There are times when people become not merely illogical, but downright unrealistic. Unfortunately, the times most likely are when a person has fallen deeply in love, when a person has had a spiritual experience and accepted a rigid set of beliefs, and when someone is badly anxious and scared. Such a person when faced with even the simplest everyday decisions will have difficulty knowing the best choice or in following through with such a choice. Second guesses, outright denials, wildly impractical schemes tend to be the result.
People in such a state are not stupid. In fact, if they stick their heads above the rim of their rut, they can see that what they have committed to makes little sense.
The illogical behavior of people in love we could find cute, even charming. Books, movies, television shows are built around just such foolish antics. The person acting out of fear may seem less endearing, although books and movies give them attention also. But it is the person whose faith, however valid, takes over, this is the one who tends to cause the greatest havoc, whether it be a radical Muslim, ultraconservative Jew or fundamentalist Christian. (Has anyone noticed the absence of radical Buddhists?)
There are people looking to lead this country whose belief systems are not so much about finding meaning for their own lives as forcing everyone else to behave in a certain way. One such has wandered into my sphere by having a husband whose clinic professes to have anti-gay conditioning Never mind that every reputable professional group has rejected this.Never mind that every study has shown it to be ineffective over the long run, if not ultimately damaging to the supposed clients themselves (there is a disproportionate number of suicides amongst those who were so treated.)
But this form of treatment has an amazing level of acceptance amongst the conservative Christian community. I can always tell when certain (anti-gay) evangelists have come through the area: I get calls from gay and lesbian young people panic-stricken about fitting their sexual orientation into their faith. And I have found, sadly, that telling these men and women that the facts show their sexuality cannot be changed any more that the color of their eyes has no effect. That preacher at that revival made them feel so bad about themselves that they aren't able to be rational about it(see above.)
Yes, they can work to accept themselves, to see all the God-given gifts they have.But when we are surrounded by family and others who condemn a person for being who they are, it is difficult to have the clear-headedness we need.
And it becomes even more difficult when important people in our community tell us we must behave in a particular way. We might condemn some ethnic cultures who dictate how a woman must dress. But do we frown upon groups in our own society who condemn women if they dress in a way we do not approve of? Standards of behavior, however artificial and ephemeral, tell us that men must behave this way and women that way. And when some does not, then what?
Monday, July 18, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
And Then What Happened?
When my daughters were young (never mind how long ago that was nevermindnevermind), there were some movies that had to be carefully previewed before screening for family. No, not for excessive violence or sexual content, although that of course. It's just that some stories could have a negative impact on young sensibilities: when Romeo and Juliet die, when Laurel and Hardy have difficulty getting that piano up the stairs, when that alligator stalked Kermit in the first movie (you remember, during the song Rainbow Connection). Otherwise, there would be tears and cries of "It wasn't supposed to end that way!"
Yes, as they grew older and were able to face the ups and downs of life, they were better able to handle Shakespeare and the Muppets. But we seem to have a sizable portion of the population that have difficulty with things not turning out the way they wanted them to, they don't get what they want, the dream turns out not to be real after all. And stomping collective feet or holding collective breath does not have the results they seem to expect. They try, anyway: a lot of elected representatives seem to be having the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.
Growing up means accepting the fact that things do not always turn out the way we expect. (Exhibit A: Class reunions. That guy or that gal chosen Most Likely to Succeed, uh, didn't.) Not only accepting that fact, but knowing what to do about it.
How many of us still look back to halcyon days when Life Was Good? (For some of us, that was longer ago than others.) And we suspect anything that might smack of today (or even, heaven forfend, tomorrow?) We make vainglorious attempts to turn back that clock, to make it as it never was except in our memory. Of course, that ideal when everyone was doing what we expected- nothing more-is not only unrealistic but also unattainable.
We need to stop trying to change the future into our past, to rewrite history that is yet unwritten. So our political point of view is not accepted by consensus, our faith is not in fact universal, our ethic/racial/sexual orientation is not deferred to as superior? So what?
