| |
|
Furthermore, while I appreciate the experience of Mordant, I don't feel as if s/he is actually positing a solution or responding to the objections I'm raising
I'm not completely sure what you mean by a 'solution' here Jesse, but Mordant has replied to your points:
I would venture to suggest that there exists another possibilty, that of taking a realistic and respectful approach to people with mental health needs which neither dismisses us out of hand as worthless freaks nor casts us as enviable maverick wild-child spirits, acknowledging a full range of possible experiences.
I'm not sure I can follow your arguments actually. You seem to take issue with what Mordant says here:
I understand that, I really do, and I can see how seeing people who are thriving despite their conditions could be beneficial. That, I can respect. What I cannot respect and condone is the glamourisation of mental illness, slicking over the problems and the sheer grinding misery with glitz and romanticisation. It's a vision of mental illness where the tough bits are represented by a cinema montage of white walls, ruffled hair and paler lipstick than usual, then back to inventing telephone-flavoured icecream(!!1!)
In response you cite two films separated by over 20 years, and claim that 'many people probably identify with their condition' and 'maybe these are the accounts that are being romanticised'. A few posts down you've gone from speculating about people who identify with their condition and their attitude towards certain films, to claiming straight out that 'some people like the attention that it gets them and, by extension, the acceptance of society.'
It would be helpful if you could give some basis for these claims, especially when Mordant has pointed out the negative reaction hir friend had to 'Girl, Interrupted', which is one of the only actual examples you've gestured towards. What exactly do you mean by 'attention', and who is it that enjoys it? I think you're connecting this to the idea that representations of madness in popular culture are actually a 'byproduct' of changing attitudes, which should be celebrated by the mentally ill and everybody else (indeed, are being celebrated by the 'many people' we encountered before?).
You claim that this shift in attitude is an indication of progress. Even if this is true, I don't see how that prevents Mordant or anyone else from adopting a critical stance towards contemporary representations of madness which, as Mister Disco has pointed out, are 'made by people who would never consider themselves to have depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, OCD or anything else, for the benefit of other people who are assumed not to be mad.' I'm not sure I buy your claims narrative of 'progress' either, frankly. Given that Mordant and others have expressed their antipathy towards modern attitudes towards madness, i.e. explicitly said that they find them negative, talking about progress seems a little hollow. I'm sure this isn't your intention, but at the moment you seem to be saying that Mordant and others should just be glad that they aren't locked up, and leave it at that.
I really don't understand your explicit criticisms of Mordant's approach. You start by claiming that 'societal functions', whatever they are, are for the most part neither sensible nor rational. However by the end of the post you shift from talking about 'functions' (so far as I can see, an abstract description of the way certain things work), to 'masses' and individuals (i.e. people and the groups they form?). I think you're implying that these are also neither sensible nor rational, but you offer little support for calling the majority of the population irrational and unsensible, except for a lack of interest in legal procedure. You also move from claiming that difference should be celebrated up thread, to claiming that synthesis should be celebrated here, and I'm not completely sure how these two aims are reconciled?
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by synthesis here. The idea seems to be that romanticised cultural representations indicate an acceptance of the mentally ill by society at large. However in the face of Mordant's persistent claims that this sort of 'acceptance' is incredibly negative, I don't see much reason to just accede to this as a 'good thing'.
As I see it, you're constantly jumping between two claims: a) that changes in pop culture represent progress in attitudes towards madness, and are therefore good; to b) some people not only identify with their condition, but also experience these representations as positive, and therefore they are good.
Mordant has repeatedly challenged (a), and so far as I can see you haven't responded. As for (b), the only support for it that I can see in this thread is that a number of people feel that their condition is an integral part of their identity. You haven't offered any basis for assuming that these people experience pop characterisations of mental illness as positive. Indeed all you've done is reference two films which, as someone who I'm presuming has never suffered from mental illness (that's the impression I got from your posts, apologies if I am wrong), you think are positive representations of particular conditions.
Given that you arguments are a bit suspect, and that a number of posters have queried your approach and attitude, I think its a bit odd for you to start demanding a 'solution' from Mordant. A solution to what? The global integration of the mentally ill into society? I'm not sure Mordant or anyone else is capable of doing that, and even if they could have a go I'd be quite sceptical about the result. |
|
|
