A person's internal life is essential, when we ask others how they are feeling do we truly (want to) listen to the expressed emotion, or do we have a (or series thereof) ready answer(s) such as "This too will pass"?
Unfortunately, a person's functionality takes precedent over their internal life.
Being functional (which infers outside influences) is necessary for social survival.
Being self aware is necessary for personal survival.
Combining both is living.
Showing posts with label mental health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mental health. Show all posts
Friday, February 18, 2011
Friday, April 9, 2010
Doing V. Being
To simply say one doesn't like their job is selfish. Even I (of all people!!!) would say "If you don't like it do something else".
Now if someone says "I feel I have more to offer (myself and the world)than my current occupation does", that's different.
Our culture of "immediacy" doesn't promote self-fulfillment or even social fulfillment. It is more important to "do" than to "be".
Go to any dinner party, what's the first question? "What do you do?" We judge others worth by their socio-economic status. It's even part of the English language (IE. I AM a lawyer, accountant, doctor...)
When we are what we do, no wonder thousands of us are depressed. We know we have much more to offer, but social conventions insist that simply "doing" something is all that matters regardless of how fun / boring, useful / useless, real or fake it may be.
Wanting to want more is portrayed as selfish.
Pedestrian clichés like "Be grateful of what you do have", and "Just work hard and the rest will follow" are just that, pedestrian.
We are socialized to believe that happiness occurs after (hard) work, on evenings and weekends. That happiness is somehow earned, as if happiness is a commodity.
If "working hard" means slaving away at a job which doesn't maximize my skill set (how's that for a buzzword?!), is what I'm expected to do to "earn" my happiness, I'm not interested.
I know I'm not alone.
Now if someone says "I feel I have more to offer (myself and the world)than my current occupation does", that's different.
Our culture of "immediacy" doesn't promote self-fulfillment or even social fulfillment. It is more important to "do" than to "be".
Go to any dinner party, what's the first question? "What do you do?" We judge others worth by their socio-economic status. It's even part of the English language (IE. I AM a lawyer, accountant, doctor...)
When we are what we do, no wonder thousands of us are depressed. We know we have much more to offer, but social conventions insist that simply "doing" something is all that matters regardless of how fun / boring, useful / useless, real or fake it may be.
Wanting to want more is portrayed as selfish.
Pedestrian clichés like "Be grateful of what you do have", and "Just work hard and the rest will follow" are just that, pedestrian.
We are socialized to believe that happiness occurs after (hard) work, on evenings and weekends. That happiness is somehow earned, as if happiness is a commodity.
If "working hard" means slaving away at a job which doesn't maximize my skill set (how's that for a buzzword?!), is what I'm expected to do to "earn" my happiness, I'm not interested.
I know I'm not alone.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Adapting is a sign of mental health
The society I am part of does / accepts things that I find atrocious such as (despite being one of the most prosperous societies in the world) letting it's own citizens live on the streets (often even blaming them!!)
My society is also hypocritical in that it condones (even encourages) unhealthy habits such as cigarette smoking, gamblind, and (to a lesser extent) consuming alcohol. While at the same time there's grandstanding about how marijuana and prostitution are horrible sins.
These socially accepted behaviours and hypocrisy bother me. It bothers me because if "adapting" to a society which chooses to remain flawed rather than making an effort to better itself is being mentally healthy it's time we re-consider what constitutes mental health.
My society is also hypocritical in that it condones (even encourages) unhealthy habits such as cigarette smoking, gamblind, and (to a lesser extent) consuming alcohol. While at the same time there's grandstanding about how marijuana and prostitution are horrible sins.
These socially accepted behaviours and hypocrisy bother me. It bothers me because if "adapting" to a society which chooses to remain flawed rather than making an effort to better itself is being mentally healthy it's time we re-consider what constitutes mental health.
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.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Ask the right question
I've often been amused by the statement (often used by "Positive Psychologists") "You're just not asking the right questions".
what I find amusing is not the idea of searching for the source of a problem, but rather that there's discrimination in how a person goes about it.