It does not work to cry, "It shouldn't be that way!" Or to repress any alternative result than the one we want.
So life gave us lemons... Now how does that old saying end?
Yes, as they grew older and were able to face the ups and downs of life, they were better able to handle Shakespeare and the Muppets. But we seem to have a sizable portion of the population that have difficulty with things not turning out the way they wanted them to, they don't get what they want, the dream turns out not to be real after all. And stomping collective feet or holding collective breath does not have the results they seem to expect. They try, anyway: a lot of elected representatives seem to be having the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.
Growing up means accepting the fact that things do not always turn out the way we expect. (Exhibit A: Class reunions. That guy or that gal chosen Most Likely to Succeed, uh, didn't.) Not only accepting that fact, but knowing what to do about it.
How many of us still look back to halcyon days when Life Was Good? (For some of us, that was longer ago than others.) And we suspect anything that might smack of today (or even, heaven forfend, tomorrow?) We make vainglorious attempts to turn back that clock, to make it as it never was except in our memory. Of course, that ideal when everyone was doing what we expected- nothing more-is not only unrealistic but also unattainable.
We need to stop trying to change the future into our past, to rewrite history that is yet unwritten. So our political point of view is not accepted by consensus, our faith is not in fact universal, our ethic/racial/sexual orientation is not deferred to as superior? So what?
It does not work to cry, "It shouldn't be that way!" Or to repress any alternative result than the one we want.
So life gave us lemons... Now how does that old saying end?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
How to Fight Fair
This is a continuation of sorts from the last, but if that doesn't leap immediately to mind (and why not!) that's okay (deep sigh!)
The paradox today is that we fight more and know less about fighting. We have this concept that conflict of any importance or magnitude requires total victory on our part and total humiliation, if not annihilation, on their part. The possibility that a person might be so secure in a sense of well-being that carving another notch on the gun isn't necessary, that is something alien to our current cultural standards. So when the president recognizes that our on-going wars in Afghanistan are meaningless and even futile, his efforts, however meager, to walk away, raise cries of "Where's the victory?" as though that had even been within reach.
Sorry, I got sidetracked. The subject here isn't fighting on a global scale, but in personal relationships (although the former tends to be the latter writ large.) Too often people come to me because they are in an on-going conflict where nothing is ever resolved and they don't know how to get out of this death spiral. Too often one member of a couple is out-going, vocal and only too ready to express feelings. The other person is quiet, withdrawn, even stoic. Oh, you know these people, do you?
So the script begins with some spark large or small that sets off an angry exposition of the issue on the part of Person No. 1. The response from Person No 2: uh, Person No. 2, are you there? No, going and watching television or going on a computer or going out drinking does not count as a response. In fact, it just causes an escalation with Person No. 1, who assumes that stating the case calmly and clearly (well, you know what I mean) hasn't worked, so repeat as often and as loudly as necessary. This causes further withdrawal and resentment by Person No. 2. Which in turn causes Person No. 1 to...well, you get the idea.
At this point there is a need for someone (discrete cough) to step in, take both people by their hands and show them how to fight.
No, we cannot pretend that there will never be some form of conflict. We can ignore the issues until things get to the point where both sides have dug in and things are too broke to fix. We can assume that peace and quiet is the same as peace. We can throw the whole out, baby, bathwater and all. We can spend the rest of our lives together being what I call "married singles," where each just goes on about their separate lives sharing a mailing address, a name and maybe the same bed, and nothing else.
So let me give you the Rules.
First, find a time and place where there will be no distractions or interruptions. Whether it be when other family is out of the house, or in bed, or chained in the basement (hey! I don't judge your parenting skills, okay?) make sure that neither is so preoccupied or giving so much mental energy to anyone outside the room. Turn off the cell phone! That's very important. (There would have been a time when you would have been told to take the phone off the hook, but plus ca change...) Of all modern noises, one of the most difficult to ignore is a phone. Also, turn off the IPod, the computer, the television. It will be there when you get done.
