If Your Colors Were Like My Dreams

My mother likes email. It's almost a condition.

Seriously. It appears that she spends several hours each and every day carefully curating her collection of incoming e-mail. Mom crafts mailing lists of people with similar interests and sends out a daily dispatch of information that people might like to know. I even have my own category: of interest to you.

So the other day in my daily dispatch I received this petition.

My son Ryan has been a Boy Scout since he was 6 years old, and now, a few days before his 18th birthday, he has fulfilled all the requirements to be an Eagle Scout. But because Ryan recently came out to his friends and family as gay, leaders from our local Boy Scout troop say they won't approve Ryan's Eagle award.

None of this is surprising as the Boy Scouts have reaffirmed their anti-gay policies over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Preventing Ryan from becoming an Eagle Scout is consistent with their stated policy. It shouldn't come as a surprise to both Ryan and his mother that this has happened.

This blog post, however, isn't really about the Boy Scouts or Ryan Andersen. The email from my mother transported me back to Zellers Elementary School. 

In either fifth or sixth grade music class we had to research a band we liked and give a presentation about that band. Classmates picked the popular bands of the time. Unbeknownst to me, it was important to pick the right kind of popular bands. Liking certain kinds of music in my school allowed you to fit in with the crowd and be considered likable. I recall presentations about Quiet Riot, Journey, and Def Leppard. That's what the in-crowed liked (or at least pretended to like).

Being a young iconoclast and being totally unlike the other boys, I took the road less traveled. I never picked the things that were popular in school. It was like everyone except me received a popularity decoder ring.

I was enthralled with British and Euro-Pop music in grade school. This was not a "cool kid" approved preference. As you might imagine, I took some flack for my presentation on Boy George in my rather conservative suburban elementary school in Strongsville Ohio. I even took flack from my teachers.

Mr. Smith sporting some short-shorts.

At some point in sixth grade, my classroom teacher Joe Smith and music teacher Eric Richardson, called my parents in for a special conference. They were concerned that I wasn't like the other boys. Too sensitive, they said. When pressed by my parents about what too sensitive means, they explained they were concerned that I might be gay. "When he gets to middle school he will be eaten alive by the other boys."


"Have him join the Boy Scouts," they implored my parents. "It'll toughen him up."

Smart thinking, eh? He might be gay. Change who he is. That'll work. Not once did it occur to these men that I might need to be nurtured and protected. Not once did it occur to them I might need to be equipped with skills at managing bullying. Nope. Just change him. That'll fix the problem.

I wasn't at the meeting. My parents, as I am told, unleashed their own particular brand of wrath upon these teachers. There was always one thing that was clear with my parents: there was always space to be exactly who I was. Getting in the way of my process of self-discovery wasn't a wise thing for an educator to do. My parents ate those sorts of educators alive.

To this day, I think those two men trying to impose a certain way of being a young man upon me was the most heinous and grievous act of violence that educators have ever perpetrated upon me. Rather than support me, encourage me, and protect me in my own process of growth and discovery, they attempted to shame and guilt me into being someone other than who I was.

Of course, they didn't really know who I was. They just had a feeling that whoever I was, wasn't the right kind of boy to be.

They wanted to give me that popularity decoder ring. Be like the other boys. Fit in. Conform.

In a way, Smith and Richardson were right. I was eaten alive in junior high. Those three years were some of the most unpleasant years of my life. I also wouldn't have had it any other way. In the midst of the horror show known as junior high, I found some real educators who nurtured, encouraged, and protected me. I can think of three teachers who helped give me another kind of decoder ring: the kind that eventually helped me discover who I am.

There is nothing more powerful than dreaming and living in the colors of  my own dreams. I needed Smith and Richardson to see me, give me the tools to be me, and create a protected place so I could grow into that man. I didn't need them to tell me who to be.

If they could see me now they'd probably still want me to be someone other than who I am. Rather than eat them alive, I think I might like to put on a top hat and sing this:

Confessions from a Reparative Therapist

I admit it. I am a reparative therapist (also called conversation therapy)--just not the kind you think. As a psychologist I have worked with people who have sought to be relieved of unwanted same sex attractions since the dawn of my practice in 1997. Shocked? Expecting some sort of twist here? Of course there is a twist. Before we get to the twist, let's take a look at what the pseudo-scientific organisation called the National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality, commonly called NARTH, has to say. This organization, by the way, has been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

NARTH writes:

Reorientation therapy is simply psychological care aimed at helping clients achieve their goals regarding their sexual attractions, sexual orientations and/or sexual identities. Reorientation is not decidedly different from other therapies. There are many psychological approaches to helping clients with unwanted homosexual attractions. All approaches supported by NARTH are mainstream approaches to psychotherapy. The term "Reparative Therapy" refers to one specific approach which is psychodynamic in nature, but not all who offer therapy aimed at orientation change practice Reparative Therapy.  

