Film: Boy, Interrupted

Tonight the Social Work Student Association, which I'm a part of, showed a film, Boy, Interrupted. It's a documentary that this couple made about their son who committed suicide. Here's a clip:




It was intense, to say the least. The parents are filmmakers, so they had essentially documented their family's life, and so had clips of their son throughout his childhood. They decided to make this film a few years after he committed suicide, and included interviews with other family members as well as doctors and school staff whom their son had worked with.
The gist was that their son, Evan, had talked about death, dying, and killing from a very young age, and was eventually diagnosed as bipolar. It was a fascinating profile on someone with bipolar disorder, especially being so young (he committed suicide at 15). There were many things that struck me, but a couple really stood out. For one, the family was clearly quite well off and intellectual. At one point Evan was placed in a therapeutic group-home setting. The place was pretty incredible, and I just thought how fortunate they were to be able to afford such a thing. Not to mention just their general privilege as far as their awareness, access to services, and family and community support. Many, many individuals and families who face similar issues do no have such things.
The other thing that really stuck with me was that the psychiatrist who had worked with Evan for years, and had initially prescribed him lithium, commented on medication and bipolar disorder. A few weeks or months before Evan took his life he had asked to go off of his medication to see how he would do without. Since he had been doing quite well for several years, both his parents and his doctor agreed. He eased off, and reported feeling ok, but his parents noticed a shift back to his depressed behavior, and so had scheduled an appointment to get his dose increased again. 2 days before that appointment, Evan died. What the psychiatrist mentioned was that they would have been able to save him for a while longer, but that most people- I believe he said "all these kids"- eventually want to go off the meds. And this is what happens; for Evan, it was particularly quick. Most people I've known who take on-going medication, either for a physical or mental illness, have at some point tried going off of them for a while. And I think it's pretty understandable, if someone has maintained a good level of health for a while, that they want to test their own ability to cope again. And yet, what the doctor seemed to be saying, was that for the kids with bipolar disorder who do this, the illness comes racing back, every time- that it's particularly dangerous.
I just felt like that was very sad. I can imagine the frustration with that situation- because medications have side effects that people just have to accept. I can also imagine it being pretty scary to know how heavily your functioning depends on this one thing. And of course, just the overall sadness of what people with this disorder may have to endure emotionally and mentally. It was very thought-provoking, and hopefully can increase awareness of bipolar disorder, especially for families dealing with shocking symptoms in very young children.

What is Priviledge?

My Community Work class lecture last week was heavy.We discussed some of the history of American colonialism. Some of this was not new information- though I have to admit, a lot of it was new to me as of last Fall. I don't recall my public school education including the true devastation and genocide which was enacted upon the Indigenous people of this continent (among others) by the colonists. I was taught about the people of the colonies as brave souls who had been religiously oppressed and sought freedom in the "new world." This may very well have been the case, but many terrible atrocities were enacted upon Native Americans by these colonists. I know I'm- sadly- very late to the game, but studying colonization as a whole has really changed my view of what is ultimately an invasion- that being only the beginning- of one group of people into the land and lives of others.
This lecture had begun with a photo of a Native American man, George Gillette, visibly weeping at a treaty signing. I was deeply struck by this photo, and hoped to find it online to include in this post. I did not find it, however, during my search, I came across info about a computer game called: Colonization: Create A New World. So I had to investigate. First I found a few images from the game, such as the one here to the right. Then I read about the game. So I should note, I ended up reading Wikipedia, which I know is not an entirely reliable source, but it seemed to have the most comprehensive info. Here's a quote:

"Relationships must be carefully maintained with Indians and other colonial powers, from waging war and maintaining strategic defenses to offering tributes or "recruiting peacemakers" (Benjamin Franklin and Pocahontas). Destroying native settlements yields a quick profit and makes land available, but prevents the substantial long-term gains to be made by friendly bargaining and trading. Destruction of native settlements also counts against the player's final score." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier's_Colonization)

Ok, so one might think, well, players get more points by behaving 'nicer' to the tribes in this game- it could be worse, right? Well, yeah, it could be. But just the fact that we are so ingrained with acceptance of colonization in this country that it's apparently not a problem to revolve a video game around it is pretty shocking. Which connects with what I was thinking about during the class lecture- we are completely indoctrinated with this stuff!
Now, I want to say, this is not by any means a black and white issue about bad guys and good guys. I would wager a guess that the large majority of European people during the time of the colonies were just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, not meaning to destroy the lives of others. But that's just it- as it was for them, it is for me today. I have this unearned "priviledge" which is to be able to live my life mostly ignorant of and untouched by not only this history, but of what the U.S. is currently doing all over the world. I get to just 'live my life' and not mean to harm anyone. And yet, my government, that I basically support, since I am not rioting in the streets, daily commits acts of devastation to people, countries, and not to mention the environment. On the flip side, there are countless people, in the U.S. and beyond, who cannot forget these things even if they tried. Their families have been ripped apart, their homes, communities, and ways of life have been permanently scarred, if not destroyed.

