can include: "gender bias", "unfair disadvantage", and "inequality". Use of these terms (for male depression) would never be accepted.
Another part of mental illness and depression which is stigmatized is compliance (The word adherence can also be used). Compliance is defined as "The degree to which patients follow the medical recommendations of practitioners."
Compliance of mental illness and depression medications is judged much more severely than any other conditions. The person with lung cancer or emphysema who continues smoking, the person with high blood pressure who continues to drink heavily, not get regular exercise, continue eating a high fat diet, even not take their medication will likely get reprimanded, but they will not be portrayed as "weak-willed", or "just not wanting to help themselves".
Also, the idea that psychiatric medications are "more important" than medications for other conditions is false. The diabetic who misses his insulin is at much higher risk than the depressive who misses his anti-depressive medication or even the schizophrenic who misses his lithium.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Stigma
Dictionary definition of stigma:
1. A mark of disgrace or infamy; as on one reputation.
Medical:
2. A mental or physical mark that is characteristic or a defect or disease.
Disgrace, infamy, is that what we think of when referring to mental illness being "stigmatized"? No, rather it is presented in the form of "ignorance". "Mental illness is stigmatized because people are ignorant of it's forms and symptoms".
The word "stigma" in it's current usage is actually a euphemism for "shame". We (the general feeling) feel SHAME for anyone with mental illness, but don't have the courage to say it as such.
In fact, the current use of the word "stigma" even subtly suggests that the "stigmatized" (IE. Mentally Ill person) is at fault. "Others don't understand you, but you're the one who needs change". What about these "others who don't understand" educating themselves!
I don't understand what diabetics, or cancer patients go through on a daily basis, does that make them "stigmatized", or me ignorant? The same applies to mental illness, when someone does not understand it, the sufferer is not "stigmatized", the first person is simply ignorant. So just as it is up to me to educate myself about diabetes and cancer, it is up to them to educate themselves about mental illness.
Reality is that mental illness is still seen as shameful. Like most everything else in today's world, people have come up with softer terms (in this case "stigma") in order to make unacceptable beliefs acceptable.
1. A mark of disgrace or infamy; as on one reputation.
Medical:
2. A mental or physical mark that is characteristic or a defect or disease.
Disgrace, infamy, is that what we think of when referring to mental illness being "stigmatized"? No, rather it is presented in the form of "ignorance". "Mental illness is stigmatized because people are ignorant of it's forms and symptoms".
The word "stigma" in it's current usage is actually a euphemism for "shame". We (the general feeling) feel SHAME for anyone with mental illness, but don't have the courage to say it as such.
In fact, the current use of the word "stigma" even subtly suggests that the "stigmatized" (IE. Mentally Ill person) is at fault. "Others don't understand you, but you're the one who needs change". What about these "others who don't understand" educating themselves!
I don't understand what diabetics, or cancer patients go through on a daily basis, does that make them "stigmatized", or me ignorant? The same applies to mental illness, when someone does not understand it, the sufferer is not "stigmatized", the first person is simply ignorant. So just as it is up to me to educate myself about diabetes and cancer, it is up to them to educate themselves about mental illness.
Reality is that mental illness is still seen as shameful. Like most everything else in today's world, people have come up with softer terms (in this case "stigma") in order to make unacceptable beliefs acceptable.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Ignorance is not humility
I saw an interview recently with a retired politician who was being asked about current political issues, specifically the environment and what could be done about it at the government level. He answered (in an un-politician way) "I don't know". One of the panelists congratulated him for his humility, saying that we too rarely hear active politicians admit ignorance.
In this sense,"ignorance" (IE. Ignoring something) and "Humility" (IE. Openly acknowledging one's ignorance) are related.
I'm referring to a more sinister use of language in which people prefer ignoring a situation, and present this ignorance as humility.
It is said over and over again about mental illness that "I haven't had it, so I don't know", when in reality the person is saying "I don't want to know".
Presenting one's ignorance about mental illness as a sign of humility makes it much more acceptable, but truth is they are choosing to remain ignorant, which is anything but humble, it's lazy.
The truly humble person (like the former politician) is one who seeks to educate themselves on what they are ignorant about.
If I ignore what diabetes is all about, how it develops, who's at risk, what it's like to live with and so on. Even admit that ignorance publicly, that doesn't make me humble, it simply makes me ignorant.
The person who educates themselves about the disease is the one showing humility.
In this sense,"ignorance" (IE. Ignoring something) and "Humility" (IE. Openly acknowledging one's ignorance) are related.
I'm referring to a more sinister use of language in which people prefer ignoring a situation, and present this ignorance as humility.
It is said over and over again about mental illness that "I haven't had it, so I don't know", when in reality the person is saying "I don't want to know".
Presenting one's ignorance about mental illness as a sign of humility makes it much more acceptable, but truth is they are choosing to remain ignorant, which is anything but humble, it's lazy.
The truly humble person (like the former politician) is one who seeks to educate themselves on what they are ignorant about.
If I ignore what diabetes is all about, how it develops, who's at risk, what it's like to live with and so on. Even admit that ignorance publicly, that doesn't make me humble, it simply makes me ignorant.
The person who educates themselves about the disease is the one showing humility.
Monday, August 17, 2009
How much of your life is chosen?
We live in a society which emphasizes autonomy, independence, fending for one self. When a person finds themselves in a predicament, we often hear that they "made a wrong choice".
But how much choice do we truly have? Nobody chose to be born when and where they were. To the parents they had. We definitely do not chose our physiology, or how it operates. Our breathing, the blood flowing through our veins, the thousands of synapses in our brain every minute are not of our choosing.
Even large parts of our social lives are not chosen. We are a social species, we didn't chose that. We only have minimal choice in our friends. We live in such a neighbourhood through where and how our parents brought us up. We go to school because (although it is a positive thing) we pretty much have to (it could be argued that we "chose" education as a society). So we choose our friends within a limited sample.
Work wise, most people "choose" a job that happens to be available, one which offers benefits we like (choosing the benefits over the job!!), or one within our chosen profession, but we are still confined to the location, rules, and operating procedures of said job.
Would we say the person with diabetes, cancer or heart disease "chose" that? Of course not.
So in the same way, when we hear about or see a person with depression or another mental illness which perhaps incapacitates them to the point of living on the street, lets not flatter ourselves by seeing them as having made "poor choices", rather that they didn't have the opportunity to chose.
But how much choice do we truly have? Nobody chose to be born when and where they were. To the parents they had. We definitely do not chose our physiology, or how it operates. Our breathing, the blood flowing through our veins, the thousands of synapses in our brain every minute are not of our choosing.
Even large parts of our social lives are not chosen. We are a social species, we didn't chose that. We only have minimal choice in our friends. We live in such a neighbourhood through where and how our parents brought us up. We go to school because (although it is a positive thing) we pretty much have to (it could be argued that we "chose" education as a society). So we choose our friends within a limited sample.
Work wise, most people "choose" a job that happens to be available, one which offers benefits we like (choosing the benefits over the job!!), or one within our chosen profession, but we are still confined to the location, rules, and operating procedures of said job.
Would we say the person with diabetes, cancer or heart disease "chose" that? Of course not.
So in the same way, when we hear about or see a person with depression or another mental illness which perhaps incapacitates them to the point of living on the street, lets not flatter ourselves by seeing them as having made "poor choices", rather that they didn't have the opportunity to chose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