The Irreverent Psychologist (that's me!) wonders just what mainstream approaches to psychotherapy NARTH is speaking about. As you may have noted in another blog post of mine, not a single mainstream professional association endorses "reorientation" therapy.

Let's look at one more bit of what NARTH says before I get to my practice of reorientation therapy:

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance. NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

It all sounds good, doesn't it? This business about achieving one's goals pertaining to their sexual orientation makes for a lovely thought, right? Remember the part about choosing their own destiny. This will be important.

Let's talk about the work I do, shall we?

I'd like to introduce you to four patients. They are all representative of real people. I've changed biographical details to protect their identities and privacy. I've asked for their permission to include them in this way: they have all agreed. I am thankful for the people who are behind these stories for allowing me to share a small portion of their experience. 

• A sixteen year old male teenager coming to therapy because he's worried he might be gay.
• A Mexican-American woman with elderly parents, struggling between staying with her same-sex partner or caring for her aging parents who believe homosexuality is a sin.
• A businessman in his 50s who stayed closeted out of fear of his business would suffer. Facing the second half of his life, he struggles between satisfying his desire for companionship with men and maintaining strong business relationships in his conservative line of business.
• A hipster 20 something woman, raised by a father who was a Baptist minister who sexually abused her. "I'm not even sure I'm gay, I think it might just be something that happened because of my father."

In each of these clinical situations, a person grapples with important concerns. A teen grapples with schoolyard bullies, his Catholic upbringing, parental expectations, and the confusing desires of an adolescent.  A Mexican American woman struggles with a conflict between her heart and a cultural expectation to, as the youngest daughter, stay close to home and care for her parents. A businessman struggles with strong feelings that same-sex attraction is negative, a strong attraction to men, and making a choice to risk loosing life-long friends who might reject him for his sexual orientation. A hipster struggles with separating out desire, love, and attraction from trauma and abuse.

Four very different people, with very different life situations, clinical presentations, and developmental issues. Each of them, however, questioned their same-sex attraction at one point or another in their treatment with me. Among the things they wanted to explore and work on was furthering their understanding of their same-sex attraction.

Each of these four patients, at one point or another, had the goal to remove unwanted same sex attraction. Here's where it gets complicated. Who gets too decide what the goal is? Who is deciding whom's destiny?

I have a quiz for you. Don't worry, it's painless and will be over before you know it. Who decides whom's destiny in a psychotherapist-patient relationship? Circle one: (and grammar people, is it who, whom, whose, or whom's -- I'm sure someone will tell me.)

1. The patient
2. The psychologist
3. The intersubjective self

Many of you might circle number one. I like that choice. Almost without exception, I accept my patients exactly where they are at. It is not for me to decide what makes for a life worth living. Rather, it is for me to ask really good questions that help open and explore new ways of looking at their life and provide tools for my patients to be more effective agents in their life (thus making for a life that they make happen, rather than a life that happens to them). 

Choice number one, however, doesn't always make sense. Sometimes it is choice number two. For a large portion of my career, I've worked with patients who self-injure and are highly suicidal. Patients have starved themselves to near death, injected themselves with poisons, broken their own bones, and have tried to (or actually did) kill themselves. It would be disingenuous of me to say that I don't have a say in what the goals of therapy are.

There are, based on laws, ethics, and my own sense of decency, places where I need to exert power over a patient's decision making. I must intercede and protect children, senior citizens, and disabled people from abuse. I must intercede and protect my patients from killing themselves or killing another person (though from what I have gathered, if a patient kills someone and then tells me I cannot violate their confidentiality). Lastly, if I believe someone's decision making is impaired because of a mental illness I can have them involuntarily hospitalized. Those are the four ways in which the law and my ethical code dictate me to intercede and take over the life of my patient. I loathe to do this, and try to take every step I can so that my patients remain active agents in their life--not me.  

Members of SPLC Hate Groups Need Party Hats

Beyond ethics, there are myriad ways my personal beliefs directly and indirectly exert power over the the decisions I make in my consultation room. My job, as a seasoned and reflective psychologist, is to constantly work to become more and more aware of the ways in which I am using power to influence patients--and to use that power wisely, thoughtfully and transparently as possible.

Now what about therapy to rid oneself of unwanted same sex attraction? That's when we get to circle number three, the intersubjective self. What's that? That's where psychologist and patient get to have fun exploring an idea together. The patient and psychologist join together and explore many different ways of thinking. Our selves merge in a way, become one for a moment, and can see much further and deeper into any given issue. 

