BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

"Crazy chic:" pop culture making illness a fashion statement

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Chiropteran
18:28 / 10.10.06
The discussion has moved well on from this but:

(can you have an autistic community?)

Yes.

Autism is not a mental illness, but many of the same kinds of (often quite painfully negative, or exploitatively "positive"*) cultural attitudes and interactions apply. I may be back with a more up-to-the-minute response to the current discussion, but I can't really wrap my head around it right at the moment.

*the next starry-eyed pagan who blisses at me about how "autistic children are so much more spiritual than the rest of us" gets it in the jaw.
 
 
illmatic
18:35 / 10.10.06
Dude, they're not autistic. They're crystal.
 
 
Chiropteran
18:39 / 10.10.06
Pegs, I thank you for illustrating my point, but I have to go vomit now and possibly never stop. But that is exactly what I am talking about.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:05 / 10.10.06
Explain a bit, please? The page linked to is pretty silly, but I do not see the author linking autism with "crystal children" in any way.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
19:30 / 10.10.06
I realize personal anecdotes are not usually accepted as useful examples, but for all the talk of glamorization of mental illness in pop culture, there haven't been many examples in this particular thread.

Which is not to say that pop culture doesn't glamorize mental illness, but I'd appreciate someone providing some examples so that I (or anyone else, I guess) know where everyone is conming from.

In my own experience (oh shit, here I go), people identifying as "crazy" are usually attempting to come across as "hard" or dangerous. Some friends of mine look down on this, but their reasons are that they are truly crazy (in their own words, "crazy on paper". By which they mean that they have been recognized by various state and federal authorities as a danger to themselves or others or both). They don't buy most folks declarations of madness, despite the fact that they are not shy about declaring their own. They critisize others for doing exactly the same thing they do, with the difference being they they at least have proof of their madness.

I guess what I'm saying is that in my own experience, glamour doesn't really come into it very heavily--it seems more of a protection deal, sort of a "don't fuck with me, I might flip out and go batshit psycho all over you". But that may just be my local enviroment coming into play. Which is why I'd appreciate some examples of pop culture glamorizing mental illness, it'd give me something different to work with. I'd like to be able to contribute more to this thread.
 
 
Chiropteran
19:32 / 10.10.06
I'm sorry if that was a little opaque - the linked page didn't refer to autism/asperger's directly, but it very commonly comes up in discussion of "indigo/crystal/rainbow" children - often the New Age parent's rejection of an autism or ADHD diagnosis, or their fears that their indigo child will be "misdiagnosed" as autistic or, coming from the other side, concerns that some autistic children (or children with ADHD, OCD, etc.) are being denied important services and accomodations because their parents believe that they are "Star Children." (a collection of articles from various sources) Even assuming for the moment that there is some (any?) basis for Indigo Children, I think the risk of "misidentification" (with unhappy consequences) is a serious one.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:58 / 10.10.06
I'm sorry if that was a little opaque - the linked page didn't refer to autism/asperger's directly, but it very commonly comes up in discussion of "indigo/crystal/rainbow" children...

Reading through the articles (most of them, anyway, some were no longer valid links), I did see autism mentioned here and there, but I couldn't figure out why--the signs of "indigo/crystal/rainbow" children do not include many symptoms of autism. Come to think of it, the only one I could spot (I'll admit I'm no expert on the subject) was the "late talking" deal.

Which is sort of subjective. I remember my mother telling me once that one of my siblings didn't start talking until around three years old, which didn't surprise me until I learned that most children start around half that age or younger (I now suspect ze was just waiting for me to be born so that ze could have someone to talk to). I would imagine that any caring parent could only ignore the signs of true autism for so long before having to face the facts.

Aspergers may be a different case (I'm not sure how it is diagnosed, or treated for that matter). Also worrying is the ADHD/ADD and OCD bit--I didn't get diagnosed with ADD until I was twenty-one, at which point the meds just made me feel like I was taking uppers, but maybe things would have been different if I had been medicated.

Maybe. I've never really felt like I suffer from ADD. At any rate, since the Indigo Children movement doesn't really glamorize mental illness, I guess it's not really on topic.
 