Second, know what you are fighting about. Make sure both of you are dealing with the same issue. In fact, make sure you know what the issue is. Right at the start, identify that issue, as clearly and concretely as possible. Otherwise, as Arthur Miller put it in one of his plays, you may not be fighting about what you're fighting about.
Then, stick to that subject. There will be other issues that come up, but bookmark them for future and stay on target. This will be tough, as there will be old stuff going way back that seem just too important (and importunate) to ignore, especially if one or the other of you feels defensive and looks for anything to divert the argument.
Third, no hitting below the belt. In any relationship, each person knows the vulnerable spots in the other, and in the flush of combat, such chinks in the armor seem too hard to ignore. But calling on such just escalates the conflict and diminishes the discussion. Well, figure it out yourself: the person you are supposed to trust the most has just used that trust against you. Whaddya gonna do? Right.
And a side bar on this rule. Don't hit below the belt but don't wear the belt around your neck. We can rule so much out-of-bounds that nothing can be dealt with. Or one person dismisses the issue as no longer valid: it took place just long enough ago, or the person had changed (no evidence of change, but never mind)or some sort of armistice had been declared on this subject. "I've moved on, what haven't you?"
Finally, don't expect a quick or easy resolution. It is all too easy once past that first anger to want to settle this quickly. Sure, some sort of peace treaty is advisable, but did you know how many wars are still unsettled. from conflicts with tribes of Native Americans to the Korean War; just cease-fires. Some questions, as the poet Rainer Maria Rilke put it, don't have answers; we just have to live the questions. In relationships, not all issues are settled the way they are on television- in half an hour to an hour, with time out for messages from our sponsor. Sometimes we have to accept each other, differences and all, and just learn to love the imperfection in another as we learn to love the imperfection in ourselves
The paradox today is that we fight more and know less about fighting. We have this concept that conflict of any importance or magnitude requires total victory on our part and total humiliation, if not annihilation, on their part. The possibility that a person might be so secure in a sense of well-being that carving another notch on the gun isn't necessary, that is something alien to our current cultural standards. So when the president recognizes that our on-going wars in Afghanistan are meaningless and even futile, his efforts, however meager, to walk away, raise cries of "Where's the victory?" as though that had even been within reach.
Sorry, I got sidetracked. The subject here isn't fighting on a global scale, but in personal relationships (although the former tends to be the latter writ large.) Too often people come to me because they are in an on-going conflict where nothing is ever resolved and they don't know how to get out of this death spiral. Too often one member of a couple is out-going, vocal and only too ready to express feelings. The other person is quiet, withdrawn, even stoic. Oh, you know these people, do you?
So the script begins with some spark large or small that sets off an angry exposition of the issue on the part of Person No. 1. The response from Person No 2: uh, Person No. 2, are you there? No, going and watching television or going on a computer or going out drinking does not count as a response. In fact, it just causes an escalation with Person No. 1, who assumes that stating the case calmly and clearly (well, you know what I mean) hasn't worked, so repeat as often and as loudly as necessary. This causes further withdrawal and resentment by Person No. 2. Which in turn causes Person No. 1 to...well, you get the idea.
At this point there is a need for someone (discrete cough) to step in, take both people by their hands and show them how to fight.
No, we cannot pretend that there will never be some form of conflict. We can ignore the issues until things get to the point where both sides have dug in and things are too broke to fix. We can assume that peace and quiet is the same as peace. We can throw the whole out, baby, bathwater and all. We can spend the rest of our lives together being what I call "married singles," where each just goes on about their separate lives sharing a mailing address, a name and maybe the same bed, and nothing else.
So let me give you the Rules.