A prime example is a depressed person; in positive psych, the question they would see fit is "what can I (depressed person) do about it?". As well intentioned as that is, it omits to ask "Am I depressed (or is it something else)?", "Why am I depressed?", "Have I felt this way before?"...
To the "positive" crowd, these questions may seem irrelevant, redundant, and a waste of time, but how can one truly access the root of the problem without asking those questions?
Simply asking "What can I do about it?" doesn't get to the root of the problem, it actually promotes avoidance (IE. I'll occupy myself and pretend "it" isn't there).
Asking the tougher questions such as "am I depressed?", or "Why am I depressed?" are precisely that, tougher, but also truer.
I thought of this topic not specifically in regards to depression, but more social issues. One issue which is close to me is homelessness since it is often related with mental illness.
When you see a homeless person what question do you ask yourself? Do you ask "How can a person bring themselves to that?" or the tougher "How does the society that I belong to accept this for it's own citizens?"
I'm sure there's tons of other questions, some tougher than others, but next time you start asking questions, maybe the first one should be "Is this the TOUGH question?"
what I find amusing is not the idea of searching for the source of a problem, but rather that there's discrimination in how a person goes about it.
A prime example is a depressed person; in positive psych, the question they would see fit is "what can I (depressed person) do about it?". As well intentioned as that is, it omits to ask "Am I depressed (or is it something else)?", "Why am I depressed?", "Have I felt this way before?"...
To the "positive" crowd, these questions may seem irrelevant, redundant, and a waste of time, but how can one truly access the root of the problem without asking those questions?
Simply asking "What can I do about it?" doesn't get to the root of the problem, it actually promotes avoidance (IE. I'll occupy myself and pretend "it" isn't there).
Asking the tougher questions such as "am I depressed?", or "Why am I depressed?" are precisely that, tougher, but also truer.
I thought of this topic not specifically in regards to depression, but more social issues. One issue which is close to me is homelessness since it is often related with mental illness.
When you see a homeless person what question do you ask yourself? Do you ask "How can a person bring themselves to that?" or the tougher "How does the society that I belong to accept this for it's own citizens?"
I'm sure there's tons of other questions, some tougher than others, but next time you start asking questions, maybe the first one should be "Is this the TOUGH question?"
Monday, February 15, 2010
Functionality and happiness.
One of the most difficult things in life in balancing how one fits in society without feeling like they are just a number, while embracing their uniqueness without coming off as a kook.
In my deepest darkest days, one thought that kept coming back was "If being functional is all there is, I'm not interested". My definition of "functional" was (and still is!!) "just do enough bot to be a nuisance to others". During my depression, that thought was compounded with the belief (which is not entirely wrong, by the way!!) that the main thing people care about in social contact is to not be burdened.
If someone is not "funcional" they are a burden and therefore unworthy of genuine care.
Functionality, by that definition, has nothing to do with happiness.
Is the functional person automatically happy?
Is the non-functional person automatically sad?
When taking stock of a person (or ourselves), do we put a disproportionate emphasis on functionality, as opposed to happiness?
If functionality is as important as it is made out to be, why are so many people still unhappy?
In my deepest darkest days, one thought that kept coming back was "If being functional is all there is, I'm not interested". My definition of "functional" was (and still is!!) "just do enough bot to be a nuisance to others". During my depression, that thought was compounded with the belief (which is not entirely wrong, by the way!!) that the main thing people care about in social contact is to not be burdened.
If someone is not "funcional" they are a burden and therefore unworthy of genuine care.
Functionality, by that definition, has nothing to do with happiness.
Is the functional person automatically happy?
Is the non-functional person automatically sad?
When taking stock of a person (or ourselves), do we put a disproportionate emphasis on functionality, as opposed to happiness?
If functionality is as important as it is made out to be, why are so many people still unhappy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