 
Olulabelle
08:34 / 11.10.06
Regarding the link between creativity and mental illness, specifically in the case of bi-polar people the 'up', manic state is where there is quite often an abundance of creativity, a lot of doing and a lot of thinking and making.

For people who have these phases medication is a frightening thing because it's possible that the medication used to treat bi-polar disorder can 'numb' the creativity, or at least there is a perception that it can. I think in part this relates to the old fashioned use of a lot of lithium; in some ways media representation of the old dosing quantities for mentally ill people has done a lot of damage to contemporary sufferers. They perceive medication as something that wipes out half their personality.

In Stephen Fry's programme Richard Dreyfuss compared being on medication to being 'letterboxed; the medication 'took away' the top and the bottom.

I think it's clear that for some people Stephen Fry's documentary about manic depression romanticised the illness, as exampled by the reference to a former poster in Matt's initial post. I would say that it also made it more accessible. One interesting thing about 'crazy chic' is that a greater understanding and wider public access to the symtoms of various different mental illnesses makes it easier to identify with them. In some cases I think this means people assume they have a mental illness they would perhaps never even have considered if they hadn't watched a programme on TV about it.

Most people with bi-polar disorder know they have it because having the thing makes it really quite difficult to function normally in society. It's unlikely you'll discover you have it from the telly and although I suppose it is possible I would suggest you're much more likely to discover you have manic depression when you get arrested for walking into someone's house completely randomly, talking gibberish which, for you, has absolute clarity.

I also think Fred's point about the 'rights' of mentally ill people is interesting. People with severe mental illness can be a danger to themselves and to others. Do the people who interact with the sufferer on a day to basis and who care for the sufferer have any rights regarding treatment for the illness? I think that's a very difficult question .

I was told recently that Van Gogh couldn't actually paint at all when he was suffering badly from illness, and that he only actually painted when he was feeling better. Can anyone tell me if that's true?
 
 
camofleur
10:28 / 11.10.06
My culture expects people to be nourished by conditions of employment, accomodation and leisure that are in no way designed to nourish the soul?? Is it any wonder people unravel? Maybe the regard people are developing for all things crazy these days is to do with a inability to play the game that the rest of us do, but don't enjoy? The elegance of just rejecting the relevance, importance, reality of much that we hold dear in fact, but not in spirit, despite the price that goes with that.

I would agree with the majority of this statement. Much of sane society's obession with the insane stems from the observance of a section of society that is uncomfortable with playing the rest of modern culture's "game." Therefore people become intrigued by what can happen when someone strays from the line and develops nonconformist attitudes or behavioural traits. Perhaps drugs and the rest of society's vices are a reaction to something they are uncomfortable with or a desire to restrict themselves from fully letting loose for fear of becoming identified as "insane."
 
 
Olulabelle
10:34 / 11.10.06
Does that not suggest though that the people doing the rejecting are doing it deliberately?
 
 
Spaniel
11:02 / 11.10.06
Tuna, here's your list.

A Beautiful Mind: Yeah, yeah, he suffers but he's a genius, and has A Beautiful Mind. Do you have a beautiful mind? No, I didn't think so. Only very spesh people have Beautiful Minds.

Shine: Ditto, except, you know, he SHINES

Hopper: Mad but it made his art great

Hilary and Jackie: Again with the ditto

Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal/Red Dragon/Man Hunter: That Lector, he's horrid, but he's so charming and super brainy and almost sexy. A bit like Dracula!

The A Team: Murdock wouldn't be half as funny and smart if he wasn't so totally mental

Need I go on? And that's just off the top of my head. Give me longer than two minutes and I'll give you a much longer list.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:10 / 11.10.06
Nice list, Boboss. Might I also add the bloody awful Dream Team, about a posse of wacky--but wise!--mental patients. They use their delusions to solve a crime! They play volleyball with an imaginary ball! Couldn't we all learn something from their childlike innocence?
 
 
grant
13:41 / 11.10.06
Actually, one of the things I noticed in the 1990s was that suffering became more integrated into the portrayal of mental illness -- like, even with Delirium in Sandman, part of the hook with the character is that she used to be happy and isn't any more. (That's actually true for all the Endless -- D for dysfunctional -- except Death.)