First, find a time and place where there will be no distractions or interruptions. Whether it be when other family is out of the house, or in bed, or chained in the basement (hey! I don't judge your parenting skills, okay?) make sure that neither is so preoccupied or giving so much mental energy to anyone outside the room. Turn off the cell phone! That's very important. (There would have been a time when you would have been told to take the phone off the hook, but plus ca change...) Of all modern noises, one of the most difficult to ignore is a phone. Also, turn off the IPod, the computer, the television. It will be there when you get done.
Second, know what you are fighting about. Make sure both of you are dealing with the same issue. In fact, make sure you know what the issue is. Right at the start, identify that issue, as clearly and concretely as possible. Otherwise, as Arthur Miller put it in one of his plays, you may not be fighting about what you're fighting about.
Then, stick to that subject. There will be other issues that come up, but bookmark them for future and stay on target. This will be tough, as there will be old stuff going way back that seem just too important (and importunate) to ignore, especially if one or the other of you feels defensive and looks for anything to divert the argument.
Third, no hitting below the belt. In any relationship, each person knows the vulnerable spots in the other, and in the flush of combat, such chinks in the armor seem too hard to ignore. But calling on such just escalates the conflict and diminishes the discussion. Well, figure it out yourself: the person you are supposed to trust the most has just used that trust against you. Whaddya gonna do? Right.
And a side bar on this rule. Don't hit below the belt but don't wear the belt around your neck. We can rule so much out-of-bounds that nothing can be dealt with. Or one person dismisses the issue as no longer valid: it took place just long enough ago, or the person had changed (no evidence of change, but never mind)or some sort of armistice had been declared on this subject. "I've moved on, what haven't you?"
Finally, don't expect a quick or easy resolution. It is all too easy once past that first anger to want to settle this quickly. Sure, some sort of peace treaty is advisable, but did you know how many wars are still unsettled. from conflicts with tribes of Native Americans to the Korean War; just cease-fires. Some questions, as the poet Rainer Maria Rilke put it, don't have answers; we just have to live the questions. In relationships, not all issues are settled the way they are on television- in half an hour to an hour, with time out for messages from our sponsor. Sometimes we have to accept each other, differences and all, and just learn to love the imperfection in another as we learn to love the imperfection in ourselves
Monday, June 27, 2011
Bully
Like most of you, I was a quiet little kid. (I know, I know, hard to believe!) Not much good at sports, middle of the class academically, shy around the opposite sex. Not until high school was I able to assert myself, gradually gradually ever so gradually.
Which meant that I was the natural prey for the school bullies.
No, I didn't suffer some of the physical humiliations that many do, but I still had to deal with the name-calling, the insults, the hostility, the exclusion from the In Crowd. And actually such things had more effect than any threats to my physical well-being.
It is only with age and maturity (ahem!) that I have come to have empathy for those bullies. I know now that many of them had their own insecurities, their own need to control another to make up for their own problems. I even (gag, choke, gasp!) forgive them. What's more, I forgive those adults, teachers and others, who stood by and did nothing as this bullying went on.
But nowadays, bully-prevention is a big deal. Possibly because of all those young nerds like me who were bullied, now grown and parents or grandparents ourselves, there is more sensitivity to the problem, and more programs to deal with it. The very potential for violence has, at one and the same time, been identified and addressed, as well as escalated (can you say Columbine?)
Of course, there is another whole realm for bullying: on-line. With the confidentiality of the internet, a person can cyber-bully, cyber-stalk another person with little likelihood of restriction or retaliation.
The question, even in the face of such changes, remains the same: what should be done? It is easy to suggest that the delete button is a good choice in these circumstances. The real issue, however, lies not in the bully, who may be hard to get to, but in the person being bullied. What resources does such a person have? Friends who can reassure that the calumny is false or at least not valid. In a pinch, legal measures. But beyond such external measures, there is a need to claim our inner worth.
Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself without your cooperation. It is that inner doubt that the bully counts on. Bullies are (as I suggested above) not very secure people; that's why they over- compensate in trying to make others feel bad. They seem to know instinctively who they can dominate or intimidate. Or maybe they do it with everyone, and they find their victims in the ones who don't reject their games.
This does not mean that the victims are to blame for what happens. It does mean that they are responsible for what they do next.
Which meant that I was the natural prey for the school bullies.
No, I didn't suffer some of the physical humiliations that many do, but I still had to deal with the name-calling, the insults, the hostility, the exclusion from the In Crowd. And actually such things had more effect than any threats to my physical well-being.
It is only with age and maturity (ahem!) that I have come to have empathy for those bullies. I know now that many of them had their own insecurities, their own need to control another to make up for their own problems. I even (gag, choke, gasp!) forgive them. What's more, I forgive those adults, teachers and others, who stood by and did nothing as this bullying went on.
But nowadays, bully-prevention is a big deal. Possibly because of all those young nerds like me who were bullied, now grown and parents or grandparents ourselves, there is more sensitivity to the problem, and more programs to deal with it. The very potential for violence has, at one and the same time, been identified and addressed, as well as escalated (can you say Columbine?)
Of course, there is another whole realm for bullying: on-line. With the confidentiality of the internet, a person can cyber-bully, cyber-stalk another person with little likelihood of restriction or retaliation.
The question, even in the face of such changes, remains the same: what should be done? It is easy to suggest that the delete button is a good choice in these circumstances. The real issue, however, lies not in the bully, who may be hard to get to, but in the person being bullied. What resources does such a person have? Friends who can reassure that the calumny is false or at least not valid. In a pinch, legal measures. But beyond such external measures, there is a need to claim our inner worth.
Nobody can make you feel bad about yourself without your cooperation. It is that inner doubt that the bully counts on. Bullies are (as I suggested above) not very secure people; that's why they over- compensate in trying to make others feel bad. They seem to know instinctively who they can dominate or intimidate. Or maybe they do it with everyone, and they find their victims in the ones who don't reject their games.
This does not mean that the victims are to blame for what happens. It does mean that they are responsible for what they do next.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Family Rules
Every family has its own (usually unspoken) rules and expectations: Everyone gets up more or less at the same time, goes off to whatever activity (job, school, housework) they have taken on, and even if few families gather around a dinner table, bedtimes is usually the same. (What?! You mean your family didn't? I'm shocked, shocked!) We could spend much time compiling all the things that members of your family were expected to do. But I could guess with some certainty that members of any dysfunctional family had very similar rules, even though no one ever put them into words:
(1) Don't think
(2) Don't talk
(3) Don't feel.
Let me explain.
(1) Don't think.
Because, if you took a moment to think about your situation, you'd quickly realize that most of the time, things didn't make sense. In fact, things were pretty chaotic. What's more, everyone was expected to ignore that dead elephant in the middle of the living room. Whatever thinking took place went to coming up with rational-sounding explanations for what no one wanted to accept had happened (that's why they're called rationalizations.)
And if someone did dare to ask a question regarding this craziness, they were reprimanded or even punished. They were stigmatized as crazy themselves, or as troublemakers, or as cry-babies (mad, bad or sad in other words.) They may have even been told they should just keep quiet. Which brings us to the next Rule of Dysfunctional Families:
(2) Don't talk
In a society that idealizes personal privacy, it does not seem bad to have a family rule about keeping family affairs private. But we are going farther than that. Too often when someone is being abused by another family member, or someone in the family needs medical or psychological or legal help, the word goes forth: don't tell anyone!
So if a child has been abused, that child might grow to adulthood before daring to say anything about what happened. If a teacher asks about suspicious bruises, the child is quick to come up with any excuses possible ("I fell off my bike.") If police show up to investigate a spouse beating, too often the person who leaps first to the defense of the abuser is... right!
