Who creates stigmas?

“A quick quiz for you: You have friends coming over for dinner, and your antidepressant is in its usual place, the kitchen counter Do you:

A) leave it where it is, since you have nothing to hide?

B) put it in the cupboard to make more room for food?

C) stick it in the cat food bag, where no one will find it?

D) put it on the table so you’ll remember to compare notes with your friends who are on other medications?

Next question: Would it be different if your medication was for your diabetes? What about if it were for an STD? Erectile dysfunction? Cancer? AIDS?”

-Jenise Harmon

This excerpt is from an article I recently read titled “Stigma, Mental Illness and Shame” by Jenise Harmon, posted on the World of Psychology blog. (Blog post here) After reading her interpretation on the matter, it really got me thinking about stigma. What is a stigma? And where do stigma’s originate from? According to Merriam Webster, a stigma is “a mark of shame or discredit”. A stigma is usually associated with societal norms. If you have a mental disorder, you aren’t considered “normal” by society.

However, in today’s world, how much do societal norms play into stigmas? Harmon points out the great leaps that have been made in the acceptance of mental illnesses. Back in the day, people would be kept away from society if they had a mental illness, in insane asylums or other such places. Yet today, people generally are much more educated about mental illnesses. We learn about what they are in school and more importantly, how many people are actually affected by them. To our surprise, mental illness is actually quite common and having a mental illness is considered more normal than at used to be.

Despite this deeper education and understanding, stigmas still exist. In some ways, I think stigmas are developed within us. If I were to find out that one of my family members or friends had a mental illness, that wouldn’t change my perception of them. I don’t see mental illness in other as a weakness or a flaw. However if I myself had a mental illness, I’m not sure I would feel be comfortable being completely open about this. If I were to answer the questions Harmon proposed in her quiz, I think I would be ashamed if I myself had a mental illness. I would be embarrassed and wish to hide my anti-depressant meds if I had a mental illness. As hypocritical as it sounds, I wouldn’t judge others for their mental illnesses but I would judge myself.

In some ways, I think people with mental illnesses create stigmas within their own imaginations. While other people may not see the illness as a negative trait or a personal flaw, the person him or her self thinks that people will not be accepting and view him or her as crazy or not normal. People with mental illnesses perceive the world differently and think that people will perceive them as crazy or weird. In general, most people are pretty accepting of mental illnesses. The least accepting people are the people with mental illnesses themselves who can’t always accept themselves and their condition

So this leads me to my question: do stigmas really exist? To what extent our stigmas present in our society and to what extent are they created in our own minds and thoughts? In my opinion, I think that stigmas surrounding mental illness are often derived by the person with the illness who thinks that people are more critical than they actually are.

Who's Narrating our Media?

In English Class, we are currently reading the book "The Poisonwood Bible" by Barbara Kingsolver. This book tells the story of a missionary named Nathan Price and his family as they travel to the Congo. Most of the story is told in first person, but it is interesting to note that it is not told in first person by the same person throughout the novel. There are five main narrators in the novel: the wife, Orleana, and the four daughters--Rachel, Adah, Ruth May, and Leah. Each narrator offers a very different perspective and each narrator documents their experiences much differently.

The author can play with these different narrators and thus manipulate the story by telling it a certain way. For example, Rachel, the oldest of the four daughters, is a very materialistic girly teenage girl. As a result, when Rachel is telling the story, we get a very detailed outlook on aesthetics and appearances. Rachel notices small details about the types of clothing the Congolese people wear, the color of their skin, and their hair. Rachel's perception of things is very appearance-oriented and she seems to pick up things that other characters may not. On the other hand, there is Leah, who is extremely faithful to her religion and to her father. When Leah is narrating, she is much more focused on religion and uses more biblical references. She also talks a lot about her father and how she admires him. Adah, who is "the quiet one", offers a very objective and honest opinion. She does focus on religion but in a somewhat sarcastic way because she does not believe in it the same way Leah. Ruth May, the youngest of the daughters, also offers a very honest and bluntly racist outlook. Her telling of events reflects the racist idea of her parents that her society has instilled upon her overtime. When she is narrating, we get a very simple and overtly honest version of the story.

Each character has something very different to offer, and the author can play with these characters to tell the story she wants. She can choose to have Rachel tell the story of one specific experience and have Ruth May tell the story of another. However we must be aware of these narrators when reading the story and ask ourselves these questions: who is narrating? what part of the story are we not getting?

This picking and choosing of narrators seems to resonate deeply with the American media. In our media, we need to ask ourselves the same questions. The media tells the people what they want to hear and often times leaves out key details in facts. The government can manipulate what we are reading by choosing what to tell the people and what to leave out, just like Kingsolver does in choosing different narrators. When we are reading the media, we must understand that although what we are getting may not be wrong, it may not be and probably is not the full truth.

Who's Writing our Textbooks?

The other day in English, we read a short article titled Textbook Wars. (Article) It talked mostly about the controversy surrounding textbooks: who should write them, and how we can find a curriculum that works for all kinds of people. Many social conservatives believe that most textbooks we use today reflect a generally liberal point of view. On the other hand, many liberals believe that conservatives are rewriting textbooks that fit better with their prejudices and opinions. It is a controversy that has been around for years and probably will be around for many more: whose perspective should be taught in school?

This is a conflict that is evident in many realms of education but one subject in which it is a particular issue is history. The author in this article talked about how history would be told differently if conservatives rather than liberals told it. If conservatives told history, Thomas Jefferson, who emphasized the separation between church and state, would not be a significant historical while Ronald Reagan would be regarded as a “national hero”.

This idea really struck me. I have never really thought of our historical textbooks as taking on a liberal point of view. But then again, if this were the way it had always been taught how would we know the difference? This history that we have learned in school is what is normal to us. This is the history that we know as true so any other version of it would sound wrong or conservatively biased. However, we can’t really make that judgment if the history we know as true is liberally biased. Ironically enough, it seems like history would be the least controversial topic to teach because it is strictly based on facts rather than opinion, theories and ideas. But if we are picking and choosing what to teach, we are indirectly formulating a bias, whether that be a liberal bias or a conservative bias.

I think the main question we need to ask ourselves is when we read a history book, who is the narrator? Who is telling the story? Is the interpretation of history we get in school really the most neutral and unbiased one or is it a liberal interpretation? These are the kinds of things we need to consider in our education system. Perspective is essential in history and before we take what is fed to us as true, we should evaluate the perspective it is coming from and who’s interpretation we are really getting.