Compare, even, King of Hearts (mid-60s) to Man Facing Southeast (late 80s) -- both take place in asylums, but the former is more "They're just like US, only (in some ways) better!" while the latter totally relies on the idea of the patients as suffering -- although it's still using the asylum as a metaphor for society or the human condition.

Hmm. I just realized that both of these aren't in English, although they were both widely shown in the States. Not sure if they're valid as cultural markers or not.

I'd also be interested in how something like Stroszek fits into cultural ideas of "crazy chic" -- it definitely has a certain cachet as the film that killed Ian Curtis or whatever, and is fairly grim on its own merits.

-----
 
 
grant
13:44 / 11.10.06
Heh -- I'd never actually heard of Dream Team until now. Maybe pop culture isn't my thing.
 
 
Quantum
13:46 / 11.10.06
Urgh. After that list and looking at the crystal children link ('have delayed speech development because of their telepathic abilities they dont "need" to talk') I feel a bit sick and am glad I haven't seen the majority of them.

To devil's advocate for a moment, some pop culture doesn't succumb to the glamourisation- I'm thinking of The Madness Of King George- and there's often the same 'special' effect for people with physical disabilities (My Left Foot).
I always thought Murdock was only pretending to be mad, but they definitely glamourised the crazy;

[Murdoch is looking sad]
Hannibal: What's the matter, Captain?
Murdock: Something horrible.
Face: What's the matter? Billy get hit by a car?
Murdock: WORSE.
[gives Hannibal his hospital release]
Murdock: I've been thrown out. Cast out...
Hannibal: You've been found sane?
Murdock: You got it.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
13:56 / 11.10.06
Right, I've been purposely stepping back from this thread because of my increasing inability to read through the red mist, but here goes:

Jesse: If you go back over our exchange, you'll notice that I responded in kind to the lovely "Sam I am" diatribe, which started the entire thing.

No it didn't. What started the entire thing was you reiterating a point that I'd already taken care to acknowledge (viz. that some people with conditions affecting their mental heath might percieve those conditions as part of their identity or experience other positive effects) as if I hadn't considered it at all. This was offensive and resulted in you getting the Dr. Seuss treatment.

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. Maybe I'm a poor reader or just plain stupid, but I fail to see what Mordant is positing as a practical solution to the problem that s/he is identifying.

Why in the name of Shirley fucking Temple is it my job to "propose a solution" to society's stigmatization of mental illness, or the glamourisation thereof in popular culture?

Also, I'm not convinced that it is actually a problem. I mean this in the most respectful way possible, but I do not see what Mordant is getting at. I'm not dismissing the viewpoint as much as I am casting doubt on it being a problem and, correlatively, that it needs to be addressed or "solved" by society.

Okay, this sentence, and indeed your whole post, is all over the place. I'm assuming that the 'it' you are refusing to recognise as a problem is the glamourisation issue, correct? In which case, I really don't know how I can help you except to reiterate--again--what I've already said.

The glamourisation of mental illness is a problem because:

1) It presents an innaccurate and misleading veiw of the real problems faced by people with mental health needs.
1a) It is therefore offensive to those of us with mental health needs.
1b) It therefore has real-world consequenses in terms of limiting the understanding and support we can hope to garner from you, the sane.
1c) We find ourselves struggling to live up to a construct that is utterly unattainable. Not everyone with a mental health problem is also endowed with some scintillating creative talent, and those of us that do often can't create much when we're poorly. Do you really think it helps us to be told that we ought to be writing epic novels or composing symphonies?

2) If you glamourise something, people want it.
2a) One way for the sane to obtain the glamourous 'it' is to scrape aquaintances with (I refuse to use the term befriend here) people who have mental health needs so they can talk about "my bipolar friend" or "my schizophrenic freind", thus gaining kudos for having the shiny nutter pal and for being a wonderful non-judgemental empathic human being. Bonus points for a sexual r'ship, even though you'll be dumping the lucky looney within 18 months when you realise that they can't stop having their mental health problem when it becomes inconvenient to you.
2b) Another way for the sane to grab a spritz of that glitz is to scrounge a diagnosis of this season's trendiest psychiatric problem. Online this is very simple: you tell people you have X, everyone goes 'OMG poor you, actually so do I, also Y.' In real life it's a bit trickier--you have to spend a lot of time filling up GPs waiting rooms and psychiatrist's offices, waving a Guardian Weekend and insisting that since you've got 7 out of 10 symptoms in their latest "You might have X if..." quiz, you should be getting treatment. If you persevere, however, you may be able to wear them down until they get fed up and write you a prescription of something just to get rid of you so they can go back to dealing with the guy who thinks Satan is telling him to jump off the multi-story car park. Six weeks later you can ditch the pills, claiming side-effects, and start complaining about how the evil and monolithic psychiatric industry has poisoned you.
2c) As for 2b) except you use your kid as a proxy.