Choice number three isn't for the novice therapist or the weak at heart. It's painful, difficult, and challenging to be open enough to connect with another in this way. It's also dangerous if a psychologist isn't self aware enough to recognize their power and all the different ways they can use it to demand rather than guide.

What issues might one contemplate in regards to sexual orientation? Religion, morals, culture, spirituality, oppression desire, wishes, family, needs, homonegativity, heteronormativity, relevant scientific literature, scripture, and, well, it's endless really.

Do I have an opinion about people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, transgender, or questioning? Yes. I think they are people to be loved and people who are to be cared very deeply about. It's not really for me to decide whether people should or should not be LGBTQ--it is for them to decide. It's for me to help them explore, to separate fact from fiction, and to hold a picture bigger than they can hold on their own.

Some of the patients I've worked with over the years have decided (a) they are indeed an LGBTQ person. Other's have decided that (b) while they are likely an LGBTQ person, they would prefer to contain that part of their self because of a variety of reasons (family, culture, religion, etc.). Others have decided that (c) they aren't actually and LGBTQ person at all.

Options (a) and (c) are easy. I've yet to have a patient select option (b) as a way to lead their life. They have explored the notion for a long time, and in the end, opted for for either being LGBTQ and having loving fulfilling relationships with same sex partners, or choosing to LBGTQ and be celibate for religious reasons, family reasons, etc. A small handful have selected option (c)--they aren't gay, or not yet ready to decide if they are gay.

This is how therapy is done. Thoughtful. Reflective. Taking into account multiple perspectives, multiple ideas, and multiple positions. Let's return again to the so-called reorientation therapists. 

Julie Hamilton at NARTH--she had a lot to say in response to my questioning of her ethics. In reviewing her official statement on the NARTH website (this link will actually get you there, have fun with the others)

• Dr. Hamilton demonstrates both an unsophisticated understanding of ethics in her reliance of choosing option one (remember my little quiz!) 
• Dr. Hamilton appears to be falsely pretending that she isn't exerting any influence on her patients (a likely failure of even knowing there is a choice 3, and it's unclear if she is is able to admit to choice number two). 
• Dr. Hamilton demonstrates an egregious misuse of science and a total failure of scientific thought. Some day I'll have to review her failings--which in her capacity of president of NARTH become NARTH's failings--in a later blog post.

NARTH states on their website they believe in open scientific dialogue. Strangely they don't invite this dialogue. Note the comments on their blog are closed. Let's be serious here: they aren't interested in dialogue. NARTH is interested in foisting their agenda of propaganda and pseudo-science on a vulnerable population.

It seems likely that Julie really isn't in the market of helping patients. It seems that she is in the market of peddling her agenda of propaganda and personal beliefs under a thinly veiled guise of pseudo-science.

Julie writes:

Ethical therapists do not solicit clients or coerce clients into seeking change. The clients served by NARTH therapists are clients requesting change.  

Ultimately it is the client who must choose with proper informed consent and without therapist-coercion, the most satisfactory life for himself or herself.

Sounds good on paper, doesn't it? It's not good. It's dangerous. Julie's unsophisticated understanding of ethics and clinical practice is dangerous. What her words reveal is a situation in which a therapist, unaware of her own agenda, dangerously foists her world view on another. Therapists who do this are, in my opinion, are engaging in the worst kind of malpractice.

So I say this: I know you are out there--survivors of damaging reparative therapy--lost, forgotten, hurting, and silenced by alienation. Come find me and let's use this place to tell your stories, to find connection, and come back into community. Come take a critical look at ex-gay propaganda with me. Come tell your story (anonymously if you're scared).

I am standing up for you. Come find me.

A Call to Action/Shine Brightly

This  morning I came across a video produced by the Family Research Counsel. I found it to be a particularly repugnant piece of propaganda and live tweeted my responses to the video. I felt that in good conscious, I couldn't let out-right falsehoods go unchallenged. I strongly encourage you to watch the video for yourself.

Interested in encouraging these folks to move from hate toward compassion? Consider an e-mail, tweet, phone call, or letter. Share with them the importance of love, compassion, and acceptance of all of our humanity. Tony Perkins, near the 26:50 mark, says that it is important to be "letting your light shine before men in such a way that they can see your good works." Show them all your good lights. Shine bright. Our futures--your futures--depend on it.

