tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32727611684689039362024-03-13T08:05:41.043-07:00I Feel Fantastic"Freedom doesn't mean being free from struggle"Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-11938716612843058242010-10-05T22:43:00.000-07:002010-10-07T16:49:24.300-07:00Weighing in on the "It Gets Better" ProjectFull disclaimer: I was iffy on the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject">It Gets Better Project</a> from the start. The heart is in the right place, naturally, but is it the right message? As a mental health advocate, speaking strictly on the mental health aspect of this very complex issue of teenage bullying and suicide, the answer is unequivocally "no", and the answer only gets murkier when taking every other factor into consideration. I doubt there are too many teens out there who don't know, or at least believe, that it does get better eventually. And for kids who are victims of bullying, depression, or other factors that might ultimately lead to suicide, it doesn't help a great deal. It helps <span style="font-style: italic;">some</span>, true, but there's a danger in a project like this becoming so popular (and therefore somehow <span style="font-style: italic;">successful</span>) that there will exist a temptation to wipe one's hands clean and declare "Mission Accomplished", and that can be dangerous because a program like this can only ever be the first step towards something grander, something that can really begin to tackle the deeper issues facing all youth in particular and LGBTQ youth in specific.<br /><br />Second disclaimer: I am a child of privilege. I am white, male, straight and I grew up with a relatively well off and supportive family. And while I was a victim of bullying through middle school, and this bullying certainly contributed to my depression and subsequent suicide attempts, I cannot <span style="font-style: italic;">begin</span> to imagine what it is like to grow up as a LGBTQ youth. How could I? No one coming from a place of privilege while still striving to support social justice could ever seriously make such a claim. Likewise, most people can't even begin to imagine to the factors that cause suicidal ideations, and this is what I think a lot of the "It Gets Better" Project is missing. The desire to completely end your own existence is such an alien thought that there's absolutely no way to wrap your head around it unless you've felt it. Hell, I've suffered through at least four distinct suicidal episodes, at least one of which led to a serious attempt, and I hardly understand it. All I can say is I know what it's like. But of course, even that's hardly half of this issue. Make no mistake; in order to fully and effectively tackle this issue, it must tackled from every possible angle. This crisis is both a "mental health issue"* and an "LGBTQA issue"* and we must all work together to combat this.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:78%;">*I use quotation marks because I believe the compartmentalization of social justice issues is one of the biggest obstacles to social justice progress, but that's a much larger conversation for a different time</span><br /><br />Look, saying "It Gets Better" is one small step above saying "Keep a Stiff Upper Lip!" or "Sticks and Stones May Break Your Bones, But Words Can Never Hurt You", the latter being a flagrant lie and the others not being much more encouraging. And to someone struggling with thoughts of suicide, the difference is negligible. The thinking that saying "It Gets Better" provides comfort or support to those in danger of suicidal ideations or attempts is the same kind of faulty thinking that equates suicide with losing all hope or giving up. These are simply not true at all. The promised "better" future could be a million years away; it could be tomorrow. One might even know it for a fact. These don't matter one whit. The closest thing a suicidal thought comes to rationality focuses on ending the pain of the present, and that's something the "It Gets Better" project doesn't just ignore; by its very nature the project casually dismisses it.<br /><br />It is this and other things that <a href="http://tempcontretemps.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/why-i-dont-like-dan-savages-it-gets-better-project-as-a-response-to-bullying/">this post here</a> on the blog <a href="http://tempcontretemps.wordpress.com/">(femmephane)</a> critiques about Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" project, and for the most part I agree with the overall assessment, though on some points I feel the critique somewhat misses the mark. While the third point mostly mirrors my biggest issue with the project, it mistakes ageism with ableism (or at least leaves ableism off the list, when the key issue is a basic misunderstanding of the factors that contribute to suicide). It also carries along the horribly ableist tradition of assuming that it takes some kind of strength to survive suicidal ideations, the more insidious flipside of that idea being that only the weak struggle with or commit suicide. "Be strong" is one of the most negative things you can tell someone who is struggling through any kind of crisis; because what's heard is "Stop being weak", and that is <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> helpful. Strength isn't what's needed, <span style="font-style: italic;">support </span>is. And whatever else the "It Gets Better" project is and however misguided its directions are, it is at least a step in the right direction in providing support to LGBTQ youth struggling with these issues.<br /><br />The critique is correct, however, in that the project falls short in actually providing said support. All that it does is provide hope, and as is pointed (also in <a href="http://www.bilerico.com/2010/10/does_it_really_get_better.php">this article</a>, by Jason Tseng) out this in many cases can be simply false hope. The underlying message is simply selling the issues facing LGBTQ youth and young adults short. It doesn't just <span style="font-style: italic;">get</span> better, Tseng asserts; in many cases one has to fight for better. The (femmephane) article poses the thought: "How about instead of hope: change." The question I would pose in response would be: "Why can't it be both?" I can certainly see the appeal in change over hope (which can many times be fleeting), but I don't believe these can be mutually exclusive. You cannot have change without hope, and you cannot have hope without change. This is why I believe that the "It Gets Better" project is a good first step: it lays a foundation that hope does exist. It has rallied thousands, but with this support it needs to do much more. It needs to take <span style="font-style: italic;">action</span>. We need to confront school policies and officials that turn a blind eye to bullying and anti-gay remarks. We need to increase access to mental health support to all students, <span style="font-style: italic;">especially </span>those at greater risk for depression and suicide (such as LGBTQ youth). The absolute worst thing that could come out of this is if we all collectively say "Well, we sure did tell those kids it gets better. Mission accomplished."<br /><br />On a following note, I must admit I acted quite viscerally to the many statements in (femmephane)'s critique made against the power of storytelling. Those of you who know me know that I am fully committed not just in sharing my stories but encouraging others to make their voices heard as well. It is this reason that I resonated strongly with the "It Gets Better" project at first despite my initial trepidations. To read that "<strong>Broadcasting your story into the world, or congratulating others for broadcasting theirs is an anesthetized, misguided approach to connecting</strong>" understandably upset my sensibilities and triggered me. It was this statement that originally inspired me to write this article, and thankfully from there it has gone in a different (and I believe far better) direction. And while exploring this idea and re-evaluating has made me realize that there is definite privilege in being able to share one's story and have one's voice be heard, I still cannot disagree more with this statement. There is nothing, I believe, more empowering than to share one's story, even if only to one person (or to nobody at all). And I've already <a href="http://feelfantastic.blogspot.com/2010/05/theatre-social-justice.html">stated my reasons</a> for why I believe that storytelling is not only an incredibly effective form of communication, but that it also sparks effective and honest communication in a way few other forms can. I'll admit that I sometimes am a little too eager to share and not eager enough to listen, but storytelling, in and of itself, is an incredibly powerful device for creating strong, positive connections between people.<br /><br />I was even about to post as much in response to (femmephane)'s critique when I stumbled across the <a href="http://tempcontretemps.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/643/">author's followup</a>. I'm glad that I didn't, because I realized I didn't really understand where the author was coming from when they made those statements which I disagreed with so very much, and it's that lack of understanding that is the reason why so many of these "Stop youth suicide" movements fall short. Now I can at least understand the author's sentiment, that there are many voices and stories within the LGBTQ community that are routinely silenced, while still disagreeing to the point that storytelling is a flawed form of connection. Meanwhile, suicide and suicidal ideations are horribly misunderstood by many; at worst this can lead to victim-blaming [as (femmephane) accusses "It Gets Better" of]; at best this only shines a spotlight on a few external factors, but even this fails to look at every root cause. We could crack down on bullying, especially anti-gay bullying, but that completely ignores what <span style="font-style: italic;">causes </span>anti-gay bullying. Alternative sexualities are <span style="font-style: italic;">routinely </span>demonized both nationally, in the media, as well as locally, by both peers and adults, and there can be little doubt that this is the leading causes behind all three of these likely reasons why LGBTQ youth are at so much greater risk for suicide then straight youth their age:<br /><ol><li>Much bullying (whether directed a LQBTQ youth or straight youth) is steeped in anti-gay rhetoric,</li><li>Straight victims of bullying attempting to "defend their sexuality" by engaging in anti-gay bullying of their own, thus reducing the likelihood of teen peer allies or support networks;</li><li>Supposedly responsible adults turning a blind eye to anti-gay bullying, thus reducing the likelihood of adult allies or support networks.<br /></li></ol>While we can certainly try to crackdown on anti-gay bullying, we will never be successful unless we can manage to change the culture that makes this kind of behavior acceptable to both youth and adults, and that's going to require a hell of a lot more work.<br /><br />And say we actually succeed in accomplishing all of the above. Well, now all youth have the equal likelihood of suffering from suicidal ideations. And as suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death amongst teenagers aged 13-18, that's still not nearly good enough. And while putting an end to bullying of all kinds will likely reduce that number, and providing greater access to more and better services and support groups will probably help even more, there's a cultural aspect to this as well. You probably haven't noticed nearly as much, but the depressed and suicidal are likewise quite demonized by both national media and individuals, though clearly not quite to the same extent or with quite the same vitriol as those of the LGBTQ community. It's not even really that subtle; it's just so deeply reinforced by our culture that it's not at all polarizing. You might not even bat an eyelash when somebody claims that "<a href="http://www.collegenet.com/elect/app/app?service=external/Forum&sp=27410&sp=195615#195615">only the immature and weak commit suicide,</a>" but trust me when I say this is <span style="font-style: italic;">extremely </span>hurtful and dangerous rhetoric. You might even think a line such as this might serve as a harsh, if necessary, wakeup call to somebody who might be contemplating suicide, but you'd be dead wrong. Like saying "Be strong", this kind of rhetoric only reaffirms the suicidal thoughts of those suffering from them. And this is rhetoric that is far more prevalent in our popular culture that many would like to admit, lest one think the absolutely terrifying opinions expressed in the post I quoted and linked to were the rare musings of a single uneducated individual.