Neither 1 nor 2 are especially helpful either to people with mental health needs, or to those who have genuinely been misdiagnosed or prescribed inappropriate medication.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:00 / 11.10.06
Perhaps drugs and the rest of society's vices are a reaction to something they are uncomfortable with or a desire to restrict themselves from fully letting loose for fear of becoming identified as "insane."

This puts me in mind of the use of LSD to induce a "temporary insanity" or "model psychosis". The real kicker, of course, is that it's temporary and (usually) voluntary, and therefore has about as much relationship to real mental illness as MDMA does to falling in love.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
14:21 / 11.10.06
Much of sane society's obession with the insane stems from the observance of a section of society that is uncomfortable with playing the rest of modern culture's "game." Therefore people become intrigued by what can happen when someone strays from the line and develops nonconformist attitudes or behavioural traits. Perhaps drugs and the rest of society's vices are a reaction to something they are uncomfortable with or a desire to restrict themselves from fully letting loose for fear of becoming identified as "insane."

Forgive me, but I'm seeing an implication here that the insane person is one who has decided to reject sanity as a kind of lifestyle choice, in much the same way as one might jack in a high-powered job to go and live in Tuscanny and make pots. I come across this a lot, and I cannot begin to tell you how infuriating it is. It seems constructed entirely to comfort the anxieties and boost the egos of the sane. On one hand, the sane person can see hirself as saluting the 'wisdom' of the mad in rejecting those things that the sane person claims not to value, but to be stuck with. It also subtly diminishes the mad person, framing hir as someone who has indulged in the luxury of insanity, unlike the more steadfast and self-denying sane person (who of course would be mad too, if ze didn't have things like mortgages and promotions to worry about).

Feel free to tell me I'm misinterpreting you here.
 
 
Ticker
15:22 / 11.10.06
I learned to distinguish certain kinds of applied mental health labels. There are the ones people use as stated above to distinguish themselves as hard/dangerous or unreliable/irresponsible and then the set of functional/nonfunctional.

When I was a teenager it was still a relative stigma to have a mental health disorder quite a contrast to the conversations I overhear these days with high school kids one upping each other over which meds they take. My experience was of a society faced with an ill fitting child behaving unacceptably and viewing my actions as non functional.

My internal sense of reality validated depression as an appropriate response to my situation and I felt I was functional, rather it was the expectations of society upon me that were dysfunctional. During this time I was in close company with people that were not functional by their own standards and I resented the cookie cutter approach to our problems. I witnessed far too many people struggling with the complex difficulties of navigating their reality hindered by a wide spectrum of supposed trendy ailments. The meds and the labels were intended to be tools to help guide people out of the maze of their difficulties but instead too often they just formed containers for easy categorization by other people not engaged in the process of healing.

Later I was lucky enough to take a course on Women and Madness and viewed the movie Betty Blue, read The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison and a few other great books and movies.

As an adult I'm fascinated by the liminal state many of us require of imposed Othering to transition to adulthood. We reject the normal and embrace the dangerous definations to break us free of our earlier selves. I think this is where the dangerous and unreliable mystique dwells for many teenagers. It takes them out of the known and into a realm of self exploration and redefination. If it is successful the new adults transition back into society having consciously decided which ideals and values to reform around. However many don't transition back and stay in limbo, attached to the glamour of otherness and deriving self value from it. They do not find value in the establishment and constantly act in ways to maintain their segregation.

