As some of you will be aware, I've been meaning to start a thread on this for ages. Part of the reason it's taken me so long to do so is that I'm well aware that this is going to be a difficult thing for us to talk about in a constructive way: not only because the whole issue of medical diagnosis - especially psychiatric diagnoses - is controversial and emotionally charged (such diagnoses being used variously to stigmatise or excuse), but also because consideration of this aspect of online interaction tends, generally, to complicate rather than simplify things. Complexity is not always welcome.
Why am I initiating discussion now? I'll readily acknowledge that I'm partly motivated by personal irritation at a particular viewpoint which has been expressed when we talk, as a board, about how best to manage a difficult poster. This is most recently expressed by Flyboy here, but has popped up elsewhere and from other posters. The suggestion is that, when dealing with a poster who's making inflammatory statements, those who attempt to better understand that poster, or whose first instinct is to cajole rather than condemn, have skewed moral priorities. As an argument, it's reminiscent of John Major's "condemn more, understand less" soundbite, and in many cases, I think it's an unfair criticism. I'm going to attempt to explain why I think it's unfair, because I think there's an overlap between this and the ongoing problem of (probably) mentally unwell posters on Barbelith.
One reason it's difficult to discuss this frankly is that the stigma attached to mental illness is such that using specific posters as examples, in an explicit way, seems intrusive and unpleasant. On a more selfish level, I've found in the past that when I get into this sort of 'personalised' discussion with a poster, of his/her mental health, I risk setting up an emotive doctor/patient dynamic which not infrequently results in me becoming the receptacle of projected bad experiences with the psychiatric profession. This rarely ends well, and I don't want it to happen here. I'm therefore going to try to stick to general examples where possible.
So. A poster, usually a newbie, starts posting in a way that attracts attention, negative attention - sometimes spouting sexist, racist or homophobic content; sometimes simply employing a blunted mode of interaction which appears rude, dismissive or disrespectful of others. Our tolerance for this sort of thing is, I think, lower now than it used to be. There are long discussions elsewhere of why this might be so, but that's not particularly the remit of this thread.
Sometimes, the poster in question seems... not quite right. Sometimes it's subtle; sometimes less so. If we think they might be unwell, mentally, does this matter? Should it have any bearing on the board's collective 'immune response' and/or individual reactions?
I think it should - or, at least, the possibility of (and implications following on from) mental illness as a factor should be given more consideration than is currently the case. I've been slightly concerned, in the past, that we have a tendency to (in Sesame Street terms) see something apparently inflammatory and assume Bad - and react accordingly. I reckon our response should at least include some consideration of the possibility of Mad, too.
Beyond this, it's difficult to establish concrete 'rules' or even guidelines. I'm well aware that the presence of mental illness doesn't automatically obviate responsibility for bad behaviour, just as having attracted a 'severe and enduring' psychiatric diagnosis doesn't automatically prevent one making quality contributions to Barbelith. I'm also aware that "I can't help it; I have Disorder X" has been (ab)used in the past, by those who've exhausted the patience of all...
There's also the thorny issue of what, exactly, constitutes mental illness. Some might argue that the cluster of behaviours we label trolling might, in and of themselves, indicate 'psychological damage' - and this might well be the case. Additionally, there's the fact that actually diagnosing mental illness over the Internet is inherently iffy, and fraught with pitfalls.
The above notwithstanding, I find that I can often recognise certain 'pathological' styles of online posting. I'm talking psychosis, really, particularly chronic psychosis which has had a while to evolve. Certain things set off alarm bells for me, make me suspicious. There's characteristic content (paedophile shape-changing lizards, etc.) but also the subtler stuff which is less to do with out-and-out bizarre concepts themselves but the leftfield manner in which more everyday concepts are linked together. Particular styles of association/connection, sifting information. Also, those who've worked with people who developed schizophrenia in their teens or twenties (as is typical) will be aware that there's commonly impairment of interpersonal skills, particularly communication skills, at least partly because sufferers contracted the illness at a time when they should've been developing those skills, and the process has been disrupted.
None of this bodes well for involvement with an online community like Barbelith, in which fairly refined communication skills are essential. It's not especially surprising that many of the obviously psychotic individuals who contributed in the past no longer post here. It can be a demanding environment even for those who're perfectly well, mentally. To a certain extent, I think people who're running into difficulties as a result of psychotic illness shouldn't post here, largely for the sake of their own mental well-being. Not infrequently, they become entrenched in 'high expressed emotion' flamefests not because they're bad people but because they genuinely lack the capacity to fully appreciate what they're doing wrong.
I think this has implications for how we manage those situations, and I suppose that's where I'm coming from when we get into the situation of looking at whether a given poster ought to be banned. Personally, I want to gauge (to my own satisfaction, anyway) whether the individual concerned is psychologically fit to be posting here, in terms of their own best interests as well as others'. Do they possess the capacity to self-reflect? Can they admit doubt (often not the case with psychotic delusional systems)? How do they interact with others - specifically, can they accommodate viewpoints which challenge their own? Elements of ego strength, or lack of it.
My own framework for assessing these qualities is based on my technique for carrying out Real Life assessments of mental health/capacity. I'm always careful to approach such situations, as much as is possible, from a position of respect - respect for someone who is, more often than not, uncomprehending and angry at being 'held to trial' for reasons they can't fathom or don't agree with. Responding to that anger in kind rarely progresses the assessment, so I try to keep things calm and courteous, at least until I've got some idea of what's going on.
So where does this all get us? I'm not sure. I don't think I'm arguing that, where someone shows strong signs of being mentally ill, they ought necessarily to be accorded a greater degree of tolerance; on the contrary, sometimes I think it's kinder all round to ban. I suppose I'd like to see this done a little more... I dunno, kindly (again) than is the case at present. Not letting a poster off the hook because we strongly suspect they're Mad, but perhaps not assuming immediately that they're Bad and going for the jugular.
(At the very least, I don't think it's fair to cast those who're using a more softly-softly approach as apologist 'hand-holders' who irresponsibly reward the Bad poster with undeserved positive attention. In my own case, at least, I'm very deliberately taking this approach because I'm trying to get a better idea of what makes them tick - and I'm doing that because I think that the probable presence of psychiatric illness ought to influence our handling of problematic posters.)
I don't know quite how we'd achieve this, or even if it makes sense to anyone else. Does it? |