<br /><br />Education is a good start, but like heterosexism the problem is both cultural and systemic. I've said that the depressed and suicidal are demonized, and as the above linked post demonstrates, much of this hate is directed towards depressed and suicidal <span style="font-style: italic;">youth</span>. It's a culture where "angst" and "emo" are relentlessly mocked, and where self-harm and self-mutilation have become so trivialized that they are typically only invoked in our pop culture for physical comedy. When a youth suicide does occur, our culture is usually so loathe to turn the mirror in on itself that it quickly lashes out at the victim; the youth was "weak" or "immature" or "selfish," or if they just had the "strength" to hang on a few more years things would've surely gotten "better". (Note: Over 60% of suicide victims suffer from major depression, which, while surely treatable, never truly gets "better".) This is turn leads to a culture that demonizes suicide, which in turn leads to a demonization of suicidal ideations, which in turn leads to demonization of depression. And being constantly told that you are weak and selfish and immature when already have such a low opinion of yourself and your head is constantly full of uncontrollable and alien thoughts of self-harm and suicide, then your chances of surviving through your depression definitely decrease.<br /><br />People, and especially those who have been called to action by the recent string of teenage suicides, have a responsibility to educate themselves and others more on issues such as depression and suicide. Had the minds behind the "It Gets Better" project done this, it clearly would have taken a different form. It's a great sentiment, sure, and it's a good first step, and that is to their credit. But now it needs to go deeper. It needs to do so much more then just tell kids to "stick through it." It needs to focus on the issues that face not just LGBTQ youth, but all youth who struggle with thoughts of suicide. And it needs to take action.<br /><br />You've told them to have hope. You might have even given them some hope. Now we need to work together, so they won't have to just survive off that hope anymore.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-27592067124966681092010-09-28T03:34:00.000-07:002010-09-28T05:22:31.814-07:00New Work<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I am working on something new.<br /><br />I guess I shouldn't say that this is necessarily new. Technically this is something I started work on in the Fall 2008. But I let it go and now I'm reviving it in an entirely different format, which is <span style="font-style: italic;">like </span>new. Interestingly, neither the original nor the current format is a play script.<br /><br />Now, this has been bouncing around in my head for the better part of two years, but that doesn't mean I have to have a title for it. In fact, I haven't <span style="font-style: italic;">entirely </span>sold myself on the concept for the setting yet. I think I'm almost there, but there's a few things holding me back from fully committing. I'll delve into that later.<br /><br />What follows is a bit of a journal detailing my creative process. It is written primarily as a stream-of-consciousness collection of my thoughts, with which to help me focus on where I want to go with my writing. The secondary purpose is to offer those of you who are actually reading this to get a glimpse at where I'm coming from and how I go about writing something, but again, this is generally going to be a <span style="font-style: italic;">secondary </span>purpose. If it instead comes across as the ramblings of a mad man that go absolutely nowhere, well, you've been warned as to why.<br /><br />I'll try to avoid actual plot spoilers in this and subsequent "process" posts.<br /><br />Those who are familiar with the way that I write know that I normally get inspired by music. The original inspiration for this work, and the song that eventually kick-started my return to it, is the song "Hail To Whatever You Found In The Sunlight That Surrounds You" by Rilo Kiley. The lyrics are a bit annoyingly repetitive yet I still find them strangely uplifting, while the music is equal parts haunting and inspiring. Needless to say, it's the kind of song that I could to low volume on an endless loop and let it sink in subconsciously while I write. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now. What's most interesting about the song is that I can't really get an handle on it. The two songs that primarily inspired <span style="font-style: italic;">On Death and Living</span> ("All Along the Watchtower" by Bob Dylan and "One Headlight" by his son Jakob Dylan) are both songs that are definitely up to interpretation, but I had my own very clear idea about each one and thus they both informed the direction of the play. I don't really have the foggiest idea what "Hail To What You Found..." is all about, and the moods it inspires are all over the place (hopeful, bitter, grateful, mournful, adventurous) and all of these moods have in turn inspired the thematic direction of the work as I have planned it.<br /><br />Make no mistake, this is the most complex (both structurally and emotionally) and ambitious work I have ever undertaken. What's more, this is not a story that can suitably told in my medium of choice (dramatic writing) nor in the medium I first selected for it (epic poem). Instead, I am going to be jumping into narrative fiction. So, I am not only undertaking the most difficult project of my life, but I'm doing it in a medium that I have little experience and no formal training in. And herein lies my hesitation. In order for this to work as a play, I fully believe that I would have to betray both the setting and my principal character. After all, I had completed the first chapter of this story as an epic poem, and it didn't have a single line of dialogue. Narrative literature allows me to delve much deeper into the psyche and thought processes of the character. In my plays, I usually create a character (either real or imagined) to serve as the protagonist's "inner voice", thus turning an inner monologue into a dialogue. This is a skill that I need to develop more naturally, and I have a feeling that this work (whether a success or a failure) will help me develop that skill. Furthermore, as I plot this thing out, I realize there are very important moments where I need characters to be completely alone, and I'm very loathe to use monologues in these instances (it's interesting how prone to short, choppy dialogue I am in my scripts given how long-winded I tend to be in real life.) I just hope I don't end up overwhelmed with everything new I'm trying.<br /><br />I got sidetracked there; I was talking about the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbfmwKM2zFg">song</a>. Interestingly, I've found a number of different interpretations of this song, and each one of those interpretations has some bearing on the work, either in part or in whole. The most common interpretation I've seen is that the song is a dig against religion, with opinions further torn between whether it's a cynical attack or where it takes a more "live and let live" approach. I don't really get it myself, but this theme does indeed show up in the work. Now, in real life there are obviously those who would use religion to oppress others, and there are those who use faith to inspire others. Both of these show up in the work in various forms. Neither are the key themes of the work, though the former concept (using religion to oppress) is one of the key themes in the first chapter of the epic poem that I wrote (which I will be posting here in its entirety). I'm not exactly subtle about it. In addition to those who use religion to spread social injustice and hatred, there is, in my opinion, another quote insidious application: a specific de-emphasis in finding present happiness. While there are many faiths with promises of a better life after this one, one should still not be neglectful of <span style="font-style: italic;">this </span>life. The religious sect that features prominently in the beginning of my story follows a very extreme version of this practice, though it's intended to serve as an allegory for <span style="font-style: italic;">any </span>force, religious or otherwise, that encourages people to feel as though they deserve feelings of misery or depression. I of course recognize that these nefarious religious practices are far from the mainstream (though they try their hardest to act the vocal minority), and I must take care not to be too terribly misinterpreted.<br /><br />Another interpretation is that the song is about "happiness", and again there is are cynical and idealistic camps here. The idealistic side favors embracing happiness wherever you may find it; and if there is one central, overriding theme to my work, it's this. The cynical side sees the song as a bitter and sarcastic criticism of someone who is completely wrapped up in themselves and their own happiness. If there is one thing my writing has been criticized in general it's having protagonists that are bit too wrapped up in themselves, and a supporting cast that seemingly indulges them completely. I even <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging">hung a lampshade</a> on it in <span style="font-style: italic;">On Death And Living</span>:<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Thomas: </span>Man, I have been such an asshole!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><in><br />Audience Member: </span>(To my partner, also in the audience) Right?<br />Of course, hanging a lampshade on an issue is not the same as directly confronting it. Needless to say, I will have sympathetic characters who are every bit as self-absorbed as Thomas here. However, the time for letting this behavior get reinforced in the long run is over. Characters will get called out on this, and I think the plans I have for how this will work are among that which I'm most excited about writing.<br /><br />A few other notes before I wrap it up for the night:<br /><br />I've avoided romantic subplots after the fairly amateur way I'd handled it in previous works (notably <span style="font-style: italic;">I Feel Fantastic! </span>and <span style="font-weight: bold;">especially </span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Enduring Atlas</span></span></span>), but they will feature in a BIG way in this work. There will be several such subplots, they will not all feature the main protagonist(s), and they will not all turn out for the best. I am both trepidatious and excited about this.<br /><br />This will probably be the darkest thing I've ever written, and I don't say that just because it's set in a world entirely deprived of sunlight. Bad things will happen to characters you like. I am not going to be pulling any punches and I have no intention of letting anything come too easy (another common complaint directed at <span style="font-style: italic;">On Death and Living.</span>) What's more, there will be unhappy endings, and others left quite ambiquous. I am absolutely giddy over how people will interpret the actual end of the story.<br /><br />I have plenty more to share but I'll leave it at this for now. Maybe sometime soon I'll have an actual title for this thing!<br /></span>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-86316972500668456552010-05-04T01:44:00.000-07:002010-05-04T03:59:42.451-07:00Theatre & Social Justice<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">So a few months ago I wrote an essay (or had a stream of consciousness rant, take your pick) about why I never pursued a degree in Psychology or Counseling or what not. But now I take the time to answer two more questions, mainly because I'm having a bit of a crisis of faith, partially because I've been struggling all day and all night to write one freaking cover letter, and most importantly because I just need to put my thoughts out on paper and write. Which two questions, you might ask? First, why I did end up getting my Master's in Theatre, and secondly, why I would ever believe that it would help me in a career in Student Affairs. I answer them both because they're both kind of the same answer.<br /><br />For starters, I believe that the greatest method of education is not found in the classroom at all; rather it is found in narrative literature. Oh sure, we learn <span style="font-style: italic;">things </span>in our college courses; we learn a whole lot of <span style="font-style: italic;">stuff</span>, much of it directly related to our chosen field of study (and ultimately our choice of career.) Yet this merely relates to what we <span style="font-style: italic;">do. </span>Who we <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span>, as humans; how we interact with ourselves, each other, and the world around us; we learn very little from the classroom. Instead, we learn these things partially from our interactions, but mainly from our narrative literature. Be it actual novels, or theatre, film, dance, television, even video games; all of these mediums constantly feed us with information on how to be the kinds of people we want to be. I chose theatre because I feel this is where my artistic talents lie, but I could have just as easily wound up a novelist, or in Hollywood. And who knows, I may still. For the time being, however, I feel I can do more to reach out to a group of people through my plays than in any other setting, and that includes the classroom.