Sometimes this is because the abuser has told the victim, "Don't you tell anyone!" Sometimes it is because the others in the family were so flagrant in their disbelief that the victim gives up in futility. Sometimes, alas, the child is so young that the memory is too vague, or speaking for oneself is a moot point. The victim simply consigns herself to feeling emotionally numb in an important part of life. Which brings us to the next Rule of Dysfunctional Families:
(3) Don't feel
When the first feeling one can identify is painful, all feelings get shut down. Sure, we learn to act out certain feelings (anger especially), but letting ourselves feel vulnerable and caring is out of the question! So we develop a lack of trust toward others; our relationship are shallow, exploitative or explosive.
When the first people we should care about prove unreliable, untrustworthy or even uncaring, we learn not to put ourselves in that sort of position again. Or, conversely, we jump into relationship after relationship with anyone who makes a pretense of caring; when you don't know the Real Thing, your natural need for love grabs onto any facsimile.
Of course, showing feelings happens anyway. We cannot help it. But since we have accumulated a backlog of expressed feelings, they all tend to come tumbling out in a confusing and frightening way. That why it helps to have a professional (ahem!) at hand to provide a safe environment.
(1) Don't think
(2) Don't talk
(3) Don't feel.
Let me explain.
(1) Don't think.
Because, if you took a moment to think about your situation, you'd quickly realize that most of the time, things didn't make sense. In fact, things were pretty chaotic. What's more, everyone was expected to ignore that dead elephant in the middle of the living room. Whatever thinking took place went to coming up with rational-sounding explanations for what no one wanted to accept had happened (that's why they're called rationalizations.)
And if someone did dare to ask a question regarding this craziness, they were reprimanded or even punished. They were stigmatized as crazy themselves, or as troublemakers, or as cry-babies (mad, bad or sad in other words.) They may have even been told they should just keep quiet. Which brings us to the next Rule of Dysfunctional Families:
(2) Don't talk
In a society that idealizes personal privacy, it does not seem bad to have a family rule about keeping family affairs private. But we are going farther than that. Too often when someone is being abused by another family member, or someone in the family needs medical or psychological or legal help, the word goes forth: don't tell anyone!
So if a child has been abused, that child might grow to adulthood before daring to say anything about what happened. If a teacher asks about suspicious bruises, the child is quick to come up with any excuses possible ("I fell off my bike.") If police show up to investigate a spouse beating, too often the person who leaps first to the defense of the abuser is... right!
Sometimes this is because the abuser has told the victim, "Don't you tell anyone!" Sometimes it is because the others in the family were so flagrant in their disbelief that the victim gives up in futility. Sometimes, alas, the child is so young that the memory is too vague, or speaking for oneself is a moot point. The victim simply consigns herself to feeling emotionally numb in an important part of life. Which brings us to the next Rule of Dysfunctional Families:
(3) Don't feel
When the first feeling one can identify is painful, all feelings get shut down. Sure, we learn to act out certain feelings (anger especially), but letting ourselves feel vulnerable and caring is out of the question! So we develop a lack of trust toward others; our relationship are shallow, exploitative or explosive.
When the first people we should care about prove unreliable, untrustworthy or even uncaring, we learn not to put ourselves in that sort of position again. Or, conversely, we jump into relationship after relationship with anyone who makes a pretense of caring; when you don't know the Real Thing, your natural need for love grabs onto any facsimile.
Of course, showing feelings happens anyway. We cannot help it. But since we have accumulated a backlog of expressed feelings, they all tend to come tumbling out in a confusing and frightening way. That why it helps to have a professional (ahem!) at hand to provide a safe environment.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Reverse Robin Hood
This is by request. The person who asked me to talk about this was somewhat distraught; she was convinced that disaster was imminent. Understandably so, as she depends on certain federal and state programs for her health and well-being.