Rev. John Rankin
Theological Educational Institute
P.O. Box 297
West Simsbury, CT 06092
tei@teii.org
860-408-1599

Jeff Buchanan (or here)
Executive Vice President
Exodus International
1-888-264-0877

Joe Dallas
email here
17632 Irvine Blvd.
Suite #220
Tustin, California 92780
714-508-6953

Tony Perkins
Peter Sprigg
Chris Gacek
(email here)
Family Research Counsel
801 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C., 20001
203-393-2100 (p)
202-393-2134 (f)

Redeemed Lives
Rev. Mario Bergner
(email here)
P.O Box 451
Ipswich, MA 01938
978-356-0404

Massachusetts Family Institute
(email)
(web)
781-569-0400

Liberty Legal Foundation
Kelly Shackelford
9040 Executive Park Drive
Suite 200
Knoxville, TN 37923
324-208-9953
(web)
(email)

Carol M. Swain
Vanderbilt University Law School
131-21St Avenue South
Nashville, TN 37203
615-322-1001 (o)
615-310-8617 (c)
615-322-6631 (f)
(web)
(email)

Rep Vicky Hartzler
(web)
(email)
1023 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2876 (o)
202-225-0148 (f)

Alliance Defense Fund
Austin R. Nimocks
15100 N. 90th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
1-800-835-5233
(web)

Mass Resistance
P.O. Box 1612
Waltham, MA 02454
781-890-6001
(web)

Julie Harren Hamilton, Ph.D., LMFT
P.O. Box 1382
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
561-312-7041
(email)
(web)

(read my letter to Dr. Hamilton here)

Lady Gaga in China: Same Song, Different Context

When I first saw this, I found myself wishing I had some Mandarin language skills. I came across this video and couldn't look away. What's the context of this staging of Lady Gaga's song Bad Romance? I really want to know! Can anyone out there translate some of the text?

I've scrolled through some of the comments on YouTube. As usual, there was a variety of scary ignorant comments. There were also a few clues. Apparently it appeared on a very popular show in China and is in the Changsha dialect. Gaga, in that dialect, means grandmother. Some of the comments suggest it is a local variety show (big production for a local variety show, eh?). The band playing in the beginning is the Crystal Band. That's about all I know for sure. The rest is left to my imagination.

Shoes for Diversity

Last night I had trouble locating a suitable pair of shoes to put on when I took Maggie outside for a visit to her favorite patch of grass. I settled for less than fashionable look. Glancing down at my feet encased in crisp white socks and stretched taught between my toes by the canvas of my flip flops, my mind tumbled backward in time.

Simple images can sometimes trigger very complex memories. My shoes took me almost 35 years into the past to a particular day in Kindergarten. I remember my teacher clearly (or perhaps, I remember her clearly through the memorabilia saved by my parents). Mrs. Haag was someone very exotic and exciting in my young life. 

on my way to Kindergarten 

These are the things I most remember about kindergarten: I remember my first few moments of my first day of school. It was warm and sunny. My mom walked with me to school and guided me toward an orderly line of children who waited along a well groomed hedge of privets. I remember how much fun I had talking with people. I'm told I was much more interested in socializing with my classmates than just about another other activity. I remember my very patient teacher and some very patient friends tying my shoes. Bunny ears, bunny ears, playing by a tree. Criss-crossed the tree, trying to catch me. Bunny ears, bunny ears, jumped into the hole, popped out the other side beautiful and bold. 

Most of all, I remember one very special day. Rather than coming dressed in the colorful polyester pant suits that were popular in the day, Mrs. Haag came to school wearing a kimono, geta shoes, and tabi socks. She talked about her summer in Japan while showing us slides of what she experienced on her vacation. 

waiting for class

We each got to have a taste or two of some Japanese candy. We used a soroban (Japan's version of the abacus) to learn and practice a few basic math lessons. We looks at slides of trees, animals, and flowers and got a lesson about the natural world. My favorite was the slide of Mount Fuji. Mrs. Haag actually hiked up the mountain. How cool is that? I'd not yet seen a mountain--let alone a mountain in another country. It all seemed so exotic. So interesting. So exciting.

Mrs. Haag provided me first lesson on diversity. Before knowing about the culture wars, hearing fear peddled about people who are different, and before meeting someone who lived outside my home town, my kindergarten teacher helped nurture and stoke my curiosity about the larger world. 

Since those first lessons I've studied with some of the greatest scholars in the world that focus on multicultural issues. While each of them had something special and important to teach me, none of them offered the powerful gift of Mrs. Haag. 

How easy it is to forget that at the heart of diversity is curiosity. When we are able to open to the experience of another, and be open to the notion that each of us experiences the world differently, a richness can be found that no single viewpoint can expose.