<br /><br />The reason for why narrative is more effective than pedagogy in passing along a message is simple: as people, we generally love being shown, and we <span style="font-style: italic;">hate </span>being told. This particularly holds true when teaching something that is inherently controversial and difficult to grasp, such as, say, social justice. I don't know about you, but I've yet to sit through a large-scale social justice training without either being completely put off by either the way the material was being presented or the way others reacted to it. Nobody wants to be told that the way they've perceived the world around them for the majority of their lives is wrong, yet this is precisely what most social justice training amounts to. Add to this the intellectual elitism that permeates most social justice education and it's small wonder why so many people react so violently against it, even those student leaders handpicked to be peer educators themselves.<br /><br />Imagine then, instead of a classroom (or training session), this training takes place in a theatre. After all, a theatre is nothing more than a particular kind of classroom; the playwright writes the textbook, the director is the instructor, and the actors, designers, and their ilk make up the teacher's aides. Unconventional, sure, but follow me for a bit. Students are no longer being given a pedantic lecture by an authority figure (which positional politics generally teaches them to inherently distrust). If the text is well-written, the "lecture" is instead presented, not told, by a group of peer educators (actors), portraying individuals that students can make an emotional connection with. Now, students are no longer being told a theoretical world exists where theoretical privilege and theoretical oppression affects millions of theoretical people. This theoretical world is one that can just as easily not exist. And to borrow a concept from Stalin, a million is a mere statistic, but an individual is a tragedy. Introduce that same privilege and same oppression to an individual that the audience (the students) has spent an act building an emotional connection to; show them exactly, in a real world setting, what privilege looks like and what oppression looks like, and how it impact real people, and now you have a classroom that is more inclined to buy into whether such a world exists. Impact them emotionally enough, and you provide enough motivation for them to learn more on their own, and <span style="font-style: italic;">that </span>should be goal of any educational pursuit.<br /><br />And sure, there will still be plenty of people who simply won't buy it. But they'll be more much more open to the idea than if a single "radical liberal" professor were simply telling them what they believed was wrong. This kind of setting has the added benefit of making the conversation afterword more organic and more natural. I have seen countless social justice trainings and discussions frustrated into a state of uselessness due to nothing more than vocabulary and semantics. The average entitled white college student isn't going to hear that racism can't happen to them; and when you form as the basis of your training a definition of racism (or oppression, for that matter) that specifically excludes them from ever being the victim in a situation, they'll be immediately shut out of the conversation. They aren't going to listen to a single thing more you have to say on the subject; what's worse, anything you have to say that is tangentially related to social justice may be immediately dismissed as false. There is nothing more dangerous to a social justice training than trying to establish a common vocabulary. For starters, at least half of your students will tune out because your definition excludes them from victimhood (a cornerstone of young adulthood, you must understand), and at least a quarter more because "that's not what the dictionary says" or some other such nonsense. It's not helpful. It's never helpful. Trying to force one (and especially such an unappealing one) on a group of students will lead to confusion, frustration, and self-censorship at the very <span style="font-style: italic;">best</span>.<br /><br />Trying to establish a common vocabulary is just one step in the process of creating a "safe" discussion about social justice. But here's the problem: when talking about such a difficult and emotional topic as oppression, a "safe discussion" and an "honest discussion" are practically mutually exclusive. And let's be truthful here; an honest discussion is going to be much more effective in the long run. People are already going to be walking on eggshells when we have the social justice talk. That's a given. When you then try to introduce a vocabulary that people either don't agree with or don't understand, well, now people are even more worried that they're going to say the wrong thing, if they even bother speaking up at all. And here's the unpleasant truth of it all: we learn by making mistakes. In any field, in any vocation, in any aspect of life; we make a mistake, suffer whatever consequences, and learn from it. Social justice training, long before they ever get a point where people can have a conversation, is able about reducing mistakes. And that, by its very nature, reduces learning. I understand the desire to protect people from being triggered, I do. But social justice conversations needs to be honest if anyone is going to learn anything, and that means giving people license to make mistakes, trigger others, get challenged. And please, I am begging you, challenge people who make mistakes. Nothing is more frustrating than watching people I care about being triggered by someone saying something ignorant and then <span style="font-style: italic;">not getting called out on it</span>. There's a huge difference between someone agreeing to disagree and someone completely discrediting other peoples' life experiences, and the latter <span style="font-style: italic;">needs to be called out</span>. Otherwise what learning is supposed to be taking place?<br /><br />Here's one thing that I believe that might be unpopular; but do you know what I think is worse than the person who says something ignorant that belittles or triggers someone? The person who <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;">believes </span></span>something that <span style="font-style: italic;">might</span> belittle or trigger someone else and keeps it to themselves. Again, who is learning when you create an atmosphere that encourages this kind of behavior? Remember class, there's no such thing as a stupid question, unless it might be a little bit racist/sexist/homophobic/etc; then you probably wanna keep that to yourselves. What kind of warped teaching philosophy is this? In my social advocacy class last semester, we devoted a class session to talking about social justice, and confronting racism in particular. The conversation went pretty much no where. It mainly amounted to many white students talking about how afraid they are to say the wrong thing. Of course, I too was struggling with the fear of saying the wrong thing in confronting that kind of thinking. Hypocritical, I know, but hey, I'm only human. Anyway, by the time I finally raised my hand and got on the speaker's list, there was no time left in class. The teacher told me I had thirty seconds, forcing me to quickly paraphrase the carefully worded verbal essay I had spent the entire class period mentally crafting into two sentences. What came out is probably, I feel, one of the smartest things I've ever said: "We all say stupid shit all the time. That shouldn't stop us from having a conversation." Anti-racist activist Tim Wise summed up the dilemma a lot more eloquently, but then that's why he makes the big bucks:<br /><blockquote><p> <span style="font-size:85%;">The whites in these dialogue groups, on the other hand, are often tentative to a point that is almost farcical. Nervous, afraid of saying the wrong thing, and convinced that people of color will yell at them for a slip of the tongue, whites often remain in a shell when racial dialogues begin. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> This is one of the reasons that facilitators often go out of their way to create "safety." They are hoping that whites will participate more honestly if only they can be guaranteed that black people won't attack them for their ignorance. </span></p><p><span style="font-size:85%;"> Such a concern is, of course, preposterous, coming as it does from members of the most powerful group on the planet. I mean really now, do we, as whites believe there is any group on Earth that is safer than we are? Do we honestly think that people of color are in a position to jump our asses in a controlled workshop setting? What do we think they're going to do? Knife us for God's sakes?(<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/no-such-place-as-safe-by-tim-wise">1</a>)</span></p></blockquote><br />All of these issues that detract from learning take place when you try to specifically craft a social justice discussion immediately following a long, pedantic lecture that few people followed and believed wholeheartedly in. Imagine, instead, a play or a film. There is no vocabulary list that comes with the handbill; no ground rules for discussions on the wall on the way to the exit. Conversations are raw, emotional, honest, and ultimately educational. People will disagree, argue, get upset, challenge one another, and grow from the experience. And sure, people are probably still going to walk on eggshells when the discussion turns to race/sex/gender/etc. politics, but they'll be far more likely to say what they mean in this more open and honest setting than they would in a educational arena where they have been strongly discouraged from the outset not to, for lack of a term, say stupid shit. And likewise, people are likely to feel more inclined to call each other out than in this supposed safe space, where attacking other people's beliefs, ignorant though they may be, in just as discouraged.<br /><br />This is what I love about the Tunnel of Oppression. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it, yes, I'm aware it's a cheesy name, but bear with me. The idea is that a group of people are shuttled silently through a series of short scenes, each one highlighting some form of oppression or prejudice, and often in a highly shocking and/or emotionally impactful manner. After the tour group has watched each scene, then and only then are they brought to a debriefing session to talk about what they've seen. There's usually little time wasted in establishing ground rules for these discussions, and they are often honest, difficult, and ultimately eye-opening conversations. It's not perfect, of course, but as far as social justice primers go it sure as hell beats trying to drill into a group of people a definition of institutional oppression that flies in the face of everything else they've ever been taught.<br /><br />This isn't to say that we shouldn't be teaching this kind of vocabulary, we just in no way should ever start with it. Get people to believe in institutional oppression before teaching them why white people can't be institutionally oppressed. Get people on your side before giving them a reason to get defensive. Show them, <span style="font-style: italic;">then </span>tell them.<br /><br />This was probably a lot longer than it needed to be, but that, in a very roundabout way, is why I feel that getting my Master's in Theatre was important, and why I feel that my background in theatre education has prepared me for a career in a student affairs in a way that no "related" degree possibly could. This is not to say that a "related" degree wouldn't make me more marketable, or help me find a job much easier. But after this reflection I am now more grateful for my three years in M.A. program than I ever have been before, because I now know that no matter where I end up, in whatever role I get hired for, I will be a far greater educator because of it.<br /><br />And now that I've said it, and now that I believe it, I can stop fretting about it, and start getting some real work done.<br /><br />But first, sleep.<br /></span>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-29807703025516655872010-03-23T10:24:00.000-07:002010-03-23T12:59:58.540-07:00Why not Psychology?<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">It's not one of the most common of the family of "what exactly is the point of your education, anyway?" questions I get asked with obnoxious frequency, but it is the one I've probably had the most difficult answering. It's taken some pointed readings, some difficult self-examination, my desire to get back to writing in this blog, and a job search that has done nothing but question my educational journey (past, present & future) to get me to finally suss out the answer to it.<br /><br />Not to say I haven't had answers to that question, they've just never been really on point. My freshman year of high school I used to tell my psychology teacher that I "didn't believe in psychology", which was admittedly bullshit (I mostly just didn't want to do the level of work she required for the class); in recent years I've tried to explain to people that my connection to depression and mental health is both intra- and interpersonal; that I didn't ever want to approach the topic from a "clinical" standpoint. But that always felt a little like an excuse for me, though in hindsight one I'm glad I had. See, today my answer is a bit of a synthesis of these two originally insincere ideas; I don't believe in the need for psychology.<br /><br />Since this is the part of article where I backpedal from my outrageous and extreme position so as to not give the impression that I am some kind of outrageous extremist, I'll clarify that I believe, today, there is a need for therapists and counselors and neuroscientists and the like. I often encourage people I know that there's nothing to fear from these resources; that they can in fact help people, and I still believe that. But here's the thing: why do we need these resources?<br /><br />My problem is that pills and even therapy are little more than the treatment of symptoms. Yes, therapy can, in some ways, get to the root of the external causes of depression and anxiety disorders; and yes, sometimes these external causes don't even exist, and that depression and anxiety are genuinely biochemical diseases that require nothing more than biochemical treatment. I do still genuinely believe these things. But modern psychology, in what I can only assume is a desire to appear more like a "hard science", is very quickly shifting to explaining things like depression and anxiety as nothing but a biochemical disease, to the point where external influences are being phased out. And I'm not naive enough not to realize how much the pharmaceutical companies are helping guide this transition.<br /><br />But this isn't a scathing attack on pharmaceutical companies, or even on the institution of psychology, as if there even were some building or group of people one could direct such attacks. I certainly know plenty of people with or pursuing psychology degrees, and I have nothing against them personally or their field of study. This is about why I, Alex, advocate and activist for mental health, am not diving head first into my apparent following as a psychologist. After all, don't I want to help people? Well, I've come to a kind of realization; something I feel like I always knew but never had the guts to come right out and say it. I don't need a degree to be qualified to help people. Also, and here's the real epiphany, <span style="font-style: italic;">neither do you</span>.<br /><br />I need to preface this next part with a bit of a disclaimer. Therapists are by and large great people, and if you need help, if you <span style="font-style: italic;">really </span>need to talk someone, you could do a lot worse than seeing a counselor. They <span style="font-style: italic;">will </span>help you, and even if they don't, there's always plenty of others out there, and they're usually more than willing to make referrals. Most significantly, I've yet to meet a therapist who didn't genuinely <span style="font-style: italic;">care </span>about people. Oh, I've heard horror stories to the contrary, but I've never seen it myself.<br /><br />I'm not even saying that there's not any need for therapists. My point is that there shouldn't be; in a perfect world there ought not be therapists. This is not a perfect world where things like depression, grief, anxiety and like don't exist. This is a perfect world where general mental health knowledge is as widespread as general health knowledge; a world where empathy and connection are valued more than independence is. We live in a society that doesn't understand empathy; hell, I consider myself to be pretty empathic, and I doubt I understand it all that well. People simply have trouble fathoming one another. We get so wrapped up in "just being ourselves" that it seems preposterous when the world asks us to consider what it is to be somebody else for a moment. So we can't connect. We can't understand. Combine that lack of understanding with a general ignorance regarding mental health, and you create an atmosphere where it's neither helpful nor even generally safe to talk to others about depression or anxiety. Family members and friends don't know how to act, how to respond, how to help. Usually you're lucky if the things they try simply don't help at all; oftentimes the things that come naturally when trying to help end up doing far more harm than good. In such a world, there's an obvious need for therapists. Who else can you talk to and actually get help from?<br /><br />But we cannot let ourselves be content with such a world. For starters, who has several hundred dollars to drop every month for an hour a week? And why is one hour per week the only "dosage" of talk medication we allow ourselves? If people just knew how to listen to one another; knew the basic symptoms of depression and anxiety; know what to avoid; know what to ask; then we could be in therapy, for free, any damn time we wanted. And these things <span style="font-style: italic;">aren't especially hard</span>. You just have to be willing to learn them. And you don't need to college degree. Hell, you don't even need a course. I could probably go over the key pointers in a post shorter than this one, and while you wouldn't be nearly as a "qualified" as a registered therapist afterward (I would never claim to be myself), you could be there for someone you love in ways a $100-200 hour-long weekly session with a relative stranger never could be. That's not nothing.<br /><br />I had a conversation recently with a person. This individual described themselves as not being qualified to understand or assist with someone's mental health status, and their actions did nothing to make me believe they were selling themselves short. They also said that I too was equally unqualified, and while I understand where that sentiment is coming from (again, I would never claim to be <span style="font-style: italic;">as </span>qualified as someone with an actual degree), I have to soundly reject that notion. For starters, I wouldn't have made the obvious mistakes this individual made. It's a sad world where you need a college degree and post-graduate certification to be considered "qualified" enough to listen to a person's problems and give them encouragement and advice. We're not talking about rocket science here, we're talking about people. Yes, you could make the argument that people are generally more complex than rocket science, but on this point we have a bit of a leg up. You see, <span style="font-style: italic;">we're </span>people too.<br /><br />This has been kind of a stream of consciousness post and for that I apologize. But my point is this: it's on all of us to make this world a better place for the people we care about living with depression, anxiety, or any other mental health disorder. And you certainly don't need a degree for it.<br /></span>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-61456448059023499552009-12-12T19:15:00.000-08:002009-12-12T20:12:52.915-08:00In Defense of Buffy's 6th SeasonFor a lot of fans of the show Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, the 6th season is universally considered one of the worst seasons (second only to the 7th season in that regard). There's a number of different reasons, from Buffy's over-the-top, annoying angst, to the de-evolution of Spike's character, to the uncharacteristically heavy-handedness in detailing Willow's <s>drug</s> magic abuse. While I wouldn't argue the last and I won't argue the second here, the first is of particular interest to me.<br /><br />Fans love Buffy for a number of different reasons, from the excellent writing, a memorable cast of characters (especially supporting characters and villains), and the popularization of the myth story arc, which many of the most critically acclaimed modern shows now employ. It's truly a well-made show, so it's easy to see how many people, including many of its fans, miss what is ultimately the point of the show: it's a series of clever, subtle (well, usually) Aesops regarding all of the tropes and issues so commonly found in more traditional high school/young adult drama. Just, with vampires and demons and magic and the like. This was easiest to see in the high school years (seasons 1-3) which tackled issues ranging from popularity, abusive step-parents, steroid abuse in athletes, and, perhaps most famously, the question "why is my boyfriend acting so differently after we had sex?" Season 4 was all about the typical college issues, ranging from obnoxious roommates, professors who care more about their research than their students, sexuality, and insecurities about not going to college when the rest of your friends do. Season 5 was all about family, including probably one of the best directed episodes in the series ("The Body"). When Season 6 turned into a giant ball of angst, fans reacted negatively. There had always been levels of angst throughout the entire run of the show, but in Season 6 it had reached critical mass (again, at least until Season 7). It was only after listening to the "Once More With Feeling" soundtrack (the popular musical episode in Season 6 and what many fans consider a rare high point in the season) that it finally hit me, not just what Buffy's character arc was an analogy to in the season, but how incredibly obvious it had been the entire time. Season 6 was about depression. Not over-expressed angst or ennui, but serious, full-blown depression. With Buffy's songs such as "Going Through The Motions", "Walk Through The Fire" and especially "Give Me Something To Sing About" it's about as obvious as it gets. But at the same time, it's not, and it speaks to how tricky and misunderstood the topic of depression truly is.<br /><br /><br />There be spoilers here.<br /><br /><br />Season 6 begins when Buffy's friends resurrect her after her death at the end of the previous season. Her friends think they're saving her from some horrible hell, and are surprised that Buffy's not at all happy to be back, mainly because she was pretty sure she was in heaven. Either way she was content, maybe even happy. Let's re-read that a little bit. She was content (almost happy) with being dead, and upset with her friends for keeping her alive. She wanted to be dead and her friends stopped her. It's really easy to miss this subtle subtext, especially because of how dead wrong about Buffy being in some hell dimension, and how easy (at least at first) it is to sympathize with Buffy. So Buffy becomes despondent, no matter how hard her friends try to get her to be happy. She doesn't find joy in the company of her friends, or in the thrill of slaying. All she can really think about is how she wishes she were dead. In this case, the subtext wasn't nearly subtle enough. They kind of hit you in the head with a hammer over it, and now Buffy is being extremely obnoxious, and you lose all sympathy for her. She engages in behavior that is uncharacteristic and even self-destructive <coughspikecough>. Her friends, in trying to <span style="font-style: italic;">force</span> her to be happy, end up having the opposite effect and are confused as to why their tactics aren't helping. This is textbook depression. Sure, the show should've done a better job of making Buffy more sympathetic overall, but in general it's as obvious an analogy as the show uses. It's no accident that this season emphasizes above all else humanity. Buffy has to remember what it was like to live and function as a human; Spike himself struggles with his humanity until ultimately accepting it; the main Big Bads for the majority of the season are three nerdy kids in a basement (two of which are generally sympathetic), and the ultimate Big Bad is one of the show's (hell, one of TV's) most sympathetic characters, overcome with grief and rage; and the only thing that can save the day is the words and emotional human connection of probably the only normal human character on the show.<br /><br />Sure, Buffy is a little overly obnoxious with the angst. And yes, the drug abuse references were about as subtle as a brick. And the tvtropes.org's "Badass Decay" trope was originally named "Spikeification" for a reason (I would argue that Spike was never as much of a badass as he liked to pretend to be, which is part of what made him such an interesting character, but I digress). But I always knew I liked the 6th Season, certainly more than most Buffy fans did, and I now I think I finally understand why.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-56165283286871560052009-12-09T04:22:00.000-08:002009-12-09T04:45:12.969-08:00Self Relection on a Difficult Semester<span style=";font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >I'm not going to lie, this semester was a rough one for me. I had a lot of struggles dealing with personal issues, and I was faced with two daunting independent projects that I had little idea how to prepare for, as well as the most rigorous and difficult, if rewarding, academic courses of my educational career. Apart from a stretch in November, where personal difficulties causing me to, and subsequently stemming from, taking antidepressants practically sidelined me. There were times were I literally felt like a living zombie. Of course, as soon as I started truly feeling better mentally I got struck with the porcine death (Novel H1N1, to be specific) that knocked me out for a week and still threatens to send me bedridden again. I like to think, however, that I learned great deal about myself. What I am capable of, what I'm not capable of, and what I need to finally convince myself I'm capable of. I wrote the first draft of my thesis play, my so-called defining work, as well as over seventy pages (I'm not exaggerating either) of writing reflecting on the nature of activism and advocacy and the role I play within it. I got my first taste of campus politics, and while essentially fruitless power struggles threatened my sanity, I find myself having an aptitude for it. So there has been a lot of bad this semester, true, but we learn the most from struggles. We find ourselves... or we find ourselves lacking. In my estimation, by the end of this semester I have definitely performed the former. I now know who I truly am, as an artist, as an advocate, as a mentor, and as a leader. And it doesn't matter that this will all change in three or five years. All that matters is I know who I am, right now, in this moment. It's a good feeling.</span>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-27892832780897278352009-10-05T07:31:00.000-07:002009-10-05T08:59:16.548-07:00Thesis UpdateNo play I have ever written has been nearly as frustrating as my thesis has been so far. There's a number of reasons for this, but the most important is this: this is only major play I've written where the emotional arc of the play doesn't necessarily dictate the physical arc of the play. <span style="font-style: italic;">I Feel Fantastic </span>was about two men struggling with decisions regarding antidepressants. <span style="font-style: italic;">Condition Blue </span>was about a disgraced detective who can't live down his disorder. Both of these contained readily available plots. My thesis, at least how I originally conceived of it, is about a young man struggling to overcome grief and depression in a world that has little tolerance of the former and zero tolerance of the latter. As an emotional arc it works well, and I've pretty much had that arc plotted out from the beginning. And while that would work fine it and of itself as a novel, but as a play it's lacking of the one thing any solid play needs to get an audience following along: action. I can't stage internal monologues, and if the play is just the emotional arc as I've envisioned it, the play would be so rife with monologues that it almost might have well been a one-man show, which is not what I want. So I've had to come up with some kind of physical action- a backdrop in which to display and accentuate the emotional arc I've established.<br /><br />Just a warning, for those who might care, but there's going to be future spoilers ahead.<br /><br />This has been the hardest part, because usually plays are designed with a physical arc in mind, and the emotional arc develops as the story fleshes out. I've been tripped up because I haven't been able to conceive of a physical arc, certainly not one worth using, because for me the physical arc isn't all that important in this piece- in my mind it is clearly about Thomas (the protagonist's) emotional development. But that physical arc is the skeleton of the play- without it I can't even start writing. Sure, I've got an important plot element: Jocelyn (his best friend's) suicide- but this is what kicks off the emotional arc, and is the event that throws Thomas' physical arc out of whack. This means that I have to give Thomas an ultimate objective, some real-world goal that transcends his internal well-being. Knowing what I know about the emotional arc, this needs to be an objective that is multi-staged, something that he has a specific series of tasks to accomplish to reach his goal.<br /><br />An important aspect of the play's concept is the idea that his struggles with grief depression are simply not tolerated (let alone accepted) in the world that he lives in and hopes to succeed in. Based on my own personal experiences as well as the stories I have gratefully been told, I determined that Thomas' ultimate objective ought to be career-oriented. While I originally conceived of Thomas and Jocelyn as high school students, this development caused me to shift the story ahead to make them college students. Thomas' ultimate goal is a post-graduate program, something that will set him on the fast-track of his desired career. This, I determined, was too large a goal for the scope of the play. So I took it one step back in Thomas' plan. He wants to get into a fairly prestigious internship; this internship, in Thomas' mind, is what will guarantee his placement in the post-grad program of his dreams. It is whether or not Thomas succeeds in getting into this internship that will provide the central question of the play's physical arc. Thomas is currently in a summer job that he is heavily focused in performing above and beyond expectations in; he hopes this will give him a killer recommendation for the internship, which will in turn determine whether he gets into the post-grad program he wants to get in to, which will in turn determine whether he gets the jobs that he wants to, which will in turn determine whether or not he will be successful and happy in life. For those of you who are fans of Ned Vizzini's <span style="font-style: italic;">It's Kind of a Funny Story</span> (a book that provided a great deal of inspiration for me,) this precarious house of cards Thomas has based his future and potential for happiness on is a classic example of a tentacle: a present source of stress that bears with it the added pressures springing from a series of future events. It is this summer job that is thrown out of whack by Thomas' grief and subsequent depression.<br /><br />Once I had worked all of this out, the next step was easy: what kind of job, internship, career is Thomas trying to pursue? And the answer: education. For the most part, I prefer to stick with what I know when I write, at least as far as subject matter goes. But it goes much deeper than that too. One of the traits I have that I am most proud, and I know developed in large part due to my experiences overcoming my own depression, is empathy. Empathy, and along with that a desire to help others, had to an integral aspect of this career field. Furthermore, it has to be a field where depression can, to the unaware, appear to be a major liability. All of these factors contributed to what I felt was an easy decision.<br /><br />The beauty of this structure is that it allows two arcs, the physical and the emotional, to exist simultaneously while at the same time taking different directions. It wasn't hard to determine his relative success along the two arcs. It also allows me to have Thomas fail to achieve his physical goal (after a tumultuous end to his summer job, he is flatly turned down for the fall internship) while at the same time coming to a positive conclusion to his emotional arc (ie, coming to terms with his grief and depression.) After all, this story is, ultimately, my own story. And my story, at this point, is about having hope for the future, pride in my experiences, and the advocacy against oppression towards those with depression. So this story should end on a similar note.<br /><br />Even with this structure in place, this play isn't going to write itself. I've still got a number of other plot elements to develop, the most important at this point is the development of Jocelyn as a physical character in the play as a ghost/vision/dream/hallucination. I definitely want this happen at some point, if not at multiple points through the play. This will allow what would otherwise be Thomas' internal monologues into an actual dialogue with dramatic action.<br /><br />I'll post more as I develop, but I think I'm close to being able to sit down and pound out a first draft. I'd love feedback; how do you guys feel about this idea so far?Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-90122740910328561752009-09-29T02:05:00.000-07:002009-09-29T02:30:04.230-07:00An Advocate's CreedDear world, I live with depression. It is something that impacts me every day, though not in the way that you think. It has made me a stronger, more passionate, more empathetic human being, and I would not be nearly the person I am today had I not had to struggle with and overcome the depression that plagues me.<br /><br />I will no longer accept any of the shame or guilt you have attempted to pile upon me. I am proud to be who I am today and nobody can take that way from me. I will no longer remain silent and I will no longer allow you to shame those who suffer through what I've suffered through into silence. I will shout my story to the world, and I will encourage others who share my experiences, though I may not know them and though they may not know me, into shouting their stories to the world as well. And we will continue to shout, and continue to grow, until there is no one left who feels that they have to remain silent. We will allow you to shame us or anybody else no more, and we will no longer tolerate or abide you punishing us for daring to share our experiences.<br /><br />And once we have obliterated your culture of shame and disgrace we will finally be able to come together as a community, as a culture of our own, a culture of pride and strength and caring, and we will reject and overcome the intolerance you bear down on us just as you bear down on any who make you uncomfortable. And we will be free of your oppression, free of both the internal prisons you have crafted and forced us into as well as the very real institutions you have directed us to and from that you, in your ignorance and in your arrogance, have decided are or are not appropriate for someone in our <span style="font-style: italic;">condition</span>. While we will never fully be free of that which afflicts us<span style="font-style: italic;">, </span>we will be free of the <span style="font-style: italic;">conditions </span>that you have invented to limit, embarrass and degrade us. We will finally tear down the walls you have built for us, against us, between us, and we will be free.<br /><br />But we will never stop shouting our stories.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-39185711598949862432009-09-24T12:32:00.000-07:002009-09-24T13:33:22.670-07:00Musings On the Nature of HappinessI'm trying to allow myself to give advice more often.<br /><br />I try to avoid dispensing advice, even to my closest friends, partially because I'm worried I'll give the wrong advice, and partially because I don't feel qualified to give advice in specific situations. But again, I think my unwillingness to give advice is in large part a reason why I'm not closer to my close friends than I am now. That, and how worried I get about opening myself up to others. Since the latter is something I want to work on as both a person and an advocate, I figure I should be working on the former as well. I didn't really know the situation, and to be honest I don't really know the friend that well yet, but as I've said, I'm trying to be more a outgoing person.<br /><br />So if you're struggling between doing what you think is right, and doing what you know you want, I'm probably going to give the same advice at all times: follow your heart. I followed my head to near exclusivity for a good 20-21 years and it brought me nothing but anguish and depression. Granted, I wasn't being super serious when I offered my advice- I mean, "follow your heart" has become kind of a catch phrase among my friends, but I still think it's fair advice.<br /><br />Then someone else chimed in, and their response was so dripping with cynicism that I had to stop myself. I don't believe in hell, but if it does exist I think there's probably a place there for cynics. I try as best as I can to not to place value judgments on people, but there are few things in life more worthless than cynicism. So naturally the response got me riled up, and when I get riled up my mind races, and it brought me to some fairly interesting conclusions.<br /><br />Usually when we're thinking following our head we're thinking about doing what's right. Now this is usually a matter of morality, but morality has become so socialized and normalized that to have one's own moral code (and morality is supposed to be individual) is to be seen as a hedonist. So really, most often the choice becomes doing what you want and doing want other people think is right. Now, for some people following this societal moral code may be important, and in some situations I would certainly argue for following your head. I often rail against extreme ideological points of view and this is no different; arguing you should always follow your head is as worthwhile as arguing you should always follow your heart, which is to say not at all.