The current political situation regarding Medicare and Medicaid is hard to understand. It is being made more abstruse because of a whole group who seem to working from a position that has more to do with pandering to their political base, a place where theory and emotion play as much a part as the practical and reasonable. They have accepted a particular set of ideals (if that is quite the right word for such a collection of negatives) that they cannot compromise. and any other set of standards is seen as not merely wrong, but repugnant and even evil.
On the one hand, one can only applaud such a commitment to one's beliefs. Too often, our world has only grasped for what worked, settling for the the feasible more than the acceptable. If it made money, if it kept the crowds quiet, if it appealed to the people in power, that would be the status quo. But this group has a mirror-image approach. By this way of looking at things, the poor, the needy, the elderly and disabled, were not only not worthy of help, but a drag on the relentless progress of the younger generation. Scrooge-like, they dismissed such people with the wish that they should simply leave them alone so they might move forward, might focus on that bottom line. Even more, they would take what few resources the lower classes might have and give them to those they saw as deserving: the upper income population who might fritter away the meager resources of the needy in whatever brief time.
They have their alternatives to Medicare and Medicaid, albeit quite shallow and facile. One can applaud the implied concept of giving more responsibility for medical expenses to those receiving that care. The trouble lies in two areas: First, the people receiving the help have little experience dealing with the complications of medical finance, nor would they have any back-up to compensate for expenses not otherwise covered. Second, the medical professionals already have a history (in some small instances) of fraud and/or incompetence. Take away the (sometimes onerous) oversight of federal/state officials, and what is to check the clinicians who might realize how little they are getting out of this already, and now would look for any way in which services could be trimmed and charges increased?
This does not address the very real concerns of those who fear losing the help they receive now, however sparse the number of doctors, however questionable the quality of the care. When someone fears losing everything, it does not comfort to be told, well, not quite everything! But the debate has become black-and-white. This is not a discussion of how Medicaid and Medicare might be improved, but of how it might be eliminated altogether and some doppelganger put in its place.
The current political situation regarding Medicare and Medicaid is hard to understand. It is being made more abstruse because of a whole group who seem to working from a position that has more to do with pandering to their political base, a place where theory and emotion play as much a part as the practical and reasonable. They have accepted a particular set of ideals (if that is quite the right word for such a collection of negatives) that they cannot compromise. and any other set of standards is seen as not merely wrong, but repugnant and even evil.
On the one hand, one can only applaud such a commitment to one's beliefs. Too often, our world has only grasped for what worked, settling for the the feasible more than the acceptable. If it made money, if it kept the crowds quiet, if it appealed to the people in power, that would be the status quo. But this group has a mirror-image approach. By this way of looking at things, the poor, the needy, the elderly and disabled, were not only not worthy of help, but a drag on the relentless progress of the younger generation. Scrooge-like, they dismissed such people with the wish that they should simply leave them alone so they might move forward, might focus on that bottom line. Even more, they would take what few resources the lower classes might have and give them to those they saw as deserving: the upper income population who might fritter away the meager resources of the needy in whatever brief time.
They have their alternatives to Medicare and Medicaid, albeit quite shallow and facile. One can applaud the implied concept of giving more responsibility for medical expenses to those receiving that care. The trouble lies in two areas: First, the people receiving the help have little experience dealing with the complications of medical finance, nor would they have any back-up to compensate for expenses not otherwise covered. Second, the medical professionals already have a history (in some small instances) of fraud and/or incompetence. Take away the (sometimes onerous) oversight of federal/state officials, and what is to check the clinicians who might realize how little they are getting out of this already, and now would look for any way in which services could be trimmed and charges increased?
This does not address the very real concerns of those who fear losing the help they receive now, however sparse the number of doctors, however questionable the quality of the care. When someone fears losing everything, it does not comfort to be told, well, not quite everything! But the debate has become black-and-white. This is not a discussion of how Medicaid and Medicare might be improved, but of how it might be eliminated altogether and some doppelganger put in its place.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Quick and Easy
Someone once concluded a lengthy epistle, "Sorry for the long letter, but I didn't have time to write a short one."