Thank you Mrs. Haag. I'm so glad I thought of you last night while I was looking at my shoes while standing outside in the cold winter air.

top row: David Ezat, Lynn Cook, Shawn Mallory, Joe Rizen, Sandra Jones, Sylvester Harris; 3rd row: Patricia Pratt, Frad Fronek, Charles Whitemore, Jason Mihalko, Jeff Glem, Anthony Pugh, Debra Presley; 2nd row: Rebecca Farley, Brian McKlovie, Michelle Chmura, Daniel Engstrom, Missy Davis, Andrea Zander; 1st row: Danielle Felton, Bridgette Lakner, Shane Castner, Keith Rufin, Carrie Rulong, Andrea Weeda, Lorri K.; helpers: Mrs. Waldrop, Mrs. Semelsburger (missing); teacher: Mrs. Haag; missing: Robby Prunella, Tina Harness

1st report card of the future Irreverent Psychologist

The Map is not the Territory: On Scientology, Intelligence, and Critical Thinking

Regular readers of my random ramblings no doubt note that I'm a lover of diversity. I also strive to be respectful of a variety of beliefs. There are limits. I've apparently found one of mine.

"Everything in moderation including moderation" --Oscar Wilde

My clinical psychology practice is in the heart of Harvard Square in Cambridge Massachusetts. It's hard to spin around on Massachusetts Avenue without knocking over another psychologist. There are a lot of us concentrated along red brick sidewalks. This dense grouping of psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists apparently makes the square a good place for the occasional protest by anti-psychiatry and anti-psychology forces within Scientology.

I've been working in Cambridge for the better part of eight years now. From time to time the folks from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights New England canvass the streets and put leaflets on the windshields of the cars lining the streets. I recently got this flyer pictured on the left when I was parked in front of a senior citizen housing complex.

I'm all for having full throated and complex discussions about all sorts of different ideas. The neighborhood around my office is populated by communists, cults, political protesters (the Falun Gong folks have put on some amazing street performances/protests), and of course there is the endless supply of people wanting me to save the whales, children, environment, etc.

Most of what is presented in Harvard Square is one sided. The information from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights is no different. I actually enjoy encountering this sort of material--and enjoy when a young (or old) client brings it with them into an appointment. Almost every autumn, for example, a teen comes into my office with their latest discovery from the LaRouche youth movement.  Together we look at the information with a critical eye. We think of ways to get different viewpoints. We think of ways to fact check. I create a space where the teen can come to their own opinion, in their own way, in their own time. 

This sort of dialogue has had transformative and far reaching effects. A young person (or any person, really) starts looking at their own life with a critical eye: they explore, fact check, try out different viewpoints, and eventually find a more expansive understanding of their inner (and outer) lives.

Sometimes however, the one sided nature of the debate turns nasty. Sometimes it's even dangerous.

There are important issues to consider with the over use of psychiatric medications (look here to check out Robert Whitaker's blog Mad in America and here to check out Daniel Carlat's blog for two excellent places to start your own research). The "Whistleblowers of Elderly Psychiatric Abuse", however, really got me frosted the other morning.

What frosted me about the flyers left in front of the senior housing is that it preys on fear and peddles that fear on a vulnerable population. The claims made in the flyer, in some ways, are not outlandish. There are serious concerns that patients and doctors need to sort out together about the use of psychiatric medications.  Likewise, there are also serious concerns to consider when a patient is contemplating electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

To explore ECT more, click here to check out the Mayo Clinic's information page about the procedure,  here to read another overview, or here.

Leaving propaganda on cars surrounding a senior housing complex is just too much. Of course many senior citizens are perfectly capable of doing their own critical thinking. Some however, are not. Some just get scared, aren't equipped to have a good dialogue with their physician, and are left to suffer needlessly.

Rather than leave the propaganda behind anonymously, why not really engage people in a multi-sided dialogue about psychiatry, medication, mental health treatment, and health care decision making?

On a lightly related issue, the folks leaving the anti-psychiatry propaganda also left behind a coupon to visit the local Scientology church. To have your IQ, personality, and aptitude testing.

I have to admit, I'm curious about this one. Much ink has been spilled about what constitutes "intelligence." No one really has an answer for it. The best we have is our performance on specific tasks that are statistically compared to the performance of large populations of people who take the same test.

"The map is not the territory" -- Alfred Korzybski

I wonder how long this is going to take us all to figure out? In the end, I think that's what this somewhat rambling blog post brings me. Whether we are talking about psychiatry, anti-psychiatry, religion, or intelligence, we collectively seem intent on thinking one group or another has direct access to a final statement of what reality is. In the end the best any of us can ever do is have access to our own perceptions to a set of beliefs or ideas.