The people who can go into the realm of madness and return with something of value and be able to reenter society seem to be held in high esteem for crossing these lines of liminality at will. Poets often court this description as well as other artists but somehow in modern era we've lost the focus on the return as the awe inspiring part and simply see the madness as the source of creativity.
 
 
grant
15:28 / 11.10.06
It also subtly diminishes the mad person, framing hir as someone who has indulged in the luxury of insanity,

I think this is an attitude that was prevalent up until the Enlightenment -- actually, I think it crops up with Ian Holm in The Madness of King George, now that I think of it. But I do remember it being part of the whole Foucauldian thing with Bedlam being like a prison & madness being something deserving punishment. Moral weakness, rather than a health issue.

----

By the way, I don't want to drag this too off-topic, but if autism isn't a "mental illness," what is it?
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
15:44 / 11.10.06
the next starry-eyed pagan who blisses at me about how "autistic children are so much more spiritual than the rest of us" gets it in the jaw.

I say we hit the starry-eyed pagan with the noo-ager who reckons that autistic kids "don't have souls."
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
17:19 / 11.10.06
Tuna, here's your list.

A Beautiful Mind: Yeah, yeah, he suffers but he's a genius, and has A Beautiful Mind. Do you have a beautiful mind? No, I didn't think so. Only very spesh people have Beautiful Minds.

Eh...I didn't get that from the film at all. I found no suggestion that it was his illness that was responsible for his genius, or that his illness did anything except make him suffer. Also I disagree with your interpretation of the title.

Shine: Ditto, except, you know, he SHINES

Never saw it.

Hopper: Mad but it made his art great

Never saw it.

Hilary and Jackie: Again with the ditto

Never saw it.

Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal/Red Dragon/Man Hunter: That Lector, he's horrid, but he's so charming and super brainy and almost sexy. A bit like Dracula!

Alright, these I've seen. If I remember correctly, Lector was never actually diagnosed with any mental illness--no one doubted he was "crazy", because, you know, he ate people, but his "madness" was pretty ill-defined (in the books, it was explained that no psychiatrist or psychologist could ever figure out what it was without really analysing him, face to face, which no one had ever done successfully).

Is this what we're saying is a Bad Thing, is this what we're calling a glamorization of mental illness? Fictional representations of a vague if not entirely non-existent mental illness being part of why a character is dangerous and therefore glamorous? Serious question, because Dream Team I can see as being offensive. Easily. But are we putting Silence of the Lambs in the same category? Or even A Beautiful Mind?


The A-Team and the dreadful Dream Team no doubt fit in Mordant's description, but I agree with grant when he says Actually, one of the things I noticed in the 1990s was that suffering became more integrated into the portrayal of mental illness--. True, he later wonders if his examples were valid cultural markers, which they probably aren't, but I would still agree with his proposition. Maybe not since the 90's, but I think the suffering aspect is portrayed a lot more these days and I doubt you could get away with Dream Team today.

1c) We find ourselves struggling to live up to a construct that is utterly unattainable. Not everyone with a mental health problem is also endowed with some scintillating creative talent, and those of us that do often can't create much when we're poorly.

Alright. Understandable. But if there are those that are able to find some creative talent within their illness, are we not allowed to depict them as brilliant in the movies? Can we not showcase talented people with mental illnesses because there are those suffering from mental illness that don't have any talent, because some asshole with no experience with the mentally ill might suggest they're prime candidates for having a hidden brilliance?

What I'm saying is: are you really, truly struggling to live up to some dumb bastard's view of what a "madwoman" ought to be? This, too, in an honest question.

Do you really think it helps us to be told that we ought to be writing epic novels or composing symphonies?

Well, no, of course not. I seriously doubt anyone here laboring under that delusion. You may, Mordant, have an epic novel in you somewhere, but I'm sure it's not because you have a mental illness.
 
 
HCE
17:27 / 11.10.06
I'm sorry, I don't think any of us realized that it doesn't count if you, Tuna Ghost, have not seen the film. Please present a list of every film you've seen and I"m sure somebody will be happy to point out which ones glamorize mental illness.
 
 
Chiropteran
17:41 / 11.10.06
if autism isn't a "mental illness," what is it?

A "condition?" Technically, autism is a "pervasive developmental disorder." The causes are still somewhat obscure, and probably various, but broadly it's the label given to a highly variable set of cognitive and sensory traits that appear to arise from physiological differences in certain areas of the brain. Some autistics describe it as the condition of being "differently brained," and there is a growing movement among adult autistics (and some parents of autistic children) to be recognized as, well, as people, rather than the "soulless husks" or "flawed geniuses" they are often described as (often to their faces). That is, to place autism along the continuum of "normal" human neurodiversity, and then get on with their lives.