Which makes one wonder at the amount of thought and effort being put into the various shorter forms of communication so predominant today (texting, twittering, posting et al).
We live in a society whose two greatest virtues are speed and convenience. We want what we want, and we want it now. Even more, we want it with minimum effort or difficulty on our part. Someone recently suggested that the remote was central to our world, and people would rise up in fury if it were taken away. As a symbol, there is little better. I measure out my days in coffee spoons, and an indication of my great maturity is that I can remember when one had to get up, go to the television set, and change the channels by hand! But today we are so accustomed to double-clicking the mouse and getting what we seek almost instantaneously. We communicate (in the form of our choice) by e-mail not letter. We cook our meals by microwave. We travel by car or plane quickly, and require entertainment whilst we travel to distract us from how long it takes. We don't even need to go anywhere to shop: We order on line and then wait impatiently for the snailmail to deliver our order.
So it should be no surprise that people seeking counseling expect the same quick service. True, much of it comes from the medical model where the right pill or the right treatment is all that is necessary. Most insurance companies won't pay for more anyway. And there are many forms of psychotherapy that cater to exactly this expectation. The concept that people might need more care and consideration does not enter into this equation.
Okay, so we may be past the era when people would spend days and days and days in therapy. But we are not past the reality that most of us might take a long time to change, anyway. No, sir, that includes even those who improve their lives by sheer denial. And yes, madam, that includes those who make minor cosmetic changes and assume that all can be solved by rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.
We aren't talking here about those who "recover" by a flight to health, a sudden panicky determination that everything is all right after all. Nor are we talking about those who face obstacles not of their own making (family, job, legal problems).
So when someone who has been previously cooperative and even has been making great strides precipitously terminates or simply begins missing appointments, we have gotten beyond the earlier, easier stages of therapy and hit the area which will not be comfortable and will seem very slow, well-nigh endless. But this is where the real work lies. And it is hard work. But it is the only form of therapy which makes the changes necessary.
Which makes one wonder at the amount of thought and effort being put into the various shorter forms of communication so predominant today (texting, twittering, posting et al).
We live in a society whose two greatest virtues are speed and convenience. We want what we want, and we want it now. Even more, we want it with minimum effort or difficulty on our part. Someone recently suggested that the remote was central to our world, and people would rise up in fury if it were taken away. As a symbol, there is little better. I measure out my days in coffee spoons, and an indication of my great maturity is that I can remember when one had to get up, go to the television set, and change the channels by hand! But today we are so accustomed to double-clicking the mouse and getting what we seek almost instantaneously. We communicate (in the form of our choice) by e-mail not letter. We cook our meals by microwave. We travel by car or plane quickly, and require entertainment whilst we travel to distract us from how long it takes. We don't even need to go anywhere to shop: We order on line and then wait impatiently for the snailmail to deliver our order.
So it should be no surprise that people seeking counseling expect the same quick service. True, much of it comes from the medical model where the right pill or the right treatment is all that is necessary. Most insurance companies won't pay for more anyway. And there are many forms of psychotherapy that cater to exactly this expectation. The concept that people might need more care and consideration does not enter into this equation.
Okay, so we may be past the era when people would spend days and days and days in therapy. But we are not past the reality that most of us might take a long time to change, anyway. No, sir, that includes even those who improve their lives by sheer denial. And yes, madam, that includes those who make minor cosmetic changes and assume that all can be solved by rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.
We aren't talking here about those who "recover" by a flight to health, a sudden panicky determination that everything is all right after all. Nor are we talking about those who face obstacles not of their own making (family, job, legal problems).
So when someone who has been previously cooperative and even has been making great strides precipitously terminates or simply begins missing appointments, we have gotten beyond the earlier, easier stages of therapy and hit the area which will not be comfortable and will seem very slow, well-nigh endless. But this is where the real work lies. And it is hard work. But it is the only form of therapy which makes the changes necessary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)