Madness. Religion. Intelligence. We've created many different abstractions to understand these phenomena. They are all just that: abstractions or reactions we derive from our perceptions. None of them, on their own, are representative of reality.

I think this makes our world so much more interesting and exciting. It also makes it possible for us to all look together at one thing and marvel and all the different ways we experience and understand the phenomena around us.

Born This Way: A Note on Liberation

Some time ago I wrote a blog post called "On Orientations, Preferences, and Mother Monster." I had an interesting conversation with someone who asked me if gay people are "born this way" as Lady Gaga and large parts of the gay and lesbian community suggest. The answer is complicated. Look at my original blog post for some food for thought (and a little Lady Gaga).

This morning I read a news story from Brazil. It is a good reminder to look outside of ourselves and outside of our own country from time to time. Here is someone from Brazil conceptualizing sexuality as an option--a choice--and not being afraid to make that choice (despite the gay bashing).

"These comments are nothing more than proof of what we're trying to say. We are assaulted by our sexual option ", says Fernando.

The way identity is constructed and thought of here in the United States is not the way the same phenomena is thought about elsewhere in the world. The way we think about ourselves is bound up in our culture and our national dialogue about identity. We forget that too easily. In forgetting that, we lose some of potential offered by the liberatory social movements of the 60s and 70s where people started making choices about who they were.

What choices do you want to make?

I'm Married and I Know It

Here is another amusing parody video, complete with cutting social commentary, that recently came my way. You can find out more about the maker of this video at Sean Chapin's Facebook page.

Slave Narratives: Sarah Frances Shaw Graves

Sarah Frances Shaw Graves

It looks like I'm going to be a regular visitor to the digital archives at the Library of Congress. Did you know they have a collection of oral histories taken in the 1930s by people employed by the WPA (Works Progress Administration)? They make for riveting, harrowing, and enlightening reading.

Personal narratives like this are like opening a little tiny window in the fabric of time. Through that window I get to glance back and see an unvarnished, unprocessed, and unadorned view of life at it was. These windows are irresistible--when I find it I need to open it and look through it. Whether it be historical narratives likes these, or more contemporary narratives like the ones told by patients in my office, I'm transfixed. Each window opened gives me another perspective to understand the complex fabric of our shared experience.

Sarah Frances Shaw Graves was born sometime around 1850 somewhere near Louisville. She told her story to a WPA interviewer in 1937. The nameless interviewer wrote this of Sarah:

"Her life story is one of contrasts; contrasts of thought; contrasts of culture, beneficial inventions and suffrage. Not far from her home the glistening streamlined Zephyr speeds on twin rails beside the Missouri River, near the route of the slow-moving, creaking wagons on the ox-road of the 1850s."

Let's open up one of those tiny little windows in the fabric of time and let Sarah speak.

"My name is Sarah Frances Shaw Graves, or Aunt Sally as everybody calls me. Yes'm that's a lot of name an' I come by it like this, My husband was owned by a man named Graves, and I was owned by a man named Shaw, so when we were freed we took the surnames of our masters. I was born march 23, 1850 in Kentucky, somewhere near Louisville. I am goin' on 88 years right now. I was brought to Missouri when I was six months old, along with my mama, who was a slave owned by a man named Shaw, who had alloted her to a man named Jimmie Graves, who came to Missouri to live with his daughter Emily Graves Crowdes. I always lived with Emily Crowdes." 

"Yes'm. Allotted? Yes'm. i'm goin' to explain that," she replied. "you see there was slave traders in those days, jes' like you got horse and mule an' auto traders now. They bought and sold slaves and hired 'em out. Ye'm, rented 'em out. Allotted means somthin' like hired out. But the slave never got no wages. That all went to the master. The man they was allotted to paid the master." 

"I was never sold. My mama was sold only once, but she was hired out many times. yes'm when a slave was allotted, somebody made a down payment and gave a mortgage for the rest. A chattel mortgage." 

A down payment!! 

"Times don't change, just the merchandise." 

I am amazed at how connected I feel to Sarah. Despite having been born more than seventy years before I was, and having died on July 3, 1943, when my grandparents were in their early 20s and neither of my parents were born, I can feel her presence here in my living room as I sit on my couch writing this in an undisclosed location in the Merrimack River Valley. That's the power of a personal narrative.

Sarah gives us a glimpse into the life of a person in slavery that we don't read about in history text books. Her personal story gives contour, shape, and texture to the disembodied facts our teachers lecture about. Sarah also offers us so much more. She was a simple woman. She worked hard and struggled to survive through an era of history that was not kind to people of color. She received no formal education, won no prizes, and left no inventions, books, or other intellectual products behind.

Yet reading her narrative, I'm incredibly moved the the gifts I have received. Sarah mattered not for what she left behind. She mattered because she was here. Her story illuminates her humanity that, in the end, is all we ever really have.

When a spade is not a shovel

from the 11th Hour

My first dissertation chair, Glenda Russell, had a thing about words. She loved them. That was for sure. She also was very interested in the imagery and meanings that were embedded deep within the words. A casual mention once about "black ice" brought us into a long conversation about how many things in our culture that are considered negative or bad utilize dark or black as descriptive words--and how deeply that is often intertwined with overt (or covert) racism. Another time, when I suggested we don't skirt around an issue, a conversation was launched about my un-examined sexism.

Sometimes, it was a bit much. Most of the time, however, it helped me think very deeply about how my choice of language can sometimes reinforce imagery, ideas, and ideologies that I'm not interested in reinforcing.

I found myself channeling Glenda this week. A friend of mine tweeted that we have more serious problems in this world when we can't call a spade a spade. I said we have more serious problems in this world when we forget that a spade isn't always a shovel. Unless of course you actually are referring to a shovel.

I Have a Dream

There has been a lot of hoopla here in New England the last few days. A storm was coming that threatened to be a disaster. Indeed, there are areas that have seen disaster. People have lost homes, some have died, lots are under water, and tens of thousands are without power. Here in my little corner of New England it wasn't much of a disaster. My house still stands. A few branches are down. The last roses of the season have blown off. All in all, I'm thankful that me and my neighbors have escaped unharmed.

It nearly escaped me that today marks the 48th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. It is a speech that I've listened to a lot recently. I've re-read many of Dr. King's speeches with an eye toward the narrative structures he creates for a paper I'm working on. His rhetoric was brilliant then in his time and remains brilliant now, in our times.

He offered up such a language of inclusion -- we are brothers. We are in this together. Together we will have a dream.

There is so much work to be done before we can share that dream. So much need for connection and togetherness. Take a look at the news and our current fascination with budgets and finances. We no longer care to help out our communities. We no longer care to help lift up those who need our help. We are slowly and completely turning our backs on our communities in preference of our selfish needs. The brotherhood,  community, and dream Dr. King spoke of are all becoming rapidly replaced with a singular self-interest in getting what we think we "deserve."

Interested in doing a little background reading on the overwhelming amount of rhetoric that stokes racial fear by the perpetuation of myths and falsehoods. Jeffery Ogbar presents an excellent analysis of just this in a recent article posted on the Root.

Some dream that is. Don't you think?

So today as millions of Americans reflect on Dr. King and the anniversary of his beautiful speech that envisioned all Americans having the same rights and opportunities to succeed and prosper, maybe his words will provoke more Americans to work to make his dream a reality. Because although there is an African-American president and people of color serving in Congress, there are still millions of Americans who barely subsist from day-to-day and conditions are getting worse thanks to Republicans who are more concerned with enriching the wealthy off the backs of the poor. 

Read more of this article here.

Take a minute an listen to the speech. Dream a little. See what happens. I think you'll be glad you did.

Debt Increases Self Esteem?

Everywhere I've turned recently I've been seeing the headline flashed at me. I've seen it running on the treadmill at the gym, I heard it on the radio, and it's all over Twitter.

 "Debt increases self esteem."

It seems that some folks at Ohio State University crunched some numbers and found out that at least in younger adults, holding debt actually increases self esteem. Here are two things from the study:

They looked at how... debt [was] related to people's self-esteem and sense of mastery--their belief that they were in control of their life, and that they had the ability to achieve their goals. 

Results showed that those in the bottom 25 percent in total family income got the largest boost from holding debt--the more debt they held, both education and credit card, the bigger the positive impact on their self-esteem and mastery.

Reading this article got me thinking about some of my early experiences working in community mental health. It didn't matter how impoverished my clients were, I always knew they would have a pager, call waiting, and cable television (back in the day, these were all the rage!). I always wondered why I'd be working with families that would go hungry at times but never give up call waiting. It just didn't make sense to me.

A supervisor at the time scolding me for being judgmental and not very understanding of the perspective of my clients. She explained the importance of status symbols. People who have very little will often use what they have to get the things that are associated with feeling good or feeling important. "We live in a world that we make ourselves feel better with things," my supervisor explained. "You're job, if you are up to it, is find a way to help your clients feel better in other ways."

She also pointed out who I had all the cool things (indeed, I had a pager (and needed a supply of quarters so I could use the nearest payphone when someone "important" called me), I had a Sega video game system, cable tv, and call waiting. Wasn't I important? At least, didn't I surround myself with things that were associated with being important.

I wish these researchers from OSU had looked at the qualitative nature of the group they were studying. Just why did that bottom 25% feel the most self esteem from their debt? Have they collected the most of whatever the modern day feel good gadgets area?

More importantly, can we talk about how we can feel better in ways that don't involve consumption or ownership of things?

File Under: It's a Small World

Marting Hall

Every few days I will review the new people who have joined Maggie's Facebook page. It's been interesting to watch as fans from around the world join. It's even  more interesting to learn something new about the world. As of the morning I'm writing this post her fans come from New Zealand, Austria, Singapore, Jamaica, Peru, Brazil, Iraq, Uganda, France. Botswana, Israel, Canada, Mexico, Jordan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, India, and the United States.

Today I came across a little tidbit of information that was so interesting. A gentleman from Bangalore India joined the page. His profile page listed the educational institutions he attended. Among them, he listed that he earned a graduate degree from Baldwin Methodist College. The name instantly caught my eye. The irreverent psychologist got his start years ago as a student at another college rooted in Methodist values: Baldwin Wallace College. 

Deitch Hall

Could this be some long lost cousin of my undergraduate college? Apparently so. John Baldwin, one of the founders of the two institutions that would become Baldwin-Wallace College, got around. It appears that in his later life he donated money to found some educational institutions in and around Bangalore. Who knew?

Why is this important? One of the things that I enjoy about Maggie's presence of Facebook is that the world has become a smaller and more accessible place. People from all walks of life, from all corners of the world, interact, play, and think together. We have impact on each other and in this small spot in cyberspace, we see how we are interconnected within our incredible diversity. 

It was nice to be reminded of this when I made the connection between Baldwin Methodist College and Baldwin-Wallace College. The genealogy of my educational history is one way that I'm deeply connected to people, places, and ideas around the world.

What are the ways you are connected? 

Question Your Assumptions

I recently came across a blog post that considered the question of what tool should be in every scientist's tool box. Jullian McNally offers up awareness of assumptions as a tool worth having in the tool box. McNally defines assumptions as beliefs that are "powerful, automatic, invisible, and can be created by an act of will."  Should you want to read his whole blog post check it out here.

While reading this post I got to thinking about the assumptions psychologists make every day. Sometimes they are obvious to me. Recently, for example, I saw a discussion on LinkedIn about the Koran a pastor burned in Florida. The dialogue was heated.

Some took a standard multicultural viewpoint taught in psychotherapy programs (let's all respect each other, can't we just get along). I usually find those sorts of approaches uninspired, lacking in an awareness of nuance, and generally ineffective.

Other's took a particularly interesting point of view. Defining themselves as Christian, they called Islam a cult (offering evidence from the Bible) and went on to say that Islamic people need to be saved from the cult. I didn't find this approach very effective, either.

I couldn't resist adding my own two cents to the dialogue. I encouraged the therapists to look at their own assumptions and biases. I encouraged the therapists to consider this when considering working with a patient. Not a single person responded to my comment. No one. It was as if the notion of knowing our own biases and assumptions wasn't germane to a dialogue among psychotherapists.

As a profession, we have failed in teaching diversity. We have failed to adequately prepare therapists-in-training how to encounter diversity. We have failed our patients. We have failed to provide ourselves with the one powerful tool we need: the ability to question our assumptions.

The LinkedIn dialogue was filled with assumptions. All Muslim people are violent. All Christian people are peaceful. All Muslim people would kill someone if the Koran is burned. No Christian people would kill someone if the Bible is burned.

In my eyes these are ugly assumptions. All of them. They lump populations of people into tiny little bands of behavior that cannot be true for an entire population. They are nothing more than examples of distorted thinking.

As an aside, in a moment of annoyance when the whole Koran burning propaganda ploy started in Florida, I blurted out one of my more memorable irreverent comments. "I wonder what would happen if I dressed in a burqa, wraped a Bible in an American flag, and burned it?"

I'd be very afraid. Very.

Back to my soapbox. While these are examples of assumptions, they aren't what I'm getting at. The kind of assumptions psychotherapists and psychotherapists-in-training are most in need of exploring are the invisible assumptions we have about the world.

Our cultures provide us many fountains of unexamined assumptions. Faith, social values, educational systems, economic systems, constitutions and styles of government--all provide us with an invisible fountain of assumptions to consume.

What happens when we encounter someone who drinks from a different fountain? Koran burning is one result. War is another. Failed therapies is yet another outcome.

How can we learn to make these invisible fountains visible? How to we develop practices of dialogue to encounter these differences rather than engaging in battles about who is right? How can we teach our students to do the same?

Care to explore an assumption or two today? I'm thirsty.