Lucy Ella Gonzales Parsons
American Revolutionary: circa 1853-1942

Lucy Parsons was an African, Native and Mexican-American revolutionary anarchist labor activist from the late nineteenth and 20th century America. Emerging out of the Chicago Haymarket affair of 1886, in which eight anarchists were imprisoned or hung for their beliefs, Lucy Parsons led tens of thousands of workers into the streets in mass protests across the country. Defying both racial and gender discrimination, she was at the forefront of movements for social justice her entire life. She sparked rebellion and discontent among poor and exploited workers wherever she spoke, and her fiery, powerful orations invoked fear in authority nationwide.

www.thelucyparsonsproject.org

I thought I would start out with something a little more interesting than my rambling this time, as well as a little inspiration. Hence the blurb about Lucy Parsons- how rad is she? I read about her on Think Girl (www.thinkgirl.net), a website I'm digging lately (when I'm procrastinating from homework). Which relates to the question in my head this week: where is my activism? I got into social work because of some social justice-related courses I took my senior year of undergrad- I remember the urgency I felt to get out into the world and do something. And some of my previous non-profit work felt participatory and important. But now here I am, in academia, having interned at a school, an oh-so conventional setting, and now I'm at Child Welfare Services, an often dreaded governmental system that at times seems very punitive and non-preventive. I mean, our efforts to first make contact with families are called investigations. Sounds like the criminal justice system, right? I remember at orientation last year one of my professors said that we may be in social work for social justice reasons, but social workers have been, and continue to be, instruments of social control. I think I physically winced. I know it's true, but it's my least favorite thing about social work. Oh, and the pay. Well, plus the emotional exhaustion...
Anyway, I do very much believe there's value in my interning at CWS- I chose to, and am excited about the experience. And I know there are many amazing advocates working in child welfare, and we are always working with limited resources and money. But I guess I'm feeling very much a part of the system(s), which is not where this all began for me, and not where I hope to end up.

Empowerment

Something that's come up for me in the past and has been on my mind this week is how, as a social worker, in any capacity, can one assist in another's self-empowerment rather than leading, advising, or dominating that individual (or group). One of my readings for class this week said that the idea of "Never do for others what they can do for themselves" is a key component of community organizing (What is Community Organizing? http://www.nfg.org/cotb/07/whatisco.htm). We also watched the film Salt of the Earth (http://www.archive.org/details/salt_of_the_earth), about mine workers and their wives going on strike in the 50s...it was very progressive for its time, you should watch it...Anyway, afterward in class we discussed this concept of truly getting to know one's clients or population and facilitating their own empowerment. I think this really comes down to listening. In social work, I think we talk a lot about being good listeners. But what does this really mean? I know for myself, I can end up preaching at people occasionally (ok, you who know me well probably think it's more than occasional...). And I know that I don't mean to- it's just that I observe and ponder a lot of others' (as well as my own!) actions and experiences, and want to share all these thoughts somersalting around in my head that I think could be useful! But what that often looks like is preaching to- some may say bossing around- those around me, be it family, friends, even clients. (For the record, I tend to save the bossing around for personal acquaintances, which is good for clients, but maybe not so good for my personal life).
When I read Barack Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, I thought about this idea of empowerment vs. dominance during the section about his community organizing work. I wondered, how could someone so clearly meant to LEAD, manage to step aside in order to allow others to decide, plan, enact, etc? My most relevant experience with this was when my school cohort worked for weeks to facilitate a meeting with our department faculty to discuss our requests of and concerns about the department, curriculum, and the MSW experience at HSU. I could fill a whole other post about that experience in relation to community work, but what I will say here is that I personally wrestled with this balance between leadership and dominance. It was a group of my peers, so I was not an outsider trying to organize another group, and I was in no way in charge. But I ended up sort of tracking and attempting to organize our on-going discussions- both in person and via email- into a concise plan and agenda. I initially stepped up to do so just because we had attempted a similar meeting in the past, and it turned out pretty half-assed. I just wanted us to do a better job! But at times I think at least a few people felt I was dominating the process and determining its direction. But I was only trying to help! I meant well!
And yet- isn't that what so many community helpers have been caught saying? Reading through the history of social workers, this has been the apology given after many unintentional injustices. I don't recall the reading or the specific instance, but in our Values & Ethics course last fall we read a piece from the turn of the century where it was the kind progressive who was advocating to 'civilize the Indian-ness' out of the Indigenous people for their own good. He thought he was being empathetic and well-meaning!
This all leads back to the listening. We are taught that everyone is their own expert- that we as social workers, whether as substance abuse counselors, case managers, or community organizers, do not have the answers for our clients. But how do I actually put this value into practice? I can start by whole-heartedly listening, and shutting my trap! I will likely continue to come up with what I think are great ideas/advice/solutions for the individuals and groups that I work with. And certainly there will continue to be times to recommend or suggest or contribute decisions. But if I really value empowerment, which I think I do, I have got to listen.

"A wise old owl sat on an oak; The more he saw the less he spoke; The less he spoke the more he heard. Why aren't we like that wise old bird?"
(unknown author)