Things like the Indigo Kids and other brands of "idealization" -- "they're so innocent/pure/spiritual/unsullied, the little empty-headed angels, we Full-On Human Beings have so much to learn from them!" -- stand in the way of that, even when well-intentioned. Autistics are people, people with mental illnesses are people, not sources of inspiration, not "pioneers of the Other," not "mirrors in which (Normal) society can learn about itself."

The "autistic children are so spiritual" quote from my earlier post was actually spoken by a family friend, about my son. That attitude will affect her every interaction with him, her interpretation of his behavior, her expectations for him, all his life, or until she gets over it (I'm working on it). These are things we encounter in day-to-day life, and we experience directly the effects of even the supposedly "positive" stereotypes. The same goes for many people who live with mental illness - I have known a number of artists who are made Very Uncomfortable by their mental conditions who have been actively discouraged (by "friends" and "mentors") from seeking therapy or medication because it will supposedly "quench their sacred fire." These same people have to deal with hangers-on who "collect" mentally ill acquaintances out of prurient interest, while their illnesses often get in the way of real friendships and satisfying relationships.

[refreshed the thread, and there's some crosspost happening]

MC: Do you really think it helps us to be told that we ought to be writing epic novels or composing symphonies?

TG: Well, no, of course not. I seriously doubt anyone here laboring under that delusion.

Not here perhaps, but in real people's day-to-day lives. One of the top five responses to "my son is autistic" is some variation on "oh, like one of those brilliant idiot savants? You've got yourself a little genius!" That's a lot to hang on a three-year-old. See also my comments above about artists (again, people I have known, not just pop-culture figures - not to overplay the "personal experience" card, but it is important to realize that this stuff is occuring within everyday society, and not just on the big screen).
 
 
Spaniel
17:48 / 11.10.06
Ho hum, film review time.

Tuna, with due respect, you are totally 100% wrong about a Beautiful Mind. His suffering and his genius cannot be so easily unpicked. There is a strong suggestion throughout the film that the maths comes from the same place as the voices in his head. There is also the juxtaposition of madness and brilliance, which is pretty common in our culture and, would seem to me crazy controversialist that I am, to tacitly suggest that these attributes often go hand in hand, making a causal relationship or interdependence just a short hop, skip and jump away. Then, of course, there's the title, which suggests a unity: the genius and madness as integral parts of the whole and each other and crucially beautiful.

All of the films above, in some way or other, dramatise the struggle with mental illness and/or present madness as just outright sexy (Hannibal), and all of them are guilty of at least juxtaposing genius with madness, which while not a crime in itself becomes problematic in a culture where this happens _a lot_.

Do you really want to continue arguing this line of thinking? I find it, frankly, a little bizarre.
 
 
Spaniel
18:10 / 11.10.06
As a little aside, I'm struggling to think of any films where genius is at the heart of the narrative where madness isn't an important factor*. I imagine this probably has something to do with both changing social attitudes and the difficulty inherent in dramatising anything anything as nebulous as genius. In these instances the tension between madness and genius is the dramatic catalyst - it makes the drama.


*Sweet and Lowdown maybe? Bullets Over Broadway?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
19:26 / 11.10.06
Two links others might find useful for this discussion, both from CBC Radio's 'Quirks and Quarks' program. The first looks at a biological basis for Psychopathy and the second asks, in a saner way than the 'Indigo Children' guys, whether Autism is a mental disorder or a 'different way of being human'.
 
 
Olulabelle
19:27 / 11.10.06
One way for the sane to obtain the glamourous 'it' is to scrape aquaintances with (I refuse to use the term befriend here) people who have mental health needs so they can talk about "my bipolar friend" or "my schizophrenic freind", thus gaining kudos for having the shiny nutter pal and for being a wonderful non-judgemental empathic human being. Bonus points for a sexual r'ship, even though you'll be dumping the lucky looney within 18 months when you realise that they can't stop having their mental health problem when it becomes inconvenient to you.