<br /><br />But I have a theory that people are fundamentally unhappy when they choose to try to follow their head as much as possible. Now, this is subjective and based entirely on my own experiences, but I think pretending to be able to give objective advice is a fairly dishonest practice. Objectivity, certainly on an interpersonal level, is an absolute myth. But try to follow along. The head will tell you a lot of things; it will tell you what should do, what you shouldn't do, what other people will think of you, what you feel you're required to do, and so on and forth. The heart, on the other hand, will tell you one thing and one thing only: what will make you happy. When people talk about whether they should listen to their heart, it is practically always about something that would make them happy. Now, this isn't always a lasting happiness, and the momentary happiness may not actually be worth whatever it is you lose to achieve it. And it's important to live that life of balance. But it's just as important to do what makes you happy.<br /><br />So why do people consistently choose against their own happiness? There's so many reasons, and this is something I wouldn't understand if I didn't live a vast majority of my life living it. Speaking from my own experience, I often chose against my own happiness because I thought I was choosing the happiness of other people. Here's something I've learned: the heart certainly is concerned with your own happiness, but the head is not, it <span style="font-style: italic;">is not</span> concerned with other people's happiness. It is concerned with other people's <span style="font-style: italic;">expectations</span>, and this is a huge difference. And I really feel that no one should putting other people's expectations above their own happiness. Now, there may in fact be people for whom other people's expectations are of most importance to them, and if that fulfills them, gives them a sense of pride, then I would say that they're happy and leave the point at that.<br /><br />Of course, the head has something the heart doesn't have, which is a brain. The heart may know what makes you happy but it can also be supremely stupid, and it's important to recognize when your heart's being stupid so you can ignore it, or better yet find some other way to find happiness. If step one of the advice is to follow your heart, then step two is to have no regrets. If you are following your heart, it has to be something you know you won't have to regret. And we regret a lot of things we don't have to. So do indeed follow your heart, because if you do you will find, even if only for a moment, happiness. Don't regret it, don't wallow in it, and certainly don't carry it as such a huge burden that you feel the need to advise a younger generation to steer clear of personal happiness in lieu of society's expectations for them.<br /><br />It's not perfect advice, but it's a start.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-33545913750770030582009-09-16T11:43:00.000-07:002009-09-16T12:07:21.982-07:00Monologue FeedbackSo, I presented my monologue to the advanced playwriting course, and the feedback, while generally positive, pointed to a lot of issues with the piece. I'll recap:<br /><br />1. Most people were either not with the story about Grandpa, or were lost when the monologue transitioned into the story of the character's friend. This is perhaps the easiest to remedy as a matter of practice, but the hardest for me to actually commit to. Obviously, the monologue has to be about the character's friend, and obviously the bulk of his storytelling is about his grandfather, so obviously I need to trim the story about the grandfather. I may have to work this story in later in the play, or maybe just cut it completely, and leave it as a little piece of information I know (and you guys know) that informs in some small way the protagonist's character. It's still painful to cut any of it, though.<br /><br />2. People want to learn more about the protagonist's friend. This will easily be solved by, well, the entire rest of the play, but I think I can give the audience a little more about her here in the monologue as well.<br /><br />3. There needs to be dramatic action. This is something the professor insists on that most students tend to roll their eyes about but for the most part I agree. As I wrote the monologue I wrote as if it were an internal monologue at the beginning of a novel, and that kind of narration works wonderfully in a novel. But I believe that audiences want to see something happening. They want to watch rather than be told. And there is dramatic action in the piece, it just comes at the tail end after several minutes of talking about his grandfather. So the action of the monologue needs to come earlier, but that shouldn't be too difficult if I refocus the story to be about his friend rather than Grandpa.<br /><br />4. Maintain the disjointedness. This was actually positive feedback for the section about his friend, but was also reverse engineered into constructive criticism for the section about his grandfather. The feedback, and I'll paraphrase because it was probably the most poignant and helpful feedback I got from the class, was that when the character's thinking became more disjointed when talking about his friend: "that was when it felt like he was talking to me, rather than at me." I was worried that I'd lose people when his thinking would bounce back and forth between death, jokes and the three wishes game, but the class pretty much universally agreed that was when they felt most connected to him.<br /><br />5. Maintain the contrasts. The contrasts between death, grief and humor resonated well with the class, and is something I plan on making a major theme throughout the play. The second contrast in this piece, and something that didn't work as well as I had hoped, was in his reactions between his grandpa's death and his friend's death. We need to know how he reacted to his grandpa's death and we need to know it in this scene, that much I am sure of. We also need to see some more hints about why this death is affecting him so much harder, and it has to be more than just age. That's some work I need to put into it.<br /><br />My plan is to revise this monologue sometime before the end of the week, and then move on the rest of the act. What do you guys think about this feedback?Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-28722878191418558942009-09-04T21:51:00.001-07:002009-09-04T21:55:01.928-07:00Thesis: Opening MonologueI hate funerals.<br /><br />Not in the way that other people hate funerals. No, these people don't really hate funerals. They just hate death. I think because they fear it so much. So they cry and weep and mourn, but really what they're thinking about is their own mortality. I can't imagine anyone wanting to cause someone else that much grief.<br /><br />Grandpa's funeral was the worst. Gran's was pretty bad too but at least Grandpa was there to liven the mood. Told me he couldn't stand to see the way people felt sorry for themselves, when all Gran wanted was to make the people she loved happy. So Grandpa told jokes. Knock-knock jokes, he said those were always Gran's favorite. I think that was the only time I saw Grandpa cry. I knew he was happy though, because she wanted him to be. People said he lost it that day, but I knew better.<br /><br />I loved Grandpa's jokes, almost as much as Gran did. Some were simple, like the knock-knock jokes; those were the ones Gran loved. Sometimes he'd have me pull his finger; Gran didn't like that one so much. But some were long and elaborate, and Grandpa always knew how to drag it out until it was the perfect moment to deliver the punchline. These were always my favorite. They were like the bedtime stories my parents told me when I was very young. They took me to another world, and I was always excited to be there. When I got older he would tell me dirty jokes, and tell me not to repeat any of them to my parents or Gran, or they'd scold him. After Gran died, Grandpa started going to the amatuer hour at the comedy club. Everyone else told Grandpa he was crazy, but I always went, and I always laughed at his jokes. The other people didn't like it very much, but he wasn't telling the jokes for them. It was always for Gran.<br /><br />When Grandpa died, everyone said it was because of a broken heart, but I knew that his heart was just fine. He was old, and he was tired of telling jokes to us. He was happy, because he knew he was going to be with Gran again, and I was happy for him when he passed. Oh, of course I cried. I cried a lot. But I never forgot that Grandpa was happiest when he was making me laugh. So I sat in the back of the service, and I brought a pen and some paper, and I started writing down all of Grandpa's jokes that I could remember. Even when Aunt Claire smacked me upside the head for laughing, I didn't mind. There was no way she could understand. She was always calling him crazy when he wasn't around. I felt sorry for Grandpa, but he always said he was too old to give a crap about what everyone else thought. I miss my Grandpa a lot, and every time I come up with a new joke I dedicate it to him and Gran.<br /><br />But this funeral is so different. When Gran and Granpda died, it was their time. They were old. She was my age. She was my best friend. She always told the best jokes too; some were even better than Grandpa's. But try as I might, I can't remember any of them. It's awful. I can't stop crying. I can't stop trying to make sense of it. Why would she do that to herself? Why would she do that to me?<br /><br />Death. She did always have a morbid sense of humor. I always thought she was joking. She was fascinated with the unknown. She loved learning; I never saw her without a book of some kind. But what fascinated her the most was death. She wondered what it would be like... always asked who got it right. If anyone got it right. She liked to play this game, Three Wishes. She'd ask me what I'd wish for if I had three wishes, and then make me ask her.<br /><br />I want to remember the jokes she'd used to tell; the smart ones that I had to think about the get, the silly ones that always had us rolling on the floor laughing, even the lame puns that were always the funniest no matter how awful they got. But nothing. All I can think about is that stupid game. Is she happy now? Is she still sad?<br /><br />I cant get her voice out of my head; that ridiculous voice she'd always use when she'd play the game. "And for your first wish?"<br /><br />And for my first wish?<br /><br />I wish to know what death is like.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-31933390844110480262009-09-04T18:14:00.000-07:002009-09-04T18:47:48.803-07:00Condition Blue and Other Plays<span style="font-style: italic;">Condition Blue</span>, as some of you know, is a play I wrote for the 2008 Ten Minute Play Festival, and is the first script I'd written that was performed and produced as part of a live theatrical event. On the surface the script is mock film noir about a detective cursed with a "condition," and the way that the "condition" causes others to act towards him. What's not apparent is that this script is, on a very basic level, autobiographical. While the play is raucous and over-the-top, it is ultimately about depression (the "condition") and the very real way people with depression are sometimes treated.<br /><br />I've posted the script in its entirety on another blog I created for a class project and never bothered deleting; you can read it here:<br /><a href="http://tenminuteplays.blogspot.com/">http://tenminuteplays.blogspot.com/</a><br /><br />If <span style="font-style: italic;">Condition Blue </span>is the first act in my saga, than its spiritual sequel is full-length play I wrote from which this blog gets its name: <span style="font-style: italic;">I Feel Fantastic! </span>This is a play I wrote about the dangers of extreme points of view in regards to antidepressant use. Set in the near future, <span style="font-style: italic;">I Feel Fantastic!</span> shows an America where antidepressants are mandated to all citizens and strictly enforced, and how the lives of two individuals cross; one who seeks to quit antidepressants and one grappling with whether he should start taking them or not. This 80-page script is far from complete, and its current incarnation is a second draft that I'm not completely happy with. Once I am able to upload this script, I can post a link to it if you are interested in reading it.<br /><br />The play I am very close to starting to write for my thesis project will then be a synthesis of these two acts with a third act added to the end, representing the genesis of my advocacy work. My intention is to create a work that is more straightforward than <span style="font-style: italic;">Condition Blue </span>and at the same time more allegorical than <span style="font-style: italic;">I Feel Fantastic! </span>I will post regular updates as I begin to work on this script, posting samples for your perusal and comments as I create them.<br /><br />One last note, it may be interesting to you that my greatest source of inspiration as I write is music. <span style="font-style: italic;">I Feel Fantastic! </span>is named after a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMLLqq04Hyg">song of the same name</a> by independent singer/songwriter Jonathan Coulton. As I've been formulating the idea for my thesis work I've been listening primarily to Muse and composer Bear McCreary's soundtrack for the excellent re-envisioning of Battlestar Galactica. Both of these musical sources have led me to the same obvious conclusion- that above all this new play should be about taking action, not just reacting to society's harsh stigmas and stereotypes.Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-19005823711673023892009-09-03T17:08:00.000-07:002009-09-03T18:06:10.191-07:00Deconstructing Dichotomies: Good vs Evil<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">There's something incredibly fascinating to me about our culture's desire to line all things up into two, diametrically opposed camps. Maybe it's for ease in describing a notion or problem, maybe it's to make decision making a snap. Clearly, things are boiled down into neat little dichotomies to make <span style="font-style: italic;">something</span> easier for people. There's a danger here, however, and what we lose and what we risk losing when we create false dichotomies is often overlooked.<br /><br />One of the most common and probably one of the most damning side-effects of the creation of these false dichotomies is the formation of the belief that there is no middle ground. When ideas, concepts, <span style="font-style: italic;">sides </span>are segregated to separate camps, the idea persists that one cannot be a part of both groups, or the even more dangerous idea that one can't not be a part of one of the two groups. This idea of "you're either with us or against us" often shuts down conversation, particularly those without strong views on the particular subjects. These individuals are often shunned as being "against us," which leads to us going on the offensive, which leads to them going on the defensive, and when this takes place there's absolutely no way any real exchange or communication is actually happening.<br /><br />It's worth mentioning that there are certainly times, particularly within the social justice movement, where passive neutrality actually is supporting one of two sides. But that's another article entirely.<br /><br />Let's take a look at False Dichotomy #1, really the genesis from which all other false dichotomies spring: Good vs Evil. Now, when applied as abstract, hypothetical ideas, one can clearly see that Good and Evil are two diametrically opposed ideas. But when you actually apply these concepts to the human spectrum, like all hypothetically clear dichotomies, things begin to murky very fast.<br /><br />Good and Evil beget Right and Wrong (Dichotomy #2), and very quickly we can see that this will lead to problems. After all, I am always "Right", and, if you disagree with me, you are "Wrong", and if this is an issue that involves any sort of morality or ethics, this breakdown leads us straight back to Good and Evil. Since we all always disagree with somebody else on something, including those issues that relate to morality and ethics, you can easily see how every single person on this planet is at both times Right <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> Wrong, Good <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> Evil.<br /><br />I'll give you an example. There is a student in one of my classes who feels very strongly about choosing not to use pharmaceutical drugs. The argument here is that these drugs are not natural, and then for our personal well being we should avoid such things. Now, this seems pretty solid... it might even wonder into Right and even Good territory. But then there's my argument- the argument that one should be working against the stigmas surrounding antidepressants (a pharmaceutical drug) because of how these medications can allow people to function normally when they would otherwise be unable to, and that they even save lives. Saving lives is Right... and its certainly Good too. Yet aren't these two arguments are diametrically opposed? Doesn't one have to be Right and one Wrong? And since people's health and lives hang in the balance, doesn't one have to be Good and one Evil? The answer to all of these questions is simple: no. I cannot speak for my fellow student, but I have absolutely nothing against people with the desire to live a healthy and natural life, so long as they don't infringe on the need I had, and the need many others have, for pharmaceutical aid.<br /><br />Even those things you might think we agree on as a people we don't. I mean, we might expect that we can all agree that murder is Wrong and Evil, but we still have armies and wars, our country's leaders still support revolutionary groups and dictatorships worldwide, and we still execute our prisoners, so really haven't reached that agreement. Is stealing Evil? What would Robin Hood say to that? How about greed? That seems like an easy one, but really, greed is one of the most basic human emotions, and we can't physically survive without succumbing to that greed on at least a very basic level. I mean, to have greed is to want and to take, and unless you're living on some organic, self-sufficient commune completely cut off from society (in which case you wouldn't be reading this article) we all do that. Now you might argue that there're levels of greed, hate, stealing, murder, etc... that there's some kind of a cut-off.<br /><br />A-ha! Now we're getting somewhere. When we start talking about levels, and about "cut-offs", we've already moved beyond dichotomy. Remember, that there is no <span style="font-style: italic;">spectrum </span>of Good and Evil. You are either Good or you are Evil, at least according to prevailing school of thought. There certainly isn't a spectrum of Right vs Wrong. But reality operates in shades of gray, because nothing is truly Black or White (False Dichotomy #3, for those of you playing the home game.) And where there is a spectrum, there is a <span style="font-style: italic;">middle ground</span>, and where there is middle ground, there is <span style="font-style: italic;">communication. </span>Communication doesn't exist without middle ground. If you want proof of that you need look no further than the current California budget crisis.<br /><br />But the middle ground isn't that easy a place to get to. The reason for this is simple: because so many times we get wrapped up in the idea that <span style="font-style: italic;">we </span>are Right, and that <span style="font-style: italic;">they </span>should meet us where we're at. The important thing to keep in mind is that everyone has a reason for believing what they believe in, and that even if that is a place of ignorance and misinformation, you still have to meet them in the middle ground before you can communicate with them. It is in this common ground that minds are swayed, and ideas are transmitted. It is in the common ground that syncretism- the blending of ideas- takes place.<br /><br />You may even find that both beliefs are Right, and can easily coexist without bringing harm to anyone. And that is a truly wonderful moment to experience.<br /><br />I should point on that "without bringing harm to anyone" clause of the above phrase makes this a tricky mindset when tackling such things as social justice. I'll talk about that at a later date.<br /></span></span>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3272761168468903936.post-48965862118051789552009-09-03T14:15:00.000-07:002009-09-04T03:00:59.709-07:00The Stigma of Antidepressants<o:p style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Below is an essay I recently wrote that basically prompted the decision to create this blog. The assignment is for a course called Social Advocacy: Theory and Practice, and this particular assignment is referred to as a "Problem Blueprint." The idea was to label, define and clarify a problem that we face, identify the key decision makers that could fix the problem, and strategies to reach out to said decision makers. My hope is that I will follow this essay with (shorter, I promise!) other writings that will spark some discussion, open some hearts and minds, and who knows, maybe some day bring some positive change to our small little pieces of the world.</span><br /><br /></o:p>------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />There’s a lot of stigmas and stereotypes present in our society regarding all manner of mental health issues. Many people suffer from depression and never seek treatment or help, for a number of reasons. Some may feel they just have the blues, or are just down on the dumps, or find some sort of external factor to blame their constantly low moods on. There are many others who undergo treatment from depression (or an anxiety disorder) who will get embarrassed or not admit to what they have, even to their own physicians, and certainly not to the same degree that people will reveal a problem with high blood pressure.<span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-size:78%;" >[1]</span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn1" name="_ednref1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></span></a></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> There is definitely a trend in our society away from discussing emotional or mood-related issues, and so mental health is often relegated to the unspoken yet nearly universally-accepted societal role of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Yet how common a problem is depression, and how serious a problem is it? A recent study by Mental Health </span><st1:country-region style="font-family: arial;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family:arial;"> reveals that roughly 21 million Americans, children and adults, suffer from depression. This is just shy of 7% of our population, or roughly one in every fourteen individuals<span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[2]</span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn2" name="_ednref2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> A 1999 study on suicide statistics found that depression could be linked to roughly half of all successful suicide attempts, and that those suffering from depression are eight times as likely to commit suicide than the general population<span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[3]</span></span></span><span style=";font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><a style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn3" name="_ednref3" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> </span><span style="font-family:arial;">The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that suicide was the 11</span><sup style="font-family: arial;">th</sup><span style="font-family:arial;"> leading cause of death among all Americans, and the 3</span><sup style="font-family: arial;">rd</sup><span style="font-family:arial;"> leading cause of death among Americans between the ages of 15-24, accounting 12% of all deaths among that age group<span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[4]<br /><br /></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;">All of these factors, along my own personal history as a three-time suicide survivor, as someone who lives with depression, and as someone who wishes to work with college students as a full-time career, have contributed as to why I feel this is a serious problem and one that I wish to dedicate my efforts in tackling. Several other statistics have caused me to realize how much the stigma surrounding psychological aid and antidepressants in particular have contributed to the problem of suicide. According to a fact sheet offered by our campus’s very own Counseling & Psychological Services, approximately 70-75% of the people who attempt to commit suicide offer some kind of warning, either verbal or non-verbal, to their friends or loved ones before the attempt<span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[5]</span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn5" name="_ednref5" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> Note that these statistics only include actual attempts at suicide, and do not include the number of people whose warnings helped give them the aid they needed to avoid an attempt on their own life. This means that nearly three quarters of all suicide attempts in this country are easily preventable with the proper intervention. The aforementioned study by Mental Health </span><st1:country-region style="font-family: arial;" st="on"><st1:place st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region><span style="font-family:arial;"> found that, all other factors equal, those states with higher rates of antidepressant prescriptions per capita had lower rates of suicide<span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[6]</span></span></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span><span style="font-family:arial;"> Given these statistics and the likely conclusions to be drawn from them, it would seem that antidepressants would be as commonly and widely accepted to use as antibiotics, or cholesterol medication. Why this isn’t true is a matter worth looking into and, hopefully, taking action against.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:arial;">Stigmas are, in general, a societal issue, and so I will begin to undertake this problem as one that is strictly interpersonal. Stigmas exist because of widely held beliefs that often transmitted, person to person, as something that is “fact” or “truth.” There are many of these stigmas in existence, and I hope to confront them all, both through face-to-face, person-to-person dialogues, and also through both active and passive programming. Stigmas are also notoriously difficult to erase, and often require generational shifts before changes truly start to take hold. This is due to the viral nature of these “facts” and “truths” that spread. Even after my second suicide attempt, I refused to believe in the neurological causes of depression, or that antidepressants would help me. My third attempt was my most serious and the most damaging to me, physically and emotionally. It was only until after I started treatment of antidepressants was I able to calm down and center myself and reach a point where I could learn to manage my depression. If I can reach even one person and prevent them from going through what I had to go through, I will consider myself successful in my endeavors. Obviously, my goals are a bit more ambitious, but I believe in starting small.</span> <p class="MsoNormal" face="arial"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:georgia;"><span style=""> </span><span style="font-family:arial;">As the stigma against antidepressants is an interpersonal problem, the key decision-makers would obviously be those who at best, firmly believe in said stigmas and, at worst, try to spread the misinformation that supports the stigma to others. As I’ve already said, I believe very strongly in the power of face-to-face communication, and I’d also like to hold events to discuss and deconstruct these stigmas, as well as creating information fliers and posters. All of these are first steps, however. I have plans on starting a blog to discuss, among other things, the very stigmas and stereotypes on mental health issues that I work to end (when I have the time to write!). As a playwright, I focus on telling my own stories with mental health in a way that hopefully, communicates universally that every individual’s mental health is different and therefore everyone’s road to mental wellness is different as well.</span><br /></p> <p style="font-family: arial;" face="georgia" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p style="font-family: arial;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" face="arial" style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p><span style=""> </span><span style="font-family:arial;">Oftentimes I find that the greatest factor in preserving these stigmas and stereotypes is an extremist point of view. When I speak of extremism, I refer to the idea that there are ideas that are absolutely universal: “you should </span><u style="font-family: arial;">never</u><span style="font-family:arial;"> take antidepressants” or “there’s </span><u style="font-family: arial;">always</u><span style="font-family:arial;"> a reason to be depressed.” This happens most often through a process referred to as universalizing the particular. Oftentimes people believe what is true for them must be true for everyone. This is the most often cause behind the stigma behind antidepressants. People who don’t deal with depression often don’t understand the difference between psychological depression and regular sadness. So that when an individual gets through a period of sadness without the need for pharmaceutical aid, they figure that nobody needs pharmaceutical aid to get through sadness. Depression, however, is much more powerful and much more constant that the pure emotion of sadness, and usually requires more effort than the average individual to manage. Many people have depression severe enough that they cannot manage without long-term pharmaceutical aid, and others (such as myself) needed the aid of antidepressants temporarily to overcome a severe period of depression.</span></p><p style="font-family:arial;">Other stigmas relate to ideas regarding antidepressant’s unfortunate side effects. There is one school of thought that states that antidepressants create an “artificial happiness” or that antidepressants somehow numb feelings. For many people on antidepressants, this simply isn’t true. Note that I say for many people- everyone has an anecdote about a friend of a friend of a neighbor for whom antidepressants made the problem worse rather than better. Anecdotes are often more compelling than scientific data and other forms of evidence, especially the fewer degrees of separation one is from these anecdotes, and especially if the anecdotes confirm our suspicions. This is again owed to the process of universalizing the particular. The prevailing thought is that if antidepressants actually sapped that friend of a friend of a neighbor’s energy, or increased that individual’s suicidal ideations, then surely they will do the same for me. Every body’s chemistry is different so obviously antidepressants do not have the same effect on everyone. Like with therapists, I would encourage individuals to shop around if they’ve had bad first impressions. One side effect that opponents of anti-depressants fall on most often is this idea that anti-depressants actually aggravate suicidal thoughts or ideations. This article leans heavily on this particular scare tactic, arguing “the percentage rates of suicide listed in the brochures may seem low, but the numbers do represent actual people who killed themselves as a result of that particular medication. Is that a risk you are willing to take (or let a loved one take)?”<span style="font-size:78%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></span></a><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""></a></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"><span style="font-size:78%;">[7]</span></span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-size:78%;" ><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span> As another article points out, however, the proper question isn’t whether anti-depressants cause suicide (studies have shown that while anti-depressants in youth have shown to cause a slight increase in suicidal ideation, in none of the cases studied were the ideations acted upon), but whether the question that should be asked is whether individuals with depression are more likely to commit suicide on medication than off medication. The article offers this little nugget of information: roughly 70% of individuals who have committed suicide had not seen a psychiatrist in the year leading up to their deaths<span style="font-size:78%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""></a><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn8" name="_ednref8" title=""></a></span><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[8]</span></span></p><p style="font-family: arial;" face="arial">Of course, I could scream statistics at the top of my lungs as much as I want, but the truth is that for many people anecdotal evidence does trump. And so, while I do broadcast statistics as often as I am able, I also offer my own stories, many times through simple conversation, but also in the form of theatrical scripts. In this regard, my greatest resource is my fellow advocates, and this is where stigmas are the most dangerous and the most difficult to eradicate. The stigma regarding antidepressants not only keeps people with depression from seeking pharmaceutical aid, but also keeps those that do for disclosing this information. It’s embarrassing to talk about being on antidepressants. So, naturally, the only stories you do hear are those stories that speak out against antidepressants, which makes the stigma stronger, which makes our shame run deeper. I think that if everyone who has had experiences with antidepressants shared their stories, the voices of those with negative experiences would be drowned out. The same study that “warned” against antidepressants causing an increase in suicidal ideations in youth also found that antidepressants had an 11:1 reward/risk ratio; that is, you are eleven times more likely to have your depression lessened by antidepressants than have it worsened<span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">.</span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[9]</span></span>.<span style="font-size:78%;"><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn10" name="_ednref10" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--></span></span></a></span> And so I think it is important that those of us with positive experiences with antidepressants be more open and willing to share our experiences. The best way I can think of to do that is to broadcast my story, as widely as possible, so that people know that it’s okay to talk about, and that they aren’t alone.</p><p style="font-family: arial;" face="arial">One thing that I do want to keep in mind, however, is that I am not discounting or discrediting the experiences of others who have been negatively impacted by antidepressants. I believe that it happens. Hell, after antidepressants helped me get to a point of clarity where I could effectively manage my own depression, I had to ween myself off them. I was taking both antidepressants and anti-anxiety medication, and the combination kept me in bed almost as much as my depression used to. Medication was not the long-term solution to my mental well-being, but it saved me in the short-term. As I’ve stated earlier, everything is different for different people. For some, antidepressants are a long-term solution, for others, antidepressants aren’t the solution at all. I choose to broadcast my story, and to counter those whose stories further the negative stigma and stereotypes surrounding antidepressants, because I know for the overwhelming majority of people, the evidence is on my side. I would never refer to those whose stories run counter to my expectations as a liar, or even say their story is wrong, because it’s right for them. But if I can educate those people with my story, and present them with my evidence, and show the very real harm that the stigma surrounding antidepressants causes to those suffering from depression, then it is my duty to do so. Ultimately, no matter how grand or ambitious my intentions become, it is in these moments that I know I can do the most good.</p><p style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:100%;">------------------------------------------------------------------</span></p><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[1] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Mags, "<a href="http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/558185/why_the_stigma_attached_to_antidepressants.html?cat=9">Why the Stigma Attached to Anti-Depressant and Anti-Anxiety Medication?</a>" 25 Jan. 2008.<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[2] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Mental Health America, "<a href="http://www.nmha.org/go/state-ranking">Ranking America's Mental Health: An Analysis of Depression Across the States.</a>"<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[3] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The Suicide Prevention Resource Center, "<a href="http://www.ulifeline.org/main/factsheets/74">Suicide Prevention Basics.</a>"<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[4] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide-DataSheet-a.pdf">Suicide: Facts at a Glance,</a>" Summer 2009.<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[5] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Ralph L. Rickgarn, "<a href="http://studentaffairs.humboldt.edu/counseling/suicide_prevention.php">The Issue is Suicide.</a>"<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[6] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Mental Health America.<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[7] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dena Lambert, "<a href="http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/depression_women/74493">Antidepressants: Should You or Shouldn't You?</a>" 13 Jul. 2001.<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[8] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Chris Ballas, M.D., "<a href="http://www.healthcentral.com/depression/c/49/9479/suicide">Do Antidepressants Cause Suicide?</a>" 14 May 2007.<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);">[9] <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Ballas, M.D.<br /></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-size:78%;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);"></span></span></span><br /><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 0);font-family:arial;font-size:78%;" ><a style="" href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=3272761168468903936&postID=4896586211805178955#_edn6" name="_ednref6" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style=""><!--[endif]--></span></span></a></span>Alexhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03463841924479119616noreply@blogger.com0