I'm presuming this is a joke? Or is this something that you have seen happen? Personally, I have never come across anyone deliberately befriending someone with a mental health problem just so that they can get 'kudos points'. Do people actually do that?
 
 
whistler
19:27 / 11.10.06
if autism isn't a "mental illness," what is it?
A "condition?"

I would agree with your description of autistic spectrum-ness as a condition, Lepidopteran. A very small part of my job has been to sometimes explain autism to people and I usually try to uncouple the two ideas, explaining that it's probably more like a specific learning difficulty than a mental illness.

One person with I once talked to with aspergers syndrome liked the term 'communication disorder'; I find the word 'disorder' uncomfortable/stigmatizing, but the emphasis on communication is helpful perhaps.
 
 
grant
19:35 / 11.10.06
Sweet and Lowdown and Bullets over Broadway...

Heh -- both Woody Allen films, right?

Funny, because he built his entire early career on psychotherapy humor -- the funny neurotic, who used talk therapy as his (ostensible) source for his stand-up gags.

----

I'm not sure if Real Genius would count as a counter-example or not. There's a lot of play in there with the idea of the mad scientist, and what constitutes "real" madness or "real" genius (tied up with weapons of mass destruction and that).

I also don't know how dated that movie seems now, besides in a superficial way. It was still being played on HBO in China, but so were a lot of big '80s hits.

----

A "condition?" Technically, autism is a "pervasive developmental disorder."

These are all really tricky labels -- but I can't think of any better ones myself, which makes me frown.
 
 
Spaniel
19:50 / 11.10.06
By the way, I don't doubt that there are counter examples - I can think of a few myself - I just think the madman as genius thing is very common, and the fact that it exists at all should tell us something.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:16 / 11.10.06
Tuna, with due respect, you are totally 100% wrong about a Beautiful Mind.

It's been a while, so I'll take your word for it.

All of the films above, in some way or other, dramatise the struggle with mental illness and/or present madness as just outright sexy (Hannibal), and all of them are guilty of at least juxtaposing genius with madness, which while not a crime in itself becomes problematic in a culture where this happens _a lot_.

Do you really want to continue arguing this line of thinking? I find it, frankly, a little bizarre.

Not particularly, I just wanted to make clear the distinction between Silence of the Lambs and Dream Team. I don't think the two should be dropped in the same box. One is not a crime, it just has the potential to cause problems in a society where genius and mental illness are often juxtaposed for whatever reason, and the other is...well...more damaging? More offensive certainly. I dunno. Maybe the only difference is that one has Micheal Keaton and was not well recieved by critics and moviegoers alike.

But I do feel there's a distinction there.

I'm sorry, I don't think any of us realized that it doesn't count if you, Tuna Ghost, have not seen the film.

Easy, tiger. Sure it counts, but it's a bit difficult to for me to see where one is coming from if I haven't seen one's examples. Gimme a break here.

Personally, I have never come across anyone deliberately befriending someone with a mental health problem just so that they can get 'kudos points'. Do people actually do that?

Yes. Well, I don't know if anyone actively seeks out bi-polar people or schizophrenics, checking them off their list with a sharpie, but they meet someone with a condition and they think "oh, hey, different, that's cool".

Here's an easy example, one I've seen a bunch of times: suburban white kids get into recreational drug use, and during the course of which they meet several people suffering from whatever mental illness (which, if you do a lot of drugs and get to know the people, is bound to happen), and it adds "realism" to the scene in which they are, basically, slumming. Hey, yeah, those are my crazy friends! Wild, right? They're totally out there, man.

And like Mordant says, backs being turned on them when their health issues become inconvenient is common. Also common is lacing someone's very real problems into the crappy melodrama of a social scene and dismissing one as easily as the other.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:15 / 11.10.06
I'm presuming this is a joke? Or is this something that you have seen happen? Personally, I have never come across anyone deliberately befriending someone with a mental health problem just so that they can get 'kudos points'. Do people actually do that?

I really wish it was a joke. Yes, people do actually do that--sort of like having a "my ASIAN friend" or a "my GAY friend" (as opposed to friends who happen to be etc).

Maybe it's a London thing.
 
 
Chiropteran
22:23 / 11.10.06
No, it's not just a London thing.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:42 / 11.10.06
My ASPIE friend...? *shudders*
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply